Are all filmmakers editors?

I think, traditionally at least, there are two camps. As a personification of each, I would point to the Spielberg vs. Lucas approach (the pre-1984 before-he-sold-his-creative-soul Lucas, mind you.) Spielberg lived to direct. Although he was very hands on with pre-production, I feel he was at his peak while actually shooting. Lucas, on the other hand, viewed directing as simply another step (obstacle?) toward getting to the glorious (insert angelic chorus) editing room (where he reached his creative climax).

I suppose, more simply, it could be seen as a Right Brain vs. Left Brain thing. Both are effective - both camps have produced timeless classics. I, personally, lean toward the Spielberg/Right Brain approach myself.

Of course, there are no absolutes...and sure, several directors straddle both fences. More often than not, however, one approach is generally dominant IMO.

Or - then again - it I could just be talking out of my arse...you know, "it's the Guinness talking" and all that
-emot6.gif
.
 
Last edited:
While I think it's important for a director to understand the process and be able to edit, I think it is also important for the fresh set of eyes an editor gives a project. There aren't that many directors who can truly cut their film objectively. I know one director who can completely remove his director's had and see his picture as an editor which is a rare and amazing thing to see.
 
dougspice said:
Exactly. All of the examples you are giving are short films and music videos. A feature film is not just a short film, but longer. It's a very different animal. A lot more thought must go into the performances and how they define themselves in the footage you actually have. I don't consider George Lucas to be a particularly good filmmaker, and the number one reason I would give you is that he doesn't seem to care much about performance. By the time anyone steps onto set he already knows exactly what he wants to get with no margin of error, and I respect that he goes out and gets it. But it doesn't allow for much in the way of exploration. It doesn't allow any room to improve on what you have in the can.
Click to expand...

Obviously to each his own, haha, but I find it immensely hilarious when someone on a forum will deride Lucas, one of the best general filmmakers of all time, and most successful, when there is no hope that any of us will reach that level of success. Or at least a 1 in 5 billion chance, haha. I just think a lot of people in the industry don't understand Lucas's style of directing, but look at American Graffiti and Star Wars: A New Hope and, come on, you can't say he's not a great director, that's just silly. Then again I love all six Star Wars films equally, as do quite a few of us fans. As for performance, I would agree it's not his main concern, insofar as it's not what he puts the most effort into, but that doesn't mean I agree that he isn't getting what he wants. It's a certain style of performance, and I think it either works for you or it doesn't. It definitely works for me, and I think he does a great job, but Lucas is absolutely like was mentioned here, more concerned with getting through production and getting to editing. I am totally like that as well. I see pre-production and post-production as my favorite elements, where I have the most control, and production is a nuisance that obviously is essential to the process as all of pre-production prepares for it, and all of post-production relies on what you have.

I just find production to be stressful, I don't get enough sleep ever, I'm always underfed, I drink too many energy drinks and eat too much crappy food, and none of that is a concern while doing it because I'm only focused on getting through it. Yet it's funny because I will always, without exception, idealize production and look back on it fondly because somehow I still love being on a shoot, it just needs to happen, like I get antsy if I haven't done a shoot for too long. Despite all the craziness it's really satisfying I guess. But I'm more at home in the editing room, after I have what I want and can see it come together, that's so satisfying for me because of the work that has been put into the project, even small projects.

I trust my editor, I suppose I would even trust him to edit alone without me there, but... why? I enjoy editing, it's really fun, I love being there and seeing it come together! Unless I have some other pressing concern or job that must be done, I don't see why I wouldn't want to be there. Now if it's like corporate work I could care less, not because I don't care about quality but because seriously it's not that hard to edit together a virtual tour and make it look good, he has done it countless times with me, and being there is just not required anymore if I had other work lined up or had anything better to do. It's a cake walk.
 
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think George Lucas is a genius. I just don't think he's a very good director.
 
dougspice said:
Don't get me wrong, I definitely think George Lucas is a genius. I just don't think he's a very good director.
Click to expand...

