The Kuleshov Effect

Clickbait title: This One Weird Trick Is The Reason Movies Even Work
There's something cathartic about drilling all the way down to the fundamentals. Not just the basic techniques, but the actual fundamentals, the bedrock of how something even functions in the first place, the reason why a series of edits can be used to tell a story rather than simply turning into abstract mush. It's also surprisingly challenging, like explaining what hands are.
Written and performed by Dan Olson
Twitter: / foldablehuman

[@Theyungcity23]

3:01 Don't you see? The two soldiers trapped in the infinite expanse of snow. The giant cat monster omnipotent, inescapable, in the face of it all. And how it doubles back and informs the cold container which is so much like a prison; so sweet to those who manipulate it, so refreshing. 10/10 wept uncontrollably.

[@EversonBernardes]

Give this man an Oscar pronto!

[@NoJusticeNoPeace]

The colour of infinity inside an empty glass...

[@IliyaMoroumetz]

Is this not the scene that occurs before Rondel changes and becomes a new man?! :O

[@AdobadoFantastico]

Ingmar Bergman momentarily came back to life the second this was done exporting from Premiere.

[@sansculottist]

Funnily, when I read this comment, I recalled the beginning of Empire strikes Back.

[@AstraVex]

Human eyes SHOULD have a zoom-function!

[@NoJusticeNoPeace]

Interestingly, the eyes can't zoom but the brain _can._ There's been some fascinating work done on the phenomenon of out-of-body experiences. As a Jungian mystic, I do a lot of active imagination exercises and can confirm that out-of-body experiences exist. Scientists are now reliably able to induce it in that lab through the simple expedient of feeding your eyes with an image taken from a camera positioned over one shoulder. See, the world you perceive is called representational reality, and is a contruct made by your brain. Your brain routinely guesses at missing information and and sticks it into this representational image. For example, there's a blind spot slightly offset from the middle of your vision where the optic nerve connects to the retina, and the brain guesses at what's likely there, then fills in the missing information. The interesting thing is that there's no particular reason we have to centre our point of view inside our heads. We do so only as a cultural prejudice. The Egyptians, for example, perceived their POV as originating in their chests. Through out-of-body experience, we can position our point of view _anywhere._ Of course, the farther away from your sensorium you place your point of view, the less data you have and the more guesses your brain has to make to fill in the missing data. This is why when you get any significant distance from your body, what you experience tends to be weirdly psychedelic; nearly _all_ of the data in your representational reality is now manufactured from guesswork by your brain, drawing from your memories and subconscious thought processes. Therefore, if you practice, you really can produce a zoom effect inside your head.

[@MellowGaming]

You do have a zoom function. You just move something closer to you or you move closer to it. It ain't perfect but it does work. Unless you have bad eyes. then stuff gets blurry.

[@Tuckerscreator]

Well, that's as much a zoom as moving the camera closer to something is zoom.

[@Yet.Another.Rapper.KiG.V2]

@@NoJusticeNoPeace I've performed an astral projection--not in a scientific setting or a mystic setting but I've performed it nonetheless. As I understand it, it's my soul leaving my body, not simply my brain firing off chemicals or whatnot. I'm not quite understanding how an OBE relates to zoom, though I can see how a 3rd-person view can expedite or otherwise aid an OBE. Would you care to share more?

[@flaviocatarino4328]

ENHANCE!

[@Fionor01]

Even if you recreated Kuleshov's experiment mostly the way he did it, the effect itself works better if actor doesn't look directly to camera. As you probabaly know, that was mostly typical for early Soviet cimanatography with cuts to somewhat different place and symbolic action in purpose to deliver emotion. Today in modern cinema shot en face works almost the same but need more connected context. What I'm trying to say (and sorry English is not my natural language) is that for demonstrational purposes it's better to follow actors line of sigh to see object he sees to create context. Direct en face shot is intimate and deliver it's own feeling - mostly like we're looking directly "into his soul" nad context is on different level (harder to deliver).

[@AMereKat]

Thank you for this - I had the strong impression that the shots of action shown between the shots of the person's face, were something he was imagining or remembering, rather than something he was simply reacting to. Had he been looking elsewhere, I might have believed that he was observing those events.

