Talk:Match cut

Merge request & Definition

I proposed the merger because the term "match cut" is associated with the idea of cutting on action. The 2001 example is a creative cutting style, but I am not aware of any name for this style. In Introduction to Film Editing by Bernard Balmuth, A.C.E., (editor of "Taxi"), "match cut" is defined as "The point at which two different shots are joined together resulting in continuous smooth action. In The Technique of Film and Video Editing by Ken Dancyger (Professor of Film and Television at the Tisch School of the Arts at New York University), "match cut" is defined as "A cut in which the end of one shot leads logically and visually to the beginning of the second shot. An example is the cut from a character exiting frame right to the character entering frame left."

The problem here seems to be that there is not much consistent usage of the term, at least from what a rather cursory glance at Google seems to glean... However, if there is a consensus from established authorities (I'm really thinking more like professional film editors or a representative body like A.C.E.), then it would be good to defer to that. Girolamo Savonarola 20:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't seem to find an official A.C.E. document of definitions for terms related to film editing, however, as I stated earlier, Bernard Balmuth, A.C.E., pretty much defined a match cut to be the noun form of the verb "cutting on action." --GHcool 01:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that it would be nice to see consensus from established authorities, not just one reference. If you're going to merge this article, let's make certain that it's right. Girolamo Savonarola 20:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be absolutely correct to merge this article into cutting on action. While a match cut is a cut between scenes, it is also (like stated, albeit confusingly) a cut in the same scene from one angle to the next that continues an action. I second the OP's reference to The Technique of Film and Video Editing by Ken Dancyger, as I own the book which was handed out to me by professors at my film school. It is also cited in the book In the Blink of an Eye by Walter Murch, a well-established and respected ACE certified film editor. MC Dupree (talk) 04:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Much of the confusion lies in the fact that there are three completely different but equally valid (in their own contexts) definitions of the term "match cut". The first is more accurately described as a "continuity match" where a director will "hide a cut" in a continuous shot to give the illusion that no cut has been made. Hitchcock did this a lot in some of his long takes, especially in Rope, if I recall correctly. The second is the one described in the first post, where a character can walk of screen-left and re-appear on screen-right in the next shot; this is sometimes referred to as a match frame. The third definition is the one this article is referring to, a match cut between two focal objects in two shots. This latter definition is slightly more complicated because there are at least three different kinds of match cuts that I can tell, as well as different types of each one:

1) A match cut between two different objects (like in 2001), linked by their position in the frame and their shape, angle, and/or color. 1a) A match cut between two different objects where the space changes (like 2001:ASO). 1b) A match cut between two different objects where the space doesn't change (like in the beginning of Powell/Pressburger's A Canterbury Tale where an eagle cuts to a warplane; the sky remains the same space).

2) A match cut between two objects that are the same (like in The Lost Weekend, which features a match cut from a shot glass at a bar, to that same shot glass at a bar surrounded by water rings, suggesting the passage of time. 2a) A match cut between two objects that are the same where the space completely changes (opening of Citizen Kane; match cuts to the open window in a sequence of shots that change space). 2b) A match cut between two objects that are the same where the space partially changes (like in The Lost Weekend).

3) A match cut between two objects that are metaphorically linked (like in Lawrence of Arabia; a match going out cuts to the sun rising). 3a) and 3b) are the same as 1a and 1b in this instance.

I still think the primary definition could do with some tweaking. It's hard to reduce all of these different possibilities down to a few sentences while keeping the meaning lucid. Any suggestions? I removed the "spatio-temporal" continuity part of the definition because this just really confuses matters. The only sense that such cuts are continuous is that they "smooth" the transition, yet frequently these cuts are used to heighten spatio-temporal discontinuity, ie, that the new shot is happening in a radically different place and time. There is no spacial or temporal continuity between the 2001 cut, for example, which drastically cuts from looking up at the sky VS looking down on earth (spacially discontinuous) and from the distant past to the future (temporally discontinuous). In fact, such cuts often serve to highlight this discontinuity while making the transition more seamless (but this is different than being continuous). What is "continuous" is the action. The idea is that you can match action from one frame to the other and even though the time and space radically changes, it will give a sense of continuity and connectedness.

I also removed the 'cuts to a different scene' because The Lost Weekend and Psycho examples show that you don't have to cut to a different scene. It doesn't even have to involve a scene at all (see the opening Paramount Logo match-dissolve to real mountain in Raiders of the Lost Ark). In fact, there's a similar kind of in-scene match cut from Run Lola Run (listed in Film: A Critical Introduction by Maria T. Pramaggiore and Tom Wallis; which should probably be referenced since it's available to read on Google Books).

