Movies that show such examples are "Apocalypse Now", "Full Metal Jacket", and "Shutter Island". All I will dissect individually.
The first one is "Apocalypse Now" where in one scene where the marines in vietnam are landing on the river side you first see 4 hueys. then when it cuts to another angle which is supposed to be maybe a couple seconds, the hueys are gone. nowhere to be seen. It's not like they took off and got out of site in seconds. That was a continuity error that was not cared about. a legendary Editor by the name of Walter Murch was in charge of continuity in the film. His response was " An ideal cut for me is the one that satisfies the following six criteria at once" those criterias are:
1.)Emotion which should make up of about 51%
2.)Story consisting 23%
3.)Rhythm with 10%
4.)Eye-Trace being 7%
5.)2-Dimensional space 5%
6.)3-dimensional space 4%
When taking this theory of film from an academic standpoint you can see how it is true which such examples that were stated earlier.
The second film example is "Full Metal Jacket". I have seen the film so I know the film has exceeded in the emotional range and storytelling range. the example that the video that Indy Mogul produces is the boot camp where our main character Pvt. Davis gets punched by the drill sergeant Gny. Sgt. Hartman. the only problem is that he begins to punch with one hand but when it cuts to another angle of the Gny. Sgt. punching it's with his other hand. Martin Hunter who was the head editor who was incharge of continuity either didn't notice claiming "Nobody ever pointed it out, as far as I know. But those kind of things don't really matter because if a scene is effective , you shouldn't be distracted by things like that.". That statement by Mr. Hunter has an exceedingly good point. If someone is really caught up in the emotion and the story, would they really notice something so little?
The last example being "Shutter Island". This is different from the rest not because of its level of continuity errors but because of its intention for using such errors. I have only seen some small clips from the film so I do not have much knowledge for the film except for what critics and reviews say. What does happen in the film from what I have seen from the example given in thevideo is almost subtle Genius on the director and editors part. There is a scene where the main actor played by Mr. DiCaprio is interrogating a woman and the hand her a glass of water. the scene cuts to her drinking it but there is no glass, only her acting like there is and fake drinking. After she is done she places a glass down that is empty... The purpose of that whole scene was to make the audience begin to think that nothing is what it seems which was well played out by the director with the editors help.
It is things like those that if take from an academic point of view for critiquing that a well made discussion can be made over methods on how to evolve filming and editing. Continuity errors don't always have to be mistakes but can be used for the better good of storytelling.
When taking this theory of film from an academic standpoint you can see how it is true which such examples that were stated earlier.
The second film example is "Full Metal Jacket". I have seen the film so I know the film has exceeded in the emotional range and storytelling range. the example that the video that Indy Mogul produces is the boot camp where our main character Pvt. Davis gets punched by the drill sergeant Gny. Sgt. Hartman. the only problem is that he begins to punch with one hand but when it cuts to another angle of the Gny. Sgt. punching it's with his other hand. Martin Hunter who was the head editor who was incharge of continuity either didn't notice claiming "Nobody ever pointed it out, as far as I know. But those kind of things don't really matter because if a scene is effective , you shouldn't be distracted by things like that.". That statement by Mr. Hunter has an exceedingly good point. If someone is really caught up in the emotion and the story, would they really notice something so little?
The last example being "Shutter Island". This is different from the rest not because of its level of continuity errors but because of its intention for using such errors. I have only seen some small clips from the film so I do not have much knowledge for the film except for what critics and reviews say. What does happen in the film from what I have seen from the example given in thevideo is almost subtle Genius on the director and editors part. There is a scene where the main actor played by Mr. DiCaprio is interrogating a woman and the hand her a glass of water. the scene cuts to her drinking it but there is no glass, only her acting like there is and fake drinking. After she is done she places a glass down that is empty... The purpose of that whole scene was to make the audience begin to think that nothing is what it seems which was well played out by the director with the editors help.
It is things like those that if take from an academic point of view for critiquing that a well made discussion can be made over methods on how to evolve filming and editing. Continuity errors don't always have to be mistakes but can be used for the better good of storytelling.
