I have had more than one occasion lately to discuss a number of issues over what some regard the plights of editors and others the realities.

A number of senior editors convened recently over a drink and lamented the lack of an assistant editor in the cutting room, more particularly with one-off dramas and feature films. Essentially, on an increasing number of productions only one Avid is available to do both the data management and the cutting. What this means is that the assistant editor has to work opposite shifts to the editor to prep the material for the cut. The problem with this is threefold:

1. The editor is not passing on the knowledge and experience of how they cut drama to the assistant.
2. The assistant is not able to relay what they have seen when prepping the material.
3. The editor has absolutely no back up for handling emergencies in normal hours – outputting scenes for set, chasing missing files, dealing with post house requests or the myriad other tasks that put demands on their time.

General consensus is that with budgets under pressure, producers are not allowing for two machines so that the editor and assistant can work side by side. The benefits of two edit systems are many:

1. It’s the most cost effective use of budget.
2. The assistant increases their knowledge for the next project.
3. The editor is completely focused on the edit and can keep to schedule.
4. Relationships remain intact and production runs smoothly.
5. There’s another pair of relatively fresh eyes on tap for the editor.

In such a scenario the assistant works under the watchful eye of the editor, can benefit from discussions with the editor around sequences the assistant puts together, gets to see the editor at work, and is there to take in the director/producer/editor interaction around the cut, which is an important dynamic to get a handle on—These are all highly important professional development elements.

A further budgeting issue is the lack of time producers allocate to the narrative cut. Editors are coming under increased pressure to deliver quality outcomes with shorter editing times while dealing with masses of footage. There are three key issues with this:

1. The editor can run out of time to get the best edit before they have to move on, most likely because they have another job they have to go to.
2. The cut isn’t as good as it could be.
3. And the budget goes into overdrive.

To deal with these, another editor often has to be brought in, requiring communication from the first editor to the second so that the institutional knowledge is relayed—another inefficiency. And this brings up a further issue that has become topical particularly in regard to feature film: the proliferation of multiple editors working on a single project. In addition to the lack of allocated edit time, this can come about in a number of ways.

Some filmmakers have gone through multiskilling film and TV educations and work environments and think they can edit their own feature films, not realizing none of that prepares them for the sheer mass of footage they’re faced with, the technical gobbledygook wonderland they now move in, or the psychological pressure a big budget brings to bear.

Then there’s the director or producer who goes into a debut feature with their short film-only experienced editor with them. It can be tough for everyone concerned when the cut doesn’t pass muster and an experienced drama editor has to be brought in to get the best for the film.

Or the situation where the director and or producer feels the need to have multiple goes at cutting a film, each with a different editor because they don’t see eye to eye with each other and or the editor involved.

Each one of these scenarios will result in a blowout of the editing budget—which usually wasn’t enough in the first place—to fix up the problems.

There also seem to be less director – editor partnerships the likes of Martin Scorsese with Thelma Schoonmaker or our very own Niki Caro with David Coulson. One director and one editor, who respect each other, know how the other works, and elevates the other’s work.

Editing is a highly skilled and creative occupation that can often be undervalued. Projects suffer when that is the case. It’s important to remember in the ego-filled world that we work in, true collaboration can bring about the greatest works of art, whether it’s with one or many.

As four time Oscar-winning costume designer Catherine Martin said of her work with her creative and life partner, director Baz Luhrmann, “For me as a creative person, I feel I have a genuine voice in the process… Baz has the ability to be a great conductor, a great leader, but to actually engage you creatively and to make you feel like your contribution is meaningful.”

There are many approaches that can be taken to get the best result, with some for and against the idea of multiple editors working on a single project. In the end, it’s the contribution that counts and should be appreciated.

DEGNZ is working on ways and means to ensure that editors get the opportunities and environments they need to develop their skills appropriately and deliver their best work.

Tui Ruwhiu
Executive Director

Last updated on 26 February 2018

(A reworked version of this article appeared for an industry audience in today’s edition of Screenz.)

As the Executive Director of the Directors & Editors Guild of NZ and a board member of Ngā Aho Whakaari I get to see a lot of what goes on behind the scenes not only at our guild but also at a number of others.

