Analysis Of The Conversation

Submitted By Dina-Michelle
Words: 1072
Pages: 5

Walter Murch’s theory of assigning the human blink as emotional punctuation for a film’s cut, highlights an interesting perspective on editing that I feel holds both merit as well as its own contradiction. Murch explains his theory in relation to his experience cutting the 1974 film, The Conversation. Essentially, nearly all of his edits shared a systematic rhythm that directly correlated with the actor’s timing; each cut he decided to make happened closely to when Gene Hackman’s character in the movie blinked. As he explored this notion further, he came to the conclusion that often, a person will blink every time he or she has a new whole thought or emotion signifying a mental separations. In relation to editing, Murch realized that with every cut, the editor relays an entirely new thought or emotion to the audience, allowing them a brief mental separation to process what they just saw; similar to when a person blinks after having a new thought and needing that same mental separation. While I believe this theory holds true in many aspects of editing, especially when dealing with character driven pieces’ and wanting to involve audience empathy with those characters by bringing them to an intimate level, I also believe that this is not the be-all-end-all guideline for editing these kinds of pieces. A film can be successfully intimate and emotional without having to connect deeply on the level of the character in question, and that the choices an editor makes depends on the emotional vision for the film. So, ultimately I would agree with Murch’s theory but I believe it can be an active choice rather than a theoretical guideline. Murch compares the infamous “over-active editor” to that of an over eager tour guide who wants to show you everything he’s touring rather than let you experience anything during the tour. As he explains in the book, most of the editing for a film should be driven by emotion and ultimately what the editor/director wants the audience to get from that particular scene. A successful edit is seamless and unnoticeable; allowing the viewer to become immersed in the action and feel what they want to feel without the distraction of seeing a wide into a close-up or a close up into a medium, etc. An over-active editor would make the mistake of actively showing the audience what he/she wants them to feel in fear that they won’t get the emotion on their own. Films with an over-active editor fail to successfully connect with the audience, revealing too much, thus causing boredom and disinterest. Showing too much allows for little to no creative interpretation, so devaluing the film’s impact. Just by that alone, I wouldn’t want my intermediate film to be associated with those feelings, let alone an editor who feels so inclined to reveal so much about a film when half the fun is interpreting it on your own. I was very interested in what Murch had to say about the concept test screenings. While I do not believe that they are 100% necessary, I do believe they can be helpful in producing a final copy of a film once main eyes have taken a shot. The main reason I am bringing on a separate editor for my film is to give a fresh set of eyes to the work because as Murch explains, it is very easy to lose sight of what’s really important in a film’s edit when you have been involved every step of the way. I probably won’t be doing test screenings to the effect of bringing in multiple people to watch an edit at once, but I will most likely show people in passing every few edit sessions to get opinions and thoughts on what can change and what works.
Murch’s ideas around dialogue scenes and action scenes differ in that the cuts for a dialogue scene can be more methodical and intertwined whilst action scenes are more geared towards movement and connection. This idea could best be explained through his explanation of what he calls “Dragnet style editing.” Dragnet