Sometimes I feel modern editing is losing its soul. Too much precision. Too little intention. We’ve reached a point where most editors chase smooth transitions instead of emotional tension. I keep wondering — Is perfection actually killing the pulse of cinema? Would you rather watch an edit that feels raw but alive, or one that’s technically flawless but emotionally sterile? ✂️ — Behnam | 7stcut
1 person likes this
Hi, Behnam Hojati. I’m a Stage 32 Lounge Moderator. I wanted to let you know I moved your post from the Filmmaking/Directing Lounge to the Post-Production Lounge since it's about editing. Let me know if you have any questions.
I'd rather watch an edit that feels raw but alive.
1 person likes this
Thanks a lot, Maurice— really appreciate you moving it to the right lounge.
And yes, I completely agree — “raw but alive” is what keeps a cut human.
Sometimes imperfection is the heartbeat of cinema.
1 person likes this
You're welcome, Behnam Hojati. And I like a great transition! I even try to come up with great transitions when I write scripts.
1 person likes this
Totally agree a good transition, whether in film or script, carries the rhythm of the story. Appreciate your thoughts, Maurice.
3 people like this
With the technical and financial barriers to entry into the film industry all but dissolving, we are experiencing a natural and unavoidable dilution of accomplished work, and an increase in the mediocre and unsophisticated. When I got into the industry, a 35mm camera could cost a quarter million dollars (for real!) and it took a decade or more of experience on set in a camera department before anyone would trust you to light a scene on a real film. Editing was no different - a very specialized skill done under the direction or collaboration with an accomplished director who, by definition, was a superior storyteller. You learned by working with very experienced people in a very elite industry. Now, anyone with a cell phone and editing app thinks they can be a filmmaker. That lack of experience - and a lack of knowledge and respect for what has gone before - is what you are seeing, IMO. It goes all the way up to the top producers in the major studios. So often I see and hear "new" ideas - visual or technical or plot or structure or theme - that were masterfully done in the 1920s or 30s or 40s, as an example.
1 person likes this
Shadow Dragu-Mihai, Esq., Ipg I completely agree with your point, Shadow. From my perspective too, classic films achieved a stronger balance between industry and art.
Audiences back then could feel that balance — they paid for a story that truly delivered both craft and emotion.
Nowadays, especially in horror and action, many films follow the same formula: a group of people goes somewhere strange, chaos starts, and there’s nothing new to offer.
Even worse, they often use up all their tension and spectacle too early, leaving the rest empty and predictable.
The real masters knew how to pace emotion, rhythm, and creativity so the story stayed alive until the end. That balance is something we’ve almost lost.
2 people like this
I get what you’re saying, Behnam Hojati. There’s something about raw, intentional edits that really let the emotion breathe — imperfections can actually make a scene feel more alive. While technical precision is important, I agree that chasing flawless transitions at the expense of tension and feeling can sometimes drain a film of its soul. I’d take an edit with heart over perfection any day.
2 people like this
Cyrus Sales You’re absolutely right,
Those intentional imperfections the ones that carry a bit of unpredictability are often what make a cut feel human. I think when an editor embraces rhythm and emotion over technical polish, the story starts to breathe on its own.
Perfection might impress the eye, but imperfection touches the heart.
Thanks for sharing such a thoughtful take — it’s great to connect with someone who values that same pulse in editing.
7stcut