Tired of the same old action movie? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was shot and edited to feel like an old school action film. Star Harrison Ford recently told The Australian that “we didn’t shoot it like a Matrix style where if you hit somebody they end up in this big space and you didn’t feel the hurt, you don’t feel the fear. I feel you very quickly lose emotional connection with the character if it’s like that. We are more old school.”
Director Steven Spielberg also told N.Y. Times that he tries to cut as little as possible in the action sequences because “every time the camera changes dynamic angles, you feel there’s something wrong, that there’s some cheating going on.”
“The idea is, there’s no illusion; what you see is what you get. My movies have never been frenetically cut, the way a lot of action is done today. That’s not a put-down; some of that quick cutting, like in ‘The Bourne Ultimatum,’ is fantastic, just takes my breath away. But to get the comedy I want in the Indy films, you have to be old-fashioned. I’ve studied a lot of the old movies that made me laugh, and you’ve got to stage things in full shots and let the audience be the editor. It’s like every shot is a circus act.”
Spielberg’s goal is “to do the shots the way Chaplin or Keaton would, everything happening before the eyes of the audience, without a cut.”
When my colleagues and I had the chance to sit down with Spielberg during the filming of Indiana Jones 4 he explained the importance of the audience knowing where they are in the context of a big action scene. He used words like “geography” and expressed his dislike for the “MTV style” fast-cut editing that have plagued modern day action films It should be noted that Spielberg also exec-produced Michael Bay’s Transformers, so figure that out. In January, Spielberg reaffirmed the same feelings in an interview with Vanity Fair:
“I go for geography. I want the audience to know not only which side the good guy’s on and the bad guy’s on, but which side of the screen they’re in, and I want the audience to be able to edit as quickly as they want in a shot that I am loath to cut away from. And that’s been my style with all four of these Indiana Jones pictures. Quick-cutting is very effective in some movies, like the Bourne pictures, but you sacrifice geography when you go for quick-cutting. Which is fine, because audiences get a huge adrenaline rush from a cut every second and a half on The Bourne Ultimatum, and there’s just enough geography for the audience never to be lost, especially in the last Bourne film, which I thought was the best of the three. But, by the same token, Indy is a little more old-fashioned than the modern-day action adventure.”
I think Spielberg has a great point. Some recent action films have been so intense that you can’t even keep up with what’s going on. Not that those type of action sequences don’t have a place in cinema (for example The Bourne series). Everytime I watch Raiders of the Lost Ark I’m amazed at the construction of every single frame, and every single cut. It’s almost like directing action has become a lost art, something delegated to less competent filmmakers. Remember when Spielberg was nominated for Best Director for a popcorn action movie?
Paramount has also released four new television spots for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Each of them contains a little more new footage. Check them out below.
Discuss: Does the action in a movie need to be fast cut and always moving to compete in today’s world of action films?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
i think spielberg is absolutely right. some of the recent blockbusters like “jumper” or “speed racer” seemed like during some scenes even the cutters did not know what was going on.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Whoa… it’s finally sinking in. A freaking INDIANA JONES MOVIE is being released in 15 days! How cool is that?
May 6th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I remember an episode of Jericho and there were 13, YES, 13 different shots in less than 30 seconds for one scene. It’s crazy. Good job Steven!
This is the thing I love, long shots. Children of Men did it and Funny Games did it. THOSE parts are the only good parts because you know that if something goes wrong, they have to redo everything and it’s just fun
May 6th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I hope Christopher Nolan attended this Spielberg lecture before filming TDK. Face it, the action scenes in Begins could have used a nudge in that direction.
Today’s world needs Indiana Jones.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
fast cuts, long shots, no matter. The only editing that will work is to cut out Shia and the aliens. Of course long shots are better, otherwise you end up with the Bourne trilogy which could have been done by an eight year old.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
No a movie doesn’t always need to be fast cut. I agree with Steve, with fast cutting you lose the attention to detail. But action movies, to be go do always have to be movie. Its an action film, the more action the better.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Yes, Spielberg does have an excellent point. But do you really think that he is the FIRST person to make that point? It’s like if Joe Schmo says “2 + 2 = 4″ and no one gives a shit, but 8 years later Oprah says it and the reaction is: “Oh, we better put this on our website. This is really insightful”.
Rapid Cuts and Nauseating Editing have been one of the most dominant styles since the invention of the Avid.
Sorry, but I meet Spielberg’s insight with the attitude: “duh”, and I don’t think I’m alone in that.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Peter, I could have sworn you posted those quotes before. Woah, dejavu!
May 6th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
The trailer before Iron Man was a WAAAAAYYYY better cut than the first trailer. I was on the brink of disappointment after the first trailer — it had some strange timing issues and the score didn’t suck me in. The latest trailer solves that for me completely — I can’t wait.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
This post is my new drinking game. Every time someone mentions the Borne Movies, I’m gonna take a drink. Unless they’re mentioning how okay they are with the frenetic fast-cut style.
