Does the editor even read the script?
Does the editor read the script and use it as a framework when the screenwriter is not involved in editing? How else does she make sense of all the footage the director has shot to cut into a cohesive whole? Also, do you see the editor’s role as bringing to screen the vision of the screenwriter?
– dabba
via imdb
The editor almost certainly reads the script at least once, before she signs on for the job. After that, it’s hard to say.
Pretty much everyone who’s ever taken an editing class has had some variation of this common assignment: given a bag of random footage (or a folder, in the digital age), you’re told to assemble it into a meaningful sequence.
And the thing is, you can. So even if editors never cracked the script open, they could still do their job. Every scene has a scene number associated with it, which comes from the script, so there’s not even a question of, “Does the car chase come first, or the bank robbery?”
Is it the editor’s job to bring the screenwriter’s vision to the screen? Nope. The editor’s job is to make the best movie possible given the footage shot, which is often a source of potential conflict between the screenwriter and editor. The screenwriter says, “This scene is about Kyle forgiving Mary!” The editor replies, “No, it’s about Mary looking for her keys. That’s what was shot. I can’t make it something it’s not.”
While I’ve had good relationships with most of the editors on the films I’ve written, there’s no question that the editor works primarily for the director. To the degree I’ve been able to help out in post-production, it’s been providing thoughtful notes that not only point out problems but offer solutions.
I always write up my notes so the whole team can read them, and agree or disagree. On a first cut, that might mean 12 pages of notes. But so far, at least, it’s proved to be a help. Editors, like screenwriters, are generally bombarded by the opinions of people who think they know best. So I make sure the tone is respectful.
For example, from the first Charlie’s Angels:
The outside tables
We should flop the order of business in this scene, starting with Vivian Wood looking though the file and trying to get them to hand over full access to the computer. Only after she’s denied does Knox ask them to go out.
Here’s the big change: the subtitled Finnish is completely different. The angels are still in work mode, talking about how Knox could still be in danger, this may not all be over, et cetera. We exit on a look between Dylan and Knox, setting up that there may be potential ahead.
My notes are always addressed to the director, but they’re ultimately for the use of the editor, who can implement whatever seems workable.
When the editor and screenwriter respect each other, I think it can be a very fruitful relationship. The screenwriter generally has more distance from the production, and can look with fresher eyes than the editor, who know where all the bodies (and bad takes) are buried.
Articles
February 14th, 2006 at 8:42 am
There’s that old saying, something about a film gets made three times, once by the writer, once by the director and once by the editor.
That’s both scary and exciting… Mainly scary.
February 14th, 2006 at 8:47 am
The Editor also works very closely with the Script Supervisor. After Principal Photography, the Script Supervisor prepares what is called “The Editor’s Notes”. These notes are a tremendous help for The Editor. These notes will contain information like, which takes are for “Print”, or which takes are “Reverses”, and so on.
February 14th, 2006 at 10:03 am
John, I believe you’ve previously stated that you think the writer should be involved in the editing process (apologies if I’m attributing to you what someone else has said). Given this post, I’m wondering if it would be difficult for some writers to be in the editing room.
From your post: The screenwriter says, “This scene is about Kyle forgiving Mary!� The editor replies, “No, it’s about Mary looking for her keys. That’s what was shot. I can’t make it something it’s not.�
Certainly it would depend on the temperament of each writer, but I think these kinds of exchanges might be a key reason why writers usually aren’t included in the editing process. I’m not necessarily arguing for or against; I tend to believe it would help to have the writer(s) involved in editing as long as everyone ultimately defers to the director. But I wonder if directors and editors don’t want to bring in the writer because they don’t want to get bogged down in these kinds of exchanges.
February 14th, 2006 at 11:30 am
For what it’s worth, Michael Kahn has stated that he never reads the script before, during, or after he goes into editing a film. Of course, nowadays he mainly works with Spielberg, so the two of them probably have a kind of shorthand of working things out while Spielberg shoots and Kahn edits — a virtually simultaneous process, from what I’ve heard — since they’ve worked together for almost thirty years.
Another interesting bit of information: When working on a Spielberg film, as opposed to using an Avid system or Final Cut Pro, Kahn edits with an old Moviola and a KEM flatbed. Up until a few years ago, he and the Coen brothers were the only people who still used that method of editing films. Now, it’s just him, as the Coens have switched to using FCP (go to http://www.apple.com/pro/film/coen for more information). As far as I know, Mr. Kahn is now the only major editor in Hollywood who still does things a bit old school, at least when Mr. Spielberg is involved.
As they say: “There’s no school like the old school.”
