I think I might have lost you before that.

@@ThisGuyEdits I apologize for the rude comment. Your videos are great, I have watched many of them and I'm not even into film editing. I enjoy them because I finally found out how movies are made. You are very good at how you explain the process.

​ @minkymott Kudos for your follow-up comment. I gladly accept your apology. What follows now is not directed at you. As you might have noticed by the comments underneath this video, a very vocal minority has a problem with the content. I say minority because when you look at the like/dislike ratio of the video, you can see that ca. 85% seem to be just fine. However, that vocal minority includes a significant group of men (which Mark Maron named the "unfuckable hate nerds") that often responds with bigotry, sexism, and toxicity. It is, unfortunately, a problem of social media as it allows for unchallenged anonymous rhetoric. Here is an article about the phenomenon: www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/01/the-dark-psychology-of-the-sexist-internet-commenter/384497/ I usually never respond to any negative comments in my videos, because why would I? There is only a limited amount of life, and I'd like to spend it on positive things. But every now and then, I will respond, with a little hope to create a dialog that may soften their stance. I'm so thrilled that you answered that way because I was mistaken when I thought of losing you. I'm not saying that everyone has to agree with this video's message, any of my opinions or interpretation of the truth, but what I'm hoping for is a respectful discourse. You encouraged me to keep on hoping. For that I thank you.

@@ThisGuyEdits even though you say it's not directed at me, I took it to heart. Sometimes I just let things get to me that don't matter. Your focus isn't political, and neither should mine be. Like I said, you make wonderful videos that teach a great lesson, whether you're into editing or not. Again, I've always wondered what the process in film making is, and you explain a vital part of that process very well. Thank you for the videos, and thank you for putting me back on the track of just enjoying a great video.

@educate the left Agreed. Not everyone that dislikes this video is a bigot.

"Kuloshov" LOL Spreading and perpetuating misinformation speaks volumes about the educational level of people are nowadays. I mean, just look at how you couldn't spell the term correctly. So, is it teach whatever because "everyone" has passing knowledge about it (therefore acceptable), even if it's demonstrably wrong? If you leave the gender politics out for a moment and just think about the value of teaching facts not fiction and half-truths, you'd at least pause and give it some thought. With you on the "editor's effect." Lame.

​@@enzorocha2977 didn't need to be so judgmental about the spelling. Single letter typos happen, and dislexia is also a thing... (I should know lol) and the valid points she makes are perfectly understandable to read. I would say that what's in a name matters because the language we use forms a reiterated impression of our reality and history in our minds. while it's good for you @Hanbl 1696 if you don't feel offended by people just innocently using the misnomer we were taught in film school, there can still be benefits beyond just appeasing the indignation of some feminist film scholars, to amending terms taught to future generations so they are a more honest and inclusive reflection of their meaning. "Editor's effect" does lack specificity. What other alternatives might catch on more usefully ? (plus maybe easier to spell than Lev Kuleshov's name).

@@anthonypc1 The "perspective" effect, it would be pretty logical and straight to the point, you just have to insist on naming it that way and explain that is the "correct" way to name the classical Kuleshov effect every time someone asks.

@@FedeMayhemile. That's good. Though it requires context as much as subjective perspective. The effect of perspective in context....

​@@anthonypc1 Don't make it longer, it fits perfectly being short, that's not necessary extra information for just a "term", that would take obvious part inside the definition.

The video is not stating Kuleshov claimed it. It was described and teached by him, but it's not *his* effect, it's not Kuleshov's effect. It was done before, and people infere he invented it or hipothysized it, instead of just discribing it.

@@BarcadsONE That's what I said. I know. But the video is wrong all over with thinking to rename it. It's just being woke.

@@Leprutz Yeah, I recognize "the editor's effect" is too broad. A better idea would be teaching maybe something along the lines of "the emotional inference effect", and adding to that "better known as the 'Kuleshov's Effect', named after this guy who discribed a phenomenon who's knowledge had already been worked on by the editors of that period, who happened to be mostly women for x and y reason". I get it -- trying to get people to rename an already stablished term may not be a good strategy overall, but I respect and support the intention. I for sure didn't know, before watching this video, that women were among the first editors, nor that Kuleshov's Effect was actually not his... despite the fact I have been studying filmmaking for the past six years. So I'm glad I got to learn that today. I think at this point failing to understand why women, or people in general, like Dr. Karen Pearlman, propose things like this is tone-deaf. With all due respect, the intentions are not 'woke'. Is not difficult to understand that 1- women have been discriminated, and 2- their role, has been diminished, both since forever. At the end of the day, even with a maybe not-so-convenient strategy, Dr. Pearlman is just trying to raise awareness about history's tendency to diminish women's role in important disciplines and professions. And I can't be against that.

