Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

[St_Eddie]

It's not the same as literary editing - a film editor is a technical position and gets virtually no say on the structure of the film or story, or what scenes to include/exclude, and I can think of precisely zero exceptions to this rule (it works the same in TV).

Wow.  Way to completely undermine and dismiss the entire craft and creative influence of great editors.  I must admit that I do take your comment with no small amount of affront, considering that I am an enthusiast editor myself.  Editing is an intrinsic aspect of the creative expression inherent within film.  It's not the menial monkey's job which you imply it to be.

[Noodle Lizard]

Wow.  Way to completely undermine and dismiss the entire craft and creative influence of great editors.  I must admit that I do take your comment with no small amount of affront, considering that I am an enthusiast editor myself.  Editing is an intrinsic aspect of the creative expression inherent within film.  It's not the menial monkey's job which you imply it to be.

I'm a professional editor - as in a IATSE union, card-carrying editor. I'm fully aware of what goes into it, as well as what responsibilities we have and don't have. If the negative side is that we have no real say in the direction of a show/movie, the positive side is that we're never singularly blamed for their failings.

I completely agree with you on the values of the craft of editing, but that's very, very different than the professional side of things and it's just not how things work in the film and TV industry - except, perhaps, on the very lower rungs of it.

[St_Eddie]

I'm a professional editor - as in a IATSE union, card-carrying editor. I'm fully aware of what goes into it, as well as what responsibilities we have and don't have. If the negative side is that we have no real say in the direction of a show/movie, the positive side is that we're never singularly blamed for their failings.

I completely agree with you on the values of the craft of editing, but that's very, very different than the professional side of things and it's just not how things work in the film and TV industry - except, perhaps, on the very lower rungs of it.

Fair enough.  I was reading too much inference into your previous post.  I do tend to get a bit prickly when anything negative is said of editing because there's far too many people who seem to think that editing is just putting scenes together in the correct order and not an art form in of itself.

[Noodle Lizard]

It absolutely is/can be, and that's what I love about it, but generally speaking for a major show or film, the hired editor really is just a technical extension of the director. On major productions, the kind of editing that you're thinking of usually happens before a single frame is even shot, through scripting, story-boarding, CG pre-vis etc. One feature film editor I got to know personally, who's worked on a bunch of major films, said that he seldom interacts with the director whilst editing since the script and storyboard basically tells him exactly what he needs to do, and each of the best takes were already logged and marked by the director. Worth bearing in mind that a lot of directors already have editing experience too. The "this sequence doesn't work, let's lose it" kind of commands are more likely to come from producers.

If anything, I often have more freedom in my lowly reality TV jobs than a lot of film editors do, in the sense that I'll sometimes be given a bunch of on-the-go footage from a shoot and told to "make what you can of it", but it still goes through at least three major chains of command (my immediate boss, the production EPs and the network) before it's seen by the public, and my say is far from final.

Anyway, as far as Tarantino goes, I'd be very surprised if anything major changes in one of his films based on an editor's suggestion.

[phantom_power]

Not sure I really agree with that, most of them seemed like they were used pretty well to set up locations/characters/tension.

Seems like a bit of an odd time for him to become a novelist when I would say really the last couple of films feel less focused on the writing to me, more on the visuals and performances. Maybe it was Hateful Eight being leaked and his thinking he needed more than the script to sell it as a result?

Isn't it because he keeps saying he will quit film-making after his next film and maybe being a novelist is his next thing

[paddy72]

Where'd you get the idea that he's 'notoriously unable to self-edit'? In his new interview with Joe Rogan he talks about entire scenes for Once Upon A Time that he liked but decided to remove because they were irrelevant.

I got that idea mainly from watching his films ;)

To be fair, I do think that it's generally acknowledged that Tarantino has an issue with self-editing.  His long time editor, Sally Menke, tragically passed away in 2010 and I think that you can see the impact she had in reigning in Tarantino's worst excesses by looking at the films of his which she worked on and those which were subsequent to her death.  I don't think it's a secret that Tarantino is notorious for being self-indulgent and sometimes it takes a savvy editor to reign that shit in.  Note that I say this as a fan of Tarantino, but man, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was crying out for a Sally Menke edit.  I'd imagine that even fans of that film may acknowledge that the extremely long shots of people driving in their cars were self-indulgent, whether they cared for them or not.

I also suspect that Sally Menke may have been the one who lessened Tarantino's foot fetish on film, because Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was beyond excessive when it came to the foot shots.  I jest... partially.

I hope this post was not directed at Avril Lavigne, who is one of this forum's finest contributors, it must be said.

