"Smash Cut"

S

Sad Max

Artful Dodger
Can we please retire this f*cking phrase? It's meaningless. A "smash" cut, is just a cut. From one thing to another. No smashing going on, at all, really.

The new-episode network scripts are out, and it's getting annoying.

Thank you for your time.
 
Last edited:
Because you know, some instantaneous cuts are, well...smashier than others.

I think it's a term weak writers use, to try and excite the reader with action-sounding words in the edit line, when there's nothing to excite in the actual writing itself.
 
I don't mind it at all. A cut is a cut.

I've never felt the need to call other writers weak, even if some have called my earlier work weak.

Words are words. I've used smash cuts in two of my shorts. Only to reference a cut in which a father was beaten to death and watches his life flash before him + when a son takes revenge. So for me it was a need to mix in fast/sharp/violent scenes. Maybe weak. Maybe a gimmick. But there are already too many rules. Just enjoy the writing...

Bloody impressive list on IMDB by the way.
 
I agree with seansshack - writing the words "smash cut" is a way to denote that the action is abruptly, perhaps violently changing to a new scene. The director can add sound effects, a whip pan, a white flash or other edit effect to emphasize this, but it's a quick and dirty way for the writer to telegraph to the director that we want a shocking juxtaposition here. I guess it gets annoying when read a hundred times, though. i.e. "Our protagonist eats breakfast. Smash cut to the toast. Smash cut to the coffee. Smash cut to the eggs, etc."
 
I try to avoid that kind of thing in my writing, too directorial. Stating what the camera is doing is also something to avoid unless it's totally necessary, i.e. I really want to. I think you can write so that your reader can understand how the movie is going to go and what the points of focus are in visual and emotional terms without actually stating either explicitly, if you know what you're doing. Personally I only know some of what I'm doing, but....well, I guess that's something.
 
It's funny, I hadn't heard this word before I saw this thread earlier today, and then I just went to see Tropic Thunder and they used it in one of the lines. Ha!
 
I prefer the more gentle "reform cut".

It is more direct than the crossfade/dissolve, and unlike it's violent brother, the "smash cut", the "reform cut" carefully sequences two shots together in a way that says, "hey, here's another shot you might want to look at if you get around to it".
 
I guess what I'm objecting to, is the use of the phrase to describe every last transition in the script.

Hit me up with smash cut once, on some really high-impact in-the-gut transition, okay, fine. Make every transition SMASH CUT TO: and it gets old, fast.

AJ Brooks said:
I prefer the more gentle "reform cut".
Click to expand...

Is that what you have after a cut gets tired of all the smashing, sees the error of its ways, and cleans up its act?
 
Seems like the use of another word had landed tropical thunder in hot water (but will more than likely make it another 100 mill from the publicity)

Thinking of it, I haven't used "smash cut" in a while. So I'm on the wagon and clean of it.

But after reading this I suddenly felt the urge. Damn!!!
 
Smash cut is a perfectly acceptable and descriptive transition term. It should be used when highly charged action is at a peak right at the edit. Now, if you've got a script like Run Lola Run, the smash cut cues might get really tiresome.

If it is a cut, it is a cut. If it is a smash cut, the action before and / or after the edit should lend itself to the term.

fp-3%5B1%5D.jpg


e
 
The writing does all that's needed. If a dialog/action/description transition 'smashes', it smashes. If it's written effectively, calling it a "smash cut" is redundant.

Even "cut to" is unneccesary most of the time. Unless it provides some essential element of narrative clarity, just write the next action/scene whatever. The description or scene header pretty much says "cut to" as well as is needed.
 
The slug line of a new scene implies CUT TO, making the use of a transition unnecessary and redundant.

Today, the use of transitions is viewed by most readers as unnecessary. The only time I would consider using CUT TO is when it's absolutely necessary to emphasize the juxtaposition or shift between two scenes. But even that's questionable. Other transitions, well...
JUMP CUT:
​
Useless
SMASH CUT:
​
Just as useless
PRIME CUT:
​
Tasty

No matter how it's written, a CUT always happens in 1/24th of a second - the amount of time it takes to switch from one frame to the next. If using a BRUCE LEE KARATE CHOP CUT makes you feel like a badass, then go for it; just know that many industry pros and readers consider it amateurish.

Just MHO.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top