Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 12:23:13 +0000
From: Jay_Craig-AT-BAYLOR.EDU
Subject: Re: Straight Cuts


>Actually, I found a fade and dissolves.  The fade happens at the end of 
>the scene where Ann is sitting motionlessly at home, not picking up the 
>phone.  The dissolves happen in the final creadits, where pieces of
>the LA city-plan dissolve into one another.

I'd forgotten about that fade.  Why is it there?  I didn't mention those 
particular dissolves because I imagine they were thrown together by some 
editorial interns in post-production.  But presuming they weren't, why might 
they be used at that point?

>But it seems to me that to talk about "straight cuts" is very
>inadequate.

I don't see how.  The traditional notion in editing is that straight cuts tend 
to preserve a feeling of spatial and temporal continuity.  "Short Cuts" uses 
almost exclusively straight cuts; "Short Cuts" seems to be completely continuous 
in time.  Two alternatives (though not the only ones) I proposed are: either 
Altman was using a traditional method to evoke the traditional response, or he 
was using a traditional method in an attempt to evoke an "untraditional" 
response.  For me, and most people I've spoken with, he ended up evoking the 
"traditional" response--continuity in time.  Since some people feel Altman is a 
"great" director, they are reluctant to accept either alternative.  They don't 
want to admit that he resorted to a standard method to create a standard effect 
(after all, he is some kind of cinematic messiah or revolutionary, isn't he?).  
On the other hand, they can't admit that maybe he tried something new, but 
failed (since Altman--the inventor of a dog-tattooing machine--is simply too 
brilliant to fail in an experiment).  All I asked was 1) why did Altman do it?, 
and 2) did it work?  

>For instance, there are a lot of linkages through a common 
>geometry: an image of someone exiting through a door is followed by an 
>image of another, similarly placed door through which somebody then enters.
>Or an image of a naked body in the water is followed by an image of a
>painting of a naked body.

And if you'll recall, I pointed out such little "continuities," and asked why 
they were there, since they only seem to enhance the illusion of continuity 
created by the straight cuts between scenes.  (Contrast that with a jump cut, by 
Godard or Truffaut, which uses a straight cut to disrupt continuity, to punch a 
hole in the already lacunary movement-image; Altman seems to be smoothing it 
over, putting putty in the cracks.)

>Now these may all be technically
>"straight cuts", but in my opinion this just shows the relative uselessness
>and superficiality of this kind of classification in trying to
>understand a film. 

Useless and superficial?  In other words, you're saying careful analysis of 
editing can tell us nothing meaningful about a film?  Editing certainly isn't 
the only consideration, but to say it shouldn't be a consideration at all seems 
a bit farfetched.

>It seems to me that more important is whether the
>transition is soft or hard, a radical separation or a joining, suggestive
>of contrast, parallelism, commonality, dissociation, or what not.  

What is more important to me is *why* a transition appears hard or soft, a 
separation or joining, etc.  And that seems, to me at least, to be Deleuze's 
focus.  That's why, I assume, he talks about very concrete things--particular 
scenes from particular movies, specific camera angles and movements, certain 
rhythms and patterns of editing--in connection with the spiritual realities from 
which they're inextricable.  

JSC



     --- from list seminar-10-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---