[@GhostStealth590]

I noticed this as well. There wasn’t much connection between the edits, which I know is what he was trying to show us viewers. Having someone looking at the camera with a blank expression then quickly switching to a new canvas typically implies someone is going through a flashback or memory if the transition is made so. For example, in his black and white edited demonstration, the flash between the shots appeared to be a visual cue that it was a flashback or memory by natural instinct, so that’s how we naturally make that connection, or for me at least.

[@matthewmuir8884]

For an example of what you're talking about being as intended: the episode of SpongeBob where they're all prehistoric. When the food ends up in the fire and they have no way to retrieve it, and Squidward hits SpongeBob with a stick, we get a cycle of the still image SpongeBob looking at the camera, the stick, then the fire, along with the background music gradually rising in intensity. What's being conveyed is obviously prehistoric-SpongeBob's thought process as he figures out to use the stick to retrieve the food. This being a comedy, this edit is subverted at the end with the sequence ending with a shot of a mariachi band singing the background music.

[@matthewmuir8884]

@@AMereKat Agreed. Funny enough, I just thought of a case with that same edit where that meaning is what's intended: the episode of SpongeBob where they're all prehistoric. When the food ends up in the fire and they have no way to retrieve it, and Squidward hits SpongeBob with a stick, we get a cycle of the still image of SpongeBob looking at the camera, then an image of the stick, then the fire, along with the background music gradually rising in intensity. What's being conveyed is obviously prehistoric-SpongeBob's thought process as he figures out to use the stick to retrieve the food. This being a comedy, this edit is subverted at the end with the sequence ending with a shot of a random mariachi band singing the background music.

[@KennyHazy97]

Yeah, Alfred Hitchcock made a demonstration that used line of sight - Hitchcock is standing outside in a park or on a lawn with a neutral expression, then a cut to someone sitting on the grass that 'he' is looking at, then a cut back to Hitchcock who then gives a smile. The perception of the smile changes depending on whether the person on the grass was a mother holding a baby or a young woman in a bikini.

[@tylerskiss]

This film is also a great example of the JJ Effect. That's when you take one film that is completely unrelated to another and very loosely link them, then you sit back and watch as the audience assigns meaning to all kinds of things that were never intentional.

[@mar10ssj1]

It's interesting how the brain will fill in the gaps between two images. Kind of like how the brain fills in the gap in animation or let's you think you are not seeing your nose. You are always seeing your nose.

[@sophialoren7855]

Gestalt

[@iprobablyforgotsomething]

Nah, that can't be right. You see, the nose, much like the cake, is a lie. Why, I've looked through my own eyes my whole life and never seen a nose! The only nose I have is when people photoshop one on my face in pictures (shout out to Voldemort! homie made a whole new, magically charmed body so as to not allow for this sort of image-trickery). . . . /sarcasm . . . ^ just in case, 'cause this *is* the internet

[@RedMeansRecording]

Just found your channel and even as someone who has been editing professionally for a while it's a joy to hear you talk about it.

[@gregwessendorf]

Right? I've been an editor for almost 20 years. I imagine there are quite a few of us.

[@LeonoraTindall]

Wow, Chairman RMR indeed 😊

[@klungusxyz]

Red, does, in fact, mean recording

[@valsauramaa5817]

... I now understand everything that went wrong with a short film I helped make a while back. So thanks for that. But also goddammit I wish this had come out sooner.

[@CookieMonster1390]

lol an art history teacher I have for a cinema class marked me down today for essentially having too nuanced a view of the kuleshov effect, with him insisting that it was only the facial reaction shots of the experiment and nothing else. RIP my grade but at least I know I understand the concept better than he does ✌️

[@Mrinsecure]

I know you just want excuses to show off your cat, and I'm perfectly okay with that. She's a ragdoll, right?

[@FoldingIdeas]

+Brian Kotkin yes, she's my little rag doll terror!

[@notnotkavi]

*Says "child"* *cuts to cat*

[@arturkushukov1815]

In russian montage=editing, there is no other word for it.

