Scott Butzer on Editing’s Expanding Opportunities
Scott Butzer is an award-winning editor with a career spanning over 15 years, working across commercials, music videos, documentaries, and more. He is known for moving fluidly between genres, blending visual storytelling with an experimental edge. His work spans campaigns for Google, Frito-Lay, Apple, TurboTax, Toyota, and Vince Staples, among others.
He has held positions at Cabin Editing Company, Whitehouse Post, and Final Cut, collaborating with leading agencies and directors including Wieden+Kennedy, Goodby Silverstein & Partners, We Are From LA, Marcus Söderlund, and Jonathan Krisel. Scott is recognised for his instinctive approach to narrative, often shaping stories through unconventional frameworks.
His work has been honoured with AICP Awards for Vince Staples’ ‘Fun!’ and Frito-Lay’s ‘Taste of Soccer,’ while his edit for Google’s ‘Year in Search’ earned multiple Webby Awards and has amassed over 250 million views worldwide.
Scott sat down with LBB to discuss approaching work with a sense of‘ruthless openness’ and the trial and error nature of editing, and why story will always be king.
LBB> The first cut is the deepest: how do you like to start an editing project?
Scott> I think that largely depends on the nature of the project. If it’s a thoroughly boarded and precise shoot, I’ll start with the boarded version, get that as precise as possible, and then figure out how many versions I can iterate beyond that to try and improve it.
I’ve also done a lot of visual storytelling, so with a project that is a more fluid-narrative, montage style of creative, I typically like to approach it with ruthless openness as to what the project can be.
I like to brainstorm all the possibilities of what the most impactful and emotional version of the story is, and then how to go about achieving that. I’ve found that regardless of whether I swing and miss, hit it out of the park, or somewhere in between, there are always many invaluable discoveries throughout that process that ultimately end up heightening and enhancing the work.
The expected, boarded version will always be there to fall back on, and so what is the best way to push the material in interesting directions in order to ultimately achieve the best cut?
LBB> Non-editors often think of editing just in technical terms but it’s integral to the emotion and mood of a film. How did you develop that side of your craft?
Scott> Ultimately I think I developed that through years of practice, discovery, and refinement. I think references are extremely important. Not just specific references that may apply to the current style or brief, but references of films, spots, and editing techniques that stick with you.
Why was a certain scene so effective? What stood out editorially about a particular spot that evoked a certain emotion? What were the mechanics used to achieve that result, and how can I apply that to what I’m currently working on?
Furthermore, how can I take a style or technique and morph it into something completely new or unexpected? A large part of editing is trial and error, and so even though something might be working just fine, how can you push it further to make it great?
LBB> How important is an understanding of story and the mechanics of story?
Scott> Story is king and always has been. If you’re not able to effectively convey the intended story or idea, you’ve failed as an editor. Absolutely every aspect of the editing process is in service of the story.
All the techniques and tools used in editing are just the plumbing/mechanics to expertly achieve the story. I’ve found that editing can often elicit incredible moments of discovery and creativity, but that those moments are the direct result of having discovered ways to strengthen the story.
LBB> Rhythm and a sense of musicality seem to be intrinsic to good editing – how do you think about the rhythm side of editing, how do you feel out the beats of a scene or a spot? And do you like to cut to music?
Scott> I think rhythm is a key component of storytelling, but not so much as it applies to music specifically. I think the overall rhythm of a scene, sequence, or spot is dictated by the material and the intended emotion, something far more important than whether it hits on the music or not.
The inherent rhythm of the storytelling… does it call for something to be languid and serene, quick and hitting, or evolve from one to the other in order to build are what makes a good edit? Something effectively edited based on the material will ultimately hold up to all types of music applied to it. With saying all of that, music can be an extremely useful guide in helping unlock the true rhythm of a story or spot. For that reason, I try to treat music as a tool and not a crutch. I often toggle music on/off in the editing process, throwing different styles of music at it, to see if the cut still holds, or if music was in fact propping up something that needs more refinement. Then when you have a tight cut that stands on its own, you can go and make the music hit it how it needs to.
