By Rob Feld
David Jancsó’s path to becoming a film editor seems both inevitable and serendipitous. Born and raised in Hungary, with a stint in the United States, Jancsó grew up immersed in the world of filmmaking. His father, a director, and his mother, an editor, tried hard to steer him away from following in their footsteps, pushing him toward more traditional fields like law and political science. But even after completing degrees in both, there was no conquering genetics.
“A carpenter’s kid should be a carpenter because they know how to keep a roof from falling on you,” he quipped.
The opportunity to attend Hungary’s prestigious film school cemented his career path. At the time, the Hungarian school offered a highly specialized education where students trained specifically as editors, sound professionals, or cinematographers. It’s a system Jancsó praises for its focus and practicality. He hated being on set, so editing it was to be.
Since, Jancsó’s work has straddled Europe and the U.S., micro-budget films and much larger productions and television. He has found multiple repeat collaborators to keep him busy and enlarge his repertoire of skills. His most recent collaboration with acting-writing-directing couple Mona Fastvold and Brady Corbet, an epic about fictional architect who flees the Holocaust called “The Brutalist,” is one such low-budget production that stretched his ability to craft performance through editing.
CineMontage: Aside from what you learned by being around your mother’s career, was there an editing apprentice experience that left an impression?
David Jancsó: When I was in film school I assisted Janice Hampton a horror film in LA. The way she lined up her timelines, structured the story, and approached her work was instructive—how she moved from a close-up to a wide shot, back again, and built things up. It helped me think about what a first assembly should look like in a film. That might seem standard, but I was very new and came from a European filmmaker background, which is very different from the American industry’s approach.
CineMontage: How do you differentiate them?
Jancsó: In the European way—and something I learned from my mom—you start with the totality of the film. You ask, “Why am I making this scene? What is its purpose?” Then, you work inward to construct it. In the American approach, it’s like building with Legos: you start with the pieces and construct outward. I’m always in between these two ways of working. I keep the big picture in mind while also building from the tiny pieces up.
CineMontage: You also have a particular cohort of directors for whom you work. I’m wondering how that also impacts your approach to footage?
Jancsó: For some reason, most of the directors I work with are actors turned directors. My first film was with Kornél Mundruczó, who directed “Delta,” “White God,” and “Pieces of a Woman.” We’ve been constant collaborators for the last 17 years. He’s an actor turned director. Brady Corbet—actor turned director. Dev Patel. Mona Fastvold. Everybody I work with, for some reason. It’s funny, because I come from a “director-director” dad.
CineMontage: How have you found this group of actors-turned-directors approach things?
Jancsó: The amount of detail they bring to a specific performance is incredible. For “The Brutalist,” nobody will ever know how much work went into crafting the actors’ performances. It’s literally stitching together letters from different takes to form a word. We worked it in the edit, and then transferred it over to the sound department. We had a fabulous sound crew who didn’t kill us when they got the footage. The focus was on acting and translating that into the edit—making it pitch-perfect. Really, our concentration is first and foremost on the actors’ performances, and then on the totality of the whole film.
CineMontage: Is it as if the directors are trying to act through the edit process?
Jancsó: All directors do, but these actors-turned-directors really understand the other side of it. They dive into those tiny nuances that, as an audience, you think you don’t notice, but you do—it really affects you. It affects us too, when we’re creating. Our goal is to have that baseline set so we can hand it over to the rest of the departments. We try to provide the best possible film out of the edit so the other departments can add to it, rather than just fixing problems we created.
CineMontage: You can manipulate so much more now than you could just a few years ago.
Jancsó: It’s insane. My mom always says, “The amount of work you guys have to do now…” We work so much more on sound than when flatbeds were around. Although, we’re looking at a worse picture than editors used to see, at least now we have 45 tracks of sound to deal with instead of just four.
