Talk:Cutting on action

Last Year at Marienbad
I haven't seen Last Year at Marienbad, but I don't understand how it can be a particularly noteworthy example of this rule of editing. Cutting on action isn't just a technique that's used now and then; it's one of the fundamental rules of Western editing. It's sometimes broken, yes, but it seems so inherent that I question how this or any film can be a particular example of it. It would seem to me that the exceptions would be notable. Saying "Last Year at Marienbad is notable for doing a lot of cutting on action" seems (to me) to be like saying "George W. Bush is notable for never having robbed a bank" or "John Lennon was notable for having the ability to chew food". These things are standard, and noting them is outlandish. The same goes for mentioning that a particular film cuts on action. Unless it's the first movie to do so, mentioning it is absurd. -Branddobbe 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we do not mean the same by "cutting on action", something which is extensively dealt by in the cited Bordwell book I am now translating to Hungarian. Cutting on action is meant especially for the type of editing which Bordwell shows as an example from Marienbad:
 * First you see a large hall in which there is a woman in the foreground. The woman starts a sequence of body movements such as turning her head slowly to the side. Then, there is a cut, and the woman can be seen continuing the exact body movements in the exact same position on the screen, but in a completely different room from before.


 * This is what is referred to by Bordwell as cutting on action and this is very characteristic of Marienbad. I believe that what you are talking about is a much more general form of editing which is not the same as cutting on action. I agree, though, that the article is a bit misleading by not including the large change that is seen on the screen in the example. AdamDobay 10:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never heard that definition before; everyone I've spoken with uses it to mean the more general definition (for example, cutting from a wide shot to a closeup when a character turns around). I think the definition in the book you're talking about is supposed to be an unusual example of it rather than the typical use. -Branddobbe 19:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that section of the chapter is meant to explain the term referred to as "cutting on action" or "matching on action". Of course, normal editing involves the example you write above, but cutting in action means the change of a whole set of visual information. If you are quite sure and can also provide a source for the interpretation you describe, then I propose two definitions, one yours and one Bordwell's. AdamDobay 20:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on everybody's feedback, I changed the article. Please take a look. Peter S. 15:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Example
Why is only item in the "Example" section (Muriel ou Le temps d'un retour) a counterexample? The reader wants to know about the standard way this technique is used, not about something that subverts the standard. Vogelfrei (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. --GHcool (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)