LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Unnecessary Roughness?
Laura Almo’s article “Secrets of a Film School Student Turned Editing Teacher” (Editors Guild Magazine SEP-OCT 06) was most enjoyable and deserving of a big “thank you.” She projected a fine sense of her enthusiasm––and rare gift––for teaching editing. However, as a retired editor of features, MOWs and documentaries, and an adjunct professor at USC in the 1980s, may I comment on one small item in her piece, which struck a discordant note?
Editors may work on a project for many weeks; months even. They take great pains and pride to submit a first cut that best represents their director’s original vision––and which, despite some problems that may yet have to be addressed, still somehow works. In consultation with their director, editors are expected to coordinate (if not supervise) CG effects and find and carefully insert appropriate temporary music and/or sound effects––possibly recording wild lines or narration where it seems appropriate to do so…even doing some temp dubs, opticals or whatever other artifact would sell the piece.
In sum, they increasingly orchestrate a post-production imperium! After the first agonizing run of their cut for their director, they then work closely together for yet another period of time to refine that first version and, before it is shown to anyone outside the editing suite, bringing it close to the final, director’s vision of the film. But, all too often, after all that effort, they hear their work being dismissed by the same director, and/or the producer, at a first public screening for studio suits and friends, as being “…just a rough cut, fellas; I [sic] still have a lot of work to do…” Quite.
I would submit that there really is no such thing as a “rough” cut. A first cut, perhaps; if you will, an editor’s cut, a director’s as yet unfinished vision with some contemplated changes still to come. A beta version? Whatever. But a rough cut? Some might call this a splitting of verbal hairs, but, on its face, it seems insulting, even demeaning to the editor’s dedication, professionalism and status as a key, creative player in a multi-million-dollar enterprise. Words have meaning. For students, I might find acceptable “an outline” or “an assembly” that might precede a first cut. But lose the “rough!”
Perhaps Almo will hear this cri de coer. I suggest that use of this odious term undermines her students’ integrity toward their own work. May I propose that they should have drilled into them never ever to present something to her, excusing their own deficient work by calling it, “…just a rough cut, Laura.” For my part, I would never have dared show my work to a director, or a studio executive, effectively denigrating it by excusing its insufficiency as “…just a rough cut.” Rough ain’t good.
With great respect and wishing her continued success,
Thomas Stanford, Picture Editor (retired)
You have brought some interesting points to my attention. Upon reading your letter, I consulted the glossary of Karel Reisz and Gavin Miller’s classic book The Technique of Film Editing (1953). The term “rough cut” is defined in the glossary as follows: “First assembly of a film which the editor prepares from the selected takes, joining them in the order planned in the script but leaving the finer points of timing and editing to a later stage.”
I believe “rough cut” is the term that was formally taught and “first cut” is a term that has since evolved. “Rough cut” was the terminology we used for the first review of our films when I was in graduate school at Stanford; the second review was the “fine cut.” I took this terminology with me. Also, one often sees the term “rough cut” used regularly in Calls For Entries to film festivals. In this context, it refers to a work-in-progress in which the basic structure of a film or video is in place but the finer elements are not. The term was originally intended to be descriptive, not demeaning.
That said, I do appreciate all the work that goes into a first edit and I
will certainly be mindful of this terminology in both professional and pedagogical
situations in the future. Thank you for your insight.
Laura Almo
Montage Myths
In the SEP-OCT 06 issue of the Editors Guild Magazine, there is an article
on training (“From CMX to FCP”), focusing primarily on Diana Weynand.
While I have a great deal of respect for Diana and what she has done over
the years, there is a bit of misleading information in her quoted statements
regarding the nonlinear editing system Montage.
According to the article, her company “trained all the editors on Dallas and then Falcon Crest.” This implies that both shows were cut on Montage systems, which is not the case. As one of the employees of Lorimar Post-Production at the time, I can tell you that neither show was ever cut on a Montage. Like most of the Lorimar shows of the mid-‘80s, when these shows were switched to electronic finishing (they were both cut on film for many years), they were put on Ediflex systems, and remained on Ediflex until the end of their runs a few years later––with the notable exception of the final season of Dallas, which somewhat ironically went back to editing on film.
While it is true that Lorimar used many electronic editing systems, to my recollection, Montage was never one of them. We did use Laser Edit, EditDroid and TouchVision on various projects, as well as linear ISC systems, and we experimented with CMX 6000. All of this, of course, was years before Avid would change the landscape by going to full digital media.
So many myths have sprung up around what was done in the “early years”
of nonlinear editing that I think it’s important to maintain accuracy
when necessary and possible.
Michael Most, Chief Technologist, Cineworks Digital Studios (Miami, FL)
Why Do They Hate Our Editorial Freedom?
I must respectfully tell you that I found the article “A Charge Account”
(“This Month in Film History,” Editors Guild Magazine SEP-OCT
06) to be very disappointing. I will admit right away that I am a Republican
who voted for President Bush, so, unlike the author, I am not writing under
one pretense while having something else on my agenda.
If Kevin Lewis wants to write a criticism about the current president, it’s his prerogative. Hey, I would even read it to see a different point of view of the world. But don’t try to disguise a political soapbox with an historical account of a film. This method is intellectually dishonest and in some circles is called the “old bait and switch.”
I am not debating whether his statement of President Bush is accurate
or not. I am just asking that he not turn an article about a film’s
historical technical contributions into his own political platform.
That is not why the magazine is published.
Jeff Ervin, Assistant Editor
Hungary for Guild Communication
Please have the circulation department of the Guild’s magazine send
me a copy of the most recent issue. The last one that came through the
mail to me here in Békéscsaba, Hungary was the JAN-FEB 06 issue
with Michael Kahn on the cover.
The magazine looks great––to think it started out as a simple
newsletter nearly 30 years ago! You may recall that while John Lehners
was at the helm of the union, he forbade such communication with the membership.
I enjoy being kept up with what is going on, though I’ve been
disengaged for a very long time.
Tony Wollner, ACE, Picture Editor (retired)
Maraming Salamat!
I was pleasantly surprised when the Editors Guild Magazine was delivered
yesterday. It is the first issue I have received here in the Philippine
Islands.
The article by Herb Dow, ACE, was a fun read, as he introduced the
Ediflex to me and Fred Knudtson, ACE, in the middle of the season
while cutting Falcon Crest in 1985. I must say it was quite a test
going from using a Moviola and a butt splicer to make cuts, to using
a light-pen while looking at a monitor. How times have changed…
Dick Van Enger, Jr., ACE, Picture Editor (retired)
Editors Guild Magazine welcomes your letters, but reserves the right to edit them for length, clarity and accuracy. Submission of a letter does not guarantee publication in the magazine.
Send letters via e-mail to tcarroll@editorsguild.com, or via snail-mail to the Guild's Hollywood address. Please address them to "Letters to the Editor."