The scope of an "editor"

[driverrodeshotgun]

Hi everyone,

I've been making films for awhile and have always edited my own. But in regards to color grading/correction and sound editing, I always use someone who specializes in those areas, and the results have been great. I know there are editors out there that can do literally everything. I've just never taken the time to learn color and sound because there's so much detail and specialization involved and I feel it's good to focus on what you do best, which for me is figuring out how to best tell a story, when to cut smoothly and make sure continuity is correct, etc

Recently I've been editing some films and scenes for other filmmakers who have been happy with my work. These are filmmakers that were looking for an editor, and then have plans to take the locked picture and have a colorist and sound editor work through it. My question here is centered around what people expect from an "editor." I've seen countless ads looking for an editor who can edit, color correct, sound edit. Then I see ads who are just looking for an editor who does what I do, and then they have plans to get color and sound done.

With professional and semi-professional films...an "editor" are those that handle the narrative aspect correct? And then there's a post production team that handles color and sound. Or is the scope of an "editor" supposed to be someone who can do literally everything? I know one is more employable if they can do everything and are a one man army, but I'm just curious on people's opinions on that. When I edit I sync audio, I pay attention to sound, I pay attention to color and know how I want it to sound and look, so I'm aware of this stuff, it's just doing it myself...is something I don't do, but I convey it to those that do it. Am I less of an editor because of that? Does Walter Murch and Thelma Schoonmaker and Michael Kahn do everything?

Lately I feel like calling myself an editor is hypocritical when I see ads asking for someone who can do everything in the book, even including vfx.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Nick Clapper and Cracker Funk, If you've DVD copies of your film, I'll be happy to a swap (my title for yours) with you guys -- not to see who has the best film, but to see what we've been able to do.

 

[Will Vincent]

Judging a film by a trailer is pretty dumb, even for Hollywood films. Good God you guys! The other thing, an updated trailer on youtube isn't going to sell more DVDs than another one of my aggressive social media marketing campaigns.

It certainly wouldn't hurt. It would be the only way you'd convince me to fork over my cash for a copy -- and based on what I've already seen in the existing trailer, it'd better be lightyears better to pique my interest.

Don't get defensive, the trailer is the only thing we've seen, and I'm sorry I shouldn't have to buy your work to find out whether or not it's crap.

I don't have to buy a ticket to a movie to find out if a Hollywood film is going to be crap. I've been fooled by trailers before, but more often than not if the trailer is enjoyable/interesting, so is the film, and if the trailer sucks, I never bother in the first place. Maybe I'm missing out on something awesome.. who knows, but that film is missing out on my ticket purchase because it poorly marketed itself.

but ALL successful filmmakers have a bit arrogance in them because that is the only way you can survive in the business -- or at least to complete film projects.

That's quite a generalization. I would wager closer to half of successful filmmakers are quite a bit more humble. Also, this isn't thread isn't about a "filmmaker" it's about the scope of an editor. Your claim that an editor is a do-everything machine brought it to this point.

So are you now comparing yourself, an 'I do the entire post production workflow amazingly' "editor" to a hollywood director or producer, or ... several titles?

Are we still talking about editors at all? Are all successful Hollywood film editors arrogant and wanting to tackle all of the post production workflow on their own? I'm gonna go with no.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Don't get defensive, the trailer is the only thing we've seen, and I'm sorry I shouldn't have to buy your work to find out whether or not it's crap.

The whole trailer thing is BS IMO. Everyone is always disappointed in the actual film after being teased by a trailer, Yet there's a bizarre "trailer culture" of people addicted to just the trailers themselves -- they're fed on the latest wowie zowie special effects and name actors in it -- sort of a like a music video. There's no money in making trailers unless it is used to corral people into a theatre.

In my case there was very little chance that a trailer would sell even one single DVD.

Instead, I pushed this and milked the hell out of it for years, and will continue to do so, and it was part of my plan from the onset: http://www.roguecinema.com/article1995.html My film was named as one of the reviewer's top films of the year.

This got some people to open their pocketbooks! Is yours cracked now?

---

Let me rephrase "arrogance". If I was just a wee less arrogant, there would be no feature film. Heck, I wouldn't even be here.

Are we still talking about editors at all? Are all successful Hollywood film editors arrogant and wanting to tackle all of the post production workflow on their own? I'm gonna go with no.

