Has editing progressed less than all other aspects of filmmaking?

[OurBovinePublic]

I was recently given an assignment on how editing has changed since the 1920's and after reading a few books and getting a few different opinions it seems to me that there was a big change in the 1960's with the likes of Dede Allen and George Tomasini but after that there were few editors who actually pushed the boundaries. In light of this, do you think editing has progressed less than other aspects of filmmaking?

Colm

[will.15]

I don't know who those editors are, but editing in contemporary movies is different from sixties films, even though many of the techniques started then. MTV quick cut editing techniques used in videos and adapted to feature films didn't exist in the sixties. Look at action shows on television. The style of CSI shows and its many imitators is nothing like the slower, more plodding style of similar shows in the sixties and seventies.

[Steve Crook]

The technology used by editors has changed hugely now that they can edit using digital images and image manipulation rather than cutting film by hand. They can jump around in a film to find the scene they want much easier than they could in the old days.

As Will said, a lot now use faster cuts as was developed on music videos. But some of the great editors can use these techniques as well as the older techniques.

I know Thelma Schoonmaker quite well and have been to a few talks she's given about editing. She usually starts off by saying "To understand what I do you'd probably have to sit next to me and watch me do it for a few weeks." The sign of the best editors is that you hardly notice their work

But Thelma does work with Scorsese and he's very knowledgeable about and fond of the editing process himself. Especially now that he can take so many shots on the digital equipment he uses Thelma often has the choice of about 10 or 20 versions of each scene. But they both have the ability to remember every variation shot and can (with Thelma's editing desk) pull them up quite quickly and try them in different combinations.

Thelma is a sweet little white haired old lady. One of her favourite questions when she gives a talk is when people ask something like "How come such a nice lady as yourself gets to edit all these violent gangster films that Marty makes? Aren't you shocked and disgusted by what you see?"

Thelma's stock answer is "But they aren't violent until I've finished editing them"

Steve

[jimw1]

" The sign of the best editors is that you hardly notice their work

That sums it up in a nutshell great quote

[OurBovinePublic]

Would you agree that one of the biggest changes in this field would be that the editor now has an actual creative input into the film like you mentioned with Thelma (its cool that you know her) whereas in the 1920's as far as I can tell this was not the case.

[Steve Crook]

Would you agree that one of the biggest changes in this field would be that the editor now has an actual creative input into the film like you mentioned with Thelma (its cool that you know her) whereas in the 1920's as far as I can tell this was not the case.

It depends very much on the editor, and the relationship they have with the director

David Lean was the editor for Powell & Pressburger on 49th Parallel (1941) and One of Our Aircraft is Missing (1942).

It was while he was editing OOOAIM and there was a scene where the older man was talking to the younger men saying "I was once as you were and you will one day be as I am". David said that they could make a whole film out of that scene - so they did, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp

Another example is Powell's The Edge of the World (1937). He called his book about their adventure in Shetland "200,000 feet on Foula". That wasn't a reference to the height of the very high cliffs but to the amount of film they shot while they were there. Powell later said that the film was saved by the editor, Derek N. Twist, who managed to pull it all together and made a great film out of it.

Thelma started working for Scorsese when he was struggling to complete his film What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This? A negative cutter had butchered his film, not leaving enough negative frames to allow for hot splicing. One of her film professors at NYU asked Schoonmaker to help Scorsese; a close working relationship with him has unfolded over the past thirty-five years.

(its cool that you know her)

See our adventure in Cannes

Steve

[Steve Crook]

You mentioned Dede Allen. I've mentioned Thelma. You might like to have a look at women as editors.

When films started a lot of the editors were women. That was partly because it wasn't thought to be an important job but also because they tended to have smaller, nimble fingers. Most of the editing techniques still in use today were invented or developed by women.

As men began to realise that an editor can make or break a film they began to start editing because it was seen as a more important job. But there are still a lot of women editors, and some very good ones. Dede has been nominated for 3 Oscars. Thelma has won 3 of them and been nominated for another 3

Steve

[Rowdon]

Would you agree that one of the biggest changes in this field would be that the editor now has an actual creative input into the film like you mentioned with Thelma (its cool that you know her) whereas in the 1920's as far as I can tell this was not the case.

