Editing and Editors in Croatian Cinema
Editing Challenges of Radojka Tanhofer’s First Features
Trenutki Odločitve / Moments of Decision and the Advancement of Editing Techniques
Founding the Editing Department in Zagreb, Once More From Scratch
Radojka Tanhofer – Woman, Editor, Professor – Pioneer
Filmography of Radojka Tanhofer
Feature Films (Fiction) 26 Based on Škrabalo, 1998, 2008; Turković, 2008.
When thinking of film pioneers, one usually starts by recalling the period of silent and early film with, for instance, the brothers Auguste and Louis Lumière, George Méliès, Thomas Edison, D.W. Griffith, Edwin S. Porter, Sergei Eisenstein and others. But pioneers by definition do not depend on certain time or place. Film history, although relatively brief in comparison to other art forms, still hides many of the individuals who helped not only with technical inventions and improvements, and the development of film grammar and film storytelling, but also with perfecting film professions while enabling the beginning of film education of younger generations of filmmakers. Each country, each national cinema has pioneers who are mostly unknown, not only to general public, but even to the film community. These individuals seldom appear in the literature, their work and contribution is often under-researched and it is sometimes too easy to simply overlook them. One of these is a film editor who started to develop her knowledge of film and editing by observing, watching and listening. She worked with different directors and edited many feature films, some of which have become classics of film editing. To her, every film she made was an opportunity to perfect her editing skills. Afterwards, she got the opportunity to share her knowledge by teaching and co-founding the Department of Editing in a university and helping younger generations to enter the industry. This individual is a pioneer of Croatian cinema, film editing and film editing education, her name is Radojka Tanhofer.
This paper focuses on the editing career of Radojka Tanhofer, which can be divided into two main phases. The first encompasses Tanhofer’s years in editing (1940s - 1960s), learning and honing her craft, her work on numerous feature films with a number of domestic and international directors. The second covers her teaching at the Academy of Dramatic Art (from the founding of the Editing Department as a two-year programme in 1969, to its development into a four-year university study programme in 1977). The aim of this paper is to highlight Tanhofer’s significance in the context of Croatian and Yugoslav cinema through the use of existing literature, an analysis of significant works of classic Croatian cinema, as well as my own insights into the history and current practice of the Editing Department at the Academy of Dramatic Art, University of Zagreb, as a former student, and now assistant professor.
Croatian cinema has a complex history, and its origins are intertwined to some degree with politics. From 1941 until 1945, Croatia, named Nezavisna Država Hrvatska (Independent State of Croatia), abbreviated, NDH, was a puppet state of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This state viewed film as a means of propaganda, so a great effort was put into organisation, production and distribution of state-funded films. In 1942, the state institute Hrvatski slikopis (Croatia film) was founded, and film production (short films and the first sound feature film1) could start, alongside the publication of film journals (cf. Škrabalo 2008: 40). By 1943, during the NDH government, Croatia had 164 cinema theatres with a total of 60,000 seats (cf. Rafaelić 2013: 155). Also, it is worth mentioning that during this period a great deal of modern film equipment (cameras, lighting, editing tables etc.) was bought from Germany (cf. Škrabalo, 2012: 23). In 1946, during Socijalistička Federativna Republika Jugoslavija (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) or SFRJ, the first film studio, Jadran Film, was founded, which was significant for the continuation and growth of the film industry. Former Slikopis employees (directors, cinematographers, editors etc.) came to Jadran Film, among whom was editor Branko Marjanović who helped to save and relocate film equipment from Slikopis (cf. Boglić 1988: 9, Škrabalo 2008: 43). He and other film makers had the necessary experience to educate upcoming film professionals, but that didn’t necessarily mean that they were willing to share their hard-earned knowledge.
In this atmosphere, in 1946, two young women started working at Jadran Film. One was just finishing her education at the Music Academy, and the other was studying electrical engineering. They needed a job, and they found one at the editing department without understanding what film editing really is. One was Radojka Tanhofer who got the job in September 1946 as a editor (in Croatian: montažerka) (cf. Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 10). The other one was Tea Brunšmid, who started working at Jadran Film in May as a sound editor (in Croatian: montažerka zvuka) They worked together as editor and sound editor on many films, became close friends and their collaboration would continue to their retirements. Tea Brunšmid recalls their beginnings:
the editing table scared me the first time I saw it. Branko Marjanović was the man back in the day, and he taught Radojka and me how it is done. I remember the first time I had to work with the tone negative. I had no idea how to begin, and none of the other female editors, left from Slikopis, wanted to help me out. They were afraid of losing their jobs to young competition. (Paulus 1996: 80)
So, how could people with no experience in film industry even become editors? How did they learn? What were the necessary skills? Besides being willing to work long hours, no skills were necessary, at least not in the beginning. Editing skills were developed over time, first through observing and hard apprentice work, followed by learning from their own mistakes. To get a better idea why hard work and long hours were necessary (and still are) to become an editor, one first needs to understand the process, the technical side of editing on a film tape, and using a flatbed film editing table.
Let us say an editor is working on a simple scene consisting of three shots, A, B and C. The editor needs to shorten shot B. The first thing they do is watch the whole scene a couple of times to decide where to cut. After rewatching the shots and focusing on shot B, the editor will stop the editing table on the exact frame where the cut will be. This frame is marked with a grease pencil2. Then the editor has to start up the editing table again and rewind the reel with their right hand while simultaneously extracting the section containing shot B with their left hand. When that section has been extracted, the editor stops the editing table, turns off the projection and finds the marked frame. The additional footage of shot B is removed and stored in the trim bin,3 and the new end attached to shot C with sellotape. After that, the editing table and projection is turned back on and the editor slowly releases the film to continue watching it. Thus, editing and/or re-editing a scene took hours upon hours. In contemporary digital editing, after watching the before mentioned scene a couple of times, the shortening of a shot B is made literally by pressing a single key.
But understanding the process of editing still doesn’t answer the question, why young women like Tanhofer were offered jobs in the editing department with no previous film experience, and nor does it describe their status and job opportunities. How did people even know about job opportunities in Jadran Film?
Radojka Tanhofer came to Jadran Film by chance. At the time she was living in Zagreb with her mother and brother and needed a job. Her neighbour asked if she would like to work in Jadran Film. At the job interview she was asked if she would like to work in the editing department and her first reaction was: “And what is that?” (Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 8). She watched films, but didn’t know much about film production and the only important thing at the time for her was to have a job. Her mother was deeply hurt by her decision to join Jadran Film and to leave the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing, stating that with her new profession her daughter had joined a circus (cf. Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 8). To understand her mother’s point of view it is necessary to remember the very beginnings of editing as a film profession and the status first editors held inside film community and in the eyes of general public.
