How story makes a seamless edit
All filmmaking requires resourcefulness. Being an independent filmmaker dealing with smaller crews and budgets, means less resources. It, however, doesn’t mean you’re any less resourceful. Truthfully, you gain the skill of being even more resourceful.
(How many more times can I say resourceful?)
Sometimes locations, props, and subjects are limited. At times it feels like pieces are scattered are all over the place and things don’t match up. Sometimes when things don’t work, you know they don’t immediately. Others are quasi losses. With your direction, you can create and salvage these pieces. Through the technique of continuity editing, these pieces can still fulfill your story.
We know that continuity is the consistency of the image over a period of time, and with film, the matching of the image across its cuts as well. When I think of the word ‘continuity’, I first think of visual continuity-- which is the definition above. If Actor A takes a bit out of an apple, and the next scene in the script still has that apple. The apple being used better have a bite from it. Otherwise, the prop now sticks out as being abnormal from the reality presented in the previous scene.
When you search online, the general term of continuity falls under ‘continuity editing’ too. Though they have similar goals, I think it is a separate process from its visual counterpart. So, what is this editing process’ goal? Continuity editing is the premise that you focus the viewer’s attention to the established consistency of the narrative in time and physical space (Bordwell Thompson 490). The term I’m keying in on is ‘physical space’-- you can edit to make a physical space consistent in your film without having constant physical attributes.
Reworded-- you can maintain narrative continuity without always keeping your physical, prop, location, or actor continuity. This effect is achieved through editing technique(s), alongside your direction, sound design, and music. All of these elements fuel the backbone of your film: the story. When everything works off of each other, minor physical blunders aren’t going to stand out. On the other hand, if your film’s not that good, then a bored viewer, I think, can more easily pick out these unchangeable errors. (Or someone with a Sherlock Holmes eye that just wants to joyfully point out these flaws.) Whatever the case, the point is… when a viewer is invested in your story, a.k.a. your film, these things matter less. They still matter, but it’s not a downfall. It’s about trying to make the best of what you’re stuck with.
I know, this probably sounds, contradictory, or not even possible, in print. Let’s see a visual example of this idea. Take a look at a film from Project 52: Thoughts, no. 16 of 52 called ‘Fate’. Look closely at the waiter and diner character.
Project 52: Thoughts // 16. FATE (short film)
Did you see where the character’s change? Don’t go out on a limb, it’s only a small difference. As my not-so-subtle pun suggests, the characters’ arms and hands differ in specific shots. Any shot where there is an interaction between the waiter and diner. There are 3 actors who play the 2 characters.
I was playing both the waiter and diner during the opening shot. When I needed to be in one of the shots for either character, I required a substitute. Since the story was not focused on the people but rather their actions and mannerisms, I constructed the shot to only show the necessary parts. (This was also a courtesy to the actors who didn’t want to be fully shown on camera anyway.) Therefore, the arm or hand of the other person was used to interact with the character that was being played by me. Here’s a chart for reference:
Timestamp Character continuity
0:35 - 0:39 Waiter (small female hand) gives menu to diner (me)
1:17 - 1:21 Diner (large male hand) gives menu to waiter (me)
2:03 - 2:10 Waiter (small female hand) serves food to diner (me)
And, I resume the waiter role at the film's end. Now, it would have been nice to have 3 separate people to film the movie as I directed. Could it have been easier to film? Maybe. Did it stop me from the telling the story I wanted? No. I adjusted my shots and the shooting order. Plus, I have an interesting fact to share about the film.
The point is: Did you notice these changes? Did it distract from the story being told?
From my experience, working in limited ways, trains you to be useful of what and who you have to shoot. It makes you a better filmmaker, even if during the process you feel otherwise. You could have an infinite budget and anything at your disposal. These ideas, nonetheless, remind and help you to keep your story at the forefront. These reminders act as a safety net too (if something goes astray, which most likely will happen at some point).
It’s a way to problem-solve. You can utilize different scenarios yet the shots are still a part of the same scene. The point of this article is that the story enthralls the viewer. Your artistic vision is founded in the story. If the music, pacing, and shots fit together to illustrate that story— no one notices visual continuity errors. So, next time when you think it can’t be done, before you say no, try it first. Think of ways you could make it work. You’ll know for sure if it doesn’t work. And, maybe… you’ll be happily surprised when it does. Keep creating.
Works Cited
Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. McGraw-Hill, 2010.