I will be shooting my first feature soon. I am making short films as of right now for experience. I was wondering for my feature, is an editor really necessary? I never really understood the need for an editor. I edited many short films and they all look good and I've never taken an editing class. My impression was that with the right patience, any director can edit a movie to run smoothly. So my question really is, is an editor really necessary for making a feature. Like I said, I always had the impression that any director with patience can edit their own film, right? I mean it's their own vision.
Is an editor really necessary?
- Thread starter Boxing Filmmaker
- Start date
Hmmmm..... how to answer this seeing that I make a living as an editor...
No, an editor is NOT "necessary" in the strictest sense. You can do it all yourself. That is all very true.
Would your movie benefit from the opinion of a talented editor? Can your movie be better if you have other points of view on the edit of the film?
Again, maybe and maybe not.
My personal opinion is that you would ALWAYS be better off using another person, AS LONG AS THEY SHARE YOUR VISION FOR THE FILM. If you have the right editor, you can disagree and have epic arguments, but in most cases, the final film is better for having to defend your choices and ideas, as both a director or the editor in those disputes.
If the film is one person's creation with no input from other people, they tend to be, but not always, a little flat. There are many obvious exceptions to this, but it would take a lot of arrogance to say you are as good as James Cameron, Robert Rodriguez, or Kevin Smith. Then again, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Speilberg, Steven Soderberg, and countless other great directors ALWAYS use the same people to edit on their films.
In the end, it's up to you. There is no right or wrong answer. Just whichever one works for you.
No, an editor is NOT "necessary" in the strictest sense. You can do it all yourself. That is all very true.
Would your movie benefit from the opinion of a talented editor? Can your movie be better if you have other points of view on the edit of the film?
Again, maybe and maybe not.
My personal opinion is that you would ALWAYS be better off using another person, AS LONG AS THEY SHARE YOUR VISION FOR THE FILM. If you have the right editor, you can disagree and have epic arguments, but in most cases, the final film is better for having to defend your choices and ideas, as both a director or the editor in those disputes.
If the film is one person's creation with no input from other people, they tend to be, but not always, a little flat. There are many obvious exceptions to this, but it would take a lot of arrogance to say you are as good as James Cameron, Robert Rodriguez, or Kevin Smith. Then again, Quentin Tarantino, Steven Speilberg, Steven Soderberg, and countless other great directors ALWAYS use the same people to edit on their films.
In the end, it's up to you. There is no right or wrong answer. Just whichever one works for you.
Here is a short answer: Yes.
Into more of a rant. Why do major motion pictures have crews? Not so the work gets spread around but because each and every person brings something to the table. Just like sonnyboo is saying, it is going to be better if one person doesn't have to do it all. Sure you can do it yourself but I am willing to put my career on the line and say the movie is going to suffer if you don't get help making it.
Into more of a rant. Why do major motion pictures have crews? Not so the work gets spread around but because each and every person brings something to the table. Just like sonnyboo is saying, it is going to be better if one person doesn't have to do it all. Sure you can do it yourself but I am willing to put my career on the line and say the movie is going to suffer if you don't get help making it.
I mostly agree with Sonny.
Downsides to not having an editor are
1. He's an expert at editing and you are not. He knows the software inside and out. He does it for a living, and can nail that crossfade or that wipe in 5 minutes that you might struggle with for hours. Editing yourself will almost certainly extend your post production.
2. He will come at the movie from a different place. he will think about the pacing, which scenes go to long, which are too short, what transition works better etc... in a different way that you do. he will see the things that your director blinders won't let you see. The collaboration between the two of you will almost certainly result in a better end product.
Downsides to not having an editor are
1. He's an expert at editing and you are not. He knows the software inside and out. He does it for a living, and can nail that crossfade or that wipe in 5 minutes that you might struggle with for hours. Editing yourself will almost certainly extend your post production.
2. He will come at the movie from a different place. he will think about the pacing, which scenes go to long, which are too short, what transition works better etc... in a different way that you do. he will see the things that your director blinders won't let you see. The collaboration between the two of you will almost certainly result in a better end product.
Most likely outcome is it disappearing into an editing black hole from which it never emeerges as he gets bogged down and the editing process stretches on for endless months.
