Editing in Othello / Mr. Arkadin - Was style born of necessity or choice?

[jbrooks]

I was watching some of Mr. Arkadin last night, and I got curious about Welles' shot selection and editing style in this film and in Othello. I know Welles talked about how he switched to short takes out of necessity -- the lack of skill on European crews and the need to shoot small bits at a time (sometimes without all the actors in the scene present). But what I haven't read much about is the somewhat different issue of what we would have called in film school "bad cuts." By this I mean cuts from one shot to another of only a slightly differnt angle or perspective such that it is jarring to the viewer. I also mean violations of the "180 degree rule" (screen direction) and cuts where there is some "mistake" in the "match on action." (For example, an actor looking down in one shot and suddenly looking straight ahead in the next). Othello and Arkadin are ripe with examples of such edits. I am curious what people think the reason for this is. Did Welles choose to adopt this as a style -- or was it simply the result of the poor production conditions he had to work with for this films?

[Jaime N. Christley]

Well, we know as a matter of record that it was a necessity in OTHELLO, and the stories of CONFIDENTIAL REPORT's production suggest that the making of that film was only slightly less on the patchwork side - however, both films and, moreso, his later films prove that these circumstances did more good than harm (at least as I see it). So I would suggest that this "style" was borne of necessity, quickly became a style, and gradually approached perfection.

Aren't there some violations of the 180 in THE STRANGER? I could never really understand the deal with that rule - there's a lot of disjointed editing around, even before the New Wavers came into the picture. Sometimes disjointed is good, sometimes it's bad, and I don't think the 180 line has as much to do with the bad stuff or the "violations" as film form books sometimes suggest.

[Sir Bygber Brown]

Without a doubt its production problems that caused these. I haven't been to film school, but i know what you mean by the 180 thing, and i think it makes much of the Venice portion hard to follow in Othello.

I think it works against Othello in those scenes, rather than for it. Welles thought the same, i think - he said he thought it was mainly poor in Venice, the effect of the money/production problems, in the BBC (i think...) interviewlets shown on the Criterion Othello.

Welles would never choose anything that didn't work in those films where he had a studio at his disposal - everything in Ambersons, visually, is perfect. In those two RKO pictures he did very few cuts - most scenes played out in one shot, and finished with a close up, like Shakespeare finishing a scene with a rhyming couplet. It was only later, IMO after certain experiences with editing, especially the editing of Ambersons and the experience being an (the first) independent filmmaker on Othello, that Welles came to have a taste for what might be called 'shards of glass' editing (there's probably a film school term for what i'm describing), seen in full flight in F for Fake and Other Side of the Wind.

Aside from the studio pictures, i think most of his independently produced films ran much smoother than Othello, b.c they were shot much more continuously (i'm thinking Trial and Falstaff in particular, by far my favourites of the independents).

[blunted by community]

example of the 180 degree rule:
maltese falcon - spades office. his desk is on one side of the room, the door is on the other. the tart enters spades office. we see spade and desk from her agle, then we see the tart at the door from spades angle. you just did 180 degree coverage. once you show that you can cut any where in the room without losing the viewer.

i can get through the editing in othello and arkadin with no problem. in arkadin it could have been any one that cut it, not welles in every instance. othello had a lot of problems, but even though it has a lot of inspired cutting. to see an example of welles editing you need to check out touch of evil. the editing is incredible. only place it's bad is where they took out a chunk of the film.

[R Kadin]

Welles seemed to adopt a "work-in-progress" approach to a great deal of his personal projects. The fact there are so many different versions of such films - none necessarily more "official" than the others - reflects that attitude.

It appears that Welles wanted to keep the door open at all times to working and re-working those materials, if only he could find the time and the funding. So, for this and other reasons, it is quite possible that he was content to leave the odd imperfect pastiche in here and there.

Among those other reasons one might find:
- a pragmatic need to meet distribution deadlines, regardless
- an interest in the role of "accident" in the artistic process
- an impish delight in tweaking film therorists' dry academic rules and sensibilities
- an outright expression of contempt for plebian obsessions with crass and insignificant details
- an invitation to filmmakers to loosen up and explore their form far more freely
- an invitation to audiences to remember the artifice that goes into the films they are seeing
- a personal affection for the off-kilter, jazz-like visual rhythms that such jarring transitions and juxtapositions can evoke
- (add your own possibilities here)

Welles never planned to die. By leaving so much polishing still "out there" he helped ensure that his great mind and imagination were always filled with real projects in need of his attention. Looked at that way, his life could never have ended any other way than in a long trail of loose ends forever in need of tying.

