
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- | ||||
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 | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|