I cannot believe I forgot the combo team of Scorsese and Schoonmaker! Marty Scorsese, a guy who started as an editor on movies like WOODSTOCK and GIMME SHELTER, has worked with the same editor for almost every single movie he's ever made. She's won 3 Oscars for his movies and he's only won 1.
The reason I bring this up is that filmmaking is a collaborative art. That includes the editing, if not especially. A good editor is the representative of the audience. They weren't there during the shoot and can deal with the footage without the love of the actors or the crew and how long it took to shoot something - they are solely concerned with editing the movie into what is best.
Beloved scenes or camera angles that a director loves may not be what's best in the edit. An editor can work WITH the director to make a better movie, even if it's different than they "intended".
There are directors that can divorce themselves entirely and edit their own material in a completely different state of mind, but there are only a few of those that do it well.
The reason I bring this up is that filmmaking is a collaborative art. That includes the editing, if not especially. A good editor is the representative of the audience. They weren't there during the shoot and can deal with the footage without the love of the actors or the crew and how long it took to shoot something - they are solely concerned with editing the movie into what is best.
Beloved scenes or camera angles that a director loves may not be what's best in the edit. An editor can work WITH the director to make a better movie, even if it's different than they "intended".
There are directors that can divorce themselves entirely and edit their own material in a completely different state of mind, but there are only a few of those that do it well.
It's def better to have an editor. Sure, a director can make a movie run smoothly. Anyone can watch a few tutorials on a program like Premiere and learn the basics. But a good editor who knows all the ins and outs of the program will be able to offer much more to you.
And even if your vision clashes in the end, if you have made it clear that your word is going to be the last word, he can make it technically possible for you.
And even if your vision clashes in the end, if you have made it clear that your word is going to be the last word, he can make it technically possible for you.
Last edited:
You should also involve your Supervising Sound Editor from preproduction onward. We audio folks have a different spin on things that many visual types overlook.
I taught myself basic editing these past 6-9 months. I now have a handle on the process.
Every filmmaker should know how to use editing software, at the very least so you can be clear with your editor what you need. You don't want to be too reliant on someone else technical skills. That's not the real reason you need an editor though. As a few people have said, you need an editor for their fresh eyes.
This is Pt 1 of an hour long documentary on the art, featuring Speilberg, Tarantino, Scorsese etc talking about the art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u69hc-54eU&feature=related
Every filmmaker should know how to use editing software, at the very least so you can be clear with your editor what you need. You don't want to be too reliant on someone else technical skills. That's not the real reason you need an editor though. As a few people have said, you need an editor for their fresh eyes.
This is Pt 1 of an hour long documentary on the art, featuring Speilberg, Tarantino, Scorsese etc talking about the art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u69hc-54eU&feature=related
Many directors who many people call visionaries used editors.
Hitchcock
John Ford
Akira Kurosawa
Orson Welles
David Fincher
Christopher Nolan
The already mentioned Martin Scorsese
David Lynch
Luc Besson
If the question is, do YOU need an editor, only you know that
answer. But the actual question, is an editor necessary, I would
say absolutely yes. Many people misunderstand the directors
“vision” to meaning absolute control. As if the director is the
most talented, experienced person on the set.
Is a make up artist necessary? After all, it’s the directors own
vision, shouldn’t the director apply the make up?
Is a costumer necessary? After all, it’s the directors own vision,
shouldn’t the director choose each costume?
Is a composer necessary? After all, it’s the directors own vision,
shouldn’t the director write the music?
What about the script? It’s the directors own vision. Shouldn’t
the director also write the script? Yet many visionary directors
don’t write the script.
Over the top comparison? I don’t think so. Just because someone
knows and understand the program doesn’t make them a good editor.
If you are the best editor you know then you should edit your own
movies. I’m a damn good editor, I even make part of my living as
an editor. I would never edit a movie I directed. I love the
collaboration between the director and the editor just as I love
the collaboration between the DP and the director or the costumer
and the director or the composer and the director.
skills of others. It is someone elses technical skills that make my movies
better. I believe it is the technical skills of others that make all great directors
films great. And not just the creative eye of another person, but the technical
skills the sound mixer brings, the DP brings, the costumer brings, the jib
operator brings, the wrangler brings...
Even the editor.
