In chapter 6 of Film Art, we discuss different editing techniques, and how they can be used to achieve a certain goal of the director. For example, we learn about the 180* system, where cameras must not be placed on the opposite side of the established 180* line between two characters/objects. Doing so may confuse viewers and cause discontinuity. Another example is the Kuleshov effect, where the impact or emotion of one shot can be better understood or changed by the following shot’s content. However, I would like to discuss the nondiegetic insert.

The nondiegetic insert is when the film cuts to a metaphoric shot that is not in the setting of the film, but rather represents what is being told. We see an example in Lucy which is discussed in Film Art where the title character is being lured into danger. The director cuts to a mouse approaching a mouse trap to represent what is happening (Bordwell et al.).

This stylistic choice can help audiences understand what is occurring in the scene, and is a brilliant way to encourage abstract thoughts for film analysis. However, is it possible to overuse editing tactics like this? Could audiences see a shot like this as too on the nose? How abstract should tricky techniques like the one above be? The nondiegetic insert can be a creative way to tell a story through metaphors and symbolism that can add uniqueness and admiration to the film. If the insert is too abstract, the messaging may not be understood by the audience; if the insert is too obvious, it may annoy the audience due to predictability.

Another example could be in elliptical editing. Elliptical editing is a style that can be used to shorten or lengthen a scene by cutting out possibly unnecessary content, or replaying the content. The example used in Film Art is a character running up a long flight of stairs. This could be shortened by showing the character beginning to go up, and then cutting to when they reach the top.

We also see an example of extending a scene through elliptical editing in Film Art. Strike has a scene where a wheel is swinging towards a foreman, but then the camera cuts, and the next shot begins with the wheel swinging, and then the following shot shows the wheel swinging once again, and striking the foreman (Bordwell et al.).

I have seen extending elliptical editing in scenes that contain an explosion. The explosion may be played several times, all from different angles, which helps the audience picture how large the blast was. Could a tactic like this be overused by using it too many times? For example, If too many elliptical are used back-to-back, this may cause the audience to be confused in the setting of the story.

How can directors ensure that they are not overusing editing techniques? There is no doubt that editing can enhance the storytelling of a film significantly. However, it must be done strategically to avoid an unwanted comedic effect, or worse, losing audience’s attention.