Comments on: Editing Your Own Films

By: François-Xavier Noulens

François-Xavier Noulens — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 07:32:25 +0000

What would be nice : some advices to directors who HAVE to edit a film of their own. Like editing a documentary during 3 months with no money for an editor…

By: The Furious Romantic

The Furious Romantic — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:52:04 +0000

Great post.

I have been expressing some similar opinions regarding No Country since I saw it in December: http://www.thefuriousromantic.com/2007/12/21/no-country-for-old-men-disappoints/

It’s a relief to see someone else pointing these weaknesses out.

Regarding your points about writer/directors etc…

Although I still don’t consider myself fully a filmmaker, I have written/directed/edited one short film on my own – and am working on a second – and there was one simple thing that I ending up doing half by accident which helped me immensely in terms of gaining some form of objectivity at each stage of the production process. I just took my time.

Maybe it’s one of the few advantages of being a struggling independent filmmaker working with a limited amount of money and with a much smaller crew (I can see how it wouldn’t work under most other circumstances), but I found that by taking a small amount of time off from my project 1) after the script was “complete” 2) after the shot list and the shooting schedule were “complete” and 3) between the end of photography and the start of editing…I was able to engage each major task from somewhat of a distance.

I wasn’t happy seeing certain “beloved” lines not come off correctly (whether a fault of the actor or, more commonly, the writing) in dailies, or to discover that I had left myself unable to edit one shot into the next in quite the way that I had planned because of a directing mistake…but the time off allowed me to accept such facts quite a bit more easily than if I had dived straight in. It also allowed me to discover new things in the footage and recognize improvements or contributions that came not from my “grand ideas” but from some small, subtle decision made by a cameraman or suggested that day by my DP.

Anyway, thanks for sharing these observations. Between this post and several others that I have read over time on other editing blogs…I think I’ll be looking into working with an editor next time around if I can find the money to do so.

By: The other side of editing « Editing organazized

The other side of editing « Editing organazized — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:14:07 +0000

[...] other side of editing Over at Norman Hollyn-Wood, Norman wrote about how directors aren’t usually the right people to edit their films. Scenes aren’t usually the problem. It’s [...]

By: Peter John Ross

Peter John Ross — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:43:24 +0000

I very much appreciate being quoted in your blog. It is an honor, sir.

By: Les frères Coen sur Final Cut « Au royaume de la salle 7

Les frères Coen sur Final Cut « Au royaume de la salle 7 — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:52:04 +0000

[...] Coen (couronné meilleur film aux Oscars de cette année) qui montent avec Final Cut. Un post de Norman Hollyn vient d’ailleurs faire écho à leur démarche, leur reprochant de monter eux-même leurs [...]

By: Norman

Norman — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:50:51 +0000

“Directors Cut” is, as far as I can tell, a marketing gimmick. In most cases (not all, not all, so you can put down that splicing block) scenes that appear in the “Deleted Scenes” section, and alternate cuts, are clearly inferior to the original.

But, having said that, it is true that filmmakers sometimes have had their films taken away and re-edited. In that case, it is interesting to see what the original filmmakers wanted. It’s not always better, but it is interesting.

So… marketing gimmick, with some value.

By: Govert Janse

Govert Janse — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 19:18:53 +0000

Right you are! There’s nothing worse than a director editing his/her own movies. In my opinion there has to be an ‘idea-filter’ in the process of making a movie and that is an important contribution the editor can make. Directors, just like every other profession in this business sometime fall in love with their own creations and lack the distance that would benefit a movie. Not just on a story-telling level but also on raw footage level. The editor is the first person that gets to see the footage as it was actually shot. No knowledge of the shooting conditions, not aware of things that happened on the set that day, no emotional attachment to the shot or people in it, etc. This ‘lack of history’ is something that is very much needed in the process of making a movie. As an editor, I don’t care what time you had to get up to make a shot, or whatever. My only criteria are “Does it work” or not. If it doesn’t contribute anything, it has no place in this movie.
BUT… I don’t have all the answers either, and that’s were the combination of people really starts to add up. (Which is where the true power of cinema lays, the right combination.) In a healthy editing process, the editor and director are continuously challenging each other in a positive way, which takes the movie to a next level. The brilliantly edited movie ‘Il Conformista’ (Bertolucci 1970) is a beautiful example of this. Challenged by the phenomenal cinematography (by Vittorio Storaro) and of course the great directing by Bernardo himself, editor Kim Arcali had a tough job ahead. He came up with a brilliant story structure that wasn’t there in the original script! The combination of these three brilliant minds created a true masterpiece in cinema.
Leads me to one last thing. Whoever invented that “director’s cut” thing on dvd’s? What’s the deal with that?

By: Directors shouldn’t edit their own movies: Norman Hollyn « Indie 2.0

Directors shouldn’t edit their own movies: Norman Hollyn « Indie 2.0 — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 15:17:23 +0000

[...] 15 March 2008, 11:16 pm by Dan Carew Interesting argument on this subject by Norman Hollyn, who talks about “No Country for Old Men” and how the film could have been improved by [...]