Juliette Welfling began her career at age eighteen as an intern on Jean-Charles Tachella’s “Cousin cousine.” She later befriended Jacques Audiard while both were working as assistant editors, and she earned her first editor credit on his directorial debut “See How They Fall.” Welfling has received César nominations for each of Audiard’s films, winning four times for “See How They Fall,” “The Beat That My Heart Skipped,” “A Prophet” and “Rust and Bone.” She also received a César nomination for Asghar Farhadi’s “The Past,” as well as a César win and an Oscar nomination for “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” by Julian Schnabel. Welfling has also collaborated with other directors such as Michel Gondry and Gary Ross.
At this year’s European Film Awards, Tara Karajica sat down with Juliette Welfling, the recipient of the Excellence Award for European Editing for her work on Jacques Audiard’s film “Emilia Pérez,” and discussed the art of cutting in general, her work as an editor and women in film.
Why did you choose editing?
Juliette Welfling: No idea. I was very young. I didn’t go to Film School, and I guess I didn’t really know what it was, but I knew I wanted to work in the movie business like many kids at that time, because I loved going to the movies. I knew that I didn’t really want to be on set because I was a bit shy, and I knew that with editing, you are in a remote cutting room. I figured this was good for me, but I chose this without really knowing what it was, but it turns out that I made the right choice because I’m still doing it!
According to Thelma Schoonmaker, editing is a misunderstood art. Do you agree with that assumption? What is most misunderstood about a film editor, according to you?
J.W.: Well, people don’t know what it is. I mean, people who are not working in the film industry have no idea what it is. Yesterday, someone asked me: “Oh, I love Cinema. I love going to the movies.” And, I said: “I work in the film business. I’m a film editor.” And, this person asked: “What is it? What is this job?” No one knows what it is, really.
Can you talk about the “art of cutting”? Would you agree with the assumption that it can make or break a film?
J.W.: There’s so much subtlety to it. And, yes, I think it can certainly destroy a film. But can it make a film? I mean, yes, but if the film is bad originally, I don’t think it’s going to become a masterpiece because the editing is good. Let’s be honest. So, no, I wouldn’t say that, but it can really make a big, big, big difference. Of course, it can pull the film up, but if the dailies, the rushes are bad, the actors are bad, the script is bad, the image is ugly, etc. What are you going to do? Even the editing won’t save it. But if it’s good, it can be much better.
You’ve edited on film and on digital. What is the difference and which one do you prefer? Do you think that a part of the charm and excitement of “cutting” was lost with the move to digital?
J.W.: It took much more time to do one thing that now you can do faster. Before, when you were cutting something, if you wanted to change your cuts, which is basically the editor’s job – always changing what he had done the day before – you would have to remove a piece of tape, take your thing – there was this little machine to cut the film – cut somewhere else, then put another piece of tape, and in the end, the film was like it was torn apart. It was a catastrophe. And, each little cut, when the film was screening, you could see it. It was terrible. Now, you can do as many cuts as you want and you can try things out much more. Everything is on the computer and it’s easy to redo, undo, click… You can remove it or and you can change everything, and you can keep twenty versions, hundreds of versions if you wish, and go back to your previous versions versus before, you couldn’t. Once you had undone it, you would have to redo it physically, so you would have to remember what you had done before. If, for instance, you said: “Oh, what I had done before is better,” you would have to remember exactly what you had done and go back to it. Now, you just click. Before, you had to really think before you started cutting. You had to have a really good idea of what you wanted to do because you wanted to avoid having too many cuts. Now, you can have instinct, not a big problem, because even if you don’t think about what you are doing, you can always redo it so easily.
How do you feel as a woman working in a technical job today? How do you feel about the underrepresentation of women in these jobs in Film? And, by extension in the film industry as a whole?
J.W.: There have always been women. Editing has always been a women’s job because in the beginning, they were in the lab where they were developing the film. These women had been factory workers who were doing the editing with the film negative so it was a factory labor and then little by little, it became a job, or the art [that it is today]. They became editors for directors and so they weren’t over there anymore. They became editors. At first, for a long time, it was almost only women doing it unlike sound editing. Sound editing was a men’s job because it’s more technical. But now all this has changed.
On that change, I can speak for France. In France, there are more and more female directors, which is really good. It has changed a lot in the past seven years. But I discussed it with a female director, and she told me they didn’t have the same wages and they didn’t have the same amount of money to shoot their films. But I think this has changed a lot – look at The Substance, or lots of other female directors. I think they are now treated better, and are respected more. I don’t know if they have reached the 50/50 quota yet though.
You’ve been with Jacques Audiard on his ten films. But are you like? Is there someone whose film you would like to cut?
J.W.: Maybe one by a female director.
Having worked with Audiard for such a long time, do you have a tacit understanding and affinities?
J.W.: There is a tacit understanding and there is a real connection. We’ve known each other for more than forty years now, because we’re not young anymore. I met him when I was twenty, and he was twenty-three, twenty-four. He used to be an assistant editor, so that’s how we met. I don’t think I know what he wants, but when I see what he shot, it really speaks to me. I don’t really cut thinking what would Jack want. No, I think about what I would like to see and then we discuss because we have two visions that we can confront. And then, obviously, in the end, it’s his movie, not mine.
If I understand correctly, he wrote and shot the film, but you are the one who is cutting it.
J.W.: At least on Jacques’s films, I start cutting on day one of shooting. So, he’s not there. He’s not in the cutting room for the time of shooting, so during this time, he doesn’t say anything about how to do the cut, and he doesn’t watch the dailies, he’s shooting. After shooting, I show him the first cut. And then, from that point, we work together, and I will do what he wants. Of course, if he says to me: “Pease do that,” I’m not going to say no.
Emilia Pérez is a very different film from his other works because of the choreographed scenes and the singing. How did you edit it? How was it to understand what you had to do there?
J.W.: I don’t know if Emilia Pérez is very different from other films, because I think when you think about it, editing is a lot about pace. If you cut dance and songs and music, it maybe has to be more precise, but pace is also key. So, in a way, it’s the same key. Whether we’re cutting regular scenes or cutting music and dance, it’s about pace, rhythm and flow. And so, I didn’t find it easier or more difficult. It’s less free because you cannot mess with the tempo. But I realized that even when it’s a regular scene, you cannot mess with the tempo, otherwise your cut won’t be good.
I understand you had four hours to cut the first scene.
J.W.: That was crazy!
You said that when you’re cutting, you look at what the audience and what yourself would, as a member of the audience, like to see. Can you delve a bit more into that?
J.W.: I try to just use my feelings, not my head too much. I’m not thinking: “Oh, the audience would like this.” If something moves me, I’m going to do that. I’m always going to go towards what moves me, which is normal. I mean, you will choose a performance that moves you rather than a performance that doesn’t. So, that’s my way of working. I don’t think I’m thinking a lot [when I am editing]; I’m really trying to feel when I cut. And, I figure if I am moved, other people will be too, but I might be wrong.
Do you have an inspiration in terms of editing?
J.W.: Thelma Schoonmaker.
What genres are most fun to edit? Most challenging? And, which one(s) do you hate the most?
J.W.: There are genres that I have never really tried because I don’t want to go there, but maybe I’m totally wrong. Like superheroes or car races – those films for guys. Maybe it would be great to get to do a film like this. I have never tried, but my instinct tells me that I maybe wouldn’t like it very much.
Do you have a favorite film by a female director and a favorite female director?
J.W.: Kathryn Bigelow.
What are you working on next?
J.W.: I don’t know yet.
Photo credits: European Film Academy.
This interview was conducted at the 2024 European Film Awards.
