THAT the Cannes Film Festival chose not to include any work by female directors in its competition this year created a mini-scandal. But it obscured a couple of other points about the state of women in film. For instance, only 2 of the 22 features in question were shot by female cinematographers. On the other hand, a full third of the movies were cut by female editors.

Mostly, this reflects what has always been true.

The “invisible art” of film editing — assembling sometimes chaotic heaps of footage into a coherent, narrative whole — has been practiced by women as long as there has been a cutting-room floor. Early on, women were hired to edit because it was considered menial labor, “something like sewing,” said Kim Roberts, an Emmy-winning editor who has worked on feature documentaries (“Food Inc.,” “Waiting for Superman”).

The editor Kate Amend (“The Long Way Home”) said she once heard Dorothy Arzner, the pioneering female filmmaker, speak. “She talked about cutting the bullfight scene in ‘Blood and Sand,’ the one with Rudolph Valentino,” Ms. Amend said. “She did it with a magnifying glass, holding the film up to the light.”

Long before Final Cut Pro and before the now-archaic Steenbeck editing table (a riot of spindles and rollers), the work was primitive and unappreciated. That helps explain how women got in the door. But it doesn’t explain their success, relative though it may be.