OT: A Good Editor??

Hi: I know there are a lot of experts, moderates and novices here but regardless of your skill level and your software preference, what in your opinion makes a good editor?

One who keeps a stash of snacks in his suite.

I don't understand the question.

A good editor preserves the integrity of the script within the vision of the director. I like editors. Here is a longer version of what I think: EDITED BY MODERATOR (SPAM)

The ability to tell a story, and work well with others.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

> The ability to tell a story

I might amend this:

The ability to tell different stories in many different ways.

Amateur editors are often only able to see the footage, script and flow of a narrative in one way. Come time to recut the show, all they know is to cut every shot short, instead of being able to rework the footage, the order of the scenes, pick different takes, and really reshape the narrative to something beyond the script.

You have to know what the goals are, and have the experience, skill and vision to be able to achieve different goals at different times.


www.derekmok.com

Shane, that's not the job of the editor. It's great that an editor can work well with others, but telling the story is the job of the director. The editor must work within the vision of the director, not any other member of the production team. Of course, this is an academic discussion, and there are a lot of variations.

In the real world, sometimes the director has left the project and the producer hires the editor to edit the movie. This happens a lot with television shows, documentaries, industrials and commercials.

But in the Hollywood feature film industry, the editor works under the supervision of the director. No matter how big the editorial team, the supervising editor must bring everyone under the vision of the director. Of course, the editor must do his or his best to make suggestions and offer different solutions based on the screenplay or some other overlooked aspect of the production or even the story.

Anyway, I don't know if you've had the opportunity to edit a feature film yet, but I respect you a lot as an expert on NLE editing. I know you're an accomplished editor whose work has appeared on the history channel and elsewhere. I'm only talking about feature film editing.

Where I am, I'm usually left alone to pull the structure together, and after I am done with the editor's cut, the director will sit in towards the end to watch the flow and to work on the director's cut. Then we have the producers and network cut, then we'll lock the picture for online and sound mixing. I believe this is quite common everywhere even in Hollywood.

During the director's cut, we will pay attention to the overall flow of the piece, and we'll work together to recut parts of the story and shuffle the scenes around.

For the editor's cut, I am usually more involved in the specifics- e.g. Do I go to a wide shot or do I stay on the close; do I start the scene on the wide, or on a close, or do I go to a reaction, etc... Depending on the director, sometimes I can spot what the director was trying to go for on set, and I'll pop that into the assemble edit, and if it doesn't work, I usually have an alternate cut of that scene in a separate sequence. Sometimes certain parts of the script is unnecessarily long or the actors did not deliver the scene well, I'll also have a separate cut where I've reworked the cut and trimmed those parts out, but I'll usually keep the structure and order of the scenes the way it was written, so we can more clearly see what works and what doesn't when we are doing the director's cut. And it also depends on the time I have to cut the piece, and if the schedule is tight, my cut is usually rougher.

It is important to have that 2nd and 3rd person (director/producer) looking at the cut later on, because it helps weed out those 50/50 experiments that we may be trying for in the editors/director's cut. And the main point of the director's cut is to see if the story flows. For the producer's cut, it is to see if the target viewer can understand the story. One reason to have an editor who is not involved in production, is that we'll make our choices independently of production hassles so the story isn't influenced by how hard it was to secure an actor for the shoot, or how expensive a certain shot was, and how long it took to set up the shot.

Sometimes it's my suggestions that go into the final cut, sometimes it's the director's, and sometimes it's the producer's notes that go in. Sometimes I'll make a cut that the director doesn't like, but the producer likes, sometimes the producer will make a cut that neither the director or the editor likes, etc.. but at the end of the day, as an editor, we're paid to cut the story, but it's still their story. So in a way, I see my job as one who offers suggestions and alternatives, after I've pieced the story together.

For the technical side of things, it's important to know what you're dealing with and what you're doing, because aside from making some of the workflow decisions and equipment recommendations, it's one thing to fix it in post, it's another to fix the post in the online. So there's an element of creativity, an element of technicality and you also need people skills.

P.S. Knowing where the good food in town is, is very useful, especially when everyone is hungry.



www.strypesinpost.com

Quote

Shane, that's not the job of the editor. It's great that an editor can work well with others, but telling the story is the job of the director.

That is an incorrect statement.

A good Editor can tell a story in the edit (which is even more difficult in the short form). Every job interview I ever had I was asked if I can "tell a story" with an edit...and I wasn't anywhere near a Feature Film. The gigs I got, I said "let me show you - send me a music track, your company footage and a through-line / synopsis. I will take care of the rest".

A good Editor (in my market) also brings a sense of Design and Composition to each session...exceeding clients expectations. And that's not just Feature Films - that's across the board.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Gerard said it best. If all an editor did was help the director realize their vision, then you could hire any old button-pusher to do the work. Why would we look up to people like Anne Coats or Thelma Shoomaker or Michael Khan as great editors, if all they did was drive the equipment in front of the director?

