Perceiving an Emerging Practice in the United States - Text 5
There was also the “flash,” which indicated a particularly brief shot that only remains on screen long enough to provide a “flash” of imagery. But with little designation beyond limited length, the “flash” was regularly muddled with the “cut-back.” And both terms could be etymologically fused in our purview as “flash-back,” although this particular term was itself at times used, devoid of temporal distinction, interchangeably with “cut-back.” Other terms included the “switch-back,” which was invited by the depiction of parallel lines of action, and “the vision,” which marked the insert of a chronological break.
As the trade press was both reflecting the film industry’s accelerated reliance on a set of editing procedures and attempting to prescribe their preferred uses, commentators were split: for example, some praised films that used the “cut-back” with skill, while others chastised filmmakers for relying on it excessively, making it, as Clarence J. Caine remarked, “a blessing and a curse.”[2] However, as long as such devices were used judiciously – as a “means to an end” – they received approval.