QOS: Worst Edited Bond film?
#1
Posted 20 November 2008 - 02:24 AM
One of the big strengths of the Bond movies throughout their history has been the editing. I am not just talking about the innovative way Peter Hunt cut the action scenes in the first place, but most of the Bond directors have had a precise eye for blocking shots for the edit. Two of the Bond directors were of course former 007 editors themselves.
Until I saw QOS, I thought the worst edited Bond films were MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN and DIE ANOTHER DAY. In defense of the latter, I will say that while being distractingly, stylistically inappropriate, at least Christian Wagner's editing choices would not look out of place in a Bruckheimer/Rob Cohen movie. Also, when Wagner wasn't doing those already dated speedramps and MTV dissolve montages, at least he could cut a dialogue scene between characters in a more or less acceptable fashion. MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN on the other hand is a badly cut assembly at best, with no rhthyms and non-existent pacing. It must have the worst cut car chase ever commited to the screen (this side of QOS), and who could excuse the clumsiness of the transition between the main titles and the opening scene in M's office? Terrible. Bert Bates, who oversaw LIVE AND LET DIE and was involved with DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, did not return for MWTGG. Instead, Hamilton promoted editor John Shirley, who would later gain notoriety cutting the bloopermongous epics KING SOLOMON'S MINES (remake) and SUPERMAN IV. So while DIE ANOTHER DAY was not trying to be cut like a Bond film, it was good at being a distracting fad clone, while MWTGG was aspiring to be Peter Hunt level, but was bogged down with incompetency.
Now with QOS, it seems we have the worst of both DAD and MWTGG, i.e. QOS was seemingly not trying to be cut like a Bond film, but rather a distracting fad (*cough* Greengrass/Bourne *cough*), but failed to be even an acceptable fad clone. It's as fad chasing as DAD but with all of the incompetency of MWTGG, IMO.
Who knows if all of the footage in QOS was designed and shot to be cut in such a head-hurting form. While this seems no doubt true regarding the much criticised action sequences (shot with the very cramped, Bourne-aping close up compositions and blurry/shakey camera movement that isn't present in the rest of the film), the remaining dramatic/dialogue sequences are shot in a much more elegant fashion, with slow and graceful dolly moves and thoughtful blocking that goes against the Greengrass-aping style. It seems really jarring that so many of these beautiful non-action dramatic moments are mutilated by the distracting and unneccesary editing. I could only count the back-kissing post Field's bedding scene as the one time in which a scene is played in one shot, and it's gorgeous. Forster seems obviously more comfortable and sincere to his own tastes with this kind of non-Bourne/Greengrass cutting too. From what I remember, none of Marc Forster's other movies are cut in the aggressively distracting Greengrass-aping way either (please correct me if I am wrong), which only draws attention to co-editor Richard Pearson's notable presence on QOS, alongside Forster's regular editor Matt Chesse. Pearson came straight from the Greengrass/Bourne universe, so is it a coincide that this new Bond is cut more like the Bourne Supremacy than a Marc Forster film? That said, how come QOS seems to be cut in a less coherent fashion than the Greengrass/Bourne movies that it so lovingly wishes to mimic (and with the same cutting personnel onboard)? At the end of the day, Forster seemed to be very much behind the wheel on who he was hiring and his "vision" for Bond, so was this messy editing style really intentional, to work against his precision camera moves and artful compositions? Like I said though, who knows what and why on the game plan regarding how the footage was designed, shot and cut and who was responsible for what. Even if we had that information, the cutting style is still a head hurter!
The one thing I feel certain on is that DIE ANOTHER DAY, compared to the notoriety gathered by QOS, will nolonger seem like the immediate, infamous, editing black sheep of the recent 007 movies. I only hope that whoever cuts and edits Bond 23 returns to the more classically innovative editing fashion that the series has prided for most of it's run so far. CASINO ROYALE did a superb job of respecting this.
Do you think QOS is the worst edited of the 22 James Bond movies? If not, which one do you think deserves that title instead?
#2
Posted 20 November 2008 - 02:31 AM
#3
Posted 20 November 2008 - 02:37 AM
Silk purses and all that.
From what I've seen of the new film, they could give Arnold Crust a run for his money.
#4
Posted 20 November 2008 - 02:39 AM
#5
Posted 20 November 2008 - 02:41 AM
#6
Posted 20 November 2008 - 02:41 AM
I would say that QOS is the worst edited Bond film. The action scenes are way to jittery and choppy.
Totally agree.
#7
Posted 20 November 2008 - 02:41 AM
#8
Posted 20 November 2008 - 02:51 AM
If only folk could be quiet during a movie we may see some traditional editing.
#9
Posted 20 November 2008 - 04:10 AM
I don't know, it seemed to me that it was edited in a way that asks you to pay more attention. I, for one, am perfectly happy to oblige-- I think I was able to pick up on more details with all those heightened senses. But I can only speak for myself. (Refreshing, no?)It was edited to appeal to the modern audience. Some cinemas in the UK banned anyone below the age of eighteen from watching this film because of their disturbances (who're "boys with toys" with their mobile phones etc). However. The action in this film was edited with "boys with toys" in mind, so the rest of us missed out on so many key elements (although weak).