No, editors get hired for their ability to tell the story...they get first crack at it, as Gerard mentions. And if they don't know when to cut...and how a longer pause affects the emotion of a scene...or when to use a wide or a CU...then they won't last as editors. AND I AM TALKING ABOUT FEATURE FILMS HERE. Yes, I have cut a couple features. Did they see the light of day? Not really. They were on the festival circuit, but didn't get picked up.

The editor can see what works and what doesn't. What works on paper doesn't always work when you see it. So scenes are cut, or suggestions are made for reshoots. It is often said that the editor has "the last re-write," as we rearrange scenes, maybe cut them out altogether, as they don't help the flow of the film. Watch the Director's Cut of ALIENS...the theatrical release was much better. More mystery to the goings on.

Vic, go ask other directors how valuable a good editor is, and what a GOOD editor does. You'd be amazed at the answers you are given. And I mean successful directors with working relationships with editors.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

If you want an obedient monkey to grind the organ so that the director can be as pedantic and over indulgent as they like then thats "good" for some.

Personally thats about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

As has already been mentioned, you need different views from people who are capable of expressing their opinion and reaction to the work - especially if you want get the best cut possible. After all it's not often that you are making the edit for your own personal viewing.


I also agree with Jeff "One who keeps a stash of snacks"

- although I think he's mixing up "editor" with "anyone coming to my suite"!


Oh and according to many Guilds you have to like Sushi to be a real editor



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

"Oh and according to many Guilds you have to like Sushi to be a real editor "

Of course. Where else can you learn precision cutting?

All the best,

Tom

For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

> I know you're an accomplished editor whose work has appeared on the history channel and
> elsewhere. I'm only talking about feature film editing.

filmman, you should be careful about looking down on the work of working professional editors like Shane, Nick, Jude, strypes and the other moderators. Your comments to Shane were ill-informed at best, disrespectful at worst.

You are also ignoring what the original poster was asking, as usual. He asked, "What makes a good editor?" Not "What makes a good editor of feature-length narrative films?"

"Telling the story" is the job of every single member of a team, whether it's the director of photography, production designer, costume designer, composer, or graphics designer. A DP is not a good DP if he doesn't understand the relationship of his lighting to the emotions of the scene at hand. A good graphics designer's decisions are not random; they are not simply "what looks pretty". They have to consider the visual and narrative motifs in the film, the time and geographical background, the style, and the camera style. A Spider-Man kind of FX intro, filled with movements, transitions and effects, is utterly the wrong opening to a film like Traffic, which aims for cinéma vérité. So, a good graphics designer is also telling the story. And it's up to that designer to come up with specifics of what can help advance the story within the graphics realm. Producers and directors will not always know which font expresses their style and the story.


www.derekmok.com

Apologies to M1119...some forum "noise" got in the way of your original question.

filmman has misrepresented our points to imply that "knowing how to tell a good story" means "taking over the project". It does not.

Good editors must have storytelling skills. They must know when to use a close-up, when to use a wide, which performance is best based on what the project is trying to achieve. This does not mean -- as filmman was trying to say -- ignoring the director and producer's wishes.
But an editor with no personality is not an editor, but an operator. And operators come with a significantly lower price tag -- just as a true cinematographer, who has a sense of his/her own style, would command a much higher salary than someone who gives you a generic lighting setup for every scene. That is what Ben King, Shane, Jeff Harrell, grafixjoe and I were getting at -- and filmman was twisting our meaning.

If an editor has no ideas, techniques and contributions other than what the director tells him, then what good is he? He is also making a lot of work for the director, and most directors would want to have a knowledgeable editor share the load, rather than a monkey who executes. If a director wants only editing ideas from himself, he will most likely edit the film himself, anyway, possibly with the help of an assistant (eg. Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith).

An editor must also know how to edit in different styles. Dede Allen would not cut a tender love scene the same way she would cut the hell-raising ending of Bonnie & Clyde, for example. This comes of experience, from having had hands-on experience editing scenes of this nature, working with different kinds of directors. Editors do have signatures -- Frank J. Urioste, one of my favourite editors, is known for his work on action films -- but you'd be hard-pressed to find any narrative film that's all action. Every action film has slow parts, and most comedies have at least one or two more serious emotional moments.


www.derekmok.com

>Of course. Where else can you learn precision cutting?

Fine dining helps. As you know, they say the finer the dining, the smaller the portions, but I think in America, they call those "snacks".



www.strypesinpost.com

Thanks for all your responses. Specially Grafixjoe, Derkmok and Strypes. Those are some really cool insights and a lot of help. I would, in my capacity, add that passion is a must. I think anyone who takes up any form of art does it for the passion and then enjoys the money that comes with it. Very few professions have this privilege. Also Derek you are spot on about the Dede Allen, R.I.P, analogy. But I once saw this documentary "Cutting edge: The art of editing" in which she mentions that the B&C climax scene was actually all put together by her assistant. She said "I just came in and tightened it up a little". Once again thanks for the responses and your great insights.

"Oh and according to many Guilds you have to like Sushi to be a real editor." Yea many japanese films/shows do have a unique cutting style.