LBB> In the US we know that editors are much more heavily involved across the post-production process than in Europe — what’s your favourite part of that side of the job?
Scott> Are they? Are they really though? I’ve actually found the opposite to be true in my experience.
I think in the US, the power dynamics are different than in Europe, where you are dealing much more closely with the agency throughout the process, whereas in Europe much more so the director.
I’ve found that regardless of those power dynamics, if you have a good relationship with the creatives you’re most closely aligned with on the project, agency or director, you will most likely be involved all across the post-production process regardless. And I find that to be a wonderful part of the process.
Other than the actual cuts, and where we land with the edit, a large part of what we do is purely temp work for the other masters to shine. Whether it be VFX, colour, music, or sound design, getting an edit to lock and then handing it over to the other artists in the process is always a rewarding experience. From then on, it just continues to get better and better as all the final elements are applied and integrated, which makes seeing the final deliverable just as rewarding as locking the final edit.
LBB> What’s harder to cut around — too much material or not enough?
Scott> Definitely not enough material. Something with limited material limits the ability for creativity and exploration, which many times results in the need of supplementing the project with additional material to save it. While having a lot of material can sometimes feel daunting or overwhelming at first, it almost always proves more fruitful throughout the editing process. It may take longer to screen, select, and achieve a final cut, but by its very nature also allows for the existence of more gems that can be edited and treated in different ways.
LBB> Which commercial projects are you proudest of and why?
Scott> It may sound a little saccharine, but I’m genuinely proud of all of them. While some work may have ultimately turned out better than others, a large part of that equation is beyond the actual work it takes to finish any project. All projects come with creative challenges, exploration, and the feeling of accomplishment once completed. Some may win more awards, be associated with a better brand, or have a more lasting impact, but the process of creation is usually just as rewarding regardless of the external factors that determine those outcomes.
LBB> There are so many different platforms for film content now, and even in advertising something can last anything from a few seconds to a couple of hours. As an editor, are you seeing a change in the kind of projects you’re getting from brands and agencies?
Scott> In short, yes. And that’s a wonderful thing. I think we live in a time where eyeballs can be found in almost any type of format imaginable. Whether it's a three-second social edit, or an hour-and-a-half documentary on shoes, being able to create on different platforms in different ways ultimately allows for more creation in general. Each format comes with its own inherent challenges and opportunities, and so I welcome the diversity of content.
LBB> Who are your editing heroes and why? What films or spots epitomise good editing for you?
Scott> I think stylistically, films and spots are two completely different beasts when it comes to determining what epitomises good. A film, especially a narrative film, is much more in service of the scene and story, where the art of the invisible edit usually shines the most. Therefore, if it’s a really good film, it’s inherently really well edited. Two films I’ve seen recently that really stuck with me were ‘Train Dreams’ and the Jeff Buckley documentary ‘It’s Never Over.’
As far as spots go, I think the format allows for much more freedom editorially in the form of montage. One spot that recently stood out to me was ‘Don’t Get Them A Yeti (Unless You Really Love Them),’ edited by Dan Sherwen. I think it’s a wonderful culmination of fantastic editing, great creative, lifestyle imagery, and mixed media, all in the service of effectively highlighting a product.
LBB> Have you noticed any trends or changes in commercial editing over recent years?
Scott> I think just as I noted above with the growth of mediums and formats, commercial editing has constantly continued to evolve and expand over recent years. As advertising has grown as a whole, the styles and opportunities of commercial editing continue to expand with it. There seems to be more diverse content, with more diverse storytelling techniques applied to them as brands find different ways to engage with their consumers. All of that just adds up to ever more opportunities creatively. I’m excited to be a part of the continuous evolution and growth.
