COLUMN · INSTAGRAM
A festival Reel has two audiences
A jury judges a film against the competition brief. Someone scrolling their feed has never read it. The Edits festival in Mumbai makes the difference worth remembering.
The Edits Film Festival concluded in Mumbai on 14 October. Meta’s announcement of the finalists the previous day included a revealing detail: the selected films demonstrated both storytelling and the capabilities of Edits. Their makers effectively had two briefs: tell viewers a story and show the organisers what their editing tool could do.[1][2]
There is nothing underhand about that. A festival built around a video editor is entitled to care about editing. Its brief can encourage a creator to try an unfamiliar technique and help a jury notice work that might otherwise pass unseen. The mistake comes later, when success in a competition is treated as a set of instructions for success in the everyday feed.
Viewers have no checklist of compulsory effects
Imagine a short scene in which someone rehearses an important conversation, then says something entirely different when the moment arrives. Editing could show several failed rehearsals and hold a pause before the actual answer. The technique helps us understand the character. If the typeface, background and speed change after every line instead, we may spend our attention deciphering the presentation rather than following the conversation. That version could take more work. It need not be more interesting.
This is not a choice between simple and elaborate video. Elaborate editing can be the story: the collision of two shots creates a joke that words cannot deliver. The useful question is what the viewer would lose if a particular device disappeared. If the loss is meaning, rhythm or surprise, the technique is doing useful work. If its removal merely conceals the fact that the creator found that button, the film might survive the loss.
For this competition, entrants did have to edit their submission using Edits. That requirement need not become the brief for every subsequent video. Learning a tool is useful; demonstrating everything learnt whenever an audience appears is optional. Music school is not preparation for playing scales at every concert.[2]
An award offers recognition, not a formula for reach
Nor should the festival itself be reduced to a showcase of effects. Meta’s account of the results specifically praises the restraint of the winning work. That matters: it complicates the tempting assumption that using more features earns a better score. Even the organiser describes skill as something broader than the number of functions employed.[2]
A jury’s selection and a Reel’s distribution on Instagram answer different questions. The announcements we read offer no promise of preferential promotion for using Edits. An award establishes neither a ranking rule nor an expected viewing figure. These creators received recognition in a particular competition. Asking the award to explain the algorithm as well is asking rather a lot.[1][2]
The more useful lesson is permission to choose. A competition can encourage an experiment; the next film may need a different decision altogether. A good editor gives its user more possibilities. A good creator feels no obligation to display them all.