I have always been perplexed over how people evaluate film (for lack of a better word here on Reduser) editing. I suppose one benchmark is "Does the film work?" But with Acadamy Awards coming up soon, I have no idea of how editors are chosen since, unless you were on the set, you have no idea of what the editor had to work with to make the final film. Is an editor who has minimal coverage to work with and produces a good movie better than an editor who had huge shooting ratios and lots of coverage who makes a better than average film? Or where the talent and DP are on mark on one project vs. editing a low budget project that looks like a low budget project?
I'll be interviewing editors later this year. I have no idea of what questions to ask. My base so far are recommendations, but when I ask the person making the recommendation on what he bases his recommendation, all I get are generaliztions or "he's a good guy", which is worse.
Lastly, what's your experience of having the editor (or assistant) on the set? I know about coverage, but is that extra insight worth the extra money? How do your directors work in this regard? Does the DP get bent out of shape?
If you are not in the daily Hollywood deal stream, how would you suggest I narrow down my choices?