#BehindTheLens: Antara Lahiri on the politics of the cut and what happens in the edit room!

In this in-depth interview from discussing streaming time crunches to emotional rhythm, Lahiri reflects on the invisible art of editing and how every cut shapes the story we see onscreen!

As "timelines" become a buzzword today, thanks to Instagram Reels and in-app editing, it’s easy to think that editing is just about snipping clips together. But cutting a Reel on Premiere Pro is worlds apart from editing a film or series. Just imagine if all the deleted scenes you’ve seen like the extra bits fromK3G or YJHD were actually left in! Sure, they were good scenes but in the larger context of the film they would not only make the film longer, but also feel dragged out, the performances less sharp, and would lose the audience's attention. Hence a tight cut isn’t just about what you remove, it’s about what you shape. And that’s where the politics of the cut begins - something only the editor and the edit room truly understand.

We spoke to someone who knows this world inside out - Antara Lahiri. A sought-after film editor, Lahiri’s work spans genres and platforms, from critically acclaimed shows like Delhi Crime and The Royalsto films like Loveyapa and Shakuntala Devi. As streaming changed the way stories are told, she has been at the forefront of adapting tone, structure, and pace to suit evolving formats. A graduate of FTII,Lahiri brings both craft and instinct to the table, constantly balancing creative choices with the demands of data-driven storytelling. She also is a part of and runs Film Editors United, an Instagram community aimed at spotlighting editors and addressing issues that affect the craft today.

But before all this, her entry into editing was serendipitous. After completing media studies at St. Xavier’s and being waitlisted by FTII, she moved from her hometown Kolkata to Mumbai. Feeling out of place in Kolkata’s work culture, she sent out over a hundred cold emails to production houses in Mumbai, eventually landing a gig at Bedi Productions, which made shows for MTV. There, in cramped edit suites in Lakshmi Industrial Estate, she started by managing tape deliveries but soon found herself filling in for exhausted editors. Watching, experimenting, and absorbing everything, she discovered the magic of the edit suite. That, she says, was the defining moment, not when she chose editing, but when editing chose her.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Film Editors United (@filmeditorsunited)

Also Read: #TheAfterHour: "Stolen isn’t a film offering answers; it’s asking questions we needed to ask ourselves” says the director and producer of the film

In this conversation, she talks to us about the politics of the cut, the pressures of time-bound post-production, and why editing is as much about rhythm and emotional honesty as it is about structure.

Here's what she had to say! 

Your filmography is heavier on series and spans a range of tones, from light-hearted series like The Royals, Four More Shots Please or Call Me Bae to intense dramas like Delhi Crime and Ziddi Girls. How does the editing process shift with tone, and what’s different about editing a series with multiple episodes?

Editing a series is very different from editing a film, and the process shifts depending on the tone and format. Around 2017–2018, when Amazon Prime Video and Netflix were just entering the Indian market, I was quite fortunate to get involved early on. I worked on Four More Shots Please Season 1 for Prime Video and a couple episodes of Bard of Blood for Netflix. That early exposure helped me understand how fundamentally different the approach is for series compared to films. Having mostly worked on feature films, I had to really reprogram my mind. Working on web shows required a lot of unlearning and relearning. You start to hear things like "data-driven storytelling," and initially, that was frustrating, especially coming from a more artistic or craft-oriented background. But you have to keep an open mind and accept that web shows operate under a completely different set of parameters.

For instance, the pacing and rhythm are drastically different. In film school, you're taught to only cut when it's absolutely necessary. But with web series, especially in the first three episodes- the constant instruction is to keep the pace up. That’s because there’s often a viewer drop-off after Episode 3. So the idea is to hook the audience quickly and maintain that momentum long enough for them to get invested. After those initial episodes, you can relax the rhythm a bit and allow more breathing room in the narrative. So, learning how to work within those structures while still trying to find your own creative voice is key. Though finding that balance between the algorithmic logic and your own instinct as an editor is an ongoing process.

