

The Psychology of the Cutting Room

Written by Gordon Burkell

Founder of Aotg.com Twitter: @AotgNetwork

This article was originally posted in Aotg.com's The Assembly.

**Note** It is important to note that Psychology is a complex subject matter and this article merely scratches the surface. If readers are interested and want more on this subject, we can conduct more research and do follow up articles. Please let us know via Twitter and Facebook





The cutting room is a unique beast. It is a location of intense discussion that can turn into debates and can easily devolve into arguments. A place where directors, who have poured their heart and soul into a project, only come to the realization that the project they dreamed of isn’t working. A place where editors and directors defend their vision against the cold hands of the studios, broadcasters, or distributors. Many times, the editing room can become a pseudo-psychiatrist’s office, with directors divulging personal details and discussing issues from the set, all of which stay within the walls of that sacred room.





Yet, there is a perceived image of what an editor is. Not in terms of what we do, but in terms of who we are as a collective group. When an editor appears as a character in a film or a television show, they are given a particular persona to play, the best example being when Paul Giamatti appeared on 30 Rock, playing Ritchie, the editor for Liz Lemon’s show TGS. Giamatti’s representation of an editor is that of a slacker - a scruffy, grumpy guy who wears jeans and a hockey jersey to work and takes his frustrations out on producers and directors. Although rumoured to be based on a particular editor Fey knew at SNL, it is a tongue firmly planted in cheek look at our profession.







I’m not bringing this up to raise trouble with 30 Rock. It’s a funny and light-hearted representation that played a role in propelling the story in the episode. It is this representation, however, that got me thinking. From a psychological examination, in what ways do we shape our lives and define who we are in the editing suite?





Needless to say, there are not that many psychologists studying the elusive editor. My journey of discovery took me to the University of Toronto’s Psychology Department. Talking to various professors there I ended in a place I didn’t expect to find myself - the Rotman School of Management. There I met Geoffrey Leonardelli, associate professor in organizational behaviour. His research focuses on ways people can utilize the knowledge of how they behave in particular scenarios to help them in the business world.





Geoffrey sat down with me and gave me the key concepts and ideas I should be looking into, and this is what has helped lead to the areas we’ll focus on in this article.





In-group Vs. Out-group



Our primary area of focus is In-group Vs. Out-group. In-group and Out-group can be understood as the psychological identification of oneself in relation to others. In many instances it explores race, gender, and religion, but can be used in any area of interest. In-group and Out-group will help us figure out how editors define themselves in relation to others. Fundamentally, this resides in the idea of us versus them, or for the cultural theory purveyors, othering. It also relies on the idea of “Self-Stereotyping.” As Geoffrey put it: “The in-group/out-group, involves what we call “self-stereotyping, ” when you start to describe yourself according to the image of what a film editor would be. So it’s going to depend on characteristics that they, themselves, have become aware of…” (From Interview).





Let’s examine how we organize ourselves into groups. We are a part of the post-production team, not the production or pre-production team. Within that area, we are the editorial staff, not the animation team, the sound team, the vfx team, etc. What’s interesting, however, is that we break things down even further. Editors categorize themselves as a TV editor, film editor, corporate video editor, or commercials editor and separate themselves from the other editors in the industry through union vs. non-union and within the unions in a pay tier system.





There are many editors who fluidly transition between these various areas, but in many instances there is still a stigma and a separation in certain editing circles. When talking to Adam Epstein for The Cutting Room Podcast, he mentioned how many see editing commercials as beneath them, or something to look down on. When I was in L.A. recently, a feature film editor confided in me that he had been cutting commercials for the last few months while waiting for his next gig and was loving it. Then, as I went to leave our dinner meeting he asked if I could not tell anyone that he’s been cutting commercials because of how it might look. This outlook on commercial editing still prevails, despite the fact that Angus Wall and Kirk Baxter, both Oscar award-winning editors, have their own commercial post companies.





Editors then break things into sub-categories. Film and TV editors might also be documentary editors, fiction editors, comedy editors, drama editors, etc. This doesn’t get into the issues of NLE software categorization.





These areas are integral to how we identify ourselves, if we choose to define our group by what area of film we work in and the tools we use, then others will also define us by those traits. Many editors in the industry get frustrated when they are pigeonholed into a particular area of editing. More still get upset when job postings look for an editor based on their NLE of choice. However, to a certain extent we do this to ourselves. We are looking for comfort that comes from interconnections and knowledge that we are a part of a group. I’ve seen some of the most prolific storytellers fall into long discussions about their editing tools because that’s their point of connection, that’s their in-group. They can’t connect on stories, because everyone edits a different story each time.