If only folk could be quiet during a movie we may see some traditional editing.
#10
Posted 20 November 2008 - 05:29 AM
But the action scenes were too choppy. They created some great stunts in beautiful locations and didn't make the most of them like CR did.
#11
Posted 20 November 2008 - 05:56 AM
My issues with the editing are slowly dissolving. I've watched it a second time, and I think that it gets better with each viewing. I love what they did with the opening car chase.But the action scenes were too choppy.
#12
Posted 20 November 2008 - 06:06 AM
My issues with the editing are slowly dissolving. I've watched it a second time, and I think that it gets better with each viewing. I love what they did with the opening car chase.But the action scenes were too choppy.
I think that's probably because you knew what was coming so therefore you could piece it together in your head. I don't think it's successful if most people are confused on first viewing...
#13
Posted 20 November 2008 - 06:11 AM
Well, I think it will be successful and appreciated in the long run. It will be a rare instance where people will enjoy it more the second or third time around. That's a good thing, the film has legs.I don't think it's successful if most people are confused on first viewing...
#14
Posted 20 November 2008 - 06:43 AM
#15
Posted 20 November 2008 - 06:45 AM
Bad, bad, bad....
#16
Posted 20 November 2008 - 06:48 AM
If they happen to enjoy the editing better the second time, it's because, as deth said, they will have known what was coming so could piece more of it together and have it make more sense. That still doesn't mean that it will be completely understood, however. (See the boat chase thread.) There is such a difference between missing some detail(s) from not paying attention to what's on screen and paying attention to the screen yet missing something because three or four tightly cropped shots are cut one right after another in a second, repeatedly. That's a lot of different images to absorb in an exceedingly short amount of time. Combine that with the tight cropping and shaky cam and it's extremely difficult to fully take in what exactly is going on. And when a significant number of the audience can't fully take in what's happening, I don't see how that can be considered a good/successful filming or editing process.Well, I think it will be successful and appreciated in the long run. It will be a rare instance where people will enjoy it more the second or third time around. That's a good thing, the film has legs.I don't think it's successful if most people are confused on first viewing...
As for me, I will say yes, thanks to the super-quick cuts of the action scenes, that Quantum Of Solace is the worst edited film of the series.
#17
Posted 20 November 2008 - 07:19 AM
#18
Posted 20 November 2008 - 02:54 PM
#19
Posted 20 November 2008 - 03:20 PM
#20
Posted 20 November 2008 - 03:47 PM
The boat flip, obviously, is bothersome. The parachute drop landing... I'll have to see again.
Otherwise, it ranges from perfectly acceptable to wildly enjoyable.
EDIT: Realized I didn't answer the question. No, I don't think it's the worst. But I won't pretend to be able to easily divide editing from directing. Sometimes, when a single clip is affected, such as the silly “c…c…c… CAIRO!” stunt in DAF, or the stop-action motion of the rock climbing lock that pops out in FYEO, the culprit can be identified as an editing glitch. But I’m sure that’s not all that editing is. It doesn’t just make itself useful during action scenes. There are TWO individual clips in QOS which bothered me, but editing has its place ALL OVER the blasted film. Every time the camera hangs on Bond’s face, whether it’s 1 second or 3, that’s editing.
So what I’m saying is that I haven’t a clue which film was the ‘worst edited’ since it’s not a case of picking out the 2 or 3 action sequences that disturb me. Editing is integrated into the film entire and is happening either actively or passively at every single frame. My hats off to anyone who thinks they can rank the Bond films in terms of editing.
#21
Posted 20 November 2008 - 03:50 PM
#22
Posted 20 November 2008 - 03:54 PM
If they happen to enjoy the editing better the second time, it's because, as deth said, they will have known what was coming so could piece more of it together and have it make more sense. That still doesn't mean that it will be completely understood, however. (See the boat chase thread.) There is such a difference between missing some detail(s) from not paying attention to what's on screen and paying attention to the screen yet missing something because three or four tightly cropped shots are cut one right after another in a second, repeatedly. That's a lot of different images to absorb in an exceedingly short amount of time. Combine that with the tight cropping and shaky cam and it's extremely difficult to fully take in what exactly is going on. And when a significant number of the audience can't fully take in what's happening, I don't see how that can be considered a good/successful filming or editing process.Well, I think it will be successful and appreciated in the long run. It will be a rare instance where people will enjoy it more the second or third time around. That's a good thing, the film has legs.I don't think it's successful if most people are confused on first viewing...
As for me, I will say yes, thanks to the super-quick cuts of the action scenes, that Quantum Of Solace is the worst edited film of the series.
Agreed 100%.
