How do they determine who wins Best Editing?

Probably a silly question that betrays just how much of a layman I am about the technical aspects of filmmaking, but how can people not involved in a given film really know which films were particularly well edited? Seems to me it's about what's left out as much as what's left in, and I presume the voters only get to see the latter. Also, I'm not sure of the general makeup of the electorate, but I thought it was largely actors, directors, and producers. Are editors a substantial enough block to make the nominations particularly meaningful?

Nobody but the director and editor really knows what went into each production. But yes, they're generally voting on what's presented in the finished product, and not on which editor had the most footage to whittle down or had the tightest deadline, who was using a computer versus handling the actual film stock, or any other number of variables. But remember, as for most all of the categories except for Best Picture where everybody and anybody in the Academy can nominate (and things like Documentary, Shorts, Foreign Language, where you must fulfill special criteria) the nominating ballots for the editing category are sent only to Academy members who are part of the Film Editors Branch. Same thing applies for acting, directing, cinematography, etc. So while the entire Academy gets to vote for editing when the actual ballot comes around, it is only the editors who made the nominations. If you assume some level of integrity within each branch and craft, you can at least figure that within the Hollywood editing community they have some sort of idea of what went into many of the productions, and thus when it comes to the nominations anyway, they are probably not just based entirely on what's on the screen.

And unless a film was taken away from a director or they didn't have final cut, they are always making the final decisions, and they are often if not always in the editing room anyway, so it is a collaborative process. Again only the editor and director, maybe a hands-on producer, knows exactly what percentage of scenes as they exist in the finished film were designed ahead of time or tweaked if not completely discovered in the editing room, and how much of that was suggestion of the editor or the director or somebody else. Ultimately it comes down to the director's choices, the editor carries them out as best they can. Some directors and editors are more collaborative than others, and often they work together for years if the relationship is a good and productive one.


The Acting Branch is the largest voting block, but remember that there are behind-the-scenes people of all stripes, active in the industry and retired, who are members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

Interesting; thanks for that, Holden. Sounds like the winner is maybe just a little hmm-hah, but the nominations themselves are fairly well determined. Definitely seems like one of the more nebulous categories all in all. I wonder why those in the same discipline are the only ones who can choose the nominees, but the rule isn't duplicated when selecting winners; small sample sizes, perhaps?

I would venture a guess as to why:

Solid Continuity & Style (where applicable) - Lame jump cuts, a bad understanding of how the Director intended the blocking to flow, cut rhythm, and also whether of not the editing tricks they used (think Man on Fire or Saw) were used elegantly, or like some indulgent MTV Studios garbage. I chose those two specific films because i think they are over-edited **** heaps.

Does each scene flow properly? Are there mistakes, like line of action errors?

Say two people are sitting at a table and the film establishes one person sitting on the left side of the screen and one on the right. You watch a conversation for a few minutes, with a couple close-ups here and there, that sort of jump back and forth as the people talk. Now say in the middle of the sequence, they insert a shot froma different production day during which they did some close-ups with the people sitting in each other's seat. All of a sudden, something seems off and the line of action gets toasted, and the viewer feels adrift all of a sudden because the spatial reasoning doesn't fit.

I would think a "Best-Edited" flick would have pretty much perfect editing, while keeping it elegant and logical.

And I figure Holden will have much more solid info on the subject.

[EDIT] - Yep - he did.

Thelma rocks, btw. Fantastic editor.

__________________

It's always been a flaw, I suppose, that anybody gets to vote on editing even if they have no earthly idea what it entails. For many of the technical categories while you can get some anomalies, at least half time the Academy membership seems to vote pretty blindly for what they're giving Best Picture, or at least use the excuse of, 'Hey, if it's the Best Picture it must have the Best Editing'. And that's why midway through the night you can sometimes tell, if it's a supposedly close two-horse race for Picture, which one likely has won by the pattern of technical awards voting. This year Avatar and The Hurt Locker both have nine nominations a piece, and other than Picture and Director they overlap in Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Sound Editing and Original Score. If one of the two movies wins four or five of those, its likely that they were boosted by people just filling out the "boring" parts of their ballot with what they voted for Best Picture.

In the last twenty Oscars, the Best Editing Oscar has gone to the Best Picture eleven times (Slumdog Millionaire, The Departed, Crash, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, Chicago, Titanic, The English Patient, Forrest Gump, Schindler's List, Unforgiven and Dances with Wolves), which isn't the best indicator. And editing is one of those categories where a film that isn't even nominated for Best Picture can win from time to time (in that same twenty years, The Bourne Ultimatum, Black Hawk Down and The Matrix).

And of course so much of the Academy voting is done for friends and people you've worked with before and liked or just the films of producers or directors that you have a good relationship with. As for some of the less sophisticated voters actually trying to make a determination in a category like editing, I think it probably comes down to which is "showier" more often than not. Something like Chicago, that has plenty of movement and cuts that are obvious, may get more casual votes than movies like The Pianist or The Hours which are more "still", editorially, than a splashy kinetic Musical. Other years the big sweeping three-hour epic may get the nod of the less sophisticated voter, simply because it is "big" and therefore must have been more "work", supposedly, than a movie clocking in at ninety-seven minutes.