I can't comment on the 1920s, and indeed I can't comment particularly knowledgeably on any decade, but I would hazard a guess that any director will tell you that the editor's input is creative, and even asking an editor would be insulting, as the answer is so obvious. Can anyone fill in the details on that story James Stewart told on some chat show/in some interview: a fan came up to him and said "You're such a great actor! That moment in (some film) where somebody (said/did something) and you put your head round the door and make the perfect face; perfect expression, perfect timing ..." and Stewart said "That wasn't me - that was the editor." It's fairly obvious that much of the time the actor is just doing face shots or mini-actions which aren't reactions to anything except an instruction from the director, so it's only when the editor cuts them in that they look like (re)acting. If the director is at the editor's shoulder telling her/him what to do, then it's the director's choice, but the director is often off schmoozing or having a nap or avoiding their round in the Crown and Two Chairmen ...
When my Mum was working as assistant editor, the editor was given hours of film (a documentary about a part of London) and basically told to cut it down to 60 minutes. Sure, the director had 'directed' the shots, but who was the creative force here? The editor added some interestingly mangled music and sound track to it too ... and it won a prize. For the director.
Another one about Mum that I've mentioned on here before: when she was working on the editing of Killer's Moon (she wasn't the nominal editor, but it was a team thing, since there wasn't a whole lot of money available, as you'll know if you've seen it) she was particularly pleased with the director's reaction to a slashing sequence she'd built from a shot of a knife-wielding hand, a shot of a face, and a shot of a blood-filled pigskin being cut open: "He jumped!" she said proudly.
She kind of lost interest when all the Steenbecks and stock dangling over plastic troughs got replaced by video.

[Mr Pastry Time]

Hi. Working in the media world as I do and editing half the day here is my take.
Those marvellous silent movie pioneers had very limited time to get a film out and onto the screen so it was a speedy editing process most certainly. Some of the old photographs around of film editing at this time demonstrate just how manic it must have been to jet the job done. In the 70’s I had the opportunity to stand and watch a 35mm film I was in being edited at this was a far more organised methodical way of working. Film edits were physically cut obviously and then joined together at the chosen point to create a slick edit. Getting into film making myself in my teens many moons ago now the editing was a fascinating process and after spending a few months filming it was great to see your film come together. I would go so far as to say that the editing is the most creative part of film making at least in my view. Today everything I do professionally is HD and digital, edited within a computer with suitable software, then output to either Blu-ray, DVD, tape or now also stored on solid state for possible future use. When not in the barmy digital world of editing I still continue to produce films for myself, but these are shot of film and cut by hand for what I like to call “organic film making”, made with love not wiz bang technology.

We do have a link with a University and from time to time taken students on placement here. It’s been interesting over the years when they do come and I put a 16mm movie camera in front of them to see the reaction. Many enjoy the challenge of producing projects on film for the physical handling of images, not least when editing.

Every success with your assignment and you have a very interesting subject with endless material available for research

[Moor Larkin]

I have come to the conclusion myself that the Editor can make a film or break it. The film after all is what the viewer sees and it doesn't matter how good the actor or how driven the director, if the right shots are not spliced in the right way, the result can be very uninspiring. I would be curious to know how the editor is included in the creative side of things though. What I mean is that, no matter how brilliant the editor might be, they cannot just be given a heap of previously unseen (by them) film and left to their own devices. I assume they are present on-set throughout and understand all the motivations that the director and actors were trying to pursue at the time. They must work longer hours than everyone else though, if that is the case................ getting the rushes ready for the next day........ ??

[HUGHJAMPTON]

In 3 segments, IIRC, this was an extra on the SE of Bullitt and twice as long.

[Rowdon]

no matter how brilliant the editor might be, they cannot just be given a heap of previously unseen (by them) film and left to their own devices.

Certainly not in feature films, but in documentary I'm sure that's happened more than once.

[Moor Larkin]

There's a job description here:

Film/video editor: Job description and activities | Prospects.ac.uk

The majority of film/video editors are employed on a freelance basis, working on short-term contracts for post-production studios, television companies and corporate employers. Editors may work on a variety of productions including feature films, television programmes, music videos, corporate training videos or advertisements.

