As someone who has come to discover an interest in post-production and more specifically editing, I usually enjoy reading any type of article about the art.  In the case of Rosenblum’s article on Annie Hall, I hadn’t seen the film before reading the article, which I normally enjoy.  I love reading Walter Murch’s publishing’s, especially his book, and find often that I can enjoy the breakdown of the editing process without viewing the film.  I’ve read tons about Murch’s process of assembling The English Patient and still have never seen the film in its entirety.  However, in the case of Roseblum’s work on Annie Hall, I did not enjoy reading his article either before or after viewing the film.  In fact, it may have even made me enjoy the film less.  

I did enjoy the film, I liked Allen’s humor obviously and in terms of narrative I enjoyed the non-chronological approach and scattered composition.  However, I found Roseblum’s article to be egocentric and self-appreciative.  I felt like he made a much bigger deal over his and Allen’s work in post-production than was necessary.  From what I understand, Woody Allen is a sort of chaotic writer/director.  The fact that he had a very different idea where the film was going and what it was between shooting and post production seems like solid evidence of this.  Unfortunately, Roseblum was along for this chaotic ride as well and had to deal with the consequences in the cutting room.  But everyone knows that the first cut of a film is often much longer and very different, especially in it’s narrative and temporal composition, than the final product.  Every editor has to deal with this, it’s their JOB.  I’ll admit I may be a little harsh considering I myself have never edited a feature length film, or anything close, but simply having Roseblum list the number of shots and scenes that were cut from the first cut wasn’t particularly interesting to me.  

I was glad to have read the article before seeing the film.  It made me focus on the moments that he talked about while also taking in the action and plot of the movie.  I could understand the long pause after Allen sneezes into the coke, I noticed the transition to California, and I was very aware when Allen said ‘I miss Annie’ but there was also much I was unimpressed with in Roseblum and Allen’s style.  The one that stood out most to me was the attachment to the shot material that not only Allen had, but Roseblum as well.  As a student filmmaker this is something that is unnavoidable.  When a director labors a great deal over shooting a scene or making something happen on film it is then very difficult to have the will to cut it from the film even knowing it will make the film stronger.  Walter Murch has written about this very thing and how he makes a conscious effort not to be on set during the shooting of a film he is editing.  If the editor is aware of the days or weeks or dollars that went into a shot or a scene then the bias he carries into the cutting room can be detrimental.  Although Roseblum appeared to have been more level-headed than Allen, I still have a hard time giving either of them praise for salvaging the chaos of the film.  

The amount of recognition that Allen has received for Annie Hall is evidence that Allen (and Roseblum) did succeed in producing a final cut which narrates a compelling romance-comedy and I agree; I enjoyed the film.  I just think that Roseblum ‘toots his own horn’ by emphasizing the problems and difficulties of cutting the film.  Cutting a feature into a first cut and then eventually into a final is a HUGE process as well as being one of the most under-appreciated cinematic arts.  A film’s narrative, story and purpose can be completely changed, re-organized, fixed or ruined simply in the cutting room.  For anyone furthre interested in a great book on editing (as well as a plethora of other topics) I highly recommend Michael Ondaatje’s The Conversations.