As far as I know, there's no single source that really details match cuts in this way, so I can't just copy/paste this onto the Wikipedia page without references. To my knowledge, this is a complete-as-possible definition given all of the examples that have been cited and given those that I can think of that haven't been (on here, I mean). Solrage (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Match cut do NOT form the basis for continuity editing! Please have a look at this article http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2011/05/25/graphic-content-ahead/ from Kristin Thompson who shaped the word "match cut" together with David Bordwell. In this article Thompson directly refers to this incorrect wikipedia article. A match on action on the other hand is an important tool of continuity editing but no match cut according to the definition of Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell. A match cut actually breaks up a supposed continuity! Would anybody please edit this section? --Nextertailer (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Nextertailer 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

If anyone can find a reason the second picture is useful, then by all means make it clear. At the moment it's totally confusing. Two people walking - I don't see the connection. Sure, it's explained in the text but the image is nothing on its own, or even enough to warrant its stay, at least in this article which is about editing. Gohst 09:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've deleted it for the moment, though I suppose it could return if a complementary image is included as well. Actually, I think that the Aliens example would make a far better image, since it's a dissolve, IIRC. Girolamo Savonarola 13:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Psycho

The article says "Another Hitchcock fim to employ the use of a match cut is in, arguably, his most famous work, Psycho. Right after Marion Crane is murdered in the infamous "shower scene", the camera shows blood flowing down the drain of the tub, then cuts to a shot of Marion's eye."

I disagree with this as a match cut, seeing it more as an aspect-to-aspect transition. Is it all right to delete this part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnan (talk • contribs) 10:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I provided a reference to support that that cut is, indeed, a match cut. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solrage (talk • contribs) 11:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The book only makes on slight passing reference to the "cut" (which is in fact a dissolve), and posits it as a question: "...Why does the match cut between the drain and the corpse's eye seem so conclusively to define the imaginative centre of the film?" - (Kolker, R [ed.] 2004, p127) There is no discussion of the editing or this particular transition, or any definition of "Match Cuts", it's just a passing comment. Verlaine76 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

But it IS described as a "match cut", and even though it's a dissolve, so are the cuts that open Citizen Kane which even Kristen Thompson admitted was a "match cut" in the article you linked to. Starting at 1:04 you can see the "match dissolves" in Citizen Kane HERE. I do believe that should stand as a "match cut" because the eye and the drain are graphically matched by both shape and screen position. You can observe HERE at 2:54 how the drain very clearly "matches" the eye. Solrage (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But not a cut, hence my feeling that the title of the article should be changed and rewrittten to exclude references to continuity of movement, etc. The clip itself proves that the transition in question is not a "cut". Verlaine76 (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm simply not sure how you're using "cut" in the context of saying the Psycho edit "is not a cut". A "cut" can refer either to a "straight cut" (eg, the 2001 bone/satellite) or any type of edit. Dissolves can be considered "cuts" if we take "cut" to mean "all editing" instead of meaning "straight cut". "Editing a film" used to be called "cutting a film", after all. Editing out the "continuity of movement" stuff is a different issue than whether or not the Psycho cut is a match cut, which I believe it is. Solrage (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

An intersting and well made point. I'm using "cut" to mean the instantaneous transition from one frame to the next. I see your point about "cutting" but it's useful to consider that the term "cutting" came about because in the days of film based editing, the editor could only cut, any dissolves or transitions would be marked on the film and performed at the lab stage. Had editing begin with video rather than film the terms we use now might be completely different (possibly we'd call them "switches" rather than "cuts").

However if we take the work "cut" to mean any shot-to-shot transition, you'll find there's no other word to uniquely describe what we now understand as a cut. I can't recall an instance in any English where a "cut" has been used as a synonym for any other kind of film transition other than in very vague terms, (e.g. "the cutting in that scene was great"). I'm afraid if you do take "cut" to mean "all edits" you're twisting the meaning of the term from how is properly understood to fit this article.