The first editors were actually called cutters – they literally cut film by hand. Cutters were considered hands for hire rather than creative contributors and, most of the time, they didn’t even receive screen credits (Hatch 2013). Editing was soon seen as undemanding manual labour offered primarily to women in American and European studios of the 1910s and 1920s, its social status corresponding to that of a secretary or a seamstress (cf. Norden, 1984). Besides acting, it was the only film profession available and recommended to women and as such, it was unworthy of mention in film literature. Unfortunately even today, film history and film studies are often behind in recognising and cataloguing film editors’ work, not just with films from the silent era, but also with the talkies (see Pearlman, Heftberger 2018).
A similar situation has occurred in Croatian cinema, where (both editing and sound editing are neglected areas of study in academia, which has presented a considerable challenge in writing this paper. Occasional papers deal with editing as artistic practice4, and some theoretical studies touch upon editing as such. However, studies focusing on the development and the definition of editing or the pioneer work of the early editors are scarce. Reasons are aplenty. Foremost, a lack of access to vital sources such as screenplays, storyboards, film posters, shot lists, daily call sheets (in Croatian: dispozicije) etc. and there are very few witnesses left. Also, available archival film material is under-researched5 and the position of editing within the film community and general public also needs to be taken into account.
The social context, that is the visibility of the editing profession and its impact on society, is another relevant criterion. Primarily representative of the social context are film festivals, which can be seen as a reflection on the status and the politics of filmmaking. The Pula Film Festival is the oldest Croatian film festival, first held in 1954 as a national film festival of Yugoslavia6. The following year, the festival appointed a jury and awarded a prize, the Golden Arena.7 But, the Golden Arena for editing was first awarded only in 1980, 26 years after the festival’s inauguration8.
A similar situation is reflected in film studies’ publications in terms of relevance, creativity, authorship, and visibility of the editing work. The perception of editing as an assistant or technical job rather than a creative one has left the major works of Croatian film studies, Filmska enciklopedija (Film encyclopaedia) and Filmski leksikon (Film lexicon), without a single mention of film editors in any of its entries, despite the Filmski leksikon defining the author of a film as the “person whose creative contribution visibly influences the stylistic distinctiveness of the entire film. These are typically the director, screenwriter, costume designer, make-up artist, editor, film score composer” (Kragić and Gilić 2003: 26). Filmska enciklopedija, in two volumes (1986 and 1990) is considered one of the most comprehensive film encyclopaedias in the world, thanks to its editor-in-chief Ante Peterlić (cf. Škrabalo 2008: 163). Nevertheless, it includes only those editors who were also directors, cinematographers, or screenwriters, like Branko Marjanović and Esfir’ Shub. No foreign editors were included as opposed to numerous cinematographers, both Croatian and foreign.
Film editors such as Radojka Tanhofer (1927), Katja Majer (1916-2001), Lidija Jojić (1912-2006)9, Tea Brunšmid (1919-2000)10, Lida Braniš (1927-1994), are not found in film encyclopedias, and have not yet been the subject of scholarly studies. The Croatian film community tends to forget that through their dedicated and often innovative work, despite modest working conditions11, they helped define film and sound editing in Croatian cinema. These women, the most important Croatian feature film editors and pioneers, are mentioned too infrequently, apart from in the opening and ending credits of films from the 1940s to the 1970s.
Radojka Tanhofer (maiden name: Ivančević) was born in Drniš in 1927. Her mother was a professor of mathematics and physics while her father was a professor of Croatian language and literature. After a year the family moved to Banja Luka where Radojka’s brother Radovan was born. Her parents separated and soon afterwards, in 1938, mother and children moved to Zagreb, where Radojka finished high school and enrolled Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computing. Radojka started working in Jadran Film in 1946, at the age of 19. For a while she tried to continue her studies at the Faculty, but eventually decided to dedicate herself to film. The following year she got her first opportunity to edit a feature film. Thus, began her film career, marked by hard labour, rarely noticed talent, and a great desire to learn and constantly improve her editing skills. She worked with some of the most renowned Croatian and Yugoslav directors (Zvonimir Berković, Branko Belan, Nikola Tanhofer, Krešo Golik), and some of her films are considered classic works of Croatian cinema. At the invitation of her colleagues, she co-founded the Editing Department of the Academy of Dramatic Art in 1969, where she was in charge of the practical study programme for future film editors. All her knowledge, skills and film understanding she selflessly incorporated in the study programme. While editing was the major topic, she invited film industry colleagues to broaden the programme into post-production by introducing subjects as sound editing (Tea Brunšmid), continuity (Ivanka Forenbaher), music and other areas. The main goals of the programme were to develop in students: a high level of professionalism; an understanding of the dramaturgy of scenes and of film as a whole; a sense of film rhythm and film time; knowledge of visual language; the ability to work in the most diverse film editing styles (rhythmic, continuity, associative and poetic); the ability to envisage “new” narrative solutions, and a complete understanding of film production and postproduction. The quality of the programme and her teaching is proven by the fact that foundations of her study programme remain unchanged. The key to her teaching was her invaluable experience in all aspects of film editing and her recognition that the best way to learn editing was to do it from scratch, by observing and studying, through apprenticeship. In her opinion, every good editor was first, a good assistant. These founding ideas Tanhofer always emphasised to all of her students12.
Tanhofer began her editing career as an observer. She first followed the process of editing negatives. After that came the ‘apprentice’ jobs such as syncing (synchronising sound and picture negatives for the sound copy of the work print) and organising material for editing or projection. She first learned editing as a means of dramaturgy and mechanical practice while serving as an assistant to Branko Marjanović13. This was not always an easy task, because the assistant editor, among other duties, is responsible for every frame and perforation of the work print. Tea Brunšmid recalls “I remember one time Radojka and I spent the entire night looking for two lost perforations.14 We were that scared of Marjanović” (Paulus 1996: 80).
After mastering the assistant’s job, Tanhofer soon got to work on her first feature film Živjeće ovaj narod/The Unconquered People (1947, Yugoslavia), directed by Nikola Popović. It was the first post-war film made in former Yugoslavia by Jadran film studio. The editor, Branko Marjanović, took Tanhofer on as his assistant (cf. Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 9), but soon after filming started, the director and editor had an argument and Marjanović left the project, leaving Tanhofer to edit the film (Kren 2010: 8). It bears remembering that, at the time, organised film production was in its beginnings and the nearest film school with an editing department was in Prague (Czechoslovakia)15. Film editors mainly learned their craft through practice, hard work and trial and error. There were no ‘strict rules’ on how things were done, and ‘reinventing the wheel’ was very common. Editors learned from one film to another, almost always from scratch. Luckily, sound editor Tea Brunšmid, a friend of Tanhofer’s, also worked on the set of Živjeće ovaj narod. From then on, they would often collaborate. They tried various editing solutions together, developing their knowledge of cinematic language and artistic practice. Tanhofer often said that editing was “initially a female company, only later joined by men” (cf. Krelja, Turković and Zečević, 2008: 11). Besides Marjanović, all ‘new’ editors were women because “editing was seen as a women’s profession” (cf. Škrabalo, 2008: 42).