Hitchcock
John Ford
Akira Kurosawa
Orson Welles
David Fincher
Christopher Nolan
The already mentioned Martin Scorsese
David Lynch
Luc Besson
If the question is, do YOU need an editor, only you know that
answer. But the actual question, is an editor necessary, I would
say absolutely yes. Many people misunderstand the directors
“vision” to meaning absolute control. As if the director is the
most talented, experienced person on the set.
Is a make up artist necessary? After all, it’s the directors own
vision, shouldn’t the director apply the make up?
Is a costumer necessary? After all, it’s the directors own vision,
shouldn’t the director choose each costume?
Is a composer necessary? After all, it’s the directors own vision,
shouldn’t the director write the music?
What about the script? It’s the directors own vision. Shouldn’t
the director also write the script? Yet many visionary directors
don’t write the script.
Over the top comparison? I don’t think so. Just because someone
knows and understand the program doesn’t make them a good editor.
If you are the best editor you know then you should edit your own
movies. I’m a damn good editor, I even make part of my living as
an editor. I would never edit a movie I directed. I love the
collaboration between the director and the editor just as I love
the collaboration between the DP and the director or the costumer
and the director or the composer and the director.
I very much disagree. As a director I am always reliant on the technical
skills of others. It is someone elses technical skills that make my movies
better. I believe it is the technical skills of others that make all great directors
films great. And not just the creative eye of another person, but the technical
skills the sound mixer brings, the DP brings, the costumer brings, the jib
operator brings, the wrangler brings...
Even the editor.
Sure Directorik, I should've been clearer. I meant reliant to the point where you don't know how to use the software/audio equipment/jib yourself. I think a director should have a basic grounding in all the aspects of filmmaking. Then the experts in each field take your vision and improve on it. I know it's a collaborative art and the director is surrounded by people who are more proficient than the director in their respective fields.
I just think some young directors who haven't been through film school (myself included) need to give themselves a basic grounding so they can talk to each collaborator. I know this is a pretty obvious point, but it's amazing the amount of disciplines you have to know a little about to direct well.
I think you were very clear. I just disagree. But me in
front of a jib and I can't tell you which end the camera
goes on. Place me in front of a location mixers console
and I don;'t think I could find the "on" switch. When I
sit down next to the person doing the color correcting
and take one look at the software, my head stars to hurt.
As a director I don't have even the most basic technical
grounding on costume design, choreography (and I have
made musicals and music videos), set design, audio recording,
production management... I could keep going and cover
everything about the making a movie that I don't have
even a basic grounding in. But it's a long list.
I never went to film school either. I have been able to talk
to each person I've collaborated with over the years without
having a basic grounding in their specific skill. I just don't
have the time or discipline to learn even the basics of all the
skills needed to make a movie. I love talking with (for example)
a costumer who is technically skilled and knowledgeable about
costumes - even for a simple present day crime thriller. But
I have absolutely know idea what they are talking about. Nor
do I feel the need to have a basic grounding in costuming for
movies. Don't get me started on composers...
But I respect that you feel it's important for a director to know a
little about everything.
front of a jib and I can't tell you which end the camera
goes on. Place me in front of a location mixers console
and I don;'t think I could find the "on" switch. When I
sit down next to the person doing the color correcting
and take one look at the software, my head stars to hurt.
As a director I don't have even the most basic technical
grounding on costume design, choreography (and I have
made musicals and music videos), set design, audio recording,
production management... I could keep going and cover
everything about the making a movie that I don't have
even a basic grounding in. But it's a long list.
I never went to film school either. I have been able to talk
to each person I've collaborated with over the years without
having a basic grounding in their specific skill. I just don't
have the time or discipline to learn even the basics of all the
skills needed to make a movie. I love talking with (for example)
a costumer who is technically skilled and knowledgeable about
costumes - even for a simple present day crime thriller. But
I have absolutely know idea what they are talking about. Nor
do I feel the need to have a basic grounding in costuming for
movies. Don't get me started on composers...
But I respect that you feel it's important for a director to know a
little about everything.
Well you're more experienced than me so if you've made it work for you it must be OK. I understand that you can get your ideas across without knowing much about each field. I was just worried that if I didn't have a basic overview of each field it'd be hard for me to get what I wanted across.
I suppose your experience shows it can be done so I should relax a bit... maybe it's more important to have a strong vision, and let the experts do their work.