When it comes to tone, is there a difference in how you approach editing something light and humorous versus something dark or intense?

For me, working on darker, more serious content actually comes easier. I think it’s because those emotions like grief, fear, tension are just more universally felt and easier to tap into. We all go there pretty naturally, even in everyday life. But with lighter or feel-good content, especially comedy, it’s a lot trickier. And humor itself is so subjective as what makes me laugh might not work for you. Moreover, audiences often don’t take light-hearted stories seriously, which makes finding the right tone even harder.

So finding the right tone, especially in comedy or feel-good shows, is incredibly challenging. But with something dark or upsetting, the reaction tends to be more consistent across the board. So ironically, the lighter shows can be much tougher to edit. You’re constantly searching for that elusive, universal emotional note whether it’s humor, joy, or inspiration and that’s not easy to nail. 

Do you agree with this popular idea that each episode in a series should be treated like a short film? And how does editing a series differ from editing a film since both are very different formats?

Technically, the core process remains the same as you’re telling a story, whether it’s a series or a film. But yes, the intricacies do differ quite a bit. It’s ideal to treat each episode like a short film, because while the series as a whole follows a larger arc from the first to the last episode, each episode typically contains its own mini-arc as well. These begin at the start of the episode and resolve by the end, and managing both those levels- the big arc and the episode-specific arcs is what makes the series format so interesting and challenging. 

With feature films, the narrative structure is very different. You’re working within a two to two-and-a-half-hour format, and especially in Indian cinema, you often structure it around an interval point. So the pacing and rhythm are designed to build towards that break and then carry forward after. But in series, especially something like Delhi Crime Season 2, as we were three editors who were dealing with multiple 45-minute episodes. Multiply that across five or six episodes, and suddenly you’re working with 5 to 6 hours of content. That’s significantly more work than a feature film, simply in terms of volume. You’re not just telling one story, you’re telling six interconnected stories that all feed into the larger narrative.

So the quantum of labor is also that much more, and the format itself positions the arcs very differently even in web films versus theatricals. In theatrical films, you're breaking it up reel-wise so typically after your third or fourth reel, maintain the structure of your pacing and rhythm keeping that interval in mind. On the other hand, with a web film, there’s no interval and that makes it even more challenging. Whatever you’re doing, it has to hold the audience’s attention continuously, even beyond that one-hour mark where we’re used to having a reset point. Even in the writing, we’re so primed to build toward an interval that even in web films, it becomes apparent when the script has been written with that break in mind. As an editor, you have to work around that and make it flow as one seamless whole. And honestly, that’s what makes web films probably more challenging than anything else- to make two hours work in a single sitting without the crutch of an interval is insane.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Antara Lahiri (@antaralahiri)

There's a lot of talk about the "politics of the cut" and how an edit can shape the entire flow of a story. Most people might not realize it, but it changes how we consume the story. How much of what we see in the final cut actually comes from the script and how much is discovered during editing?

That's such a valid question and honestly, it all lies in a permutation and combination because if it's not on paper, it's not going to be on screen and it's not going to be in the final cut. So writing, direction and editing, if done well, they're just absolutely seamless processes. Even for someone like me, if I’m watching a project I wasn’t involved in, and I don’t know the editor, I often can’t tell where good writing ends, good direction begins, or where great editing elevates it further. But all three go hand in hand.

Each stage is supposed to lift the story, elevate the written word, which is the foundation. The way you're shooting it, the way you're positioning your camera, the way you're capturing performances has to elevate it to the next level. And then of course the editor has to take it one step further.. So it is like you can't really distinguish in that capacity.

And personally, beyond the first few reads, where I might give some feedback or help with restructuring or trimming the script, I don’t carry the script into the edit room with me. We do a technical pass to make sure all the scenes are accounted for in the timeline. But after that, I usually put the script away. Because at that point, we have to work with what has actually been shot, not what was envisioned. A film is not like a consistent sort of brick that you're going to carry and do passing the parcel with rather it's actually Chinese whispers. It is going to morph at every stage, and you have to be okay with that. 

