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.

Measuring Morality

Part III of Open Sky by Paul Virilio was significantly less verbose than the previous sections.  In this section, Virilio explores ideas about what he has named “Eye Lust” – in short, the various exposures humans face to all different forms of media in everyday life.

One quote that I found especially striking regarded cultural beliefs regarding visual experiences.  Virilio says on page 90, “The ban on representation in certain cultural practices and the refusal to see – women for example, in the case of Islam – is being superseded at this very moment by the cultural obligation to see, with the overexposure of the visible of the age of image animation taking over from the underexposure of the age of the written word.”

Virilio asks of this a few sentences later, “Should we avert our gaze, gingerly sneak a sidelong look, and so avoid the exploitative focus on offer?  These are so many questions which are not exclusive to aesthetics but concern equally the ethics of contemporary perception.”

These quotes are of particular interest to me because they bring about the idea that what we as humans, choose to look at, has the potential to demonstrate our ethical or moral beliefs.

That is somewhat of a heavy statement, and I believe it to be true in some cases, but it definitely is not a hard and fast statement.  For example, I love magazines – all sorts.  I subscribe to lots of “mommy magazines,” but surprisingly, one of my favorites is Cosmopolitan. 

However, whenever I tell people about my love for Cosmo, they are shocked – apparently I don’t give off a Cosmo-girl vibe, which I can’t complain about.  But just because I read Cosmo doesn’t, in my opinion, indicate anything about my moral character one way or the other – it is a magazine for women, about fashion, relationships, business-life, and much more.  It is more than the stereotype. 

ThoughSports Illustrated, I do make judgments about his character.  But is the swimsuit editions of Sports Illustrated on the same level as Cosmo?  That I can’t answer.

I must say, that when I see a man “reading” the swimsuit edition of

My questions for discussion debate whether or not what a person chooses to look at or in many cases, read, indicates positively or negatively on his or her moral character.  If it does, why?  If not, why not?  

A Step in the Right Direction

Rowe’s article “Framed and Mounted: Sport Through the Photographic Eye” covers a wide variety of information regarding the area of sports photography.

The introduction of the article discusses the task of “unveiling” media sports photography – the characteristics of it, the propriety of it, the framing of it.  

Rowe says early on in the article that “still photography is . . . a form of communication that relies on the notion of ‘capture’ – frozen for all time is a gesture, an expression, incident, or landscape . . . . conducted like any other communicative act through processes of selection; many ‘snaps’ may be taken but only one shot [is] selected out of the multiple variations of angle, focus, composition, and light” (143).

I thought this quote was a marvelous representation of the true essence of what sports photography should be.  Rowe goes on to present many different examples of how sports photography is not as it should be, even arguing that it objectifies women.  Rowe cites an example of a dominant-looking male athlete standing next a submissive looking female athlete, and argues that the submissive stance of the female is objectifying.  Consider the images below from Vogue magazine, of Olympic hopefuls:

What do these images say about male athletes versus female athletes?  Why is Vogue magazine portraying gender roles this way?

I definitely do agree that Rowe presents some honest, realistic examples of the way females can be objectified by the media, particularly in terms of sports photography.  However, I also think that conversely, some media outlets do make attempts to show women as strong, athletic individuals.  The example that first comes to mind for me is the Nike commercial below.

Rowe certainly has a point when she asserts that the success of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue isn’t the result of the public’s sudden and short-lived interest in sports.  There is definitely media out there that is still objectifying women.  But I also think that companies like Nike are taking a step in the right direction.

My questions remain though - what do you think?  Is the sports journalism that you encounter day-to-day representing empowered, strong, female athletes?  Or is it seeking, in your opinion, to have women play a submissive role?  If the latter, how can we as consumers of the media, change this?  Either way, why do you think this is?