Tanhofer’s next project was Zastava / The Flag (1949) a Jadran film production, directed by Branko Marjanović, the man who opened the doors of the editing world for her. Marjanović was an experienced editor, but mostly of silent film and early sound film, so he interfered little in sound and consequently in Tanhofer’s work (cf. Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 13). Work on Zastava lasted two years. There were many location shootings in different parts of the country, producing an unprecedented amount of material. Apart from the editing work, she also worked on the set as clapper loader16, which enabled her to become familiar with the material prior to editing.17 The editing was challenging for its sheer duration, its many changes to the script and much additional filming. The material had to be synced, reviewed, and edited, while some parts of the film had to be completely re-written, re-shot and re-edited. Radojka did not have an assistant, so she did all the work herself (cf. Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 13). Despite numerous challenges, the film is described as a “much more mature work than previous films”, while the editing is said to be “done with excellent rhythm” (Škrabalo 1998).
Her next project was a football comedy Plavi 9 / Blue 9 (Krešo Golik, 1950) a Jadran film production, where Tanhofer had an editing assistant for the first time. The film presented a considerable challenge to her: she had to find a way to imperceptibly combine archival newsreel footage with newly recorded material (cf. Krelja 1997: 23), and a way to edit a football match. The solution was once again hard work and multiple attempts until the best possible solution was found.
Radojka realised that practical work was insufficient to hone her editing skills and perfect her knowledge of film grammar and film dramaturgy. In brief breaks between editing films, she dedicated herself to reading available film literature, analysed domestic and foreign films (cf. Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 12), but also developed her artistic taste by reading literary fiction, visiting art exhibitions and frequenting the theatre and the opera. It was precisely this constant need to perfect her own artistic practice and knowledge of other arts that she tried to pass on to her students later on.
Each new film brought new challenges, leading to new skills and innovations in her artistic expression. In 1954, she edited the film Koncert / Concert (Branko Belan) composed of six episodes, four of which are flashbacks. Its episodic structure and the avoidance of a classic storyline, make Koncert a forerunner of modernism in Croatian cinema (cf. Marković 2007). Director Branko Belan, who directed the film with great precision (a precise storyboard and no additional shooting), did not meddle with editing (Kren 2010: 23), leaving Tanhofer the creative freedom which resulted in well-considered ellipses, which were a new and innovative element in Croatian cinema (cf. Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 75). The ellipses highlighted the film’s episodic structure, as well as the time lapses between episodes. That way, editing enhanced the feeling of time and of transience, pertinent dramaturgical motifs of the film.
During editing it is of great importance to be able easily to identify sections of the work print. In the early 1950s there were still no strict rules on how to do that. Editors usually marked the clapperboard (name and number of the shot) on the work print and added their own markings using letters or numbers (cf. Krelja, Turković, Zečević and 2008: 19). These ‘systems’ had faults and identifying sections of film tape presented a great challenge until the introduction of the practice of edge numbering. Tanhofer was introduced to this practice during her work on Trenutki odločitve/Moments of Decision (František Čáp, 1955) and has since become standard practice. It is interesting that the Slovenian Triglav studio imported this practice from Czechoslovakia through the work of Czech director František Čáp. Edge numbering is a phase preceding editing when all the film and sound material to be used in editing is coded , by machine or hand. The edge coding serves to easily identify every piece of film or perforated magnetic film (Virag 1998: 36-37).
So, what novelties did Trenutki odločitve bring? First of all, the film’s director František Čáp was an experienced and ambitious Czech director who wanted to make the film in the shortest time possible. The entire film was finished in only two months because shooting and editing ran simultaneously. On weekdays, the director was on the set, while he spent the weekends editing various constructions of the film. Also, Tanhofer worked for the first time on perforated magnetic film; prior to this she had only seen it once in Kodak in Paris when she was part of a delegation of film workers (cf. Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 19). She applied herself to the new technology, asking her Slovene assistant, Ivo Lehpamer for help. Lehpamer had previous experience working with perforated magnetic film and helped Tanhofer master this technical innovation which became standard practise soon afterwards in Croatian film productions (cf. Krelja, Turković, Zečević and 2008: 19). Tanhofer had two assistants, making the preparation and organisation of the material incomparably faster. Apart from Ivo Lehpamer, who worked on synching, her second assistant Mira Škrabalo, was assigned the edge-coding (Kren 2010: 11).18 But the biggest change in Tanhofer’s work was not having to physically cut the film for the first assembly anymore. František Čáp taught Radojka Tanhofer how to edit on paper. The system was as follows: Tanhofer would write the name of the first shot for a new sequence (example 17-1-3x), and on film, with grease (chinagraph) pencil she would mark the start point and the end point of the shot. In the same manner, she would mark also the synchronous sound magnetic tape (including even off-screen dialogue). Then she would mark the second shot and third and so on. After this, “my assistant did the composing of the assembly, and splicing in the shots according to the instructions. It was a fantastic system […]. Cutting the shots – I learned it from director Čap, I must say – In cutting it, I was editing it in my head, and marking it on paper” (Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 19).” While her assistant was compiling the new reel according to her instructions, Tanhofer could work on the editing and re-editing of other reels. Editing on paper enabled Radojka to work incredibly fast. Later in her teaching she always stressed the importance of imagination, as well as the ability of memorising the material. She would always say that good editor is one who knows his/her material and can edit a film “in their head” or on paper, one who knows in advance what the weak points of the film are going to be, and thus find more fitting editing solutions.
The majority of films in Tanhofer’s career lend themselves to writing about editing. Her superb sense for rhythm, for a particular scene as well as for the film as a whole, is present from her very beginnings in editing. Tanhofer has learned from every one of her films, but also approached each new work from scratch, not projecting onto it the solutions applied to previous films. Thus her transitions were often innovative, well thought out and minutely implemented. Many of her films stand among the best Croatian and Yugoslav films – some are milestones in the aesthetic evolution of Croatian cinema for their innovative and rich dramaturgical structures (cf. Pavičić 2013: 141), while others are great achievements of classical narrative style (Turković 2008: 6).
My case studies in this paper will be classics of Croatian cinema that became paragons of film editing: H-8… (Nikola Tanhofer, 1958) and Rondo (Zvonimir Berković, 1966). H-8… was only the second directorial feature film by the established cinematographer Nikola Tanhofer19, Radojka Tanhofer’s future husband20. The film was lauded by critics and audience alike (Peterlić 2012: 155) both at home and abroad, and is considered to be among ten most successful Croatian feature fiction films (Peterlić, 2012: 153), “characterised by impressive acting, directing and editing” (Rafaelić 2007).