@@BarcadsONE But this is exactly the problem... by renaming a simple effect it just enforces this kind of problem of who dunnit first and stuff, in my opinion. The problem lies in the education. I have been to film school and they taught us the history of film making. Simple fact: women were editors. And I do agree that we shouldn't discredit them. But It is just called Kuleshov du to the psychological idea that lies behind that effect. He explained it. Even though (doesn't matter if women or men) did it before him. Like I said. This is something that we all humans have as a capacity within us. It has been done in painting for generations too. It's how we do associate one image to another. So basically calling it the Kuleshov Effect is very correct. There are so many theories in math and things that have the name of someone else, just due to the fact the it was the first person to pinpoint it. It is not that he was the first to have the idea and or to have done it. It is not patent. And as soon as people do understand that fact... then there will be no problem. But a woman coming in and telling. oh it should be called women effect or whatnot.... well sorry it's total bullcrap. It's a the fucking french omelet.. Well don't you think omelettes have been done in ancient greece? Maybe even in the persian empire? Sure maybe... the thing is that the french were the first to just write down the recipe for a reaally good and tasty omelette. They only call it omelette. The whole world calls it french. Easy.

@@Leprutz My problem lies with the antagonization and stigmatization of Dr. Pearlman-like-people's intentions. Once again, I recognize that changing the denomination of an already established concept may be a bad move, because of language-related-reasons (simply put: people won't call a known thing a different name out of a sudden, especially when forced, cuz that's just not how language works). But people *outraging* at other people trying to raise their voice when fighting against a pretty factual and ugly *reality* ? That is concerning. Like, a lot of people here, *a lot* , are missing the point. You don't like the idea of changing the name? Ok, but you do recognize that the diminishing of women's role in society is a problem, including their role in the film industry, and that it is important to do something about it? Then why do you outrage as if the actions were not well motivated? Why are you trying so eagerly to take credit away instead of respectfully disagreeing *and* proposing other more-fitting solutions to the problem who's awareness' trying to be raised? Some of the people in this comment section are doing exactly this, and it's annoying.

For something that "doesn't matter" that was an interesting take on saying It doesn't matter.

You'r my guy.

@@nyazillagojira7079 At least he explains why it doesn't matter.

@@MAUROOO I never said it didn't matter. Read my text again: At least he explains why it doesn't matter. I was just stating that in many cases people say stuff but can't give any reasoning or explanation to it. Now the guy at least did that. Does it mean that I agree with him? Nope. Does it also mean that I do not agree with him? Also nope. You see, I do that often times too, but we tend to assume things upon sentences that have been said, where sometimes we shoudln't. I am saying this also to me not pointing at you. Back to topic... I believe that I have written somewhere else why I think that the name shouldn't be changed. And to make it short it was, cause it is more of a historical term than assimilating the effect to the discovery made by a man. Plus you cannot call something the woman effect because this implies all the women and loses it's context too. He just explained it and since then it has been pined down in history books of cinema as the Kuleshov effect. Just because he explained all that it implies. The psyhological fact, the theoretical and practical fact. So why the hell would we want to change it? I mean just having this conversation alone is stupid actually because some feminist believs it doesn't do women justice? Well boo hoo. Mostly all native central amercians have been killed by the hispanics, shall we change that too to make them justice? I mean you get my point right?

I agree with this, wouldn't mind start calling it something different as long as it stands out (not like it's part of my daily conversations anyway). Probably someone smart in the internet will be able to clarify this part for me, but I don't get why to call it "effect" when we are actually talking about a technique that can have multiple effects (Pudovkin comes to mind, all the way from my college years!). It would be interesting to track down the first appearance of the technique in cinema history, and also how can it be used to achieve different effects. I'm thinking here of how dialectical is the classical 'Kuleshov' one (A+B=A'), where in other cases there can be much more indeterminate or have multiple results. I guess the possibility of more than one interpretation is always there in the 'Kuleshov' variant (Mozzhujin has never looked all that hungry to me, personally).

