Week 4 Reading, The Language of Editing

"Homeland Regained and Lost" by Genevieve Moreau details the trip of Agee and Evans into Alabama to do some "honest journalism". The article examines both mental and physical aspects of the trip as often times we read about the guilt that Agee felt and the hardships they had to endure. Very easy-to-read, this article is both thought-provoking and generally interesting. The detailed story of these two journalism is proved most interesting as one recognizes the similarities between a journalist and a filmmaker. Both seek to uncover the truth, to explode it magnificently (if they are good). These particular journalists were such a great example due to both their persona and their circumstances. What they sought to document was a controversial issue and they knew what was expected of them by their job and yet what they felt what ought to be done was different. In this battle, the conscience won as Agee and Evans stayed with the sharecropping families and embedded their lifestyle into their own, if only for a little while. This is a perfect example of the observer, the filmmaker being so entrenched in the work that the work becomes a part of himself. The reader also can put oneself into the shoes of Agee and Evans as they are these New Yorkers who have a lifestyle simliar to ours, heavily relying on material pleasures and the intricate web social contacts. This is especially possible since the writing style of the article is such that it seems as if a person is talking to the reader, drawing from many different sources and explaning many different things, sometimes even jumping from one aspect to another without warning. This is clearly seen as Evan's journal description is mentioned, along with what Agee thought and what he seemed like to others. The second reading, "The Language of Editing" by Roger Crittenden" was more laborous, yet just as interesting. Some very good points are brought up there, as well as a critical look into the editing of several masterpieces, such as Chinatown. Oftentimes editing is not given the credit it wholly deserves in light of direction or acting by the mainstream audience, but by reading the article, the pertinence of editing certainly becomes obvious. Crittenden also gives a thorough analysis of the editing process, which can prove to be a very useful reference. It really is a helpful article, though sometimes the description of how certain films were edited isn't as useful, especially if one hasn't seen the film. The article also provides questions that can help any editor, but especially for those who don't have that much experience or do not exactly know what direction they want to take the film in. The significance that the article gives to editing is one of the most interesting things about it, however. By reading this, one realizes how much of a blank slate unedited footage is, and how even the subtlest of cutting or rearranging can give a whole new meaning to the film. The list of mistakes editing can fix is very important and makes one realize what a huge role editing plays. Sometimes however, it is possible to take editing so far that it loses the meaning of the original idea and becomes simply a method to fix errors such as a bad shot or scene that are embedded in the film itself. This is bad because then editing becomes an excuse, a means to not push oneself to ensure the highest satisfaction with shots because one can "edit it out".

In “Homeland Regained and Lost,” by Genevieve Moreau the story of Agee and Evans in the South seemed both real and unreal. I mean I have seen Wolfgang’s film of his journey to the South and the images that he captured with his camera as very poignant. The conditions that those people lived in seemed so miserable and pitiful. They have been affected by the harshness of the land and the life of seclusion. Reading “Homeland” brings back such images because the environment seems the same. Agee and Evans had trouble gaining trust among the people. They witnessed the harsh life the folks had to live in. They traveled far and wide to try to develop connections but were greeted with distrust and elusiveness. Fortunately, they met a family that let them stay for the duration of the rest of their stay south. From there, they networked out to capture the truth of the lives of those people. Not just their reclusiveness, and hard life but also their generosity and courage. In the end, however, Agee could not bring forth his truth because his magazine deemed his story too in-your-face. Thus, he quietly re-imersed himself in the life of the city but he never quite forgot his days in the south. As he spends numerous evenings in fervent discussions with his friends, he never forgot the south. His story seems both real and surreal to me because I have never been outside California before. So, I have no idea what other sections of America live like. It seems unreal that there are still people living in such isolation and simplicity in this day and age. However, I am forced to believe because the images conjured up by both this article and Wolfgang’s film is too real and forceful to ignore. I feel pity, sadness, respect, and perhaps a little envy because these people live without too many complications and make do with what fate dealt them. In “The Language of Editing,” Roger Crittenden presents many different ways to using the tool of editing after a film has been put on film. For example, in private-eye movies cutting is used to develop suspense and tension because each cut, each image could be a clue about the mystery or about the protagonist detective. It is a gradual lead towards the climax and solution. In contrast, action movies provide many moments of adrenaline. The cutting helps gives fights, chases, and such a higher level of intensity in addition to more control of the action because being able to cut means the action does not have to all be one continuous shot. Thus it is directly serving the action. However, even though editing can be a great tool, it should not be abused. In effect, it should not be a mechanical thing. It should be used to enhance the film somehow in accord with the overall film and what it is trying to achieve. Sometimes it is better to not edit so much, sometimes it is crucial. By recognizing the importance of each cut and not making a cut, a film can be great.

In “Homeland Regained and Lost,” Genevieve Moreau recounts the journey of a reporter-photographer team, Evans and Agee, who travel into the heart of the south, Alabama, to document and study a poor tenant farming family for four weeks. This journey can be divided into two periods. The first being the period in which Agee and Evans traveled and researched the territory they had come to learn about. I found it really interesting how many reservations both parties, the southerners and the reporters, had for the assignment. Moreau mentions how Agee felt unworthy and continually judged himself to harshly. Evans, however, had fewer reservations. Evans executed his job with integrity and simplicity. For example, upon a chance encounter with a Fred Ricketts, Evans and Agee drive him back home. Upon doing so, Evans asks for permission to take a few photos of Ricketts and his family on the porch. This was the kind of attitude the reporters seemed to go exploring with, a measured curiosity. After exploring and researching, Agee and Evans finally found the family they had been searching for. The Gudgers welcomed the two men into their home, and Agee immediately set to work. I found really interesting how deeply Agee immersed himself in the assignment, as Moreau says, “his concern was now more that of the ethnologist” (140). Agee documented everything down to the contents of the drawers. I found it really interesting how his professional mind broke down as he continued his journey of self-discovery. He began to become the “angry young poet who would shout in the face of the world his indignation but also sing his ‘praise’ of the sharecropper and strive to make ‘famous’ the reality of their existence” (142). It’s truly amazing the effect of living away from the normalcy of daily life can truly affect someone so profoundly. In “The Language of Editing: Giving Your Material Form and Refining its Meaning,” Roger Crittenden delves into a strenuous analysis of editing and its effect on a movie. I found this article very helpful understanding the true importance of editing to a film. Before reading this article or taking this class, I really had very little semblance as to the effect a good or bad edit can have on a film. It is truly the second directing of the film (145). Crittenden begins by emphasizing and listing the various ways a film can be affected by editing: selection, structuring, balance and emphasis, the dynamic axis, motivation, point of focus, sequencing, parallel action, and rhythm and pacing (145-46). Crittenden follows by explaining the different reasons for cutting, both the positive and negative. In addition, he includes cutting and reaction for dramatic emphasis, which is supremely important to the work of a filmmaker. Interestingly, Crittenden follows his breakdown of editing with examples from famous directors. I found it realty interesting how much editing can affect the rhythm and emotional affect of the scene. The edit is not done just to make the move coherent; the edit is done to promote the underlying emotion or meaning of the work.

