Somewhere... Peter Hunt Is Crying

bigzilcho

Somewhere...Peter Hunt is crying.

Over the years, some Bond-fans have speculated as to how disappointed Fleming might be by some of the films. Speaking of speculation...I can't help but feel that somewhere Peter Hunt is shedding a tear. Why? Because, as far as I can tell, the editing of a Bond movie has NEVER been as major an issue as it is in QOS.

With the exception of a brilliantly handled fight in the hotel room, I was staggered by the fact that these two editors seemed to completely dismiss the history of editing in the Bond series, namely in the work of one Peter Hunt. (And John Glen while we're at it)

Check out Hunt's work in, say, the PTS of TB or the Kiss Kiss Club. IMO, it completely puts to shame the work in QOS. Lightning-fast cuts which build to a crescendo.

Editing is flow and, in the opinion of Hunt, should have the timing of a good piece of music. It hurts me to realize how many people are walking out of QOS mentioning the editing as a hindrance. And for a Bond film, that...CANNOT BE...EVER.

I will stand on my soap-box and proclaim to the world that not only was Hunt's work electrifying. It was revolutionary. Because action editing didn't really exist the way we know it before Hunt. And I'll stand by that statement. Nothing in film history before FRWL can compare to the Bond/Grant fight. Hunt pushed the speed to such a point it put Hitchcock to shame.

Make no mistake, I am not stuck in 1965. I came of age with rapid-fire editing in the MTV era and I truly believe that, unless handled with utmost care, the end result can be disorienting...hence the complaints about QOS.

And lets not make this a generational dispute, shall we? This is not about some notion that this is 2008 and, therefore, attention spans are shorter and I should get used to it. (CR was masterfully edited by Stuart Baird ...in 2006) If X amount of people say a wheel is squeaky then, eventually, there might be reason to be believe that the wheel, may, in actuality, be squeaky. And, my friends, the editing in QOS is making way too many noises for too many fans. Something is amiss.

Peter Hunt understood implicitly from the start that Bond was about speed, pace and exhiliration...not sound and fury. To a master editor like Hunt, would he be happy with QOS?

I think not. Somewhere... Peter Hunt is shedding a tear.


"Guns make me nervous."

royalmile

Gosh, bigzilcho.

Well said.

blueman

I've been thinking just the opposite, that Hunt is grinning ear to ear somewhere, looking at how his landmark techniques have - finally - evolved. QOS sits squarely on Hunt's shoulders, editing-wise, and picks up where OHMSS left off (29 years late, but better that than never ). IMHO.

Higgins

The goal of Hunt's editing has been to get the viewer into the action and feel the speed, not to distract and disorientate him, for whatever reason this may be.

I agree, Peter RIP showed in his masterpiece OHMSS how pace can be done without getting lost of sight, QoS failed obviously for several reasons.

I am sure, that Peter is crying silently somewhere.

blueman wrote:

.... seems pretty solidly positive to me, fuzzy math dude that I am.

blueman wrote:

and picks up where OHMSS left off (29 years late, but better that than never ). IMHO.

39...

taity

blueman wrote:

QOS sits squarely on Hunt's shoulders, editing-wise, and picks up where OHMSS left off (29 years late, but better that than never ). IMHO.

Blueman - you really want to say that was a full 29 years ago? Seems a little longer to me.

But I agree completely with Bigzilcho and thought that the editing in the action scenes was too fast, and didnt give you time to absorb what was going on. I could barely follow the Sienna tunnel chase which is sad because i had been very excited about it originally.

Napoleon Plural

Actually some say that Hunt went over the top over his editing of the bob sleigh ride, ripping it to shreds, but now it looks quite of the moment.

Moonraker 5

royalmile wrote:

Gosh, bigzilcho.

Well said.

Yup, very!

Lady Rose

Moonraker 5 wrote:

royalmile wrote:

Gosh, bigzilcho.

Well said.

Yup, very!

I know ... I hate bigzilcho's posts ... they're all so well written I can never add to them )


{[]

glidrose

The fast cut editing in QoS actually reminded me very much of Hunt's tyle in OHMSS. It looks fairly similar in places. I have no problems with the way the action sequences are cut at all in QoS.

What I do have issues with, is cutting the film down to a bare minimum, leaving the audience gasping for breath and giving the film an odd claustrophobic feel. The film needed some down time in parts, extra padding showing normality, let the audience come down a few notches before sending them up again.

Unfortunately, Forster got rid of all excess footage, so we are left with a film that does feel like watching a speeding bullet. And something not everyone wants to experience when watching a film.

Alessandra

royalmile wrote:

Gosh, bigzilcho.

Well said.

Definitely Completely agree, you make very valid points bigzilcho.

blueman

taity wrote:

blueman wrote:

QOS sits squarely on Hunt's shoulders, editing-wise, and picks up where OHMSS left off (29 years late, but better that than never ). IMHO.

Blueman - you really want to say that was a full 29 years ago? Seems a little longer to me.

Oops. ;% Just trying to make myself younger again (or sucking at math, take your pick ).

DAWUSS

Thing is, I don't think this trend is exclusive to Bond films. It seems to me that films are doing things that contribute to short attention spans. Epileptic editing, OTT stunts, excessive explosions...

And you couple that with the (IMO) declining quality of storylines out there, and then all you can do is hope that eventually there will be a turnaround.