How do you communicate your idea to, say, the color corrector, without knowing too much about the software?
Last edited:
I disagree with this. I'm a professional director and I don't know how to operate a jib or crane. That doesn't mean I'm not qualified to design the shot that is most appropriate for the movie I am directing.
Similarly, there are many directors who do not have the slightest clue what button to press in their editing software. Does that make them inferior directors? Absolutely NOT.
Directing is about being able to communicate with the technicians, craftspeople, artisans, actors, and the whole crew.
Well I stand corrected lol. If you guys are making a living at it and you don't need to know all that, it gives me more hope. I don't know where I got it into my head that a director needs to be so technically proficient. I suppose it was just a common outsiders myth that I took as fact. I've only worked with a few collaborators so far. I thought that if I talked to a cameraman and didn't know what gamma, knee etc were, he'd think I didn't know what I was doing. I suppose that's his job though. My mistake, and thanks to you both for correcting me on that.
If you have any examples of directors who are disinterested/not-so-proficient in certain fields I'd really like to know... I'd also like to see some tips on 'how directors communicate their ideas to experts.' No idea where to go for that.
I need to know how to edit in the sense of knowing what will edit together, and what won't. What cutaways an editor will need to have options in a scene. What kind of transition I want between scenes, etc... I have no idea whatsoever how to run any editing software, and I don't need to.
That's the way I feel. The director is the person who directs the people with technical know how, not the person who has the technical know how.
I know nothing about color correcting software. Not a thing. I sit
down with the person and we talk. I listen to the skilled person
who has read the script and I ask what they think.
If I don’t get to a color corrector until we’re shooting I sit
with the person after they have viewed the footage and ask what
they think. I have found that people with the passion for
something really love what they do and are proud to offer their
knowledge.
So let me ask you; do you feel you, as the director, needs a basic
grounding in costumes in order to talk to the costumer of your
movie? What about the composer? Now I have absolutely no knowledge
or understanding of music, especially the composing of music. Do
you feel you, as the director, need to understand the basics of
composing, the various instruments or the software for sampling in
order to communicate with the composer?
What about choreography? If you make a music video that needs
dancers, do you feel you, as the director, should have a basic
grounding in choreography in order to communicate with the
choreographer?
We could go down the list of people needed to make a movie, from
the no budgets using only five or six crew to a fully staffed
indie with 20 crew to a major studio project.
You’re right. The DP will know you don’t know anything about
gamma, knee, etc. so he knows you would make a terrible assistant
camera. But if you have a vision of your movie and you allow the
DP their input and listen to their artistic vision you two will
get along fine.
“disinterested” isn’t fair. I hope you aren’t getting the impression
from sonnyboo and me that we are disinterested. “Not so proficient”
is fine. Not proficient at all is fine. I think a good director is very
interested in all aspects of their movie. and all good directors trust
and rely on the technical skills of the people working on their movies.
In addition to the list of directors I’ve already posted there are many
more directors who are not so proficient in composing, cinematography,
the technical aspects of a film camera etc.
Ron Howard is not proficient as a director of photography.
Geroge Romero is an excellent editor but is not proficient in special makeup efx.
Woddy Allen is an excellent clarinet player but is not proficient as a composer.
John Hughes was proficient as a writer but was not proficient as an editor or art director.
Clint Eastwood is proficient as a composer but is not proficient as a DP or editor.
In an interview he said he doesn't understand editing software at all.
As a director you need to communicate your ARTISTIC vision; it is the _______________s job to to take care of the technical details - that's what they get paid for.
It is good idea to hang out with people of the various crafts just to pick up on the slanguage. I don't edit visuals but I read editing forums/threads just so I'm able to communicate with those folks; and I do have to interact with them on a regular basis. As a former musician working with composers is easy, and I often act as "interpreter" between the director/producer and composer.
It is good idea to hang out with people of the various crafts just to pick up on the slanguage. I don't edit visuals but I read editing forums/threads just so I'm able to communicate with those folks; and I do have to interact with them on a regular basis. As a former musician working with composers is easy, and I often act as "interpreter" between the director/producer and composer.
Well, at the same time, it is not necessary, it does not hurt to know the same tools as your technicians and craftspeople too! I'm just saying it isn't 100% required of a director to know everything, but to hire and trust the right people for the jobs.