Worst Editing Ever
Awful.
Everything you don't want to do is in it.
The person who edit that worked on Catwoman.
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Fauteuils d'orchestre (2007) Discussion > Worst Editing Ever
[deleted]
Awful. Awful.Awful.
Just all kinds of bad. A very poor attempt to make a french version of "the american romantic comedy" with some Annie and Pollyanna in the character of Cecile de France, a bad, bad script in original french or the translated english (oh those poor actors!) and noticably poor editing (not something I would normally notice unless it was so poor you couldn't help yourself).
A movie I forgot completely about less than a day later. Absolutely no chance the words oscar nomination will be mentioned in any conversation about this pic.
Bad... Bad....
[deleted]
I must disagree with those who fault the editing in this film.
Since it was a combination of several story lines, the way it was edited was absolutely brilliant. Example- For the last piano chord, we go to the auctioneer's gavel- right precisely on the beat. This is not easy to do, and was very effective. There were several other similar events as we are taken from storyline to storyline. Some may find this disconcerting; but I found it easy to follow and a unique way to go from one to the other. I found this to be one gem of a film.
My wife and I joked afterwards that it wasn't nearly as good as "Reign over Me"-a true piece of tripe that so many on this board think was a great film. We joked because "Avenue" was SO much better as to defy comparison! Now THAT is a flick with truly the Worst Editing Ever- certainly not this one!
I have to agree what a horrible editing Job
it ruins the movie
I Worship The Goddess Amber Tamblyn
share
Could one of you please explain what's supposed to be so bad about the editing? The theatrical print that I saw was very nicely done — so much so that I wonder if there's more than one cut of this movie floating around.
That said, there seems to be a fair bit of hostility to the movie's plot, characters, writing, and setting on display in this thread, too — were you all in the wrong line and expecting Le Petit Lieutenant instead? If so, fair enough: just don't confuse matters by pretending to find fault with the editing of a technically accomplished film.
—Eric Smith
Yes, your suspicions are correct. There is more than one print and the one that I recently saw, ascertained in the U.S., is utterly butchered. The editing is completely massacred. I originally saw this at University, at a French Film festival and the cut was completely different--fluid and cohesive. While I can't say that this film is artistically brilliant (others have compared it unfavorably to Altman, and I can't agree more), the chop job that has apparently been done to it does not do the original work justice. Please, whoever is listening, do your best to find an untouched print of this film. It's worth a viewing, at least for the humorous treatment of Sartre and Beauvoir.
Cheers.
I thought the film was nice. But something was wrong with the film itself where we saw it. The sound was off and in some places it slowed down then sped up realfast and the voices got out of synch with the action. The main character Jessica was awfully spunky - she was over-doing the perkiness thing a little bit. But what I enjoyed was seeing the city of Paris itself, but of course there was not enough of it. The characters were sympathetic and in the short amount of time given, they really did show a great deal of their personalities. But as for most Americans liking a movie like this? I don't think so. I also have to add that I hate Sydney Pollack. He is not a good actor and he's really unattractive and he seems to mess up any film he's in with his wooden, bad acting.
shareI am an American and I loved this movie but most might not like it or won't have the chance to see it. Just making this statement to start off with. Pollack did seem to kind of break the flow of the movie to me most likely because he was the only one to speak English but it didn't ruin it for me. As for the editing I didn't notice any horribly wrong with the editing and I thought they did a decent job going back and forth between the 3 different stories.
Screenwriting and filkmaker competitions this year.
http://www.horrorfestonline.com/
I am American, and I must admit that I didn't like the movie. It wasn't because it was French or smart or lacked breasts and explosions. I just didn't connect at all with Jessica. Whenever I would get into the plot... she would say something ridiculous or sacchrine. Sorry to the super-fans, but the whole movie just seemed to be missing something.
shareI thought the editing was fine too. Actually near the end when they cut back and forth I thought the timing was perfect.
During the film too, it moved right along at a nice pace, timing was the key to this movie and it never seemed to get bogged down in any one place nor any one story.
Couldn't have asked for a better job.
I totally agree with this comment and moore2772 's
European film editing is much different than American, the latter of which always tries to give neat segues between scenes. This film did jump around, but I had no trouble following it. For example, there was one scene where the art collector was shown in a hospital, without any prelude before then that he was sick. I think this is realistic, and I do not need to have everything carefully explained to me. Those accustomed to American film editing may find this quite jarring.
The film itself I found delightful. Nicely paced, full of surprises, hopes, doubts, and good character development. The way the main characters interacted with Jessica might be implausible in real life, but is was not beyond disbelief, and I thought was a flattering portrait of how all of should be more like. I loved Jessica's philosophy on phone calls: some people react by saying "who the hell is that", while others smile and wonder "who might that be?"
Great movie!
" I think this is realistic, and I do not need to have everything carefully explained to me."
You're a rarity as far as movie fans go in these United States. If there is one thing the pisses me off to no end about American movies, it's the insistence upon endless exposition in order to spoon-feed even the simplest and more formulaic plots to a slack-jawed brain-dead American audience.
I can understand many of the objections people are having to this movie, and I wouldn't put it forth as a masterpiece, but I enjoyed it very much. I loved the evident joy in the many aspects of art, artists and lives lived for art. True, it was all very white bread, Western Civ kind of art, but sometimes it's nice to celebrate that. I knew it was all rather too sunny (someone here mentioned Pollyanna, and that rings true) and neat, but I was willing to go along with all that, because they made it work for me, and made me care about the characters and their endeavors. Funny, how some movies just annoy the crap out of you, with their blatant manipulation and unearned emotion (LOVE, ACTUALLY springs most readily to mind, with THE NOTEBOOK, YOU'VE GOT MAIL and SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE not far behind--hell, I even felt somewhat that way about CINEMA PARADISO, which so many people adore), while others, like this one, get away with some of the same stuff just because they somehow work for you (or me, anyway).
All that said, was there not a big editing mess-up in the scene where the actress and the American director have dinner? There is a weird, disjointed moment, and the actress says, "It's an expression" (or something like that), which doesn't make sense at that moment. Then, a bit later, she says that line again, in a place where it does make sense, after he asks what a particular French word means. Other than that scene, I didn't have a big problem with the editing, but I'm not any kind of expert in editing.