There has been a trend I have been noticing in Hollywood lately that I have not enjoyed. In fact, it makes me feel bad for a group of people who might be out of work.
No, not actors. And not their writers, either. Good editors.
That's right, your friendly neighborhood editor. You may not think of him or her as you are watching your favorite film, but they have made the movie you are watching all that it is. Those dramatic montages, the flow of a scene -- hell, even the fact that the box of Tide is on the laundry where it should be is thanks to this wonderful and dedicated worker, some of whom have to spend hours working on this project.
I am bringing up the editors because I realized last night that three recent movies I have seen -- "Iron Man," "Sex and the City" and "Dark Knight" (yes, even my beloved "Dark Knight") -- could have really used one.
Where, you may ask? It's simple -- lenghth.
Did you know that back in the 1930s, the average movie was an hour and a half? Now it seems like we're pushing into the two-and-a-half hour range for most movies.
It doesn't have to be this way. "Dark Knight" could have simply cut the whole "let's-go-to-China" bit of the movie, and "Sex and the City" could have cut several scenes to get to the meat of the story. Mind you, I loved these two movies, and I had a very good time watching them for very different reasons. But when you're watching a two hour movie for longer than it should be, it gets to you after a while. Several of the "Harry Potter" films also have this problem.
They want to shape a story, but they want to leave in all the parts that we just don't need to watch in order to get to it. We'll enjoy the movie without these segueways and asides just as much. A skilled editor could tell you where the story needs to be cut and what is getting in the way.
They certainly didn't have one in the case of "Iron Man." That person went on vacation. There was an hour of exposition. Seriously, we don't need that much. I keep hearing the excuse, "Oh, it's about weapons and the evils of terrorism, etc." I could see that within five minutes. I didn't need an hour. And as much as I love Robert Downey, Jr., the movie for me seemed like a load.
We don't need a 150-minute movie when a normal sized one will do. If a movie is worth our three hours -- "Lord of the Rings" comes to mind -- we will put the three hours into it to watch. But Hollywood, please listen carefully: Good editing is what makes your films great. They are quiet and behind the scenes. If I need to be making a call out to hire some editors, then you have a serious problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment