This week’s reading emphasized how editing shapes a film by manipulating the elements of time, space, and emotion through the arrangement of shots. Chapter 6 taught us the four relations that link one shot to the next (graphic, rhythmic, spatial, and temporal) and showed how these relations typically work to create continuity.
Continuity is often treated as the “correct” outcome of editing. Breaks in continuity are usually labeled as mistakes because filmmakers are expected to maintain details and screen direction consistently so that the story feels seamless and believable. A film that is seamless is said to allow its viewers to follow the story and connect emotionally without distraction. This week’s feature, Douglas Sirk’s All That Heaven Allows, is a strong example of this system at work, using techniques like dissolves and fade-ins to maintain clarity and flow. While there are many examples of continuity, I wanted to explore the other techniques, such as the purpose of non-continuity, focusing on whether it could create the same emotional connection that continuity does.
Although continuity rules mainstream cinema, many filmmakers decide to break continuity intentionally to serve meaning and express a certain mood. I came across this video by Thomas Flight, which explores how non-continuity can be as expressive as continuity itself.
Flight argues that what looks like a “mistake” may actually highlight emotional intensity, realism, or psychological conflict. He explains how, in these moments, filmmakers sacrifice seamlessness to convey something more powerful.
One example he mentions comes from The Bear. In a scene where Carmy is lost in the chaos of a high-pressure kitchen, the image suddenly cuts to a close-up of a small pilot flame, overlaid with the smiling face of his ex-girlfriend Claire. The shot disrupts continuity, but it visualizes Carmy’s inner turmoil. The flame embodies the heat and pressure of his career, while Claire represents the happiness he feels he has lost. This moment, brought by breaking continuity, deepens the audience’s understanding of his conflict more than a “seamless” edit could.
(I included a screen recording of the scene since I could not find the clip on YouTube )
My takeaway is that breaking continuity is not always an error, it is also a way for filmmakers to use editing to show emotions and guide the interpretation of a story. Therefore, the next time you spot a “mistake,” ask yourself if it was purposefully placed into the film to convey/explain a certain emotion.
Leave a Reply