So you have to let go of what was on paper and ask: What do I have now? Maybe some variable changed- a performance, a casting choice, a visual idea or anything elementally and now the intention of the scene is different. You can't be possessed by what was written in the script anymore. You need to respond to what’s in front of you. 

The one thing I would go back to a script for is sometimes intention. If the director isn’t in the room and I’m working solo on an editor’s cut, and I find myself unclear about what the emotional or narrative goal of a scene was, I’ll go back to the script to try and rediscover that original intent. But otherwise, I prefer to work organically with the footage because based on all the changes during the shoot, you’d want to restructure. And that happens a fair bit especially in multi-character narratives. For instance, in films like Mast Mein Rehne Ka or Yeh Ballet, where there are two or more protagonists, restructuring happened in the edit.

Because when you have multiple storylines, the rhythm and emotional momentum kept shifting. You often realize that the intended order of scenes on paper no longer works once performances, energy, or transitions come into play. So yes, I’d say you have to stay open to restructuring. And it’s important to even write with that flexibility in mind, understanding that what’s written today will almost certainly evolve during the shoot and again in the edit. 

So that’s where the editor’s voice shows? As every editor brings their own unique style, almost like an artist’s signature.

People often label editors as just technicians, but I really disagree with that. Yes, editing involves technical skills- you need to know the software, handle glitches, and keep the system running. But at its core, it’s a creative job. Just like giving an artist a pencil or brush doesn’t define their art, the tools we use don’t define what we do. Editing is about storytelling, rhythm, emotion, it’s an art form, not just a technical task. The tools cannot define your job. There is a kind of signature that every editor as an artist, has. And for sure even an author would write the same thing very differently. So it’s all in the voice and in the tonality that you use, how you perceive, what your own life experiences matters greatly.

For instance, my professors at FTII told us something valuable when we were trying to understand rhythm. He said to just see how you speak to someone else when you’re having a conversation, try and break it up into shots and you’ll see at what point you’ll put the other person’s reaction to something you have said. And obviously, like, my rhythm will be very different from your rhythm. Then you have to see in what way, where are the pauses coming in when you speak? And where are the pauses coming in when someone else speaks? So much of it is also informed by your daily life and from your life experiences, but for sure, everyone will have their own very distinctive voice.

But how much of the editor’s voice actually makes it to the final cut, especially with so many stakeholders involved like directors, producers, and platforms? With all the versions floating around, whose cut are we often watching?

Everyone has very different experiences, by and large. If they’re hiring you and you have a certain amount of experience, then they’re hiring you for that experience. And in fact, even platforms have a say in when editors are hired. They want to work with someone or they don’t want to work with someone. So if you’re coming in with that experience, then typically people obviously trust you because you bring in that experience. So I would say, almost 70–80% of the time, you’re working with people who are happy to go with your judgment.

Of course, after the editor’s cut, the director will come in, and there will be a discussion and there will be a to and fro on certain aspects, whether it’s performances or whether it’s certain beats of the story. So there are those changes. There are also showrunners and producers who have their input to give. But I think there are shows and films where everyone has actually been largely aligned. In this whole game of Chinese whispers, people are really aligned. And I feel those are the more sort of successful-ish shows that you watch where everyone’s out to make the same thing.

The problems arise when different people are coming in with different agendas. Like someone is only looking at the revenue aspect of it, or someone’s only looking at their personal success or fame, or someone is only looking at their personal PR. When individual agendas come in, That is when it starts impacting the film or the show or whatever it is. But I have been part of projects where everyone was out to make the same thing. And within that of course there will be arguments and there will be a lot of different opinions and all of that. But I feel if your core thought is the same and you have aligned before you’ve gone into shoot that this is what we are making, this is the tone of what we are making, and this is what we intend to achieve I feel like that conversation is also very important, obviously, to have. But a lot of people don’t have that conversation. If you do, then you’re probably going to be quite okay, no matter how many, however many people are involved.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by The Film Recipe (@the_film_recipe)

There are a lot of misconceptions around editing from undervaluing the role to assuming editors are solely to blame if something feels too long or too slow. Like the idea that directors don’t let one cut anything or that pacing is always the editor’s fault. Do you feel that editors are often unfairly held responsible for issues rooted somewhere else? And how often do you still encounter these kinds of myths in your own experience?