[@anxez]

This just makes me appreciate the opening of Arrival even more. Fuck. Just knowing that he abused the Kuleshov effect to bait and switch us hard is amazing.

[@paulbulger4399]

Your film theory and criticism is literally the best that can be found on KZbin.

[@qutalive]

Fun fact: "Montage" is "editing" in russian.

[@moanguspickard249]

"to montage" verb is "to edit" in serbian, but "montage" noun can mean both "montage" or "edit"

[@nob2243]

In Polish it's actually very similar: _"montaż"_ refers to movies or film footage in general (or like, assembling and disassembling cars and other mechanical stuff), while _"edycja"_ (editing) refers to text in digital documents, and maybe programming to some degree. But there is a slight overlap between them in their usage, so I dunno

[@cheezemonkeyeater]

You know, that bit where you're talking about the eyeline shot thing, that gives me so many interesting ideas on ways to fuck with that principle in really fun and surreal ways.

[@DrummerDucky]

Monter and Couper are pronounced : MON-TAY /// COU-PAY

[@jackyoh971]

I'm French Thank you it was painful!

[@nicknamenick4512]

I'm trying to learn French, myself, so I could be wrong - I certainly don't mind any correction, if needed - but wouldn't it pronounced that way were it "montIER" and "coutIER"? I've noticed many French words, when spelled that way, are pronounced similarly. But, again, I might be missing a subtle difference...

[@DoberManZDrawingandanimating]

that would would be in the pass for ''vous'' but instead of er it would be ez so Vous montiez or vous coupiez :)

[@nicknamenick4512]

@Zim: Ah, gotcha.

[@TalysAlankil]

I love that Dan pinned this comment.

[@KraigOliver]

You make fantastic content.

[@admanios]

The way you talk about editing here reminds me of how Scott McCloud talked about sequential imagery in his book Understanding Comics, especially with regards to linguistics, and how our minds are trained to see meaning and subject in letters and words. It occurred to me that Kuleshov's work makes editing literally into the "language" of film. The way a film is constructed would be equivalent to spelling and grammar, so a poorly-edited film like Suicide Squad is like a statement written with poor spelling and grammar. The elements are there, but they've been assembled badly, and context and meaning is garbled. When you mentioned the concept of "closure", my mind immediately went back to Understanding Comics when McCloud discussed stylization and the universality of cartoon imagery. We more readily accept the world of things drawn in a simpler style because we can put ourselves into it. All this is probably first-year stuff though...

[@maximeteppe7627]

maybe it's first year stuff... but you usually learn the most important stuff on the first year. You just expand on it later on.

[@M_Northstar]

You can't mention McCloud in this context without talking about his discussion of the "gutter", the separation between panels, which invites and coerces the reader to fill it with their own imagination, in order to connect the two discrete images. That's basically what this Kuleshov effect is.

[@SenoraCardgage]

It reminded me of that, too. I haven’t read or thought about McCloud’s book for many years, but that part of the video had me thinking “oh yeah, I remember that point being made in Understanding Comics.”

[@houston-coley]

YES! YOU USED 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE! Dude, I can't tell you how much I adored that film and I love how you've mentioned it a few times. It deserves more attention - great editing, great sound design, great acting, great everything all around.

[@doughboydevito4529]

It would be interesting if you made a video about the film techniques used in political propaganda of any kind. If you want to, of course.

[@ccrr96]

Doughboy Devito Nah I think it's a good idea regardless if he wants or not.

[@doughboydevito4529]

chaaarlieee1 I didn't want to be too demanding.

[@2prize]

make something look bad while making yourself look good. pretty simple

[@curleyjoe666]

FOr what it is worth nerdwriter did a couple of videos on the communication techniques of Donald Trump. Not quite the same but interesting nonetheless.

[@Posiman]

2prize: I can't agree. A well executed propaganda is all about emotions, it can tap into your fears and desires. Being Czech I've seen many communist propaganda films/TV shows and you can definitely see the huge gap between the good ones and the bad ones.

[@nathanhall9345]

I find these videos some of the most rewatchable on KZbin. Hugely informative while still being entertaining. Thanks for the awesome content!

