Jump to content

Are editors frustrated filmmakers?


Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Couldn't you say that about more or less anyone in the whole industry, or anyone in any industry where different people do different jobs?

What I've noticed, more than any particular role aspiring to more or less any other, is that there are people who don't want to specialise and lose access to certain parts of the process. Working on bigger, more prominent productions tends to require specialisation, so anyone who wants to shoot and edit and write and direct often has to give up access to tentpole features in order to do that. It's something of a pity because it leads to people existing in professional silos that can sometimes be very, very narrowly defined in a way that sometimes  isn't great for either the individual or the production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mei Lewis said:

Most people on most films of any size don't make the whole film themselves,

That's right, because films are so expensive that it would take too long, but I'd say the term "film-maker" belongs to someone who doesn't necessarily, but could do every job, for better or worse. Who understands them all. Maybe Kubrick, or John Cassavetes. Most film workers don't aspire to that, perhaps because they prefer to work regularly. But I'm sure most have their own "projects".

My two pennorth (today that's about the same as 2¢) is that an editor is closer to the film-making process than anyone else, possibly including the director. He's not a frustrated film-maker- he is one.

I've probably contradicted myself there.

Edited by Mark Dunn
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 9/24/2022 at 8:48 PM, Phil Rhodes said:

Couldn't you say that about more or less anyone in the whole industry, or anyone in any industry where different people do different jobs?

What I've noticed, more than any particular role aspiring to more or less any other, is that there are people who don't want to specialise and lose access to certain parts of the process. Working on bigger, more prominent productions tends to require specialisation, so anyone who wants to shoot and edit and write and direct often has to give up access to tentpole features in order to do that. It's something of a pity because it leads to people existing in professional silos that can sometimes be very, very narrowly defined in a way that sometimes  isn't great for either the individual or the production.

 

Sure, I guess you could say it. I was just wondering if editors like editing better than filmmaking or they do editing because they can't do as well money wise with filmmaking. 

Personally I fine editing kinda tedious and somewhat stressful. Maybe  someone else doesn't find it tedious. Maybe they find filmmaking stressful and editing relaxing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2022 at 8:14 AM, Mei Lewis said:

What counts as a 'filmmaker'?

Most people on most films of any size don't make the whole film themselves, so there *is no filmmaker* for most films.

Are directors frustrated filmmakers?
 

 

I guess the filmmaker is the person that gets top billing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2022 at 9:21 AM, Mark Dunn said:

That's right, because films are so expensive that it would take too long, but I'd say the term "film-maker" belongs to someone who doesn't necessarily, but could do every job, for better or worse. Who understands them all. Maybe Kubrick, or John Cassavetes. Most film workers don't aspire to that, perhaps because they prefer to work regularly. But I'm sure most have their own "projects".

My two pennorth (today that's about the same as 2¢) is that an editor is closer to the film-making process than anyone else, possibly including the director. He's not a frustrated film-maker- he is one.

I've probably contradicted myself there.

 

Makes sense and well penned answer Mark.

I know good editing makes or breaks a film. And just because a filmmaker can run a camera or edit does not make them good at it. There are so many components that makes or breaks a film...sound, story, casting, acting, editing and cine' work to name a few. 

Maybe this thread should have been entitled...What drives the editor to go into editing?

I thought about this after cutting up DVD on the Coronation of Queen Eliziabeth II. Very stressful trying to do a modicum of justice to that project. I came away from that project thinking editing can be stressful work. And it was all digital...film editing would be even more stressful. 

I guess I'm used to / spoiled by archival editing, which is usually very minimal. 

 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One could argue that since film editing was the only entirely new artistic craft to emerge from the advent of motion picture storytelling (the other elements already belonging to existing photographic methods or theatrical traditions),  editors are actually the only true filmmakers.

Although it's probably more accurate to say that the only true filmmakers are editors. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 10/12/2022 at 6:00 AM, Stewart McLain said:

One could argue that since film editing was the only entirely new artistic craft to emerge from the advent of motion picture storytelling (the other elements already belonging to existing photographic methods or theatrical traditions),  editors are actually the only true filmmakers.

Although it's probably more accurate to say that the only true filmmakers are editors.

Are VFX artists not artistic? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

VFX artists are absolutely artistic.  But is it a new art?  Manipulation of the photographic image predates motion pictures.  (here are some fun ones from the mid-1800s: https://racingnelliebly.com/weirdscience/victorian-era-trick-photography-headless-portraits/)  Visual effects are certainly more sophisticated now, but isn't everything?  

BTW, the idea that editing is the only new art form to result from motion pictures is a totally unoriginal thought.  It's something a professor said in a History of Film class I took ages ago and it just stuck with me.   For what it's worth, I like Mark Dunn's definition of a filmmaker:

On 9/27/2022 at 8:21 AM, Mark Dunn said:

I'd say the term "film-maker" belongs to someone who doesn't necessarily, but could do every job, for better or worse.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...