Week 2 - Editing

It's been a while since I've seen a text on film theory where I didn't have to read each paragraph three times over just to make sense of it. Not just that, but I really enjoyed this reading, too! Bravo, Valerie Orpen!! I'm often frustrated when texts are too black-and-white with their definitions of filmic styles and form, or insist that a certain film is expressly one or another.


While the moving image was developed, we discovered more and more that we could do with the newfound intricacies and techniques.

Continuity editing; different tendencies nationally but really just used that which was most effective at conveying particular message of each individual film. unify thoughts to make most widely comprehensible.
- 180 degree: often associated with "Hollywood" editing, but really present in most western film and others. Maybe becoming less relevant, though? Classic hollywood and new hollywood, but not ALL hollywood. Because mostly refers to older types of formula, whereas films these days can push envelope more: though we as a whole have a shorter attention span, audiences more used to fast editing, can notice changes more readily and process information in short bursts. punctuate ease of narration with postmodern interest. (17-18)

-emphasis on the speaker -emphasis on listener/reaction -emphasis on action (21)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Umberto D.
Start just before 11 minute mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnvj0horjGc

Now for an analysis of 5 minutes of one of my favorite films, Vittorio de Sica's Umberto D. I will say that I've done a fair amount of other classwork examining Italian Cinema in the past and couldn't resist explaining a little more about things in this kitchen scene that relate to the film as a whole.


Background info: Made in 1952, de Sica’s employs the same Italian Neo-Realistic techniques as in his earlier work, Ladri di biciclette. It follows the downward spiraling life of Umberto Domenico Ferrari, a post-war pensioner seemingly forgotten by the reconstructing world. De Sica uses Neo-Realist tactics to make Umberto’s tragic story mimic the reality of so many Italian citizens in the post-war state.

Besides using nonprofessional actors in order to increase the sense that this story could be one of any average Italian, the most indicative device of Neo-Realism present in Umberto D. is the use of deeply focused and long takes. In this scene, we first meet Maria in the kitchen. The camera cuts maybe five times over the course of five minutes. During these long takes, we focus primarily on Maria as she moves about the kitchen doing what appear to be daily routines: getting water for the dog, plucking a chicken for the next meal, washing things in the sink, etc. In fact, the camera seems to remain planted in the middle of the room while following Maria in a full circle around the edges of the room. It's generally a medium shot from the waist up, unless she is bending down to water the dog in which case the camera pulls out just enough to reveal just enough of that action so we understand what is going on, then it closes back in on a medium shot.

The following sequence in Umberto’s bedroom also demonstrates actions that are a part of his particular daily life. In the longest take, the camera follows him as raises the blinds, opens the shutters, then closes every window from one side of his room to the other. This formal choice taken with Umberto highlights his slow rejection of the outside world and everyone around him.

With Maria, though, the longest take shows her, rather futilely, trying to eradicate ants from the kitchen.

((NOTE: This next bit isn't expressly relevant to editing, but I felt weird NOT including it as it is the LONGEST take in the film, so is noteworthy in that sense. Why would de Sica choose to highlight it through specific editing and camerawork if not to make us recognize its importance and examine it further?)) The constant battle has a dual symbolism. In both instances, the ants symbolize the Italian peoples, but very different sets of people. One interpretation is that they mirror the pensioner’s march at the beginning of the film and the lower class in general. After the war, many were left in situations similar to that of Umberto. Like ants, they washed across the cities, searching for money, food, anything, only to be brushed off and shooed by the other half of the country like what Maria does with the burning newspaper and the hose on the faucet. On the other hand, the ants could represent the upper class like Umberto’s landlady and the government in general whose primary interests lie in themselves and their money. The government withholds money from the pensioners while the landlady tries to extract as much as possible from Umberto. Like the ants, they are unavoidable and constantly present, sapping the life out of the lower class while bettering their own.