[@afernandezaf55af]

I have watched quite a few of these already because I just love the analysis of film when it's done as beautifully and intelligibly as you do it. Thank you for these!

[@Moscato_Moscato]

So this is some kinda Folding Idea...

[@hed0nismbot]

In Russian, the word montage literally still means just editing in general. So the Academy award for editing ends up being an award for the best montage of the year :)

[@TimBroem]

This channel deserves way more subscribers. Amazing content, well put together and understandable also for non-filmstudents or professionals. Keep it up!!!

[@AnthonyMcNeil]

Seriously, people are really worried about a like or dislike bar instead of actually listening to what he is saying, smh. Hopefully we will get another video about editing, it's really interesting when it's broken down like that. Great video.

[@Arturos902]

Thanks for adding to my conceptual toolkit! Bad editing stands out to me, but without a film background I've had trouble articulating exactly why a given sequence is problematic.

[@hawkspeak8592]

Your ability to discuss complex technical ideas and make them entertaining has my utmost admiration and envy. Couple this with your skill in editing in , seamlessly, real world film samples and examples and illustrating these ideas is also a rare gift. Or I should say you have honed and perfected several very necessary and important crafts that most of us instructors are poor at, or neglect entirely. In this age of online education YOU should be the future. You should open a school for teaching teachers how to teach. We need more like you. I salute you sir. And always learn from you.

[@EvelynDayless]

I assumed the guy was having PTSD flashback of parenting.

[@mattgilbert7347]

"Mystery is good, confusion is bad" D. Lynch. Physician, heal thyself!

[@Blackandwhitevictor]

This is a really great video! I love learning about this kind of stuff, especially because it's so natural to us, having grown up with movies and TV.

[@ivpt]

I think the close-up of the pigs is to show what the girl is focusing on.

[@laurabriones7417]

yes that is practically what he said

[@ick13]

The way I understood closure (granted its from Scott McCloud's book Understanding Comics and maybe film theorists use it differently) is that the author leaves the gap open enough that the audience fills it themselves with their own imagination. For instance you have an A shot of a man about to swing an axe at another person. B shot is a city skyline with a screaming sound effect. Because of closure, we fill in where the axe lands, how hard it was swung, and how gruesome the other person dies. Kuleshov effect asks for the same kind of gap filling.

[@HighQualityLeftover]

the concept of closure seams to play into something in game design called 'the uncanny valley': the more realistic something is, the more you take it as this. but at some point you drop of hugely because there are minor mistakes that totaly pull you out of it. an example in film making would be: the face graphics in how to train a dragon or kung-fu panda seam more realistic and human like then in like polar express (because they are more human like, but we as humans see those small mistakes and take it as something that is 'sick' or disfigured, what makes us uncomforable) ... or doesn't this apply for film making? please go ahead and correct me if i'm wrong

[@FoldingIdeas]

+Sir Mutantenkraken Closure is exactly the mechanism at play in the uncanny valley. It's a concept that applies across all visual media.

[@HighQualityLeftover]

oh, cool :D thanks for the clarification

[@HighQualityLeftover]

eh.... what? is there a relation to that comment, to something said before?

[@GreathMusic]

Where can I/Where did you read about closure? I haven't read about it in any of the film theory I've read.

[@FoldingIdeas]

Scott McCloud's "Understanding Comics" is probably the most accessible primer on the subject. Lots of visual examples, well explained, and it's a popular book that's still in print, so should be easy to track down.

[@pixxelwizzard]

God I love this channel. Being educated on an aspect of something I'm passionate about (movies) but have little knowledge of (editing) is a joy.

[@TheAlexR96]

always learning amazing things from your vids!

[@HeatherHolt]

Every time I watch one of his videos, I watch another, and another, and another. They're just so good.

[@tonywalters1027]

I really enjoyed/learned a lot from this. Thanks for making the content, and keep up the great work.

[@noblebearaw]

This is fantastic. I love really getting into what makes and art form tick and applying that understanding to the works I consume.