H-8… was based on a true event, a traffic accident involving a bus and a truck with eight fatalities, that happened in the night of April 14, 1957 on the highway from Zagreb to Belgrade. The survivors saw only a part of the registration plate of the automobile that caused the accident: H-821. The film opens with a sequence uncovering the final denouement – the crash between the bus and the truck caused by a car that left the scene, with the voices of two narrators. It presents the facts of the crash, adding to the feeling of realism by naming the exact time, bus speed, and the distance between the bus and the truck before the collision, etc., and thus contributing to the spectators’ identification with the characters. The number of deaths is revealed, as well as their seat numbers, rather than their names. After this fast-paced opening sequence, the film slows down and the audience has a chance to familiarise themselves with the characters from both the bus and the truck. Using parallel editing, Tanhofer crosscuts between the truck and the bus while discreetly building up tension. By this point, the audience is already familiar with the characters but they do not have enough time to choose one “main” character because none is given enough screen time to take the lead. The various scenes inside the bus must have been a challenge to edit: there is no change of location, no time ellipsis, and numerous characters, but Tanhofer solved this problem by using mise-en-scene and dialogue to link situations. For example, often a scene involves multiple characters being joined by another character. In these situations, Tanhofer never uses the same editing solution in the same manner. Sometimes the solution is off-screen dialogue attracting the audience’s attention audience before Tanhofer unobtrusively steers them to another situation, or to other characters. Sometimes it’s enough to use someone’s glance to cut to another scene, or remind us that a truck getting closer and closer to the bus. Towards the end of the film, the rain starts and it is yet another reminder to the audience that the crash is coming up (it happened while it was raining). Nonetheless, relations between the characters continue to evolve and minutes before the crash, the film starts to feel like a ticking time-bomb – the audience by now are at the edge of their seats, the inevitable is just moments away but the characters still keep on exchanging seats. The most important question is: who will be in the seats destined for death? The ending offers the framework of the film’s non-linear storytelling technique: we are back at the beginning of the film, at the crash site, but now we know all the details of who survived and who was not so fortunate.
It is interesting to point out one other character not mentioned so far: the unknown driver of the fleeing automobile. During the film, the audience never finds out who the driver is. This was not Nikola Tanhofer’s original intention. In fact, in the script there were two characters inside the fleeing automobile: a Man driver and a Woman passenger (the Man’s married mistress). These scenes with Man and Woman were shot, including one in which the Woman begs the Man to call the police and turn back, but the Man refuses (cf. Peterlić 2005: 126). During the editing process it was decided that the automobile will be a better ‘character’ if the driver is never shown. An automobile is deprived of any humanity and becomes just a sinister tool of fate, an unknown force which destroyed so many lives, and in the editing, a great element of building tension.
Tanhofer showed in this film that she can control both picture and sound. The emotional range achieved through editing, from tranquillity, through anxiety and angst all the way to fear, sorrow and shock is one that is rarely seen on film. The film is incredibly “alive”, despite the passivity of the characters it follows, and who are in no way able to influence their fate.
On the other hand, film Rondo is completely different. Tanhofer recalls her work on it: “A lot of things clicked. First the screenplay, then the actors, the set design, I think it may be one of Senečićević’s first production designs, and it looked great; then there was Pinter’s cinematography… everything simply fell to its right place… It worked very well. It turned out to be a wonderful film” (Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 28).
Rondo’s plotline is fairly simple: every Sunday Mladen, a judge, visits artist Feđa and his wife Neda in order to play chess and talk about art and women. A love triangle forms and adultery ensues. The name of the film mirrors its structure, or as Neda explains, “rondo is just that kind of form, everything is repeated without being boring” (00:29:54). This replica encapsulates the essential editing challenge the film represents. The solutions were excellent acting and a slower editing rhythm. Through editing and framing, the spectator’s attention is focused on minute changes in the relationship between the three protagonists, as well as on additional characterisation and discontent that are part of each of the characters.
A rondo is a musical form in which a principal theme alternates with one or more contrasting themes, generally called episodes (Stein: 1979: 87). The structure of a “rondo” in this film is already laid out in the screenplay – all actions take place on Sundays, or to paraphrase character Neda – Sundays are repeated, but without being boring. Every Sunday has the same basic elements: Mladen coming to Feđa and Neda’s apartment, chess playing, dinner, followed by Mladen’s departure. To avoid boredom, on each Sunday something different happens, something is added, for example, Mladen finds out that Neda used to play piano or Mladen and Neda flirt or everybody listens to music, New Year’s Eve is celebrated, and so on, in between repetitions of, and references to Mozart’s Rondo in A minor, K.511. The film is a rondo in its structure and in its storytelling. The director Zvonimir Berković studied the violin, and translated his musical expertise into the film. Radojka Tanhofer, who played the piano in her youth, recognised her musicality, sense of mise-en-scène, and the actors’ gestures, and thus creating a slower tempo in the film that suggests repetition, routine, an unfulfilled desire for change, for something different, yet never allowing it to become boring or lethargic. The editing unobtrusively delineates the inner dissatisfaction of the characters. The distinctiveness of the editing lies in the rhythm accomplished by long shots. The editor’s role isn’t only in deciding when to make the cut, but also when to continue, prolong the shot and use its duration and value to the utmost extent. At the beginning of the film, when Mladen arrives at Feđa’s place, the long shot that opens their game of chess becomes the metaphor for the entire film, intensifying the text spoken off-screen. The shot opens on a close-up of a hand placing the white knight on the board, before opening out to a wider view of the game. The protagonists’ conversation begins off-screen. The black queen enters the centre of the board from the right. The white queen enters from the left, taking the black queen. The black knight enters the shot from the right, taking the white queen. The camera closes in on the hand holding the black knight, and off-screen we hear Mladen saying “chess is like love, it requires a partner” (00:05:15).
This long shot of the chess game becomes the metaphor of the film and the coming shift in the relations between the characters. The action is repeated (knight – queen – queen – knight) but mirrored. The chess shot presents us with the film narrative (conquering the queen) and following shots introduce us to the characters: the queen (Neda), the knight (Mladen) and the other knight, Feđa. After a long shot of the game, the cut to Neda - who is not playing, but only observing - is unexpected. Less experienced editors would have probably first cut to Mladen or Feđa, so the audience could see their faces. But, their faces are not yet important. This film is not going to be on the mastery of chess, or Mladen’s or Feđa’s life, so their faces are not relevant. By cutting to a close-up of Neda, Tanhofer helps the story to develop. This cut reinforces the idea of Neda as a (knight’s) prey. It is also worth noting that this close up is the first time we see Neda without Feđa inside the frame. After presenting the queen - Neda - the audience needs to get to know the knight – Mladen, who is at this moment focused only on the chessboard and the chess pieces. The dialogue continues. They talk about chess, about the importance of eye contact, and about how Mladen and Feđa agreed to play. After a shot of Mladen, there is a two-shot of Neda and Feđa. The framing reminds us that Neda and Feđa are a couple, that they are together even inside the frame. (That will change during the course of the film.) Only after establishing Neda in a two-shot as one half of a couple, does Tanhofer cut to a suddenly observant Mladen who in the meantime has taken off his glasses. This small gesture reinforces the idea that Mladen is now fully aware of his surroundings, of Neda and her relation to Feđa and that nothing stands in his way. Only by positioning Neda between Mladen and Feđa, between the two knights, all the chess pieces are in place and the game (film) can begin.