Roger Critteden’s “The Language of Editing” is a helpful and inspirational piece of work. I really enjoyed his symbolism of a film being like a jigsaw puzzle in which the editors must cut it apart. It has a very visual natural feel to it. I thought it was funny how they said that a jigsaw has a predetermined outcome, where as a film does not. The selection section was helpful in introducing the reader to the process of multiple takes and shots and reshots that make us better understand the time commitment of an editor to a film. In addition, by means of multiple takes, an editor may use a certain show that is not necessarily the best of the onslaught of shots taken, but it works the best in the scene in correspondence to the other shots in the scene, meshing takes into the film with the other takes logically. This is the backbone to multiple shot films. When structuring a sequence, each shot must have a reasonable correspondence to the other shots in the sequence. The atmosphere, special movements, subject matter, and emotional content must meld well to a beautiful masterpiece in order for a successful film to be created in flawless style. Editing’s real purpose is to provide support to the inherent drama via balance and emphasis. Balance must be maintained in a shot in order for it to work well together. Emphasis when correctly used will indeed help to balance the film. By balancing the film, the author means correct subject balance in the frame, color balance, et cetera. These sections seemed rather general to me, in the beginning of the reading. A cut in the filming must be motivated. It cannot be simply a structured mechanical machine like process. If the camera is filming a person’s back and then their side, there has to be a reason for the change. A problematic cut to a close up, like mentioned in the reading, can cause extra emphasis on perhaps an insignificant subject like a button or a person or a jacket. Later in the reading, I enjoyed the multiple takes of staging. Where the camera can go to portray a scene was fascinating for me. In addition, the list of elements for respecting dramatic development in cutting was interesting. The reference to the fact that in documentaries filming shots must be concocted in the time of the event, isolating them from that of a dramatic film, in which the shots can be planned out, is relatively true. I feel the shot for the documentary is not absolute, but could still be part of a general idea. I agree that close ups are the most telling weapon in the armory of cinema as well as the philosophy that constant intercutting can call attention to the technique. Whereas I have not seen the films in listed in this piece, he makes a good argument with the screen shots he includes as to why these films are worthy of a reference for editing and appropriate shot technique. Some of these shots are marvelous!

Roger Crittenden’s The Language of Editing takes a very in depth look at the subtleties involved in editing film. His piece contained some very helpful advice, however many other parts of this writing were worded so vaguely that it was difficult to understand what point the author was trying to make. For instance, “The real contribution of editing is to provide support to the inherent drama through balance and emphasis.” This is a pointless sentence with no meaning. He does not define or specify what he means by ‘balance,’ ‘support,’ or ‘emphasis.’ He attempts to by giving an example, but without being clearer his example does not help in the slightest. “For instance, each time you cut to a closer shot it is imperative that the shift in visual emphasis supports the dramatic balance at that point.” He uses the same words he used before with no clarification and has therefore conveyed almost nothing to his aspiring editors. Fortunately not all of the advice is ambiguous. He makes some good points about when and when not to cut, but the problem is that he writing and trying to incorporate every style and type of film. He is attempting to create extremely general rules for editing which is nearly impossible. Editing video film has to be seen on an extremely individual basis. There is an incredible amount of information displayed on a piece of film and there is no way to apply general rules to that type of complexity. Crittenden does seem to realize this near the end of the article and begins to site examples from his personal favorite movies. This has potential to work very well as the reader will now have a much clearer understanding of what he is talking about. However, if the reader has not seen the film that he is referencing, it is difficult to truly understand his purpose. Like he said, you edit in the context of the whole film, and to pull scenes out of context of an entire film to analyze makes little sense. The best way to show the does and don’ts of editing is to show on film proper and improper examples. Expressing ideas from film in writing is a very difficult task. Literature and film are two very different mediums. It is difficult to express one in terms of the other. Editing has changed a lot and does not follow many of the styles that Crittenden mentions in the older movies. I have noticed that there has been fairly recent movement in filmmaking and television that stride away from many of the techniques that the famous directors use especially the longer uninterrupted shot. More and more everything is cut and spliced with each clip barely eclipsing more than 10 or 15 seconds. In particular the TV shows directed at a younger audience such as Parental Control or Pimp My Ride. The cuts short in order to try and capture the youth’s attention. This movement is seen on many TV shows but is directly related to the society in which we live, which is very different from the worlds that Crittenden’s famous directors lived in. Ours is a faster paced society where people are exposed to thousands of advertisements for an extremely large variety of different products. People seem to have less time, and in turn less patience for longer, slower shots in film. – Devin Bernhardt

As media educates its audience with its films and reports, privacy is sometimes neglected and may cause hate and violence. In the film “Stranger to the Camera”, one person stated a very profound and strong sentence that explains the pain the camera can cause. She said, “The camera is like a gun, it exploits, disrespects, and can change the meaning of something. It doesn’t lie, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.” This is true because the story is usually told from the director’s point of view and at the same time, the director does not always ask for permission to film. As seen in the film “Stranger to the Camera”, it was shown how Hugh took pictures of the Kentucky and its abuse for the worker force (he especially emphasized on the poor homes and people). For some, it was a great thing because it let the world know that the state was being cruel and so it gave the workers some hope. But at the same time, some people felt that it was embarrassing them and everyone watching should keep mind their own business. This is an example of how the camera is like a gun. It had exploited some people’s privacy and it disrespected their pride. In the film, we also saw a camera man that was killed for taking picture on a person’s land. The guy’s name was Hobart. He was tried for the camera man’s death and it was debated whether he committed murder or not. Hobart believed that he was right in what he did because he was not the aggressor. He said that Hill Billy’s like him tend to keep to himself. All the camera man needed to do was ask. But the camera man didn’t so he had the right to shoot him. In my opinion, I believe that it was wrong of the camera man to take pictures without permission, but no matter what he does, no one has the right to kill another person. In “Picture Man” by Wolfgang Hastert, the audience is able to experience a film where the cast is willing to be filmed. In the film, people really open up to tell the audience who they are, what they do, and about their culture. The setting is a place that was very old fashioned. The society there as less educated but it lives off what it can. They bring us into their culture by letting the camcorder go into their get togethers. We see them dance together, sing together, and even play with each other. In a way, I think they are like “children of God”. Despite of what they don’t have, they are very faithful to their religion and are very caring towards each other. One example is when one guy had deformed children. He treated them as if they were perfectly normal. He fed them, clothed them, and gave them freedom to do what they pleased. Even though the film showed the great parts of their society, it showed some not so great parts as well. In this society, we see how many people like to drink a lot of beer and sleep with their daughters. And because of their lack of education, they don’t know some of the things that are good and bad and so they end up with a lot of drinkers and deformed children. In the reading “The Language of Editing: giving your material form and refining its meaning” Roger Crittenden, you learn how editing can make a piece a normal work become magical. In editing film, you can make twos scenes that seem to have nothing to do with each other relate to each other. Editing can create a world for the audience in such a way that it keeps the action coming. Without the editing, film would just contain on long and boring scene. In a way, Crittenden is also implying saying that editing is like creating a final draft from a first draft. Editing solidifies the meaning the director is tiring to show the audience.