Yeah well to each his own as I said ;)

I don't know how other people judge directing, I mean it depends, like for me for instance I don't think that I'm a very good director yet, I have potential, but I'm new and inexperienced relatively, learning a lot, and little experience working with actors. Yet all of my projects and work turn out really well, high quality productions, and just as envisioned. So does that make me a good director? I don't even know. That's what I think of what I see, though, like ok I love the Star Wars films, Lucas is a great director to me, those are my favorite movies. But I have never seen the guy direct or been on set with him, haha.
 
Personally, I feel directors should at least have a basic knowledge in both shooting and editing. I've seen directors that don't even know how to turn on a camera.
 
I barely know how to turn on a camera myself. I am not a shooter. I couldn't light an interview, let alone anything else. Haha, j/k I have some basic idea I guess. I know my HVX200s pretty well just because at various times I've messed around with them, but I don't touch them much. I rent them out, and I give them to the DP / camera operators on shoots. That's about that.
 
The Coen Brothers edit their own films, and IMO do it extremely well. Generally though, most top filmmakers hire editors, although as directors the have a great deal to say on the final result (as with everything else about the movie). But in the case of a few rare birds like the Coens, they are able to keep their perspectives on their work and make excellent choices in the edit room. So it can be done at a very high level, but it's rare.

On the subject of editing in general, I find it interesting that (IMHO) most short films are cut too loosely, and are often surprisingly boring given their inherent brevity. Aside from the generally well known fundamental reasons (story/script and acting/directing), I think the biggest reason is editing. Time and time again as I watch short films (as well as most indie features) I find myself thinking "they should have cut out of that shot sooner" or "they should have cut that shot out altogether" over and over as I watch. In all too many cases, this applies to almost every shot.

Then I'll watch a brilliantly edited feature like (IMHO) "V For Vendetta", and I'm practically held spellbound by the crisp, non-indulgent editing pace. And I'm not necessarily talking about action scenes. Even dialog driven scenes move along like greased lightning in "V". Not frenetically at all though - just the right pace to ensure that I never want to take my eyes off the screen lest I lose track of the thread. Even though I've watched "V" countless times the editing still knocks me out.
 
Last edited:
If you're a director and becoming any good at it, you naturally develop into an editor -- even if you don't even know how to turn on any editing gear. But you think it. You have to, or you're never going to deliver the footage necessary for a well-told story or well-edited piece.

As such, it certainly would be worthwhile for directors to spend time in the editing bay right from the start.
 
1. You can't edit to your best potential if the footage you have doesn't give you decent coverage.
2. You can't get decent coverage if you don't block for narrative style camerawork.
3. You can't effectively block narrative style camerawork if you never spent any time practicing it.
4. You can't practice it if you never learned it.
5. You can't learn it if you never apprenticed with someone who does or never acquired any of the requisite educational materials.
6. You can't acquire the educational materials if you spent every last nickel buying a camera. (Not that anyone in this community would ever do that.)

And that's why most of the scenes coming out of large numbers of people are cut together and play like they're from a crappy student film instead of like they came from a David Lean picture.
 
But you're contradicting yourself! Obviously, you CAN practice without having learned. THAT is why "most of the scenes coming out of large numbers of people are cut together and play like they're from a crappy student film instead of like they came from a David Lean picture."

Filmmaking is incredibly difficult. I can't imagine how difficult it must be doing it entirely self-taught or subconsciously-taught. And yet there is that very common mindset of "I know what a good movie looks like, therefore I know how to make one."

I agree with both Ted and David. Even if you never lay a hand on the edit, any competent director is at least thinking in terms of how an edit should hypothetically turn out. I think the problems arise when that vision is TOO specific and too all-encompassing. That's the situation where any one brick out of place can bring the whole house crashing down. And it's very common.
 
dougspice said:
... Obviously, you CAN practice without having learned. ...quote]

Trying to practice without knowing what it is specifically you are practicing at is pointless. Its like trying to practice a tennis stroke and you don't even know how the stroke is supposed to be played in the first place.
Click to expand...
 
