How Decisions in the Editing Room Impact Documentaries.

Producers of investigative reports and documentaries have to ensure to document the reality they are capturing as unfiltered and authentically as possible. This starts with the production itself, when the camera team tries to shoot as unobtrusively as possible so as to influence the actions as little as possible, or, ideally, not at all. Simply having a camera present creates a great challenge. Even when they succeed, meaning the people in front of the camera ‘forget’ that they are being filmed and truly behave the way they do in real life, nonetheless decisions have been made in regards to the depiction of the truth that is being captured. Which scene should be recorded? From which camera position, and for how long? The first filter: what was never shot, cannot be part of the film.

During the editing process, several more filters are being implemented: expectations of the director and the producers, the editor’s own expectations; and anticipation of audience expectations. Editing decisions aim to harmonize all these expectations. In the end, a documentary is being created that shows the lives of those depicted in an authentic manner. Using a 30-minute documentary for ARTE (a European culture TV channel) as an example, editing decisions are being discussed.

Documentary: Moldau’s Doerfer – Zerrissen zwischen Russland und EU.

At the time of this writing, no English title for this documentary had been published yet. The translation of the German title is: The Villages of Moldova – Torn Apart Between Russia and European Union. The documentary premiered on ARTE on August 26, 2025. Its editor is the author of this essay.

ARTE’s ‘What We Do’-page for the English-speaking consumer states “Every programme with cultural slant has a home on ARTE” (Arte in English). The page for German audiences features a more detailed text, roughly translated here: “Documentaries from Europe. Be close, authentic, truthful – with a person at its center. In 30minutes, you explore the life’s of others, experiencing Europe’s cultural diversity and richness” (Arte). The goal of these films is that people from different cultural backgrounds get to tell their own stories and history, with the aim to be less dependent on voice-over narration and instead show ‘true life’ as it is lived by incorporating many action scenes that capture the local atmosphere.

This particular documentary follows young photographer Viktor as he travels from the capital of Moldova (also known as Moldavia) to remote villages near the border with Ukraine. He wants to scan old pictures from the local residents to document and preserve village life, while also inspiring younger people from his generation to move to such locations so that these villages survive. This is an example of one individual’s quest to create actual societal changes. Viktor’s project was funded by grants from the European Union.

Real Time vs. Cut

Creating documentaries for TV (in contrast to creating work for streaming-platforms, such as YouTube) means that the finished film has to adhere to a specific running time, in this case 30minutes, so that the film can fit into scheduling parameters. As a result, actions or stories have to be condensed based on decisions made by the director and/or the editor. At times, entire scenes may need to be omitted, which is often painful for all involved, including the film’s creators.

Using this documentary on Moldova as the example, approximately 1,000minutes of footage were shot over eight days, utilizing a shoulder camera, a handheld camera, and a drone. Of those, 970minutes did not make it into the finished film. The reality the film presents is created of three percent of the actual footage. Just looking at these numbers emphasizes the dilemma an editor experiences: life takes time, yet time is limited in film. Omitting material to create a stronger plotline, becomes the essence of editing (as is the case in other genres as well). But every decision has consequences for the way the audience perceives the reality they are viewing, the ‘adaptation of true life’.

Often it is a challenge to be fair to the protagonist and his way of life while not boring the viewers at the same time. Today’s audience expectations include a faster-paced narrative, leaving little time to meet a subject in-depth in real time. The protagonist, Viktor, is an introvert. It takes time for him to speak with locals. Looking at all the shot material, one can see the evolution as he slowly begins talking with the village residents. That impacts the atmosphere, but should audiences have to patiently wait? Would a viewer even continue watching if more of this footage were shown? And if so, how much more would they accept?

The consequence is that a conversation that in real time took twenty minutes is two to three minutes long in the finished film. New people that Viktor meets have to be introduced via voice-over narration, as the true-life meeting that covers the same information is too lengthy. Also, when people chat, they like to embellish, go off-topic or miss a point entirely. The editing ensures that the narrative moves forward.

At the beginning of the film, Viktor travels to meet his friends who bought an old abandoned house at the edge of a village. This is the starting location for their project. In the shot footage, Viktor receives a tour of the house as well as the entire property. Everything looks run down and gives the vibe of a hippie-commune. Having shot this footage at dusk, the property shows in a great atmosphere. This is Viktor’s real life, his reality. These are his friends, his environment. But in the editing room, typical questions are being raised: what of all of this is needed for the audience to meet and connect with Viktor? What is the value in meeting his friends and seeing them cooking a meal together? Does it assist telling the story of the photography project? Do we really need to see one of his friends play a traditional Moldavian flute? The truth the film depicts looks like this: Viktor arrives, followed by short welcome, quick dinner preparations and eating the dinner together. It was decided that the property’s hippie-vibe should not distract from the actual story, even though it is an important aspect of Viktor’s life.