I agree that the Psycho dissolve is a graphic match and a strong example of such, and it's likely that the vast majority of graphic matches in mainstream cinema ARE dissolves rather than cuts. If you describe it as a match cut, you 1) misidentify it as a cut rather than a dissolve, and 2) are vague as to what it is that matches the first shot to the second. I'm suspicious if the "general usage" argument. For a start, is Joe Public really going around discussing match cuts or continuity edits? Is not the cause of the problem Thompson identified in here article the fact that film journalists and academics it seems are using the terms incorrectly or imprecisely. These are technical terms and therefore should be used accurately. Sure, have a sentence saying "some (who) refer this this as a match cut..." but then "some" it seems also refer to matches on action, and matches on meaning as "match cuts" to, so what's the point? 86.6.112.221 (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you and I are on the same page with regards to what is and isn't a graphic match, so the only thing that's left is to try and solve the semantic issue. I think what gave rise to this issue with regard to graphic matches is the simple fact that they are most typically referred to as "match cuts", so when you come across something like the Citizen Kane or Psycho graphic match that's a dissolve you run up against a dilemma about rather to keep the term "match cut", or change it to "match dissolve", or rather to abstract the idea and create a new term (like graphic match) and then be able to apply "cut" or "dissolve" to that ("a graphic match cut/dissolve"). The latter is far and away the most lucid, and I think we would agree that it's preferable for that reason over the others. But, again, I simply go back to the "general usage" problem. I think you underestimate the commonality of these terms. There are plenty of average moviegoers and general enthusiasts that familiarize themselves with basic technical terms. If you started a thread titled (eg) "best match cuts" on IMDb Film General you'd probably get plenty of responses from general film fans who know (or think they know) what the term refers to. Perhaps the best option would simply be to re-title the main article "Graphic Match" and then simply note up-front that it's also known as a "match cut" and "match dissolve". Solrage (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is really inherent to the format of Wikipedia or any non linear hypertext based resource, in that you have to fit the remit of a page in context of the other pages in such a site, as well as something that stands alone. In a linear textbook, of course the chapter on editing would begin with the basics before breaking down particular devices and techniques. Here of course "Match Cut" stands alone on it's very own page and broder context is offered only by hyperlinks. An adequate compromise might be to retain Match Cut but in the sense that it has come to be implied here, that "match cut" can and does mean a number of things (matching on action, eyeline matches that already have their own stub class pages) but retaining in a longer form a section on graphic matches, including dissolves. (of course eventually then some one will recommend spinning of Graphic Match as its own page, though if you search for graphic match on wikipedia, it automatically re-directs here). Verlaine76 (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable examples: Saving Private Ryan

I would suggest another example for this section - Ryan is with Miller as he dies, and on the next scene the older Ryan is standing at Miller's grave. Would anyone like to add this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a cut. it morphs. Verlaine76 (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Notable examples: The Graduate

I suggest the pool scene in the Graduate, where Ben (played by Hoffman) surfaces in the pool, trying to lie on top of a float there, and the action cuts to him lying on top of Ms. Robinson (played by Bancroft). Mcvoorhis (talk) 12:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

A Canterbury Tale

I liked reading this article but noticed that the match cut that Kubrick copied (homaged?) is absent. See 'A Canterbury Tale, Powell & Pressburger (1944).Keith-264 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey

Ironically, the 'most famous match cut of all' is not a match cut but rather an associative cut. A match cut matches in a literal sense, for example if someone is pointing in a mid shot and you cut to them in close up, the cut is said to match if the same person is still pointing with the same arm. The cut from the bone to the spaceship associates two ideas through the juxtaposition of shots. Furthermore, there is no way from telling that the spaceship is a nuclear weapons platform (unless you read Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 novel), it is the power of the association makes this a legitimate assumption.--Rodmunday (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

While we're at it, the picture on the bottom is not exactly the same shot that replaces the bone. It looks like the same piece of hardware taken from a different angle. In addition, the cut doesn't represent generic technological advances, but specifically advances in weaponry. Clarke refers to the object as a "space bomb" and the Wiki article for 2001 calls it a "nuclear weapon." 161.11.130.249 (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanking article

It would be easier to add references if the article was still there. Has anyone considered adding references themselves rather than blanking the article? Stephen B Streater (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A pretty confused and misleading article.

I was lead here by a link from Kristin Thompson article, one of the authors here cited for further reading, who does a pretty thorough demolition job on the article ("simply inaccurate" is her judgement). Reading from the comments above it does seem that many contributors are confused about terms in editing. I concur with Thompson that the article fatally confuses two terms -- "match on action" and "graphic match" which are very different. The article states that "match cuts" are the basis of continuity editing (and then uses the correct term for this, match on action) and stand in opposition to Jump cuts, but then later gives examples (the 2001 bone/spaceship for example) that are strikingly discontinuous. This is a nonsense.

I suggest renaming the article "Graphic Match" and deleting the material on continuity editing and matching on action (including the example from North by Northwest) or moving it to the article on "cutting on action" which is rather thin anyway.