From the lecture and “Homeland Regained and Lost” by Genevieve Moreau, I realized the issue of holding a camera and shooting is not easy to solve. Often times, the problem relies on the director – or whoever is holding the camera. As from the accident in Kentucky, which Hugh O’Connor, a Canadian film-maker, was murdered by a resident he was shooting, and from the reading “Homeland Regained and Lost,” the directors/cameraman neglect or are ignorant of the cause to people that is attributed from aiming the camera. In fact, O’Connor was murdered because of the anger accumulated inside the murderer, Hobart Ison, by the mean of filming. Moreau explains that when Agee and Evans came to the city, “it was as though they were conquerors in an enemy country that was still ready to fight back” (137), showing how intense the people in the city became when just two people came in with a camera. Furthermore, he describes the camera as “an evil eye,” a weapon that causes hatred among people. During the shooting for the next documentary video project, I observed how people react to the camera when we ask for an interview. Among all the people we ask, a good half of them declined the interview. When we asked, they notice that we have a camera. Just having a glance at it, they rushed away, trying not to see the camera or not to be exposed in front of it. Although there were people who did not show any negative response toward the camera, most seemed nervous and looked awkward. It was interesting to analyze their responses, but it was certainly true that it is not easy to show the “reality.” In order to capture as “real” as possible, I feel it’s essential to eliminate the distance between the cameraman and people who are shot in the film. Shelby Lee Adams, a photographer from Kentucky, can take such true photographs of people in Kentucky because of the trust and loyalty between the people. From Professor Wolfgang Hastert’s “The Picture Man,” every resident who is interviewed say he or she lets Shelby take photographs because he or she “trusts him.” Moreover, Agee and Evans were able to shoot what they intended in the end because the distant between them and the families were minimized. Agee lived completely like how the family lived, sharing “even the lice, bedbugs, the odors of excrement and of rancid grease that impregnated everything, including the Bible that had been placed at his bedside” (140) as Moreau describes. Holding a camera and shooting people is not as easy as it seems. There are a lot to be considered and carefully operated. If one fails to do so, a film would not turn out the way one intended, or worse, another tragedy like Hugh O’Conner could happen. Thus, I feel it is important to acknowledge the power of a camera. I am truly surprised and enlightened with the importance of an editor. Before reading “The Language of Editing: Giving Your Material Form and Refining Its Meaning” by Roger Crittenden, it did not know that editor had such an important factor in putting the film together. I thought editing was decided by the director and not the editor, but now I know that it is not true. Editor has to take nine fundamental elements into consideration according to Crittenden: selection, structuring, balance and emphasis, dynamic axis, motivation, point of focus, sequencing, parallel action, and rhythm and pacing. Crittenden explains that they are merely all that need to be taken in to account. They are strategies to deal with cutting problems. Among the 10 problems and their solutions, I found the solution for problems of matching sound and picture the most interesting. Since I haven’t seen any of the films used as examples, it was hard for me to understand and really see the effects of the different techniques utilized. I wish I would have the time to watch all of them and analyze them as Crittenden says in the last sentence (94).

The article “Homeland Regained and Lost” by Genevieve Moreau, is a story about two men’s work trip in Alabama to record the life of the poor Southern farmers. The main characters are Evan, a photographer, and Agee, a photojournalist. The story is more focus on the part of Agee’s transform in mind. At first, he feels guilt and hostile from the people he is observing to. He doubts his “honest piece of work somehow will never fulfill the general’s sympathy and his own conscience. He even worries that the local farmers will react to camera as if it is “a weapon, a stealer of images and souls...and evil eye”(140). Agee worries that the imagine that his partner captures will not be 100% “honest”, because the local sharecroppers have bias toward the camera, the reporter-photographer team as they are a representatives of a society that had ignored their problem (139). The narrator says that one day Agee finds a young black couple walking along the road in the sunshine. They looked very gentle and vitalistic together. But, after the girl noticed that Agee was following them, they became very tense and nervous. I think the main question that the author has for his reader is that- can we really believe the camera and photography? How honest can a photographer really be in attempting to document the story of a subject who is a complete stranger? The second reading, “The language of Editing” by Roger Crittenden is basically an article that emphasizes the importance of editing a film. The author points out that there should be nine steps of editing an film, which are: Selection, structuring, balance and emphasis, the dynamic axis, motivation, point of focus, sequencing, parallel action, rhythm and pacing. Crittenden mentions that experiencing the actual process of editing is just like learning a new language. Through out his article, the author gives us a basic guide to the correct ways to edit film. Before editing, Crittenden says that there should be more than one camera that shoots the same action; therefore the editor would have different angles and sizes of senses for further level of selection and editing. Then he says, “to be able to structure a scene effectively you must understand its function” (145). Crittenden says that to understand the language of editing needs a lot of handwork and preparation. To make a well-cut film, it takes more than just putting the piece in to the correct order, according to Crittenden’s quoted from Brownlow that “Editing is directing the film for the second time” (145). If we can understand the language of editing, then we will unearth the hidden power of the editor (145). ---Jennifer Ma

The editing process is essential to all filmmakers. Not only does editing polish a film but it also translates what was shot into a better form to communicate its narrative. In a selection from “The Language of Editing,” by Roger Crittenden, the author points out the many aspects of editing and how to understand its hidden power. The first element of editing is the selection process. Directors plan out scenes by knowing what to shoot, where to shoot it, and how each scene is shot. Often a director attempts to shoot the same scene several times at different angles and space, allowing editors to have the most effective version of the scene. Another element is structuring. The director must know when to use the scene and understand how it functions in the overall film, such as the purpose of drama or humor. Next is balance and emphasis. For every scene there is a certain balance, and if emphasis is used correctly, the balance is maintained throughout the film. The dynamic axis is how the director searches for a way to use physical space and the setting to convey the emotional content of the scene. The point of focus is probably one of the most important aspects of editing. The director must be aware beforehand where to put the audience’s attention. He may distort a frame within a scene or blur out the background setting, allowing the audience to see only the characters and their actions. Sequencing controls the pace and rhythm of a movie. For example, action movies are often fast-paced with lots of cuts and transitions while dramas sustain a slow steady pace with very little transitions in scenes. Speaking of rhythm and pacing, the two mutual elements make it possible for directors to play with time. Crittenden next explains the reasons for cutting. The main reason for cutting is the preservation of balance and emphasis. Because of this, editors often make a series of decisions for every cut they make. In the last few pages of his article, Crittenden gives some examples of directors and their distinctions of editing. I was most interested with the first director, Akira Kurosawa, who is best known for his masterpiece, Seven Samurai. Crittenden talks about the woodman’s introduction in the film, Rashomon, and how Kurosawa uses the tracking method to capture woodman’s sprint. Not only does this shot show the audience the main character of the film, but also his wild habitat. Later in the movie, Kurosawa intercuts many times to increase the tension between the bandit and a nearby woman. He constantly changes the point of the view and plays with time to create this effect. After reading this article, my prior assumption of editing as a simple cut-and-paste process is rather questionable. Now that I know that editing can be quite complex, I’ll keep that in into consideration when I edit my documentary. ----- Khanh Luc