[blunted by community]

the real reason for the editing style:
most european cameras could not synch sound for more than 4 or 6 seconds. welles' editing style, like leone's in the good the bad and the ugly, was to stay on the speaker for 4 or 6 seconds then cut to a reaction shot of the listener. or have the character speaking looking away from the camera, or having him far enough away so that the bad synch was not noticable.

this is welles anticipating the limitations of his gear and working around it. a great technician can do that. the guys that made italian hercules movies just didn't give a dam. had welles and leone not been great technicians as well as directors, their films might by synched like an italian hercules movie, ahhhhhh!

[R Kadin]

Blunted, you might be right; but I can't help noting that Welles had no problem with looping dialogue after the fact. It's a technique with which his European films are rife.

So, it's hard for me to imagine him considering himself a slave to his equipment's sound-synch limitations and subordinating his editing decisions to them. All the more so, since we know just how essential Welles considered the whole editing process to his film output.

[Glenn Anders]

A most amusing insight, my dear Blunted.

Glenn

[blunted by community]

r kadin, he also did it in touch of evil where he did not need to. touch of evil was a studio film with american techs, nothing was going to go out of sych. i have a heston quote where welles told an actor to recite the pledge of alleigance and he would put something in there later.

all the reasons you listed are all viable, all true. especially this one, "an impish delight in tweaking film therorists' dry academic rules and sensibilities"

never truer in touch of evil where he turns inside out character scalling. the character closest to the camera is the character that is talest in the frame, is the hero, the lead character with something important to say. in the touch of evil crime scene welles has adair closest to the camera but quinlan, who is further back is the talest in the frame. he loved doing stuff like this.

i kane when he meets with thatcher to sign over his newspapers, instead of walking sideways pacing he walks all the way to the windows in the back of the room then back to the table. this simple action was one of the most radical things in the movie. no one had done that before because of equipment limitations. they had to walk sideways to the camera.

but hands down, all that stuff aside, in arkadin, and othello, in close up, after 4 to 6 seconds, nothing was going to synch, he had no choice but to cut.

another problem that contributed to the rough cutting, is that the camera they were using on othello had no view finder. ever try to match shots with no view finder? it's a bitch.

welles did a lot of looping yes, but during othello think what a nightmare it would have been to get the actors back after shooting is finished to do looping. he was not in beverly hills where the actor drives on to the lot. it was cheaper for him to cut around his limitations. and a lot of the times cutting around the limitation gave a more imaginative image than a close up with synched dialogue would have.

[blunted by community]

glenn, next time you watch the good the bad and the ugly, keep this in mind about the synch. it's interesting to see how leone gets around this problem.

[jbrooks]

Blunted,

I could be wrong of course, but I thought Othello was shot entirely "wild" -- meaning no synch sound at all and that the entire film was "looped" after the fact. It is clear from watching the film that most (if not all) of the dialogue was looped in after-the-fact.

In any event, one could easily do a lot of cutting back and forth between characters and insert shots and not have any "jarring" cuts that don't "work" according to traditional rules. I do find your "no viewfinder" theory quite interesting. That would make things difficult.

[blunted by community]

i don't know for sure if it was shot wild, i had assumed that it wasn't because in the second audio program on the voyager disc meisel mentions in a scene where a soldier is far off camera, he unscrolls a scroll and reads it. meisel mentions that welles knowing the sound was not going to synch, shot it in long shot so it would not matter.

i don't know if he shot with sound or not, if he did that would answer the cutting style. if he shot it wild, i have no answer for the cutting style. i will watch it again see if i can pick up what you mean about the cutting.

[Sir Bygber Brown]

Whatever the reason for the cutting (though Welles himself has said he didn't like to have so many cuts, but that he could only have so many cast members at certain points in the schedule, so he had to shoot around whoever wasn't there - evidence of Welles preferring longer takes, aside from his first two features, the fact that he revelled in the opportunity to do that one long take with Othello and Iago, and eventually the whole cast (just because he had them all)...

As i was saying, whatever the reason for the cutting, no matter how many times i watch Othello, i always find it hard to keep track of who is addressing who, and especially who is looking at who. I don't think its right to find fault in the viewer and say: you're just not watching right. I think because of the million and one pieces of footage which hardly ever obey the 180 rule in Venice, that portion is very hard to follow.

[blunted by community]

to me it doesn't matter. welles with defects, breaking rules, no synch, no actors, no money, and armor made from sardine cans is still more interesting than any director that ever walked this earth. i love othello as is, and i love the 3 arkadins as is.

[Sir Bygber Brown]

I haven't yet seen Arkadin but i also love Othello as is. I forgive the Venice portion, just like i sometimes have to forgive Welles for not giving good performances in other mens' movies because of why he did them and everything else he was thinking about, so he cared less about them. I still enjoy watching him, just like i still enjoy watching Othello. Besides, i only think Venice is hard to follow. i think some of the best Welles is in Othello - particularly the duel in the sewer with the reflections in the puddles. I also love its music and its opening sequence.