Similarly some of the other examples need to be considered for removal. The Laurence of Arabia example is not a match on action or a graphic match, but I have heard it referred to as "The match cut" (I think by Spielberg in a recent BBC documentary) possibly because Peter O'Toole is literally holding a match, hence the confusion. In fact the LoA edit is an example of a sound bridge, as the sound overlaps from one scene to the next. In the link cited the cut is never referred to as a match cut or a graphic match. I guess these confusions come from a film studies culture which puts more emphasis on reading about films than watching them. Similarly many of the cited sources are of poor quality (i.e. there is often a one word reference or passing use of the term rather than a proper explanation, and some of the sites sourced are pretty amateurish.)

I'm happy to do this, but do want to get some feedback as I think the page needs pretty radical revisions. From a personal point of view (as both a film teacher and sometime filmmaker/editor) to describe something as a match cut is pretty redundant anyway since the very practice of editing pretty much involves matching one shot to another, hence the need to explain why the shots "match". Verlaine76 (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

@Verlaine,

If you see my post above I attempted to clarify some of the confusion that's occurred on this page. I had contemplated removing all of the bits referring to continuity matches but really wasn't sure which the article was intending to refer to, so I basically just added a few examples of "graphic matches" and the best references I could find, but I left the other contributions alone, awaiting some other input. This is a rather complicated issue because some of the above posters mention sources where "match cuts" are defined quite differently than "graphic match", but "graphic match" seems to be how most utilize the term "match cut" today. Now, that's based on my own experience, which is hardly universal or definitive. But I think if you asked most people who are aware of the terms to cite an example of "match cut" they'd cite 2001:ASO, which has become almost the quintessential example. I agree with Kristin's article and it was largely Film Art's definition that I was using when I provided the Canterbury Tale example. Confusion seems inevitable when even the entries from Yale and Purdue seem to disagree, or at least be providing conflicting additional information about what such a cut entails.

But if you notice in my Talk contribution above I detailed some of the problems with discussing "graphic match" as there are different varieties in terms of how the objects, spaces, and time is utilized. I'm not sure how to reconcile or detail all of these, or even if such a thing is necessary. I'm also not sure if they require any different taxonomies. I'd be interested in hearing from Kristen whether or not she thinks the cut I mention in Wilder's The Lost Weekend meets the criteria of a "graphic match". It's an example where the object and space stays the same across two cuts, but a slight change in composition signals a temporal leap. But this certainly isn't the same as a "jump cut" as used in, say, Breathless. Even if she's argue it doesn't satisfy the criteria for a "match cut" I don't think it would hard to find examples where a cut across different spaces and times are linked by the same object on screen, an object that doesn't change as in the Canterbury or 2001 examples. Does or doesn't this matter? Likewise, what do we consider something like the Raiders of the Lost Ark cut?

Anyway, I'm not sure if I'm in favor of changing the article title to "graphic match" if simply because I think "match cut" most typically refers to "graphic match" and is much more common. Yes, it's also much easier to confuse, but I think for those who are looking for other examples of a "match cut" with the 2001 cut in mind will be even MORE confused when they encountered this article entitled "graphic match". The rule in semiotics is that it doesn't matter what word you use for a thing as long as it's used consistently, and while "graphic match" is rather consistent, it's not as well known by that. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a section on the controversy/confusion over the term itself?

FWIW, Kristen is a bit incorrect in referring simply to "the author" of the Wikipedia page, because this page has had many authors. Much of what she quoted was posted by different people. Even the main article definition, which she describes as "simply incorrect" is a combination of the original definition and my attempt at a revision without completely eradicating what was there previously. The only aspect of it I think could be inaccurate is the "helping to establish a strong continuity of action", but I think this depends on how you're defining "continuity of action". The Canterbury Tale cut is an example of where the "action" of the bird flying seems to "continue" to the action of the plane flying. The transformation is disrupting, but the "continuity" of action (flying/flying) and space (sky/sky) seems to help smooth over it, in a sense. Now, this is very different than the continuity that Kristen describes in her article. It's more along the lines of what Yale is describing HERE. I would love to have some more detailed input from Kristen (or any expert) on this issue. Solrage (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But the YALE article does things correctly, in that it uses the word "Match" as a category and then clearly defines the differences between distinct kinds of matching. That's why I think some of the contributors are confused here. As I said in my previous post (and the YALE article supports this) matching is a fundamental aspect of most film editing, unless the editor or director as specifically seeking a discontinuity. The confusion over the Lawrence cut is exemplary. It doesn't match in movement, eyeline, action or graphically in any way. I suppose you could make a case that there's some sort of symbolic match between the lit match and the sun, but really that symbolic comparison is forced by the edit itself, and then you're basically begging the question.

