By: Simon H.

Simon H. — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:49:55 +0000

I’d argue that the director / editor relationship is different for every filmmaker – some directors take full control of their films, leaving no second-guessing, others use editors as collaborators to find the right rhythm (see Quentin Tarantino and his longstanding editor, Sally Menke) while still others require editors for their films to make any sense at all. I suspect the “standard” interpretation of a film editor’s job is to manufacture the appropriate “shape” for the film, as indicated by the director.

I suspect studio comedies must go through a fairly distinct editing process, since in the DVD age comedies get a “theatrical cut,” an “unrated cut” as well as bloopers, alternate takes, etc. as bonuses, all of which are to be considered while assembling the film.

In the case of “I Love You Man,” I got the distinct sense that either the wrong material was chose, or there simply wasn’t enough good material to make a 90-minute comedy with. Considering “I Love You, Man” shares an editor (William Kerr) with the far superior “Superbad” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” (and since the director is also responsible for “Along Comes Polly”), I think it’s safe for the director, who also co-wrote the film, to assume responsibility.

By: John Travers

John Travers — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:58:41 +0000

Thanks for the review, Simon — very perceptive. I just saw the film and agree with much of what you said.

Just one question, though. You speak of the director’s “haphazard editing style.” I understand, of course — as all reviewers will unanimously agree — that a director not only directs a film, but edits it as well – -some directors even displaying a distinctive editing style, as you point out.

Now, here’s the question: If the director edits the film, what exactly does the editor do? Make coffee?

Looking forward to your reply.

– J. Travers

Comments on: I Love You Man

By: Simon H.

By: John Travers