›

The EDITING of the James Bond films

BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
in Bond Movies Posts: 1,889
I've searched for an identical thread and didn't find one, but if you mods can dig one up then I'd be happy to continue this discussion there instead.

My idea for this thread came from my relentless desire to talk - and usually critique - the editing of the James Bond films. Usually it takes up space in the other threads and goes too far off the OP's topic, so why not give editing/editors their own thread? This way the conversations can be more thorough and we can discuss as long as we want.

Here we can talk about the best and worst examples of editing, but also about the creative choices that the editors make; like long takes/fast cuts/match cuts. Pretty much anything to do with editing can be talked about on this thread.

So to start us off, are there any scenes that you think are ruined by bad cuts? Are there instances that you would applaud the editor for their smart choices?

Just for reference, here's a list of the James Bond films and their respective editors:

DN/FRWL/GF/TB/YOLT: Peter Hunt
OHMSS: John Glen
DAF: Bates, Holmes
LALD: Bates, Poulton, Shirley
TMWTGG: Poulton, Shirley
TSWLM/MR: John Glen
FYEO/OP: Grover
AVTAK: Davies
TLD: Grover, Davies
LTK: Grover
GE: Rawlings
TND: Arcand, Fortin
TWINE: Jim Clark
DAD: Wagner
CR: Stuart Baird
QoS: Chesse, Pearson
SF: Stuart/Katie Baird
SP: Lee Smith


«1

Comments

  • ForYourEyesOnlyForYourEyesOnly In the untained cradle of the heavens
    Posts: 1,984
    Well, there's them not cutting in time for the "Careless" quote in SP. :)
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    I can let that slip, since he did give us the opening shot which was masterfully stitched together.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    Great long-form article about the entire editing process of SPECTRE, with editor Lee Smith. Would highly recommend if you're interested: https://www.provideocoalition.com/art-of-the-cut-with-lee-smith-on-cutting-007-s-spectre/
  • barryt007barryt007
    edited September 2017 Posts: 19,339
    Its not ruined ,per se,but certainly the PTS fight in OHMSS is all over the place..i still love it however.

    I also noticed that Stuart Baird,who I rate highly generally,was involved in editing only one Bond film - the brilliant CR.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Its not ruined ,per se,but certainly the PTS fight in OHMSS is all over the place..i still love it however.

    I also noticed that Stuart Baird,who I rate highly generally,was involved in editing only one Bond film - the brilliant CR.

    SF too.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Dennison wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Its not ruined ,per se,but certainly the PTS fight in OHMSS is all over the place..i still love it however.

    I also noticed that Stuart Baird,who I rate highly generally,was involved in editing only one Bond film - the brilliant CR.

    SF too.

    I didn't notice that...even better,thanks @Dennison .

  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,994
    QOS had editors ? The mind boggles.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,918
    barryt007 wrote: »
    Its not ruined ,per se,but certainly the PTS fight in OHMSS is all over the place..i still love it however.

    "All over the place" would imply that the action was incoherent--the opposite is the case. The editing in OHMSS, and in that scene, is as meticulous and adroit as that in The Wild Bunch.

  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    I'd have to agree with Barry on this.

    Glen made it seem like shots were missing: the characters teleport from the beach into the sea. I think there was also a jarring continuity error of Tracy when she's lying down and switches looks after a cut. Some people don't notice that I guess...
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    I wonder if any MI6 (the forum I mean) members have attempted to re-edit any of the films to personalise then in some way?
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,044
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    I'd have to agree with Barry on this.

    Glen made it seem like shots were missing: the characters teleport from the beach into the sea. I think there was also a jarring continuity error of Tracy when she's lying down and switches looks after a cut. Some people don't notice that I guess...

    It's called jump cuts. Innovative editing at the time.
  • RevelatorRevelator
    Posts: 2,918
    vzok wrote: »
    It's called jump cuts. Innovative editing at the time.

    Exactly, and still innovative today. The approach is elliptical: shots are missing, because the viewer can be trusted to fill in the inessential parts. The result is a terrific pace--punches connect almost instantly. The pacing is breathless, but the spatial dimensions are still respected and action remains clear.
    It's not Glen who was really responsible for this approach but Hunt, who supervised the editing. Glen's editing in other Bond films, and the editing in the Bonds he directed, is much more conventional.
  • MilovyMilovy
    edited September 2017 Posts: 676
    Peter Hunt was a brilliant editor. If his editing doesn't work for you, fine, but that's not because of poor technique on Hunt's part. And of course, there is far more to his editing than the near avant-garde way he cut together action.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    vzok wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    I'd have to agree with Barry on this.

    Glen made it seem like shots were missing: the characters teleport from the beach into the sea. I think there was also a jarring continuity error of Tracy when she's lying down and switches looks after a cut. Some people don't notice that I guess...

    It's called jump cuts. Innovative editing at the time.

    There's an easy way to differentiate between jump cuts and continuity errors: jump cuts are intentional, whereas the latter aren't. Think of one of the most obvious cases of continuity errors... water in a cup. A scene gets filmed over several hours/days and the crew forget to match the water level. If the editor doesn't pick it up then we see the water switch heights. Same as Tracy in the PTS. Today there are editors whose only task is to check for things like this.

    Conversely, the following fight is (intentional) jump cutting, like you said. Although I'd argue that they were a little over-enthusiastic using this new technique.
  • DennisonDennison
    Posts: 1,031
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    I'd have to agree with Barry on this.

    Glen made it seem like shots were missing: the characters teleport from the beach into the sea. I think there was also a jarring continuity error of Tracy when she's lying down and switches looks after a cut. Some people don't notice that I guess...