What do you tell, what do you omit? This is the most powerful of all filters. It requires sensibilities by the director and the editor, who have to focus on the story’s purpose while simultaneously being truthful to the subject’s personality, his identity.

Chronology vs. Dramaturgy

Real life runs chronologically. We don’t experience jumps in time, no flash forwards or backwards. This is frequently different in film. In the interest of narrative flow, it is often best to present actions out of order to be able to make relevant connections. (Classic news reports are being told chronologically – an adaptation of true life. One day is told after another.)

At first, the film discussed in this essay is being told chronologically. Viktor welcomes us to the city, drives to the countryside, meets his friends. But by the second day – unbeknownst to the audience – changes were made to strengthen narrative storytelling. In real life, Viktor walks by himself through nature and explores abandoned towns. He doesn’t meet locals until the afternoon.

How can the documentary make Viktor sympathetic to the audience? How can we get to know him? How can the audience get invested in his project? Those are the questions that the director and editor ask themselves in the editing room. We will get to know Viktor differently, if he walks around alone at first. Also, is it engaging when two similar scenes of Viktor talking with locals are shown back-to-back? Or would it be more engaging for the viewer to see Viktor speak with one local, then walk around alone, followed by another conversation scene? Most of the time, dramaturgy trumps chronology.

On the third day, Viktor meets with a young a musician who shows him his village. Originally, this musician was to be another protagonist in the film. Due to time constraints, this entire plot is omitted. Similarly, a meeting of Viktor with a local business owner ends up on the cutting room floor. Also, in real life, Viktor traveled to the villages and thereafter returns to the capital to open a small photography exhibit. During the editing process, a decision was made to interrupt Viktor’s travels with the opening of the exhibit, to create an understanding for the viewer earlier on in the film what Viktor aims to accomplish with his project. As a result, in the film, it appears that Viktor travels again after the exhibit. That didn’t happen. It was decided that the fest of cultures – that actually took place earlier – should conclude the film.

On-Camera Narration vs Voice-Over

In contrast to vlogs, where most of the time the vlogger shares their own viewpoint and comments on changes in locations and possible jumps in time on-camera, documentaries often rely on voice-over narration to provide context, to summarize key information or to emphasize changes in time or location.

How much context does a viewer need to get to know a protagonist, to understand him? Is it enough to only listen to Viktor and his conversations with the locals? Or does the viewer need additional information about Moldova? This information would be known to Viktor and the country’s residents and would not be spoken about by them. In this case, the proximity to Ukraine, with an ongoing war, that is not seen in the film. In the film, Viktor walks to a vista point at sunset. One can see a heart-shaped island in the middle of a river. In and of itself it is an idyllic scene. With the addition of the voice-over narration though, the scene’s meaning changes. The voice-over informs the viewer that ‘here at the border, the threat that Russia presents is evident’. This example shows how a voice-over narration can impact a viewer’s interpretation of a real location, by adding additional information or emotions that are absent from the actual visual and sound recorded on location.

Voice-over narration represents an additional layer that impacts the audience’s understanding and, at times, can limit the meaning of a given scene. Such narration can never be completely neutral – expectations and guidance by the producers impact the scripting of such voice-overs. It is also pretty much impossible for a director to not have their own personal values and opinions enter the commentary in some form. Because of this, the goal of these types of film is to include as little voice-over narration as possible. 

When editing a film, often due to running time matters, voice-overs become indispensable to provide essential summaries so the viewer can follow along. This means that a protagonist will get credited with statements he never actually made, by using phrases such as “he thinks,… he comments,… he wants to…” If Viktor had said any of those things, then the original footage could and would have been used. Attributing statements to people in a film is a stylistic tool to authenticate the voice-over narration: the narration should not be connected with the director, even though that’s the person who wrote it. This is a very delicate line to walk and places great responsibility on the filmmaker – as well as the protagonist and the audience. Rightfully, viewers get to ask the question: if he thinks this and says that, why didn’t we see him do just that?

To depict true life in documentaries while simultaneously meeting the expectations of the TV station, the producers, and the audience is a great challenge – during production and in the editing room. But that is also a reason that brings a lot of joy to editing. I believe that every editor who takes their job seriously, has at the utmost goal to show a fair (, that is, truthful) portrayal of a protagonist, utilizing the techniques at the editor’s disposal, including the language of film, the pacing of the narrative, and to what extent the visuals can speak for themselves.

(Original essay written in German. Translated by Monika Raesch.)

Works Cited

ARTE. 2025. “Arte Re:.” August 19, 20025. https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/RC-013956/arte-re/

ARTE. 2025 “Re: Moldaus Dörfer, zerrissen zwischen Russland und EU.” August 20, 2025. https://www.arte.tv/de/videos/120879-008-A/re-moldaus-doerfer-zerrissen-zwischen-russland-und-eu/

ARTE in English. 2025. “What We Do.” August 19, 2025. https://www.arte.tv/sites/corporate/en/what-we-do/