#dustin comes and gets them (he saw eddie- who he saw take them- pacing outside the bathroom while the two had their canon heart to heart) | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

tinyboxxtink · 2 years

Note

Hey! I ADORE your Eddie x reader stuff ❤️

Ive had this idea in my head but absolutely no time to write, but the Hellfire Club is pretty obviously using the theater departments prop storage room as their meeting place… what about a theater kid!reader who desperately needs some props for their version of Hamlet or something - specifically Eddie’s throne - and it conflicts with the only date everyone could make it to the big battle in his latest campaign. (I’m happy to help with any theater or dnd refrerences if you need it ☺️)

i'm a theater kid, so I know stuff.

I modified the idea a bit, I hope you like it. [also I discarded the other ask since it pertained to this]

—--------

You stood outside the prop room, mentally preparing yourself to go in. You could hear The Hellfire Club in the middle of a huge campaign, and you were terrified to interrupt them.Finally you heard them taking a break, and you took a deep breath before opening the door.

Every member froze in their conversations, turning to stare at you.

“Did you need something, outsider?” one random guy asked in a snooty voice.

“Man, chill,” Eddie Munson hit him softly. “We’re on a break,”

“But did you need something, Y/N?”

He knew your name. How did he know your name?

“Y-You know my name?” you stammered.

“I assume that’s your name, it’s all over this sign out sheet,” He picks up a clipboard labelled “PROP SIGN OUT SHEET.”

“Right,” you nodded sheepishly, looking down. “Actually, speaking of–” you cleared your throat.

“Yeah?” He walked closer to you, and you could smell the old weed and Old Spice wafting off of him.

“I kinda need– you nodded to the throne that Eddie liked to sit in when they had their campaigns.

Every other member in the club froze at your statement, staring at Eddie. They held their breath for his response; everyone knew that was his throne.

He narrowed his eyes at you, stepping even closer to you.

“For what?”

“A play, duh,” you answered rather snarkily, now feeling your ‘stage manager’ presence coming back to you. “Y’know that is what these things are actually meant for,”

“Ooooooh,” the other members made noises of awe, to which Eddie quickly glared at them, shutting them down.

“Alright Princess,” he smirked at you, licking his lips. “Take it, but return it when you’re through,”

“Yeah no shit,” you rolled your eyes as you took the clipboard from him.

You wrote down all the dates you’d need the throne before handing it back to him. You saw him glance over it, and his eyes widened.

“Uh, yeah no this ain’t gonna work, Princess,” Eddie shook his head as he pointed to opening night.

“Excuse me?” you put your hands on your hips.

“That’s the day of our Gauntlet,” he simply said, as if you knew what that was.

“Am I supposed to know what that means?” You looked around the group, who still just stared wide eyed at your exchange with your leader.

“It’s like our playoffs,” Dustin Henderson informed you.

“Are you serious?” you had to laugh, causing an even bigger glare from Eddie and his peons to cower in fear.

“I need that throne for a show actual people are going to see, Eddie,” you crossed your arms.

“Oh is that so?” he chuckled.

“Yeah, and I outrank you in the real world, ‘King Munson’,” you smirked.

“It’s King Mason, actually,” he corrected you, using his character’s last name.

“Wow, creative,” you laughed.

The other members watched in fearful awe at the back and forth between you and their ‘king’. THey wished they had some popcorn for something like this.

“Listen Princess,” He starts to circle you. “I get you may be ‘queen’ of your little theater folk, but you can’t just come in here and disrespect me like that,”

“Right…” you rolled your eyes with a small smile.

“Perhaps we can come to an agreement,” he suggested.

“Uh yeah, you agree to move your little game to another night,” you gave him a cheeky tongued smile.

The other members of Hellfire start making motions of stress and pacing, knowing you were quickly angering their leader more by the second. But to their surprise, he didn’t yell or scream. He actually laughed in amusement.

“...I like you, Y/L/N,” he chuckled. “You got spirit,”

“Thank you?” you did your best to keep your face straight, even though inside you were secretly squealing in delight in having Eddie Munson’s approval.You’d never admit it to anyone, but you secretly had been in love with him since 8th grade.

“Tell you what,” He crosses his arm, still smirking at you. “You get us tickets to your little show, and I’ll see about moving our Gauntlet,”

“You wanna go to the play?” you snorted. “I wouldn’t peg you as a theater person, Munson,”

“Well if you’re gonna be there, it might be worth it, Princess,” He winked.

The other members were now looking at each other in confusion and disbelief. Was Eddie actually flirting with the intruder?

That was it, you were visually taken aback, undone at his words. You could feel your face flushing hot, pushing hair behind your ears as you looked at the floor.

“I–um, I–” you took a deep breath before looking back up, seeing he had moved closer, now inches from your face.

“Y’know, we really don’t use this shit,” he whispered. “I just hang out here because your name’s on that sheet. I figured one day you’d come in here looking for a hat or something,”

Your knees almost gave out from under you at his confession. Was Eddie Munson actually admitting he had a crush on you? For how long? So many things ran through your head at the moment, you could barely keep conscious.

“R-Really?” you whispered, trying to keep composure.

“Really,” he looks down at your lips with a cheeky smile.

Then without warning he swiftly backed away, as if you two had been making some sort of secret deal, keeping his image in front of his knaves.

“I guess we’ll see you opening night then, Princess,” he bowed dramatically. “I’ll be sure to bring the Stage Manager a special surprise,”

“O-Okay,” you giggled nervously, quickly becoming a girly mess the more he flashed that heart melting smile at you.

You backed out of the room before you made an even bigger fool of yourself, shutting the door behind you and immediately crumbling to the floor against it in a pile of infatuated mess.

That was, until you realized he had just conned you out of taking the throne of the room that day.

“TIme for round two,” you giggled to yourself as you re-entered the room, ready to go toe-to-toe with ‘King Mason’.

On opening night, when you were asked to come out onstage for the curtain call, you saw Eddie and his members standing in the front row, clapping wildly. Eddie held out roses and knelt before the stage, giving you a wink.

That was the day you became queen of Eddie Munson’s heart.

#eddie munson x reader #edd #eddie munson imagine #eddie baby #eddie munson fluff #eddie munson drabble #eddie munson drabble request #eddie munson #eddie munson one shot #ask #alwaysspoopy

122 notes · View notes

thesportssoundoff · 5 years

Text

“Future Glory For Former Champions?” Two Guys Opine

Slight opening first: This was done in late November and @theanticool had his done first. With so many shows and news, I Wanted to wait to post it because so much has gone down and I didn’t want it getting buried. It was completed a few days before Anderson Silva vs Israel Adesanya was confirmed as not just being a fight but being a #1 contender fight. Just a heads up on that.