#23
Posted 20 November 2008 - 04:10 PM
But step away from the action and the film moves very well. As has been said before, there's more to editing than just individual scenes and moments - the flow of the film is as important and QoS moves along nicely. There are no lulls, and things build to the finish. Apted says on his TWINE commentary that after the sub escape, he wanted to get the film finished as quickly as possible in terms of the action climax being the natural finish. Yet QoS is much more leisurely after its action finale, and yet the pace is not affected. Why? Well obviously there's more to this film than just the action, and too, the editing overall has created an evenness over the entire run length.
Look at our beloved CR (and I can name other Bonds - TLD for example) where the pacing is far too uneven. It's a strongly help opinion on this site that the Miami scene is too long (a script, direction, and editing problem) and the film feels like it has an extra act forced in. TLD drags for awhile post-Vienna and pre-airport battle. TMWTGG is a mish-mash of uneven high and lows.
Agreed, better editing might have improved the action sequences to many's tastes, but as a whole, IMHO, the film is not the worst edited Bond. It is the perfect length for the story is telling, and that's the result of good editing, not bad.
#24
Posted 20 November 2008 - 04:24 PM
Basically, I think the thread question implies that we all have our lists of best to worst editing efforts organized like our best and worst film lists. I think that’s giving all of us a whole lot more credit than we deserve. In which case, the thread question really just means “I don’t like fast action cuts and so therefore the editing sucks in QOS”, which is not as profound as a ranking thread based on a real and clear understanding of editing.
On the other hand, our thread author Tim Partridge did cite a couple examples of what he considers to be the worst outside of QOS, so maybe I just have a whole lot to learn about editing?
#25
Posted 20 November 2008 - 09:08 PM
#26
Posted 20 November 2008 - 09:23 PM
#27
Posted 20 November 2008 - 10:58 PM
Edited by Colossus, 20 November 2008 - 10:59 PM.
#28
Posted 20 November 2008 - 11:54 PM
I don't broadly hate "fasting cutting" in a Bond movie (and that's not the issue at hand here). I just hate editing in a Bond movie that is incomprehensible, distractingly incompetent and monotone, especially when it's derivitive of other passing fads that Bond shouldn't be desperately trying to ape (XXX/DAD, Bourne/QOS). For me, QOS sadly hit both of that criteria of being incomprehensible, distractingly incompetent and monotone yet also desperately fad aping. Just look at the otherwise lovely Sandor death "homage" in QOS, all unneccesarily hacked to pieces with cuts between random but similar angles (from the same perspective) that add nothing to the drama but just drain the suspense and even the fluidity of the moment. The reason for the harsh cuts doesn't even seem to be a coverage issue, though obviously they were shooting all of those clashing angles with a gameplan in mind. Compare that moment to Gilbert and John Glen's masterfully paced original cutting of the real scene from SWLM. It's expert and goes from lingering to fast and back again; a finely tuned piece of work. There's simply no comparison!
An editor is always at the mercy of the footage they have to work with, yes, and the way it's been shot (and you have to wonder about those random but similar angles from the same perspective in QOS). That said, by comparison, I did really appreciate the editing in the action scenes of TWINE, which in my opinion was the best anyone could have done with such lousy action footage. At least they were trying to achieve geography and pacing in the edit with a classical sensibility, even if it clearly wasn't attempted in the footage (I cannot imagine how terrfifying it must have been seeing that naff aerial footage filmed from a model helicopter for the first time, wondering how it's going to cut). I appreciate moments lie the strategic TWINE boat chase jump cuts in places to make the action flow better, or the slight dissolve to cut in he footage of Brosnan correcting his tie underwater. To contrast this, frequently in QOS there were moving master shots where they clearly had everything to linger on in the master (for example that stunning tracking shot with Bond and Camille spying out in the desert), where they cut for no reason to a similar angle, when it's not a close up or punctuating a dramatic moment. Why do this when your footage is clearly so gorgeous? As I said before, that scene with Bond kissing Field's naked back, all in one shot, was SO refreshing to see, allowing us to appreciate the performances, sets and cinematography. If they could have balanced the movie out with more classical edits like this then I am sure that even the Bourney action moments might have been easier to appreciate.
As I said above, as inappropriate and destructive as those MTV/Rob Cohen gimmicks were in DIE ANOTHER DAY, at least Tamahori/Wagner had tonal range in their overall approach (it wasn't all speedramps and MTV montages). They could leave shots unbroken where it really mattered (no matter how bad the scenes were). Even though the direction they went in wasn't at all where Bond should have been going, at least it was generically competent for that "style" and not monotone, frenetic and often problematic cuts for an entire movie ala QOS.
Sure it's all subjective, but the fact is that regardless of whoever was responsible for the creative decisions at hand, whether the coverage was rubbish or the editing killed coverage (and we'll never know), myself and obviously many others here found the device of editing in QOS to be intrusive to the point of disturbing the narrative. Heck, check out the boat thread alone!
#29
Posted 22 November 2008 - 12:29 AM
#30
Posted 22 November 2008 - 02:41 AM
No, seriously, the editing is totally cool with me. Really didn't have any major problems whatsoever.
(Really, what did he do?)