It is interesting to notice that all scenes are meticulously organised in terms of framing and rhythm. Framing in Rondo is used as a dramaturgical tool to gain a better understanding of relations between the characters. Take Neda’s character, for example. At the beginning of the film Neda is mostly shown together with her husband Feđa inside the frame (a two-shot). It is very clear to the audience who is her husband. As the film continues, she is more often shown alone in the frame, suggesting that she may no longer be so close to her husband whose only focus is chess. Very gradually, the portrayal of Neda changes from a girl to a woman who is capable of her own decisions, good or bad. She starts to wear black clothes in contrast to white ones at the beginning of the film (symbol of innocence transforming to symbol of power and/or death), she no longer sits quietly beside her husband while he is playing chess and ignoring her etc. Mladen observes her transformation closely and often shots of her are followed by shots of him. In this way, Tanhofer slowly builds the idea of a possible love affair. In this part of film one scene stands out for its rhythm and emotion. It is a scene in which Neda tries to help Feđa to win the chess game. Tanhofer carefully organised the scene and by using framing and shot size, the actors’ expressions and slightly faster rhythm, she delivers the subtext – if Neda wins the game, she will be able to overcome Mladen and repel his discreet innuendo. This chess game is filled with tension. Audience is cheering for Neda, for her to win, but it is obvious that she is out of her league. She is playing alone against Mladen, a very experienced and patient man who sits calmly like a hunter, waiting for his prey to fall. Neda and Feđa lose the game. Neda is defeated. Mladen has won.
Tanhofer once more showcased her knowledge and skills in the art of editing by creating a rondo structure for the film. Dialogue editing, rhythm and portraits of characters are “always repeated but never boring”. It bears remembering that prior to Rondo, Tanhofer had edited 22 feature films and 23 short films, accruing impressive editing experience. She always adapted her editing style to the story of each new film, or to the director’s personal style and thus her editing solutions and constructions were often innovative and fresh. But a new challenge was awaiting her, how to share her enormous knowledge of film and how to teach others the art of editing?
In Tanhofer’s time the Academy of Dramatic Art in Zagreb focused mainly on theatre. Kosta Spaić, the Rector of the university, suggested that film directors Ante Babaja and Zvonimir Berković should found and organise a course in film directing. Babaja launched the course in 1967. Only two years later, in 1969, Radojka Tanhofer co-founded the Editing Department together with Branko Belan and Ante Peterlić. Her mandate was to organise the practical courses, while Belan and Peterlić were in charge of film theory and film history. The department was introduced as a two-year programme, then a three-year programme but soon became a four-year programme.22 After the implementation of the so called Bologna reform in 2005, it finally became a five-year programme.
The Academy of Dramatic Art recognised the significance of film editing, stating in its Study programme introduction23 that:
the study of film and television editing was introduced because montage construction is one of the crucial creative aspects of film (of film production, and films’ impact). It demands special and highly developed skills, imagination and knowledge, and is thus a socially and professionally separate area of creative and professional specialisation, a separate professional and artistic occupation, and a separate theoretical and research academic field.
Designing a programme which would allow students to master the art of editing and prepare them for film industry was the founding idea of the new programme. Tanhofer’s greatest achievement perhaps was the idea of practical classes in editing. But once more Tanhofer had to start from scratch (cf. Kren 2010: 32). She shaped the study programme based on her experience and instinct, so that the students first acquired skills which enabled them to work as apprentices. (cf. Kren 2010: 32). Thanks to her extensive experience in filmmaking, she succeeded in organising practical experience for students (editing of negatives, assistant work on national television, working in the film archive etc), whereby they worked in assistant positions under professional editors, thus also enabling the professional filmmakers to assess the quality of their work. After mastering the assistant jobs, students were encouraged to do their own first editing work. Parallel with acquiring technical skills, each semester student editors worked with students from the directing and cinematography departments, and each group (director, cinematographer and editor) were given an assignment to make a film. Tanhofer deemed that the work student editors put into these collaborations was good, but insufficient to hone their creative and artistic practice. That is why she arranged for student editors to work on trims of locally made professional films. In order to be granted access to the material, she had to “swear to all things living she would not use the material for anything else” (Turković 2008: 35). First-year students did apprentice work, edge numbering and the like. Second-year students got parts of the material, for example a dialogue scene with very limited space for creative input, but simply to do the work well according to instructions (as they would work with a director). Only in their third year were students given more complete and complex material (documentary and fiction) where they could come up with their own narrative, creative concept etc. The fourth year students worked on a promo film – each student was given the complete recorded material of one film and they had the freedom to put together their own film of the length of 30 minutes (cf. Turković 2008: 35-36). This way of teaching gave students the opportunity to first master the craft of editing before venturing into complex artistic editing constructions. Each assignment was carefully designed to prepare students for professional film industry and helped also by teaching them to be patient and concentrated for longer periods of time (editors work in 8-hour shifts, but unfortunately shifts often extend to 10 or more hours), to develop their desire to try out every possible solution for a single scene, to expand their knowledge of history of film and to encourage students to work with a variety of different people and how to adapt their editing skills to director’s personal style).
Apart from her own teaching, and with a goal of broadening student knowledge of film production and post-production, Tanhofer invited the best of her colleagues to teach at the Academy, including Tea Brunšmid for sound editing, Ivanka Forembaher for script continuity and Albert Pregernik for sound recording (Midžić 2009). The Editing Department was a high-quality study programme that prepared its students for a smooth transition into their profession.
As her work load at the Academy grew, Tanhofer worked less on films. And whenever she was invited to edit a film, she would decline and recommend one of her students in her stead. Already in the 1970s there was a major generational shift towards younger editors, a further testimony to the quality of the newly founded study of editing (Turković 2009). A new generation emerged, and Tanhofer devoted herself fully to teaching. Simultaneously, the film department realised the importance of young teaching staff (assistants), and the first generations of graduates were offered teaching positions at the Academy. Among them was the editing graduate Maja Rodica Virag who still teaches today (cf. Puhovski 2009). Nowadays, the editing department at the Academy of Dramatic Art has ten university teachers and one assistant, together with several guest lecturers. The foundations of teaching film editing that Radojka Tanhofer has laid at the Academy, and the outcomes of the programme, as well as the skills acquired by the student-editor, still stand today.
Despite Tanhofer’s accomplishments and three life-achievement awards, she remains an extremely modest and joyful person who is always ready to point out that film is a team effort, and that, in the end, watching films is what she enjoys most. Editing work has not diminished the joy of going to the cinema for her, where she can still sit back and enjoy a film on the big screen without having to think about editing cuts… “I am the audience; I often get upset or cry watching a movie”. Then Tani, her husband, would say, “what do you do, make doughnuts or movies?” (Krelja, Turković and Zečević 2008: 38).
