What's Editing to You?

[Matthew]

What's an Editor these days?

<- Someone who does this

... or who does this (http://www.screeneditors.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=2598)?

[Matthew]

This?

[hoss]

More that just aesthetics, an editor must be a good communicator - know how to tell a story. That may be your point from above, but I just wanted to respond with that simple statement...Too many producers/directors get caught up in the "art" of it and forget that the viewer has never read the script and therefore must be able to understand the story visually. On the other hand, many amatuers tend to over-explain things with the visuals and that makes the story boring, if not insulting to the viewer.

[Matthew]

Well, actually my post was more a question about the changing role of an editor; from someone who has skills in storytelling, to a person who, as well as storytelling, is required to master compositing, sound mix, image creation, you name it.

And if you take the storytelling part out, and your job is compositing, sound mix, image creation, etc etc ... is that still editing?

[hoss]

Good question... Without the creative part it's no fun, either. In radio they would call that job "engineering" or "board operation" so maybe in film and video it should not be called "editing" unless you are making creative decisions.

I think a good editor needs to know as much equipment and software as possible as well as the aeshetic part. It makes the job more interesting and gives you more creative options. I would not be happy just being a "button pusher" especially if the people giving me direction seem to be making poor creative decisions.

If I were a director, I'd want to work with an editor who can contribute creatively and can also work all the gear effectively.

So, if I'm understanding correctly, yes, an editor must absolutley be more than just a technical person. It sounds obvious to me, but I'm often surprised (even disgusted) by how many people don't want an editors creative input until they get into a post-production problem that they cannot figure out. Then it's "Hey, editor, please save me."

[Marc_Collister]

I recently immigrated here from Toronto, Canada. In Toronto, at least in TVCs, there was a real distinction between offline editors and online editors. Each was equally respected creatively, as they are viewd as two different arts. The offline editor would spend the time telling the story. If composting etc., is required, they mock it up for timing, but that's it. The online editor is then free to concentrate on their art, the fx. Neither one was considered a button pusher (although jobs would come up that's really all that was required).

The hardest thing for me to adjust to here is the attitude seems to be different, not every place I've been to, but enough that I notice it. A few things I've been told or I've infered: "An editor should be able to do eveything in post-production", "Why wouldn't an offline editor just do the online themselves", "We consider the online editor to be more important than the offline editor".

I don't want to say these views are necessarily wrong, I'm new here and can't expect the industry here to conform to the way I'm used to doing things, I just think they show a lack of understanding of what offline editing is, storytelling (the above comments weren't made by editors, offline or online).

I guess I just have to adjust. And hone my online skills.

Cheers,
Marc

[CALM]

I was once asked if I new how to use Director and script HTML...

Among other things, the same guy wanted to pay me under $20 / hr freelance rate.

Not all plumbers work with gas.

[Bill]

This one from Sara Bennett and Fiona Strain that they put together when running the Editing Dept at AFTRS is pretty good....

“An editor turns hours of film or video rushes into a coherent whole. The editor is a story teller, a technician and a diplomat but essentially, an editor is a creative person.

Editing is like scriptwriting, using images and sound rather than words. The choice of images and sound, however, are limited by what the director has provided. This is where the diplomacy comes in.

Attention to detail, patience, lateral thinking and the ability to negotiate the minefield generated by new technology are important characteristics of the creative editor.”
…Sara Bennett and Fiona Strain

[Matthew]

Originally posted by Bill
The choice of images and sound, however, are limited by what the director has provided.

No longer though! Now we have flame and flash and combustion and and and and ... avidpanzoom ;-)

[Daz]

Not to mention online image archive libraries! Many's a time I've lifted the crucial shot from Image Bank.

For my current film we also downloaded several hundred stills from Getty Images, cut the roughs into the film as a guide, then ordered high quality versions. Combined with the Digital Rostrum plug-in "Stage Tools", these resources made an amazing difference to what is essentially an archive film (Timewatch: Princess Margaret).

[Bill]

Originally posted by Matthew
No longer though! Now we have flame and flash and combustion and and and and ... avidpanzoom ;-)

Ah yes and I've just been getting into Apple's new "Motion", only version 1.0 but when it gets up to v2.0 or 3.0 watch out After Effects, Flame and Inferno. Particles and Behaviours are a lot of fun and the price tag!!

[ofirg]

Motion makes everything too easy! just drag and drop! wheres the fun?

[JWRL]

I think that the problem is that we are all living in interesting times (as in the old Chinese curse). We don't expect editors to also be 3D animators or sound mixers. Why should they be compositors?

