Who is directing a documentary in the end?

While I do shoot, I have created whatever I've created through the process of editing.

Here's the set-up to my topic question...

2 years ago, I responded to a request for the position of editor on a documentary film. The "director" of this film had roughly 20 hours of interview footage. Oh? 30 minutes of B-Roll, an hour of archival footage and a couple dozen photos that spoke to the subject at hand. Some good stuff, some weak, but in the end a fair amount of material to build a close to feature length doc.

I watched as much of the material as I could on short order, then went back to the director to ask... "ok, how do you see this coming together as an interesting and effective doc?" He couldn't give me anything but generalities...nothing specific about how to marshall the 20+ hours of material into something worth watching and something that made sense. I saw potential within the material, but also saw huge gaps to flesh out the vague film I saw in my mind, so I told the director ..."ok, let me work with the material for a week. I'll come up with a strategy to pull it together and show you a super rough cut on how it might possibly play out." He agreed, and I did my thing. A week later he agreed on my strategies and said "proceed with the plan". I was pleased, but said in essence that yes, I'm editing, but I felt I was directing the film at least to some major percentage points. After a day or two I went back to the director and said, I was willing to take on the assignment of constructing the film, giving it a style and tone, but only if he would give up the title of director...not give it to me, but rather we'd not have a director in the credits. It would be produced by both of us, but no named director. He agreed.

I ended up not only cutting the film, but shooting additional B-Roll, scavaging up more needed archival, working music into the film effectively. And it came out ok. Co-produced by him and me. No director.

I've just completed "editing" on another documentary that was a much larger project then the one described above. Not only were the number of captured interview hours tripled, the number of subjects talk of were all over the place. Again, the director did not have a detailed coherent plan as to how all this material could come together for a workable film. Desparate for a paying gig (the pay was miniscule), I said "I'll try play straight editor for you...and leave my creativity out of the equation best I can" ...I said leave out my creativity because putting in my creativity would exponentially add to the workload. Well, after a month of this strategy I wasn't getting anywhere towards the creation of a film. Shutting down my opinions and the lack of direction from the "director" was getting the film nowhere. Finally, I said I couldn't continue playing straight editor...it was pointless. And if this effort was going to be a worthy one, I'd have to turn on my opinions that are quickly followed by creative thought, much, much more work, but in the end (hopefully) a decent film. I proceeded under the ackward title "director of post production" he retained the title of "director".

I spent the next two months shaping the film, working film FX, finding legal archive material, digitally manipulating photos, reworking the film's song catalogue into more of a music soundtrack. Graphics, artwork...everything from soup to nuts in effort to make a good documenatry film. It has come together as good as could have been expected and then some. But he is still the director of the film ...you tell me, is he really? http://www.chrisvalentines.com/projects/montana_documentary.html

These two examples are only two. On a much smaller scale I have had many jobs where someone has shot plenty of footage and they feel they have a film, but it always feels like it's me at the position of editor who is actually making The Film. I love it. I live to keep doing it, but when I finish something that I feel is so much more me in the end, then the person(s) who shot the raw material. It's a kick in the (you know where) when they get the press, the interviews, that it's their film and I was just part of the supporting cast. Trust me, it's a strange feeling. What to do?

Of course, the simple retort can be..."just start shooting AND! editing your own films" ...and that may happen, but it's simply not part of my current make-up to do this. I deeply appreciate those that make the calls, set-up the interviews and get it recorded. Nothing happens whatsoever if you don't gather the material first. Deep deep bows to those directors.

I will face this situation again. I will try to lend my skills and creativity to a project that has already been shot...one that is already in the can. Perhaps they will have a complete coherent plan for how the material is marshalled and all they need is someone to cut it to plan. If so, I'm not the editor they're looking for, because I'd hate it...being voiceless. I want to direct docs in post. But for those who consider themselves documentary filmmakers, and have no desire, talent or even the want to edit (I don't get that) ...and I'm absolutely geeked to take all their hours of stuff and create a film...what should I call myself...sell myself as? Should I ask to be the named director for those that don't have a specific plan of execution?

It is my joyfully accepted job to take all the cement foundation, the lumber, the nails, the pipes, electrical whatnot, etc accumulated by those who gathered it hoping to build a house, but simply can't actually construct it.

