Relationship between directors and editors

[Scotness]

How many directors here prefer to edit their own films, and how many would rather get an editor in? And if you get and editor in,, do you leave it all up to them, or do you hold the right to mkae revisions and changes?

I'm asking this because I've edited all of my own films, but I'm quite awareof the problem of having seen something too much and becoming emotionally immune to it, hence the interest in working with and editor.

What are your experiences/thoughts?

Scot

[EJones216]

I've almost never worked with a separate editor because up until now I didn't know anybody who has the time (and I'm just way too paranoid). The way I see it, a separate editor is really only necessary if you shoot tons of coverage, a technique I personally hate since it leaves far too many options- this is also why I don't shoot 100 takes if I already got two or three that worked.

As a result, editing has never taken too much time; it takes at most 15 minutes to get a two-minute short (or a scene) finished. Usually I'll make a pass or two, including my first render (be it to WMV or VOB files), and if there are problems, a quick fix and it's usually good to go, so no real worries about risking becoming emotionally immune to footage.

I imagine editing a feature-length piece might be a different story.

[CHAS]

I didn't work with a separate editor on the two shorts I've made. I wouldn't mind working with a separate editor but this is L.A. and most people don't want to work for no money... they'd rather not work at all! Westsider was a bitch to edit and I wouldn't want to foist it on someone who might just flake out... I guess if you can find someone to edit side-by-side with (which a lot of directors I know here do) that would be ideal...

I would think that if you are the director/producer you would have the right to make the final cut...couldn't you have them show you their progress after a week and see if you are satisfied with the way they are cutting it?

[Actor]

IMHO the "auteur" of the picture should be the editor. He actually makes the picture. It should be the director's job to get the editor the material he needs and the editor should have the power to hire and fire the director in order to get what he needs. 8)

That's the way I'd do it if I had the money.

[Charlie Blackfield]

I 'author' most of my films, meaning that the way I make them starts off with an idea, then I ponder it in my head until I'm ready to sketch it out on a rough storyboard. With this approach, it obviously makes little sense to ask an editor to come on board.

Having said this, I did work on a project last year that involved both a cinematographer and an editor. It wasn't 8mm though. It was a 3-minute HDV short with almost an hour's worth of footage to play with. At the time we were shooting, I sometimes felt that this was a complete waste of time to shoot this much footage, but in the end, it worked out really well. The shots we were originally keen to take turned out to be a bit shaky, so the fact that the cinematographer (or rather video DoP, in this context) shot a lot of additional 'inserts' was a blessing in disguise. The editor used quite a few of them, and the film received standing ovations at the New York City Horror Film Fest.

Then again, my next short film - to be shot on Super 8 - won't require a separate editor. First, I don't have the resources to get an editor on board for this project, and secondly, it's so clear in my head - including all camera angles, framings, timings, etc. - that any editor would get rather bored with the limited level of creativity I could offer to them.

Moral of the story? I don't know. Sometimes it's good to view footage through a fresh pair of eyes. At other times it's good to just follow your original plan and edit your film yourself.

[BK]

A competent and experienced editor will know what works, and what doesn't and always there to give you a new angle and fresh perspective and let your masterpiece flow and look even better. The problem with most directors editing their own work is that they are too emotionally attached to their beautiful shots that might not work or has no place in the film.

Some directors likes to just "toss" the editor the script or storyboard and let them get on with it ( If he has trust in the editor ) and just shows up and every now and then to review the edits, while others ( usually newbies ) will sit and scrutinized every cut and have a good challenge on why you make certain decisions.

I speak from an editor's point of view. As a professional senior pictures editor in TV I have sat with many directors and producers and have had my highs and lows. And seasoned editors become good directors, they will know instantly what they need, shot by shot.

[CHAS]

A competent and experienced editor will know what works, and what doesn't and always there to give you a new angle and fresh perspective and let your masterpiece flow and look even better. The problem with most directors editing their own work is that they are too emotionally attached to their beautiful shots that might not work or has no place in the film.

Everything you are saying is no doubt true. The problem is when you do not have the funds to secure a good editor. And if you happen to know a non-linear editing program fairly well it becomes tempting to do yourself.

[BK]

The problem is when you do not have the funds to secure a good editor. And if you happen to know a non-linear editing program fairly well it becomes tempting to do yourself.

That's true when you are working with a limited budget. No doubt there are talented directors out there like yourself who has to get involved with the camerawork and editing to see the project through from script to screen without breaking the bank and pull it off. Like you mentioned before, it's hard to get a really good editor who will do it for nothing and somebody who is more than just a very good operator on an editing kit.

When you have a good editor, your piece will propel from the ordinary to "outstanding".

IMHO the "auteur" of the picture should be the editor. He actually makes the picture. It should be the director's job to get the editor the material he needs and the editor should have the power to hire and fire the director in order to get what he needs. 8)
That's the way I'd do it if I had the money.

If this is true I have lost count on how many directors I have made jobless. When the director wins the award does he mention the poor editor who slaved away sleepless nights polishing his turd ? Your guess is as good as mine.

Bill

[CHAS]

When you have a good editor, your piece will propel from the ordinary to "outstanding".

If this is true I have lost count on how many directors I have made jobless. When the director wins the award does he mention the poor editor who slaved away sleepless nights polishing his turd ? Your guess is as good as mine.

Bill

Agreed. It is amazing the stories you hear about how many great films are saved in the editing room. I was reading how the original cut of "Coming Home"was just a mess until the final scene with Jon Voigt talking to the high school class was edited...although..that was by director Hal Ashby working with the editor.

It would be interesting to see side by side comparisons with the "director's cut" vs. "editor's cut" on some films.