I vote for the "editor as story teller" option. Image compositors are a part of a specialist strand of film/video special effects technicians and craftspeople and should accordingly be respected. On-line editors perform a hybrid role that is really closer to a laboratory operation in cine terms, and should be valued and recognised as such.

And one final heresy. I think that if you are going to colorgrade your video production you should get a specialist colorist to do it, not the on-line editor!

[ofirg]

well said JWRL, I couldn't agree more. I have been in lots of editing where I was expected to do sound and sfx and it was a handful. Speaking from that experience the editor should still work closely with the compositors and those doing the other parts of post-production.

[Dani]

The unfortunate thing is that while we argue to and fro that an editor should be just that, without skills in After effects, photoshop, and combustion, employment is almost impossible. I consider myself to be an editor, but my job (I work mostly in tvcs) requires me to do titling, sound mixes and effects. I would love for my role to be a solely creative one but unfortunately if that were the case I believe I would be out of a job.

I feel that this situation both asks too much of an offline editor, but also undermines the importance of the online editors work. It's like sending out a message that as long as you have software and an online tutorial you're a compositor or grader!

[ceegeewilson]

Blame it all on technological advancment and shrinking budgets. Our beloved Clients are asking more of the agencies for less money which is just a flow on to the rest of us in the TVC world. As an editor I now get to offline, Online, Grade composite etc et al. Yes I enjoy doing it, because it has forced me to expand my knowledge base. It also helps when there is a decent budget to be able to take the job throught the full post house experience and work with colourists and flame artists and be able to give input and prepare the job to hand over to them.

I love what Apple has done to the AVID Monopoly. I hate the fact that anyone that can afford a MAC and the production bundle can call themselves an Editor.

[Daz]

Hey, I love doing titles, special FX, sound mixing, sound FX, music, dissolves, chromakeys, multi layering...it's all part of EDITING. It IS creative, it is part of the process. If specialists do it and do a better job than you can, that's great. If you can do it well, that's great too. If all you want to do is picture edit, you'll still be able to get a great job. Forget about artificial barriers between visual disciplines.

And don't believe it's particularly modern to think about VFX - that great editor Walter Murch calls this stuff "vertical editing" i.e. decisions made within the frame as opposed to "horizontal editing" decisions made across many frames. Or to put it another way, decisions that can drive you up the wall!!

It winds me up when craftsmen from one discipline disdain the work of others as "non-creative". You often hear the work of sound recordists referred to in this way. I guess it's 'cos I've tried recording sound myself that I know what a wonderful creative task it can be...and how crap the result s can be if someone does it badly.

You have to widen your lens a bit and realise that every single little part of the film making process can either add to the end result or cock it up. Every link in the chain is crucial. The more you know about the whole shebang, the better chance you'll have of turning out something you can be proud of. And show some respect for your fellow film collaborators.

Man! I sound like an aging hippie! Must be the hot weather and Glastonbury!

And by the way, if an 18 year old kid can buy FCP and learn how to edit, then that kid is an editor. Don't be afraid...it's a tough job and there are really not that many out there who can do it and do it well. The kit doesn't matter, the person does. Notwithstanding my afore-mentioned grudges against FCP, that is (-;

[ceegeewilson]

Agreed. Titles, keying, Compositing, sound FX etc those elements are all about editing today! I totally agree with you that it is not about the box. I don't care which box I use. It is what you as the editor has to offer. I love the teamwork involved, the discipline, the creativity. I love the craft of editing and storytelling and the ability to take people on an emotional journey.

I was 100% for AVID. I went with FCP because I could afford it back in version 1.2.5 (and I'm pretty sure when AVID was released it started at version 1 and look at it now). For a long time I was working on PC AVID by day and FCP by night. I love what they both have to offer. There are significant strengths and weaknesses in both products. I choose FCP as my box.

Now, if an 18 year old kid can buy a box and learn to edit well, then i'd love to give them a job because we all started somewhere and someone gave me my chance to get started. But after 13 years of editing, I still learn and discover something everyday which allows me to offer more to my clients. Who would you choose? The 18 year old with the box... or the 13 years experience with the box. If it boils down to small budgets then unfortunatly the 18 year old tends to be more attractive...But in the end, it is the agency or producer that has to wear the descison they make. By trying to save a few bucks, are they in danger of comprimising the end product.

I'm not afraid. I'm excitied.

[JWRL]

Daz, I agree. Not long ago I completed a short film in which we had to emphasize the dullness of our lead character's life. We had several shots of her in an office typing on a laptop, but that was it.

Using Photoshop and After Effects, I built laptop screens of her typing several screens of tort law, which were used in three scenes in the movie They had mistakes, backspacing, wordwrap, everything a real typist would do, and a flashing cursor with lag. The laptop surrounds were stolen from elsewhere inthe movie. Suddenly she became a legal typist, copying out some of the more boring aspects of the law! And it made the difference that we needed.

