a bad editor
a bad editor
And a bad editor is one who works with great footage and a great story and churns out a bad film.
Very interesting how a film relies on the editor. Many directors say editing is not only their favorite part of the production process, but also the only unique element to the cinematic arts.
So, maybe the major credit on a film should be given to the editor. Before the film's title, instead of starting the credits with the production companies and "directed by . . ." the credits should first say "edited by" while the director is mentioned in small type somewhere else like at the end of the cast.
I have a question. Do you think a film can be pure editing? For example, the footage would be of something very simple: nothing but shots of someone drinking a glass of water, nothing but shots of the city, nothing but nature shots. Films taking this approach are Vertov's Man With A Movie Camera and Reggio's Koyaanisqatsi. By the work of the editor some great cinematography lacking a story or a narrative could be pieced together in a rhythmical, poetic way. Is this cinema at its finest?