Evaluating Edit / Editor?

[Terry VerHaar]

I am curious as to what folks think about how one objectively evaluates how good a job the editor has done. I'd love to hear from festival judges or the like who have occasion to determine how to hand out awards in this category.

So much feeds into a good edit; script, coverage, sound, etc. How does one determine that the editor did a good job?

Thanks for your thoughts.

:smiley:

 

[Geoff McLeod]

I'm not a judge however, to me, a good editor is one that can tell the story. This is a real skill and I'm convinced not everyone can do this. A good editor can understand peaks and troughs in the pace and use this to good effect. It think a good editor adds value to your vision for the film by exceeding your expectations. A good editor doesn't let anything get in the way of conveying the message, and above all they know that good creative work is not done.... it's redone.

 

[Mike Garrick]

Commissioning editors for any job is tough (if you haven't worked with them before ). Editors who work in program production have a different toolsets to ones who work in theatrical. TV commercial editors can be a different beasts entirely.

IMO the only way is to see examples of work done that are similar to your requirements, do background checks then above all see if you "get on with them" After all they may be the most gifted editor in the world & have fantastic experience/demo reel but all this will be negated if you can't work together.

P.S. The determining factor if they did a good job imo ......is your own reaction, the audiences reaction plus something else, did they extend your vision and enhance on it.....did they surprise you in a good way ; ) .

 

[David Battistella]

If you do not notice the editing, then the editor has done a great job. It means the editor has done the sublime thing of joining shots, letting the story speak through the images and not calling attention to the cuts. It's seamless. That is what I judge great editing on, like you are watching rushes but they have been put together.

Whenever I notice the editing I feel it means that the editor has done a poor job or is calling attention to their aspect of the production. That shows ego instead of humility and putting the story first. The same goes for lighting. When I see lighting that is "look how I can light" then I feel it goes past good lighting.

The moment I notice the editing or can telegraph the story, it's bad editing (can originate with bad direction) but its the editors job to find the truth in the footage and string together the truest moments to create a cohesive story in which the viewer is immersed, calling no attention to their work.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I am curious as to what folks think about how one objectively evaluates how good a job the editor has done. I'd love to hear from festival judges or the like who have occasion to determine how to hand out awards in this category.

So much feeds into a good edit; script, coverage, sound, etc. How does one determine that the editor did a good job?

Thanks for your thoughts.

:smiley:

Editor does a good job if he adequately crafts the visual message so the viewer recieves it, through optimal choice of visual content, through its order and relations and through its rhythm.

Objectivity in perceiving all of this depends on the experience in the same or related field and developed sensibility.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

If you don't notice any edits then the editor has done his or her job right.