opportunities, and decisions to be made, even with this straightforward material, left them with insufficient time to fully explore.
After their time working in the suites, each philosopher did a short interview with Pearlman about the process without their editing partners present. They responded to open ended questions such as “tell us about your experience or process.”
Philosopher #1 describes a number of instances of ideas arising from material in a back and forth conversation between the filmed material and the people working with it. She speaks about her own experience with painting and compares the editor to the painter’s own hands, describing how, in the process of editing, she and the editor were inextricably creative together: “we ended up with something that really, he, or we, the editors…created.” It is worth noting that, as someone who was in the edit suite for the first time, Philosopher #1 conflates her work of directing the edit with the work of the editor and refers to herself as an editor. This points not only to the entanglement of cognitive resources in the creative process, but to the actual, practical, blurriness of boundaries in defining who generates ideas in editing.
Philosopher #2 was surprised to realize that although he would have expected to want lots of shots to work with, in fact he struggled with his memory of the ones they had and wished for fewer, or a shooting process over which they had more control. He notes about the editor they worked with, that “she had a better memory for some of the things than I had. And I kind of realized, okay, it’s not my strong suit, it’s hers. So, leave it to her.” Philosopher #2 also notes that the process was very physical. Ideas for juxtaposition and timing did not arise in their heads and then get translated in to edits. Rather, the editing itself, the moving of shots into various configurations, was where ideas arose. It was ultimately necessary to try things to find “lucky moments” and concepts to be formed in relation to the material, not independently of it. He notes, “before you see it, it’s not there.”
Philosopher #3 also describes the creative process as a continual back-and-forth. He says the editor “and I sat down and I ran a few ideas past her and she thought some of them were good…We both came up with ideas and then tried to find ways of implementing them.”
Philosopher #4’s interview points most explicitly to the distributed cognition when he talks about the images having some agency in how they would tell the story: “it was a matter of, you know, working with the images and seeing what came out. And how, starting to put the images together. It’s like the story unfolded as we started cutting and assembling the shots. So, that was fascinating.” About working with the editor, Philosopher #4 simply says: “It was collaborative thinking.”
While there are no great surprises for us from these philosophers’ comments, it is worth noting that they, like most of us, have in their writing and conversations before this workshop generally referred to films by the surname of the film’s directors, not the director et al. The question arising from the workshop then is: given that they are now all cognisant of the distributed creativity of editing, would it be possible to extend this into thinking about filmmaking creativity more generally?
Conclusion
Early in this chapter we made a distinction between creativity and authorship in filmmaking. We noted that conflation of these two things and ascribing sole creative authorship to directors may be doing harm by obscuring or misapprehending the ways that films are “made” and the people who “make” them. We therefore propose that a more accurate understanding of process has public value. This value is in providing greater recognition for the work of skilled experts, particularly women who have been marginalized when individual directors (overwhelmingly male in the film history books) have been singled out for cultural valuation. Recognition of the distributed creativity involved in filmmaking also has value for understanding of creativity and collaboration more generally. As noted, we are interested in the ecologies of filmmaking practice, but do not think this need erase individual creativity. Rather, it helps us to understand it better. Our experience-near accounts of these processes reveal some of the ways the creativity of making the film is distributed through dynamic enaction of many forms of embodied and embedded expertise. These accounts, in turn, also contribute to the refinement and development of the distributed cognition thesis. Having worked our way through to this point, we come now to the question: are the readers of this chapter sufficiently convinced by our argument that filmmaking creativity is distributed creativity to adopt a film referencing system that readily acknowledges this? Doing so, we propose, would galvanize the considerable power of academics to incrementally change the ways that film is talked about and be an incursion into writing about film that would have direct and lasting public value.
References
1 Bacharach, Sondra, and Deborah Tollefsen. 2010. “We Did It: From Mere Contributors to Co-authors.” Journal of Aesthetics & Art Criticism 68 (1): 23–32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25622120.
2 Barrett, Louise. 2011. Beyond the Brain: How Body and Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3 Blake, Elissa. 2011. “A Theatrical Masterclass.” The Sydney Morning Herald, November 12.
4 Boden, Margaret A. 2010. Creativity and Art: Three Roads to Surprise, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5 Byrne, David. 2017. How Music Works. New York: Three Rivers Press.
6 Chatman, Seymour. 2005. “The Cinematic Narrator.” In The Philosophy of Film: Introductory Text and Readings, edited by Thomas Wartenberg and Angela Curran, 190–197. London and Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
7 Clark, Andy. 1997. Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8 Clarke, Eric F., and Mark Doffman, eds. 2017. Distributed Creativity: Collaboration and Improvisation in Contemporary Music. New York: Oxford University Press.
9 Colombetti, Giovanna, and Joel Krueger. 2015. “Scaffoldings of the Affective Mind.” Philosophical Psychology 28 (8): 1157–1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2014.97634.
10 Dyshlyuk, Liubov. 2016. “Esfir Shub.” Edited by Anastasia Kostina. Feminist Media Histories 2 (3): 11–28. https://doi.org/10.1525/fmh.2016.2.3.11.
11 Gadassik, Alla. 2018. “Ėsfir’ Shub on Women in the Editing Room: ‘The Work of Montazhnitsy’ (1927).” Apparatus. Film, Media and Digital Cultures of Central and Eastern Europe 6. https://doi.org/10.17892/app.2018.0006.125.
12 Gaines, Jane, and Radha Vatsal. 2011. “How Women Worked in the US Silent Film Industry.” In Women Film Pioneers Project, edited by Jane Gaines, Radha Vatsal and Monica Dall’Asta. New York: Center for Digital Research and Scholarship, Columbia University.
13 Gaut, Berys. 1997. “Film Authorship and Collaboration.” In Film Theory and Philosophy, edited by Richard Allen and Murray Smith, 149–172. New York: Oxford University Press.
14 Gerstner, David A., and Janet Staiger, eds. 2003. Authorship and Film. New York: Routledge.
15 Harcourt, Edward. 2016. “Moral Emotion, Autonomy and the ‘Extended Mind.’” Phenomenology and Mind 11: 100–112. https://doi.org/10.13128/Phe_Mi-20110.
16 Hatch, Kristen. 2013. “Cutting