Since her retirement in 1997, Tanhofer still stays in touch with her former students, the Academy and the editing department, and still drops by to an occasional graduation exam. Each familiar name in the credits of a film brings her joy. (Turković 2008: 38).24While she agrees that the advances in technology have made almost anything possible, she believes that editing has essentially stayed the same, the practice has gone through a huge transformation (Kren 2010: 35). . One could argue that working in digital editing programmes offers possibilities that may have ‘spoiled’ film editors. Every shot is just one click away, an imprecise cut (croatian: prljavi rez25) is easily corrected, and creating several different versions of a single scene is easily possible. Editors (of both sound and picture) who used to work on editing tables had to think through every move before making any cuts. Re-editing a scene took hours instead of minutes. And let’s not forget, working on an editing table with 35mm or 16mm, each ‘undo’ option was not a matter of seconds, rather a matter of minutes, and sometimes hours. Every idea, every new splice in, every new replacement of a shot was thoroughly thought out before venturing into action. An editor working with film was more conscious of each and every cut than contemporary editors, who were born and raised in digital editing programmes. But it needs to be remembered that editing isn’t just a mechanical composition of shots, the foundation of editing should be storytelling, and storytelling doesn’t depend on abbreviations such are: 16mm, 35mm, DV, HD, 4K, VFX, ProRes…
In 2010, the film festival Dani hrvatskog filma (Croatian Film Days) awarded Radojka Tanhofer a Lifetime Achievement award. During the ceremony, before the end of the presentation, the entire audience got up to their feet to greet Tanhofer. The audience was packed with film editors and students from the Academy of Dramatic Art, film professionals, Tanhofer’s colleagues and friends. It was a way of saying: thank you. From this short reminiscence, it may seem that Tanhofer is well known, but that is unfortunately not true. Outside the Croatian film industry, her name remains largely unknown. As I have already stated, she is hardly mentioned in books and research papers, she was interviewed only once in Hrvatski filmski ljetopis (Krelja, Petar, Turković, Hrvoje and Zečević, Slaven. 2008) and already today’s generation of filmmakers is unaware of her relevance and (in)direct influence on Croatian cinema. This paper tries to amend this by presenting some key moments in her immense career and portraying Tanhofer in her role as an editor, a professor and a pioneer. Her work and immeasurable contributions to Croatian and Yugoslav cinema and the film editing profession can be divided into three categories:
a) as a renowned editor of 41 feature films, 46 short fiction and documentary films and 4 TV series, and it needs to be repeated that some of these have become Croatian and Yugoslav classics and exemplars of film editing.
b) she introduced technical practices such as edge-coding and editing on paper into Croatian cinema.
c) she co-founded the Editing Department at the Academy of Dramatic Art, in order to transmit her knowledge to future film editors. Her hard work and exceptional talent helped shape the editing profession of Croatian cinema into what it is today.
It is necessary to continue research into Tanhofer’s contribution to Croatian cinema by analysing films not mentioned in this paper, and by comparing her work to editing pioneers in other countries in order to grasp her accomplishments and her influence in the context outside national borders. Radojka Tanhofer is a name which should be present in film books, and research papers and not only in film credits. This paper is, hopefully, just the first step in that direction.
Jelena Modrić
modric.jelena@adu.hr
Academy of Dramatic Art
1 Lisinski (1944) was the first Croatian feature film with sound, directed by Oktavijan Miletić, edited by Branko Marjanović.
2 Grease pencil (in Croatian: dermatograf) – a special pencil used to write on film tape and perforated magnetic film.
3 Film trim bin (in Croatian: galge) – a two-part metal construction. Its upper half has several bars from which are hung the film clips that are not currently in use. Below that, a sort of soft fabric basket protects the hanging film from dust and possible physical damage (cf. Virag 1998: 50-51).
4 A few Croatian film editors published papers in Hrvatski filmski ljetopis about the practice of editing like: Gojun, Vladimir. 2002. “Elipse i njihova retoričnost u filmu Koncert Branka Belana” (Ellipsis and their rhetoric function in Branko Belan’s film Concert). In Hrvatski filmski ljetopis, 8/29: 181-186. Zagreb. and Zečević, Slaven. 2005. “O pretapanju: svojstva i funkcije.” (Dissolve: performance and function) In Hrvatski filmski ljetopis 11/42: 147-153. Zagreb.
5 It is also reasonable to assume that there are ‘forgotten films’ in world archives and private collections still to be rediscovered. Supporting this are the recent discoveries of films, such as the more complete version of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, etc.
6In 1954, the festival was simply named: Film Festival. From 1958. the name changed to Festival of Yugoslav Film. In 1961, it was changed again to Festival of Yugoslav Feature Film in Pula. Since 1992 it is Pula Film Festival.
7 See Pula Film Festival, timeline of awarded films (1954-2016), http://pulafilmfestival.hr/hr/o-festivalu/vremenska-crta-nagradenih
8Golden Arena for editing was given to Vuksan Lukovac for editing of Svetozar Marković (Eduard Galić, 1980, Yugoslavia). Prior to that, in a few instances, editors received special diplomas for their work, in chronological order: 1961 – diploma – Vanja Bjenjaš for the editing of the films Veselica (Jože Babić) and Signali nad gradom / Signal Over the City (Živorad “Žika” Mitrović); 1964 – special diploma – Maja Lazarov for the editing of Pravo stanje stvari / True Nature of Things (Vladan Slijepčević); 1976 – diploma – Vuksan Lukovac for the editing of Seljačka buna 1573. / Anno Domini 1573. (Vatroslav Mimica); 1978 – diploma – Aleksandar Ilić for the editing of Sudbine /Destinies (Predrag Golubovac); 1979 – diploma – Olga Skrigin for the editing of Zemaljski dani teku / The Days on Earth are Flowing (Goran Paskaljević).
9 Lidija Jojić was a sound editor specialising in fiction films.
10 Tea Brunšmid, a sound editor who, after a brief spell in feature films, specialised in sound editing in animated films.
11 Old equipment, shortage of editing tables and technical supplies, no film schools,lack of professional standards and “tutorials” for some production and postproduction processes.
12 Tanhofer retired in 1997. but continued frequently to visit the Editing department at the Academy of Dramatic Art, and was a regular guest to classes and graduation exams. The author enrolled the study programme of Editing in 2001. and became an assistant at the Department of Editing in 2007. This facilitated many formal and informal conversations with Tanhofer about editing as a craft and an art form, about films, the beginnings of the editing profession in early Croatian cinema, the role and importance of institutional teaching of film editing etc.