I absolutely agree with that re Sally Menke - his subsequent films have almost all felt like they could be 20-30 minutes shorter and be better for it.

His best work is still Jackie Brown, and I'll die on that hill if I have to.

[Old Nehamkin]

Noodle Lizard explained all this above with much more insight and practical understanding than I have, but the basic point bears repeating: the job of a film editor is not to dictate the overall structure of a movie or to unilaterally cut, add or trim scenes. This is a strange misconception that I see popping up on social media film discussion more and more frequently by people who also seem to basically think that "good editing" = short movie and "bad editing" = long movie.

Not to say that any criticism of self-indulgence in Tarantino's later films is invalid, just that the idea that if Sally Menke was alive she would've been tapping him on the shoulder in the edit suite saying "I don't think we need that second driving scene, Quentin" is a fundamental misunderstanding of what her job involved.

[phantom_power]

I think the misunderstanding is partly down to the role of the editor in writing being much more similar to what people think a film editor does. Same name, same job. That and the name "editor" suggests removing things rather than deciding when to cut into and out of a scene or a shot, which is what they actually do

[paddy72]

Noodle Lizard explained all this above with much more insight and practical understanding than I have, but the basic point bears repeating: the job of a film editor is not to dictate the overall structure of a movie or to unilaterally cut, add or trim scenes. This is a strange misconception that I see popping up on social media film discussion more and more frequently by people who also seem to basically think that "good editing" = short movie and "bad editing" = long movie.

Not to say that any criticism of self-indulgence in Tarantino's later films is invalid, just that the idea that if Sally Menke was alive she would've been tapping him on the shoulder in the edit suite saying "I don't think we need that second driving scene, Quentin" is a fundamental misunderstanding of what her job involved.

I don't believe "good editing" = short movie and "bad editing" = long movie. On the contrary.

By way of contrast, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is very long, but I wouldn't want to lose a minute of that. In fact, there was talk recently of a longer version, which I'd love to see. I'm all for a long film when it feels like it's justified.

For me, Tarantino's later films would be significantly improved by reining in his more self-indulgent tendencies, but he just seems unwilling to do so. I appreciate the technical intricacies of the film editor's role, as have been outlined by others here, but that is my fundamental point.

[Jim Bob]

EDIT: Oops. Wrong account.

[St_Eddie]

Noodle Lizard explained all this above with much more insight and practical understanding than I have, but the basic point bears repeating: the job of a film editor is not to dictate the overall structure of a movie or to unilaterally cut, add or trim scenes. This is a strange misconception that I see popping up on social media film discussion more and more frequently by people who also seem to basically think that "good editing" = short movie and "bad editing" = long movie.

Not to say that any criticism of self-indulgence in Tarantino's later films is invalid, just that the idea that if Sally Menke was alive she would've been tapping him on the shoulder in the edit suite saying "I don't think we need that second driving scene, Quentin" is a fundamental misunderstanding of what her job involved.

I'm simply going by my own experiences as an enthusiast and hobby editor.  It's enlightening (and somewhat disillusioning) to hear what professional editing actually entails and how stifling it is creatively, but as someone who has the luxury of freedom to be very creative when editing, I do have a decent understanding of the power inherent within a well executed edit and the intricacies of the process.  At any rate, I certainly don't think that 'good editing = short movie and bad editing = long movie'.  Why, only a kumquat would think that.

[Avril Lavigne]

I'm simply going by my own experiences as an enthusiast and hobby editor.  It's enlightening (and somewhat disillusioning) to hear what professional editing actually entails and how stifling it is creatively, but as someone who has the luxury of freedom to be very creative when editing, I do have a decent understanding of the power inherent within a well executed edit and the intricacies of the process.  At any rate, I certainly don't think that 'good editing = short movie and bad editing = long movie'.  Why, only a kumquat would think that.

I totally get where you're coming from Ed, I guess the beauty of hobby editing is having nobody to answer to and no compromises to make, and in that sense being director, producer and editor all at once at least in terms of the final cut. You know this anyway but I just like typing stuff.

[Rev+]

I hope this post was not directed at Avril Lavigne, who is one of this forum's finest contributors, it must be said.

Oh fuck no - I'd revised my own post as I'd originally written something a bit weird even by my own standards.

Sorry for any confusion, youse are all groovy.

[El Unicornio, mang]

And we wonder why Canadian pop singers from the noughties don't post here more often.

[touchingcloth]

I'm distracted by the enormous amount of elegant variation. Doing my fucking head in.

