Many directors edit and many editors have gone on to direct. Over the years it has become far more common within commercials, branded content, music videos and corporate image films with the ever decreasing budget dictating a lot of it.
But then there is longer form work such as television and film. The numbers doing both things become far fewer and the opinions on the subject become a little louder. The question often changes from whether it can be done (it can) to whether a director should edit. I purposely left off the other half of the original question as to whether an editor should direct as there are many examples of editors who went on to direct. Martin Scorsese worked as an editor, Robert Wise cut Citizen Kane of all things before directing films such as The Sound of Music and David Lean began as an editor cutting more than 20 movies such as Pygmalion and working with Powell & Pressburger before making his classics such as Lawrence of Arabia. Don Siegel and John Sturges worked their way to the director’s chair the same way going on to make films such as Dirty Harry & The Great Escape respectively whilst both John Glen & Peter Hunt both went from editing a James Bond movie to sitting in the director’s chair on later Bond efforts. Though there are many more examples I could throw out there, I recently saw a film called The Farthest, directed by Emer Reynolds* who has edited countless films, whose work is fantastic and The Farthest is the coolest film about the Voyager probes you will ever see.
You would be forgiven however in assuming that all of the above also have edited some of their films alongside directing them. It’s well known that Scorsese works with the amazing Thelma Schoonmaker and David Lean sat only in the directors chair for around 4 decades before he decided to both direct and edit A Passage to India (for which he won an Oscar for direction and was nominated for editing). Robert Wise never went back once he closed that door, nor did the great Hal Ashby despite a career that saw him cut In the Heat of the Night (for which his editing won an oscar) before a directing career that includes Harold & Maude and Being There.
There are others, however who take on both (or sometimes more) jobs on a film. Mary Ann Bernard and Roderick Jaynes both do it. They are the pseudonyms of Steven Soderbergh, who prolifically edits, directs, shoots, produces many of his films, and the Coen brothers respectively. Akira Kurosawa did it, Takeshi Kitano does it now, as does Benny Safdie, half of the Safdie brothers team who you will know from Uncut Gems although personally I adore their film Good Time. Then there was Frederick Wiseman who edited, directed, produced and often did the sound on over 40 films over a prolific (and successful) career not to mention Steve James (who made the great Hoop Dreams), Alfonso Cuaron and Xavier Dolan.
Slowly, you get an argument that suggests that not only is it possible but either starting as an editor or continuing to do it by editing and directing is a good thing. Those who would argue against might fairly point out that equal or greater numbers have come to the directors chair via cinematography, the art department, writing and various other routes.
So why is this even a conversation or a question?
It is an argument of perspective and having additional perspectives on a film that is what concerns those who suggest it is not always a good idea (at least in film and television - with TV often having a speed issue to navigate with a series often being cut as it is being filmed).
Filmmaking is a team effort. It really and truly takes a village to create a movie. If you ever wonder why a film often needs two different pieces of music to run credits over, making one will show you. However, when you think about it, even doing a commercial, music video, image film or anything has with it a collaboration which affects the final piece and the editing process, even if the only collaboration is with the client.
But the sheer length of television and films mean that it is so easy to get stuck in a viewpoint or not see the wood for the trees as they say back in Britain. A new perspective, fresh eyes - like that of an editor - can prove so valuable, Even Benny Safdie and the Coens have the other brother to lean on during the process. I have been those fresh eyes, seeing something new, providing a new idea, a new thread or even just playing Devil’s Advocate in helping others trust their initial decision more and I like the process and appreciate it.
At the time of writing, I am just at the end of key development, going towards the beginning of production for Aazadi (freedom) and have development rushes to start doing something with before going back to India to film the next block. Some say I need an editor, some have assumed I am doing it in an effort to assert full control over the project and some have, in fairness, thought it a good thing that I am going to edit. I can understand two of those three arguments. What Frederick Wiseman & Steve James have in common in directing and editing their films is working in non-fiction where the budget is often much more limited. You go from a question of wondering who might be the best person for the job to being the only person for the job via the only one you can afford. In assuming a director who wants to edit (or has to) has the mind of a despot is wrong and there are many other ways to gain fresh perspectives along that road though admittedly, it is a bit more difficult.
In an ideal world I would love to work with another editor. A good editor is a story teller and a sculptor of a story over and above someone that knows what all the buttons of software x can do. Likewise a good cinematographer is one who can spot a shot, moment or emotion and capture it to the benefit of the film (or whatever kind of project) independently of or at least in conjunction with the director. In making Aazadi, I choose purposely to only very very rarely pick up a camera and only if it is unavoidable not to.
I hope it will keep my mind fresh with what is on screen. I know that whatever story unfolds within the 4 walls of wherever is always a unique experience only a small handful of people will ever have. I chose to record sound during the developmental shooting out of necessity, concentrating on that as things progressed in real time, mostly due to budget restraints again but I also do like recording sound. It also means that the first time I see and hear what happened within those 4 walls properly, together, in sync and ready to sculpt, it will be within the 4 sides of my monitors. This provides me as fresh a perspective as can (literally) be afforded. Because I think there is a very strange trick that happens in non-fiction filmmaking. In my experience editing and/or directing, what feels like is being experienced in those 4 walls (or open spaces) is different to what presents itself on screen afterwards. What once felt a bit mundane has a moment you never knew or saw in the moment when on screen and what you may have thought was pure gold in the real moment is drab and lifeless on screen or has that something not quite right.
As the above article has perhaps suggested, there is a bit of a split personality needed to both direct and edit. I truly believe that you have to separate one part of the brain to another. On set and in pre-production, it is one thing but it is something else entirely on those monitors. You need to forget the 4 walls experience of the shoot and know only the monitor. What was to you in the room a wide shot, void of emotion could now be a close-up of a character, expressing something you had not initially seen live. The director in you may have written it off as probably unusable or something that went nowhere but the editor should now see a shot full of possibility. Likewise, a scene you once thought key might, when put together, seem flatter than expected or not driving the narrative the way you once thought. It doesn’t mean the director in you failed after all, that new close up that expressed something special could be something you forgot you even asked for. A good editor would tell you the same thing, but the director who edits has to tell themselves. But to imagine that assemblies, rough cuts, ideas and other things are not shown to others for a fresh perspective is usually nonsense. The director/editor doesn’t just disappear into a dark room and come back out months (years even) later with a film ready for screen with nobody looking. At least I won’t.
I hope one day to ask all of the above and more about their process for doing both or deciding not to do one in tandem with the other. Until then, I will continue doing both until I have the opportunity not to. I look forward to editing for a director, bringing with me only my editing hat, maybe making something with only a directors hat and continuing to wear the two hats together to get to where the projects need to go.
Speaking of two hats (or Twin Peaks) David Lynch has also done both too.