13 Branko Marjanović (1909-1996), film director and editor, chief editor at Hrvatski slikopis (Croatian film) during World War II. He finished Academy of Dramatic Art in Zagreb. Before 1945, he directed and edited around 50 short films. After World War II he edited around 50 short films, wrote screenplays for 40 short films, directed more than 50 short films and 3 features (Boglić, 1990: 101-102)
14 There are four perforations (also known as perfs or sprocket holes) per 35mm frame, and one per 16mm frame.
15 “The Film and TV School Prague (Filmová a televizní fakulta Akademie múzických umění v Praze) or FAMU, is a film section of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague. Originated in 1946/1947 making it after Moscow (1919), Berlin (1936), Rome (1935) and Paris (1939) – the fifth film school in the world” (Bernard). During the 1960s and 1970s, several young directors from former Yugoslavia were FAMU students, such are directors Rajko Grlić and Lordan Zafranović, and cinematographer Živko Zalar from Croatia (Peterlić 1986: 370).
16 The clapper loader is responsible for operating the clapperboard at the beginning of each take and maintaining all the paperwork for the camera department. The clapperboard of each take records the name of the film, director and director of photography, the scene, shot, and take number (for example: 17-2-1x), if it is with or without sound, exterior or interior, day or night and any other important information, for example when special effects such as day for night - when a day take is shot during the night - will be needed.
17 Radojka Tanhofer worked as clapper loader until the film Ciguli miguli (Branko Marjanović, 1952). Another pioneering woman worked on that film, Ivanka Forenbaher, who specialised as script supervisor.
18 Mira Škrabalo, Tanhofer’s assistant on the majority of her films.
19 Nikola Tanhofer (1926-1998), film cinematographer, director and screenwriter.
20 Before her marriage to Nikola Tanhofer in 1962, in all her films Radojka was credited under her maiden name, Ivančević. She signed her name as Radojka Tanhofer from 1963.
21 In the 1950s automobile registration plates all began with the letter of their state (H – Hrvatska/Croatia) followed by a registration number.
22 In 1977 the Academy became part of the University of Zagreb and subject to University standards. It was then that the study of film editing became a four-year programme (Turković 2009).
23 Academy of Dramatic Art website: http://masterwww.adu.hr/studiji/preddiplomski-studiji/studij-montaze/
24 Nikola Tanhofer, cinematographer and film director, Radojka’s husband, whose pet name was Tani.
25 Prljavi rez: imprecise cut, for example let’s imagine two different shots which need to be edited together. First shot is a closeup of a woman. She is looking at something, and the second shot is her POV shot, a shot where the audience sees what she sees. Where is best to position a cut to go from shot of her watching to a shot of what she sees? Well, the worst position, and when an imprecise cut occurs, is a cut which is positioned in the middle of her blinking. Editing practise suggests that the best way to cut this kind of situations is just before she blinks, or at the frame after the blinking action. In this way, the cut will be unobtrusive to the viewer.
26 Based on Škrabalo, 1998, 2008; Turković, 2008.
Jelena Modrić graduated film editing at the Academy of Dramatic Art in Zagreb where she works today as an assistant professor. Worked as a film editor (picture and sound) on more then 30 short films of different genres (fiction, documentary, experimental) and many TV shows. Also, teaches film literacy to high school students and teachers. Currently working on her PhD thesis with the title The Role and Development of Sound Editing in Croatian Cinema.
Bernard, Jan. “FAMU's biography – History of the National film school in Prague”. http://international.famu.cz//files/2012-08/120819111831.pdf
Boglić, Mira. 1990. “Branko Marjanović”. In Filmska enciklopedija, edited by Ante Peterlić, 101-102. Zagreb.
Fairservice, Donald. 2001. Film Editing: History, Theory and Practice. Manchester.
Filmografija jugoslavenskog filma. Institut za film, 1945-86. Beograd.
Gilić, Nikica. 2011. Uvod u povijest hrvatskog igranog filma. Zagreb.
Gojun, Vladimir. 2002. “Elipse i njihova retoričnost u filmu Koncert Branka Belana”. In Hrvatski filmski ljetopis, 8/29: 181-186. Zagreb.
Hatch, Kristen. 2013. “Cutting Women: Margaret Booth and Hollywood’s Pioneering Female Film Editors.” In Women Film Pioneers Project, edited by Jane Gaines, Radha Vatsal, and Monica Dall’Asta. Center for Digital Research and Scholarship. New York. September 27, 2013. https://wfpp.cdrs.columbia.edu/essay/cutting-women
http://international.famu.cz//files/2012-08/120819111831.pdf.
Kragić, Bruno and Gilić, Nikica (ed.). 2003. Filmski leksikon. Zagreb.
Krelja, Petar, Turković, Hrvoje and Zečević, Slaven. 2008. “Biofilmografski razgovor s Radojkom Tanhofer: ‘Drugarice, jel' bi ti htjela u montažu?’”, in Hrvatski filmski ljetopis, 14/54: 8-35. Zagreb.
Krelja, Petar. 1997. Golik. Zagreb.
Kren, Antonija. 2010. Doprinos Radojke Tanhofer montaži u Hrvatskoj, diplomski rad (diploma paper). Zagreb.
Midžić, Enes. 2009. “Profesija snimatelj”. http://masterwww.adu.hr/knjiznica/profesija-snimatelj/.
Murch, Walter. 2000. “Walter Murch Interviews Anne V. Coates”. .
Norden, Martin F. 1984. “Women in the early films industry,” Wide Angle: A Film Quarterly of Theory, Criticism, and Practice 6.3 (1984): 58-67.
Paulus, Irena. 1996. “Tea Brunšmid.” In Hrvatski filmski ljetopis 2/6: 79-87. Zagreb.
Pavičić, Jurica. 2013. “H-8…: Film socijalističke katastrofe.” in Hrvatski filmski ljetopis, 19/73-74: 139-150. Zagreb.
Pearlman, Karen and Adelheid Heftberger. 2018. “Editorial: Recognising Women’s Work as Creative Work.” Women at the Editing Table: Revising Soviet Film History of the 1920s and 1930s (ed. by Adelheid Heftberger and Karen Pearlman). Special Issue of Apparatus. Film, Media and Digital Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe 6. DOI:
Peterlić, Ante, 1986. “FAMU.” In Hrvatska enciklopedija, vol.1, Zagreb.
Peterlić, Ante. 2005. “H-8… nekoć i sad.” In Hrvatski filmski ljetopis 11/44: 119-140. Zagreb.
Peterlić, Ante. 2008. Povijest filma. Zagreb.
Peterlić, Ante. 2012. Iz povijesti hrvatske filmologije i filma. Zagreb.
Peterlić, Ante. 2018. Osnove teorije filma (V izdanje). Zagreb.
Petrić, Vlada. 1990. “Ester Šub.” In Filmska enciklopedija, edited by Ante Peterlić, 604. Zagreb.
Puhovski, Nenad, 2009. “Sve naše reforme”. http://masterwww.adu.hr/knjiznica/sve-nae-reforme/.
Rafaelić, Daniel. 2013. Kinematografija u NDH. Zagreb.