Typical work activities
Digital technology, specialist computer software and high-quality digitisation of sound and pictures have effectively replaced the traditional manual method of cutting film. Depending on the product, an editor may be very involved in creating the narrative, structure, and tone of the programme. In some situations, they may be given creative freedom while in others

they may be needed merely to operate the machine. ......



Just noticed there's a case study on that site:
http://ww2.prospects.ac.uk/p/types_o...hael_ho%20.jsp

As an editor you work with the director to shape the story and solve problems. You are a 'fresh set of eyes' and hopefully an objective viewer whose job is to help the film, even if that means losing things that the director loves. You will be involved in choosing which shots to use and in what order, creating the sound and music track. You might even be required to completely change the structure of the film and use visual effects to solve story problems.

The more challenging aspects of the job are that often the working hours can be long, deadlines short, and the environment can be quite stressful. You have to be a skilled politician at times to mediate between strong personalities. Also sitting at a computer all day is not good for you

Forum members should take especial note of that last comment....

[alan gowdy]

The sign of the best editors is that you hardly notice their work

Steve

Absolutely - like most of the crafts in film making it is at its best when it's 'invisible' and does not draw attention to itself. You should be aware of the narrative flowing, not the mechanics of presenting it to you.

[OurBovinePublic]

Absolutely - like most of the crafts in film making it is at its best when it's 'invisible' and does not draw attention to itself. You should be aware of the narrative flowing, not the mechanics of presenting it to you.

What about films where the purpuse of the editing is not to advance the narrative to to bring focus to the character? E.g. The Graduate

[will.15]

Citizen Kane also like the scene when he is eating breakfast with his wife and he keeps getting older.

The editing is pretty obvious in the shower scene in Psycho, but still effective.

[alan gowdy]

What about films where the purpuse of the editing is not to advance the narrative to to bring focus to the character? E.g. The Graduate

The same applies - ideally the viewer should be aware of the change of emphasis / viewpoint etc, not the process that presented it to them. It is hardly a crime to impress with tricksy cutting or camerawork that shouts "look at me, aren't I clever", but in most cases I regard it as being a self-indulgent and rather cheap trick. Often its purpose is to disguise shortcomings elsewhere in the production. I once worked on a children's programme whose producer expected every PSC shoot to contain a music montage because (I think) he was unsure that the items were strong enough to retain interest without it.

[alan gowdy]

Would you agree that one of the biggest changes in this field would be that the editor now has an actual creative input into the film like you mentioned with Thelma (its cool that you know her) whereas in the 1920's as far as I can tell this was not the case.

Film editors were originally referred to as 'cutters' and that reflected the low esteem in which their craft was unjustifiably held - they cut material, just like workers in a clothing factory. Editing suite? No, cutting room!
From what I have heard most directors had limited creative input in Hollywood's heyday, certainly those on contract to the studios. They were often expected just to shoot the script as quickly and efficiently as possible and had limited or no say in the editing. Indeed many films were cut by the editor in conjunction with the producer while the director moved on to the next assignment.

[Gerald Lovell]

Film editors were originally referred to as 'cutters' and that reflected the low esteem in which their craft was unjustifiably held - they cut material, just like workers in a clothing factory. Editing suite? No, cutting room!
From what I have heard most directors had limited creative input in Hollywood's heyday, certainly those on contract to the studios. They were often expected just to shoot the script as quickly and efficiently as possible and had limited or no say in the editing. Indeed many films were cut by the editor in conjunction with the producer while the director moved on to the next assignment.

The credits in some early-to-mid 30s British films (e.g. Gaumont-British and Gainsborough productions) include both "Editor" and "Cutter". I'm not sure what this distinction would've meant then, unless it was editor and assistant, or department head and the person who actually did the work on the film.

[Steve Crook]

The credits in some early-to-mid 30s British films (e.g. Gaumont-British and Gainsborough productions) include both "Editor" and "Cutter". I'm not sure what this distinction would've meant then, unless it was editor and assistant, or department head and the person who actually did the work on the film.

The cutter did the donkey work. Skilled donkey work, but still donkey work. The editor made the decisions and then told the cutter to do it

Steve