In a great piece I found a few days ago Steven Soderbergh writes, “I think editing on a micro-level has never been better, and editing on a macro-level has never been worse.” In other words, the flow of cuts from shot to shot has never been better, but the overall flow/conception of a movie has never been worse.

I quite agree, especially when it comes to big-budget movies and ersatz “indie” movies. The flow of images from shot to shot, as well as hyperactive flash-cuts style editing, readily induces a visceral feeling that something is going on; something somewhere. But at the end of the movie all too often what we’re left with is a jumble of impressive vignettes that have not created any kind of residual effect. At the end of Network you feel something; when Mutual Appreciation is over you have an instinctual understanding of the characters and their environment, and it’s created through macro-editing. 

It’s the kind of storytelling ability that’s very hard, if not impossible, to teach. Learning how to do match cuts is easy. Learning how to shape a narrative is a horse of a different color. A great filmmaker (David Lean, Lindsay Anderson, David Lynch and of course Hitchcock) has mastery of both; a mediocre professional (like Tony Scott, Michael Bay, etc.) thinks that micro is enough.