I have also built the key climactic end shot of another project, where we had to reinforce that we had police turning up outside an apartment block. Just near me there's a company that has the contract to maintain police and ambulance vehicles.

I photographed two, scanned them in, and composited them over a daylight freeze of our exterior location. I relit it, turning it into a night scene, put a simple loop on the police car lights, and threw matching light onto the background, lighting it up. That, coupled with appropriate sound, sold the shot.

Both projects have won awards. Nobody knows from looking at them that any effects footage exists in them. I learnt my skills when I was doing a lot of commercial finishing at AAV. Never discard or disparage a skill. It will surprise you when you suddenly find that you can use it to solve a problem.

[Daz]

Sounds cool!

[JWRL]

They were both fun to do. But the point is that I had those additional storytelling tools in my toolbox. And that can often tip the balance between an OK project and one that everyone goes away happy with.

I don't believe that an editor necessarily has to be an artist and a compositor (and whatever as well) to know how to tell a story. But it sure can help.

[Daz]

So CeeGee, whatever happened to Frame Set and Match?

[ceegeewilson]

FSM are still going from strength to strength. One of the major post houses in Sydney. They've just invested in a new 4k Film scanner. When I joined there was 21 staff in '96 now there is over 60. They are the one stop shop. You can check them out at www.fsm.com.au

I left FSM 1 year after my first child was born. I never saw him or my wife and decided that I could work those hours from home. So I bought my 1st FCP/Cinewave suite in 2000 and set it up in the downstairs room. They were good days!

[Jude]

>>Who would you choose? The 18 year old with the box... or the 13 years experience with the box. If it boils down to small budgets then unfortunatly the 18 year old tends to be more attractive...<<

Which is true until something goes wrong, in which case the 18 year old has to reinvent the wheel in order to figure out how to get around it, but the guy with the 13 years experience is more likely to go .. oh, this is a bit like that time when ... and what we did then was .. so now if I just ...

And thats a big saver in your budget, anyday.

I'm collecting methods and ideas as quickly as I can, but I'll bet I'm no match for well seasoned guys like you in a tight spot.

I also think that part of that is the death of the assistant role in many workplaces. There's no one to watch and learn from. Although .. you do learn very quickly when it's your responsibility and there's a deadline coming at you like a hot train.

[JWRL]

Jude, I agree with you totally on the vanishing assistant issue. Yes, you do learn quickly under pressure, but are you always learning the right answers?

[Daz]

Well, as far as the 18 year old goes, I don't know about the rest of you guys (and gals) but I reckon the only way you get work is through trust. You do a good job. People trust you. Word gets around. More work comes in.

The problem that the 18 year old has is that nobody knows him (or her). He (or she) could walk up to the front door of ACME Films Incorporated with his (or her) FCP under his (or her) arm and say "If you let me cut your film I'll do it for one quarter of what daz charges." How much work is this hypothetical person going to get? Perhaps after a while ACME will decide to risk a small job on this person. They do a bad job, that's it. They do it well, learn a bit, do a slightly harder job, etc, etc, pretty soon they won't be 18 any more and they may just be a good editor...or not. I hope if they are they will have the good sense to charge daz rates!!

Now all that is very silly, but the assistant issue isn't. What's intruiging is that I've run trials on having some of our juniors sit in on edit sessions to try and absorb a bit of what's going on. What's intruiging is that...within a few hours they are dead bored and drift off - in most cases, not to return.

At first my feelings were hurt! But then I realised; editing is really a very slow and boring process - unless yo have an insight into what's going on in the editors head. And that will only happen if you are an active participant in the process, with your own responsibilites.

At the wonderful ABC circa mid 90s we used to have assistants in drama. They would log, digitise and sync rushes. Sounds boring, but because it was their job they did it. As they sat there for hour after interminable hour, they were so bored out of their skulls that they probably couldn't help wondering how the shots would go together.

The first step on the editing ladder.

Then when the editor (me) would shamble into the cutting room, usually cranky and hungover, the helpful assistant would be begged to stay on for a couple of hours and provide a stream of espresso doublés in exchange for seeing the first draft. Then the next boring day they would see some revisions and - crucially - hear the reasons why.

But the key thing is: its a slow process. It takes a long time to do. It takes an eternity to learn. And every film is different.

This evening I was having a pint with the extraordinary and wonderful British documentary editor, David Fairhead. He was marvelling at how the mechanics and organisation of each film he does is identical, but how his mental approach to creating the story is different and unique to every film.

He's so right!