If we want to be defined as storytellers, and not as button pushers or tech experts who know a particular NLE, then we need to start with redefining our own vision of ourselves. We need to begin talking about story structure, character development, and how we mould the story in the editing room, not the technological tools that aid us in the process.





Furthermore, Geoffrey said some ways in which we define ourselves are subconscious and definitive. How an editor defines their personal “Features might be superficial… it might be how film editors have come to be known to dress. Or, maybe they have more ‘night owl’ tendencies…” The clothing comment brings up a good point - many editors, don’t dress professionally, at least not as editors once did, with dress shirts, pants, and a tie. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but as Geoffrey pointed out, this could raise issues when arguing a point or attempting to be seen as an authority on a subject. Whether we want to admit it or not, how we dress in many instances defines how we are treated.





Other ideas of editors self-stereotyping include editors being seen as loners, working in a solitary existence, in a dark room, philosophizing over a cut.





If we are to get past our issues of identity and allow ourselves to be more authoritative on story, we also need to be more publicly present to the world. Groups like the Canadian Cinema Editors, American Cinema Editors, Les Montours, Australian Screen Editors, and Netherland Cinema Editors are working hard to ensure that editors are defined as storytellers and artists. They’ve held talks with editors from around the world, put out articles exploring the techniques of editing and in the case of the American Cinema Editors, began to host Edit Fest, a yearly event exploring the art of editing.





These groups play a pivotal role in helping us define who we are because as Geoffrey pointed out in the interview, an editor’s work, in many instances, is not meant to be obvious. “The work itself is intended to be more seamless, rather than more noticeable… I think [that] might affect the public image of the editor…” If a producer sees the editor as someone who handles the technology, then we are merely the button pushers, if they see the editor as an artist crafting the story, then that is what they will encourage in the cutting process.





For in-group/out-group dynamics, we are in a unique position. Usually, groups define themselves by what they are not, and tend to not work with other groups. In film, the situation is drastically different from most professions - major projects are formed with hundreds of people, each a part of an autonomous group within the larger project, congregating over editing, cinematography, sound, etc. The film itself is a group in juxtaposition with other films or jobs.





This might not be different from office jobs, where people work in various departments. However, where things change in the film industry is that our individual groups are amalgamated for one brief period and then dispersed. When the project is complete, the editors, VFX artists, sound team, etc. are now in competition for their next project, working against one another to secure work. Yet, they are thrust together for small bursts of time and must work in collaboration for the common good of a project.





“That's what I think makes your industry so interesting. It's that it's this project-based domain, right? You pull people together to do a project, and then it's disbanded, once the job is done. This is where I think networks play such an important role, because it's [about] who you know and making a positive impression, so that it can carry forward. But I also think that's where the categories in which you belong are helpful, so editors who have multiple offers can turn to other editors they know, show their identity and can pass on other tips and other opportunities that they themselves can't do.”





We’ve spent a lot of time figuring out how we define ourselves against others. But how do group dynamics work within the context of others in the editing room? I asked Geoffrey, “What happens when a producer is in the room while you are working, or worse, a celebrity, who is producing or a famous director? How does one deal with this pressure and how does one fall into their position in terms of group dynamics?”





“I think it depends on how their objectives affect the work the editor is doing and what role the director plays in that.”





At that moment I brought up the film Mr. & Mrs. Smith, which was edited by Michael Tronick and had Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt both as actors in the film and playing a major role in the production and post production process. In many instances, Tronick found himself with two major stars behind him on the couch watching his work (listen to Michael Tronick discuss this in The Cutting Room Podcast). Geoffrey quickly responded:





“That, I think, speaks to what purpose you, [the editor], are there to do... I guess there are certain people with the final say and the final control. I think that defines the role of the editor as one of almost an advisory capacity. It's like, ‘Here are the implications of what I'm doing - of what work I'm doing for your film. Given that your objective is this with the film, here's what I would recommend.’ What I'm suggesting is that you keep coming back to what objective you think the producers and directors are seeking… they all have other objectives, about budget, about the reputation of their stars, about a directorial style. All of these things, I think, could be something for the editor to consider when examining how it is that they do their work…”





It was an interesting discussion about the possibilities of the cutting room relationships and how we, as humans and editors, play a vital role in defining how we are treated and perceived. There are many dichotomies at work: the desire to lead and control the cutting room versus the desire to be guided and led by the director or producers; the image of the philosophical editor or that of a slacker. We are in control of these, and yet we allow ourselves to be defined by them. If we want to control our own cutting room and our future, we need to get a hold of our image and how we are perceived. We need to control the message.

Other Aotg.com Content

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus