For the first time, commercial editors are being judged by their peers in a competition expressly designed to honor the art of editing. SHOOT caught up with several editors serving on the blue-ribbon panel of judges entrusted with selecting the 10-best edited commercials of 2000-’01. These editors discussed what they looked for when screening the 30 spot finalists, and offered their takes on the significance of the inaugural AICE Editorial Awards.
The blue-ribbon jury consists of 16 editors, 15 agency creatives and four commercial directors. (Judges are prohibited from assigning scores to spots done by their own companies.) Here’s a sampling of choice cuts from editors on the jury:
Tom Aberg, Easy Way Editorial, Dallas
We were issued criteria with some of the classic editorial jargon, such as pacing, storytelling, the integration of graphics and music. But one criterion I was especially glad to see: How well does the spot work for the client in terms of getting the desired message across? You can do brilliant comedic work and get the brand message out to people. Yet at the same time, it’s become increasingly common for someone to say, "I saw a great commercial last night. I forget who or what it’s for, but it goes like this." I draw a line from that to why clients seem to change agencies so often. I think the contributions that the editor can make towards the efficacy of the advertising needs to be factored in when judging work.
Larry Bridges, Red Car, Santa Monica
Editors are the most qualified people, without a doubt, to judge editing. This judging is not an exercise lost in self-reflection. By having an awards ceremony like this and having editors judge their peers without regard to competition and hype, we’re actually defining the standards of evaluation for editing. My hope is that the results of this will create a better index for other shows in looking at editors. Hopefully, we can help set the bar higher for the entire craft.
In terms of what I look for, certainly visual connectivity is always the first thing you notice. But in some ways, it’s not the most important aspect. The sense of editing design [is also essential], the tempering of the main ingredients in creating this unique alloy that is a spot: sound, graphic elements, visual effects, montage. I’m looking for what captivates my imagination. The brilliant choice or use of sound is a cue for me. Looking at the 30 finalists, all the work has great production value, great storyboarding and concepts. In a sense you see an evenness in visual execution among the finalists, but you don’t necessarily see the same editor exertion of control, input and imagination in sound. That’s the tiebreaker for me.
My only disappointment is that the show was restricted to work that aired. This year, I found some incredible student and spec work. Brilliant editing can occur at any level of production, and I think we need to recognize this by having the show include all deserving work– especially to encourage younger careers and give new blood equal access to the awards, so it isn’t a matter of judging career achievement instead of craft.
Gordon Carey, FilmCore Santa Monica
It’s an honor to be chosen to serve on the jury and to be in such good company. Making that all the more special is that this is the inaugural show. It’s been long overdue that the editors of commercials get their due.
The first thing you look for is a good story and good storytelling. I’m always looking for good performance. I have to base a lot on what I’m comfortable with– I do a lot of performance-driven and dialogue/storytelling spots. Ultimately, you judge from your gut. How did I feel at the end of the spot? Did it move me? Did it work? So many elements are involved– how did those elements come together to make me feel or think something? You know when everything clicks just right.
The range of work was great to see– from fairly simple comedy spots executed very well, to some nice work with dialogue, to some emotional montage pieces. Overall, it was a very strong field of finalists.
Chris Claeys, Cutters, Chicago
It’s great we’ve gotten around to having an awards show for editing, which is such an integral part of any filmmaking process. Spot editing is almost the pinnacle of the editorial art. Every frame is so valuable when you have to tell a story in only thirty or sixty seconds. Commercial editors have the opportunity to hone their practice more than any other kind of editor. You constantly get a fresh batch of material to work on. You’re constantly starting over and going through the whole process at a fairly rapid pace.
In judging, I looked beyond flashy music video-style editing. Cutting pictures to a given track is fun to do and looks very cool– it’s what I call MOS editing– but it’s not as challenging as dialogue and having to edit sound and picture, making the script work both visually and audio-wise. I try to imagine what the raw materials were that the editor had to work with; I try to look beyond the finished piece itself.
Dick Gordon, Mad River Post, New York
A lot of people have felt for a long time that we needed something that showcased a range of editorial styles and techniques. Usually in an awards show, you have one award for editing, which doesn’t cover the spectrum of what’s out there. The AICE Show offers a full range.
The spots that I gravitated towards were those that showed the most interesting solution to a problem. Certain spots stood out to me as having a more original editing solution. It might have been a spot that on the surface was more traditional in its appearance, but when you study how the editor broke it down, it showed something special, a reluctance to just take the easy road. The editor went for a more difficult construction in order to come up with something that would be more satisfying for the viewer.
Ultimately, I had to judge from my emotional response to the work– when you feel it in your bones that the choices worked. That’s hard to intellectualize. It’s a matter of all the elements coming together. That’s what you respond to. There were some spots that were visually interesting but were emotionally somewhat cold. As a narrative editor myself, I bring those sensibilities to my judging of the work. That’s the strength of this competition: You have different editing perspectives judging different editors’ work. For that reason– judging by your peers– the people who wind up winning the award, I think, will find it particularly meaningful.
Ian MacKenzie, MacKenzie Cutler, New York
I’ve always felt that editing is very difficult to judge. A spot that’s very visual with a lot of interesting cutting obviously had major contributions from the editor. But in other types of work, like storytelling, it’s not as easy to figure out the editor’s contribution. It may have been very large, or a more straightforward project. You have no way of knowing.
The [Nike] "Freestyle" spot was interesting editorially while also being an original kind of spot. It’s an obvious candidate for a winner … Not to sound self serving, but more as an example of how it’s difficult in some spots to judge what an editor did or didn’t do, the FOX NBA work which Gavin [Cutler] cut comes to mind. I’m not sure it will win an AICE Award, but in a way it’s an editorial tour de force when you consider the process. Hundreds of hours of NBA footage had to be sifted through. Background plates had to be cut while visualizing how the two characters would interact. Then, based on this template, the two guys in the spot were shot on green screen. But without knowing that, I’m not sure how much the editor’s contributions would generally be recognized. I’m interested to see the final results of the competition.
The bottom line, though, is that I’m happy to be part of the judging panel. It’s an honor to be part of a show that is designed to give some recognition to editors.
Steve Shepherd, Spotnik, Minneapolis
You’ve heard the statement, "The best editing is invisible." Well, it is and it isn’t. At first viewing, it might be. But I found myself trying to study the work and looking at each finalist spot a lot of times. What makes a very good editor is being able to understand the vision of the agency creatives, [being able to see] what was brought to that vision by the director, and then bringing something more to the work. An editor can enhance a project, bring new twists to it, but he or she has to stay true to the desired vision.
As I was screening the finalist spots, I thought to myself how I would love to see some early rough cuts. I’d love to see where it all started and where the work went. In that respect, I hope the show helps trigger more discussion among editors so that we push each other farther. I also hope that the show raises awareness of the craft itself. When I was judging the finalists, I kept in mind different genres of editing, whether they were pure storytelling or layered graphics in a montage-y style. I wanted the ten spots I scored the highest to reflect different genres. I’m sure if other judges liked, let’s say, four comedy spots, then all four scored in the top ten. But I tried to have a wide range of work so that the ten best raised awareness of all the different forms out there.
Bob Spector, Bob ‘n Sheila’s Edit World, San Francisco
I’m happy to see recognition for editing, particularly as judged by our peers. We all know how difficult it is to judge an editor’s reel. We take a lot of time structuring a reel and what goes on it. I’ve always felt that the best editing is work that you don’t notice– at least in certain comedy, dialogue and narrative storytelling.
It’s great to see storytelling treated in a unique way, with the proper pacing from an editor, sometimes leading to a twist at the very end of the story. You’re led down a path, and the last three seconds of the thirty-second, the tables are turned on you– like in the Game Show Network spot, which is a great example of creative storytelling. What are those people talking about? The first scene is a guy in a hospital bed, which totally gets you traveling down the wrong path. At the end you’re laughing at the situation in the spot– and at yourself. You’ve been tricked and you enjoy it.
Dan Swietlik, Swietlik Inc., Santa Monica
It’s great to have craftspeople judging craftspeople. There have been editing categories in other shows, but they are judged by a more general audience. When an editor looks at work, a keen eye is employed. The best compliment an editor can give is, "I wish I had done that … I wouldn’t have thought of doing it that way."
To me, one of the really important qualities is the restraint of a good editor. People sort of respond to cutting that calls attention to itself. I call it decorative editing. But there’s much to be said for an editor who chooses not to cut in order to let something happen. Editing should be fuel that drives the spot– not decoration for the spot. Good editing can sometimes be very invisible.
Billy Williams, Moondog, New York
There are a lot of young editors coming up, and if this show develops as we hope and think it will, it will give these young people something to strive for. Young talent deserves to be recognized, and hopefully this show will do that and help the industry discover new editors.
As for judging, I look for the unexpected twist– that little bump or moment that’s not storyboarded, that’s not in the script. That’s the magic of what we can do. You bring things that happen in your life to your work. You look for how the editor handles sound, titles, design to enhance the story. A director recently told me that all he did was "mix the colors. You [the editor] paint the picture." What we do is important to the process. That comes across in the field of thirty finalists, and I think the show is only going to get better every year.
Chuck Willis, Crew Cuts, New York
Editors are notoriously the last people to be recognized even though we’re important, particularly in commercials. Finally, we’re bringing attention to ourselves. No one else is going to do it for us. My hope is that down the road this show becomes a much broader venue– not just for editors from AICE companies, but for all editors.
In screening the work, I look for how the story is told. I think any good editor knows technique. So I don’t look for technique as much as I look for how the story comes through and what the editor has done to tell the story. Obviously, if it’s work that’s enhanced with quick cutting, interesting use of graphics and music, that’s all taken into consideration. But the bottom line is, if I get the story, did it make sense, did it reach me– if so, then it’s a good cut.
I liked the range of work represented in the field of finalists. There was a little bit of everything: Music-oriented work, visual work, lots of comedy. At some point, I’d like to see some categories in the show: comedy, music editing, visual/ graphic editing. I’d also like to have some fun with it– how about the best spot edited under the most duress? But this first show gives us a good foundation; something we can really build on.