Bottom line question. Is it possible, that the named director of documentary film can have nothing to do with the actual filming. That the direction came mostly or even extremely in post, and so the person that made it happen in post is truly the director of the doc?

Is it possible, that the named director of documentary film can have nothing to do with the actual filming. That the direction came mostly or even extremely in post, and so the person that made it happen in post is truly the director of the doc?

My take: An editor that contributes heavily to the creative process of turning the footage into a film is called the EDITOR. That's what an editor does, especially on a doc. It does not elevate you to the position of director, especially when you're still ultimately answering to the person who wears that director hat and when you come in to the process in post and have little to no interest in coming in any sooner.

You're the editor. Is it a largely under appreciated job, particularly when it comes to media attention and public accolades? Yep. But then so is almost every other position on a doc, from camera ops to sound guys.

IDK. I've directed a documentary before, but I was also the editor so I'm no real help.

In my opinion, the director should at least have a vision of where the doc should be going, and what tone it should have. Seems like the director you had had no real idea of where it was going and just threw it all at you.

The director should be working right next to you during the editing process so you guys can bounce ideas off each other and give the film its due justice.

But, in my experience at editing, I've always felt that a film felt like a film when I started editing.

My take: An editor that contributes heavily to the creative process of turning the footage into a film is called the EDITOR. That's what an editor does, especially on a doc. It does not elevate you to the position of director, especially when you're still ultimately answering to the person who wears that director hat and when you come in to the process in post and have little to no interest in coming in any sooner.

You're the editor. Is it a largely under appreciated job, particularly when it comes to media attention and public accolades? Yep. But then so is almost every other position on a doc, from camera ops to sound guys.

Gotcha.

I would've very much liked to have been part of the shooting in both the described films. When I shoot on projects, I'm very much seeing the editing to come in my mind. The problem was with these two films, is that I had no idea that the filming was even happening and so could not get onboard. And that will likely happen again.
When I'm cutting a film that I had no involvement pre-post, I immerse myself in the issues and do much research to gauge the various elements for veracity. And I usually find new elements to incorporate into the film that were not delivered by the director. I make a film.

As far as the director "standing behind me" during the editing process that only happened in a few short sessions. In the first film I literally took all the material and (with the exception of sending him a few rushes to illustrate what I was doing)...I came back to the director with the finished film 5 weeks later. From that point we made a couple minor tweaks.

In this latest film, there was some more involvement from the director, but still it was very much a case of me formulating a plan, manipulating all the elements involved...music contouring...graphics...captions...Photoshop work...creating standalone music driven vignettes and then after creation, holding up to the director basically for his stamp of approval.

So I guess my reworded question would be: Is an editor always an editor, even if he/she does not get direction from a named director or receives very, very little direction?

or

If the director of a documentary does not participate in the editing process, or with very minor energy and opinion...is he/she the director?

There is rightful public perception when they see the credits for director followed later by a credit for editor, that the editor either simply made the named cuts happen or worked together artistically with the director or some mix of those two operations. But if the editor did almost solely put all the pieces together in order to breath life into all the parts gathered for a doc, it seems there should be another title other than editor.

I have managed to get my "filmmaker as the editor" attribution adjusted close to what I feel it is. But it's quite a dance with me and the "director of little direction" to make it happen...it's an awkward, outside of the standard film credit.

Editors can work some magic, but whether the director is beside you, or you've been given full control, you are not the director. Be proud of the editor credit. It's nothing to think lowly of.

Editors can work some magic, but whether the director is beside you, or you've been given full control, you are not the director. Be proud of the editor credit. It's nothing to think lowly of.

It's not that I feel lowly about it. It's much more about my future as a filmmaker and my dealings with other filmmakers that I hope to work with.

I want to approach other filmmakers (or when the approach me and my "editor" tag) with the right definition as to what I am and that is a highly directive editor/filmmaker.

This clip here represent only 5.5 minutes of a 2 hour documentary.
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjQjeFBdEaY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjQjeFBdEaY)
The director had zero imput with this section and the many other music driven segments of the film. He shot it all, but I spent 2 days trying to create something that was much more than just folks talking about stuff.

Again, I mentioned early in this topic that nothing happens without capturing the imagery in the first place, but in just this one example from the film, I reworked everything to try and make this one discussion interesting. I scraped together the tiny bit of good nature footage available and tried to give it the right mood via digital processes. And this I did through out the film...on my own with no direction.

