Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
GA for 1917 not warranted (yet) – the significance of the film editing is completely missing, and the whole premise of a two-take film, as claimed in the text, is factually wrong
It is amazing that this article was given GA status, when it completely misses out / misleads on the fact that 2017 is not a
one-shot or a two shot film, but instead has an undisclosed large number of elaborately hidden edits, which makes it appear as if it consists of only two uncut takes. ( GA-Criterium 2: "Factually correct" and
3: "Broad in its coverage"). There should be a whole section on the editing of this film by
Lee Smith, using sources like this article:
https://collider.com/1917-movie-editing-explained-lee-smith-interview/ And in the light of that article, the rest of the "Filming" section needs a rewrite too, that focuses more on the actual circumstances of the shoot. The source above is 10 months older than the GA assessment, so it was certainly available, as were other similar sources. Lee's creative input in the film goes way beyond just the technical skills to hide the edits; he was making decisions on which takes would be used from every day's shoot so as to perfectly set up the next days shoot. In coordination with the director he was basically deciding every day what would be the final version of each segment – something that in a normal editing process takes place over the course of months, not days. Sam Mendes says about Lee Smith
in this interview (which has been very badly transcribed, so rather quote directly from the video, than from the text): "It was like having another filmmaker working with me". Plenty of film critics and award juries were aware of Lee Smith's intricate work on this film,
since he received 10 award nominations for "Best Editing" – and won two of them! Funny that nobody who's worked on this article started wondering why that might have been the case... Greetings from --
Sprachraum (
talk)
05:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's my two cents.. I've had a quick skim of the article, and to be honest, I do feel it's lacking in depth. The film has been heavily publicised in the media; I expected more in the production section. From the filming, casting to writing decisions. The critical reception - I'm expecting more reviews here. I think this article falls short of criteria 3 - broad in its coverage. LM150 14:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
GA for 1917 not warranted (yet) – the significance of the film editing is completely missing, and the whole premise of a two-take film, as claimed in the text, is factually wrong
It is amazing that this article was given GA status, when it completely misses out / misleads on the fact that 2017 is not a
one-shot or a two shot film, but instead has an undisclosed large number of elaborately hidden edits, which makes it appear as if it consists of only two uncut takes. ( GA-Criterium 2: "Factually correct" and
3: "Broad in its coverage"). There should be a whole section on the editing of this film by
Lee Smith, using sources like this article:
https://collider.com/1917-movie-editing-explained-lee-smith-interview/ And in the light of that article, the rest of the "Filming" section needs a rewrite too, that focuses more on the actual circumstances of the shoot. The source above is 10 months older than the GA assessment, so it was certainly available, as were other similar sources. Lee's creative input in the film goes way beyond just the technical skills to hide the edits; he was making decisions on which takes would be used from every day's shoot so as to perfectly set up the next days shoot. In coordination with the director he was basically deciding every day what would be the final version of each segment – something that in a normal editing process takes place over the course of months, not days. Sam Mendes says about Lee Smith
in this interview (which has been very badly transcribed, so rather quote directly from the video, than from the text): "It was like having another filmmaker working with me". Plenty of film critics and award juries were aware of Lee Smith's intricate work on this film,
since he received 10 award nominations for "Best Editing" – and won two of them! Funny that nobody who's worked on this article started wondering why that might have been the case... Greetings from --
Sprachraum (
talk)
05:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Here's my two cents.. I've had a quick skim of the article, and to be honest, I do feel it's lacking in depth. The film has been heavily publicised in the media; I expected more in the production section. From the filming, casting to writing decisions. The critical reception - I'm expecting more reviews here. I think this article falls short of criteria 3 - broad in its coverage. LM150 14:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)