Homeland Regained and Lost and The Language of Editing Homeland Regained and Lost The exploitation of child labour between 1780 and 1840 by the agricultural and industrial economy was commonplace; and though, some historians disagree, this kind of abuse during 1780-1840 was not much different than the one carried out during the Industrial Revolution. However, by 1904 The National Child Labor Committee (NCLC) was founded; with its main purpose to promoting the rights and awareness of children. Thanks to this support, not only children and families were aware that they had rights, but also that this “commonplace” of abuses were unfair. As a consequence, boycotts started to arise, and the public was conscious about the injustices. One wonders, had NCLC had not the commitment to show these abuses and injustices perpetrated to children, how the history would had changed. Somehow, I relate this exploitation to children with the one over the poor not only in US, but also in many other countries. The wealth conveniently blinded to the needs of others and conveniently taking advantage of those in disgrace. Thus, I think that the National Film Board of Canada director Hugh O’Connor, wanted to show to the world, in 1968, the urgency of awareness of the condition of poorness and unbalanced of wealth occurring in Kentucky, in US; one of the richest countries in the world. Almost as a chain of events, the topic of our reading came to me, Homeland Regained and Lost; Evans and Agee in 1936 were aware, as O’Connor in 1968, of the poorness in US, and the sharecroppers’ problems. At the beginning of the chapter, in one of the paragraphs, the author emphasizes in Agee’s concern about the reaction from the farmers to Evans’ camera. His concern, and further words “a weapon, a stealer of images and souls…an evil eye,” to me, it suggests that to capture other’s lives was as dangerous as it was in 1968 in Kentucky; although for different reasons. In Evans and Agee’s journey, people were had recent memories of the many events that had happened to them such as the mistreatment and neglect. Instead, to me, the cause of O’Connors assassination by far had a completely different motive. My feelings, after reading the chapter, is that Evans and Agee were very fortunate for meeting this goodwill people, though some of them were skeptical, they achieved an excellent research and gathered plenty of information to make their article factual. However, I felt in some way betrayed; I was fascinated with the many meticulous tactics Agee utilized to know really in dept this people. In order to collect as much information as possible for his article, Agee, absolutely passionate with his project, slept only some hours, and almost jeopardized the confidence that the people has on him. Nevertheless, after such an unbreakable work, the rejection from Fortune was strong enough to bring him to his regular work and personal affairs. The Language of Editing The language of Editing is an excellent resource that depicts editing as its author Roger Crittenden states “directing the film for the second time.” Editing has to have a reason and a sequence; such as: selection of the shot; structuring a scene effectively by understanding its function; dynamic of axis, or as I decided to call it, the fight of two ends in none of them; motivation, sequencing, parallel action, and among many other good suggestions, the 15 reasons for cutting. In the last paragraph I found a very important author’s statement “Never make a cut that calls attention to its own cleverness…” Also, he added, “never divorce form from content.” My conclusion is, that editing does not have to correct filming errors; thus, some times is better to leave the sequence of the scene as it is, instead of cutting in such a manner that is going to be too obvious and perhaps destroys the content of the shot.

As has been discussed in class, there are two main elements of creating film: that which is actually captured on film, that which occurs in front of the camera; and the way in which the film is assembled. (The difference between montage and mis-en-scene, essentially.) In a well-made film, everything the audience is exposed to will be part of the mis-en-scene, and the editing will occur invisibly, directing the viewer's focus without their knowledge, clarifying, and elaborating without detection. Editing is an invisible element of film, if done properly, and as such is underappreciated for the most part. This is a dangerous trend, as the more that filming becomes glorified and editing misrepresented, the more that film production will focus on actual production and shun the editing process. Already, films are becoming abusive of popular editing techniques (the so-called "bullet time" effect from The Matrix, for example), are edited poorly, leading to confusion in the understanding of the audience (such as the supposed "ending" in the Lord of the Rings), or are generally over reliant on established editing techniques to a point where each shot can be predictably anticipated, and all excitement must be drawn from action on-screen. Few filmmakers today seem to observe Crittenden's advice in the power of editing, which is tragic, as it truly means a misappropriation of nearly half of all filmmaking ability. Editing is a powerful tool which can solve problems that are naturally inherent in the medium, such as broadening the depth of action, clarifying confusing scenes, adding drama or emphasis to important elements which may not be immediately recognized as such, and keeping personalities distinct, as well as any number of visual effects or so-called “camera tricks.” The neglect can be easily remedied however, through the continued efforts of people like Crittenden, who re-emphasize to our ignorant audiences the importance of editing in media. As more people become aware of the importance of editing in film and video, the appreciation for the art will naturally become more progressed.

Based on the title, “The Language of Editing: giving your material form and refining its meaning” by Roger Crittenden, one has an idea about what the article is going to be about, in this case editing. Having no experience in editing, I know that this article will help me have a better understanding about editing and the techniques used in editing films. In the very beginning of the article Crittenden refers to editing as “directing the film for the second time”, which makes sense because in a way the editor is directing how the film will turn out by placing scenes where they belong and cutting scenes to help improve the flow of the film. In the article, Crittenden introduces the elements of editing, some being the selection of shots, structuring of a scene/film, the placement of a scene, balance and emphasis, the point of focus, and rhythm and pacing. The rhythm and pacing of a film is an important aspect of editing because not only can one control it, but one can also lose control of it. Next Crittenden explains in depth the reasons for cutting which is to have balance and give emphasis in a film. He also explains that while cutting one should take into consideration questions that will help them figure out what to cut and when. For instance, “Does a particular character dominate; does that dominance shift during the scene?” Questions like that and the other fourteen mentioned should be asked when cutting and cutting not only helps the balance and emphasis of a film but it also helps overcome problems that occur within every shot. When there is a problem with a shot or sequence it can be fixed by cutting. In addition, cutting will help capture the reaction in every shot, but using the camera to capture the reaction is another effective way. There are many camera techniques to capture the reaction, some being pan to the reaction, zooming in and out to the reaction, the protagonist or the person reacting can move into the reaction, and the focus of the camera can change to show the reaction. According to Crittenden, it is important for an editor to understand that cutting is not the only way to shift to a reaction. Crittenden provides the reader with some examples of directors and their editing techniques. For instance, in Persona by Bergman, he uses the camera by filming close-ups, but when the close-ups doesn’t work out or Bergman is not satisfied, he is constantly intercutting the sequences. All of the other directors mentioned had their own techniques in editing and some may be similar, but each director had their own unique techniques in editing. This article would be a good reference when one is in the process of editing. With practice and experience, one becomes better at editing and it is a skill learned through practicing and practicing; it is like learning a new language.