Is an editor always an editor, even if he/she does not get direction from a named director or receives very, very little direction?

If the director of a documentary does not participate in the editing process, or with very minor energy and opinion...is he/she the director?

But if the editor did almost solely put all the pieces together in order to breath life into all the parts gathered for a doc, it seems there should be another title other than editor.

There is nothing you've described so far that convinces me that you are anything other than the editor. Again, on a documentary, the editor is a huge contributor to the film. Even in narrative features, editors often create storylines from scratch or found footage or change things beyond the script to make a better story.

Still...an editor, not a director.

Editors are not button pushers who work at the sole discretion of the director. They are artists in their won right who are vital contributors to the creative process. Everything you've described is what I'd expect from an editor working on a documentary project.

I'm taking all responses as good helpful opinion...tools for future negotiations. Thank you.

My personal examples might be extreme, or perhaps par for the course under the title of editor. If the latter is true, then I've lost an awful lot of respect in terms of worth for the title of director in documentaries (ones that aren't edited by the director).

Let me toss out an extreme hypothetical-

18 year old skateboarding kid shoots 15 hours of him and his buddies doing their skateboarding thing and he also tapes them getting high, talking about girlfriends, school, parents etc. He even has some music...garage band performance stuff captured.

He's got some interesting action stuff, but it's the off the skateboard material that while very roughly shot, has some interesting possibilties as film making fodder.

Kid doesn't have a clue how to edit and may not even see his footage as ever turning into a film.

Somehow this material gets in front of filmmaker, editor (insert name). This guy has years of experiance as an editor and has even directed a piece or two. He looks at the video, early on recognizes that this could make for a darn good 20 minute short if he could look more closely at it and find the threads. It would be hard work but he knows he can "get it there".

Contacts the kid...gets the material and makes a very nice 20 minute short by deftly incorporating all aspects of the kids camerawork. There is even a fair amount of altering of the orginal video's quality and a few helpful inserts are brought in to help inform the audience.

It gets some critical acclaim in festivals as quirky as it is.

Who should get the title of director? The kid who shot everything, but nothing more? Or the experienced editor/filmmaker that wove it into a 20 minute film?

In a case like this the footage would be purchased for use in a documentary. Documentarians seek out footage all the time, think of if you wanted to produce a doc on JFK with all old footage. But this is not what you presented. You were the editor on a doc that was shot with original footage so there was a current director.

I came back to the director with the finished film 5 weeks later.

holding up to the director basically for his stamp of approval.

Here's the big difference between you and the director, and this applies to your hypothetical as well. You're not the final creative voice. The director is. Whether you do all of the cutting or have him standing over your shoulder, if you go to HIM for his stamp of approval, then he's the director, not you.

I'll put it this way. Regardless of what you contributed, the director could have fired you and taken the footage and completely remade the film into what he wanted. He has that power. You do not. As it happened, you did a good job and cut the footage in a way he liked. That does NOT make you a director.

That would go for your hypothetical as well. The person who takes the footage and makes the film is the director IF he's the one with the final say. It's not the one physically shooting of the footage or being the subject or physically doing the cutting. It's the one with the final say.

Without worrying about titles... what is it you want to do exactly as a career?

In a case like this the footage would be purchased for use in a documentary. Documentarians seek out footage all the time, think of if you wanted to produce a doc on JFK with all old footage. But this is not what you presented. You were the editor on a doc that was shot with original footage so there was a current director.

So purchasing the material changes the editor into the director...now were getting somewhere!

What if the kid had sought out an editor and didn't want to outright sell his video? Furthermore, the editor doesn't have money to make the purchase. He tells the kid "we'll" make the film, but he knows the kid won't really have any influence, though he'll make it seem like he's listening the two times the kid comes over to his studio. If any revenues generated by the film, the kid gets 25%.

Does the editor ...or better put! Should the editor of the short be also named as the director within filmmaking 101 ethics?

As another real world example, I'm currently negotiating on a feature doc as both the shooter, editor, and title designer. I will likely NOT be the director, however. Because ultimately, it's not my movie. I'm the hired gun, and I'm fine with that.

So purchasing the material changes the editor into the director...now were getting somewhere!

I'm pretty sure that's not what he was saying. I think he was saying that physically shooting the footage does not necessarily make one the director.