By the way, for anyone who might be interested, Mr. Kahn made a rare appearance at the Fox Searchlab a few years ago while he was working on “Catch Me If You Can.” Mr. Kahn is not one for interviews or public appearances, so the fact that he even agreed to show up is significant. Luckily, those smarties at the lab taped the lecture. It can be seen at the following link:
http://www.foxsearchlight.com/lab/lectures/index_kahn.html
Condolences and enjoy.
February 14th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Given that there are countless ways to make some sense of things regardless of original intent, how often are writers’ notes primarily reassessing things as they stand in a rough assembly, and refrain from mentioning missing details, given that- as important as they might seem for the writer -they could have been well-discussed and discarded, rather than simply forgotten in the editing.
February 14th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Most editors always have a script of the film handy. It is marked up by the Script Supervisor. He uses the marked up script to find the shots and to know what is available.
February 14th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Being an editor, I can tell you that the script is not really useful unless there’s a question of sequencing, but that only happens if the script supervisor wasn’t doing their job properly. You can assemble the film without looking at the script just by the way slates are numbered. I find that the major differences between scripts and the finished films often have to do with entrances and exits, the beginnings and ends of scenes which are usually trimmed for pace. Remember when your screenwriting teacher told you to start late and finish early? This is why. Also, writers will sometimes put in too much exposition in the dialogue, which can drain the scene of tension and mystery, so this stuff will also get snipped. Then there’s also script problems that might not be apparrent until they’re staring at you on screen. The editor truly is the final writer on a film, and while this might sound scary to you writers out there, ultimately we’re both concerned with telling the story in the best way possible.
February 15th, 2006 at 12:36 am
As a Finn I remember very well that sequence of spoken Finnish, the lines the girls said had absolutely nothing to do with the subtitles! But the funny thing is, pretty much nobody noticed, the Finnish the girls were speaking was so bad we thought it was Japanese or something. Only after I bought the dvd did I notice it, not in the theater…
I’d like to ask who came up with using Finnish and if you guys had any kind of dialogue coaching on set? It was funny though!
February 15th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Thanks, Batutta. It is scary to think of someone else being the “final writer” (wonderfully chilling phrase) on a story one invented, but at the same time, it’s somewhat comforting, if one assumes one’s editor is competent. It seems like a way of quelling the insecurity that comes after one finishes, when you start thinking that you didn’t do it well enough, that the opening still isn’t right and the pacing is wrong in the middle and the end feels choppy and NO ONE WILL EVER LOVE YOU! With a good editor on the job, one can say “Okay, I did my best work. Mr. Editor is going to do his best, and any problems that got past me, he’ll catch. All is well. A few more scotches and I can sleep.”
February 16th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
A screenwriter learns more by watching a first-class film editor work than by reading all of the how-to screenwriting books ever written.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Battuta has it right. But for ‘us writers’, final writers are not called that. They’re called (ringshot here please) –an editor. And what is it usually what happens with ‘the editor’? Need I be explicit - even in your local community paper, you know the answer.
What I’m getting at is, and my apologies if this feels a bit too abstract and ideal, the argument is usually that ‘we’re all telling the story.’ But, excuse me, no, you’re telling ‘a story,’ a specific take on- yes, granted, perhaps the millionth version of the same archetypical story.
I’m not saying details are sometimes as important as all that, but who is to know and tell? A mind more worried about things making immediate sense and getting on with the work or who? And I’m willing to admit perhaps the writer was not aware of the implications of his, let’s call them ‘gross mistakes’ for the sake of argument — but unless we’re talking about a stubborn obstinate bastard, (and there might be a fair number of them) who else would be qualified to judge?
What John pointed out is correct. The writer comes with a fresh mindset.
As for the rest, sure, a writer can learn by watching a great film editor. A writer- may I say it, an artist -learns from absorbing a myriad of influences. Include music composition and, in my mind, illustration. Not to go off on a tangent, but it is everything. I offer the opposite to be true as well. Not that I’m much into screenwriting books but being aware of the themes and other nuances working beyond a specific sequences, if to do that helps to read a screenwriting-how-to book then editors should pick them up. And I’m assuming screenwriters, like editors, are filmmakers first, more so nowadays, where there are film schools everywhere.
February 16th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
There were quite a few grammatical errors in the previous post, sorry (See? We need all the hlep
we can get.
February 17th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Most filmmakers I’ve talked to tend to agree that ultimately, the film gets made in the editing. Everything up to that point is an intention of what you are making, from script through direction. But the movie that will exist is a product of editing almost entirely. That is also why editing is so much fun — it’s the most God-like moment in the process. All your gratification is finally no longer delayed, and you can put things together and immediately see your final, polished world right in front of your eyes.