We've gotten off topic . . . so, to keep the record straight, I think filmmakers have to a bit arrogant to get sh*t done, but I don't think the average editor is arrogant. However I would want to tackle it all, but recognize I am only a "wiz" at video editing, less so at the other things important to postprod.

 

[Will Vincent]

There's no money in making trailers unless it is used to corral people into a theatre.

I suspect post houses, and the people who work at them, that do a lot of trailer cutting would disagree.

This got some people to open their pocketbooks! Is yours cracked now?

Err.. no. I don't know why the opinion of some random reviewer would influence me.

 

[Cracker Funk]

GA, I'll be honest and admit that I'm worried that if I swap DVDs with you, you might turn it into a game of who-did-what-best, and I have no interest in that. If you're truly just interested in seeing what another zero-budget filmmaker did, my trailer gives a pretty good idea of the level of production value (low). I basically shot a mumblecore movie, except my plot is more of a slacker comedy, whereas most mumblecore movies tend to be relationship dramas.

Back to the actual discussion that is supposed to take place in this thread, let me ask you this -- what are you best at? Surely, there must be a particular skill that you feel most proud of. What is the one thing that you think you really shine at?

Just for conversation's sake, let's say that you're best at editing video. So when you make a movie, you don't want anyone else editing the video, because you've got that covered.

But if you were able to delegate other tasks, coloring, audio, etc., wouldn't you want to give those specific jobs to people who specialize in them? Just as you specialize in editing video, there are people feel that the absolute best thing they do is coloring. Isn't it a benefit to let people do what they're best at?

That's the only point I'm trying to make here. Yes, like you, I've been a jack-of-all-trades editor, meaning that I've had to do EVERYTHING. But it hasn't been by choice, and as soon as I've got other people to do those specialized tasks, I can't wait to let them do so.

Filmmaking is a collaborative art. Always has been, always will be.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

The whole trailer thing is BS IMO. Everyone is always disappointed in the actual film after being teased by a trailer ... There's no money in making trailers unless it is used to corral people into a theatre.

Well of course, that is why trailers are made! They are (or can be) an extremely effective marketing tool and not just for coralling people into theatres but for getting people to buy DVDs, watch TV programs, etc. Why, after all these years, would Hollywood and pretty much every professional filmmaker still be making trailers if they were not an effective marketing tool and did not more than repay the cost of making them?

I'm a member of that "Everyone" group you mention and although I have quite often been disappointed in the actual film after being teased by a trailer, it is NOT true to say this is "always" the case. Just as most other film-goers, I have learned that a good trailer does not always guarantee the film itself will be any good but that doesn't mean that trailers are useless or just BS. Trailers still provide me with much valuable information as a consumer: I can, for example, be pretty certain that if the trailer is poor/badly made, that the film will be too. Not to mention that the trailer should give me a decent indication of the genre, filmmaking style and basic story premise, all of which also helps to inform my decision of whether to watch/buy a film.

In my case there was very little chance that a trailer would sell even one single DVD. Instead, I pushed this and milked the hell out of it for years, and will continue to do so, and it was part of my plan from the onset: http://www.roguecinema.com/article1995.html My film was named as one of the reviewer's top films of the year... This got some people to open their pocketbooks!

OK, so you personally don't like trailers, I can't say I particularly like them either but there's absolutely no doubt that consumers in general (including myself as a consumer) do garner at the least some useful information from them. I don't see how you can assert that making a trailer would not aid your marketing/sales, unless of course you thought you couldn't make a good trailer, but confidence in being able to make something good doesn't seem to be one of your problems!

I measure success by the amount of money flowing into my pocket.

You said your film had a budget of $15k and that you have been "pushing and milking the hell out of it for years" but still you haven't (yet) fully recouped the budget, let alone provided yourself with any financial return for the hundreds/thousands of hours you've invested. While I'm not denigrating the considerable achievement, at this budget level, in getting "some people to open their pocketbooks", by your own definition of success and by the definition of professional, your filmmaking skills/talent (and your marketing strategy) have not been successful!

You seem to believe unquestioningly that your abilities throughout the range of post-production disciplines are either great or at least of professional standards. You're essentially saying that you're another Walter Murch or rather that you're much more talented than Walter Murch because you don't need the teams of people Walter Murch needs or the multi-million dollar equipment/facilities. Not only is there no precedent for someone like this in the history of filmmaking but it's inconceivable that there could be! So in my experience, it's infinitely more probable that you're like one of those X Factor contestants who believe the booing/laughing audience and critical judges are just blind/stupid/insane (because they are unable to question their own ability), rather than the possibility that you are in fact a genius the likes of which has never been seen in the film world.