People don’t really see what an editor actually does. And that includes even people who work in the film industry. A lot of them have a very limited understanding of the editor’s role, and that starts to reflect right from the way editors are hired. There's often this misconception that the editor’s job is just to “put shots together,” and then, naturally, people hire accordingly like they’re just looking for someone to mechanically assemble footage. But that’s absolutely not what editing is.

You also see this misunderstanding play out in the way people talk about films or shows they’ve watched. A lot of critics, for instance, will say something like, “the editing could’ve been crisp” or “it was a crisp edit,” which is such a bizarre and surface-level way to evaluate the work. Because unless you’ve actually been in the edit room, it’s very difficult to know what’s really gone down. Honestly, even as an editor, if I wasn’t part of a particular project, I can’t fully understand the decisions made there either. So as a third person, especially as a viewer or critic forming a solid opinion about the quality of editing is very tricky. 

And on top of that, there’s little awareness of the fact that the material itself goes through a huge evolution in the edit. You know, after the script is written and the film is shot, the editor’s job is to rework and refine what exists to further evolve the material, hopefully for the better. But how that evolution happens, whether anything was elevated or even compromised, can’t be judged from the outside unless you know exactly what was on the table to begin with.

Then there’s another real aspect- sometimes different people on the same project are all making different versions of the film in their heads. So the editor is stuck in the middle of conflicting visions. The producer might have one agenda and is directing you to do something a certain way. You’re contractually bound to follow that. The director may refuse to cut certain scenes because they’re emotionally attached to them, even if you feel they’re dragging the pace. You can’t override those decisions.

And then, when the film is out, people turn around and say, “Oh, the edit was loose” but that wasn’t even the editor’s call to make. Ultimately, it is the director’s vision and the producer’s project. So yes, there’s a lot of misinformation and it all comes back to this basic lack of awareness. Whether it’s calling editors just “technicians” or throwing around vague terms like “crisp editing,” it shows how little people truly understand the nuances of the job.

How valid do you think this statement is that an actor’s acting is shaped by an editor?

To a great extent, yes. See if an actor is really bad, there’s no amount of editing that will obviously save the performance, right? You might be able to solve it in certain scenes, but you can still see the chinks in the armor. The audiences are very intelligent and perceptive, as far as these things are concerned. However, I will also say that, for instance, you’ll find a lot of actors who give a lot of variations. There are some actors who actually do the exact same thing in every take, which is obviously not helpful. But there are actors who may not be great, but they’ve given you variations like they’ve done the same line in a slightly toned-down way. On a scale of 10, they’ve given you a 5, 7, or 10 in terms of intensity. And then you’re able to choose what level of intensity you want for that particular performance. That actually is between the director and the editor to decide what that particular scene or performance needs to be. And then whether we change it up in a different scene or we retain that tone, also very key to shaping performances. 

And it can really make or break, if you ask me. But on a personal level, I love it when actors give variations in their takes, because it really opens up your horizon in the edit. So yeah, but if it’s a really shoddy performance like a very one-tone performance it’s very difficult to salvage. And I think at the end of the day, it does get visible, whose decision is this- the actor’s acting or any of the decisions that have been made.

When we talk about misconceptions about editors, and the kind of invisibility around the work they do, what’s something that has improved for editors over time?

One major change is how we’ve started valuing ourselves more as a community and demanding that others do, too. When I was an assistant editor, no one would even tell you that you're allowed to ask for a holiday. There was no concept of taking a day off or expecting food to be provided by the production. But over the last 4–5 years, there’s been a very conscious effort among us to change that. It hasn’t happened magically, we’ve had to push for it. Today, assistant editors, associate editors, and editors are being given more basic dignity like fairer payments (at least comparatively), meals on set, and the right to have one day off a week. Of course, some producers and production houses are very fair, but a large majority still don’t naturally account for our wellbeing unless we ask.

