Choosing a specific editing approach or style for your movie really just means you are deciding how you want to tell your story. Do you want to tell a linear story made up of equal parts beginning, middle, and end? Do you want to jump through time, back and forth, with flashbacks and more? Do you want to tell the same story from two different points of view? Do you want to tell a looser story or series of stories that are directly connected to one another by little more than a theme or an idea?

These decisions depend on the nature of your story generally, the script specifically, the creative desires of the director (probably you), what picture and sound elements you have available, who your intended audience is, and what type of exhibition plan you have for the movie. No matter the answers to these questions, there is an editing style or methodology that will work for you. Once you pick your approach to the material, you can then figure out the specific types of transitions you wish to make along the way to executing your creative vision.

The Styles

Here’s a basic rundown of the most common approaches. There are others, or hybrids of these and others—and for that matter, you may well discover an entirely new approach along the way. But understanding these basic methods is a big first step toward jumping into the fray for the first time:

The Rules

As alluded to throughout this chapter, there have traditionally been certain concepts that some people view as firm rules for picture editing—rules they believe need to be adhered to for an edited narrative to look and feel right. Others contend that they are general guidelines that should be respected but that do not always need to be adhered to, depending on creative needs and other factors. Let’s examine and contextualize these basic ideas before discussing when it is appropriate to make exceptions.

Some of these concepts are relatively ubiquitous, with the most common rule being the 180-degree rule, as explained in Chapter 7. There, our emphasis was on how you shoot the elements, remembering to capture the conversational shots according to the rule’s requirements, with the camera staying on one side of the conversation or the other throughout. But the idea will ultimately be applied, or not applied, in editing, because you may have chosen to also capture elements that do, in fact, break the imaginary axis line for any number of reasons. In editing, the concept is most frequently applied when doing continuity editing: if you follow the rule, you will always be choosing elements in a conversation that consistently keep one character frame left and one character frame right.

Of course, many notable filmmakers have violated this rule. When you flip the camera to the other side of the axis, it is called jumping or crossing the line. Thus, in editing, if you then proceed to show the action from the other side of the axis, that is called a reverse cut. For this and virtually all other editing rules, there can be good reasons to ignore them, and we will discuss some of those shortly. For the time being, understand that the 180-degree rule is a good basic guideline when doing straightforward continuity editing—a way to make sure viewers are not disoriented or confused.

Another basic idea that is widely adhered to is the notion of the eyeline match, which, again, is seen most commonly on projects that use continuity editing. The idea with the eyeline match is that you want the audience to see the same thing that the character on the screen is seeing. Thus, it’s a basic cut—a character gazes at something we cannot see, and you seamlessly cut to whatever he or she is looking at.

There are reams of other principles that are important for new editors to understand and consider when cutting a project, whether they intend to always follow them or not. Some of the most basic ideas come from famed film director/editor Edward Dmytryk, who wrote several filmmaking books, including a book on editing in which he laid down seven basic editing rules that most seasoned editors seriously consider to this day. Dmytryk’s rules are as follows:

There is logic to all of these ideas of particular value to the beginning editor. For instance, Dmytryk advises us to cut “in movement,” simply because it is generally easier to hide an edit when the footage is moving, and thus blurred, than when it is static and clear. Similarly, a good way to begin and end with continuing action, he advises, is to simply overlap action cuts by three to four frames.

But of all Dmytryk’s suggestions, the first and last ones may be the most important. Making a flashy or technically challenging or visually compelling cut merely because you can rather than because you need to in order to tell your story is just about the worst reason in the world to make such an edit. Likewise, as noted, you will typically need to meld or mix styles or methodologies on most projects rather than adhere rigidly to a single style throughout every scene. Therefore, if you ask yourself with each cut if what you are doing is helpful to telling your story in a way that connects emotionally with your audience, then you are well on your way to making a good editing decision.

In his writings and lectures, Walter Murch has offered up some baseline concepts for film editing that, like Dmytryk’s, are widely respected and adhered to around the industry. Murch proposes the following six basic criteria for deciding where to cut, widely referred to as Murch’s Rule of Six:⁶

Murch went on to assign in what he calls a “slightly tongue-in-cheek” manner specific mathematical percentages to these ideas to indicate how much value each should be given in the course of a narrative film. He elaborates today that the assignment of specific values such as 51 percent to emotion, 23 percent to story, and 10 percent to rhythm was “not an ironclad regimen” in that “it is impossible to really quantify any of this exactly, and also it is rare that we can achieve all six at the same time.”

However, Murch adds that such value assignments do have meaning as “a kind of abstract goal” in the sense that if an editor needs to sacrifice or minimize something, he or she should logically minimize from the bottom of the list rather than from the top. “Let go of 3D continuity before 2D, and 2D before eye trace, and so on,” he suggests. In other words, especially at this stage of your career, focus on the ideas behind Murch’s criteria. Understand clearly what he is suggesting is of primary importance—emotion, story, and rhythm—and do the best you can with everything else. If you manage that kind of balance, chances are you are on the right track in terms of editing your narrative in a compelling and impactful manner.⁷

Breaking the Rules

All of the principles discussed here are solid, nuts-and-bolts concepts that good editors routinely know, consider, and frequently follow when cutting movies. The problem, of course, is that a rigid adherence to them in all situations can result in mechanical cutting that does not always fit the emotional intent of your scenes. Since editing is a highly creative and instinctual endeavor, you need to develop a framework for comprehending when to rigidly adhere to a rule and when to ignore it entirely.

The basic principle, of course, is to make sure you have good reason for violating a rule, such as the 180-degree axis or the eyeline match. Related to that, verify that the reason is a positive one—that your decision in either direction is being guided by an understanding of what your desired audience will, or will not, get from what you are doing. Indeed, many editors suggest that your deciding factor on whether to cross the 180-degree line or break another rule is whether or not the audience will be able to follow what is going on if you do it. So you need to ask yourself if you are confusing the audience or making it easier for them to follow a point you are trying to make or an emotion you are trying to convey. In that sense, it is about common sense. Therefore, as the editor, feel free to experiment with breaking a rule and the consequences of doing so. Once you have tried it, does the scene work? Can the viewer follow along? Is the emotional connection still there or even stronger than before? If so, it was probably a good move. If not, you probably made a mistake and should switch back to adhering to the rule.

As you go through this process, be aware that certain ideas can evolve out of basic editing rules that may ironically provide your basic defense for violating those very rules. For instance, a big point is made out of emphasizing performance over style. That, however, may cause you, as an editor, to linger on a shot or sequence longer than you otherwise would. Similarly, poorly executed or ugly shots may cause you to move on more quickly than you would otherwise do, or to resize or reposition the shot. Also, there is an understandable urge to take advantage of master shots as you set the scene for certain sequences—you might want to linger on a particularly beautiful master shot if you think it will help you hold the audience’s interest.

More generally, you may want to violate a particular rule if the intent of the rule is not what you are trying to achieve creatively. The 180-degree rule, for instance, is all about not disorienting the viewer. In Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980), the legendary director strategically wanted to disorient the audience during the famous bathroom scene, and so he violated the 180-degree rule to accomplish that goal. In other words, the best reason to break an important rule in the editing process is the same reason for following the rules—to evoke a desired emotional response from the audience.