CineMontage: Digital made some things easier, but …
Jancsó: I don’t think it’s easier. The editing process hasn’t shortened because of digital. Back then, you had to make a decision, and if you used the glue, the cut would jump if you kept re-editing. So, you couldn’t really judge it. Now, you can have 10 versions running parallel and jump between them. But, you can undo. My mom loves that.
CineMontage: Tell me about working with Brady and Mona—on this one, Brady directed their co-written script and Mona shot second unit. What kind of footage do they give you? Are they obviously focusing on performance, but how much optionality do you have in the edit? Are they conscribing your cuts with their footage?
Jancsó: “Childhood of a Leader,” “The World to Come,” and “The Brutalist” are small-budget films, which means there aren’t a lot of options to work with. A lot of the film is formed in the edit, especially in terms of finding the tonality of certain scenes. You don’t have what you’d expect from a much larger-budget movie, where you’d have all the angles and can work around them. That limitation also allows the edit to be very creative. Let’s say there’s a oner—but even if it’s a oner, there are tricks today to help speed it up or slow it down. We used quite a bit of that in “The Brutalist,” too. There’s the obvious oner in the boat, which is actually quite a few shots stitched together. Even in dialogue scenes, like when they go into the furniture shop, or the scene between Emma and Adrian, you can play around with timing, squeezing it in. There’s a lot of room to experiment, even if it’s not the traditional setup—you know, the wide, the close-up, the medium, the over-the-shoulder. But they do give the edit a hard time if something doesn’t quite match what was originally imagined. With small budgets, there’s always the issue of sets or other constraints. Still, all their projects are passion projects, and they really draw you into these films, where you want to give 110 percent. And they’re just fabulous people—really smart, a true power couple. They’re also kind, and it’s great to spend time with them.
CineMontage: Can you differentiate this experience from some of your other frequent, longtime collaborations? How does the work process differ?
Jancsó: For “The Brutalist,” I started talking with them after they wrote it—when they were still distributing “The World to Come.” When I first read the script, we were already discussing casting Adrien Brody, though that changed five times before he ended up in the role. Every director works differently. I tend to work in a classic way, maybe because of my upbringing. I’ve since learned there are other ways to do things, especially since doing a little TV. That’s been eye-opening. I’m usually pretty involved, but I don’t like to interfere too much in the script. I tell directors to write and record everything they want, and we’ll play around with it in the edit. That gives us a bigger sandbox. Of course, I’ll give input when asked, but I don’t push myself onto anyone. It’s the director’s film, after all. I come from that school of thought. My taste is secondary to what Brady, Mona, or any director envisions and how we achieve that vision.
Their process is unique, though. It’s always a fun dynamic.
CineMontage: You’re in a fortunate position with long-term collaborations and a community. Nevertheless, how do you think about sustaining a career? Was taking on television a practical decision or was it about seeking challenges?
Jancsó: I love to challenge myself. Before “The Brutalist,” I did “Monkey Man” with Dev Patel, which was a completely different beast. I try to stay open-minded. I’m super loyal to the directors I work with, but stepping into other genres, fields, and scales lets me bring new experiences back to them. For instance, working on the “Bourne” spinoff, “Treadstone,” was very different from the classic Cannes and Venice arthouse films I usually do. It broadens my perspective. I try to stick with people I enjoy working with, no matter what they’re doing.
CineMontage: Many editors get pigeonholed—comedy, drama, etc. Do you think you’ve been fortunate working with actor-directors who see your versatility like they see their own?
Jancsó: Everyone gets boxed in—directors, DPs, designers. It’s not good for the industry. Expanding your knowledge and horizons makes for better films. I get that there’s an algorithmic idea—pairing a comedy editor with a comedy DP makes for a great comedy—but maybe not. Look at Kubrick; he did so many genres and nailed all of them. It’s about trusting people. A film’s success comes from the collaboration of its team, not just sticking to labels like “comedy editor.” Staying in one box is stifling. If you’re always doing comedy, you’ll probably get bored. Breaking out of those boxes would be the best thing the industry could do. I’ve been fortunate to have the opportunity to go up, down, left, and right.
Be the first to comment