How An Editor Tells The Story
A writer has words. The cinematographer has the camera. An actor has his or her body and voice. Musician has their instruments. A painter has the brush. What does an editor have, but the footage that the director has shot given him?
Is storytelling through editing even possible? I mean they cannot create a new shot, they cannot add more words into the mouths of an actor, they cannot change the lighting, they cannot change the set decoration.
What I hope to demonstrate to you today is that it is in fact only in the editing that a movie comes together. If you prefer to watch the video version, embedding it here. In fact you have to see the video, because editing can only be shown the best through editing, not through words.
The two variations are made of the exactly same footage that was shot simultaneously on multiple cameras. The only thing difference is the edit. If I was successful, then in the first video you would have empathised with Anwar, and in the second you would have resonated more with the feelings of Anoop.
Storytelling Through Editing
How was this done? In the first version, we see more of Anwar, We see his difficult situation, and empathise with him more. In the second, the focus is on Anoop. He is given more screen time, while Anwar is almost a side character.
An editor can make you feel certain things, and not certain other things, simply by choosing how long you see a character on screen (and how big he/she is on screen).