Two Dudes Opine!

As most of you know by listening to any sort of DojoTalkPodcast cameo I’ve done, @theanticool and I don’t agree on much of anything. That said, it’s an absolute joy to bounce ideas around, especially in the idea vacuum that is MMA, and have some good old fashioned debate on things. Conversation creates smarter people in my estimation and I obviously need all the help I can get!

I wanted to take this concept and sort of test how often we truly agree and disagree. As such, I figured he and I might want to dabble a bit to see just HOW often we agree or disagree. Once he agreed after many meetings and contractual negotiations, we agreed on a concept: I’m going to come up with a topic and present him with a list of names inside that topic. Independently we’ll each go through the names provided and see just how we match up at the end of this grabbag assignment. Our first project focused on prospects coming off a loss and I think it’s worth pointing out that Yair, Arjan Bhullar and Cynthia Calvillo were all featured in the discussion and all have gone on to win. This month we have:

In the UFC, it's very hard to regain titles after you lose them. In the modern era, only TJ Dillashaw has flat out won back a title he lost (Daniel Cormier was given it back due to Jon Jones' drug test failure while Jose Aldo won an interim title before getting elevated up to championship status). Fighters such as Aldo, Rashad Evans, Junior Dos Santos and countless others have all come up short in quests to either regain gold or find new gold in other weight classes. With that as the set up, which of the following fighters can either regain their title in their current weight class or find championship success either up or down a weight class:

Conor McGregor

Cody Garbrandt

Robbie Lawler

Holly Holm

Chris Weidman

Anderson Silva

I’m in the bold and @theanticool is in italics!

Conor McGregor- I mean if you want to manipulate it just right, Conor McGregor can absolutely find his way back to the title scene! Conor's a weird one for me---and I'm beginning to wonder if the Conor McGregor we saw at 145 lbs was more about right time, right place and perhaps even right matchmaking than anything else. Conor's wins at 145 lbs are amazing from Chad Mendes to Jose Aldo to Dustin Poirier to even a quality mid level gatekeeper type like Dennis Siver. Even Max Holloway was a case of maybe two guys facing off before they're ready to do so. Since going up in weight, Conor's 2-2. The Eddie Alvarez fight was an absolute demolition job and one of the best wins of his career given the opponent BUT I'm a bit less high up on Alvarez after seeing him struggle with Poirier twice. The Diaz fights revealed problems with Conor's pacing but also his ability to deal with the same stylistic challenges he gives others. Lengthy opponents who won't allow him to just walk them down, put them against the cage and tee off. That and to be honest? I'm really not that high up on Nate Diaz either. The Khabib performance was really good given the circumstances (long layoff from MMA, stylistic nightmare, hurt early in the fight) but THIS is what lurks at the top at 155 lbs. Khabib, Kevin Lee, Tony Ferguson, a rejuvenated (yet still flawed) Dustin Poirier, Al Iaquinta plus other really great fighters who don't get their due because of the weight class depth. This is not to say that Conor McGregor loses to all of those guys or even that he's not a great fighter---he's just a great fighter as opposed to the meteoric supernova who ran through 145 lbs with such ease. Guys like Justin Gaethje are conditioned to wins wars of attrition, something Conor struggled with vs Nate. Guys like Kevin Lee and Al Iaquinta present enough of a well rounded overall game to where you could sort of see them finding ways to get Conor in enough bad spots to steal a decision. Tony Ferguson, Dustin Poirier and Khabib are elite and while Poirier's rise to the top hasn't changed the fighter he is, I think his chances in a rematch are waaaay better now that he's not completely sunken in. This doesn't even account for Ortega or Holloway coming up eventually as well.

But this isn't about Conor entirely; it's about his chances to get back in the title picture. Conor is basically a long frustrating Khabib suspension away from being in a title fight, even if it's just an interim at 155 lbs. If the UFC opens up 165 lbs, they are absolutely going to hand him a shot to fight for the belt because that's business. Shit, Conor is one win away from facing Colby Covington (Oh lord have mercy) or even opening up the doors for something with Tyron Woodley. Conor McGregor is a star and stars can get away with doing things like that. It also helps that he's a great enough fighter that the public can absolutely buy him potentially beating a guy like Tony Ferguson or Colby Covington or Woodley or whomever pops up at 165 lbs. What Conor does well at, he's one of the best at and that will always give him a shot. Again the people he's ACTUALLY beaten are among some of the best in the sports history----so who am I to say he can't get back into the title picture?

Conor McGregor

I can see Conor politicking himself back into title contention. Let’s be real, he’s never going to be far from a title shot. With Khabib Nurmagomedov’s future kind of up in the air with the pending investigation of the NSAC and his father stating that he doesn’t want his son fighting past 30, the lightweight title could be up for grabs soon. Not to mention Khabib and Tony Ferguson are injury prone individuals. If one or both of them get hurt, McGregor is right back in the title picture. And should Ferguson and Khabib fall out of the picture, I’d like McGregor’s chances against the likes of Dustin Poirier, Kevin Lee (maybe less so him but still), Justin Gaethje, Anthony Pettis, and Nate Diaz. Heck, if the UFC ever decides to make that 165lb division you know McGregor going for his 3rd belt would be too much for the UFC to pass up. If McGregor continues fighting, he will eventually get another shot because of his popularity. By that virtue alone, he’s got a better shot than most former champions of getting a UFC title.

Cody Garbrandt- I still like Cody but there be some issues here. For starters, backs, necks and knees don't get better. That's especially true for fighters who rely on their reflexes and quick twitch ability to enter into exchanges and for their defense. Garbrandt having back problems at the scant age of 27 is rather worrisome. That's more worrisome than the fact that he now has two losses to the champ TJ Dillashaw. Bantamweight is a bit like heavyweight and so like JDS vs Cain, Cody could realistically always just be a title change away from being back in the picture. I'm sure when I read Anticool's retort, he's not going to agree here but I DO think Cody can beat TJ. They've fought twice and he's hurt TJ and both fights. The difference is that Dillashaw is a way better finisher (If TJ knocks Cruz down the way Cody does then the fight's over) and Dillashaw instinct wise just seems better. He seems more capable of surviving bad exchanges, smarter with adjustments and more willing to not be prideful (Garbrant absolutely stands with Lineker and nobody can convince me otherwise). For Cody to get back to the top, he needs to beat somebody in the top 5 but outside of Jimmie Rivera, I don't see a lot of willing matchups. I'm on the fence here.

