As we all know, the films of Buster Keaton are the most profoundly funny, and profoundly beautiful, in all of cinema. (I know that, anyway.) In this terrific video, film historian and silent film accompanist Ben Model takes a close look at the various cranking speeds Keaton used as a grace note (he's all about grace), to achieve perfection in timing, tempo and fluidity of movement.
This is a lost art in the world of sound cinema, though occasionally you'll see the equivalent of "undercranking" (slowing the speed of the film through the camera to make it seem faster when projected) done badly via computer in some modern chase or action sequences. Keaton's films are essentially dance numbers, and he made film itself part of the exquisite choreography.
Watch "Cops" (it's on YouTube, though the quality is terrible, and on the Kino DVD with "The General") before or after you watch Moser's wonderful piece, to see how it plays. I'm reminded that much of what I consider to be bad editing in today's movies is stuff that violates the Keaton Code of respecting the integrity of the image, and the aesthetic intelligence of the audience. As Walter Kerr wrote: "It was Keaton's notion that cutting, valuable as it was in a thousand ways, must not replace the recording function of the camera, must not create the happening. The happening must happen, be photographed intact, then be related by cutting to other happenings."
To me, that is the essence of cinema. And it explains why so many of the movies I see today strike me as feeble desecrations of the values I treasure most in The Movies. Random bits flying out of the cinematic woodchipper don't do it for me. The filmmakers may have their reasons for cutting (to piece together a performance, say), but it's not necessarily apparent to the audience. Instead, shots often seem chosen just to "mix it up" -- or (just as bad) simply to supply the next piece of dialog. The way I look at it, every cut is a manifest expression of failure, unless it is an essential choice. The reason for ending one shot and going to another should feel organically necessary.
(tip: "Damfino...")
Did you mean to end this post mid-sentence?
JE: No! Thanks for alerting me.
The thing I admire so much about Keaton's work is the degree to which he staked not only his art but his very life on the principle you describe.
Think of that moment in 'The General' when he's sitting on the train's cattle catcher and has to toss the one piece of lumber to dislodge another from the track. Now, any other filmmaker, regardless of era, would find a way to edit around that (probably using an insert of the one two-by-four striking the other) to minimize the risk to his star. But not Keaton. It's all one take, allowing the audience to appreciate not only the comic ballet of the image but the seemingly very real peril in which Keaton was placing himself for that image, as the prospect of him missing and allowing the train to run over that timber would seem pretty catastrophic.
I don't think any discussion of Keaton's commitment to the integrity of the image is complete without an appreciation of the sheer confidence he displayed in his physical abilities. In fact, coming from a vaudeville background, I think his editing philosophy likely arose from his insistance on showing the audience that these feats were taking place in real time, with no stunt doubles.
It's an approach to editing that's incredibly sophisticated for its time, since it appears to anticipate an audience familiar enough with the principles of editing to realize when a cut is being used to flub a stunt.
I have never read in you blog a discussion about a Woody Allen film or Allen as a filmmaker, but I always admired the way he doesn't use much editing. I mean in most of his films he just lets the camera roll and the actors do their job in from of it. Does it relate to what you are talking about in this entry? Anyway, I think it would be interesting if you gave us some examples of what you consider good editing and bad editing based on the standards you just described, to clarify them too (I guess The Dark Knight you don't consider good editing).
Very well done and informative... What a genius Keaton was... Once you see the process, it all fits together so perfectly... fun...
Keaton was the best. I've watched most of his work, and he never fails to amaze. Sometimes it makes me sad, 80+ years ago he was producing movies and shorts that are still better than 99% of anything ever produced since.
Yes, lots of directors cut badly. But I don't think Keaton is the best example for proper editing. I find his movies can get stale. They have that almost self-conscious Silent Movie aesthetic where people are standing around for however long just talking (without intertitles,) or filling time, and not one thing of interest is happening. I was not impressed by The General. And it's not for lack of love for silent cinema, either. Last Laugh is one of my favorite films, as is Metropolis, and going back even further, the Italian Dante from 1911 was a fantastic film.
Javier, take a look at his stuff on "No Country For Old Men", it's pretty much all about the editing.
Although I can enjoy a film with rapid fire cutting and crazy camera work, some of my favorite films are the ones that let the camera breathe and let the scenes happen. I like what Javier said about real life, without any sort of trickery. Woody Allen, and certainly Keaton was a master of cutting and letting the cuts flow with the story, as opposed to just cutting a lot so the audience stays interested.
