- Messages
- 1,952
- Reaction score
- 2,030
- Trophy Points
- 133
BONUS MEANDERINGS
So, as I polish up my huge comparison video (yes I will be rendering this and making the 4 way split screen comparison available) it dawned on me how lazy the AMC trims are. In fact, they don't even achieve some of their objectives. HUH you say....let me explain.
At the end of Part 1 (which is when the funeral and the multiple shootings occur) there are some further trims to the violence.
As with all such sequences, I have gone in shot for shot (pun intended) here rather than settle with "oh, 7 secs short over that minute". What it reveals is an interesting question in regards to what is, or is not, violent.
THE NAMES OF THE PROTAGONISTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED TO PROTECT FROM SPOILERS
Lets take the chap who is shot in the eye while face down.
Many reading will have read about or seen the classic example of how editing conveys meaning. But here is a reminder.
Consider 3 shots, then the meaning
BABY CRYING
MAN FROWNS then MAN SMILES
BABY SMILES
SO, the baby was crying, which made the man sad, so the man smiles at the baby, and the baby smiles. Conclusion: Nice Man
Now the same 3 shots in a new order and splitting shot 2.
BABY SMILES
MAN FROWNS (1st part of shot 2)
BABY CRYING
MAN SMILES (2nd part of shot 2)
So, The man does not like the smiling baby, so he frowns at it and the baby cries, which pleases the man. CONCLUSION Nasty man.
All that happened is the baby shots were swapped and the MAN shot split, massive narrative change.
Now lest look at that sequences where the chap is shot in GF1 near the end.
First of all, its a single 4 sec shot. So, lets break that down further sec by sec.
1 sec Man is face down
1.5 sec Man looks up
2 sec Man's glasses break to sound of gunshot
2.5 sec Man slumps
2.5 -4sec Man bleeds out of his eye
NOW, the suits say "make it less violent".
Lets pause........
Consider a man on screen with a nose bleed....That is not violent per-se.
Back to the edit....
How was this made less violent? By trimming 1 sec from the last part where the blood runs down his nose.
HUH? That just makes it less bloody.
The moment of violence is when his glasses break to the sound of the gun fire.
I, would have had him look up, cut back to Michael for the gun shot audio and glasses breaking, cut back to the full 1.5 sec bleed out. That ties Michael nicely into the act (bonus), removes the ACTUAL moment of violence while leaving the consequences of the violence on screen. Censors should like that because it does not sanitise the event's effect (by removing the bleed out) AND it removed the arguably visceral image of the bullet impact and not shorten the sequence.
Oh, it needs to be shorter....No problem.
Remove the first 2secs, but have the audio play over the shot of Michael and then cut to the broken glasses and bleed out. Saving 2 secs (1 sec more than was cut), not violent and still clear he was shot.
That's how you can tell that Coppola did not make those additional trims. They are lazy cuts.
I won't go into the AMC toll booth sequence or we will be here all night ( but it is a butchering with 75% of it removed).
AND THAT friends, is why I like to edit movies.....
Ciao
W
So, as I polish up my huge comparison video (yes I will be rendering this and making the 4 way split screen comparison available) it dawned on me how lazy the AMC trims are. In fact, they don't even achieve some of their objectives. HUH you say....let me explain.
At the end of Part 1 (which is when the funeral and the multiple shootings occur) there are some further trims to the violence.
As with all such sequences, I have gone in shot for shot (pun intended) here rather than settle with "oh, 7 secs short over that minute". What it reveals is an interesting question in regards to what is, or is not, violent.
THE NAMES OF THE PROTAGONISTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED TO PROTECT FROM SPOILERS
Lets take the chap who is shot in the eye while face down.
Many reading will have read about or seen the classic example of how editing conveys meaning. But here is a reminder.
Consider 3 shots, then the meaning
BABY CRYING
MAN FROWNS then MAN SMILES
BABY SMILES
SO, the baby was crying, which made the man sad, so the man smiles at the baby, and the baby smiles. Conclusion: Nice Man
Now the same 3 shots in a new order and splitting shot 2.
BABY SMILES
MAN FROWNS (1st part of shot 2)
BABY CRYING
MAN SMILES (2nd part of shot 2)
So, The man does not like the smiling baby, so he frowns at it and the baby cries, which pleases the man. CONCLUSION Nasty man.
All that happened is the baby shots were swapped and the MAN shot split, massive narrative change.
Now lest look at that sequences where the chap is shot in GF1 near the end.
First of all, its a single 4 sec shot. So, lets break that down further sec by sec.
1 sec Man is face down
1.5 sec Man looks up
2 sec Man's glasses break to sound of gunshot
2.5 sec Man slumps
2.5 -4sec Man bleeds out of his eye
NOW, the suits say "make it less violent".
Lets pause........
Consider a man on screen with a nose bleed....That is not violent per-se.
Back to the edit....
How was this made less violent? By trimming 1 sec from the last part where the blood runs down his nose.
HUH? That just makes it less bloody.
The moment of violence is when his glasses break to the sound of the gun fire.
I, would have had him look up, cut back to Michael for the gun shot audio and glasses breaking, cut back to the full 1.5 sec bleed out. That ties Michael nicely into the act (bonus), removes the ACTUAL moment of violence while leaving the consequences of the violence on screen. Censors should like that because it does not sanitise the event's effect (by removing the bleed out) AND it removed the arguably visceral image of the bullet impact and not shorten the sequence.
Oh, it needs to be shorter....No problem.
Remove the first 2secs, but have the audio play over the shot of Michael and then cut to the broken glasses and bleed out. Saving 2 secs (1 sec more than was cut), not violent and still clear he was shot.
That's how you can tell that Coppola did not make those additional trims. They are lazy cuts.
I won't go into the AMC toll booth sequence or we will be here all night ( but it is a butchering with 75% of it removed).
AND THAT friends, is why I like to edit movies.....
Ciao
W