Cody Garbrandt

MMA is not like boxing. Getting knocked out back to back doesn’t spell immediate doom and gloom for your career. It’s still not a good look though. I really hated the immediate rematch between Garbrandt and Dillashaw because I saw it as potentially burning out a young prospect’s career in a chase for quick money. And I honestly don’t know how Garbrandt will turn out till we see him fight someone in the top 10 at bantamweight who isn’t TJ Dillashaw or Dominick Cruz. This division is currently brimming with young talented fighters who are improving dramatically between fights, while Garbrandt seemingly hasn’t. We need to see him build on his current boxing game. Maybe use more of his wrestling. Add some tools to his kickboxing arsenal that aren’t reliant on the fact that he has a lot of power in his hands. I will reserve judgement on him till we see him fight again. We just don’t know where he’s at after coming up short twice to someone he hates. That has to be mentally exhausting.

Robbie Lawler- Oh what Robbie Lawler has brought to us. Nobody should forget 2013 to 2015 when Lawler fought Johnny Hendricks twice, Jake Ellenberger, Rory MacDonald twice and Matt Brown off the top of my head. Since then? I think Robbie might be broken, dudes. Lawler is 2-2 but should really be 1-3 (fight me about it, guys) and all of those fights seemed less about the skill he had and more about the heart he still possesses. You don't have the fight of year in back to back to back years without losing a piece of you in the process and it's perhaps made all the more remarkable when you consider Robbie fought four times in 2014 and has seen the number decline from 4 to 1 in 2015 to 2 in 2016 to 2 in 2017 to nada in 2018. The matter was made worse by an ACL injury sustained in a fight vs RDA where he was pretty much wiped out even if he didn't ever seem to be in danger of being finished. I like Robbie a lot and I think a serious convo will be had about him as a hall of fame talent AND I remember when the UFC made him one of the first big signings BACK from Strikeforce when everybody had mailed it in on Lawler. A return to WW made him great again but now? I think the time has come and gone. Robbie's 36 years old coming off knee surgery in a division that's ripe to get younger real quick. Of course I can't ignore the shades of Koscheck vs Lawler with this Askren booking but Ben's a lot better than Josh was at that point in his career. I think the Lawler days are done.

Robbie Lawler

Hindsight is 20/20. It looks like Lawler’s fight with Condit was his last real hurrah. The Lawler that went toe-to-toe with Johny Hendricks twice and had one of the greatest fights of all time with Rory MacDonald is gone. And fair enough. That MacDonald fight honestly would have been the end of most other guys’ careers. If his fight with Rafael Dos Anjos is any indication, I do think Lawler has something left in the tank if his body can stay together for 15-25 minutes. He’s still got a lot of technical savvy and he’s still tough as hell, but I can see his upcoming fight with Ben Askren going south if the man can’t generate the volume we’ve seen from him in the past. I don’t foresee another title reign in Lawler’s future, as sad as that makes me. But he’s proved us wrong before.

Holly Holm- Chances are Holly Holm will absolutely fight for a title and pretty soon. Can she win it? Yeah, I actually kinda sorta think she can. Holm's title losses can be summed as getting taken out of her game by a very gutsy Meisha Tate, some sketchy borderline late work from Germaine De Randamie and getting outphysical'd by Cris Cyborg. Holly Holm is still a good yet flawed fighter who will probably be able to out athlete most of the fighters she faces AND if we're being 100% fair? She and Mike Winkeljohn feel like one of those pairings that just click. That on its own could be enough to get her not just back in the title picture but win her title especialyl if Nunes is broken vs Cyborg. I still think there’s SOME paper lion in Amanda Nunes’ game and I could see Holm giving her all she can handle.

Holly Holm

Of the 6 fighters considered for this article, Holly Holm is my pick for best chance to regain her former title. At least by doing it the “right” way. Of the 6, I think she’s in the best place mentally and physically. She has not shown she’s falling apart yet like Lawler and Weidman. She hasn’t shown she has slowed down yet like Silva. We haven’t seen her succumb to her own hubris yet like Garbrandt has twice. And women’s bantamweight isn’t the shark tank division that lightweight is. She can and most likely will get another shot at the women’s bantamweight title. Plus Holm presents a whole slew of challenges for Amanda Nunes that we have yet to see Nunes face. She’s a range kicker who can fight hard for 5 rounds, set a solid pace, and will have a good sized reach advantage on the outside. And unlike Shevchenko, Holm will throw volume. That of course means she’s going to leave herself more open to counters from arguably the hardest hitting woman in the sport but Nunes is fighting on a short timer. If Holm can survive the first round, you know she’s going to be the fresher of the two from rounds 2-5.

Chris Weidman- This is the one I'm most on the fence about. If Chris Weidman cuts less weight, goes up to 205 lbs and manages to stay relatively break free? I don't see why he couldn't do something really good at the top of the division. We're seeing worse fighters step in against top 10/top 15 LHWs and have zero issue being not just competitive but thrust into title contention. I know their respective styles are different but Weidman can absolutely pull an Anthony Smith; feast on being the more athletic guy with more tools in his arsenal vs bigger guys who may not even be all THAT bigger. I'm just beginning to wonder if Chris Weidman might be for a lack of a better term broken. Perhaps broken beyond repair. Weidman's kind of in that Gray Maynard stage for me now and I think that's worse than it sounds to some people. Gray Maynard after the Edgar fights was still competitive AND improving in some capacities---but his chin was cooked, his wrestling suddenly seemed either outdated or ill equipped to deal with the rising talent levels and even when he was doing good, you just felt a sense of inevitability. I never once felt like Jacare was in danger of losing vs Weidman but I spend every second of that fight believing we were just one something away from it falling apart for Chris Weidman. It's one of those weird feelings to see a fighter doing really well and just feel almost resigned to an inevitable bad thing happening. Chris Weidman fights in a much easier division at 185 lbs than Gray Maynard and could move up to an even EASIER division at 205 lbs. The problem is I just wonder how many times we can see Weidman with a bloodied up face saying "I'll be back from this" before we just have to accept that Chris Weidman hit the point of no return on his career? It's entirely possible that his win over Gastelum (another fight where he got hurt really badly) was a brief last gasp for his career as a whole. Weidman's ability to will himself through wars of attrition hasn't diminished but his body's ability to hold up in those fights has.

