The big-budget thriller is enjoying something of a renaissance lately — lots of people are excited by blockbuster action pictures like Transformers and Live Free or Die Hard, but the arrival of a newer, grittier James Bond last year in Casino Royale was a development that was greeted with critical and public acclaim alike. And while the trilogy of Jason Bourne movies that began with 2002's The Bourne Identity (and which arguably influenced the new direction of the Bond franchise) has been popular from square one, the series outdid itself with the release last month of The Bourne Ultimatum. A huge portion of the credit for that is borne on the shoulders of director Paul Greengrass, whose penchant for documentary-style camerawork gives his films a nerve-racking tension, but it's film editor Christopher Rouse who has to keep up with the imagery, finding the narrative links that will hold all the footage together.
Rouse is no stranger to action cinema — he worked on The Bourne Supremacy in 2002, and followed that up with demanding co-editing gigs on The Italian Job, with director F. Gary Gray, and Paycheck, with director John Woo, in 2003. But he really hit it off with Paul Greengrass, with whom he has cut two Bourne films as well as United 93 — the latter scored him an Oscar nomination (with Clare Douglas and Richard Pearson). F&V caught up with him by telephone as he was preparing to leave Los Angeles for London, where he would prep for work on his next project with Greengrass. Watch a video clip, below, to get a feel for the Greengrass/Rouse approach to action.
Perhaps I missed it somewhere, but is there any discussion about what equipment, software etc. was used in editing? I happend to have seen a quick reference about HD but that's all I caught. Was there anything esle?
Posted by Ben Lautman on Sunday, September 16, 2007 @ 02:36 AM
2.
Well, I saw Avid mentioned, a codec, and so forth, but I'd say it wasn't a real fountain of technical information. I did enjoy the discussion of editing style some.
Posted by Les Irish on Monday, September 17, 2007 @ 07:58 PM
3.
I suspect that Avid was heavily involved:)
I"m the biggest fan of "Excessive Camera Shake" in these classic Greengrass movies. It took a while to get used Von Trier:)
Most image-geeks (like me) agree that it's a fairly cheap way to create 'excitement' when you're at high school but it can be distracting specially when you have such amazing choreography and action set pieces, such as the car chase in Ultimatum, which turned into a blurry mess at the cinema.
It will fare better on a small screen.
I'm still a fan.
But I should know better than to sit in the fifth row for Paul's movies :)
Posted by Birdy on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 @ 04:35 AM
4.
since he mentions avid codecs, i assume it's in the avid family. most likely film composer on a mac.
Posted by joe on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 @ 08:45 AM
5.
Holy cats, I forgot to include the technology rundown! Mea culpa – thanks, Ben, for bringing it up. Here it is:
The Bourne Ultimatum was edited in London and Los Angeles on anywhere from four to eight Avid Media Composer Adrenaline systems at one time, running on Windows and networked via a 16 TB Avid Unity system. The project was transferred to Avid DS Nitris and Symphony Nitris for finishing, including previews and picture reference for the sound department. As Rouse noted in the Q&A, editorial took place at 3:1 compression to squeeze out that extra picture quality despite the limitations of working in SD.
Hope that helps. Sorry!
Posted by Bryant Frazer on Tuesday, September 18, 2007 @ 05:19 PM
6.
I thought the 1st was exciting ,new.By the 3rd Bourne the cutting was way too
excessive. Its almost like a rock band that is too loud for the room they are in. It becomes a wash with no music. Bourne 3 was almost like you were seeing nothing. A succession on someone flipping a light switch in a room.
Shaky cam - sometimes. Since when does a person sit in a conversation with their head swaying from side to and up and down. I would say the person is having an epileptic attack. A bit overused? Gee Ya think?
Kinda like the 70's when I got my first Guitar effect -a Phase Shifter. I used it on every tune
Posted by DP on Monday, October 1, 2007 @ 06:07 PM
7.
Two perfectly good films completely spoiled by the camera action.
What is this type of jerky action supposed to add to the film? Apart from making you feel sick all it does is make you look away from the screen in order to give your eyes some respite.
I'm sure the director knows best though and wont accept anyone elses opinion but his own. Shame, I wouldn't pay to see another, nearly everyone in the cinema was commenting on the ridiculous camera work.
Posted by Paul McLoughlin on Friday, December 28, 2007 @ 05:03 AM
8.
I just wanted to say hi to Chris. We worked as assistant editors together with one of the most sadistic directors in Los Angeles. Congratulations Chris. I left LA and the film business and went back to school. I earned my PhD in Public Administration. If Chris sees this email I would hope he gets in touch with me. I am very happy to see him succeed. Dr. Catherine Peacock
Posted by Dr. Catherine Peacoc on Sunday, February 24, 2008 @ 11:31 PM
9.
I agree, the camera movement is awful!! EVERYTHING I have ever learned about video goes against this kinda thing. It made me sick to watch it, not physically but emotionally, a 5th grader could have done better.
Posted by Gazelle on Thursday, March 27, 2008 @ 05:02 PM
10.
I never could stand the faux-cinema-verite style. I always equated it with TV and MTV and the like. But Rouse and Greengrass opened my eyes. For a silly action movie, the technical aspects are damn near art. If you haven't, check out "United 93." That movie wouldn't be that movie without Greengrass and Rouse. BTW, I still don't like that style if its done by any other director. There's something about Greengrass's style that makes it work wonderfully.
Posted by jake on Friday, April 3, 2009 @ 03:25 PM
Post your comments below