[@splicerparade8795]

Your cinema fundamentals videos are fascinating. Also they've convinced me I need to watch 10 Cloverfield Lane. So thank you in advance for that.

[@danielgebert4556]

I'm so thankful your channel started showing up in my suggestions. Subbed

[@iggsolo]

Awesome work, would love to see more content of this style.

[@AronHolden]

Brilliant explanation on this effect. Love it.

[@YasarHabib]

I was watching a dan mace video and looked up the kuleshov effect and landed on your video (gold!). Thank You.

[@xpCarlo36]

I like how the video zooms in when there is important underlying information. Nice editing choice.

[@polus2494]

I think Hitchcock's demonstration works really well because he adds a smile, rather than just having a blank expression.

[@heidiknabe9669]

Thank you for the suggestion; the smile being used made me instantly understand!

[@johnkinsey2735]

It's uncanny how watchable this channel is. If it was merely described to me (i.e., there's a dude standing in front of a gray screen talking for 10 to 20 minutes), I would think it sounded boring. But, the cut-shots, the tempo, in short, the editing, makes it not only easy, but enjoyable. Well done.

[@amigadecachorros]

Thank you for making this channel. Really. I binged the whole thing. I would have you edit my movie, if I had a movie.

[@Reymon72]

This is great. Looking forward to more of your videos!

[@montywolfe8900]

Love your videos. They're a great companion to my current film school curriculum.

[@CreepyHandedMan]

Coupaiiir. Montaiiir. Dat pronunciation ! Apart from that, a delightful video, as always. It shows how what we tend to take for granted had to be thought out at the begining, it comes from somewhere and is quite deeper than we first assumed.

[@VinegarAndSaltedFries]

absolutely amazing. Love your content keep up the amazing work.

[@basti1692]

You really help me getting better in my film class, even if i´ve been editing for years

[@liamtoole]

This made me want to rewatch 10 Cloverfield Lane. Thank you.

[@wjzav1971]

Honestly, the sequence of your face with various different images gave me the impression of a guy going through a crisis with various pictures of his life flashing before his eyes.

[@ocelotz]

love the colour grading you did on this episode

[@xingcat]

Fantastic stuff. I've seen that experiment done in film studies class, and it really does all stitch together in our brains these days.

[@Xenthorx]

Cheers from France, your pronunciation are original, such an artist. Love your content !

[@FirstNameLastName000]

Great channel! So glad I found your work!

[@naomiwashburn358]

This was really interesting! I hope you do more film theory stuff like this. :-)

[@arthurgaliev4684]

Dude you are amazing and hilarious! I love your analysis and theory (somewhat lessons), very interesting and funny

[@casersatz]

So, I think I've seen his theory in action rather accidentally. When I watch a movie while high, no matter how adept an actor is at their craft, I am never convinced by their performance. I can never see John Goodman as a character, just as John Goodman pretending to be someone he is not. However, I still experience a story even in the absence of characters because of the editing. I pair shots together, not out of immersion, but rather out of guidance.

[@natteandersson]

Have you seen Nightcrawler? Jake Gyllenhal seriously become someone else.

[@casersatz]

I love that movie. Haven't seen it while high though, so I can't say. I almost never watch movies while high, just for the record.

[@Roiben100]

Thats not what Kuleshov effect is

[@TooFatTooFurious]

your blasphemy against the national treasure that is John Goodman will never be forgiven.

[@angelpygs72]

Check out something like prisoners, the dark knight, or nightcrawler. Half of their acts are either improv or the actors taking control of what they're given, and truly using the emotions of the characters. I'd like to hear what you think about that.

[@PrinceFlashmo]

Very interesting video. Never really thought about editing in this way.

[@kyleha7420]

I'm glad you expanded this from the suicide squad video

[@andraken]

Indeed, we use the word "montaggio" in Italy to refer to "editing"

[@pimptastic4206]

Great video! I'd watch more videos of you explaining film concepts for sure! :)

[@AndrewFerguson9381]

love your stuff man ...

[@PositionLight]

You should do a video on the editing style of Yasujirō Ozu to show how alternate editing languages are indeed possible.