Chris Weidman is the ultimate boom or bust guy; the boom says that he could possibly be the champ at 205 lbs if Jon Jones vacates the premises while the bust is that Weidman takes unneeded additional damage against bigger guys who hit him really hard. I'd like to see Chris Weidman TRY at 205 lbs, maybe against a relatively easy touch. It's often times been said that the UFC doesn't just start giving guys easier opponents when they're earning bank so Weidman has a really good shot to walk into 205 lbs and be greeted by an OSP or a Shogun or someone who has name value and is probably good enough to test him. If it doesn't work then we can call it a day but if it does, I think Weidman has a sizable chance to find a way to the title.

Chris Weidman

Weidman will never be champion again at 185lbs. You can’t get stopped in 4 of your last 5 fights and expect my confidence in your chances at the belt. I am not sold on the idea though that Chris Weidman is a chinny fighter so there’s no way he could cut it at 205. Most of his stoppage losses have seemed to have come from exhaustion as much as they’ve come from eating a big shot. Weidman needs to control the pace to win fights. He can’t rely on his wrestling because it’s too draining on his stamina, except against Gastelum who basically did nothing to stop the grappling game of Weidman. It’s why we’ve seen him change from a come forward pressure fighter to an out fighter. I think his team thought it would be easier on Weidman to control his output and range if he didn’t constantly have to move forward. Problem is that being an out fighter requires a lot of movement, pivoting, and things that also require a lot of energy and precision. Weidman can’t afford to let the flow of fights get away from his because it drains his gas tank too quickly. It’s how Jacare eventually wore him down. That’s why we see him win the first round of fights where he ultimately gets stopped. When other fighters do not concede, Weidman fades. I think a move to 205 could help with a lot of these issues. No more weight cut, no more energy dump after 6-7 minutes of fighting. I am afraid though that all the injuries and the big cuts to make 185lbs are cutting short his career. The first 5 minutes of his fight with Jacare, however, was some of the best we’ve seen Weidman look technically. There could be hope for him yet at 205. I don’t know if he has what it takes to beat an Alexander Gustafsson or Jon Jones. When you consider those guys are just as likely to get either hurt (Gus) or suspended on some dumb (Jones) though, the division could be wide open for Weidman to come through and make a title run.

Anderson Silva- Silva will not will a title. Will he fight for one? He shouldn't but he will, right? Remember Anderson Silva could have an argument to having beat Michael Bisping and he owns a win over Derek Brunson who is a top 10 gatekeeper. Silva could even go as far back as to point out that there was SOME talk that if he beat Nick Diaz, he would've gotten a title fight. My best guess is that when Silva's back, he is just one fight away. After all who isn't in MMA these days?

Anderson Silva

No. In terms of fighters that are past it, I actually think Silva is on the upper end of guys who are still functioning. If Tito Ortiz would be a sizeable favorite over 95% of fighters on the regional scene, Anderson Silva is a favorite over most middleweights not in the top 20 and probably a lot of mid-tier 205ers. His super close fights with Derek Brunson and future champion Michael Bisping attest to his ability to stick around the upper end of the division. Problem for him is the high end of middleweight has become a shark tank of athletes with well rounded technical games. He would no longer be fighting the Chael Sonnens and Yushin Okamis of the world. And honestly I don’t need to see Yoel Romero flying knee Silva’s head through the fence. I’m good. I’m content with his upcoming fight with Israel Adesanya. Of all the fights he could have gotten against the top of the division, with the exception of maybe Kelvin Gastelum, Israel Adesanya is probably the most kind. I do expect Silva to picked apart here. I don’t expect to see Silva bum rush his way into something crazy like Derek Brunson did and I don’t expect Adesanya to push a crazy pace in search of the stoppage. Maybe we’ll get some fun spinning stuff but I think the fight ends up looking similar to the Adesanya-Tavares fight - Silva being unable to pull the trigger while Adesanya casually styles on him.

#MMa #UFC #Opining #sports #Anderson Silva #Chris Weidman #Garbrandt #Fights

3 notes · View notes

lorrainecparker · 7 years

Text

ART OF THE CUT with Oscar Winner Alan Heim, ACE

Alan Heim is the former President of American Cinema Editors and is the current President of the Motion Picture Editors Guild. His first gig as a picture editor was The Sea Gull (1968). He has edited for a slew of the best directors in the business, including Sidney Lumet, Mel Brooks, Bob Fosse, John Hughes, Milos Forman, Barbra Steisand, Tony Kaye, and Nick Cassavetes. Heim is an Oscar winner for Best Editing for All that Jazz and was nominated for an Oscar for Network. He also won or was nominated for several ACE Eddies and Emmys.

(Normally I am careful to clear all photographs and image in my articles, being careful to credit photographers and copyright holders when necessary. In this article, most images are pulled from the internet. If you own the rights to one of these images and wish me to pull it or credit it, let me know.)

HULLFISH: Was the last thing you cut a documentary? Or have you cut any documentaries?

HEIM: I have but the last thing I edited was a film about Hank Williams about a year and a half ago (I Saw the Light) which I had a great time on actually. It was picked up by a distributing company sight unseen which is very unusual. From the beginning, I said the cut is too long. I was hired late because the original editor never started the film due to an injury, but by that time it was five weeks into the production and I was way behind. They finished shooting around Christmas and I finished and I called the director and I said I think the film is really terrific but it’s three hours and 20 minutes long. He said, “no problem.” Well, we never got it short enough and it’s partly the pacing. I know a lot of people who saw it and really thought it was wonderful. On the other hand people say it was too long. So we finally went back into the cutting room and took out about 10 minutes which was not enough but it was a lovely movie, and if that’s going to be my last movie, I don’t mind at all.

HULLFISH: One of things that brings up to me is the social engineering aspect of being an editor. How do you deal with the director in knowing when to push harder or to know that you can’t push too hard?

HEIM: Don’t get me started.

HULLFISH: The whole point of this interview is to get you started.

HEIM: (laughs) One of the things you have to realize about being an editor is it’s two thirds psychological, maybe more. You are between the director’s vision and idea of what he shot and what he really shot. You are the conscience of the director in a way. So there’s no point in being dishonest with directors because two things will happen: They’ll either dismiss you – I don’t mean “get fired” but they’ll just not listen, or it’ll just start off on a nasty foot. So you just try and protect the director. Look, I don’t want to seem particularly vain about it because I don’t have the right answer half the time either, but the director usually thinks that they’ve got it. They’ve nailed the shot. They’ve nailed the scene. And they often don’t. And to be able to turn the director and let him see your vision is incredibly important. Fosse (director, Bob Fosse) referred to me as his collaborator and I think that’s just the best compliment coming from a guy like Fosse.