Is there something that still hasn’t changed over the years? 

Editors are still underpaid despite how much more responsibility we’ve taken on. The amount of work an editor does today is nowhere close to just copy-pasting shots together. Editors are now helping decide the tone of a project whether it’s a film or a streaming series. We're putting in background music, basic graphics, sound effects, and a whole lot more. When we send out an editor’s cut or submit a cut to a platform or a network, the deliverables often include background scores and sound design inputs. So we’re doing much more than what the traditional definition of editing once was. The platforms actually expect that from us now. It’s part of our deliverables. But the pay hasn’t caught up at all. 

Honestly, when we talk about films today, the focus is almost always on the actors- the pranks, the food on set, who did whose hair, and other behind-the-scenes trivia. But we rarely talk about how films are actually made, and that can be frustrating for those of us working behind the scenes. Because no matter how a project is received- praised or panned, the effort to create even a simple moment on screen is the same. The conversation still leans heavily toward the glamour, not the craft. And unfortunately, the money and visibility follow that pattern too. Of course, people come to see actors but would anyone go to a theatre just to watch raw footage of a star? Probably not. It’s the edit, the structure, the score, and the entire post-production process that makes the final product what it is. That part often goes unnoticed, and it’s something we really need to talk about more.

You mentioned editors today are also expected to put in background scores - isn’t that typically the composer’s job?

With social media making basic editing tools more accessible, especially on platforms like Instagram, do you think that exposure has created more awareness about editing? Has it changed the kind of people who are now entering the field?

Even when people apply to be assistant editors or associate editors now, a lot of them say they have a lot of experience editing material. But when you ask them what they’ve edited, it’s often reels, corporate videos, or short 5-minute films. Now, I personally wouldn’t be very comfortable hiring someone whose only experience has been with that kind of content. Long-format editing is a completely different beast. The framework and scope within which we operate for long-format projects- be it web series or films is just very different. And it’s not just the creative aspect, it's the entire ecosystem we function in. For example, when you're editing a reel or a short online video, you have complete control- you shoot it, cut it, and put it out, all by yourself. But with long-format content, you're working with a huge number of people: the shoot itself involves 300 people, and once it comes into post, you're working with editors, assistant editors, post supervisors, background music teams, sound designers, graphics artists, people doing title sequences, it’s massive.

So every creative decision you make has to be within that workflow. You’re constantly coordinating, and you're not the only person shaping the content. It’s not a one-person show. That, for me, is the key difference between editing something for Instagram and editing something for long-form content. And once you understand that workflow, then you can decide whether you want your cuts to be sharp and prominent or totally seamless. But understanding and aligning with that kind of collaborative process is the most crucial thing. Also, there's a difference in storytelling. Even though a lot of reels have amazing storytelling within 30 seconds or 2 minutes, it’s still a very different skill set when you have to sustain someone's interest for a two-hour film or an eight-episode show. There’s a theme, a character arc, and narrative depth you’re working with so it’s just a completely different game.

But with the increasing influence of social media, especially in terms of demand for new content delivered faster, do you think these time crunches are becoming a challenge, especially when you're expected to deliver a series or a film much faster than before?

A big reason for that is the sheer hunger for new content. With cable TV now almost obsolete, most people moved to streaming platforms so there’s this ongoing pressure to drop something new every two weeks, whether it's fiction or non-fiction. That directly impacts how quickly we’re expected to deliver a project. Something that earlier might have taken a year or more to put together now has to be turned around much faster. But that said, no one is completely daft. People in the system do understand the difference between shows that can be churned out quickly and those that can’t. There are certain kinds of shows that can be made faster because they have fewer moving parts. But then there are others like The Royals, for instance that are inherently expansive. That show had a lot going on: we were in edit for close to 8 months, and at the same time, we were working on background music, graphics, and a very detailed sound design. So yes, those kinds of shows are going to take the time they take. And thankfully, I think there's an understanding of that on all sides from editors, creators, platforms.