February 18th, 2006 at 1:49 am
One thing that can help a screenwriter be a useful and responsible source of wisdom during post-production is to make sure you screen every single freakin’ printed daily. It’s 45 minutes of your day, five days a week, but when it’s time to give notes on cuts, you can talk knowledgeably about what is and what could be, rather than just wonder hopefully if things can be more like this than that.
February 18th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
I agree with Rick Dooling’s comment 100%.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:07 am
If Hollywood moviemaking were compared to a restaurant, then it would be L’Orangerie. Up here in Canada where I’m a Post Production Supervisor, it’s more like Jerry’s Famous Deli on Ventura - dependable, decent fare but it ain’t no 5 star restaurant. We do things by the book up here because that’s the level we’re at when it comes to filmmaking. The producer is God and when it comes to editing, chances are his is the version you’ll see on DVD (When was the last time you saw a Canadian film in wide theatrical release?)
Let me take you through the editing process on your standard 6 or 7 mil Canadian production which means almost all films produced here. The Continuity/Script Supervisor marks the shooting script every day during the shoot. What this looks like is multi-colored script pages (because of all the rewrites) with long, straight and squiggly lines running down each page. Each color-coded line denotes what type of shot it is: green for Long Shots, red for Close-ups etc. The Editor gets this the next day and begins his Assembly. Does he read the script? He better or he’d be lost. The idea is to put every shot that’s in the can into the edit in a form that best presents the scene.
When he’s completed his assembly, the Director comes on board and does his “Director’s Cut”. This would be his vision of the film where he would rearrange scenes, work on pacing and nix stuff that he feels isn’t necessary.
After a few weeks of that, the Director disappears and the Producers and Editor go at it based on the Producer’s agenda and the needs of the Distributor if one is on board at that time. Everybody watches the result and changes are made based on reactions. Test screenings are rare - the Producer would much rather invest in a new dock at his summer cottage than spend money on this step.
So far I haven’t seen the Writer anywhere near the editing room nor do I ever expect to see him. Ok, we might need some off-camera lines for the loop group or voice-overs, but those are usually created by the director, the producer or sometimes even me when I’m not too busy making sure there’s enough coffee and snacks for the editing room.
This is not to say that the screenwriter wouldn’t be on the set making adjustments to the script based on a multitude of factors usually associated with shooting schedule and, ultimately, budget…sometimes story needs when the editor raises a red flag. I’ve worked on about 20 features and have to confess that I’ve never seen the writer on set because he’s usually in another city.
So, to answer the question, yes the editor reads the script because without it he couldn’t do his job. Now, can I have a lox and cream cheese on rye?
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:37 am
Here’s my experience on the film’s I’ve worked on:
Projects where I was in the editing room:
Go (10+ times)
Charlie’s Angels (10+ times)
Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (once or twice)
Corpse Bride (three times during production)
Both of my pilots (basically lived in the editing room)
Projects where I just gave notes after screenings:
Charlie
Big Fish
Titan AE
Scooby-Doo
Minority Report (but I think it was really locked already)
Projects I didn’t even see until they were in theatres:
Jurassic Park III
Blue Streak
May 5th, 2006 at 12:09 am
John,
Thanks for answering the question about editing. I had submitted it on imdb and figured you were busy or thought it a stupid question to answer and did not realize that you had answered it here. Interesting responses from others. Seems like people need to show who is more important between the writer and the editor. Rather funny. The question came up because I wrote, directed and edited my short film and I had to throw my “script” out of the window while editing because it was frustrating to see all the shots I had missed. Actually, I was really pissed at the director but took it out on the writer.
June 1st, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I leave the editor alone with my notes and footage for a few days to create roughs of scenes to see how she sees them versus how I see them. I see it as a chance to get a second pair of eyes without my “too close to the actors, production and script” bias. My director’s brain has this film that may be better or maybe worse than her editor’s brain. Sometimes her perspective can add a lot. Sometimes– not so much. Only after we are done with this do we sit together to work through the scenes, subtext, performances and my overall story and vision. It’s an approach that works for her and me. I accept her brutal honesty about what she thinks works and doesn’t. She accepts the fact I may disagree. I don’t actually ever want to edit other than sitting there with my actual editor. I feel I can’t be both emotional about my work and objective. She eventually becomes emotional about it too, but at first her objectivity adds a lot that wasn’t at first apparent. So, in total, I guess I can’t add much to the process of being a director and editor, but I can say I wouldn’t want the writer there because I would probably have to kill him or her. Nothing personal.