I=Eye wrote:jbrooks wrote:Legendary? What makes her legendary? I don't really get the hero worship. She's certainly a personable, interesting person. But a negative cutter is a technician -- not an artist.
More than a whiff of misogyny in this comment!
That's a ludicrous thing to say. And it's entirely baseless. Particularly considering the fact that -- in that very same comment -- I specifically referenced the fact that another woman -- Verna Fields -- was responsible for the editing of "Jaws." Go take your SJW hunt for micro-agressions somewhere else.
JMcBride wrote: I think great technicians who are also artists deserve much more attention and acclaim than they get from film fans and historians.
Joe, in your three books on Welles, there is not one single reference to negative cutting or to any negative cutter. I'd venture a guess that that also applies to your books on Ford, Spielberg, Capra, etc.
As for whether negative cutters are "artists," I'll defer to the legend herself, Mo Henry: “I’m not an artist. I’m not creative at all."
JMcBride wrote: And I am lost in admiration for negative cutters because of the crucial and nerve-wracking nature of the job. They
must have great courage and confidence —
Joe, please name three films that suffered in quality from poor negative cutting. Surely, when non-legendary negative cutters are involved, that must sometimes have a negative impact on the quality of the artistry? Otherwise, they're not "artists" or, at the very least, they are not contributing their "art" to the film. As for Welles' great appreciation for crew members, it's noteworthy that every finished Welles project had a negative cutter or cutters, and yet Welles never once called them out for praise or publicly thanked them for their contributions to his film.
And, in my view, it's unfair to crew members that do contribute to the artistry of a film (whether editors, cinematographers, sound designers, make up artists, costume designers, etc. etc.) to pretend that every role in a film production is an "artistic" one.
Of course, it was important that negative cutters cut the negative to match the edited workprint, and that surely takes skill. But it isn't "art." Two different negative cutters tasked with cutting the same film would return finished products that were identical to each other. In the digital age, the task is done by a computer and the "artistry" of the "motion picture" suffers not in the least. There are lots of important roles on a film set -- schedulers, accountants, film loaders, truck drivers -- that are important and take skill but that don't involve contributing to the "artistry" of the finished film.
JMcBride wrote:along with her uncanny ability to identify footage that is difficult
to sort and find (as the footage for this unique project was) made her invaluable to turning THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
WIND into an actual feature film, not simply many cans filled with 96 hours of footage.
This film, with its unusually fast and unorthodox cutting style and literally thousands of cuts, was a rare challenge indeed. She
and Bob Murawski and the others involved in the postproduction also did their best to be faithful to Welles's vision and painstaking in carrying it out.
I'm sure that this is true, and clearly her contribution to "Wind" went beyond negative cutting. In fact, if you were to listen to the podcast, you would hear her explain that the reconstruction of "Wind" involved the acquisition of skills and expertise that she didn't have before. She learned on the job and now has a new skill set in film restoration that she has begun marketing. Good for her, and all thanks to her for her help in getting "Wind" completed. Nothing in my original post suggested that she didn't deserve all the praise in the world for her contribution to "Wind."
JMcBride wrote:That negative comment about Mo Henry was insulting and ignorant. .
For someone who makes his living in academia, you show a disturbing lack of openness to other points of view. And you are also a little quick with the insults. This is a discussion forum. And of the two of us, the only one who is "insulting" anyone is you. I would appreciate it if you would show a little more class and a little more respect. If you disagree with me, by all means, explain why you think I'm wrong. But eschew the name calling.
In my view, the term "legendary" should not be used loosely, and in my view, negative cutting is not an "art form," though negative cutters are surely fine people who did important work. Both of those views are entirely reasonable, even if you disagree.