[@kostajovanovic3711]

Still waiting

[@kristinatrandafilova7379]

okay but you really just saved my essay big man. seariosuly i was so lost before you . thank you

[@Nkanyiso_K]

I think that your Suicide Squad video is a Masterclass in editing. Thank you

[@maximeteppe7627]

you should watch his video on the last airbender. A good way to know more about directing and editing as well.

[@user-uz2ku3vb6b]

Hi there. I've discovered your channel accidentally and just wanted to thank you, very good stuff!

[@robertosilvestro8066]

Big fan of your videos man, keep it up 👍

[@Pants4096]

I love the interplay, in these human endeavors, among art, skill, science, meaning, perception, and emotion. Just as a great oil painter must understand enough chemistry to properly use that medium, a good film director and editor must understand these concepts that you describe. The fascinating thing is how different "brilliant editors" might have very different levels of conscious understanding of these rules, with some studying them academically and others somehow just "getting it" intuitively. Or, in so many tragic cases, NOT getting it... :)

[@stucooke3983]

Your videos are fantastic. Thanks so much. I would really love to see some more examples of modern movies and the concepts of editing. Set up a Patreon dude!

[@emceha]

I think I really like your vids

[@jorgefreites8727]

Easily one of my favourite channels

[@BaronKrool]

Amazing and informative video, keep it up!

[@RLanceHunter]

One of my favorite edits (using full advantage of the Kuleshov Effect) is in Dark City. We are near the climax of the story and someone basically falls off the edge of the world, and the shot follows him and finally reveals the true nature of the city. Then, there's a shot of the main character reacting with awe and you now know that he knows the true secret of this world (when in retrospect it's clear that there was no way he actually saw what was seen in that shot).

[@lizabethhampton4537]

I was thinking about this today during my like... 36th rewatch of Hitman: Agent 47 bc there's a sequence near the climax of Katia looking at her father in the Syndicate building and her father looking at the helicopter through the building's window and the implication is that he can see her as much as she can see him, or at least, he knows she's there. And that's when Katia takes the step of flying the chopper through the window in a bid to save him. So thanks for helping me understand my favorite movie a bit better :D

[@FiggityJones]

Went and watched 10 Cloverfield Lane finally just in case of spoilers and maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan that is a good film. And also, loved the video ^_^ interesting and insightful as ever

[@waiifii22]

Awesome channel, thanks!

[@superabdo3]

this is what was missed in youtube, thank you for this content

[@maximeteppe7627]

do you know every frame a painting?

[@superabdo3]

Maxime Teppe I am checking it out, thanks.

[@eli-uu7xl]

It may be simple fanaticism, but I think you should make a follow-up video talking about Mad Max: Fury Road and it's functionality with Editing. I hadn't known about The Kuleshov Effect until watching your video, but I think it may be prudent to talk about Mad Max. Again, maybe I'm just a biased fan.

[@SmokeymcJoint420]

Fury Road was terrible, I have no idea why people like it so much. It is awful on practically every cinematic level.

[@Kevin.A.S]

Smokey McJoint lol, plz answer this... how is it terrible in every cinematic level? Please I need to know your great great wisdom! And don't forget about the "levels" that it won Oscars for (I think it's 6).

[@Mrinsecure]

Honestly, I'd start with that scene transition from where they're about to put a branding iron on Max's neck to the identical burn scar on Furiosa's neck. With just those few seconds, we learn: a) We're still in (roughly) the same place, dealing with the same people. b) Furiosa (whose name we don't know yet) is- or was- the "property" of whoever runs this place, who we will learn is Immortan Joe. c) We have the foundation of a motivation for Furiosa's later actions, i.e. the implicit treatment she received as Immortan Joe's "property." That's how you do good visual storytelling.

[@TooFatTooFurious]

Not only that, but Furiosa is the only woman among a bunch of dudes. It's especially noticable, considering they all wear white bodypaint, and almost no clothes aside from that. From her gender and her looks we can see that she's must be incredible powerful and expirienced, if even in Immortan Joe's army of white penises she is a respected officer

[@lloroshastar6347]

I'm glad Smokey McJoint was able to clearly outline the multitude of reasons why Mad Max: Fury Road on almost every cinematic level with their clearly detailed dissertation response, including links to visual clips in which they dissect how the film fails as a cinematic experience.... oh wait! Its a shame really, as a fan of Pink Floyd me and Smokey may have gotten along.