Director Bob Fosse on the set of All That Jazz

He also said I was his conscience because everybody wants to get that last little frame of what they think is wonderful, but maybe it’s the frame before. As an editor, you have to be kind of neutral. You have to be a neutral observer. You have to protect the material. You have to protect the actors and sometimes you have to protect the director from his own instinct, or from the producer. That’s a situation that can be unpleasant.

HULLFISH: I haven’t had that problem before. Sounds like a precarious position.

HEIM: You learn things. Even test screenings. You learn something if you listen. You’re always learning. That’s what I love about the business. I was cutting a pilot and a friend was down the hall cutting a series for HBO and I walked by her room and I see a couple of three people outside the suite in suits. It’s cliche but they were… and I poked my head in and said, “So are you getting a lot of notes?” And she said, “I told them the other day that if they are going to give me notes they have to go outside the room write down the notes.”

I was on a movie called Grey Gardens – we were ready to show the film to the head of the studio – Colin Callendar – and Colin was not available so our producers kept sending this stuff back up to HBO for notes, but there was no way the people at HBO had the authority to give notes so at a certain point, I said, “I really don’t want to fight with this anymore.” and Lee Percy came on and he finished it and we had a shared credit. I think Lee’s finished two movies that I started on… maybe the other way around. Notes: Sometimes they’re good and sometimes they’re bad.

HULLFISH: You mentioned screenings, and sometimes the notes from them can be strange from audience members, but there’s a tremendous value to just being in the screening and feeling things in a different way with a real audience, right?

HEIM: I did a really bad comedy called Beer years ago, and Bob Chartoff was the producer, of Chartoff/Winkler, the Rocky pictures. He and Winkler had broken up and I knew this was a bad movie, but I wanted it to work. And I figured Chartoff would be interesting. So we had a screening for Orion Pictures, they were our producers, and I kept telling the director and Chartoff that the film had no ending. It was kind of a disaster. There was a lot of funny stuff in it but for no reason and it got mean at the end, really mean-spirited. So we had this meeting and the director, Patrick Kelly, who was well over six feet tall and enormous. He is the kind of guy who wears sandals in the winter, you know, an American flag bandana down around his head, very tall. And Chartoff was a very tall thin man and Chartoff was sitting next to me at the screening and the audience absolutely loved the movie for about 50 minutes maybe an hour and Chartoff, every time there was a big laugh, he would give me a shot in the ribs, which I probably still have bruises from. And he would say, “See?” and I would say, “Wait.” And at the end of the movie we all wanted to crawl out of the theater. Two of the screening cards – which I kept for a long time – somebody had added an extra column after good, fair, poor: they’d added “shit” and checked it off all the way down. On another card, the card asked: “What did you learn from this movie?” – It was a comedy for God’s sake – and somebody wrote: “Don’t ever take free tickets to a movie.”

HULLFISH: OK, let’s go a little more highbrow. Let’s talk All that Jazz. I was talking to Dody Dorn about how much she loved the famous pencil snap with no sound as – spoiler alert – as the Joe Gideon character has a heart attack. Can you talk me through that?

Roy Scheider as Joe Gideon in All That Jazz

HEIM All the actors sitting around doing the table read, they were being cued to laugh. And it wasn’t very good so Bob got in a comic for the second day of shooting. Everything took a long time on that movie. Bob got in a comic and that guy was actually telling jokes and that didn’t work either. And it just seemed like we had a laugh track going and it didn’t seem right. So at some point, and it was probably Fosse’s idea, but I probably started to fade out the track. So we just took it all out and we put in the loud sounds but they’re the kind of sounds you would hear when you’re having a panic attack. Sometimes you don’t hear anything, and sometimes putting out a cigarette sounds like gunshots. Cracking the pencil was like that too, it just worked. So we left it like that.

Fosse and Dustin Hoffman on set of “Lenny.”

When I worked with Fosse when he came into the cutting room we would re-work scenes and we never put them down until we were happy with them. Later, when we had the whole picture, we might go back and do a couple little things, but every scene we tried to polish as much as possible to get the most out of it. Which is why I was on some films for 14 months with him. Every day was an adventure, absolutely every day.

HULLFISH: I wrote an essay about how – with pacing and rhythm – we can learn from other arts and Fosse was obviously a dance guy so did you have a common language of rhythm and pace? Is that overthinking it?

THE FAN, Lauren Bacall, Maureen Stapleton, 1981, (c) Paramount

HEIM: A film I did after All That Jazz was called The Fan, with Lauren Bacall. I met the director and we had a nice talk. Everybody thought he was way over his head. A commercial director, who became much better later. First day of dailies, they were cripplingly slow. it’s an epistolary novel that takes a form of letters that the guy who writes to this stage star that he’s obsessed with. So we have him on the steps of his tenement in Manhattan and he’s reading a letter and he’s actually reading the letter, and it’s deadly dull. At the end of watching dailies the crew did something I’d never seen before. They all applauded, but I didn’t applaud. So he turned to me and said, “How come you didn’t applaud?” and I said, “It’s very slow and I’m really very worried about that.” And he said, “I come out of commercials I can get everything down to 60 seconds.” I said, “This is a movie. You’ve got to get it to 90 minutes.” After that he didn’t trust me at all until I showed him a couple of cut scenes and he said, “Oh, I see what you were talking about.” And he started to pick up the pace of the movie and we were able to beat that down. That might’ve have been the worst thing I ever said to a director.

HULLFISH: How do you get that beat down to a proper pace? A lot of people say that a movie has its own rhythm, so what do you do if the rhythm is that slow and it shouldn’t be?

HEIM: I know what you mean. Back in New York we used to say that the actors talk too slow. Movies of the 30s and 40s people talked fast as hell. And they filmed 70 to 80 minutes long and they stepped on each others lines, but it was rehearsed and it was crisp, and you might not like it but it moved things forward. Then there was a period when the actors – and directors – tended to be kind of indulgent. You can’t make the actors talk faster. I discovered that you can basically take a love scene, and if you overlap the dialogue, it seems like an argument. That’s not a great trick but I’ve done it – or close to it – when I want to pick up pace.