It's not about filmmaking 101 ethics, it's about whose vision it is. The director has the vision for the film or doc and directs it.

I'm pretty sure that's not what he was saying. I think he was saying that physically shooting the footage does not necessarily make one the director.
I wasn't saying that he put those words in my mouth.

Without worrying about titles... what is it you want to do exactly as a career?

Continue editing films of all genres, whatever gets put in front of me. But I'm not an editor that is anything special, that is a straight-forward technical editor. It drives me crazy, and I suck at cutting without a cause other then just hammering together someone else's structures.

I want to get involved with projects before shooting has even began (even do some shooting) so that my insights can be applied during shooting and even better, this will make the editing process just that much less a struggle.

But right now, I have a couple projects knocking on my door. I will keep an open mind to the possiblity that the first one (shot by first timers and already shot) might have some fore thought, some design beyond "hey let's just shoot, shoot, shoot and figure out the song later".

If these filmmakers are like the ones I've dealt with before, they will want me to be their low opinion editor. They will want me to cut it as they see it, which will likely be very straight forward, very linear and almost for sure way, way too long. They will offer me 25% of revenues generated from sales...no guareenteed money because of course they won't have any.

I can take the gig, cut it as they see. I will argue ever so slightly and only once against certain editing choices, but in the end cut it as perscribed. Then patiently wait for that 25% to roll in on a film that is too long and boiler plate. Where oh where will I spend that 83 dollars from the film?

OR

If I see that they don't know what they're doing. Don't have an interesting plan (likely). I can ask to look at all the raw for a few days. If I see strong possibilties, I will try to sell them on the idea to let me have my way with it...let me direct it...to trust me.

They still won't have any money to offer, but I will take ownership of the film in a sense. I will be 30 times the job vs me just executing their cuts, but I'll be geeked and ready to lay it on the line for months if it takes that long. That 25% offered might even turn into real money...might. I would choose this option for sure even though it is sooo much more work and heartache, because it's what I'm good at. Directing in post.

This last Montana documentary I signed off as the editor (for $500) and waited for the director to give me direction. Well, not waited. I spend a month viewing and very rough cutting the raw, searching for threads and themes I probably couldn't apply. I finally said to myself screw it I'll start creating even though I wasn't being paid to create...work load ramped up.

Finally I got to a point where it was either jump ship or make an offer. An offer that would make it worth me giving it every once of attention and energy. He (the director accepted) and then I spent the next month 15 hours a day make the film I thought it could be. Imperfect and clunky at times for sure, but it's a good as it could be. All for the bargain price of 500 bones. Director is thrilled, I'm relatively satisfied with the end product and my new fangled title.

Whatever the understanding is in the industry for editor, it isn't understood down here where first-timers and amateurs look for that crew person.

I had to sell my camera for the luxury of electricity in November, but I want to shoot, direct and direct film as an editor. Some film only in post and some from soup to nuts ...I won't balk. Just looking for creative possibilties.

I will say this... it can't hurt to ask for a co-direction title. If they ask why, give them all your points. Then it also becomes your vision.

I will say this... it can't hurt to ask for a co-direction title. If they ask why, give them all your points. Then it also becomes your vision.

That's pretty much what I negotiated with this last one...but with modifiers

Produced and Directed by________
Post Production Direction by_______

...but it's unusual crediting. Not to mention a mouth full.

I'm cool with "co-directed by" but why don't we see that much in docs? Or do you?

I'll put it this way. Regardless of what you contributed, the director could have fired you and taken the footage and completely remade the film into what he wanted. He has that power. You do not. As it happened, you did a good job and cut the footage in a way he liked. That does NOT make you a director.

So if I get it in the contract, I'm good to go as the director even though my involvement happened exclusively in post. I mean to say is that kosher with the industry?


It's not the one physically shooting of the footage or being the subject or physically doing the cutting. It's the one with the final say.

He could've nixed everything and or I could've blown it all up, moving the film back to square one. We both had to agree to be agreeable for the film as completed to be released.

We both had final say for the final cut.

Again, this one worked out fine for me. It's the next one I'm trying to prepare for...negotiations...sacrifice of moneys vs title...what is ok with the filmmaking community. Those sort of things.

I know I'm not alone in this dilemma with who is actually the biggest force/voice reponsible for what the public eventually views in documentary film. And who should get the strongest title, both for the general public and for people inside the industry needing to identify "who is truly responsible for that load of crap?"

