Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucdavis.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!ucdavis!deneb!ccrrick
From: ccrrick@ucdavis.UUCP (Rick Heli)
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: The role of the film editor
Message-ID: <182@ucdavis.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 14-Feb-86 23:22:43 EST
Article-I.D.: ucdavis.182
Posted: Fri Feb 14 23:22:43 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Feb-86 10:52:36 EST
References: <8935@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 24

>                            All the cutter had to do was to assemble the
> scenes in the order the scenario specified.  Cutting was originally viewed
> as grunt work, little different than developing the film.
> 
> Interestingly, unlike most technical jobs in the industry (leaving aside
> obvious and easily explanable exceptions like hairdressing, makeup, and
> costume design), editing proved to be a field open to women.  Many of the
> great editors of Hollywood's golden age were female.  I've never heard
> an adequate explanation for why sexism didn't reign in this field, but
> we definitely benefitted in terms of the quality of editing.  Editing is
> still a fairly equalitarian field in the film business.  (The next few
> dozen films you see, count the number of female directors, cinematographers,
> or producers.  Unless you see very special films, you probably won't
> need more than two or three fingers.)

	I would say that you have the answer yourself.  Because
	it was considered menial work, men probably didn't think
	anything of employing women in such roles.  Later, when
	the role of the editor changed, a tradition of male and
	female editors was already in place and not likely to
	change.
-- 
				--rick heli
				... {ucbvax,lll-crg}!ucdavis!ccrrick