I loved working with Nick Cassavetes because he would go over with the actors and say, “Stop acting. Just know your lines and be fast between takes.” So we would tighten the hell out of it. A film I did with Cassavetes was The Other Woman. If you look at it closely you’ll see that that Cameron Diaz is out of sync a lot. Because we just cut her words together. She and Nick did not get along, and Nick and I both felt we just want to make it better. And if she doesn’t know her lines when she comes on the set let’s just make her say the lines so we cut around it. Those films are really tight cutting. It’s hard to do. If the actors are slow, you just get stuck. I love molding the performances. That’s the raw material. I look for the best takes and I try very hard to protect the actor’s integrity. I look at dailies first. By noon I’m usually looking at the dailies and I will know which takes I want to use. And then if I sat down with the director in the evening and he didn’t like any of the takes that I liked, then I knew that means trouble down the line. I would always use the best take in my mind that the actor has done. And sometimes the director would say, “Why did you use that one? Why didn’t you use this?” To get back to what I was saying about The Fan – I was cutting a sequence with Lauren Bacall, who’s not much of a dancer. And we had to protect her from her physical stuff. So one night, a friend of mine, asked me if I would come over and run the film with them. My wife came along and we had a great time, but they could pick up on the fact that I was stopping her just before she fell off. So the choreographer came in one day and after I got the sequence put together and ran it. He looked at me and said, “You know I couldn’t figure out where you were cutting when I looked at All That Jazz, and now I see you don’t cut on the beat. You cut near the beat.” That’s true. To cut on the beat is kind of wooden and I wasn’t aware that I was doing that. I just cut where it seemed comfortable with the movement. When I started working with Fosse. I discovered that the choreographer’s job is different than a stage choreographer: It’s to guide the audience’s eyes around the screen. So Fosse used a lot of close ups of body parts, feet and hands, but there was always this intention to keep the flow going. The first thing I did was Liza with a Z and people said it was too much cutting. To this day I don’t agree. That’s where I learned a lot of stuff. That’s when I learned how to cut musical numbers and I really loved doing it. It is the same with a dialogue scene, you really have to lead the audience in cuts. When I was a sound effects editor, an editor named Aram Avakian (who edited Mickey One) was a brilliant editor and had a great visual sense. He was very smart. I was working as a sound editor on The Group and he came up behind me, and it was a dinner scene of two people talking, and he said, “That’s a great cut.” I turned to him and asked, “Why is that a great cut?” And he said, “Because it just seemed like two people talking. Look at it again.” So, I rolled it back and forth and I told him I didn’t see it. He says, “Look at where the direction of the fork is now and then when you cut you come back and you move the other way.” And suddenly I learned all I ever had to know about physical editing. It was kind of amazing because I never thought of that. The motion from one carried over into the next take. It can’t always happen, but when it does it is thrilling.

HULLFISH: You said one of the things about cutting musical scenes was to try to have the flow of the motion of one shot lead the audience’s eye to the next cut.

HEIM Paul Taylor, the modern dancer and terrific choreographer had specials on PBS. Somewhere he learned the idea that movement should go from one shot to the next. Most specials you don’t see that. He’s got dancers running around the stage like crazy but there’s always a flow. I found it thrilling. I met Fosse back in New York. I was doing a lot of television as a sounds effects editor and I’ve done a little bit of picture cutting, and I got a call from a guy named Kenny Ott. He was a well-known line producer in New York, and he asked me if I’d be interested in working on a TV show with Bob Fosse and Liza Minnelli. I said “sure.” So I went up to meet Fosse at the Broadway Arts studio. It’s a little space. By the way, the Broadway Arts Studio is the one that’s replicated in All That Jazz.

My late wife had seen Cabaret and I hadn’t got to see it yet. I wasn’t really a fan of movie musicals. So I met Fosse. He’s in the middle of the room, and all these dancers are hurling themselves around us. We’re talking in the middle of the room. I’m not a musician but I was a music editor. We talked for a while and I got no sense of whether I was going to get hired or not, but I loved the energy in that room. I just loved the dancers. They would come sliding right up to our feet, and the room was filled with heat and sweat – running around, motion, and color. After that I went over to the Ziegfeld – saw Cabaret – and I came home that night and I told my wife, “I want him to hire me. I really want to work with this guy.” And it worked out. That led to Lenny and Lenny led to All That Jazz and that led to some other stuff, then Star 80 and then he died.

HULLFISH: I remember seeing Star 80 when I was fairly young and found it very disturbing.

HEIM: Oh boy, oh boy was that a disturbing movie! We were finishing All That Jazz and Bob came up one day and he said, “I found the next film I want to do.” He gave me a copy of the Village Voice, which is where the article about Dorothy Stratten came from. I read the article, and thought it was perfect for him. It’s this Svengali-like figure with a lot of women and a lot of degeneracy. He was in show business all of his life and the guy – the husband of Dorothy Stratten – he was a hanger on. He was kind of a guy looking to make his career on her. Fosse had a lot of contempt for show business He also loved it. Which I think is a line from All that Jazz. “I love show business, I hate show business.” That’s all he knew… that’s not true. He was a very bright guy. Very well versed in psychiatry and many things and he hung with good people: Paddy Chayefsky and Herb Gardner and a whole bunch of New York people. That’s really how I ended up doing Network. I’m pretty sure Bob suggested me to Paddy even though I had done two films with Sidney, it’d been several years in between.

To get back to the question about screening: after a day of shooting, having the crew go into a theater and watch the dailies… you learned a lot just from sitting there. Directors never said much to me, but you learn something just from being in the room. You’re sometimes there till midnight. In Chicago sometimes with John Hughes, later than that. He’d shoot all day and into the evening. One night my crew and I got a late call that said “John’s not going to be in until midnight.” So we went to the movies.

HULLFISH: So you started screening dailies at midnight?

HEIM: Somebody told me that they did a TV show where they’d shoot all day and then the director would come in and work with the editor on the previous day’s material. So that puts you into midnight or early morning. It’s crazy. It’s a young man’s game.

HULLFISH: When did you switch from editing on a Moviola or a KEM to Avid?

HEIM: 1995. That’s when I moved out here to LA. A bunch of us who were editing feature films in New York were approached by the CMX company – CBS I think it was. They were developing a laser pen editing system which was used for a while and they gave us instructions on how it worked. You had these disks and it came as if you were bringing a cake to a party, but it could only hold 20 minutes of material. So you couldn’t hold a feature film on it. You’d have to stop set up a new thing. And we talked about that. Eventually they used it a lot in television. I was wrestling with whether I should learn an electronic edit system. I was really good on a Moviola and I didn’t even like the Avid particularly. But the last stuff I did on film I did I used an English bench and a motorized picture and track synchronizer. The last few films I did on film I loved that bench, because it was really intimate contact with the film. I only used the Moviola to screen on, then.