Not only that, the real reason is: WHO THE HELL CARES? How is that relevant anyway? Changes are made with purpose larger than one's collective or individual ego. What improvement would come from this change? None. Never in one day of my life I ever thought or cared if Kuleshov actually invented it... The EFFECT is famous, not KULESHOV. The creation is larger than the creator. This is absolutely pointless. Put your energy towards something productive. More productive than self-padding your back, anyway...

@@VIK_1903 well Leonard, this is relevant since women have been erased from history. You could relate more to this if you were a woman. It feels powerful and empowering to me. This is not just relevant, it's important.

@@tteister you're absolutely right, I'm sorry. Calling it "The editor's effect" makes perfect sense and it's a matter of justice more than anything. Did you really expected me to say that? That's stupid. Like I previously said, it's a matter of ego. Build yourself from within, not the opposite, and maybe you won't need silly shit to make you feel powerful or empowered. That's borderline pitiful if you ask me. Furthermore, your "argument" just goes to show how right mine was, and how shallow this attempt of changing historical things just for the sake of it is. Have a good life, just remember, it comes from within.

By the way, since we're at it.... WOMEN HAVE BEEN ERASED FROM HISTORY? Like... WHAT? hahahahhahahahahhahahahahah come on...

He got everything from American films.

But is that because Menke was a woman? Or just a good editor?

@@mikesmovingimages What in my comment prompted you to ask this question?

@@sbcinema2363 Tbh, I don't recall. Probably tying it back to one of the themes of the video: women edit differently (as a group), presumably in a way that can be discerned? Maybe I should have asked, "can one tell Tarantino's films were edited by a woman?"

Many of these theories are pseudo science and Secular Humanistic. Fun to entertain from time to time though. Color Science is very funny when clearly many have no concept of a majority of it. *Power of suggestion* Color is very different among different populations. Women are different and Men are different it’s fun to see these differences play out in editing when called for but trying to revise history according to a feminist perspective is a bit nonsensical. Some demographics clearly have separate esthetic often completely different visual references. It’s like calling shot gun and Kuleshov called it first. Being political correct is a Marxist tool anyway. “Editors Effect” in the name of equity 🧐. One likes those two so will not go over board in assessing this!

this sentence didnt make sense

@@Alectron8 because you have a reading comprehension issue?

@@Alectron8 Yes, I agree. Your sentence didn't make sense.

Indeed I see it that way, the editor has all the power :)

Weeqat The editor doesn’t have all the power if it’s planned that way beforehand, which it should be,

@@six-footant1577 I understand this effect as a director, but I’ve never bothered explaining it to people or putting a name on it. To me it’s just a way to illustrate a moment, combining environment with the characters response to its environment.

Glad you enjoyed it!

Hey same!

That’s not an effect, that happens in real life - people have just tried to imitate real life.

It happens because lower frequencies travel further than higher frequencies, so you hear the lower frequencies before the higher ones. It’s nit invented by anyone - in fact, I asked myself why that happens about a week ago and figured it out myself.

@@whengrapespop5728 Here's an article on what is called "Doppler Effect" after the guy named Doppler who first described it, long before any studios or "effects" were invented. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect Yes, lower frequencies reach further. They usually carry more energy and due to their longer wavelength are able to go through obstacles like walls like they're not even there. But if this was the only factor at play, the oncoming sound source would only sound more muffled when further away and become more "HiFi" (more treble or high frequency content) as it approaches. And to an extent this happens. But that alone still would not explain the change in pitch (like a higher musical note as the sound source comes closer, changing to a lower musical note as it moves away from the listener). If the sound coming from the source has some kind of rhythm to it, even a change in speed is noticable as the source passes by. It's like slowing down playback of a recording. How strong the "effect" is depends on the speed of the source. If the source moves faster than the speed of sound there will be nothing to hear as the object approaches, then after the "Sonic Boom" (perceived by the listener as the sound source passes them) only the second half / lower pitch part of the Doppler effect can be heard. I digress. Anyways the speed and pitch change observation is called the "doppler effect". Christian Doppler first described the reason, as to why it's like that. On another tangent: Higher frequencies travel faster than lower frequencies. How much faster depends on the density of the medium. If the medium is air, it's not noticable. But if the medium is dense like steel for example, it's very obvious. For example the "Star Wars" laser gun sound was recorded by placing a contact microphone on one end of a wire and tapping the wire with a hard object on the other end. It's somewhere in a Star Wars making of. Probably a snippet here on KZfaq "Star Wars Laser Sound" or something should bring up the video. That's just a side note, and yet another observation that gets mixed up with the Doppler Effect quite often.

