Karen Pearlman

Filmmaking is one of the most complexly layered forms of artistic production. It is a deeply interactive process, socially, culturally, and technologically. Yet the bulk of popular and academic discussion of filmmaking continues to attribute creative authorship of films to directors. Texts refer to “a Scorsese film,” not a film by “Scorsese et al.” We argue that this kind of attribution of sole creative responsibility to film directors is a misapprehension of filmmaking processes, based in part on dubious individualist assumptions about creative minds. Such a misapprehension is effacing the public value that a more inclusive and accurate understanding of filmmaking offers. By “public value” we mean the potential to enhance social and cultural well-being, particularly in working lives and collaborative undertakings in the screen industries. Better understanding of the systemic and social nature of creativity in filmmaking can potentially help in democratising aesthetics, which we consider a clear public good

Philosophical discussions of film are divided in their treatment of the subject rhythm in film editing. Analytic philosophers tend to avoid discussion of it, while continental philosophers give it expansive consideration. This chapter aims to bridge these two traditions by analytically articulating what rhythm is, how it is shaped, and what it is for, while still respecting that it is, in both a film editor’s and an audience’s experience, a felt phenomenon. In order to do this, consideration is given both to the firsthand perspective of experienced editors and the articulations of philosophers. This synthesis of practice and theory reveals how an understanding of the editor’s embodied cognitions, affective responses, and expert actions in shaping rhythm can shed light on rhythm’s effect on audiences. The chapter finds that rhythm in film editing is time, energy, and movement shaped by timing, pacing, and trajectory phrasing for the purpose of creating cycles of tension and release.