Editing is a language that combines images, sounds and words to portray meaning and promote understanding. It is not very often that the original recorded material is presented to an audience without some kind of tweaking. If shooting film is like conception then editing in 9 months in the womb. When the film is allowed to grow and take shape. Structuring is very important in the editing process, “To be able to structure a scene effectively you must understand its function.” Like buildings, films must also have a strong foundation and good structure, if something were out of place or done wrong, then the building would collapse. If a scene in a film does not fit, it ruins the effect and derails the meaning. The way that a film looks is far estranged from how life looks. We don’t zoom in and zoom out or pan to place emphasis and capture balance. That is why editing allows us to see the world in this fascinating way. But it is very important that editing a film does not cause it to become a jumbled mess, and instead lets it flow in a way that we can understand.

This week’s readings seemed to not be related at all. The first reading, “Homeland Regained and Lost” by Genevieve Moreau, was an interesting piece relaying the events that ensued when Agee and Evans went to Alabama to get a report about the tenant farmers there. The second reading, “The Language of Editing” by Roger Crittenden, was a lengthy piece discussing the techniques involved in the editing of a film and gave an excessive number of examples of directors and how they edited their films. Although a good article overall, “Homeland Regained and Lost” left me confused. While reading it I thought that Agee was a news reporter with a video camera, while his partner Evans was a photographer. Upon discussing it with a classmate, I re-read some parts to discover that in actuality Agee was a journalist “recording” on paper rather than on film what he saw in Alabama. Aside from the confusion, I actually liked this reading. I thought Moreau did an excellent job describing the proceedings of Agee and Evans. It was as though I was “reading” a movie. I saw the events unfolding as a film in my head. It was almost as thought as I was able to see Agee’s character development through the reading: the uneasiness, the guilt, the uncertainty, the shame, the nervousness. I saw it all. The reading was like a mini documentary about Agee, where the events of his life were clear and concise, showing the major obstacles of a time period and how he overcame them. It was nice watching them played out. The other article, “The Language of Editing” by Crittenden, was quite boring. It was as if I was reading a lecture about the dos and don’ts of editing followed by way too many examples discussing the different techniques used by different film-makers. I’m sure it would be a very good piece had it been more concise and less like a lecture, but I found myself not paying much attention while reading and having to re-read a lot of it. I also did not find it as a helpful piece. I think Crittenden tried too hard to facilitate editing, but ended up falling very short of the bar he was trying to reach. The beginning of the article, I have to admit, was not as bad as the rest. I thought it was interesting when Crittenden made the distinction between assembling a jigsaw puzzle and editing a movie saying that, “The difference between editing a film and assembling a jigsaw is that with a film nothing is completely predetermined” (p 145). He discussed how although the film-maker has a perfect idea of what he or she wants his or her film to be, and may have a script for it, it never turns out the way he or she had imagined saying, “… but the film that emerges from the cutting room has never existed before, neither in someone’s head nor on paper” (p 145).

The article written by Genevieve Moreau, entitled “Homeland Regained and Lost,” deals with the paradoxical nature of “honest journalism” in this piece about two men (a reporter and a photographer) who travel to Alabama and observe and write about the life of a southern family. This reading was interesting in the sense that it was written with a very story-like narrative. It was more like a story about a man (Agee) becoming deeply connected with his journalism assignment than a biographical essay about him, which made it a lot easier for me to pay attention to the content of the article. Throughout reading it, I came to the conclusion that Evans, Agee’s partner in the assignment, was evidently a still-picture photographer. However after discussing with one of my friends, who also read the article, I became confused about whether Evans actually was a picture photographer or a video photographer. (She thought he was videoing everything.) Nevertheless, it was a touching article. I liked how Moreau talked about the impact Agee’s experiences had on him, and how he became so moved by his experience that he wanted to make known the poor conditions the sharecroppers lived in. Agee also seemed to relate well with the people he hardly knew—“the lives he had been coincidentally assigned to observe and to share could have been his own.” Moreau writes about how the reflections inspired by his stay went far beyond the scope of an article. I found Agee’s thorough documentation, which included investigation, research, and his recording of little facts (where no detail was unworthy of being recorded), admirable because of the fact that he was writing what was very real to him/them at the time without choosing to leave anything particular out. The second reading for the week, Roger Crittenden’s article “The language of editing: giving your material form and refining its meaning,” was very different from the first. This article was more of an informative article about the technical aspects of film rather than being a narrative piece. Crittenden’s article outlined how editing requires great skill, motivation, and attention: it is not just something to be mechanically done, but carefully constructed. From the beginning, two quotes particularly stuck out to me while I read the article: “…no editor believes that his task is simply to find the one perfect conjunction that is just waiting to be discovered,” and “the difference between editing a film and assembling a jigsaw is that with a film nothing is completely predetermined.” It was pretty interesting to read how much attention goes into the editing process of films and movies, and how many elements editors must take into account while they are working on the film (selection, structuring, balance, emphasis, dynamic axis, motivation, point of focus, sequencing, parallel action, rhythm and pacing, etc). I also thought the quote “a cut is never right or wrong in an absolute sense” was interesting. The article explains how different filmmakers went about different ways of editing their films to best make them flow. Crittenden talks about the how the different reasons for cutting shows how essential editing is to the overall story of the film, despite how much the director thinks they know about their film. In essence, editing has an integral role in the development of the story. This being said, I’m glad our second assignment allows us to edit our films, since the first assignment was so limited. Now that this article informs us about some of the key elements of editing, hopefully it will come in use somewhere down the road next week when we get to experiment with iMovie. After reading these past four weeks’ readings, I have found that I favor reading these types of informative articles that deal a lot with the different processes being carried out during the creation/production of a film. Despite the fact that they are usually extensive and sometimes seem too long, they are usually very insightful and interesting reads.

