Would you like to inspect the original subtitles? These are the user uploaded subtitles that are being translated:
1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:11,400
Take a look at this scene...
2
00:00:27,020 --> 00:00:35,180
( Oh my... )
3
00:00:35,180 --> 00:00:42,410
( Oh my... god! ) Notice anything? If you did, good for you.
4
00:00:42,410 --> 00:00:49,160
You have a very keen eye. I cut that
5
00:00:49,160 --> 00:00:51,440
scene and I probably watched it more
6
00:00:51,440 --> 00:00:53,930
than a hundred times, often sitting with
7
00:00:53,930 --> 00:00:55,820
the director together, and I never
8
00:00:55,820 --> 00:00:58,270
noticed the mistake.
9
00:00:59,210 --> 00:01:06,380
And then one day, I happened to stop
10
00:01:06,380 --> 00:01:12,710
right at this frame and it hit me.
11
00:01:12,710 --> 00:01:14,960
I asked mark: Did you notice anything? But
12
00:01:14,960 --> 00:01:19,759
he didn't. Mark is wearing no jacket and
13
00:01:19,759 --> 00:01:21,500
now he's wearing a jacket.
14
00:01:21,500 --> 00:01:23,869
This is a failure of continuity editing.
15
00:01:23,869 --> 00:01:27,050
( Thank you. )
16
00:01:27,050 --> 00:01:30,259
Continuity editing is the process of
17
00:01:30,259 --> 00:01:32,840
combining more or less related shots so
18
00:01:32,840 --> 00:01:34,910
as to direct the viewers attention to a
19
00:01:34,910 --> 00:01:37,820
pre-existing consistency of story across
20
00:01:37,820 --> 00:01:41,178
both time and physical location. And here,
21
00:01:41,179 --> 00:01:43,880
we're breaking that rule. Clearly when
22
00:01:43,880 --> 00:01:46,220
you make a mistake like this it can
23
00:01:46,220 --> 00:01:49,070
really hurt the success of a film.
24
00:01:49,070 --> 00:01:52,220
Did you see it? How about this one?
25
00:01:52,220 --> 00:01:55,670
It seems that continuity gaffes are rampant
26
00:01:55,670 --> 00:01:57,950
in film. ( If you watch closely during the
27
00:01:57,950 --> 00:01:59,420
scene with the Velociraptor you may
28
00:01:59,420 --> 00:02:01,970
notice an out-of-place hand. ) ( In the first
29
00:02:01,970 --> 00:02:03,439
Pirates of the Caribbean you can
30
00:02:03,439 --> 00:02:05,059
clearly see a crewmember over jack
31
00:02:05,060 --> 00:02:07,310
sparrow's shoulder. ) ( Predictable damage ensues.
32
00:02:07,310 --> 00:02:09,709
But seconds later that same
33
00:02:09,709 --> 00:02:11,989
windshield is seen in perfect condition. )
34
00:02:11,989 --> 00:02:14,360
And many are not shy to make fun of the
35
00:02:14,360 --> 00:02:16,430
filmmakers. ( And how this floating broom
36
00:02:16,430 --> 00:02:18,079
pantomime made it into the finished film
37
00:02:18,079 --> 00:02:20,510
is anyone's guess. ) ( Let's just enjoy that special
38
00:02:20,510 --> 00:02:25,730
star wars moments again. ) ( We're just saying that
39
00:02:25,730 --> 00:02:28,010
some script supervisors or editors could
40
00:02:28,010 --> 00:02:29,989
have done their jobs just a teeny bit
41
00:02:29,989 --> 00:02:30,950
better. )
42
00:02:30,950 --> 00:02:34,339
Should we put the blame on the script
43
00:02:34,340 --> 00:02:37,370
supervisor onset or later, the editor who
44
00:02:37,370 --> 00:02:39,769
for some reason or another did not cut it
45
00:02:39,769 --> 00:02:40,820
correctly,
46
00:02:40,820 --> 00:02:46,100
like I did? And then how do some of the
47
00:02:46,100 --> 00:02:49,630
greats feel about continuity errors.