Then I’m gonna do a shot.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
“When my colleagues and I had the chance to sit down with Spielberg during the filming of Indiana Jones 4…”
LOL. Your colleagues… Had the chance to sat down… You take yourself a bit too seriously.
Howabout, when a bunch of entertainment writer schlubs including myself were sat down at table or shuffled into a hotel room by PR people, I got to ask the sixth question of Mr. Spielberg, right after the writer from lesbianmovierama.com asked Mr. Spielberg if E.T. was gay. Then some really fat guy who was sweating and looked really nervous blurted out that he loved 1941.
As someone who has been to these interviews, I think that would be a more apt description of how these things go.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Does the action in a movie need to be fast cut and always moving to compete in today’s world of action films?
Absolutely not. While some films use it effectively to excite the audience, mostly editors use it as a cheap trick to freak out movie watchers and make them feel like they’re “a part of the action.” All it makes me feel is motion-sick.
I have to say, I’m really looking forward to Crystal Skulls. Of all the trailer/spots, the second one was my favorite. All the others were a little choppy for me, and I think the second one had the perfect balance of dialogue and action.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
I agree with spielberg, as an amateur film-maker, I’ve always wondered why people don’t pay more attention to action films that take advantage of blowing the audience away with long shots. For instance, Children of Men’s long shots, the final one lasting for 6 minuets is mind-blowing, many of the movies Tony Jaa is in, are incredible too, and mainly due to the long shots the directors use. I think taht the better crafted, longer shots will always impress the audience, as well as inspire other film-makers to say “How the hell did he manage that?”
May 6th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Why does this seem like a surprise that Spielberg doesn’t do fast cuts? He’s never like that. He’s confident enough to keep the viewers waiting. Thats why he’s the best, he knows what hes doing..and has been since his first film.
The guy is the fucking man, I refuse to watch these clips as I want to actually be surprised for once. (This is to you /film, for ruining Iron Man for me :P wink)
May 6th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I’m in the total minority here.
But I am so un-excited about this movie it’s not even funny. I don’t know what it is. It’s either that I got my fill of Indy with the Last Crusade (which was the best one out of the trilogy) or seeing this even older Ford jumping around throwing slow-ass punches.
Maybe a combination of both. I just don’t see anything new done in this that makes me want to go into a movie theatre and pay for it.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Jamie: Actually, Spielberg doesn’t usually do online press, and no, the interview wasn’t in a packed hotel room with 20 other people.
A few select online press outlets were invited to the set of Indy and the 6 or so of us met with Spielberg in the screening room at Amblien and had a free form discussion free of recording devices.
I have been to the junkets that you speak of, but this was the complete opposite of that experience.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:50 am
“I hope Christopher Nolan attended this Spielberg lecture before filming TDK. Face it, the action scenes in Begins could have used a nudge in that direction.”
The visual style of Begins was good, but the editing in the action sequences (especially the tumbler chase) was dubious at best, way too fast. I mean, they were enjoyable but it really didn’t fit the rest of the film.
TDK looks awesome, though. Hopefully he’ll be a bit more Spielberg-ian approach. Good to here it’ll be old school action in Indy IV.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:07 am
“Does the action in a movie need to be fast cut and always moving to compete in today’s world of action films?”
May depend partially on the age of the viewer too and how they are used to receiving and parsing visual information. Younger viewers may nod off during set pieces that feel like molasses to them compared to what they are used to. Personally I can see merits to both approaches. I just worry that there is a danger of these action sequences feeling like home video of the Disney MGM’s Indana Jones Stunt Spectacular. Which is fine when viewing it live.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:47 am
FINALLY, ome sense when it comes to editing action movies!
Quick edits are such a cheap and sloppy way of editing. Confusing the viewer of what’s happening does not excite them, it just confuses and distracts them from what is really going.
Most of the time quick edits are used to cover up bad directing. If you chop up scenes a lot you can re-use FX shots and don’t need to worry about choreography..
“Just shake the camera a lot and I’ll make quick edits! That’ll be our action scene!” Booo! :(
May 7th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
I’d have to say I don’t pay much attention to the
editing while I’m watching a movie unless it’s really
bad and draws my attention to it. You want to see
bad editing just watch “Feast”. I’m excited about
seeing Dr Jones in a new adventure. This is
gonna be great.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I cannot believe what I am hearing! This film is going to be the rebirth of the almighty! These trailers, and all the ones previous, have been freaking great! WE are seeing an icon comeback to life, and what is everyone doing? Dumping all over it. This WILL be the best Indy!
May 8th, 2008 at 3:44 am
Peter, I apologize for being an asshole.
Jamie