I know personally for an absolute fact it ain't always the director that should bare the brunt or accept all the accolades.

So if I get it in the contract, I'm good to go as the director even though my involvement happened exclusively in post. I mean to say is that kosher with the industry?...what is ok with the filmmaking community. Those sort of things.

You can ask for anything you want. You may not always get it. I personally would not be okay with an editor trying to get a director credit when they only became involved in post, but that's just me. I would simply hire a different editor.

I know personally for an absolute fact it ain't always the director that should bare the brunt or accept all the accolades.

I have literally never worked on a project without someone who thought they knew how to direct the film better than the director or felt that they were carrying more then their weight on the project and deserved all the accolades. Sometimes they're right, sometimes their wrong. It just depends.

But if you want the credit for directing, then become a director. That means getting involved sooner, germinating your own ideas for projects, and generally taking on the responsibility, good and bad, for the WHOLE thing, not just post.

I think it calls for very clear negotiation up front.

If the "Director" comes to you with a detailed outline, then as Editor I find it perfectly reasonable for him/her to pay and credit you as Editor for your skill to assemble footage AND your talent to add some creative flare to that assembly, but if someone just drops 60 hours of footage in your lap and expects a story, art, music, title and their oil changed without any input (Direction), then they are asking you to provide your vision of the outcome AND to professionally assemble footage with your creative flare.

Without SOME fair percentage of detailed direction for the outcome, there is nothing to define your role as editor. To me that isn’t a Director, that is someone with a bunch of footage about a subject. How they obtained the footage and came about the idea for the subject might make them traditionally the Director, but that should only be up to the point that your role as Editor is extended beyond unless agreed otherwise. In those situations (With zero idea for the outcome) I would want an AND credit, as in “Directed by so and so AND your name”. With very very little idea for the outcome maybe a “Directed by so and so WITH Your name” credit can be negotiated.

On the other side of that coin, based on the amount of side by side contribution they make towards the editing, then I think it would be fair that they should get a Edited by your name AND so and so, or Edited by your name WITH so and so. I’m sure many would balk at this or say it isn’t realistic, but neither is making your editing (and all the other contributions) worth $1 an hour by the time all is said and done.

I would place all the cards on the table up front and forgo that situation and/or place them on the table so both parties know what they are in for weighed against fee and credit. A 60 to 1 or 60 to 2 editing ratio AND your creative vision in return for peanuts and no resume building glory just seems like a bad choice to make. If the “Director” wants to find someone else for a buck an hour, I would let him.

-Thanks-

Speaking of accolades, if it wins "Best Documentary" the Producer will get it anyway. So stop worrying :lol:

The editor position can be so many things. From no creative control at all, to a ton of creative control. I tend to prefer an editor that will cut a film exactly as I say, only interjecting if I want him to do something that doesn't make sense. Other directors work differently.

I think this is very case-specific - it varies with each director and each film, really.

Some directors will have a very clear vision, but I feel that the nature of documentaries is such that, with many docs, one can't know for certain where exactly the story will take them. It sounds like with your specific case that the director may not have known exactly where to go, or what they had on their hands. Likely, the director may have let the film get away from his or herself, and was looking to you to refocus it, which, yes, would give you a much more integral role, but the role of an editor, nonetheless. Of course, you would be an "editor" in the credits, but of course you should make certain that credit is given where it is due.

Because his team of editors do as much story-crafting in post as he does during production, documentary filmmaker Albert Maysles typically gives them co-director credit.

But we can't all work for Maysles...

I suggest you read "The Conversations: Walter Murch and the Art of Editing Film" for a look at one of the greatest in his field. One of my favorite films, Coppola's "The Conversation," has a plot that turns completely on its head because of a vocalized gimmick ("He'd kill us if he had the chance!"). You'll learn in the book that this gimmick was never written that way by Coppola or shot the way it ended up on screen. An alternate ADR take was discovered by Murch in the editing phase and he crafted the story in a completely new way, all in post. But that doesn't make him the director. Instead, it makes him one of the best film artists in the history of the medium. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

He's the kind of editor that it sounds like you want to be...an editor with freedom to create, who isn't just manning the controls. There are directors who prefer to work this way...seek them out and establish a relationship.