48
00:02:49,630 --> 00:02:58,510
Thelma Schoonmaker,the iconic editor who
49
00:02:58,510 --> 00:03:01,840
worked on many of Scorsese's films says in an
50
00:03:01,840 --> 00:03:04,540
interview:
51
00:03:04,540 --> 00:03:06,940
52
00:03:06,940 --> 00:03:08,770
53
00:03:08,770 --> 00:03:10,540
54
00:03:10,540 --> 00:03:12,820
55
00:03:12,820 --> 00:03:14,440
56
00:03:14,440 --> 00:03:17,140
57
00:03:17,140 --> 00:03:19,899
Martin Hunter, the editor for Stanley
58
00:03:19,900 --> 00:03:22,660
Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket says: There's
59
00:03:22,660 --> 00:03:24,640
a cut when the drill sergeant punches
60
00:03:24,640 --> 00:03:27,250
Mathew Motley in the stomach and in one
61
00:03:27,250 --> 00:03:29,170
shot he pulls back with his left hand
62
00:03:29,170 --> 00:03:31,420
and in the cut he punches with his
63
00:03:31,420 --> 00:03:33,280
right...
64
00:03:33,280 --> 00:03:36,100
65
00:03:36,100 --> 00:03:38,079
66
00:03:38,080 --> 00:03:40,570
67
00:03:40,570 --> 00:03:42,250
68
00:03:42,250 --> 00:03:43,060
69
00:03:43,060 --> 00:03:46,450
Walter Murch is so uninterested in
70
00:03:46,450 --> 00:03:49,060
continuity editing he actually give it the
71
00:03:49,060 --> 00:03:52,120
least priority in terms of when to
72
00:03:52,120 --> 00:03:57,040
make a cut. He writes an ideal cut for me
73
00:03:57,040 --> 00:03:59,170
is the one that satisfies the following
74
00:03:59,170 --> 00:04:01,480
six criteria at once...
75
00:04:01,480 --> 00:04:04,690
76
00:04:04,690 --> 00:04:07,300
77
00:04:07,300 --> 00:04:09,760
78
00:04:09,760 --> 00:04:12,070
Emotion if the thing that you should try
79
00:04:12,070 --> 00:04:14,350
to preserve at all costs. If you find you
80
00:04:14,350 --> 00:04:16,329
have to sacrifice certain of those six
81
00:04:16,329 --> 00:04:18,969
elements to make a cut, sacrifice your
82
00:04:18,970 --> 00:04:21,070
way up from the bottom.
83
00:04:21,070 --> 00:04:24,010
So three legendary editors, all don't
84
00:04:24,010 --> 00:04:25,300
really care all that much about
85
00:04:25,300 --> 00:04:28,120
continuity. Are they just full of it or is there
86
00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:30,790
actually some science behind it?
87
00:04:30,790 --> 00:04:34,210
Tim J Smith is a lecturer of
88
00:04:34,210 --> 00:04:37,030
physiological sciences, Birkbeck
89
00:04:37,030 --> 00:04:39,309
University of London, and he studies all
90
00:04:39,310 --> 00:04:41,620
kinds of visual cognition. He did some
91
00:04:41,620 --> 00:04:44,890
extensive tests with eye tracking, where he
92
00:04:44,890 --> 00:04:47,020
traces the eye movement to find out
93
00:04:47,020 --> 00:04:49,299
where audiences look and what they pay
94
00:04:49,300 --> 00:04:52,210
attention to. Attentional Synchrony is where
95
00:04:52,210 --> 00:04:54,669
the majority of viewers will have their
96
00:04:54,670 --> 00:04:57,550
eyes focused in on the same element of
97
00:04:57,550 --> 00:05:02,560
the screen. The number one predictor of
98
00:05:02,560 --> 00:05:04,870
where most people are going to look in a
99
00:05:04,870 --> 00:05:06,880
frame - or rather what they will pay
100
00:05:06,880 --> 00:05:09,520
attention to - is whether there's a human
101
00:05:09,520 --> 00:05:12,580
face in the shot. If it is science tells
102
00:05:12,580 --> 00:05:14,560
us that all the attention is geared
103
00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:16,540
towards that. And that's why so many
104
00:05:16,540 --> 00:05:20,360
continuity problems go unnoticed.
105
00:05:20,360 --> 00:05:23,030
It actually turns out that Hitchcock who,
106
00:05:23,030 --> 00:05:25,818
is a master at composing shots, really understood this concept.