A match can mean a number of things, it seems to be contributors are starting to run with that with any tenuous example, and it ends up like TVTropes. As long as they have some sort of link (I hesitate to call some of these sources) people get nervous about cutting irrelevant or contradictory stuff out (sort of ironic in a topic on the art of editing). You yourself cite two examples of graphic matches that are *dissolves*, and therefore should NOT be in an article that discusses *cuts*, especially if cuts on action are included under the definition. Your rumination of the issue of continuity of action similarly illustrates the confusion, the graphic match may be helped by a continuity of movement (as in the 2001 example) and therefore the symbolic importance the the comparison but it's not actually the function of the cut.

Thompson's basic criticism remains: the article still conflates three distinct things, graphic similarities between two shots, continuity of action, and symbolic connections between shots, and treats them as if they are all the same single thing.

It would be a little pretentious to refer to this confusion of terms as a controversy, and many "controversy" sections in Wikipedia articles are simply that, contributors piling in with their own examples of how things are slightly differently understood in different contexts, and the section just becomes a sort of get-out for the fact that the terms of reference of the article are poorly defined and that some of the citations (as in this case) aren't of a particularly high standard. There is no controversy. "Match" is used by professionals and academics to describe a variety of techniques. I'd argue that this article is evidence that "match cut" is not used used consistently at all. Verlaine76 (talk) 10:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article is conflating three things, and what I've tried to do on this Talk page is to clarify what the source of that conflation (and general confusion) is. Much of it comes from the polysemy of the terms "match" and "cut". As has been stated, "matching" can refer to a variety of different cuts, or be considered as a category. Cut can refer to straight cuts or any type of editing. Your statement that: "I'd argue that this article is evidence that "match cut" is not used used consistently at all." is correct, but I think if we're looking at its usage on a probability scale then I'd estimate 80% (or so) of its use is centered on meaning the same thing as "graphic match". If you type "match cut" on Google and look at the definitions then most fall in line with "graphic match". I don't have an issue with retitling the article "graphic match" in the abstract; the issue is whether or not people who hear the term "match cut" when used to mean "graphic match" will find this article and realize that they mean the same thing, while learning that graphic match is a more lucid and consistently used term. In other words, this is an issue for the laymen that Wikipedia is generally aimed at. "Controversy" was the wrong word, but there is definite confusion, and if we re-title the article to a lesser-known and used term like "graphic match" then there does need to be a space somewhere that notes that graphic matches are more frequently referred to as "match cuts".

In terms of specifics, I addressed the issue of cuts/dissolves in the section on the Psycho cut. The "graphic match" concept is the same whether it's a straight cut or dissolve, so it still needs to be a part of this article. I agree with you (and Kristen) that the Lawrence of Arabia cut isn't a graphic match. As for a continuity of action, I agree that such a thing isn't a necessary feature, ie, what makes it a graphic match, but it is sometimes a... I guess you'd say "secondary" feature. This is the issue I had during another debate on this matter with a film professor (or so he claimed to be) on IMDb, that what makes a graphic match is simply the specific graphic match itself (bird/warplane, bone/satellite, etc.), but that graphic matches also contain features of other, normal transitional cuts, such as the continuity or discontinuity of time, space, and action. If you look at the legitimate examples cited it's clear that graphic matches can be continuous or discontinuous on all three levels (Canterbury: spatially, actively continuous, temporally discontinuous - 2001: actively continuous, spatially, temporally discontinuous - Run Lola Run: spatially discontinuous, actively, temporally continuous).

As for proceeding, I'm open to suggestions, and feel free to rewrite/reword anything you feel comfortable doing. I think it's important to keep in mind that most non-academics use the term "match cut" to refer to "graphic match", even though this causes confusion with the other types of "matches" out there. I would still suggest a short section on the semantics of the term, perhaps linking to Kristen's article. Things would be simpler if "graphic match" simply became standard usage, but that's not what we have on our hands. In general, I'm in favor of removing everything in the article not referring to graphic matches, especially a complete re-write (or even deletion) of the "wider context" section. The only issue I have left is that, AFAIK, there's no academic source that has a full taxonomy of graphic matches in regards to the different ways they can be utilized in terms of space, time, action, and even the graphically matched objects themselves. This seems a crucial aspect in highlighting their technical and aesthetic function. Solrage (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)