Consider the dropped wallet sequence that occurs between 0:47 and 1:05. Most directors would have included seven or eight cuts in that sequence- one of the wallet on the ground, the man picking it up, the man tapping the other man on the shoulder, back and forth shots of them talking- but in reality, you don't need any of that. It's a moment, played out as it would happen in real life. Granted, we don't always go to the cinema to see real life on screen, but I think Keaton really found the balance with his work, making everyday activities seem cinematic.
I can't think of a modern director who does what Keaton does as well, but I know every once in a while I see a film that takes its time and builds. Shyamalan was good at it until recently, and Todd Solondz certainly lingers on moments of pain, heartbreak, and embarrassment, which makes his films all the more unnerving.
While I certainly don't enjoy music-video-style films that feel chopped to pieces and then re-assembled, from beginning to end (something like the Saw movies, for instance, which are little more than a visual assault on the senses), sometimes I feel like the basic point-and-shoot technique of, say, some really talky French films (that I otherwise like) simply demonstrate a lack of visual imagination.
A perfect example in American filmmaking would be someone like Kevin Smith. Though I've been known to enjoy some of his dialogue, the framing and editing of shots, not unlike many (most?) mainstream comedies of today, are basically (conventional, three-camera) sitcom-like.
I love Buster Keaton (own the Kino box set), and though he certainly edited his films well, I do believe it was more of an attempt to simply prove that he did the stunts himself (which is not to say that his movies don't possess very engaging visual grammar). I do tend to prefer his shorts to his features (with the exception of The General, Steamboat Bill Jr. and Sherlock Jr.), as the build-up to some of his more elaborate sets pieces (in the features) could sometimes be a bit too obvious, or drawn-out in repetition.
If you're going to compare and contrast the greatness of Keaton's editing with some of the mediocrity of today, why not go with just about the most extreme example out there, amongst the big action franchises? That's right, Jim, you must suffer through Quantum Of Solace (as the rest of us did months ago), thus giving you a bit more perspective on the true extremities of choppy-chop editing. Something like TDK will seem leisurely assembled by comparison. ;)
As a film student, your notions (and Keaton's) on editing have touched a nerve. I've always been dissatisfied with modern film editing, and uncertain how to qualify the difference in older movies, but this idea makes it clear.
Of course, the flip side of Keaton's idea about the "happening" only taking place within the shot is Soviet montage, which seeks to create "happening" explicitly through juxtaposition. Personally I think the best films are the ones that know when to switch strategies.
This is something I'm definitely going to consider going forward in my film-making. Thank you for teaching me something today.
Jim, I agree 100% with your feelings on hyper-editing in today's action films, which actually disguise the lack of action. The flickering lights of the edits become a substitute for action. However, you go too far in the opposite direction if you try to formulate an aesthetic about this, like when you quote Walter Kerr and imply that to photograph a happening is the essence of cinema. Actually it's the essence of photography. Eisenstein and others argued that editing is the essence of cinema, and that may go too far in devaluing the meaning of the shot itself, but they (and Kerr) are really talking about the relationship between shots and cuts as the essence of film. This doesn't mean that if meaning is created by editing, it violates the essence of cinema--on the contrary, film is the only medium that has this power. I hope nobody who complains about today's editing is left cold by the Odessa Steps in POTEMKIN or the shower scene in PSYCHO (which could hardly qualify as photographing something that's happening, nor would we want it to), nor by MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA, which still feels much more advanced than the Jason Bourne or James Bond movies. Pedantically yours, mike b.
Always great to see a Keaton post! Regarding your comments on the picture quality, Jim: Those with PAL-capable DVD players may want to check out the Masters of Cinema or Arte collections of the complete Keaton shorts (including Arbuckle), which are generally of better quality than the older Kino discs (which are still much appreciated, but are in some cases missing footage). (As long as you're importing, I recommend MK2's releases (put out by Cinema Club in the UK) of The General, Steamboat Bill, Jr. and Three Ages).
Model isn't actually "undercranking Keaton," but studying the under-cranking process to achieve his affects. I've noticed a few people refer to Model's work as "undercranking" the film, which I guess is kind of accurate—he is slowing down the footage, but not by cranking it slower.
I also recommend his study of Sherlock, Jr., which includes the outstanding "shadow your man closely scene." Like this new Cops one, it's a fascinating look at how the master worked. Speaking of Sherlock Jr., I should post my audio commentary to it sometime…