[@eyeweiss]

Thanks a lot for that, I gained a lot more in the last 30 minutes than I would have thought.

[@sqatch92]

I love that you put the "clickbait title" in the description

[@makoktel]

wow thank you for this plz make more about the art of editing

[@stephenleblanc4677]

It occurred to me while watching this that that shot/reaction shot is far more hard wired into the human experience. Outside of film, the whites of human eyes are thought to uniquely signal to other humans with a particular subject is looking at. If you approach someone and they do not look at you, it is instinctual for you to then look at what they are looking at. It is also not uncommon to look back at the subject to see their reaction. Thus our response to this particular editing technique is somewhat hardwired.

[@lindseykeefer6944]

This effect is why the opening of Arrival is so good! We make connections between shots, when one is really present and the other is the future

[@zackpumpkinhead8882]

I love revisiting the audioliterary works of Anne Dolson, my favorite 19th-century videonovelist.

[@DannyBeans]

Only tangentially related, but now that I know John Goodman's in it, I need to see "10 Cloverfield Lane."

[@alexismiller2349]

The way you said "couper" made me want to chow down on some camembert to recuperate myself.

[@SiraSpirit]

Are you a kwami?

[@hamletfisherman5740]

I'm in love with your videos 😍

[@thedarkestcorneroftheinternet]

Great editing in this video

[@Ratsos12]

I hear that particular voice and all I can think of is The Borrowers, that movie is all than man is in my mind.

[@Ratsos12]

Or maybe that movie with mice? Were they mice? I don’t know what I’m on about, but that one dude was definitely an exterminator in a film at some point...

[@22LtSmash]

I love your theory videos. I'm a comic artist, and a lot of film techniques apply to good comic creation. Have you considered doing videos on panel-to-panel or page to page transitions in comic books, or graphic novels?

[@EversonBernardes]

A lot of the theory behind film editing actually works for most visual media - for instance, a photography teacher of mine wrote his PhD thesis on narratological aspects of photographic collections/expositions and a good part of the theoretical foundations were lifted and adapted from Kuleshov and Eisenstein. Most of the phenomena alluded to by these theorists were described, in a way or another, by Gestalt psychology - and it kinda applies for anything dealing with human perception.

[@weareallbornmad410]

Actually your recreation worked much better for me in the first, full-hd version. Probably because that's how I almost always watch movies. The black and white montage was just a collection of random shots, but the color one? Boy, there was TENSION.

[@cathydanielson9995]

I absolutely love these videos! :) I finished my undergrad degree at film school, and I did a lot of editing. (I didn't stick with it because, well, running a landscaping business pays a lot better... ;) That having been said... I think that the biggest reason why the Kuleshov effect works better in other examples than it does here is that it requires an actor who knows how to create a face that is a blank palette for the audience's emotions. If you watch *From the Journals of Jean Seberg*, for example, this effect is shown with actors who are or were experts at exactly this skill (Seberg, Clint Eastwood, etc.) I LOVE your videos, but... you're not a great actor. Which is fine! That's not what you are here to do. But if great editing saved bad acting, then we'd never see a bad film, which we certainly do. The reason why Suicide Squad was watchable at all, IMHO, was because of some great actors, Will Smith and Margot Robbie were able to project their talents even through horrible editing and a terrible script. But again, it's great to see videos about the editors' craft on YT, so keep posting them! :)

[@plasmichoneytrip]

When my mass media prof. said, “News is what the editor says it is”, he meant this theory and not necessarily the content of the video or picture per se.

[@mic7able]

These are good. They just are. Social media and KZbin has a distinct lack of 'good' things. Everything is either AMAZING!!! or just dumb. Neither helps us learn anything. This and RLM are both helpful and insightful.

[@segovio]

Buen video! Siempre viene bien repasar conceptos angulares del lenguaje. Ahora tendre que mirar Cloverfiel...