When you came pulling in here, did you notice a sign out in front of my house that said "Dead Negro Storage"? Did you discern a billboard out anterior to my residence that read "Deceased Coloured Fellow Depot"? You know WHY you didn't see that placard? Cause it ain't there, for stashing late African Americans ain't my fucking business, that's how come!

[Leej88]

Should have ended with the actual murders cause that is what happened

[chveik]

Should have ended with the actual murders cause that is what happened

that would've been original for once

[Dusty Substance]

Should have ended with the actual murders cause that is what happened

Should have been a post credit sequence with a de-aged Samuel L. Jackson.

[Avril Lavigne]

Should have ended with the actual murders cause that is what happened

nah

[St_Eddie]

Should have ended with the actual murders cause that is what happened

There's a reason why the film is titled "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood"; it's a fairytale take on the late Sixties of Tinseltown, happily ever after ending and all.  It's not intended as an accurate depiction of real events, even though it does use real events and people as its foundation.

[Avril Lavigne]

There's a reason why the film is titled "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood"; it's a fairytale take on the late Sixties of Tinseltown, happily ever after ending and all.  It's not intended as an accurate depiction of real events, even though it does use real events and people as its foundation.

I couldn't have put it better myself Ed, but Leej88's posts don't deserve replies with this level of effort or insight.

[McChesney Duntz]

But he's the only poster here who seems like a normal person!! Respect should be given!!

[St_Eddie]

Respect should be given!!

[Wet Blanket]

Just started the book and, despite the warnings of posters here, am still a bit taken aback by the terrible prose in between the dialogue, but it is still entertaining. I like the attention to detail in the wrapping, the cover featuring stills of scenes that I don't recall being in the film, in the way novelisations often would, and the adverts for 70s pulp fiction novels in the back pages. I notice one of them is for an 'expanded hardback edition' coming soon, which if not a spoof is a cash grab too far in my opinion.

[Icehaven]

Given the Manson Family members were supposed to be Manson's slavish followers who were prepared to murder on his command (with Tex boorishly reminding them of what their orders from him were in the car), it seemed a bit odd that they'd then go completely off-plan at the last minute and invade the house next door instead of doing what Manson had told them to do. Maybe we're just to infer that they'd go to Tate's house afterwards but it just didn't seem to quite chime with the whole thing of them being under his spell to just suddenly come up with a completely different plan of action, all agree on it then do it. But that doesn't matter too much I spose, given it was supposed to be a fairytale type scenario anyway. Goldilocks and the three murderers. 

[greenman]

Really though I would say the film doesn't give the impression of the Manson followers as brain washed drones, when Manson himself does appear he's much less threatening than someone like Squeeky at the ranch.

[Avril Lavigne]

Given the Manson Family members were supposed to be Manson's slavish followers who were prepared to murder on his command (with Tex boorishly reminding them of what their orders from him were in the car), it seemed a bit odd that they'd then go completely off-plan at the last minute and invade the house next door instead of doing what Manson had told them to do. Maybe we're just to infer that they'd go to Tate's house afterwards but it just didn't seem to quite chime with the whole thing of them being under his spell to just suddenly come up with a completely different plan of action, all agree on it then do it. But that doesn't matter too much I spose, given it was supposed to be a fairytale type scenario anyway. Goldilocks and the three murderers.

I had just assumed they got the wrong house completely by mistake, though I don't know if this is expanded on in the book as I haven't finished it yet, or if there was some dialogue in the movie that I can't remember that shows they know they're going off-plan.

[Icehaven]

I had just assumed they got the wrong house completely by mistake, though I don't know if this is expanded on in the book as I haven't finished it yet, or if there was some dialogue in the movie that I can't remember that shows they know they're going off-plan.

In the film when they pull up outside the houses, Di Caprio is alerted by the car noise and comes out, yells at them telling them to sod off, then goes back inside. One of them recognises him as a fading TV star and they have a conversation about how seeing murder on TV shows taught them to murder, so it'd be some kind of justification to kill a TV star, so they all agree to invade his house and kill him instead/as well as doing what Manson's told them to do. It's definitely intentional that they go to his house.

[Elderly Sumo Prophecy]

It's on Netflix now, in 4k to boot. Will give it a rewatch.

[St_Eddie]

I had just assumed they got the wrong house completely by mistake, though I don't know if this is expanded on in the book as I haven't finished it yet, or if there was some dialogue in the movie that I can't remember that shows they know they're going off-plan.

I think that Tarantino went to great pains to portray the Manson cult as buffoons.  Them messing up the address was an extension of that buffoonery.  Understandably, Tarantino did not write their characters with any great amount of affection.  I suspect a part of Quentin's power fantasy was to make a complete mockery of the Manson cult.