But there's no way to know how these things are going to go. Just point and guess is a good policy.

Everybody gets to vote for everything on the final ballot, except for Animated Short Film, Live Action Short Film, Documentary Feature, Documentary Short Subject, and Foreign Language Film. To be eligible to vote for those you have to attend special Academy screenings and prove you've actually seen the nominees. But they don't care whether you've seen any or all of the Acting performances or Pictures or have even a clue what the difference between Best Sound and Best Sound Editing is (I know I sure don't know the difference).

Yoda, since you confess ignorance to the editing portion of the filmmaking process, you (and anybody else interested) may want to check out a DVD called The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing (2004). It's not as a good a documentary as Visions of Light: The Art of Cinematography (1992), but it is more than decent and has lots of today's editors and directors describing their process and the craft in general.

Here's an abbreviated version of some of the high points via YouTube...

Editing is basically a storytelling skill. If the film is edited together so that the story builds effectively, then the editing should be seen as good, whether there are any spectacular flourishes or not. However, and you can see this in certain films more obviously than others, there are times when the rhythms are just so perfectly syncopated with the cinematography, music and acting that editing can turn a very good movie into a spectacular one. I'm personally thinking of films such as Midnight Cowboy, The Graduate and Jaws. The funny thing is that of those, Jaws is the only one to win an Editing Oscar and The Graduate didn't even get a nomination.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I was going to tell you guys to watch The Cutting Edge, but Holden already mentioned it. I've used both Final Cut Pro (Zodiac was edited on this) and Avid (pretty much everything else) and I must say that I prefer Final Cut. It's a lot cheaper and easier to use, so many kids are using this because of the easy access (mac laptop and a program) and opposed to an entire Avid suite which will cost mucho dinero.

This is why I hope District 9 takes the prize this year because it was so seamlessly done, in my opinion.

I'll always say that if the film is well edited, then you don't notice the edit.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

As I've not seen Avatar (the other monster this year) I can't be 100% sure, but my general rule is, if a war film is nominated then that's my pick for Best Editing. I do the same for Best Sound Editing and Best Sound Mixing, too. It's not foolproof, but it does fairly well for me.

The only time I remember really thinking about how the Academy selected a Best Editing winner was 1991 with JFK. There, it was just so apparent how much editing of a lot of footage went into a film. Maybe Lord of the Rings as well, since it is clear even to a layman how much work went into it.

Yea, UsualSuspect, I'm rooting for District 9, too....

Oh god. Seeing that picture of Avid you posted Holden brought back terrible memories haha. That is one tough program to master.

__________________
"All the confusion of my life... has been a reflection of myself! Myself as I am, not as I'd like to be." - Guido, 8 1/2

And just for the record, it was Bob Murawski & Chris Innis for the Best Picture winner The Hurt Locker who won the award this year, one of the movie's six Oscars. Avatar, District 9, Inglourious Basterds and Precious were the other nominees.

Indeed they did, Holden, as predicted.

The Hurt Locker won all three. Like I said, not foolproof, but it does well for me.

This is an award that should have went to Avatar. In fact, this is the only award Avatar should have gotten.

Why? The film was made in the edit. Avatar is layer upon layer of material. It was constructed with editing software. Not just arranged, like most films, but created (like all new CGI films).
Scenes are directed in the editing room - because elements can be added or removed from every frame. George Lucas style.


I thought editing going to the Hurt Locker was a poor choice. I love that movie but the edit is just okay. Could be a little better.

Also, the sound was fair but nothing special. I have watched the Hurt Locker about fifteen times or more. The foley work is so so. Some of it could have been mixed better.

So, for the Hurt Locker, I would its weakest filmcraft elements were probably editing and sound. Not that they sucked or anything, they were okay. Oscar? Hmmmmmm. Go figure.


As far as how a movie is judged for any award by the Academy; that is a dead end question. There is no standard of selection. Its pot luck, depending on how much hype your film has. i.e. the awards = nothing.

__________________
R.I.P.

How do you explain The Hurt Locker winning awards from the Film Editing and Sound Guilds then, since only editors and sound designers/recorders vote there?

They voted for the $11 million dollar film instead of the $230 million dollar film. Backlash year at the Oscars for the big picture.

The woman who won costume design said it all. Let the little films have a break.

I think there was a revolt against the big Avatar monster. Also, many editors probably see The Hurt Locker as more a purist film than Avatar - which is a CGI film and has tons more people messing with the edit.

I'm guessing, of course. Different people vote for different reasons, I suppose.

And I don't know how many of them have seen The Hurt Locker as many times as I have, so ....

It seems to me as if "editing" is really nothing more than "fine-tuning", and with anything: a car, a novel, a computer, etc..., it rounds-out the whole process of any medium.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

huh? Editing is where the film is made.

Watch - The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing (2004)