Shaelene Grace Moler
Professor Simpson
ENGL 342- History and Theory of Documentary Film
1 September 2020
Response Paper: “On Editing,” and “Basic Concepts”
Photoshop and Video Editing
Photography and film have always been related to one another, due to the fact that film derived out of photography back in the early 1900s. Although film certainly possesses creative opportunities that photography does not (audio, motion, etc.), for the most part, their visual composition incorporates many shared techniques between the two. Both media forms shape the perception of our realities, and share artistic interpretations of our world, through how they are visually composed and edited. That being said, editing in film, and the editing of photos (or photoshop as it is most widely known) may have very different approaches to their presentation, but are both meant to deliberately impress their audiences with their final product.
According to the Editing of the Sequence section in “On Editing,” Pudovkin claims that editing in film is simply the conscious guidance of the perceptions, and associations of the viewer by the filmmakers. Editing extends beyond cuts, and often involves everything from the lighting, to the angles of shots, which when compared to photography, utilizes many of the same techniques for engaging the audience. Say perhaps that you wanted the viewer to focus on one person in a film; In this situation, it would be optimal to choose a closeup shot which if witnessed in a still-frame would closely represent a portrait in photography. Although, it is safe to say that these techniques in both media forms are simply a result of the psychology behind visual focus; If we want the audience to feel fear, for example, we may darken the lighting, and withhold visual information, only hinting at the possibilities.
What does it take to impress an audience? Or, more importantly, how may impressing the audience affect the final product of film and/ or photography? One of the most important deciding factors to consider is the time that each form has to leave an impression. Consider this, a film may intend to leave an impression on the audience consistently over the course of several scenes, whereas, a photograph only has a single moment to depict what it wants the audiences impression to be. What this means is, while a film may layout various scenes or shots to build up a final product, a photograph’s entire meaning has to be composed in a single image. Relating to Pudovkins argument on Editing As An Instrument of Impression, editing usually involves developing a relation between the present visuals in a scene. This may mean through the use of parallelism, contrasting scenes, or symbolism. In the world of photoshop, this may mean taking out distracting images or objects In the background, adding additional visuals for emphasis, or combining two images to covey a message.
Like film, photography can also be considered a “reproductive medium” as Kracauer would describe it in the “Basic Concepts” reading. This, is a very broad description, as it can mean many things, but what I would perceive it to be is a sort of preservation of memory, thought, and/ or conversation. This all depends on the purpose of the film or picture, which may be politically driven, to record a moment in time, or provoke thoughts in the viewer; therefore “reproducing” the filmmakers or photographers vision through impression.
Overall, the visual experience of each medium is driven by impressionism, and created through the editing of presentation. At each stage of creation, each medium is subject to interpretation by viewers, unless the creator carefully considers the impression his artistic choices may leave. With that in mind, although film and photography may only be related through visual technique, they both are important mediums for societal progression, because of the impact they may leave on viewers.
One line in particular that really stuck out to me was your question asking "Or, more importantly, how may impressing the audience affect the final product of film and/ or photography?" It reminds me of the Observer Effect in Quantum mechanics which states that merely observing a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon. This makes it so that those conducting an experiment can come to alter the state of what they are measuring in some manner. I think this theory plays really nicely into your idea of impressions and the mark that the audience can leave on the final work, even if they believe that they are merely observing it.
ReplyDeleteThis last sentence is an important one, Shaelene. We will keep an eye on the many ways in which documentary filmmakers have sought precisely to impact social progress through creating impressions in viewers both through form and content. You also do a good job here of engaging the key terms in the essay. Continue to use them and draw connections to them with the readings we encounter moving forward.
ReplyDeleteKali, that is a great connection to the Observer Effect. Documentary filmmakers in the 60s will begin to ask how they, in holding the camera and filming a particular event, are at work shaping that event itself. So not only the audience is an observer, but also in documentary film, is the filmmaker. Perhaps we need to think of the filmmaker as a kind of "observer/participator."