NEWS

The Secret Passion of Curtiss Clayton
by Dan Ochiva photo by John Clifford


Curtiss Clayton discusses his editing career at the Guild's New York office.

On a chilly evening this past February, the Motion Picture Editors Guild and training center Manhattan Edit Workshop (MEW) presented an evening with noted independent film editor Curtiss Clayton. Clayton came to the Guild’s New York office as part of MEW’s ongoing Artist-in-Residence series, meeting with editing students, as well as showing clips from and discussing features that he has edited, including Andrew Dominik’s The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) and Gus Van Sant’s Drugstore Cowboy (1989). Clayton also discussed a feature he directed, Rick (2003), a modern take on Verdi’s Rigoletto that stars Bill Pullman and Sandra Oh. In addition, he revealed in a separate conversation that he does have directorial aspirations. He also helmed a short in 1998 entitled The Man Who Counted.

While Clayton edited Halloween 4 (1988) and a number of other features before that, it was the release of Van Sant’s Drugstore Cowboy that brought him wide recognition. He went on to edit other Van Sant films––My Own Private Idaho (1991), Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1993) and To Die For (1995)––as well as other notable indie films as varied as Vincent Gallo’s Buffalo ‘66 (1998), Charles Burnett’s The Glass Shield (1994) and Jon Favreau’s Made (2001).

In a crowded room packed with eager listeners, Clayton gave a behind-the-scenes look at Dominik’s Jesse James, a film which many in the audience may have not seen since, “the studios did their best to prevent anyone from seeing it,” according to Clayton. “They refused to do any publicity for the film.” Clayton also noted that it is often the politics––and sometimes out-and-out pitched battles––between productions and the studios that in the end hamper creative work, no matter how strenuous the effort.

Beyond what’s needed in an editor’s creative life, there are “things that are never taught in film schools,” but reflect the reality of the sometimes dictatorial attitudes of the money people, as well as creative conflicts in the edit room, he noted. “The editor is often in the crosshairs of those fights.” Clayton spent nearly a year editing Dominik’s film, which went through two editors and an additional seven months in post prior to his involvement.

Jesse James became known as a film in trouble. One producer described it as a “two-and-a-half-hour haiku,” according to Clayton, who thought that was a good definition, but added with a mischievous smile, “I don’t think he meant it that way.” In fact, the editor considers it one of the best features on which he has worked. Bearing this out to some extent, the film garnered two Oscar nominations as well as won a Best Actor award at the Venice Film Festival for Brad Pitt, whose interest and support of the project proved crucial.

Clayton, who graduated from USC’s film school, grew up far from Hollywood. Originally interested in acting––he spent a year taking classes before being accepted at USC––Clayton grew to love the cinema of the 1970s while working in a local Oklahoma movie house. The power of cinema to reach and move the emotions of someone growing up in small-town America became a refrain in his take on the current state of film production.

***
A few days after the presentation, Editors Guild Magazine interviewed Clayton about his editing career and directorial foray.

Editors Guild Magazine: What was it about working on a cult film series like Halloween 4 that attracted you?

Curtiss Clayton: It was challenging in its own way to work within the conventions of a genre picture. I enjoyed the experience of creating the effects and emotional responses that everyone takes for granted within a genre film––when you’re doing the work, you realize there’s a craft to that. Considering that it’s something that I wouldn’t normally have an interest in doing, it helped me overcome an attitude I had about genre pictures and more commercial cinema. I surprised myself by enjoying the experience as much as I did.

EGM: Working with a great independent director like Gus Van Sant must offer a far different experience.

CC: When I was hired to do Drugstore Cowboy, Van Sant had not made his name yet, but I recognized as soon as I began working on the picture that it was by far the best movie I had ever been involved with. I became very excited about it immediately. I didn’t have any idea––none of us did––of the impact the picture would eventually have. The attitude even among the producers was fairly pessimistic that the film would even be seen widely... However, I could see from the material he was shooting that this was the kind of filmmaker I had always wanted to be involved with.

EGM: What let you know that Van Sant was such a talent?

CC: A single-minded vision that was apparent in all the material that was shot. As I looked at the dailies, I could see the coherence of his vision; he had managed to achieve a real feeling of truth, an atmosphere that reflected the characters’ lives. There is a wistfulness and absurdity in the tone of the picture that comes across as very humanistic, inviting viewers to respond on a deep emotional level and not just in a programmatic way. Even the way the character of William Burroughs is presented; he’s tangential to the narrative and in conventional filmmaking he would be seen as not essential. But to be able to see the value of that character, and how he added to the feeling and the tone of the picture, is a mark of a real visionary––even at that early point of Van Sant’s career.

EGM: Are there such things as great editors, or do the best ones just disappear within the material?

CC: It’s hard to say. I don’t really believe any more that it’s appropriate to talk about an editor having a separate identity as a creative individual; it’s the editor’s role to serve the director’s vision. Of course, you have to walk a very fine line, since editors still have to be a very creative individual with the ability to see possibilities, take initiative and bring their own ideas to the task. But editors can’t ever forget that they’re serving someone else’s vision. In that sense, the editor is a hired hand; he’s not running the show.

EGM: What does the editor contribute to the director’s vision?

CC: You need to deliver what the filmmaker wants. Of course, it can become very complicated as some filmmakers aren’t really on solid ground in the cutting room. They’re not sure what they want; they need to be shown things. An editor has to be able to deliver that while avoiding becoming wrapped up in his own vision of how something is coming together. Even those directors who are less adept at editing theory will have strong opinions once the picture starts to come together and they see what they have. They will want it the way they want it. Other directors, meanwhile, are there over your shoulder from day one telling you where to cut. If you’re lucky enough to be able to make your choice––and you are not restricted by the need to make a living––you have to decide what kind of director you’re most comfortable working with. But it’s the editor’s responsibility to adapt to the director, not the other way around.

EGM: Can an editor make his or her mark on a movie?

CC: There’s really not anything like a Mr. X-edited picture the same way you might say there’s an Orson Welles picture or a Stanley Kubrick picture. I think if you take the time to look at pictures by certain editors you can see similarities in technique, but you never know what kind of material the editors had to work with, or how well they were able to bring the best out of that material.

A great editor can take really bad material and bring something that was 10 percent up to 60 percent––which is great work––but you’ve still only got a picture that is 60 percent. Meanwhile, a mediocre editor can take material that’s at 100 percent and create something that’s only 80 percent out of it, but he’s still got something that’s going to look better overall, compared to that first editor.

EGM: In regards to directing Rick, what made you feel that you wanted to do your own feature film?

CC: It had always been my ambition to be a filmmaker, to direct a film. I went to film school with that purpose in mind. I wasn’t able to have the opportunity at USC to direct a full-fledged student film myself, and that’s partly what led me to editing. I tried a number of the crew positions and responded most to the creative opportunities available to an editor. I really feel that editing is the aspect of filmmaking that sets it apart from all of the other art forms.
Once I established myself after many years working, my original desire to direct something of my own reasserted itself. I started putting efforts back into that and was lucky enough to do it.

***
Whether talking about his work before a room crowded with strangers, or in conversation over the course of a long phone call, Clayton evinces an intelligence and quiet intensity in keeping with the great people skills he describes as crucial to an editor’s successful career.

Dan Ochiva is a freelance writer living in New York. He can be reached at dochiva@yahoo.com.

[ return to top ]