You've noticed that same joke told by two different people, once works, and the other time doesn't, simply because how the person edits it. The silences, the pauses, what they neglect, what they emphasize - all of this matters.
Writing is just very difficult. I'm an adequate performer. And I think I have a special talent as an editor. Editing is what I do best.
My reputation for writing quickly and effortlessly notwithstanding, I am strongly in favor of intelligent, even fastidious revision, which is, or certainly should be, an art in itself.
I don't think I'm better than everyone else at anything, but I am very quick at organizing a big mass of interview tape into a structure.
As much as I love creating entertaining visuals, I love toying with the pace of a movie and trying to perfect that. It's imperative to the impact: faster cuts, cuts at the right moments that meld with the tenor of a scene. Creating and maintaining that feeling.
I cut 'Deer Hunter' myself.
I think a man turns into a writer by editing his own texts.
Anyone can make an article longer; the skill is keeping it tight and lean.
'Don't Look Now' is a masterpiece. I think it's the best-edited movie of all time. I adore it.
I don't consider myself a great writer, but I would like to think that I can at least proof- read.
In a novel you have to resist the urge to tell everything.
There's a great deal of mystery in film editing, and that's because you're not supposed to see a lot of it. You're supposed to feel that a film has pace and rhythm and drama, but you're not necessarily supposed to be worried about how that was accomplished.
I know that one of the great arts that the writer develops is the art of saying, 'No. No, I'm finished. Bye.' And leaving it alone. I will not write it into the ground. I will not write the life out of it. I won't do that.
You can make a really good one minute trailer out of a really stinky two hour movie.
I feel that working with the camera and editing it is actually my strong suit.
Truth is, every writer has to be a good editor, and you have to edit yourself. It's a skill every writer has to acquire.
Eisenstein was a good editor. I was trained as a film editor, and I've no doubt that the editor is key to a film.
My first cut is always pretty similar to the final cut.
You do understand that you can't force the situation, but in terms of how you edit, you can define that to take the audience along, whether it be a storyline or a character moment that we can play out. The more experience you've had, the more beneficial it is, period.
I believe every editor should stand to edit. That's just my particular soapbox. Some things are so delicate and depend on such fine, delicate work. One frame in one direction or another can make such a difference and it is, in that, like brain surgery.
I was basically a sound engineer, I produced radio shows and stuff and had to splice tape in the old days. And you knew a sloppy edit when you heard it, because I had enough of them. But that stuff takes the magic out of it, if you need to know everything. Then you become omnivorous. Everything is tender, and as soon as you burn it up, you're on to the next.
I know I'm a better editor than I was when I began, twenty years ago. I'm less scared of the text, I'm less scared of the writer, and, crucially, I no longer believe that I have to leave my mark on every story.
I think that as good architecture enhances a city, a good cut enhances the definition and expression of a face.
Editing cannot be taught. Developing your own taste cannot be taught.
You have to be a ruthless editor of your own prose. Over the years, I've learned that the best way to incorporate research into the narrative is to turn it into action.