HULLFISH: A lot of people liked to screen on a KEM, right?

HEIM: I never did. We did Lenny on a Moviola and Fosse was having trouble seeing the screen, so we did All That Jazz on the KEM. So I would adapt. I preferred the Moviola, I was faster on it. I didn’t have to stretch over those tables.

HULLFISH: So you moved to Avid in 95 because…

HEIM: I was given the opportunity. I was offered a film in San Francisco where the guy would teach me LightWorks and I would teach him film. I was still cutting on film when I got a call to do a Barbra Streisand movie back in New York and Sony wanted me to do it on the Avid. So now I have to learn another system. And Sony said they would give me an instructor. Well they gave me the guy who was doing maintenance on the lot and my assistant and I, she never worked on a film either on Avid. The guy started to turn on the machine, but suddenly he’s called away. So that’s Monday. And so Monday afternoon I went over to the guy in charge of rental equipment and said, look I’m going to New York on Saturday. I’m going to be in the cutting room on Monday. And if you don’t get me an instructor who can teach me, just me, I’m going to insist on the LightWorks. So they got me an instructor from Avid who actually was also an editor and we spent three intense days just stuffing whatever I could into my head. And at one point I remember just putting my head on the keyboard, three or four, in the afternoon on Friday and I said, “That’s it. I can’t do anymore of this.” Most editors I know, of my generation, are not particularly adept at the electronic stuff. But we do try and tell stories and that’s what it’s about. It’s a tool. I liked it, almost immediately, but I may have liked the LightWorks better.

HULLFISH: Thelma is still on LightWorks. Why do you call yourself a storyteller? How does the editor actually tell a story in the edit room?

Bob Fosse and Dustin Hoffman on set “Lenny”

HEIM: Working in film, you manipulate time. The editing process is really the last opportunity to change the story before it goes out into the world. How do we tell a story? It has to do with the rhythm – of the pace of it – you can turn a picture into something completely different, in the editing process, than was intended. You can’t really get away from the script, nor would you want to, but there is a lot of excess material in the script as there always is. So we just try to make the story better. We try to make it more concise. We try and direct the audience to what they should be looking at any given time. Stanley Kauffmann who was a film critic of some repute in New York said, and I paraphrase here, “You always want to watch the person you’re watching. Even if you didn’t know it at the time.” Now that’s what an editor does. Where you put a reaction shot… where you stay on somebody and you don’t cut… you’re trying to lead an audience.

There’s a scene in Network where William Holden follows Faye Dunaway into the kitchen. He’s in a rage because she’s ignoring him. She’s busy with her job and career. He talks about being an older man with a younger woman. And I rarely cut away from him in the performance. The first time I cut away from him is because he flubbed his line. And I cut to her. I found her reaction shot that seemed right, it wasn’t from where it was supposed to be, but it’s her reaction shot. And then I put in a second one because I wanted to see how she was responding. So once I was forced to it, because his performances was so good, and once I wanted to do it. I wanted the audience to see what she was feeling. That’s what an editor can do. The other thing you can do: Beatrice Straight played William Holden’s wife and there’s a scene where she confronts him: How long has the affair been going on and it’s in the kitchen and the kids walk in. It’s two and a half minutes long and Sidney and Paddy Chayefsky and Howard Gottfried – who was Paddy’s partner – and the co-producer said we got to lose it. I said, “No. I don’t think so. It’s a really great scene.” They said, “It is slowing down the picture.” I really argued for keeping the scene. Also, I thought we should tale that scene and put it before William goes off to the beach to that horrible scene where they make love and she just talks about television the whole time. That horrible wonderful scene. In the original script, they were in the opposite order. I said we have to turn those two scenes around and they were adamant not to do it. Finally, our producer, Dan Melnick, was flying to New York, so I said, “Let’s let Danny decide.” So Melnick sees it – he sees the whole picture. Monday morning I got a call from Howard Gottfried and he said “Aaaa-lllllan…” – he kind of sung my name, and you know when people sing your name something weird is going to happen. He said that Danny came up with this great idea to keep the scene and switch the two scenes around. So I said, “You know Howard – I don’t usually say this or anything like this – but that was my idea and you were fighting it for two weeks.” And he said, “Does it matter where a good idea comes from?” And you know he’s right. It was a very valuable lesson. And the scene stayed and she won the Academy Award for that two and a half minutes.

HULLFISH: It was a great performance, but why specifically did you argue for the scene as a storyteller?

HEIM: I loved everything in it, but I also thought it was very necessary. Here’s a guy who devoted his whole life to this television network and his wife clearly played second fiddle to his career, and now it was turned around a little bit.

HULLFISH: And why switch the order of the scenes?

HEIM: If we saw him having this ridiculous sex scene with Faye Dunaway, and then he came home to this strong woman. You would say “What a schmuck.” She knew stuff was going on, but this time she sensed he was in love with her and she confronted him, and he needed that confrontation. It made me very happy to keep it in the movie. You don’t get too many chances to do that, you really don’t. This one just jumped out at me. I knew Paddy Chayefsky is a hell of a writer. Spectacular. So when Paddy is saying that I had to really fight for it. I don’t usually fight for a scene. Usually I do it much more subtly over the course of the edit, if I really feel strongly about it.

HULLFISH: It’s about trusting the process, right? Yes, you can try to force it, but it’s better to just see what happens as context changes and as needs change and maybe the director becomes less attached to the emotion of the shoot.

HEIM: Right. Been there a couple of times.

HULLFISH: That’ a balance, right? You have to have enough ego to know that you have something to say and you’re strong in your opinions, but set enough of your ego aside to be in service to the director. You have to be willing to address notes.

