The R&H editing mistake
RB
Russell Bennett
****@total.net
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 18:38:33 -0500
id: ****@wacky.total.net
You can call it a mistake, and I'm sure it is. But the fact is that
sometimes you don't have the proper coverage for a shot, especially where,
as in this case, the soundtrack is primary and has to be preserved as it
is. Maybe one of the cameras was off, or there were only terrible (badly
framed, damaged film, poor exposure) shots to choose from that WERE in sync
with the sound. In this case they have to KNOWINGLY choose a shot that is
not in sync, that will service (that will do).
sometimes you don't have the proper coverage for a shot, especially where,
as in this case, the soundtrack is primary and has to be preserved as it
is. Maybe one of the cameras was off, or there were only terrible (badly
framed, damaged film, poor exposure) shots to choose from that WERE in sync
with the sound. In this case they have to KNOWINGLY choose a shot that is
not in sync, that will service (that will do).
I guess it was a mistake in the shooting, that the poor editor had to make
up with a shot that was not truly in sync with the picture. it takes music
fans, in this case, rather than movie freaks, to find the flaws. It only
cost $6 million.
MonkeyBoy