I don't think there's any useful point in continuing this line of discussion, as I can't think of any rational argument which might be of help to you rather than just raising your defensive hackles further. Don't take my word for any of this though, I've been wrong in the past and I'm sure I will be again in the future. Nothing in filmmaking is ever absolutely guaranteed, either success or failure, and regardless of what I believe, I at least hope you'll achieve the former!

G

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

GA, I'll be honest and admit that I'm worried that if I swap DVDs with you, you might turn it into a game of who-did-what-best, and I have no interest in that.

Nope, mum's the word. Seriously. You would be free to comment on my editing skills. I've a thick hide.

what are you best at? Surely, there must be a particular skill that you feel most proud of. What is the one thing that you think you really shine at?

Editing.

But if you were able to delegate other tasks, coloring, audio, etc., wouldn't you want to give those specific jobs to people who specialize in them?

I'd just be standing there telling them what to do. But just to throw APE a bone, if pressed for time, I'd delegate audio first.

Filmmaking is a collaborative art. Always has been, always will be.

I'm not so sure. If you've a lot of money, sure. But if you're ultra low budget, and you start handing off tasks to people that are less skilled than you are, some of it may end up on the screen to haunt you for the rest of your lives.

 

[Sweetie]

But if you're ultra low budget, and you start handing off tasks to people that are less skilled than you are, some of it may end up on the screen to haunt you for the rest of your lives.

You shouldn't be handing off tasks to less skilled people. While there are exemptions (like cannot be in 2 places at the same time) the test of a leader is to find and motivate people that can do the task better than you.

You can only do the best with the resources you have available to you.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

You said your film had a budget of $15k and that you have been "pushing and milking the hell out of it for years" but still you haven't (yet) fully recouped the budget, let alone provided yourself with any financial return for the hundreds/thousands of hours you've invested. While I'm not denigrating the considerable achievement, at this budget level, in getting "some people to open their pocketbooks", by your own definition of success and by the definition of professional, your filmmaking skills/talent (and your marketing strategy) have not been successful!

No, not successful yet. But I'm still working on it. You are correct that I will never get a return on the hours (time) spent on the film. But I did manage to become quite killed at a number of filmaking tasks without going to film school. There's $75K right there that I don't owe somebody.

You're essentially saying that you're another Walter Murch or rather that you're much more talented than Walter Murch because you don't need the teams of people Walter Murch needs or the multi-million dollar equipment/facilities.

I certainly am not paying for the equipment without an A-list in the film. Murch is way out of most editors league but I do have concerns of his Cold Mountain work -- but that might have been the director's doing.


---------

I did watch my film again last night to trying to look at it differently as someone suggested but, frankly to make changes that would better please a wider audience would kill the appeal for the target audience. The surreal and moody atmosphere would be lost -- you know, the adage, try to please everyone and you end up pleasing no one.

I believe I had a discussion with ray over what I may have done differently and I said not much or nothing at all. It still stands. I shot in SD, and if I had HD at the time, I might not have been able to pull off the surreal look as well as I did, because with the limitation of SD, going for a surreal look is was a way to pull the whole thing off.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

You shouldn't be handing off tasks to less skilled people. While there are exemptions (like cannot be in 2 places at the same time) the test of a leader is to find and motivate people that can do the task better than you.

Actually, sometimes it's easier to find ways to be in two places at the same time.

You can only do the best with the resources you have available to you.

Not always. Bad acting and bad filmmaking techniques do not make it to the final cut. I will rewrite scripts, cut parts or find different ways to do without crews who can't get the technique right.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I'm not so sure. If you've a lot of money, sure. But if you're ultra low budget, and you start handing off tasks to people that are less skilled than you are, some of it may end up on the screen to haunt you for the rest of your lives.

Ah-Hah! So we have found something in common. Yes, I agree that at the ultra-low-budget level, you often are forced to take on tasks that you wouldn't otherwise want to do, simply because you're not sure that someone who is willing to do it for free will do it well. I'm with you on that.

