Time and It's Use in Storytelling

I want to talk a little bit more about the editor's role in story development.  It seems fairly obvious; after all everything in a movie, TV show, commercial or even home video is about the story that's being told and the edit is the final rewrite.  Since it is always about the story it's worth it to go into this in some detail.

This past Christmas Day I went to my local theater and saw "Seven Pounds" with Will Smith.  The structure of this film got me thinking about how structure supports and in this case, elevates, the story.  I don't want to give away any details.  I think this is a superb film, one of the best I've seen in years and I strongly urge you to go see it yourself.

"Seven Pounds" opens with the film's ending.  Before you start thinking I've just given something away- trust me when I say it will be obvious to any viewer that this scene is actually the end- and that's the point.  The fact that you know where the story is heading, that as you watch the film you have the inevitable conclusion in the back of your mind, gives even the smallest moment greater poignancy than if you didn't know.  The choice to start with the end is in fact what makes this a great film instead of an ordinary one- and this is a great film.  I don't know if this choice was made during the writing process, the production or the editing, because I couldn't locate a script online but for the purposes of this discussion, I don't think it matters.  

Lots of films have used time as a way to increase their impact- "Pulp Fiction", "Memento" and "Jackie Brown" (it's structure taken directly from Stanley Kubrick's "The Killers") all use time in different & uniquely effective ways.  "Pulp Fiction" jumps around from one story to another and back and forth in time- this structure keeps the viewer on his/her toes, you never know what's going to happen next.  "Memento" is famous for it's reverse timeline.  At it's heart, this is a mystery about a guy with short term memory problems, so telling the story in reverse chronology is a way to reveal the mystery.  Contrast this with "50 First Dates" where Drew Barrymore also suffers from short term memory problems but the story is told in standard chronology- because this works better for a comedy.  

As for "Jackie Brown" and it's godparent- "The Killers"- revealing the crime by cutting back and forth between the planning and execution as well as showing the clock adds tension that keeps you on edge.  "Bound" does a similar thing with cutting between the planning and execution of the caper, just without the clock.  In "Bound" this is used to compress time and create tension.  Corky (Gina Gershon) is telling how the caper will go down through voiceover while we watch her & Violet actually executing it.  At first it appears we're just being shown the plan, until it all goes wrong and we realize we've actually been watching the crime in progress and hearing about what should be happening while watching it go wrong.  This adds an extra layer of tension.  This also harkens back to "The Killers", just less obviously so than "Jackie Brown" because unlike those films there is no onscreen clock showing you that things are not happening when & how they should.  

What does this mean for you?  Simply that you need to consider how time can be your friend and that standard chronological time isn't always the best or only way.  This doesn't mean using flashbacks- flashbacks, as a general rule, should be used only sparingly because they pull your audience out of the emotional moment that they're in.  But time, when used to the story's advantage is different.  This is why the initial flash forward in "Seven Pounds" is so effective, it infuses every moment that follows.  As you watch the film you are constantly thinking back to that opening and it places you inside the mind of Will Smith's character and increases the emotional impact of all of his actions.  

Serve the Story

I was watching an episode of "Bones" the other night and noticed a quick cut to a close up of actor TJ Thyne.  The shot lasted only 2 seconds at most but it stood out because the quality of the video didn't match the shots that framed it.  This is a good lesson in one of the most important things to remember in editing- all choices must serve the scene and therefore, the story.

I can only guess about how this shot made it's way into an episode of "Bones" that hit the airwaves, but it would be an educated guess.  A TV production company needs to put an entire episode on the air every week so time is tight.  The director probably planned an excellent shot and maybe they got it or maybe they didn't.  For whatever reason the editor had to figure out how to make the scene work and the only way was to cut to a close up (not the most elegant solution in this particular instance) and the only close up they had was poorly lit and grainy.  Or with digital image manipulation being what it is these days, it was originally a wider shot and they blew it up, which is why it appears poorly lit and grainy.  The exact reasons aren't important.

I had a similar situation last year with a short film called "Crew".  I wasn't on set all day so I only heard about it from the actor.  He told me that the speech he had to give was being rewritten while it was being shot so he had trouble getting his lines right.  There were several takes.  I had to pick and choose parts from the multiple takes, from different angles, and try to piece them together in a way that made sense, wasn't loaded with jump cuts, made the actor look good and most importantly of all- would set up the big joke of the movie that followed the speech.

A scene needs to accomplish something and it's your job as an editor to make sure that it does.  In my case there was a joke.  THE JOKE.  The big reveal.  We had one angle for that line and I had to work my way back from that.  The shot prior to that had to work when placed before it.  And the shot before that.  And then the one before that.  And so on.  But it started with the delivery of the line "If we touch that shovel, the terrorists win."  That was the line.  It brought down the house at the screening.  The line's delivery had to be one continuous shot of the actor delivering it, anything else would destroy the impact.  Also, the cut before needed to be excellent.  If it was a sloppy edit or a jump cut the audience would be focusing on that and not paying attention to the joke and we wouldn't have had any laughs.  

There was only one shot of the line that preceded it that would cut in.  Unfortunately, the actor stumbled over that final line of his long speech.  I ran with it.  I cut that speech into tiny pieces and used some shots where he hesitates until finally he trips over his last few words and by then it appears as if he is just so overcome with emotion that he's having trouble getting his words out.  I actually think that enhanced the delivery of the joke and ended up making it better.

The actor didn't like it because he knew it was a flub.  If you're on set all day and see how hard it is to get a shot you might not want to cut it because you're emotionally attached to it (like this actor) but you have to sacrifice things for the sake of the story.  I tried to make the actor feel better by telling him that no one in the audience could tell, but that only worked to a point.  

If you're editing home videos and not the next Hollywood opus you may think this doesn't apply to you, but you should be telling a story with your home videos too.  That's a discussion for another post, though.

So, that's today's lesson:  Serve the story.  Even if it means sacrificing that great shot that the director loves.  Or that great line that the writer (and everyone there on the set) thinks is hilarious.  If it doesn't serve the story.  If it doesn't move the scene forward.  If it just plain feels out of place.  CUT IT!