I have a question about classical film, edited on 35 mm film, with a classic film, like the Godfather or the Conversation, or any film.
The editor did numerous cuts, taping together, taping over. Was that editing room cut the master for the actual film in theaters? When I watch a documentary about the way they used to add a film with real film in the 1960s, it looks like it’s producing a sticky mess.
###
###
Great question — and yes, it does look like a mess, but that’s part of the magic.
When you see footage of classic editors working on 35mm film in the 1960s or 1970s — splicing, taping, trimming, hanging strips of film all over the place — you’re watching them work on what's called a workprint, not the master theatrical print.
Here’s a breakdown of how it worked:
1. Original Negative (Camera Negative)
-
This is the raw footage shot on set. It's sacred. Editors never touch it directly.
-
It's developed and then printed into a workprint, usually on lower-grade film stock.
2. The Workprint (Cutting Copy)
-
Editors cut and splice this copy. They might tape over cuts, re-splice a scene 20 times, scratch grease pencil marks on frames — it becomes physically messy but creatively crucial.
-
This is where all the decisions about what to show and in what order are made.
3. The Edit Decision List (EDL) or Marked Workprint
-
Once the cut is "locked," either a written EDL or the physical splices of the workprint tell the negative cutter exactly where to cut the original camera negative.
-
This part was meticulous and dangerous — one wrong cut in the negative was irreversible.
4. Answer Print and Release Print
-
From the cut negative, they made the answer print, which had final color timing and sound sync.
-
Once approved, the release prints (the ones that went to theaters) were struck from this.
Why It Looks Like Chaos, But Works:
-
The messiness is only in the scratchpad (the workprint).
-
Editors were making rapid creative changes and only needed the workprint to hold together long enough to reach a final decision.
-
The true master (the conformed negative) was always pristine.
Example:
In The Godfather, editor Walter Murch would have worked with a workprint on flatbed machines like the Steenbeck, making thousands of cuts, sometimes reattaching the same few frames dozens of times. But none of that ever touched the negative — it was all prep for the final, clean negative cut.
So yes: it looked like chaos. But it was an essential, well-understood step toward creating a flawless master. Think of it like a messy sketchbook before a clean inked comic.