Now from our perspective as editors, it absolutely makes more sense to wrap up projects faster. Not only from a schedule standpoint, but also from a budget point of view. The money we’re paid per project isn’t always enough to justify an endless timeline. So naturally, we do try to deliver faster. But only if we’re doing justice to the material. It’s only when we feel satisfied that the show or the film is in a good place, that it’s ready to be watched that we’ll actually send it out. And in my experience, I haven’t really met a creator or platform that would say, “It's half done, but deliver it anyway.” Everyone I’ve worked with has been fairly cognizant and responsible about the quality of what they’re putting out and why.

Given the constant time crunch in the industry today, do you think AI is helping editors in any significant way? 

It's definitely something that’s entering the conversation, especially with tools like Adobe Premiere Pro, which a lot of us use, editors in film, but also content creators. They’ve integrated some really interesting AI features. I wouldn’t say these necessarily save time just yet, but they do show that there’s an effort to make things easier. I’ve actually been in touch with people who are trying to develop AI tools specifically for editors and post-production teams. But the main issue is that the editing process itself is extremely disorganized. For instance, let’s say there's an AI tool that’s meant to sync your picture and audio by matching lip movements. In theory, great. But in practice, we often don’t even have the corresponding audio file because of the chaotic conditions we shoot in from outdoor locations, fast-paced schedules, or even just situations where actors start rolling before the sound recordist is informed.

So what ends up happening is we're manually syncing audio from completely different takes or even doing sound dumps. And in cases like that, no AI can help you unless the right data is there to begin with. Another major challenge is language. A lot of the AI tools currently available are trained primarily in English that too spoken in a particular accent. On Indian sets, we deal with Hinglish, and sometimes even actors who are not fluent in either. So even basic transcription, which AI is supposed to help with, becomes really hit-or-miss. We’ve done extensive trial and error with that, and it’s just not reliable yet. 

The truth is, the most time-consuming part of our work is still syncing, sorting, and clipping rushes. And those are the areas where AI could eventually help but right now, it’s not quite there yet. Even in visual effects, where people say they’ve used AI, the reality is that it takes multiple prompts and many attempts to get something decent. You’ll still end up doing 20% of that work manually. So even if there’s an article saying “AI did the VFX,” what they don’t say is how many human hours went into perfecting the prompts and touching up the output. That said, I don’t buy into the fear that AI will take over our jobs, not in the near future anyway. I absolutely would use it to optimize my work, 100%, if it’s helpful. But I believe AI should be treated like an assistant, not unpaid labor. The problem is, of course, the temptation to treat it as exactly unpaid labor, which is very high in our industry. A lot of people are banking on AI to save money and time, but acc to me AI will just become another complex tool to manage, another giant beast in the workflow rather than a magic solution.

Was there ever a cut or moment in your edits that surprised even you, something that felt magical? Do you have favorite editors whose cuts you’ve always enjoyed?

That’s tough because honestly, you come across those moments in almost every project. But if I had to pick one, I’d say the first episode of Delhi Crime Season 2. It took us forever to crack that one- unimaginably long but I’m really proud of how it turned out. Especially the way we used the B-roll shots from images of the city, laborers, daily life, it added so much to the tone. It became a bit of a joke among my co-editors because I used up all the B-roll in that one episode. But even they agree it worked beautifully. That one still stays with me. 

Two directors whose work I find absolutely magical are Mani Ratnam and Satyajit Ray- you can pick almost any of their films, and they just feel miraculous. And when it comes to editors, I’m in complete awe of Sreekar Prasad, especially the way his edits bring Mani Ratnam’s vision to life. I also really admire Anthony’s work. Both of them have such distinct styles, and I genuinely love almost everything they’ve done.

For more such conversations, follow us on@socialketchupbinge.