The Story of Editing

The variety of steps involved in producing film is amazing to me.  I mean, think about it.  There are so many steps involved that don't get their fair share of credit.  Take editing for example.

Editing has the opportunity to take a film that is good to something great.  Editing allows for manipulation of the film, to switch up timing, scenes, and transitions, to cover up cinematography mishaps or poor acting.  Different camera angles and shots are crucial to the success of a film, but without the talent and work of an editor, they make no difference.

Although I certainly recognized the importance of editing with regard to movie and filmmaking, it wasn't until I learned more about the inside steps of editing that I began to understand just how great an impact it has.

In "The Aesthetics of Editing," an article by Osgood and Hinshaw, the authors describe the vital role editing plays, particularly with regard to television commercials.

Think about it.  Advertising companies get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce very short - even twenty or thirty second long commercials.  

Now let's take this a step further.  What about Super Bowl ads?  What about Olympic sponsor ads?  Those advertisements are worth millions of dollars, and last less than half a minute!  And it's not so much the idea behind the ad, although that is important.  It is about the editing, the put together of footage, that counts in the end.

Take the Best Buy commercial from the 2013 Super Bowl for example:

How many different times did Amy Poehler really say those lines?  How many extra shots were filmed?  Probably a significant amount.

Because the reality of filmmaking is, most of what is shot doesn't get used without being manipulated.  Audio is enhanced, order is switched around, soundtracks are put in, mistakes are eliminated.  Without editing, videos would not look like they do.  They would be much longer, much more heavily laden with mistakes, and much more unprofessional looking.

So my question for discussion is, why is editing so overlooked?  Why aren't the roles of editors more recognized?  Why aren't they more glamorized?  Editors may not be in the spotlight, but their jobs are integral to the success of video footage.

Digital Media vs. Analog Media

The parallels and perpendiculars of digital and analog media are more numerous than I thought possible.  After reading Chapters 2 and 3 of Writing for Digital Media by Brian Carroll, I am intrigued by the major differences between these two forms of media, which are so often lumped together as one – they are both major forms of media, after all.

My perspective of the chapters is that although both digital media and analog media strive to inform readers, they are vastly different.  Digital media is much more instantaneous.  Credibility must be established with a virtual audience – one that can easily respond either positively or negatively in a comment section; one with the ability to conduct instantaneous Internet research to confirm the facts while simultaneously reading an article.  There is major competition for credibility on the Internet because as Carroll states, it is constantly changing.  Hearsay and rumors are written about, proven false, and deleted from the Internet in a matter of minutes – but that doesn’t stop an audience from already having read it.  As a result, there is also more “accident forgiveness” available for digital communication - because information emerges so rapidly, audiences understand that mistakes are made.

 

 Analog media has much more riding on it.  It dates back for centuries.  It is established.  It is printed out and publicly distributed.  For all of these reasons, it has much more of a reputation to protect and uphold.  In major newspapers and magazines, credibility already been established with audiences, and as a result, readers are much less forgiving and much more disappointed when mistakes are made.

Additionally, the format and layout of both forms of media differ significantly.  Web design is centered on drawing the eye in with a strong headline in the upper left corner, on striking images with concise captions underneath, with important information hyperlinked to make it easily accessible for readers.  Every article and page on a Web site is what Carroll calls an “island” – it should be able to stand on its own.  Conversely, the layout and design of analog media is traditional.  There are major headlines and multiple stories per page and a fixed paper structure.

The ideals of good journalism remains celebrated in both digital and analog media, however.  Clarity, simplicity, and credibility are sought earnestly by journalists despite the medium, which is the most important aspects of journalism.  Good journalism is out there – it is just now up to the reader to determine which medium he or she wishes to read.

Thoughts for discussion:
Is it the audience that demands changes from analog media to digital media?  Maybe the audience's progression with technology is part of the reason why there are so many differences.
Because digital media is so rapidly emerging with changes, will analog media begin making changes to keep up with this progression?