The one reading that stood out for me this week was Genevieve Moreau’s “Homeland Regained and Lost” from The Restless Journey of James Agee. Thinking back on both films about documenting the rural people of backwoods Kentucky, I felt this piece conveyed many of the frustrations and complexities that documentary filmmaking can include. The invasive nature of a stranger coming into a complete strangers life – exposing all of the good, bad and grays of a culture or everyday way of life can be quite intimidating for a filmmaker as well as their subjects. I enjoyed reading the frustrations Agee - a photojournalist not associated with film - had about being sent off on assignment from New York, to make an “honest piece of work” in observing a family for several weeks and then writing a story. Pertaining to film, how honest can a filmmaker really be in attempting to document the story of a subject who is a complete stranger? The camera is an impartial observer who does not discriminate or obscure what it is capturing – in this sense; the camera does indeed capture “honest film” because it can relay back exactly what it captures. However, a filmmaker is not a camera and does contain bias and socially constructed views of reality. The filmmaker as an observer can and does relay bias whenever he or she steps behind a camera and points it into the world around them. So, this got me to thinking: is there any way that a filmmaker can make a truly observational film of the world around them? Steering clear of biases or belief systems that would in some way, distort the “reality” of the alien culture that filmmaker was attempting to document? I could see that Agee felt apprehensive upon trying to make contact with those Southern sharecroppers. Even though Agee was reporting a written assignment, his immersion into the sharecropping experience would have to be disseminated and reconstituted in order to be presented in a media form that could be widely distributed to the general public. A filmmaker grapples with this same ordeal as well. In documenting the world around them, they must first in their mind have a story that they wish to convey to the world. It is the image and sound that is compiled and disseminated to create this narrative, which is then distributed. The apprehension of the farmers to an outsider wanting in I felt, was totally justifiable. You don’t know this person, you don’t know how they were raised – how they were brought up or what their story was. The only information they might have known was that he was some “New Yorker” coming down from the big city into an environment he knew nothing of. It is these biases - in the case of the Kentucky townsfolk we saw in the two documentary films in class that can shape the attitude of both the subjects and the filmmaker. Just as the filmmaker needs to gain the trust of their subjects, the subjects need to gain the trust of a filmmaker who won’t falsely portray their lives and experiences. The paragraph describing Agee following a young black couple down the street reminded me of a situation when I was filming for our class documentary project. Several students did not know that we were actively filming them – we were observing their everyday behavior free from the influence of knowing that there was video camera pointed at them. Immediately when they discovered that they potentially just might have been caught being filmed, their whole demeanor and attitude changed. Several completely turned around and tried to escape the lenses while others changed their behavior – presenting a front for the camera that was totally different from their actions just moments before. The black couple, just like the students I had taped, were disturbed and apprehensive upon finding out that someone was monitoring and recording accounts of their everyday existence. I find this as one of the hardest hurdles to jump because a documentary film attempts to document a life as it is without the presence of film or video equipment. We see that when the camera rolls, people change. I have found this out through trying to capture strangers on film. I enjoyed reading about the frustrations and complications of someone outside of the film or video industry grappling with the same problems through a different medium. It shows that these anxieties aren’t just associated with visual media, but with all other forms of media that portray society and represent the narratives of individuals or places whose stories might never have been told to wider audiences. -David Castaneda

In Homeland Regained and Lost, I thought it was interesting how much research is required for creating informative pieces, and how hard to get the research started and to make progress is. To go out and try to get information out of locals who do not want you there seemed to be very tricky. The idea of the camera being intimidating also struck me as very true. I think that for many people, especially more reserved people, the presence of a camera can make us shy away from it. There is something about the camera which gives the impression that it is going to expose our souls to the critical eyes of the world. So, when Agee finally finds the sharecrop family that is willing to take him in and let him view their world, it shows how much trust they have in him. And I thought it was interesting how he is affected by the family, and their state of poverty. It is unfortunate when his articles are kept out of the paper. I think that tends to be a side affect of mass culture, where we are supposed to be able to print and say whatever we want, thanks to the first amendment, but in reality certain things that become unprofitable are censored by those publishing the magazines or newspapers. In “The language of editing: giving your material form and refining its meaning,” I thought it was interesting how the article went through so many movies as examples to show how early film makers made use of editing to add meaning to their films. I was amused by the article calling many of the movies “recent.” I suppose for when it was written, it was recent, but no many of the movies are over fifty years old. (Though, I am sure that many of the techniques are still used today.) All the thought that goes into the editing process must be immense, and a good editing job must be worth as much as a good directing job. If the scenes are thrown haphazardly together, who knows what sloppy mess of a film one would end up with. I liked how the article did talk about the way that you can create a meaningful film even without too much editing, and instead just using continuous filming. I thought that the various different ways to derive meaning from a scene are complex, and often it really all depends on what the director is trying to accomplish with their film. It was interesting that the article focused mainly on films such as detective films. I feel that it seemed slightly lacking because of that. Perhaps, that was a consequence of the fact that the article is rather dated by now. If it had been written more recently, I think it would have been good for it to have discussed many more genres. Though, on the other hand, now so much editing is computer done, and so many scenes are aided by computer generation, that maybe the article would have taken on a completely different slant.

“The language of editing: giving your material form and refining its meaning” by Roger Crittenden emphasizes the importance of editing a film. Through nine points: selection, structuring, balance and emphasis, the dynamic axis, motivation, point of focus, sequencing, parallel action, and rhythm and pacing; Crittenden explains the reasons behind cutting film, using close shots, and how to edit a film. He uses a quote by Brownlow, “Editing is directing the film for the second time.” The first time around, when the footage is initially caught on film, the director’s job is to capture the required actions, angles, close-ups and shots. However, in the editing room, the director must know where to end a scene and how to structure a scene correctly so it captures the audience’s attention and emotions at a subconscious level. Just like the music to a film is equal to the caption at the bottom of a newspaper photograph, the cutting in a film is an essential part. Incorrectly editing a film and selecting the wrong shots in the wrong order, is as confusing to the audience and uncomfortable as putting a sports caption on the bottom of a war photograph. Crittenden also writes about structure and the importance of function when editing. Without knowing the function of a scene (i.e. to show characters falling in love, establishing a character), you can go nowhere editing. For example, in a shot where you are establishing the character’s background, showing a few key examples of the character’s history is enough to show the audience everything they need to know without any dialogue. To show a couple is a typical, married couple, simple showing a wedding photo in a silver frame with both people smiling will suffice. The difference between shooting film and capturing real life is that in film, you are narrowing everything down to the cream of the conversation. When shooting a documentary this is most important because the audience will be bored if it is a person talking as he or she normally does. By cutting the film to a point of focus, or emphasis, you can narrow down the conversation considerably and only hit the key points that are necessary to prove the character’s point. In order to provide balance in the conversation, the editor must employ various types of shots: close-up, wide-range, or to the side, for example. By showing different angles to the viewer, you are showing the depth of the scene, the setting. However, at the same time, if the editor has the wrong motivation for the scene, a “cut to a close-up may provide emphasis on the insignificant.” Because knowing exactly where to cut, “requires the same intuitive skill as that needed by a director,” it is imperative that the editor of a film is in touch with the motivation, balance, and emphasis of a film in order to select those shots that create the perfect film.

