Sony G90 manual One way or another when it comes to working with, Footage, Academic, Tor, Robert

there appear to be a movie here at all? Sometimes technical			one way or another when it comes to working with
problems develop – shots go out of focus, the director loses			the footage.
the light at the end of the day and doesn’t get some angles he			Every film is in fact three films: the film that
fears he needs, the negative gets damaged in the lab. When			is written, the film that is directed, and the film
this sort of thing happens, it is imperative that the director see			that is edited. Sometimes they’re all the same
the scene cut together as soon as possible so he can deter-			film, sometimes they’re not, and I can’t
mine if additional shots are needed or, perish the thought, the			think of any necessary correlation in qual-
entire scene needs to be rescheduled.			ity between when they are and when
I’m often struck by the number of people, including those			they aren’t. I do know that the only film
in the movie industry itself, who have little or no idea what a			you finally have is the raw footage
film editor actually does. “Oh, you cut out all the bad parts,”			that has been developed and is wait-
is the usual salvo when I’m introduced as a film editor. Almost			ing to be cut. Everything else is
as frequent and worse: “Oh, they say an editor can make or			academic.
break a film.” The one conceives the job more or less as glo-			Early in my career I was on a
rified bean counting, the other invests it with far more power			job interview; present were the
than it actually has. When I tell people that I usually do my			director, the producer, and the two writ-
work on my own, as first cut is done while shooting is going			ers who were also associate producers. One
on, which means the director is filming while I’m editing,			of the writers asked me who I thought should
they’re often taken back. Doesn’t that almost mean that			get the right to final cut. Talk about being on the
you’re directing the film, not the director? Of course not. An			spot. I replied that insofar as it devolves to a single per-
editor’s power to radically alter a scene is much less than peo-			son, I believe it must be the director. (Whatever prob-
ple often think. For one thing, you want to keep your job, so			lems I have with the auteur theory, I nevertheless
you’d have to be egotistic to the point of professional suicide			believe that the director is the overall “author” of
even to try to cut a scene much differently from the more or			a film, because a screenplay is not a final any-
less clear intent with which it was shot, at least on first cut or			thing – it awaits realization on film, for
without discussing your ideas in advance with the director.			which the director is responsible.) But I
For another, you’re limited by the	material	itself. A	went on to say that my experience sug-
well-placed reaction shot can make a character appear more			gests it is the film itself that deter-
or less sympathetic; if you’re given a fairly wide range of read-			mines the final cut, the film itself
ings (not usual, but not atypical either), you can pitch a per-			that soon becomes the last, best
formance higher or bring it down by your selection of takes;			arbiter. A movie that is good
you have the option of playing dialog on or off camera. But it’s			or has a chance of becom-
the really unusual film that would allow the editing as such to			ing any	good	eventually
transform the direction into something else entirely.			develops a life of its
I’ve had directors tell me many times that I’ve “saved” a			own. And every direc-
scene. This is always flattering, but also a little puzzling, and I			tor and	every	editor
usually reply that I didn’t shoot any new footage, so whatever			who are	good keep
I did was there to be found in the material. For one of the			themselves alert			to
most valuable things a good editor can contribute is a fresh			this process and bend
perspective. That, of course, and his basic talent for story-			their egos to		helping
telling, his taste and sensitivity in shaping performances, and			this emergent organism
his imagination in how the shots can be most effectively com-			assume the shape it desires,
bined. Sometimes colleagues tell me they like to hang around			to letting it, in a word, live.
the set to soak up the feel of the movie, but I’ve never found			The director with the greatest editorial imag-
them convincing. Anyone who has spent any time on a film set			ination of them all, Sam Peckinpah, used to
soon finds out there is little “feel” for the story to be			say that he knew what he saw in
picked up there – not with production assistants,		Bef or e		the material, he wanted to
camera crews, sound recordists, costumers,				see what others saw in
assistant directors, service people, and the		it passes			it. Of one of his
to the making of a movie milling about.						Robert	Wolfe, Sam
countless other crew members necessary						favorite	editors,
And if the editor is hanging out	t hr ough t he edi -					once told me, “Bob
there, he plainly isn’t editing the film,						will come back with
which is what he should be doing. I	t or ’ s hands, a f ilm					20 ideas. I might hate ten of
with as little knowledge as possible of						never have thought of that’ll make my
prefer to approach the raw footage						them, but that still leaves ten that I’d
what went into getting it. It doesn’t	is a collect ion of					movie better.”
matter if the star was sick and not on						Different directors work dif-
best behavior; it does me no good to						ferently. Some give you copi-
know that certain essential setups were	long t akes f r om					ous notes at dailies, right
never filmed owing to inclement weather						down to which specific line
or a camera breakdown. All that makes for		var ious			readings		they want and
interesting dinner conversation or frustrated					how they’d like the shots
venting over a drink, but is of no consequence				used. I’ve been lucky, I