And yet people still do it. And maybe even learn from the experience... although the value of what they're learning might be questionable.
 
dougspice said:
But you're contradicting yourself! Obviously, you CAN practice without having learned. THAT is why "most of the scenes coming out of large numbers of people are cut together and play like they're from a crappy student film instead of like they came from a David Lean picture."

Filmmaking is incredibly difficult. I can't imagine how difficult it must be doing it entirely self-taught or subconsciously-taught. And yet there is that very common mindset of "I know what a good movie looks like, therefore I know how to make one."

I agree with both Ted and David. Even if you never lay a hand on the edit, any competent director is at least thinking in terms of how an edit should hypothetically turn out. I think the problems arise when that vision is TOO specific and too all-encompassing. That's the situation where any one brick out of place can bring the whole house crashing down. And it's very common.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's really that difficult, I'm mostly self-taught, I come from a background in film theory and film criticism, and I went to film school for two months before quitting. It was a waste of my time. The best knowledge was gained out in the real world, doing it myself, and the results have been quite good thus far. I don't really think filmmaking is rocket science, I think it's difficult to some degree, to learn all of the skills needed to be proficient, and to understand the industry, but I think it's a lot easier than most people make it out to be. I'm not trying to say that in a cocky way, I just don't understand why about 90% of short films are garbage, these filmmakers make it look so hard, when I just don't see what is that hard about it. Then again I have high standards, though, I take technical proficiency for granted because I wouldn't make a short if I didn't have the money to hire professionals at every position. Then it comes down to story and acting, really where most shorts succeed or fail, and that part is difficult but really I just don't think it should be THAT hard to make a film that is at least reasonably professional and good. It's achieving greatness that is extremely tough. I've not made anything yet where I was like, "THAT was a home run!" It was more like, "Nice, that was highly successful, a very well made, professional effort." Never enough to blow me away with what I had done, something really amazing, but it has never seemed that difficult to me to make something professional at least.

And yet I talk to screeners at festivals, and see a lot of this stuff myself, and I cannot believe how bad most of it is. I just wonder if these filmmakers have any standards. I mean if you're watching pro work in theaters and on DVD, and your work looks nothing like that, how hard is it to say, "Ok this is crap, I shouldn't send this to anyone"? Then again I also do not understand friends who have ugly as hell girlfriends and think they're good looking, when these people otherwise have great taste when they were single or with other girls. Like they will look at a girl who is an 8.5 out of 10 and be able to pinpoint all of her minor, tiny little flaws, but their own girlfriend is a 3 out of 10 and they somehow are blind to it. I think the exact same psychology must be at work with filmmakers -- suddenly because it's their movie, it doesn't suck, when in fact everyone else can see it does. I don't get it myself because in the past I've made a LOT of lousy short films when I was an amateur, just playing around, and then a student I made a few more lousy ones. At the time I saw them as good learning experiences, and they were good *compared to what other people were doing* but would I ever call them ACTUALLY good or send them to anyone else? HECK no, no way. I knew they were pretty lousy then, and they look even lousier now. So I'm just at a loss as to why people can't just be honest, because it's a learning experience, there's nothing wrong with making crappy work, we've ALL done it, I don't think anyone just makes their first project and has it turn out great. We all make our fair share of absolute dog crap, but it just seems like people would be smart enough to realize it's not supposed to be sent to festivals or shown to anyone but your mom ;)
 
I know that you can generally find decent composers who are willing to take on projects for relatively cheaply... even free.

However, is it easy to find decent editors who are also willing to work for credit / copy?

Or is this harder to come by?

Thanks!
 
JesterJJZ said:
Personally, I feel directors should at least have a basic knowledge in both shooting and editing. I've seen directors that don't even know how to turn on a camera.
Click to expand...

i don't think a director should have a "basic" knowledge in anything. we should strive to be masterful.
 