In the article “Homeland Regained and Lost”, the reader gets an insight into the techniques that make the interviewee comfortable with an outsider’s probe into his or her life. The article details the story of two men whose jobs it is to study the habits and lifestyles of “poor Southern farmers” (139). Since they are two men from New York, they have trouble gaining the trust of the farmers at first. But in the end it is Agee who wins their trust through his “ingrained courtesy” (141). He is able to move in with a family who accepts him without any hint of disturbance, and thus he is able to study them in their natural state. In the end he forgets his original intentions and instead, intends to “helps the [farmers] survive the hostile world” (143). I think that this article ties in well with the documentaries shown in this week’s lecture. In the film, The Picture Man, the photographer Shelby Lee Adams has to first befriend the Appalachians before he is able to take their photographs. And when Wolfgang Hastert comes to film Adams, they already trust him more because Adams had already gained their trust. In doing a documentary, I think it’s important to have trust between those being interviewed and those filming because there is a certain amount of personal information being expressed. Also, for the safety of both parties a certain amount of trust is necessary, as can be seen in the film, Stranger with a Camera, by Elizabeth Barris. This film shows the incidents leading up to the death of Hugh O’Conner, who is killed while taking photographs of the native residents in the Appalachians. The article “The Language of Editing: Giving Your Material Form and Refining its Meaning”, demonstrates the true reasons for editing. It explains that editing is not merely about deleting unwanted scenes, or cutting between two individuals in conversation, but rather it is used to provide an underlying rhythm to the piece. It also explains that rather than relying on editing to create “dramatic emphasis” (174), the director can use “staging [to] incorporate reaction” (174). One of the most interesting ways that the article demonstrated the technique of not relying on the use of editing was a scene from the film Une Femme Douce by Brenson. Instead of cutting from scene to scene, he instead uses the camera to follow one object to another, thus moving the camera into different scenes without using excessive cuts. The article also shows the difference between editing in “conventional movies” (151) versus other types of films. In conventional movies, editing it a “conscious device”, whereas other films rely on the subtle effects of cutting, by not using editing as a crutch by which to relay the drama to the viewer. From the use of mise-en-scene, the viewer can see that “the cut is not the only punctuating device”. I found this to be true when I attempted to make my own version of a mise-en-scene. This type of film made me focus much more on the imagery and atmosphere as opposed to the techniques of editing. Instead of attempting to amass lots of footage, which I would later ‘fix’ through the editing process, I focused much more on the imagery and atmosphere, making sure the scene was exactly how I wanted it to be the first time around. In reading the articles that relate to the films viewed in lecture class, I am beginning to understand the emphasis on rhythm, and the other subtle techniques used to create film as an art piece.

One of the main themes in A Dialect Approach to Film Form is that art is always conflict. I tend to agree with this argument on the grounds that the reflection of people is conflict. Art created by people for people. People have inner mechanics that conflict each other. This gets reflected in the art people create as people try to understand themselves more. Even art about other beings' conflict can be related by the viewer to his/her own conflicts giving meaning to the viewer. I think this is what Einstein means in "It's art's task to manifest the contradictions of Being." Man's conflict with his nature (to be sinful) and rational (as in industry) is how I interpret "At the intersection of Nature and Industry stands Art." Because man strives to be rational he appreciates the reflective ability of Art. Einstein often refers to rhythm as part of every art-form in a pattern of organic, not metric, value. He argues that this “rhythm” is created by tension. He also argues that there is a physiological rhythm determined by the vibrations of color. The other element in all art is expression. He argues very eloquently that expression is “the conflict between conditioned and unconditioned reflexes.” He continues later arguing that it is created by the spatial disproportion of the parts in comparison, or “temporal disproportion.” I interpret this as expression is transmitted through comparison of different objects. Everything’s value is determined by its’ value in relation to something else. Therefore the way you position things, for example in front of a camera expresses an attribute of the parts. Roger Crittenden in “The Language of Editing” agrees with Einstein’s montage and mise-en-shot principals. Crittenden reiterates that an editor must do more than just learn to cut. Crittenden breaks down all of the techniques involved in editing. For some techniques he uses a number of examples. For example, he uses Eric Rohmer’s “Love in the Afternoon,” to show that cutting can be used as important punctuation instead of just being a simple mechanical device. Crittenden begins by breaking down editing in the following topics: selection, structuring, balance and emphasis, the dynamic axis, motivation, point of focus, sequencing, parallel action, and rhythm and pacing. Selection suggests that one should take many shots of the same thing so that the editor can have a better choice in deciding when to cut and what to cut to. To understand structuring (pertaining to scenes) it is crucial to understand the scenes function. I interpret Crittenden’s balance in the film as not bringing unintentional emphasis to the film. Editing’s real contribution is in this area. The dynamic axis also has to deal with balance in editing and is crucial to giving the editor what to cut to. Motivation has to deal with bringing emphasis to the cut itself. The cut should bring emphasis to what is being filmed instead of being simply mechanical. The editor must be aware of the point of focus in each shot to make sure he doesn’t cut at a point where it would disrupt the flow of the film to the eye. Rhythm and pacing is an innate talent of the editor. Crittenden continues on this toward the end of his piece explaining that one needs to learn editing through experience and actual process. Crittenden also goes into “Reasons for Cutting” where he mentions how cutting always depends on its relation to the sequence of the film, again referring to rhythm, balance, and emphasis.

As Roger Crittenden mentions in the Thames and Hudson Manual of Film Editing, the primary concerns in the making of a documentary include “the filmmaker’s attitude to his subjects or the people portrayed in his film, the ways in which the form can acknowledge the way the material has been obtained and, especially, how editing has manipulated that material (92).” Crittenden also states, “observational documentary attempts to respect ‘reality’ by a rigorous application of straightforward representation (93).” The importance of this concept becomes particularly clear if we consider the tragedy of the Canadian filmmaker Hugh O’Connor, who was shot and killed in 1967 while documenting conditions of poverty in eastern Kentucky. While O’Connor’s intentions might have been to direct national awareness to poverty in Appalachia by depicting its inhabitants’ social and economic situation, many Appalachians distrusted the filmmaker and his crew. Many of these inhabitants might have felt embarrassed or were dissatisfied with how their situation had been portrayed in earlier documentaries about poverty in eastern Kentucky. Stranger with a Camera by Elizabeth Barret explores the complex relationship between filmmakers and the communities they portray. In this documentary, Barret, who grew up in eastern Kentucky, retells O’Connor’s story and searches for reasons that led to his murder. Even though Stranger with a Camera draws importance to the principles of observational documentary mentioned by Crittenden, it also emits a sense of judgment by the filmmaker. It almost seems as if Barret is trying to justify the anger of her hometown’s inhabitants and especially the cruel actions of Hobart Ison, O’Connor’s murderer. While Barret ‘gets away’ with emitting her own emotions about the murder of Hugh O’Connor, one gets the impression that Stranger with a Camera neglects the principles of observational documentary. In The Restless Journey of James Agee, Genevieve Moreau describes yet another aspect of observational documentary. Moreau writes about a writer and photographer’s journey trough Alabama in order to document the lives of southern farmers for Fortune magazine. As Moreau mentions, the writer James Agee suffered “pangs of conscience and felt both hostile to the men who had sent him and traitorous to the people he had come to observe (135).” But, even though Agee and the photographer Walker Evans had difficulty to connect with the Alabama residents, they did not reject the principles of observatory documentary. On the contrary, for a period of several weeks Agee left behind his own life and slipped into the life of the southern farmer. By living with a local family, he experienced poverty, repression, as well as hardship. He recorded every detail of what he experienced. Evans on the other hand documented with his camera everything he saw. The work of Agee and Evans goes above observational documentary since they did not only observe their subject but also adjusted to it. However, even though one would assume that the magazine’s producers appreciated such a strategy, Agee and Evans’ story proves the opposite. As mentioned by Moreau, “Agee wrote three articles in which he expressed many of the things he felt needed to be said immediately;“ but, his “three pieces were promptly rejected (142).” Unfortunately, the latter is a phenomenon often observed in television. Editing in television serves as a tool to manipulate truth and to create what the producer wants to be seen. Since it is extremely easy to fail to recognize manipulations in television, we should be aware of them and critically evaluate what we see.