107
00:05:25,819 --> 00:05:27,979
108
00:05:27,979 --> 00:05:41,210
109
00:05:41,210 --> 00:05:44,599
( I'm not required to answer this question? This is scary me. )
110
00:05:44,599 --> 00:05:47,569
Humans study other human faces. When it
111
00:05:47,569 --> 00:05:49,580
comes to still images we tend to look
112
00:05:49,580 --> 00:05:51,318
at the eyes. When it comes to moving
113
00:05:51,319 --> 00:05:53,419
images we tend to look around the nose
114
00:05:53,419 --> 00:05:56,180
and move up and down between the mouth
115
00:05:56,180 --> 00:05:58,430
and eyes, as we're trying to understand
116
00:05:58,430 --> 00:06:00,650
what somebody is saying or the emotions
117
00:06:00,650 --> 00:06:03,739
that their express. ( One question, short and sweet? )
118
00:06:03,740 --> 00:06:07,939
( Where's my bed, what's better than that? )
119
00:06:07,939 --> 00:06:10,819
I have to say, first-time filmmakers tend to
120
00:06:10,819 --> 00:06:12,830
point out continuity errors and they're
121
00:06:12,830 --> 00:06:15,020
very concerned about fixing these
122
00:06:15,020 --> 00:06:17,240
problems - to the point where they're
123
00:06:17,240 --> 00:06:19,219
willing to sacrifice the performance or
124
00:06:19,219 --> 00:06:20,300
a moment.
125
00:06:20,300 --> 00:06:24,919
So for example, in this scene Mark has to
126
00:06:24,919 --> 00:06:27,620
wake his three-year-old son and move out
127
00:06:27,620 --> 00:06:29,479
of the house because he can't afford the
128
00:06:29,479 --> 00:06:37,699
rent anymore. And as he's walking down
129
00:06:37,699 --> 00:06:40,370
the stairs a continuity error happens
130
00:06:40,370 --> 00:06:50,569
( Baby Crying ) See it? You can see the camera. And we
131
00:06:50,569 --> 00:06:52,610
could have decided to cut around it but
132
00:06:52,610 --> 00:06:54,409
it would have broken this moment that
133
00:06:54,409 --> 00:06:59,740
really played most powerful in real time.
134
00:07:01,700 --> 00:07:06,950
So when does continuity matter? Pretty
135
00:07:06,950 --> 00:07:09,860
much never. And if it does then maybe
136
00:07:09,860 --> 00:07:11,240
there's something else wrong with the
137
00:07:11,240 --> 00:07:13,700
scene. I asked you if you thought that
138
00:07:13,700 --> 00:07:16,550
continuity is important and in a poll, the
139
00:07:16,550 --> 00:07:18,440
majority pretty much better said that they
140
00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:21,620
don't care as long as the scene works. But
141
00:07:21,620 --> 00:07:23,420
Larry writes, i often noticed them.
142
00:07:23,420 --> 00:07:24,830
Especially now that i'm studying
143
00:07:24,830 --> 00:07:27,530
filmmaking. Burt says, I don't look for
144
00:07:27,530 --> 00:07:29,570
them so if i end up noticing them they tend
145
00:07:29,570 --> 00:07:32,210
to bother me. Steve says I have an error
146
00:07:32,210 --> 00:07:33,710
that I actually find more interesting than an
147
00:07:33,710 --> 00:07:35,570
actual flaw. In martin scorsese's
148
00:07:35,570 --> 00:07:37,670
Shutter Island there's what i believe to
149
00:07:37,670 --> 00:07:39,980
be an implied continuity error during the
150
00:07:39,980 --> 00:07:44,030
interrogation scene. For me personally, I
151
00:07:44,030 --> 00:07:46,520
think it was both Scoreses and Schoonmaker decision
152
00:07:46,520 --> 00:07:49,640
to use it as a device to throw
153
00:07:49,640 --> 00:07:51,919
the audience into a "nothing is as it seems"
154
00:07:51,920 --> 00:07:54,500
state of mind. I hope you got a kick
155
00:07:54,500 --> 00:07:56,150
out of this episode. Check out the video
156
00:07:56,150 --> 00:07:57,950
description for more research on the
157
00:07:57,950 --> 00:07:59,990
topic and hopefully, I'll see you see soon.
158
00:07:59,990 --> 00:08:06,459
Thanks for watching.
11549
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.