Do you guys suppose (Outside of big industry) we are in an ever increasing phase of slightly redefining of, perception of, or expectations placed upon on some specialized creative roles (due to the advent of common technology allowing more hats to be worn by a single filmmaker)?


-Thanks-

If it is a collaborative effort you could always do:

Documentarians
John Doe
Jane Doe

Director
John Doe

Editor
Jane Doe

Do you guys suppose (Outside of big industry) we are in an ever increasing phase of slightly redefining of, perception of, or expectations placed upon on some specialized creative roles (due to the advent of common technology allowing more hats to be worn by a single filmmaker)?


-Thanks-

Well, in the low budget world roles are always fuzzy anyway. I have a producer for my next film (just hired) yet I've already assembled a good bit of the crew and have a rough budget (because I'm executive producer). Some of what this producer is going to do would traditionally fall under the role production manager. Your grip may also be your gaffer, the craft services person might have a small role in the film. The editor might do the titles, just comes with the territory.

A film is the directors vision; everyone else is supposed to do everything they can to make the directors vision a successful reality. And every director will have a different style, from micro-managing dictatorial tyrants to inclusive creative partners. I've worked with both kinds. The dictator may well be a creative genius from whom I can learn. It is my responsibility to give him exactly what he wants to hear; it is his/her responsibility to communicate that clearly and concisely. The success of the project rests solely on the directors shoulders. The inclusive partnership director gives you his/her vision and then, in essence, says "blow me away." Now the responsibility for success - or failure - is partially mine as well the other team members.

Either way you are hired to do a specific job in accordance with the directors wishes. One thing to remember is that many of the most successful directors consistently work with the same creative partners; it's a comfort and trust thing. Look at the long time relationship between Martin Scorsese and Thelma Schoonmaker; she is often editing while the film is still in production. Go through the credits of Spielberg or Zemeckis or any of the others of current crop of successful directors and you will see the same names popping up in the credits of their films on a regular basis. Even a dictator like Alfred Hitchcock - who hated the filmmaking process - worked with many people on a consistent basis.

Back when I was a performing musician I was the musical director for a prominent oldies act. The five guys on the front of the stage were the "stars", but they relied on me for the arrangements, to rehearse them, direct the musicians, communicate with the concert manager, stage manager and the FOH and monitor mixers. The whole show rested on my shoulders; all they had to do was sing and dance. No one in the audience knew who I was, but all of my peers and the other acts knew; and that was more that enough.

So don't bemoan the fact that you're just credited as the editor. Your peers (and the director) will know what your contributions were, and the respect of your peers is worth more than all of the public crap. And what is even more important, you will know.

Good point. I can see in Indie crews how that would be fuzzy.

Maybe I mean, under the generic heading of “Filmmaker”, do you think technology is allowing for a broader range of tasks to be undertaken by a single person to the extent that it might be slightly evolving notions of what should be encompassed under the title of other roles, such as Director or Editor?

-Thanks-

Good point. I can see in Indie crews how that would be fuzzy.

Maybe I mean, under the generic heading of “Filmmaker”, do you think technology is allowing for a broader range of tasks to be undertaken by a single person to the extent that it might be slightly evolving notions of what should be encompassed under the title of other roles, such as Director or Editor?

-Thanks-

In the indie low budget (read non-union) world, yes. In hollywood the classic:

"Hey grip, can you change that light bulb in the practical over there"

"Sounds like an electrivcal problem to me, well it is a practical, want me to have somebody get the art director?"

Still applies I think.

Sounds to me like you were working with a shitty director, that's all. He's still the director, but a shitty one, because he lacks direction. A documentary should have a focus, and that focus needs to be in place in pre-production. If you're still trying to figure out what that focus is in post, you've horribly screwed up. So, as editor, you salvaged a shitty production, but you're still editor.

I hate to say it, but you're the editor, which you should be proud to be. My editor is great, and I appreciate him dearly.
It seems as though you have worked with directors that either do not have a clear vision or are flexible enough to allow the better idea to come through. Be happy to be an editor, because if you insist on getting director credit simply because your director was open minded, you will find yourself at a loss for future employment as an editor. The job of the director is not necessarily to do every little thing on a film but to make sure that it gets done properly. It has been done on the films on which you've worked so they have done their job.
That having been said, perhaps you should consider becoming a director so you do not have this problem in the future.