Every year at Oscar time, I like to see as many of the nominated films as I can. I’m not a guild member, so I don’t get screeners. That means I either have to find babysitting and go to the theater, or hunt down the home entertainment releases. This year, I was lucky to see almost all of the “Best Edited” films on the big screen. (I wish I had seen Mad Max in the theater, but such is life with little ones).
One thing I enjoy about awards season is that I know I’ll get to see some pretty amazing films. Even if a great film didn’t snag a nomination, one of my film snob friends will be sure to point out the omissions, and direct me to another great list of the year’s best films. So it’s a win-win for me.
Every time I go to the movies, or watch a movie at home, I try and pick up techniques from the editors. Watching how they pulled off a major scene transition, or cut together a complicated bit of dialogue, or sculpted an actor’s performance, is always enlightening.
Since most people aren’t editors, and don’t really understand the editing category, here are a couple basics, as well as my take on each of the nominated films.
There is generally one major job of the editor—keep the story moving and make it clear. The editing was probably bad if you checked your phone from time to time while the movie was playing. The other big task the editor gets is to ensure the right performances get on the screen at the right time. The editor can easily butcher a great performance. But she can just as easily improve upon a great performance.
Those are two of the biggest jobs of the editor that are possible for a viewer to recognize (there are many other thankless feats of brilliance that go unacknowledged). When it comes to picking the “best” editing, I like to look at the complexity of the task, as well as the execution. I believe all the nominated films were extremely well-edited, and there is even one notable film that wasn’t nominated, but could have been. So, here is my breakdown. These are my opinions only. There are much better editors than me who may disagree with my analysis, but since movies are fun to write about, here it goes.
(Hank Corwin)
Let me begin by saying that my wife (a Registered Nurse—not in the industry), specifically commented on the editing. There were TONS of edits in this film. This is kind of a trademark of the director. Adam McKay’s films tend to be very thoroughly covered during production. He famously made an entirely new film out of unused takes from Anchorman. He even made a 100% alternate version of Anchorman 2 from unused takes. His films are dense, and hats off to those who edit for him.
The editor on this film, Hank Corwin, has also done notable work for the great Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life, The New World). I admired Mr. Corwin’s work in The Tree of Life (fair warning, I loved that film—controversial, I know). His work here is similar in how it combines disparate elements to tell a cohesive story. When the audience views the film, it sees more than just the story. There are news clips, explanatory scenes, seemingly random b-roll and story footage all combined. One of the unique elements of the film is its relationship to the audience. It tells us when something is true (not always), and acknowledges when something is embellished. The film boldly walks on a razor’s edge between complete mess and pure genius, falling just on the right side. Of all the nominated films, this is the one that would’ve never seen the dark of theater if things hadn’t gone well in the edit bay. The fact that the film succeeds is a great testament to both the film’s editor and director.
(Margaret Sixel)
In any other year, Mad Max: Fury Road might be a slam-dunk for the top editing prize. It’s a terrific action film, which is where the craft of editing can really shine. It succeeds not only in the loud moments, but also in the quiet moments. Though she didn’t get recognized by the Academy for her performance, Charlize Theron justly received high praise for her performance. She relied on subtlety in the most unlikely of films. And there is nothing subtle about this story. The temptation to pare down that performance in favor of the action would be very tempting. But Margaret Sixel (who happens to be married to the director, George Miller), didn’t give into temptation.
The result was a surprisingly well-balanced film. From a technical and creative standpoint, the editing was pretty flawless. I have a feeling future editors will study this film before wading into their action films, the way editors study Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky before editing a battle scene.
(Stephen Mirrione)
This film is the closest you get to poetry without losing most of the audience. Of all the films nominated for Best Editing, this is the one that best represents that magic dance between director, cinematographer, and editor. There were scenes filmed in one long take, similar to Birdman, and there were more complicated dream sequences and abstract footage.
If there’s one thing I took away from the film, it’s that life is absolutely brutal, yet 100% worth fighting for. Like a narrative poem, it took a simple idea of a tree with strong roots surviving a storm, and repeated it. Just when things look most grim for our protagonist, we are reminded of that motif through the imagery of the wind in the trees. Or we see a dream sequence reminding us why our protagonist hangs onto life. These scenes are poetic repetition, and function like a cinematic heartbeat. It may not work for every viewer (I know people who hated The Revenant), but I thought it elevated the film.
One of the merits of the film was its focus on the “Elk Dog” character, played by Duane Howard. His relentless and brutal pursuit of his kidnapped daughter (which acts as a sort of inciting incident in the film), echoes the Hugh Glass character’s unstoppable quest for survival and revenge. In fact, I would love to see a companion film from Elk Dog’s point of view. But the way in which they balanced this story with the main story gave the entire film a breadth of perspective it might not otherwise have had. The editing in this film was absolutely top-notch, and Stephen Mirrione is one of the industry’s great craftsman.
