I remember the first director’s training session for TV I attended now many years ago. Our workshop facilitator, John Harris, who went on to establish production company Greenstone, told us that one way to think of directing was like shopping: we had a shopping basket, and we had to fill it up for the editor with the right ingredients. A simple metaphor, but it worked for me at the time.
More importantly, I believe, it highlighted the importance of the editor to the creative process of crafting a story for the screen.
Editors too often are undervalued for the work they do. It’s not just about pushing buttons. It’s about utilising their creativity, knowledge and skill to elevate the material they’ve been given, which sometimes can be less than ideal.
An editor can save a director’s bacon, and often does, in factual and in narrative.
Like directing, editing is both an art and a craft. It’s one of the reasons that DEGANZ has established the Aotearoa New Zealand Screen Editor accreditation. To give the art and craft of editing its proper due when executed at a consistently high standard.
Unfortunately, editing and assistant editing can suffer from a lack of respect in the production process, especially when budgets are tight. This is unfortunate because it’s a false economy to seek to skimp in these areas and can ultimately mean budget and time are wasted, to the detriment of the project.
Another major area of concern for the Guild is the replacement of editors, particularly on feature films. Yes, failing relationships between director and editor can sometimes necessitate a change in direction. But the editor can sometimes bear the brunt of failure in other areas or because of external pressure exerted from distributors and sales agents on directors, producers and executive producers. Would a director or other HOD be replaced so easily? Of course not.
There are significant negative health and wellbeing outcomes that manifest for editors when they are replaced, particularly when it is handled poorly, as is often the case.
Equally concerning is the replacement or marginalisation of the assistant editor role. Working editors will all attest to the vital importance of this mahi and the detrimental effect on effective, efficient, quality post-production from losing assistants to ‘combo deal’ approaches from post houses, or the failure of producers to allow for, or enough time for, assistant editors to do the vital work they do.
DEGANZ also does not support the practice of multiple editors being contracted to work on a feature film. There can certainly be a need to bring in an outside editor consultant at times, to help the director and editor team look at the project with a fresh set of eyes. The hiring of multiple editors to execute a film, though, is a sausage-factory approach to the cinematic, artistic endeavour that does not recognise nor value the director-editor creative collaboration appropriately.
The DEGANZ board is now looking at how to best address these issues and is liaising with international editor bodies, examining best practices, as well as engaging with local practitioners and entities to see what learnings and ideas we could utilise to effectively achieve outcomes that will benefit individuals and projects.
Editing is an art and craft that can make or break a project, and it deserves to be recognised for the crucial part it plays in the production process.
Tui Ruwhiu
Executive Director