Although Moreau’s article has little to do with film and production, photo journalism’s connection with documentary is understandable. As an ultimate form of journalism, film documentary takes the audience beyond words, into the meat of the matter – when done properly – enveloping the ‘reader’ in a world other than his or her own. Considering film documentary as the ultimate form of journalism, the crew – or much rather the director and the researchers themselves – are better described using the title: journalist. In Barret’s documentary regarding Hugh O’Connor’s journey to Appalachian Kentucky, Barret takes her position as a film journalist native to the region. Giving her stance on the historical event that occurred in her youth, Barret describes to the audience her journey as she researches and comes to terms with the murder of Hugh O’Connor. As I watched this film, I wondered to myself whether or not I agreed with the actions of that day. Though my initial response at hearing of this occurrence would have been to judge Ison with cold indifference, Barret’s film opened my eyes to the culture of the people there, and the pain through with they suffered both emotionally and economically. Though it is never right to kill a man, an entire foreign culture existed with which I am not well acquainted. It is impossible to judge such an incident with the limited knowledge that I hold. Through this process however, I can see how this assignment has affected Barret herself – finding the connection between her own life and the two worlds that clashed that fateful day. Watching these documentaries and reading of these experiences within the realm of journalism, it seems as though such projects work as a larger experience for those who work to create it than for those who might watch or merely participate in its production. Such an example can be seen in Moreau’s article regarding Agee’s experience in documenting Alabama, as well as in Barret’s “Stranger with a Camera.” It’s obvious that through his experience in Alabama, Agee had learned a lot about himself through the research that he did on this almost-home. Broken and molded in producing his article, Agee’s perspective on the matter at hand and the people with whom he interacted changed through this experience, creating a personal connection to his subject. As Moreau stated, “[Agee’s] observations did not permit him to remain for very long in the coldly objective climate essential to ‘honest journalism.’” Though most documentaries seem to set out on a quest to create some sort of particular response from its audience – positive feedback being among one of their highest priorities – what I’ve observed thus so far is its larger affect on the creators. Personally, I find that is a shame that the true voice of the journalist is muted by what is considered right for the time or appropriate for whatever circumstance. To a certain extent, such censorship can be vital to remaining within the boundaries of what is politically correct, however, in the case of Agee and his journey through Alabama, this is not the case.

For me, Genevieve Moreau’s article, “Homeland Regained and Lost” was more about presenting James Agee and his work, rather than trying to reach any kind of critical conclusion about what his work signified. Agee’s trip to Alabama was intended to be a straight-forward, simple assignment in which he would observe the lives of a family of tenant farmers. However, Agee incessantly struggled between feeling hostile towards the men who had given him the task and feeling traitorous to the people he had come to observe. It was a fine line that resulted in a guilty conscience for Agee. What I found particularly interesting was the way Agee imagined how the farmers would react to the camera, worrying that it would be seen as “a weapon, a stealer of images and souls…and evil eye” (136). The camera, a familiar piece of the commercial life Agee was used to, was suddenly seen as a weapon of destruction. I was also drawn to Agee’s sensitivity; he would avoid asking questions as it made him unhappy to see a man’s face show mistrust or embarrassment of his poverty. For instance, Agee dreaded Sundays because “their visits that day took on a more official character; conversations became awkward and left them with the impression of being intruders who interrupted family gatherings and forced people to expose themselves” (137). I would expect a journalist to be quite callous in one’ research as one is merely on location to gather material in order to write an intended article. On the other hand, Agee wanted to blend in with his surroundings and simply observe. He didn’t want forced exposure; he wanted a natural revelation and knew in time, it would come with familiarity. I sympathized with Agee’s remorse: “[He] felt guilty that he had gotten [a family’s] hopes up for help he could not give them” and [harped] on his guilt and embarrassment and the hostility he met with” (139). He continuously took the feelings of the farmers in consideration and wanted to not only study them, but befriend them. Although one could sympathize with the farmers as their lives were being scrutinized, I could see how Agee would feel tormented, struggling to convince them of the genuineness of his character and his objectives. Additionally, Moreau described his obsession with collecting data and observations, and this can be explained by the fact that Agee was reminded of his childhood and memories of visits to his grandparents in the back country. I pictured him as a greatly talented young man who could not find himself, and becoming mired in the New York commercial swamp, he sought to extricate himself through his work. Moreau also depicts his vivacity and intellect in the article, mentioning that “it was not only Agee’s thoughts that captured his listeners’ attention, but the language through which he explored first one idea, then another […] When he became involved in a subject Agee would speak almost inexhaustibly, late into the night” (143). Agee struck me as a man who too often lost himself in his work, enthusiastically searching for answers but never being able to find them. Ultimately, Moreau’s article is an observation of Agee’s intriguing character, not a critique of his work.

Even though many consider editing a minimal part of the filming process, editing plays an important role, if not in essential for the survival of the film itself. The language of Editing written by Roger Crittenden, describes how the editor in a way has to become another director too or in many ways work closely with the director to achieve. By personal experience I learned that editing is a process which involves thought and care and close working with the director or the person who acquire the images. The editor should be aware of what the director wants to show and what images are essential to get across his message. In addition, as Crittenden describes in his article, editing is a special procedure that requires patience. Moreover, in order to edit one must be aware of the time limit and many other factors such as how long each clip will be, and what clip helps get the message across. Another factor an editor should be great aware of is the sounds and music being edited. For example in many cases editors and directors rely purely on sounds and music in order to get their message across. If done correctly the editor can create the perfect mood and set forth some feelings on the viewer. On the other hand, if the editing is done poorly one can expect lost of interest from the viewer and in many cases confusion. Including that every scene has to be carefully planned so that when editing, it doesn’t affect or distort what the message was trying to communicate. In addition, Tuesday’s lecture emphasized that editing plays a prominent role in a film. For example the film “Something Minnesota” used several cuts within scenes to demonstrate the several characters involved and their separate stories. As a matter of fact, the way the film was edited contributed to the variety and the essence of the film. In other words, the viewer could understand the characters and their differences. Another film that demonstrated the power of editing in essence was “Stranger with a Camera” by Elizabeth Barret. Even though the main plot of the story narrated a social struggle between two worlds, one isolated from the rest and in poverty the other one intruding, the film’s editing contributed to help get the message come across. While it seems editing played a small role in this documentary, quiet on the contrary the little editing done on this documentary establishes and guides the viewer through the film with little or no confusion. In other words, the editing done, made the documentary very straight forward. Moreover the readings just emphasized what I already knew, that editing is just as important as capturing the images. If done well the editing can make the film a wonderful piece of art, but if done poorly the film can end up in ruin no matter what the subject was about. Finally, even though one can actually make a film without editing, it would be advisable to edit in order to demonstrate and show all the aspects of the film. – Diego Ley