(Tom McArdle)
Spotlight is that wonderful film that hides greatness in simplicity. I think this was probably the film I enjoyed the most. That surprised me, considering the subject matter. At first glance, this film probably doesn’t seem like the ideal candidate for “Best Editing”. But great editing doesn’t mean flashy editing.
Spotlight follows six characters in their quest to take on the Roman Catholic Church. Not just any characters—journalists and editors. That means nearly every line of dialogue is exposition. Add to that the fact that the film portrays recent history, still fresh in our collective minds—the challenge is obvious. Make a tense, suspenseful film, heavy on dialogue and investigation, all without a love story or revenge plot. Oh, and the entire audience already knows how it ends. That takes at minimum a great script and great editing. The story took place over a long period of time, but it couldn’t feel like an epic. It had to move at a brisk pace, be understandable, and show the characters’ development as the depth of the scandal became apparent.
In my opinion, Tom McArdle did a classic editorial job on this film. The editing wasn’t flashy or complicated. It told the story well, but that was no easy task. It’s what the old-time editors used to strive for—invisibility. And it’s just what the film needed.
(Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey)
Here’s a thankless job: Take a beloved franchise, reduce the roles of beloved characters, add a bunch of new characters, keep the elements in place that fans love, and bring something completely new to the series. This was basically the collective job of director J.J. Abrams and the entire crew of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. You start out knowing that many fans will hate your film no matter what. You just hope even more people love it. Or at least, that’s what I imagine goes through their heads. Unsurprisingly, no one asked me to work on Star Wars.
Maryann Brandon and Mary Jo Markey had the tricky job of editing a Star Wars movie. As any fan can tell you, there are good Star Wars movies and bad Star Wars movies. In my opinion, the good films separate themselves by their scenes. Transitions from scene to scene are always simple (those wipes!), but the scenes themselves must be memorable. I think this film had a few of those, in no small part due to its editors. Building a scene with iconic characters like Han Solo and Chewbacca isn’t too difficult. But balancing the weight of history those characters bring with new characters like Finn and Rey is a bit more complicated.
One common critique of the film I heard was that The Force Awakens was more interesting when it focused on the new characters than when we were with the old ones. Rather than a criticism of the editing, I believe that is a great compliment. They did perhaps the most important job of the film, which was to invest the audience in all-new characters. By balancing their scenes with the fan favorites, they gave the entire franchise (if not the film itself), a great gift.
Taken as a standalone film, perhaps this isn’t the most obvious nomination. But given it’s role as a major transition in the film franchise, these editors pulled off one of the great editorial feats in recent years.
Honorable Mention – Bridge of Spies
(Michael Kahn)
Not nominated, but I wanted to bring it up anyway.
Michael Kahn has one of those director-editor relationships every editor aspires to. Along with Steven Spielberg, he’s worked on many of the most memorable films of the past several decades. He already has three Oscars (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler’s List, and Saving Private Ryan), and he has plenty of previous nominations as well. But I feel that his work on Bridge of Spies was as inspired as any of his other work.
While this film doesn’t have the bravura editing style of, say, Saving Private Ryan, this was another example of a film that needed to be edited very carefully in order to succeed. The story is deceptively simple: a high-profile insurance attorney is tasked with defending an accused Soviet spy, and then must arrange a prisoner swap with the USSR in East Germany. It takes place in the late-1950s, and really plays up the Cold War tensions. Though shown through the perspective of the American protagonist (Tom Hanks as James Donovan), the film goes to extra lengths to show the humanity and mutual fear of all parties involved. To achieve this effect, Michael Kahn executed some of the most subtle and effective scene transitions I’ve ever seen. Right when the viewer is fully empathizing with an easily sympathetic character, there will be a nearly invisible scene change to another character that’s perhaps not as sympathetic. It takes several beats to realize that we’re in a brand new scene, which is slightly disorienting. But the end result is that the viewer’s feelings from the previous scene carry over to the new scene. So instead of cutting to the “bad guys” and booing, we’re still clapping for the “hero” when we realize it’s actually the “bad guy”, and the “good guy” isn’t even on the same continent.
Obviously, much of the credit for these transitions goes to Mr. Spielberg, but it’s a terrific example of the director-editor relationship in full force.
And the winner may or may not be…
Hank Corwin’s work in The Big Short. Tom McArdle’s work in Spotlight was exceptional, but I think it was too invisible for most of the voters to notice. I think Corwin picks up his first Oscar in a very strong year.
So those are my thoughts in a nutshell. Maybe it will help you fill out your Oscar ballot, or maybe you’re itching to give me an earful on how wrong I am about everything (you’re probably right). But as I said earlier, it’s just my take.
Enjoy your Oscar parties!
Leave a Reply