That being said, I think it's worth comparing yours and my films with Nicks. On Antihero, the only thing I didn't do in post was the original score (and that was a significant part of my budget). But for Flamingo, Nick was able to source many talented people to perform specific tasks that they specialize in, and as far as I know, all of us did it free of charge.

GA, I think you and I agree that us ultra-low-budget filmmakers just gotta make it work, whatever that means. And that often means that WE are the ones who gotta make it work. But I think Nick is a shining example of a filmmaker in similar shoes who found ways to delegate tasks to people who are more skilled at those particular tasks.

Also, since you've affirmed me that you only have good intentions for swapping DVDs, heck yeah, I'd love to do that!

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Cracker Funk, excellent. Yes, good intentions. I look forward to seeing your film. I'm going to get mine mailed out to you today!

 

[WalterB]

..........

The other thing, an updated trailer on youtube isn't going to sell more DVDs than another one of my aggressive social media marketing campaigns.

.............

This is an assumption you can't be sure of, because you didn't try and thus cannot compare.
I guess you do know what the effect is of one of your 'aggressive social media marketing campaigns'?
Than you can do a so-called A/B-test with and without new trailer.
That's common practice in webdevelopment and Search Engine Optimalisation: so why wouldn't a filmmaker compare different marketing strategies like this?

 

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Sweetie View Post
You shouldn't be handing off tasks to less skilled people. While there are exemptions (like cannot be in 2 places at the same time) the test of a leader is to find and motivate people that can do the task better than you.

Actually, sometimes it's easier to find ways to be in two places at the same time.

Like wrangling extras in the holding area and directing the scene that is being filmed in another location at the same time. It's a great trick, I'd love to know how to do it. You're obviously better at it than me.

I may not be making myself clear on what I mean. You shouldn't be handing off tasks to others who are worse at doing those tasks unless there's a good reason (like the physical impossibility of not being able to be in two places at the same time). This all comes down to the ability of team building, delegation and motivating teams, though that's really for another thread.

For instance, if you're a savant at editing, there is no good reason (at the level of filmmaking you're participating at) to hand off the editing to someone less skilled. If you're good at handling post audio, there's no good reason to hand it over to a post audio retard.

Quote:
You can only do the best with the resources you have available to you.

Not always. Bad acting and bad filmmaking techniques do not make it to the final cut. I will rewrite scripts, cut parts or find different ways to do without crews who can't get the technique right.

So how exactly do you use something that isn't available to you?

If you don't have that good take, how do you use it? If you don't have access to that expensive actor, how are you going to use them. If you don't have access to the best sound equipment/camera, how are you going to get the same footage as the professionals? If you don't have the budget to that expensive song for your movie, how are you going to use them? If your director is unable to pull the required performance from the actor, how are you going to use the required performance? and the list goes on and on. You can only do the best with the resources you have available to you.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Than you can do a so-called A/B-test with and without new trailer.
That's common practice in webdevelopment and Search Engine Optimalisation: so why wouldn't a filmmaker compare different marketing strategies like this?

Ahem, marketing strategies and a/b testing are things I've been doing for decades with all different kinds of media products.

For this, youTube?, no. Another kind of marketing scheme involving YoTube may be possible, such as a series -- you can gradually build up an audience then hook them into parting with their money. But a low-price one-off product like this, no.

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

Like wrangling extras in the holding area and directing the scene that is being filmed in another location at the same time. It's a great trick, I'd love to know how to do it.

I would not write a scene/schedule requiring wrangling extras and directing going on at the same time.

For example, I did need a few extras (four actually) in one scene to portray family members and friends of the protagonist‎. I brought them in one at a time on different days, fed them a line and shot what I needed and sent them on their way. They never met each other or any of the other cast members (still).

Another example: several scenes with short conversations between a number of characters (6 different actors). Five have yet to meet each other. Shot them one at a time and sent them home.

A third example: One of the "bad guys" was in a number of scenes, so I took him around town getting all the shots I needed from him over a weekend at various locations. This included a short chase scene and confrontation. Afterwords I spent a week editing and selecting the best takes. I then wrote a shot list with the required 'match action', and grabbed the protagonist and went around and got what I needed. Since the protagonist was available the whole shoot, I could take the time to get everything matched up right.

If you don't have that good take, how do you use it?

In one scene, the takes were just so awful no amount of creative editing could fix so I cut the entire scene and put 'words in another actor's mouth' to fix some of the plot holes, rewrote the script to delete the need of further dialogue from that problematic actor. I also expanded the role of an actor that was shining.