> I once saw this documentary "Cutting edge: The art of editing" in which she mentions that the
> B&C climax scene was actually all put together by her assistant.

I haven't seen it, but it's certainly possible (Mike Horton can confirm, since Dede has been a LAFCPUG guest before), and it's big of her to admit that. But part of the editor's craft -- and the director's as well -- is to recognize something good when they see it. If the director cuts a scene himself, and it's well done, then why should the editor mess with it? On my last job, the assistant also edited 70 per cent of several scenes as extra content. I liked his shot choices and flow, so I left the essence he'd created and just polished. Why not? If he did a good job, it makes everybody look good.

In my early days as an editor in film school, I had tackled many films that colleagues had directed and couldn't bring to the finish. One important lesson I had learned is that you need to know what not to change sometimes. Directors sometimes get frustrated with a scene because it wasn't what they had planned originally, so they try to chuck everything out, or change the scene so radically that it loses its value. It's part of the editor's job to preserve and rescue the good as well as discard the bad.


www.derekmok.com

Yes, about 1 hr 7 min into "The Cutting Edge" Dede Allen discusses "Bonnie and Clyde."

Her assistant did all of the primary editing for the last scene. She says, "All I did was tighten it later."

Her assistant was Gerry Greenberg, who won an Oscar for Film Editing for "The French Connection" four years later (B&C 1967 and TFC 1971)...

"The Cutting Edge" is a wonderful film about editing; it provides quite a good overview of editing technique and history...


-Dave

P.S. - If you are interested in getting a copy of "The Cutting Edge," it is included in the special, 2 disc version of "Bullit," which won an Oscar for editing (Frank Keller). Great pair of films...

Assuming that you are of an artistic disposition and possess a steely technique: maintain a low profile and carry a big stick.

Resist the urge to be Jim Cramer.

H.

P.S. Could we please institute a moratorium on the term "director's vision", or "vision" in toto?

Love

Harry.

"One important lesson I had learned is that you need to know what not to change sometimes." Yea, that is very true and helpful.

Was this really edited by moderator, or is that a Vic joke?

xxx

H.

Quote
harry
P.S. Could we please institute a moratorium on the term "director's vision", or "vision" in toto?

i second that.
i'm self-editing those terms these days, along with "journey" and "arc"


nick

>Yea many japanese films/shows do have a unique cutting style.

I agree. I was working on a show, where we had a chase sequence, and there was a continuity issue with one of the boy's shirts (you don't change your clothes when you're running from one scene to another). A reshoot was out of the question at that point, so I cut to freeze frames and film flashes for the chase sequence. I got the idea from a Japanese film, where some kids were being chased by a wild boar (how do you shoot a wild boar), and they had slow panning stills of the scene against music. I employed a different approach to the technique, and the freeze frames worked as a counterpoint to the screaming boys running and created a lot of tension. The producers liked it so much that we did more of it, just a little too much if you asked me, but anyway..



www.strypesinpost.com

In my eyes a good editor is priest/shrink, nurse, husband/wife, best friend, most hated enemy and mvp for the director.

You have to understand the intention of the director, tell him whats wrong, listen to him, help, tell him what he is doing good, fight him and in the end win the match for him.

I believe, a good editor never does this for himself, just for the director/the piece he is working on.

Snacks and drinks will do the rest for your clients to come back.

M1119,

Passion is a given. None of us would be here if we didn't have a passion for it.

Oh yeah...I edited that harry. filmman posted a link to another link to his book for sale @ amazon. He has a way of steering a thread away from the original topic. We'll have none of that

I also second canning "Director's vision" and those old school wannabe C.B. DeMille terms. I would also like to add a few Marketing phrases I hear every day that I would like to see go in the dumpster. Feel free to add to this list:

"Whiz-bang"
"Sex It Up"
"Can You Do Something More Creative?"
"I forgot to email the script"
"Sorry about that"

Being a "Good Editor" also means that you are surrounded by GOOD PEOPLE who know what they are doing to get you all your assets and that ALLOWS YOU to create something wonderful. Editing becomes VISCERAL when you don't have to stress out about logos / legal / music contracts / booking talent / etc.

...and I have a file cabinet draw full of my Chunky Soups and Met-rx Power Bars for those times I cannot leave...

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

"Sizzle reel" is starting to get on my nerves. I found it funny at first because it's so vulgar, but now I hear it from everyone. And your suggestion to ban: "sex it up" will surely find no objection.

On the other hand, I am fond of the phrase, "add a splash of scotch to my gin". And I'm afraid that editors are somewhat prone to whining complaints while viewing dailies which usually start: "why didn't they ..."

Hugs,

Harry.

PS., Joey. Maybe we too could have a book on Amazon if we compiled a list of pretentious and annoying film business terms like "biz"

H.

Generally all pretentious and annoying film business terms come from Daily Variety.

Michael Horton
-------------------

> Generally all pretentious and annoying film business terms come from Daily Variety.

A-men.


www.derekmok.com