Glad you liked it!

@@six-footant1577 batik already has name and the cut doesn't

She is a communist herself

@@elasticharmony That explains a lot

You can get pdf by searching Google get his book on cinema, the real point is cinematic language not tricks and techniques.

You can add your own sound and voice recording as long as you own the license for them. An epidemic free trial sign-up is requested, a purchase is not required. For more details here are the TOS of the competition: docs.google.com/document/d/1_ETeBsg5z9dkgeKlnVQuVq16PBDlb7UMc51VSNjkS1w/edit?usp=sharing

BUGS Well said.

the idea that i ilke from kuleshov is that you can create an edit with new meaning with any shots. literally any shot. sven has already prove it. the kuleshov effect can even change the character.

Well, if you're not going to enroll in film school when you're 75, when are you gonna? ;) Seriously, do it. No regrets.

Might look into auditing a course or two...

I used to edit (cut ) 1/4 inch tape way back in the late 70's using non-magnetic stainless steel scissors !!! Lol ! I use Audacity now to do the same thing and more on my desktop. I am 73 years young now and never use scissors now...even for my beard ! Lol again !!!

@@EdwardKilner Right on. I'm an older student myself, and it's a lot of work; probably more than expected, because we're catching up. But it's worth it.

Well I kinda agree with you there. It's just a friggin name. It's like the hammer. Called maybe after mr. Hammer. But the act of Hammering had been used many years before mr. Hammer. I find it kinda silly too people wantin to rename certain things. That will only lead to more confusion.

I may agree with you but you saying that this is just mindless feminism , dude then you are soo wrong

@@anantambisht4895 Maybe. Can you please explain?

@@shubhra1roy basically what she means to say in this video is that earlier there were only woman film editors in 1919 so it was basically the editors who made use of this technique call kuleshov effect , but what kuleshov did is he theorized it and condensed a technique which every filmmaker practiced before him but wasnt able to theorize and reason . Kuleshov theorized and reasoned it , and made kt explainable for other people , that is why it is called kuleshov effect.

And in history there are examples of woman being deprived of credits for their work where it is due , be it in fields of art / study etc etc...

this needs more up-votes!

By writing academic writings on the subject.

If you’re already an epidemic subscriber you are good to go. No need to do a trial.

@@ThisGuyEdits Pretty sure he means he already had a trial account. I was wondering the same. Thanks for this opportunity, by the way!

You can add your own sound and voice recording as long as you own the license for them. An epidemic free trial sign-up is requested, a purchase is not required. For more details here are the TOS of the competition: docs.google.com/document/d/1_ETeBsg5z9dkgeKlnVQuVq16PBDlb7UMc51VSNjkS1w/edit?usp=sharing

Why? Because you're gutless?

And of course it should be taught that it was developed by early movie editors, who were primarily women, taught by Kuleshov, and popularized by his students - who apparently didn't know squat about real cinema history.

It doesn't matter because no isolated cut will mean anything without a whole lot of association furnished by the rest of the film .

Read the description

You can add your own sound and voice recording as long as you own the license for them. An epidemic free trial sign-up is requested, a purchase is not required. For more details here are the TOS of the competition: docs.google.com/document/d/1_ETeBsg5z9dkgeKlnVQuVq16PBDlb7UMc51VSNjkS1w/edit?usp=sharing

I always thought this effect was about inferring thought. Reactions are just part of what drives those inferences.

They are mis representing him his statements have nothing to do with camera techniques or cutting. He is only theorizing on the contents of film. It is mass produced bulk films that leave cutting to an editor by having a camera cover every shot angle but even then the director has the last word Kuleshov was a director not an editor.

winners were announced via twitter and email. I might make a video soon to show the winning video.

Reason may be:) Women have more patience than men