As a filmmaker, I have edited all my own movies. That doesn't mean I actually push the buttons. I know what I want to see and what I shot...but I have someone else push the buttons. I don't need to know how to turn on the computer or even open a file. That's technical stuff...But I know how my movie should go together. And indeed, the technical editor brings another set of eyeballs and suggestions I might not have thought of.
 
FrankC said:
As a filmmaker, I have edited all my own movies. That doesn't mean I actually push the buttons. I know what I want to see and what I shot...but I have someone else push the buttons. I don't need to know how to turn on the computer or even open a file. That's technical stuff...But I know how my movie should go together. And indeed, the technical editor brings another set of eyeballs and suggestions I might not have thought of.
Click to expand...

Totally, that's basically how I am in a sense, I mean that I have my editor and he's very creative and he knows my style, I'm always present for all editing done, so I'm always giving feedback but I don't sit there as a back-seat driver, you know? I let him do his thing and don't interrupt until after he's done with entire sections. Before that, I give him notes that will help him understand what I want, we have discussions, then I observe, and I love watching the process, I just love post-production, it's one of my favorite parts, where the film comes together. Then after he has something done I discuss with him how I feel about it, and we both talk about what we think should be changed or improved. I really value that extra set of eyes.

That being said, over the last few years, I have learned as much about editing as I can because I've had emergency situations where I simply had to be able to do basic things. A few examples... on my last short, there was a mistake in the credits, and my editor lives in Bakersfield now, his home, about two hours away, so there's no way I wanted him to come and fix that. It was easy enough for me to open up the motion file, re-export that with the changes, and re-export the full version, the compressed DVD version with the proper settings, put it into Flash encoder again for my private Web version, etc. That was a minor deal because it's just a short, a personal project.

Last year, we had an issue where there were a few changes that needed to be made to a corporate project that was life on the client's site. I fortunately know enough myself about the button pushing and technical side that I was able to respond immediately to the error when I noticed, re-edit the video, and re-compress for Flash, upload to the site through Transmit, etc. I'm not a technical wiz, but I'm also not an idiot, and I'm fully capable of doing most of this stuff myself. I'm just not great at it, or fast at it.

I think as a producer, though, part of my job is being able to put out fires and handle all emergencies as they come up, which means I need to know a bit about everything. The best unit production managers are also like this, they aren't idiots, they know what lighting is needed, they know about equipment, so that when a DP asks for certain things they can be like, "Do you really need this or do you just want it? What are you going to do with 4 HMIs?" When I first started I spent a lot of money unnecessarily because I was a n00b, because people would manipulate me into thinking I needed stuff. I was very trusting, because the fact is I KNEW everyone I hired knows more than I do, so I trusted them. Now I know enough to make sure I can keep everything in line. "Wait a minute, so the 6 C-stands I have aren't enough? You want me to rent 6 more? Well why aren't you having me rent additional flags, then? I mean we only have a total of like 6 things that can even fit into a c-stand, so what are you going to do with the others? Then at least the DP tells me what he wants to do with it, and usually it's just like, "Well I'd rather have them than not." I learned my lesson when a DP asked me to rent 4 more, and on the whole shoot he never used more than 3-4 total, so I didn't need to rent them. A producer has to know things like that.

And I know how to operate the HVX200 pretty well as far as I can take care of the P2 transfer, I can format the cards, I know the settings, so I can help to some degree if someone is confused. I know how to put together my porta-jib and dolly perfectly by myself, and I've even had to explain how to do that to grips before, so it makes me feel good to be competent with all of my equipment, not just the hands-off idiot director who has no clue how to do anything himself. I know how to do it all myself and have gripped on minor corporate work I've also directed, lol, so at least I know how to do all that stuff. I can hold a boom pretty well, etc. I just like to be overall competent, even though none of that stuff is really what I WANT to do, I think it's great to know how to do it all.
 
Zak Forsman said:
i don't think a director should have a "basic" knowledge in anything. we should strive to be masterful.
Click to expand...

I said "at least" so not to offend anyone. The best director should be able to do everything himself if he HAD to and well. I personally like to shoot and edit/post my own stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top