    It's called jump cuts. Innovative editing at the time.

    There's an easy way to differentiate between jump cuts and continuity errors: jump cuts are intentional, whereas the latter aren't. Think of one of the most obvious cases of continuity errors... water in a cup. A scene gets filmed over several hours/days and the crew forget to match the water level. If the editor doesn't pick it up then we see the water switch heights. Same as Tracy in the PTS. Today there are editors whose only task is to check for things like this.

    Conversely, the following fight is (intentional) jump cutting, like you said. Although I'd argue that they were a little over-enthusiastic using this new technique.

    Or the mysterious closed and open door of Bond's Aston in CR ...
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    I'd have to agree with Barry on this.

    Glen made it seem like shots were missing: the characters teleport from the beach into the sea. I think there was also a jarring continuity error of Tracy when she's lying down and switches looks after a cut. Some people don't notice that I guess...

    It's called jump cuts. Innovative editing at the time.

    There's an easy way to differentiate between jump cuts and continuity errors: jump cuts are intentional, whereas the latter aren't. Think of one of the most obvious cases of continuity errors... water in a cup. A scene gets filmed over several hours/days and the crew forget to match the water level. If the editor doesn't pick it up then we see the water switch heights.

    There are so many such details to look after in film making. Just think of burning candles.
  • NSGWNSGW London
    Posts: 299
    Revelator wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    It's called jump cuts. Innovative editing at the time.

    Exactly, and still innovative today. The approach is elliptical: shots are missing, because the viewer can be trusted to fill in the inessential parts. The result is a terrific pace--punches connect almost instantly. The pacing is breathless, but the spatial dimensions are still respected and action remains clear.
    It's not Glen who was really responsible for this approach but Hunt, who supervised the editing. Glen's editing in other Bond films, and the editing in the Bonds he directed, is much more conventional.

    Well said. I love the editing in the PTS, it makes you feel each punch and really puts you in the moment.
  • StrogStrog
    Posts: 684
    NSGW wrote: »
    Revelator wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    It's called jump cuts. Innovative editing at the time.

    Exactly, and still innovative today. The approach is elliptical: shots are missing, because the viewer can be trusted to fill in the inessential parts. The result is a terrific pace--punches connect almost instantly. The pacing is breathless, but the spatial dimensions are still respected and action remains clear.
    It's not Glen who was really responsible for this approach but Hunt, who supervised the editing. Glen's editing in other Bond films, and the editing in the Bonds he directed, is much more conventional.

    Well said. I love the editing in the PTS, it makes you feel each punch and really puts you in the moment.
    Someone once wrote (in some book I read, can't remember which) that Hunt's editing was a filmic equivalent of the comic strip POW! WHAM! BANG! which was a comparison I rather liked.
  • vzokvzok
    edited September 2017 Posts: 4,044
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    BondAficionado wrote: »
    I'd have to agree with Barry on this.

    Glen made it seem like shots were missing: the characters teleport from the beach into the sea. I think there was also a jarring continuity error of Tracy when she's lying down and switches looks after a cut. Some people don't notice that I guess...

    It's called jump cuts. Innovative editing at the time.

    There's an easy way to differentiate between jump cuts and continuity errors: jump cuts are intentional, whereas the latter aren't. Think of one of the most obvious cases of continuity errors... water in a cup. A scene gets filmed over several hours/days and the crew forget to match the water level. If the editor doesn't pick it up then we see the water switch heights. Same as Tracy in the PTS. Today there are editors whose only task is to check for things like this.

    Conversely, the following fight is (intentional) jump cutting, like you said. Although I'd argue that they were a little over-enthusiastic using this new technique.

    I was talking about the sea to beach bit being intentional jump cuts rather than bits missing. Don't remember the Tracy bit without rewatching it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,976
    That discontinuity is seen with so much, it's impossible to make it all line up. As others noted, you have differing levels of liquid in someone's drink, the length of a lit cigarette, where someone's hands are positioned, etc. I've seen shots of someone going to light a cigarette or take a bite of food, and in the very next cut they aren't in the middle of that action at all. Then you have Bond changing viewing eyes as he watches Xenia board the yacht in GE, something Campbell even notes in the director's commentary.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    That discontinuity is seen with so much, it's impossible to make it all line up. As others noted, you have differing levels of liquid in someone's drink, the length of a lit cigarette, where someone's hands are positioned, etc. I've seen shots of someone going to light a cigarette or take a bite of food, and in the very next cut they aren't in the middle of that action at all. Then you have Bond changing viewing eyes as he watches Xenia board the yacht in GE, something Campbell even notes in the director's commentary.

    I have seen someone get his right arm broken in prison, and in the next scene he had plaster on his left.
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,044
    Editors aren't responsible for continuity, surely?
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Only partly.
  • vzokvzok
    Posts: 4,044
    But if someone has messed up continuity (such as the broken arm), then the editor is going to struggle to put it right.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It s impossible. Peter Hunt could maybe fix it.
  • CrzChris4CrzChris4
    Posts: 463
    Hunt was a legend - the documentary about the making of FRWl sheds light into how he manipulated and edited scenes to get the story to properly flow. Something was definitely lost when his influence left the editing room.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Hunt needs some more credit and appreciation. A genius.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    He gets it from me...Bond wouldnt be Bond right now without him.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    True. A huge part of why the 60s Bonds are still recognized as a golden era.
  • barryt007barryt007
    Posts: 19,339
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    True. A huge part of why the 60s Bonds are still recognized as a golden era.

    And always will be ,Dr Thunderfinger.
Sign In or Register to comment.