HEIM I took notes from everybody. I mean anybody who had a good idea or what I thought was a good idea or a worthwhile idea, I would take a shot at it. I always tell editors it’s not your movie, it’s the director or the producer or somebody else who owns that movie. You can contribute, this is where the editor comes in. You edit it. You try and correct mistakes. Keep the story and the path it should be on. It’s not your movie. They always say you should do invisible editing, which is bullshit, but it depends. You have to listen to the material. You have to feel the material. I used to think that when I worked with film it was almost like a plastic medium… like if you bend a piece of steel a certain number of times, you’ll eventually break it. It took me a while to feel that with electronic editing, but I don’t think I’ve ever changed what I do, the style. I’ve watched some of my older movies recently and I don’t think I would make many changes in them. I might speed up a couple of scenes. When I cut scenes now, I tend to make them a little bit faster. The other thing that happened on Doc, I was cutting a simple scene with Stacy and Harris playing cards. I’m cutting it on the Moviola. You’d put it in a little black plastic matte and that would give you the aspect ratio. So I was cutting this scene and I had the matte in there and they’re playing cards sitting at a table playing cards. I cut it, looked at the scene and looked absolutely terrible. None of the cuts matched but it’s two guys playing cards. How could this be? So I took the matte off. It turns out they had been changing their vests in between takes. I asked Harris, “What’s the story with that scene where you guys are playing cards and you change your vests?” And he said, “We were trying to mess up the script girl to see if she would would catch it.” Then he turned to me again and he said, “Did you catch the shirts?” And it turns out they were also changing shirts with subtly different striped patterns between takes and I missed it because on a Moviola screen, that’s really hard to see.

HULLFISH: I was just talking to someone about storytelling, and about how a joke is a good way to practice storytelling. It’s really just a short story. You don’t want to ruin it with too much detail or making it too long. Set it up and get to the point.

HEIM: Yes, but there are there are other details too that you need. Mel Brooks would explain it’s not enough to say, “It’s a car.” You have to say, “A Buick with three holes in the fender.” A little detail doesn’t hurt. And it depends on where you put the detail. It’s all in the timing. It really is rhythm and delivery. A friend of mine wrote a book called “The Lean Forward Moment.” Interesting idea that you lead the audience in a certain direction and then you pull the rug out from under them. You push them into the next scene. I hate exposition. Most editors do. And I worked in films where I’ve told the audience something three times – verbally told the audience something three times. They don’t get it. So you cut one out. Now it’s two times and they still don’t get it and you’re cut down to one and that’s enough. They get the second and third time. You’re boring them. They know it, sometimes you don’t even need the first time. For me that would be the ideal filmmaking: information without telling anybody. Just let them discover it. If you can make the audience complicit or make the audience feel something, it’s hard. There’s a lot of visual stuff like Jaws. A shark jumps out from behind the pillar and you don’t expect it. It makes you jump, that’s easy. But to do it in a dialogue scene, and have people follow every word and feel it. That’s that’s hard. That’s rare. I was delighted the first time it happened: when the audience applauds at the end of the opening number of All That Jazz. Because you don’t see audiences applaud, or in the Notebook when people are crying.

HULLFISH: True. You’ve edited for John Hughes

HEIM: John Hughes had that ability to do meaningful and funny. He could reach the audience. His stuff reached on a very elemental level. He was really a good writer.

HULLFISH: Earlier in our discussion you mentioned that we rarely get to cut scenes in sequential order. Almost never. Talk a little bit about that or about scenes where it sounded looked great when you cut it originally, but then, in the context of the film, it changed in some way.

HEIM: When you look at dailies, you’ve got to start somewhere. I look at them and they say, “Well, I want this scene to start on the closeup of the actor.” So I edit the scene based on that choice. And then when you put that scene in context of another scene, maybe you can’t go from the previous scene to the close up of the actor for whatever reason. So then you have to start shifting. Or sometimes you’ll have a scene that says exactly the same thing in a different way than a scene that’s elsewhere in the movie. So you you start shifting. You can’t be rigid. Once you cut the scene, it’s really nice, it’s really good. But then you look at it in context and you say, “I don’t need this or maybe I only need half of it.” These are the decisions you make with the director. But when I do a first cut, I put pretty much everything into it that was shot because I think that everybody deserves to see that. You can’t take it away early. And when you’re trimming a first assembly down from its initial length, sometimes it’s easy to get the first half hour, but when you have to start cutting an hour or an hour and a half, you begin to feel holes. And I’ve never liked gaps in a story.

still from Grey Gardens – Drew Barrymore and Jessica Lange

HULLFISH: One of the things that I learned from writing this book was that I needed to let my director see all of the lines in every scene, even if I was very confident that the lines would eventually be cut. It seems like common sense, but I felt like, “If I’m right, then why show them?”

HEIM: The problem is a director has a rhythm. The director knows what he shot. Sometimes they’re wrong. Sometimes they’ll say, “Where’s the shot of the finger? There was no shot there.” Most of the time there is. Sometimes you find something after a slate or something. Fo you, the director knows he shot those lines you took out. So you’re starting off really badly because you’re throwing the director’s rhythm. Later, you can ask, “Do we really need those three lines?”

HULLFISH: I wish I had learned that earlier: the director needs to the scene. I got to see it with and without. The director never got to see it, so he can’t come to the same conclusion, so he never owns the decision. Lesson learned.

HEIM: I don’t know how editors learn that stuff nowadays. Now it’s learning on the job for most people.

HULLFISH: Alan, thank you for a great discussion. It was a pleasure to speak with you.

HEIM: My pleasure as well.

This interview was transcribed with SpeedScriber, which has recently come out of public beta and is now available.

To read more interviews in the Art of the Cut series, check out THIS LINK and follow me on Twitter @stevehullfish

The first 50 Art of the Cut interviews have been curated into a book, “Art of the Cut: Conversations with Film and TV editors.” The book is not merely a collection of interviews but was edited into topics that read like a massive, virtual roundtable discussion of some of the most important topics to editors everywhere: storytelling, pacing, rhythm, collaboration with directors, approach to a scene and more. CinemaEditor magazine said of the book, “Hullfish has interviewed over 50 editors around the country and asked questions that only an editor would know to ask. Their answers are the basis of this book and it’s not just a collection of interviews…. It is to his credit that Hullfish has created an editing manual similar to the camera manual that ASC has published for many years and can be found in almost any back pocket of members of the camera crew. It is an essential tool on the set. Art of the Cut may indeed be the essential tool for the cutting room. Here is a reference where you can immediately see how our contemporaries deal with the complexities of editing a film. In a very organized manner, he guides the reader through approaching the scene, pacing, and rhythm, structure, storytelling, performance, sound design, and music….Hullfish’s book is an awesome piece of text editing itself. The results make me recommend it to all. I am placing this book on my shelf of editing books and I urge others to do the same. –Jack Tucker, ACE

The post ART OF THE CUT with Oscar Winner Alan Heim, ACE appeared first on ProVideo Coalition.

First Found At: ART OF THE CUT with Oscar Winner Alan Heim, ACE

#viddy find

1 note · View note