If only we had current-era technology with past-era creativity.

blueman

I guess I don't see the craft as exclusive from the technology - and boy do I remember some really, REALLY dreadful films from the 60s/70s/80s (some of them even featured this spy named Bond, maybe you've seen them... ). Agree that there are some dreadful films being made now that are all zip and no substance, but that's always the way it is - not every film can be a QOS. {:)

yodboy007

A friend of mine who just graduated from NYU film school told me that editing makes the film. He is right. No matter what you film or how well you film it you must be able to put it together. He was working for Scorsese's office as an intern in the summer of 2006 when one of my favorite films, The Departed, was being edited and he said one of the early cuts was just plain bad. If anyone has seen and liked that film then they understand why it took a year to edit it. That film was made by its brilliant editing.

Now, there are many different editing techniques out there. Not all of them suit a Bond film, but certain ones definitely do not. The style of editing chosen for QOS would indeed have made Peter Hunt shed a few tears. The Bourne films are not the only films that have influenced the way QOS was edited. Like someone said earlier it very well may be because of this generation's short attention span combined with their thirst for huge explosions and indifference to the plot. I do not think that the editing ruined QOS, but it was definitely one of its worst elements. Hunt's style was indeed groundbreaking and all Bond film editors from here on out should respect what he did. I am not saying all the films should be edited in his style, but his style should always be an inspiration.

The main way that the editing is going to hurt QOS will be in the long run. The action sequences in this film (there were plenty of them) were very hard to follow due to the editing. These actions sequences in my opinion will not go down in history as some of the all-time greats. I do not see them being placed in many clip-shows or montages of the greatest Bond moments. How can they be when they are too badly edited to comprehend or enjoy? The hotel fight scene was great as was the climax in the desert hotel, but that is it. I do not think any of the rest were that good. They are not memorable simply because of their editing.

Gassy Man

At the risk of great bodily harm, I think Peter Hunt's ADHD editing (and John Barry's matching music) is the biggest flaw in "On Her Majesty's Secret Secret Service," an otherwise excellent film. His more languid moments -- the helicopter ascent, ski chases, and interaction with Draco, for instance -- are far more effective than the quick zooms and choppy editing (and Barry's almost Snidely Whiplash-esque music) that even some of my students snickered at. That Quantum adopts a contemporary version of it is that film's biggest flaw -- a shame, really, considering how good a cast was assembled and how little we got to focus on any of them for any length of time.

Loeffelholz

Oh, well! Hope you enjoy the next one a bit more, BZ {[]

JADE66

bigzilcho wrote:

Somewhere...Peter Hunt is crying.

Over the years, some Bond-fans have speculated as to how disappointed Fleming might be by some of the films. Speaking of speculation...I can't help but feel that somewhere Peter Hunt is shedding a tear. Why? Because, as far as I can tell, the editing of a Bond movie has NEVER been as major an issue as it is in QOS.

With the exception of a brilliantly handled fight in the hotel room, I was staggered by the fact that these two editors seemed to completely dismiss the history of editing in the Bond series, namely in the work of one Peter Hunt. (And John Glen while we're at it)

Check out Hunt's work in, say, the PTS of TB or the Kiss Kiss Club. IMO, it completely puts to shame the work in QOS. Lightning-fast cuts which build to a crescendo.

Editing is flow and, in the opinion of Hunt, should have the timing of a good piece of music. It hurts me to realize how many people are walking out of QOS mentioning the editing as a hindrance. And for a Bond film, that...CANNOT BE...EVER.

I will stand on my soap-box and proclaim to the world that not only was Hunt's work electrifying. It was revolutionary. Because action editing didn't really exist the way we know it before Hunt. And I'll stand by that statement. Nothing in film history before FRWL can compare to the Bond/Grant fight. Hunt pushed the speed to such a point it put Hitchcock to shame.

Make no mistake, I am not stuck in 1965. I came of age with rapid-fire editing in the MTV era and I truly believe that, unless handled with utmost care, the end result can be disorienting...hence the complaints about QOS.

And lets not make this a generational dispute, shall we? This is not about some notion that this is 2008 and, therefore, attention spans are shorter and I should get used to it. (CR was masterfully edited by Stuart Baird ...in 2006) If X amount of people say a wheel is squeaky then, eventually, there might be reason to be believe that the wheel, may, in actuality, be squeaky. And, my friends, the editing in QOS is making way too many noises for too many fans. Something is amiss.

Peter Hunt understood implicitly from the start that Bond was about speed, pace and exhiliration...not sound and fury. To a master editor like Hunt, would he be happy with QOS?

I think not. Somewhere... Peter Hunt is shedding a tear.


"Guns make me nervous."

I agree 100%. The Bourne films gave us blurred quick cuts which were confusing and headache inducing. Let's avoid that with Bond.

IcePak

I saw the film last night and I totally agree about everything that's been said about the poor editing of this film. The cuts are too quick, particularly in the action sequences, and make the film hard to follow. There's no real flow to the film, just jumps from one bit to the next, again, particularly in the action scenes. I can see a good film in there, but the editing has hampered any real comprehension of the story, or what is going on in the action scenes besides Bond's victory at the end of each one - how he actually overcame the villians is beyond me in most scenes.

urhash

I doubt Peter Hunt would be thrilled with QoS's editing.

Let's clarify: Hunt argued that the continuity between shots (ie. a person drinking a cup, then not holding the cup in the following cut) should NOT interfere with the continuity of the pace the editor is trying to set - he was not saying that the continuity of the scene should be sacrificed in setting the pacing!