it's cut too fast. Gives me a headache sometimes. Makes Sam Peckinpah seem like Hitchcock's 10 minute takes by comparison. But still a nostalgic film for me.
First time Audrey Hepburn gets into the MG (about 8 minutes into film), another car drives by with windows up and for a split second you see the film crew reflected in the glass.
I'm not sure if you mean the cutting within the scenes or cutting from time period to time period. If it's the latter, I'd have to disagree and say that I think his editing is very effective. It's true that one moment we're in the present, the next in the past, and the next in the more distant past (and then maybe back to the present!). But what this does is show not only the progression of the couple's relationship but also how some parts of it haven't changed at all.
I thought the editing was probably the most brilliant aspect of the film.
No , I didn't mean cutting from time period to time period, the 'time shifting'. That I actually enjoyed. It's the endless cross cutting for almost every word of conversation within the scene.... "Stop the car" CUT. "Why?" CUT. "Because I want to get out" CUT. "ok" CUT. A couple of directors got into this type of editing in the late 1960's, I guess it was in vogue. But Peckinpah is still the master of cross cutting film.
shareInteresting! I didn't at all notice this. I'm definitely going to watch it again with an eye for the editing within scenes. I wonder if he was going for that 60s/French New Wave type of feel (i.e. capturing the most "real," true moments, even if this means using a lot of jump cuts)?
Peckinpah's editing is brilliant; D. W. Griffith also gets my vote for "master" of cross-cutting, simply because he helped codify the practice.
I can't wait to see this again now! :)