J.D. Hansel

Parables, Poems, and Ponderings

The Commenting Editor Technique

by

While a film is by no means the sum of its parts, it is probably safe to say that a film is the edited union of its parts. The editing can determine the nature or genre of a film, the film’s pace, an actor’s performance, the order of the story, and much more. The editor is rarely noticed, however, for two main reasons. The first is that a film is very much seen by audiences today – especially by critics and movie buffs – as being the vision of the director. So, if the editor determines the essence of a film, people with naturally attribute the essence of the film to the director, thus ignoring the editor completely. Secondly, part of the editor’s job is to remain unnoticed, in much the same way that it is a puppeteer’s job to remain unseen as he/she performs. I expect, however, that we have reached a level of video literacy at which we can soon expect to see the film editors break a new kind of fourth wall and blatantly converse with the audience.

Along similar lines, it is traditionally bad form for the camerawork to be done in such a way that the audience is conscious of the camera, and the goal in film was, for many decades, to make the camera unnoticed. (This is comparable to the way that the lighting crew in a theatrical production is essential to making the performance visible/possible, but is seldom noticed unless it makes a big mistake.) In recent years, we have seen experiments in filmmaking in which the audience is supposed to be conscious of the camera, particularly in the genre of found footage horror films. This new direction is possible only because we are used to seeing the camera since the innovation of home video, in which awareness of the camera is nearly inevitable. It follows that one would expect an innovation to become popular that makes viewers aware of the editor, which will allow for movies that mimic the same techniques. I propose that this innovation does exist, and it is online video.

To best explain what online video means for the evolution of film editing, I should clarify what I do and do not mean in regards to an editor conversing with the audience. I am not merely talking about films in which the editing style is unique, drawing attention to itself. Films such as the 2008 Speed Racer film or the works of Robert Rodriguez are not necessarily conversational in nature. Annie Hall comes much closer to a talkative editor in the scene in which Woody Allen and Diane Keaton have one conversation while subtitles show what they truly want to say, but this still comes across as the voice of writer/director Woody Allen. Television has come close by using frequent cutaways in shows such as Family Guy, but these feel very much like they are a part of the pre-production and animation/production phases, and they are not primarily editing. The Colbert Report used a regular segment called “The Wørd” to provide a sort of visual commentary on what Colbert said, and while this may be a little too involved in the pre-production and production (a.k.a. principal photography) phases, this does succeed in providing a form of “editor’s commentary,” which is what has become a big part of online video.

Online, it is common to see a video or YouTube channel that has a host-to-viewer format, such as the PBS Idea Channel, using little pictures, GIFs, and other brief visuals to not only depict what the host is saying, but to comment on it. This takes the type of commenting common on social media, in which a the Ben Stiller “post for ants” meme might be used to comment on a post that’s not legible, and makes it a part of the post itself. On YouTube it’s common to see a picture flash on screen for half a second just to make a joke, even though the picture is not necessary for the speaker to make his/her point, or for the story to be told. Rather, these very brief visual gags are comments on the video more than they are a part of it, since they are not usually diegetic in nature. This is actually very similar to a director’s audio commentary on a film, except an editor’s commentary is generally not continuous throughout, and is a part of the video instead of being a bonus feature.

If I must give specific criteria, an editor’s commentary is:

  1. post-production-driven,
  2. non-diegetic,
  3. not a part of telling the work’s main story,
  4. nonessential to the clarity of the work,
  5. not long enough to be its own scene.

For example, when a character in a movie notes that everyone is freezing, a picture of Elsa might flash on screen for a split second. When characters discuss their favorite science fiction films, the scene might conclude with a Star Wars-esque wipe transition. When a scene begins with lots of text to read on screen, the CinemaSins “ding” sound might be heard. When an actor flubs a line, the mistake can be left in and just corrected later by cutting to a frame with a title joking about what he meant to say (which is pretty much what they did for a little documentary about Star Trek IV when one of the interviewees mixed up his words a little). There are plenty of ways to do it creatively and in a style unique to the editor and director making the film.

While the possibilities are theoretically endless, the concept of the Commenting Editor is limited in a few ways. First of all, it should probably be used sparingly and carefully so it doesn’t become gimmicky. Secondly, there is great difficulty in doing this in such a way that the commentary is nearly exclusively created in the realm of post-production where the editor is king. If it is not very exclusive to this realm, the other areas (where the writer and director are supposedly the rulers) will receive the attribution. Whenever clever text is put up on screen, it is assumed to be clever writing, and the goal is to create the sense that the editing is clever, even if the editor’s comments are written into the script. The main limitation, however, is that the Commenting Editor is comedic in nature, and I don’t see it working well for anything but comedy.

The comedy in the Commenting Editor concept comes from both the fact that the viewers must quickly make connections, causing their brains to trip over themselves, as is the case with most jokes, and the fact that the editor has broken the unspoken rules. Since everyone knows that no one is supposed to talk during the movie, there is something chaotic and comedic about the editor himself (or herself) stepping out of the film to talk about the movie the whole time. While this concept could add to the aesthetic distance by reminding the viewers that they are watching an edited production, it could also decrease aesthetic distance by putting the editor in the audience, joining the viewers in the experience. This would make for a fascinating and important development in film because it creates a kind of movie that is self-aware, but not just by breaking the fourth wall. If a movie is essentially the editing, the movie can become a character of its own by talking to the audience about itself, and the viewers will not only enjoy the experience of relating to the characters in the film, but also the experience of conversing with the film itself.

The Eidome Theory

by

This is a sequel of sorts to my theory of Functional Illusions.  I wanted to expound on the topic because I think we start asking some big and important questions when we wonder about what things around us may be Functional Illusions.  The biggest and most important of these questions is: “Is God a Functional Illusion?”  The answer to this is hard to tell because the term Functional Illusion implies that everyone is aware that the notion of God is a lie, and obviously many, many people truly believe in a god, with logical reasons for doing so.  However, the idea is not out of the question.

Upon further pondering of the “Idea America” concept I presented in my Functional Illusions essay, I found that there are many things in our culture that we think of this way.  For example, I’ve read that Hitler loved the circus, and I’ve heard that he really liked children.  However, we don’t think of Hitler of having a human side at all.  The Idea Hitler is just a monster, with no human side, so that we may use him as an example of what pure evil is like.  Think about it – we refer to Hitler and/or Nazis multiple times a week because the Idea Nazis are so useful as an example.  This is remarkably similar to the Idea America, consisting of the American dream, equality, liberty and justice for all, etc.  There is a good purpose behind believing in it, and we want to believe in it because of its purpose, so it becomes a very strong Functional Illusion that may distort our view of reality.

I eventually decided that putting the word “idea” in front of something does not clarify this, so I instead have decided to make up the word Eidome (eye-du-mee) to express this concept.  I might change the word I use for this concept later, but for now, I like Eidome because its structure implies its meaning; Eidos means “idea or form,” and Epitome essentially refers to a prime example, so Eidome implies the idea or image that best exemplifies.  To be more specific, Eidome means a concept (or simulacrum) of a thing that embodies what a culture or community wants to believe is reality because the belief serves a purpose.  When one sees how the Idea America, or Eidome America, fits this description, it becomes clear that the Eidome is one of the strongest Functional Illusions, if not the chief of them all.

Lawyers are a good example.  Everyone hates lawyers, except that everyone needs lawyers.  The average middle class American might claim to hate lawyers because they take all of our money and are a huge pain, but he/she actually hates the lawyer Eidome.  The lawyer Eidome is a conniving rat that’s out to rob everyone, and is therefore easy to hate, in spite of the fact that one could easily befriend a lawyer that does not meet this description.  Hating the lawyer Eidome really only serves a few small functions: expressing annoyance with the court system, making funny lawyer jokes, warning others of the danger of sneaky lawyers, etc.  Frankly, even if every lawyer on the planet suddenly became nice and generous, we would still want to hold onto the Eidome because it’s too fun.

Another good example might be little children.  We all have met someone who claimed she loved children, but after working/living with them, she’s discovered that she only loves children “in theory.”  This means she loves the child Eidome.  She loves children making Valentines out of construction paper, children running into the bedroom during a thunderstorm, children gleefully giggling as they lose a tickle fight, and so on.  The reality of children is that they’re noisy, the ask too many questions, they make big messes, and they never listen, but the child Eidome serves the purpose of making sure people still want to have children.  With only truth and no Eidome, the species might die out.

Now it is possible to discuss the God question again.  It would certainly seem that every western religion or church has a God Eidome.  The god in the holy book may be wrathful, unjust, or deceptive, but this is all seen as irrelevant.  Instead, the God Eidome – the one that wants what’s best for everyone and offers a message of hope –  is worshiped because it’s more comforting to believe in him than it is to believe in the true god of the book.  Saturday Night Live once did a sketch in which Jesus enters a football locker-room wearing athletic socks, and he appears to be a big fan of Tim Tebow.  Religious people who saw this as a parody of Jesus were naturally offended, whereas religious people who saw it as a parody of the sports-fan’s Jesus Eidome – a Jesus who really cares about sports – knew the intent wasn’t to mock God.  SNL mocked an idea of Jesus, not a reality, as plenty of Christians have done before.  While we do not have to totally abolish Eidomes (since they do have purposes), we do need to recognize and question them in order to find truth, even if it means taking a stab at the Eidome we worship.

So, regardless of whether there is a god or not, the god that a given church worships is still probably a Functional Illusion, just as there are both a real America and an America Eidome.  Being such an important Functional Illusion, the Eidome scares people, or at least the idea of exposing Eidomes scares people.  Much like most other Functional Illusions, they are not necessarily evil, they just need to be addressed.  The reason we allow the illusions to continue should be the fact that the purposes they serve are good, and it should by no means merely be wishful thinking.  The challenge, therefore, is for each person to consider how his or her belief is merely and Eidome, because that is how we can dispel our fantasies and embrace the truth.

My Theory of Functional Illusions

by

About a year ago, I coined a term called “Functional Illusions.”  A Functional Illusion is an understood lie that the people of a certain culture generally accept or allow because it serves a purpose that the culture sees as important.  A simple example is a mirror, although this is a very weak Functional Illusion (as I explain in the following paragraph).  The mirror deceives the eyes by creating the appearance of another person who isn’t really there, but we don’t really think of mirrors as “lies” because we are all well aware that this illusion isn’t reality, but it is very helpful.  A slightly stronger example would be puppetry.  We know that puppets aren’t real, but we allow ourselves to act as if they are so we can enjoy the stories they tell, and sometimes we tell children that the puppets are real, which is essentially lying.  Therein lies the danger of the Functional Illusion.

A strong Functional Illusion is one that people really, really want to believe is a reality, and a weak FI is one that everyone is perfectly fine dismissing as a meaningless illusion, such as the mirror.  Some FIs are strong for some people, but weak for others.  To an adult, Santa Claus is a very weak FI, but to a child, discovering that his/her parents lied all those years can be devastating, and in extreme, rare cases, lead to bad trust issues.  The discovery that an FI isn’t real can be handled well by taking an interest in how the illusion is created.  It can be handled badly by hating either the illusion, or those who reveal it to be only an illusion.  (In some cases, people hate puppets because they were so devastated to find out the characters on Sesame Street aren’t real, whereas others, such as myself, become fascinated with puppetry because of the discovery that it’s an illusion.)  Naturally, a very strong FI that many, many people want to believe is a reality can lead to intense fury throughout the culture.

America is essentially a Functional Illusion.  Well, okay, the nation that is the United States of America is real, and the landmass consisting of North, South, and Central America is real, but those are not what I’m talking about.  I’m talking about the Idea America (yes, I thought that term up to, and I hope no one else has used it first).  The Idea America is the American Dream, the American Way, and freedom and justice for all.  There is clearly a big difference between the Idea America and the USA, but some people don’t see the gap, or at least try not to, because they are such a big fan of the Functional Illusion.  Essentially, everyone who claims that America is or was the greatest country in the world and the city on a hill is overly attached to the FI.  This is somewhat scary because FIs need to be understood in order to serve their proper purpose, and in order that we can make progress.  The best purpose of the Idea America is not for people to be proud to be American, but rather for people to see that which America must become.

The Functional Illusion is important.  Mirrors are helpful, Santa Claus is fun, makeup is an interesting form of expression, and auto-tune can be a great artistic tool if used appropriately.  However, there is a danger to encouraging faith in them.  People in the music industry may all be aware that the industry is to a large extent comprised of FIs, but people outside that culture may not be aware of this when they set out to make hits of their own.  Some FIs become a sort of dogma that is detrimental to intellectual progress.  The answer to problems that come from Functional Illusions seems to be better education, encouraging young people to use reason to question the illusions without assuming they are good or bad.  Like many human tools, Functional Illusions will only do harm if humankind is not yet smart enough to use them wisely.

UPDATE 4/8/15 – There is now a follow up essay on a specific type of Functional Illusion, available to read here.

The Parable of the Desert Orange

by

Two explorers, an atheist and a theist, were out in the middle of the desert.  They happened to come across an orange sitting in the sand with nothing else around.  They found it very strange for an orange to be in the middle of nowhere, and the theist remarked, “You know, this exemplifies how my way of thinking is more logical than yours.”

“Oh?” the atheist replied.  “And just how is that?”

“You see, the logical mind observes this fruit, which has no apparent reason for being in this foreign place, and concludes that someone must have put it here.  One cannot assume that it appeared here randomly, so the obvious alternative is that someone meant for it to be here.  The same can be said of the universe, although you deny such intuitive logic.”

“Ah,” said the atheist, “quite contrarily, this is a perfect example of how my way of thinking is rational, whereas your religious mindset is intrinsically silly.  When I see this fruit, I wonder what logical series of events could have led to its arrival here.  Even if I cannot think of a perfect explanation, I will not just assume that it appeared here as the result of magic, which I likewise do not assume about the universe.”

The two bickered about the analogy for some time, arguing that the other’s rhetoric was twisting the truth.  Then, out of curiosity, they decided to examine the orange for fingerprints.  They wiped the sand off the orange and held it under a magnifying glass, turning it slowly.

“I clearly see prints on both sides,” said the theist.

“Actually,” the atheist rebutted, “the prints you see on one side appear to be from an animal, and the prints on the other are probably your own.  It seems just as probable then, if not more so, that this was carried here by natural means, not by any person.”

The two then argued for hours about what they were really seeing, and eventually they gave up on the mysterious desert orange, but only after the magnifying glass had completely scorched it.