Road to the Oscars, Part 2
2009′s Best Editing Winner — Slumdog Millionaire
For Your Consideration, Vol. 3:
The (Most) Thankless Job
If you follow the road to the Oscars then you know how important the editing category is. Editing is a thankless job that makes and breaks every film. The reason why it’s thankless is because the credit always goes to the director that steered the film to its destination, the actors that brought the characters to life, and the writer that created the world. Ironically, though, an editor has done his job well when, as an audience member, you forget that you’re watching a movie. When you get caught up in the moment, you don’t realize that there was a flurry of cuts that brought you to the end of that boat chase or sword fight. Many think that editing is solely about pacing, which it only partly is. You don’t want anyone to be bored with what they’re seeing on screen, but, as an editor, it’s more about timing than anything. Timing can hold a viewer on the edge of her seat in anticipation for the next cut or reveal, and it can direct the flow of an entire sequence; creating the unforgettable events with the right series of cuts.
With the Oscars, the category for Best Editing can be the best indicator for which film will take home the big prize. Some would even argue that the nominations for editing are the true Best Picture nominees of their respective years. It seemed only fitting to start by discussing some of the would-be contenders for editing in the 2011 Oscar season before we get to the main event.
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
When it comes to energetic, sporadic editing this year, it’s hard to argue that Edgar Wright’s Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World wasn’t the best. The movie was well-received by critics and audiences alike but tanked earlier last year when it hit theaters. I loved Scott Pilgrim but am aware that others didn’t, because it’s not an easy movie to relate to or understand if you aren’t familiar with the subcultures that it tackles. It’s a hard pitch for any other category, because of how niche the film is, but its editing is top notch. Pacing is crucial to maintain in a movie like this. You have to be able to sell an entire series of battles (Scott’s struggle to defeat Ramona’s seven evil exes), properly set up and convey a unique, visual-styled universe, and keep two dozen characters in check, relatable, poignant, purposeful, and memorable. The script might read well enough, and the director may have his vision, but editing a story like Scott Pilgrim requires a road map to keep everything straight, and editors Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss never miss a beat. For as spastic as the film is, the editing is tight and consistent. There is no doubt in my mind that it’s one of the best of the year, but it may never see a nomination because of some heavy competition that has stolen the spotlight.
The Social Network
Some have already declared The Social Network to be the film of the generation, but at its heart, it’s still a film that jumps back and forth between two stories: the story of how Facebook was born and popularized and then the ensuing behind-the-scenes legal struggle about how it was created. Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall did a seamless job of blending every moment into the next. Unlike Scott Pilgrim, there isn’t too much to keep track of, so everything comes down to the timing of each scene. The Social Network is a film where every cut matters. There aren’t any car chases or action sequences, unless you count the Winklevoss’ crewing scene, so the onus falls on the editors to deliver a riveting dramatic experience every time a new scene starts.
As an editor you’re constantly answering a slew of questions about every scene. Is this reaction needed? Is this shot too long? Is that one too short? Does Aaron Sorkin’s dialogue build well in this scene? Does this scene with Mark and Eduardo drag? What’s the point of cutting to the two-shot when the wide could emphasize the theme of loneliness? What if I started close and then dissolved to the extreme wide. Would that do the trick? Attempting to understand the logic of any scene is to be trapped in the heads of the writer, director, and editors of the film, but you can’t be the best film of the year without brilliant editing. The Social Network is a film that’s all about the subtlety of the moment, unlike Inception, which relies on the depth-defying and mind-bending.
Inception
You could write a novel about how the last hour of Inception is edited. It doesn’t matter how great of a director Chris Nolan is, or how talented his Director of Photography, Wally Pfister, is, without a phenomenal editor like Lee Smith to understand the flow of the moment, the intentions of the director, while keeping the audience’s attention and focus of the story in mind. For me, this is the clear winner in the category. It’s not just about the brilliant pacing, but how well three different levels of the dream are captured and realized. As an editor, you have to keep the “logic” of the scene intact. That means you need to keep track of the environment and those that inhabit it by making cuts that establish the location, the characters, the action that takes place in the scene, and maintain a stable pace that’ll move the story to the next scene. Smith takes us between dream-levels and never loses track of the characters and action that’s occurring on each. To call the work impressive is to insult the work done. Very few ambitious stories are cut as well as Inception.
I can’t remember the last movie I saw that relied so heavily on the previous moment to drive to the next. That’s how a movie is supposed to work, but rarely do we see one where the last scene is so crucial to how the next one unfolds, and without each moment like that leading into the next, the whole thing would just fall apart. Inception may have one of the most finely crafted stories I’ve ever seen because of this, and when it’s difficult to tell the difference between how a scene was written and how it was edited, when you can’t pinpoint which is better, that’s when you have winner.