What I know from my regular discussions with the other established guilds—the New Zealand Writers Guild, the New Zealand Film & Video Technicians’ Guild, Ngā Aho Whakaari and the Screen Production and Development Association—is the amount of work they do with advocacy and lobbying on behalf of their members.

In DEGNZ’s recent online survey, which we are still analysing the data of, one thing that came through loud and clear was that a lot of our members don’t know about the advocacy and lobbying side of DEGNZ’s activities. It’s undoubtedly the same for others.

This is understandable as we, like all guilds, engage in talks, often confidential, sensitive and or political, with government, funding bodies, production companies, broadcasters and others over issues that affect our members and our industry.

Every once in a while a guild’s efforts to do something about situations are confrontational.

Sometimes we win. Sometimes we lose. More often than not there are compromises. In the deregulated labour market that rules in New Zealand, where unions have been effectively broken and collective bargaining is voluntary and not encouraged, guilds don’t have a big stick to wave. We can’t and probably wouldn’t want to organise walkouts from productions. We tend to sit down and talk. And occasionally bang the table. The power of persuasion is crucial these days.

I wrote in the last newsletter about an issue that arose with an American outfit shooting here. I called around town to get a clearer picture of what occurred and what the views were of what happened. The person themselves took it as a salutary lesson about what should and shouldn’t be done, and really just wanted others to be aware so that they didn’t make the same mistake.

I have also written recently about a production company trying to silence discussion about their contracts by threatening legal action if they were shown to anyone—completely unenforceable as everyone has the right to seek professional advice and don’t need permission to do so. I rang the production company concerned and spoke to the managing director, pointing out how easily their contract could be “misinterpreted,” especially by those with little or no experience with contracts. I asked them to revise that clause. We’ll see what happens.

Not so long ago I had someone contact me who, new to the industry, had secured a job on entry-level salary and had been working with the same company for two years. The company hadn’t given that person a performance review as the contract required them to, nor looked at a pay review. The person was concerned that they were potentially being exploited. We discussed a strategy for how to deal with it. The person went down the path we laid out and while the outcome wasn’t ideal, it was improved.

At DEGNZ, we deal with a lot of individual cases such as these with an individual approach that will hopefully bring about a satisfactory resolution.

A significant big picture event we are working on behind the scenes at DEGNZ is copyright.

Over the last month, we have had to review the planned amendments of the New Zealand Copyright Act that are required to bring New Zealand into line with its partners in the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. Directors and editors aren’t directly impacted with the proposed amendments. We Create (former Copyright Council), whom we support, lead the response on this.

Of great concern to We Create and us, is the onslaught of giant global corporations who would like to see copyright eradicated so that they can get on with making money off other people’s content. We Create is doing a tremendous job with government explaining the benefit of copyright in the creative sector by pointing out the significant economic impact that intellectual property brings to the New Zealand economy, that the IP business is growing, and that strong copyright for content makers is integral to maximising the economic potential of the creative sector of New Zealand economy.

Of greater import to us at DEGNZ around this discussion is the fact that New Zealand directors currently don’t have copyright

Twenty-two countries around the world including the UK recognize the director as the author (auteur) of audiovisual works and cinematographic films. But not New Zealand. Nor Australia.

In New Zealand particularly, this is highly anomalous, because the moral rights, which are an author’s right, reside with the director under our Copyright Act. It’s only the author’s economic rights that directors don’t have here. Simply put, directors can claim the moral high ground as the author, but can’t benefit financially as the author because they aren’t recognized as such when it comes to the money.

Under New Zealand and Australian copyright law, it’s not the director who makes the film; it’s the producer.

DEGNZ is working to rectify this. Why? Because directors are primarily responsible for creating audiovisual works and films, and need to be recognized as such, in a shared arrangement with producers. With recognition should come some economic benefit that will contribute towards directors building sustainable careers for themselves.

While we do have to keep quiet at the guild about some of our activities, where possible we will communicate with you about the lobbying and advocacy work that we are engaged in and can talk about, such as copyright. In this way we hope that you will understand more of what we are doing on your behalves outside of the very visible professional development activity we engage in.

Tui Ruwhiu

Executive Director

Last updated on 26 February 2018