There are always things you can do if you approach filmmaking from the small crew - lots of pre-production angle.

If you've a large crew, actors standing around, extras corralled and a rental clock ticking on the crane, your hands are pretty much tied if things don't go right the first time.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I did manage to become quite skilled at a number of filmaking tasks without going to film school. There's $75K right there that I don't owe somebody.

For what I've seen of your posts, although I don't recall ever seeing any of your work (besides the old trailer), I'm sure you have become quite skilled in various filmmaking areas, relative to many other lo/no budget filmmakers, and you've done it without spending a significant amount on a formal education. On the other hand, your approach of teaching yourself has several major disadvantages: You have probably never (or hardly ever) even seen a commercial audio post mix stage in person, let alone ever used their commercial grade professional equipment, let alone spent years mastering it's use, as have other audio post professionals. If you had gone to one of the better institutions and studied audio post for example, you would have learned the professional audio post workflow and why it exists, you would have seen audio post pros at work and learned how and why they do things and you would have gained at least a little experience using commercial grade equipment/facilities. Taking the DIY route to an audio post education will always have the insurmountable disadvantage of never getting to use professional equipment, let alone becoming competent enough in it's use to compete with the professionals. All this maybe far less true for picture editing because commercial grade picture editing tools are relatively affordable and one could therefore educate oneself using the same tools as the pros use.

I certainly am not paying for the equipment without an A-list in the film.

I agree, it wouldn't make any financial sense at all, it wouldn't even make financial sense if you did have an A-list in your film!. This is why all the commercial audio post houses exist in the first place(!), so that filmmakers can effectively rent the equipment/facilities (and the personnel to operate it) which they wouldn't otherwise be able to afford to purchase! The only time it might make sense to buy the necessary equipment/facilities is if you have a string of extremely successful blockbusters, like for example George Lucas or Peter Jackson.

I realise how restrictive having a tiny budget is. I haven't seen your film and can't pass judgement. It's entirely possible you've done a very good or even an exceptional audio post job ... considering your resources and in comparison with others with similar resources. I'm taking issue with the fact you said your audio was "professional" (IE. In comparison with professional standards rather than other audio post DIY'ers), "spot-on, period." (IE. Regardless of resources) and in effect stated it could not be improved (IE. Not even the world's great Sound Designers could do better). It's these assertions which are inconceivable, with or without seeing your film. To some extent you now appear to be agreeing as you are bringing up the reasons why buying the necessary equipment is impractical for you, rather than arguing you can match high professional standards regardless of your equipment/resources.

I did watch my film again last night to trying to look at it differently as someone suggested but, frankly to make changes that would better please a wider audience would kill the appeal for the target audience.

Audio post pros are not type-cast as some other cast/crew can be. It's their job to enhance the storytelling and make the film as engaging as possible for the target audience, whoever the target audience may be. While you might not have been able to think of anyway to improve your sound to enhance your target audience's experience of your film, I'm certain a good professional Sound Designer would. That is after all their job and why professional filmmakers always hire them!

I believe I had a discussion with ray over what I may have done differently and I said not much or nothing at all.

If you make another film and don't do anything much different at all, what makes you think the outcome will be much different (IE. A film which you have to push and milk for years and not make a profit/living from)? Maybe your target audience is too small, maybe your marketing strategy is not very effective, maybe your film isn't as engaging to your target audience as you think or more likely, it's some combination of these factors. But whatever it is, you need to identify the weaknesses and change/improve your filmmaking/marketing to avoid them next time.

G

 

[GuerrillaAngel]

If you make another film and don't do anything much different at all, what makes you think the outcome will be much different (IE. A film which you have to push and milk for years and not make a profit/living from)? Maybe your target audience is too small, maybe your marketing strategy is not very effective, maybe your film isn't as engaging to your target audience as you think or more likely, it's some combination of these factors. But whatever it is, you need to identify the weaknesses and change/improve your filmmaking/marketing to avoid them next time.

G

I want to comment further on this one.

The next film IS going to be somewhat different after taking in some of the things I've learned from marketing the current one. One you mentioned is a larger audience. Preferably people with money. A film about dentists is an example.

 

[Alcove Audio]

A film about dentists is an example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzw1_2b-I7A

 

[Will Vincent]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdL-q-rgkDI