Reisz, Karel, and Millar, Gavin. 1996. Technique of Film editing (Second edition). Burlington.
Rodica Virag, Maja. 1998. Uvod u filmsku montažu. Zagreb.
Škrabalo, Ivo. 1998. 101 godina filma u Hrvatskoj 1896 – 1997. Zagreb.
Škrabalo, Ivo. 2008. Hrvatska filmska povijest ukratko (1896-2006). Zagreb.
Škrabalo, Ivo. 2012. “Croatian Film in the Yugoslav Context in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century.” In In Contrast: Croatian Film Today, edited by Aida Vidan and Gordana P. Crnković, 21-40. Zagreb.
Stein, Leon. 1998. Anthology of Musical Forms: Structure and Style (expanded edition). New York.
Turković, Hrvoje. 2009. “Teško stečeni status”. http://masterwww.adu.hr/knjiznica/teko-steeni-status/.
Vidan, Aida and Crnković, Gordana P., ed. 2012. In Contrast: Croatian Film Today. Zagreb.
Zečević, Slaven. 2005. “O pretapanju: svojstva i funkcije.” In Hrvatski filmski ljetopis 11/42: 147-153. Zagreb.
Zečević, Slaven. 2008. “Povratak u nered.” In Hrvatski filmski ljetopis 14/54: 74-77. Zagreb.
“Studij montaže – study programme”. http://masterwww.adu.hr/studiji/preddiplomski-studiji/studij-montaze/
“Woman Film Pioneers Project at Columbia University”. https://wfpp.cdrs.columbia.edu/about/.
Popović, Nikola. 1947. Živjeće ovaj narod / The Unconquered People. Jadran Film.
Marjanović, Branko. 1949. Zastava / Flag, (Jadran film). Jadran Film.
Golik, Krešo. 1950. Plavi 9 / Blue 9, (Jadran film). Jadran Film.
Marjanović, Branko. 1952. Ciguli miguli / Ciguli miguli. Jadran Film.
Belan, Branko. 1954. Koncert / Koncert. Jadran Film.
Golik, Krešo. 1955. Djevojka i hrast / Girl and an Oak tree. Jadran Film.
Čap, František. 1955. Trenutki odločitve / Moments of decisions. Triglav Film.
Marjanović, Branko. 1956. Opsada / Siege. Jadran Film.
Štiglic, France. 1956. Dolina mira / Valley of peace. Triglav Film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1957. Nije bilo uzalud / It wasn't all for nothing. Jadran Film.
Bauer, Branko. 1957. Samo ljudi / Just people. Jadran Film.
Grobler, Mirko. 1958. Dobro morje / Good sea. Triglav Film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1958. H-8... / H-8… Jadran Film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1959. Osma vrata / Eighth door. Avala Film.
Kosmač, France. 1959. Dobri stari pianino / Good old piano. Triglav Film.
Bauer, Branko. 1959. Tri Ane / Three Anas. Vardar Film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1961. Sreća dolazi u 9 / Happiness comes at 9. Jadran Film.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1961. Abeceda straha / Alphabet of fear. Jadran Film.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1962. Da li je umro dobar čovjek? / Has the good man died? Jadran Film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1963. Dvostruki obruč / Double hoop. Jadran Film.
Mitrović, Živorad. 1963. Nevesinjska puška / Nevesinjska rifle. Jadran Film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1964. Svanuće / Daybreak. Jadran Film.
Berković, Zvonimir. 1966. Rondo / Rondo. Jadran Film.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1967. Protest / Protest. Viba film and Most Zagreb.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1968. Tri sata za ljubav / Three hours for love. Jadran Film.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1968. Sarajevski atentat / The day that shook the world. FRZ Beograd.
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1969. Kad čuješ zvona / When you hear the bells. FRZ Zagreb and CFRZ Beograd.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1969. Divlji anđeli / Wild Angels. Jadran Film.
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1969. Ljubav i poneka psovka / Love and few curses. Croatia Film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1970. Bablje ljeto / Indian summer. Dalmacija Film Split and Kinematografi Zagreb.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1970. Idu dani / And the days just go by. Jadran Film.
Fanelli, Mario. 1970. Put u raj / Road to heaven. Jadran Film and TV Zagreb.
Tadej, Vladimir. 1970. Družba Pere Kvržice / Pero Kvržica and his team. Croatia Film.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1970. Lov na jelene / Deer hunting. FAS Filmski Autorski Studio.
Arhanić, Marijan. 1972. Poslijepodne jednog fazana / Afternoon of a pheasant. Jadran Film.
Trevis, Gary. 1972. Zvesta žena / Curse of the Faithful Wife
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1974. Deps / Deps. Jadran Film.
Žižić, Bogdan. 1975. Kuća / House. Jadran film and Croatia Film.
Arhanić, Marijan. 1977. Letači velikog neba / Flyers on the big sky. Jadran Film and Croatia Film.
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1977. Mećava / Blizzard. Jadran Film and Croatia Film.
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1979. Povratak / Return. Croatia film and Jadran Film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1966. Letovi koji se pamte / Flights you remember. Zastava film, RTV Beograd.
Hetrich, Ivan. 1970. Kuda idu divlje svinje / Where do wild boars go. Televizija Zagreb.
Galić, Eduard. 1970. Gorčina u grlu / Acrimony in the throat. Televizija Zagreb.
Marušić, Joakim. 1970. Harmonika / Harmonica. Televizija Zagreb.
Golik, Krešo. 1948. Na novom putu / New trip. Jadran film.
Filipović, Melita. 1949. Naše drvo / Our tree. Jadran film.
Katić, Milan. 1952. Dubrovnik / Dubrovnik. Jadran film.
Golik, Krešo. 1953. Spriječi nesreću u tekstilnoj industriji / Prevent accidents in the textile industry. Jadran film.
Golik, Krešo. 1953. Prva sječa / First cutting (forrest safety). Jadran film.
Vodopivec, Frano. 1953. Plave tišine / Blue silence. Jadran film.
Sremec, Rudolf. 1955. Samotno otočje / Solitary islands. Jadran film.
Sremec, Rudolf. 1956. Crne vode / Black waters. Jadran film.
Katić, Milan. 1956. Vincent iz Kastva / Vincent from Kastav. Zagreb film
Katić, Milan. 1957. II Gymnaestrada / Il Gymnaestrada. Zagreb film and Zora film
Marti, Anton. 1958. 100 km življenja / 100 km of living. Triglav film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1958. Klempo / Dumbo. Zora film.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1959. Jedan iz legende / One of the legends. Zagreb film.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1960. Karneval / Carnival. Zagreb film.
Paro, Georgij. 1960. Stoljeće velike kuće / Century of a big house. Zagreb film.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1960. Sarakačani / Sarakacans. Zagreb film.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1961. Zemlja sa pet kontinenata / Land of five continents. Zagreb film.
Feman, Mladen. 1961. Doviđenja u Puli / Farewell in Pula. Zagreb film.
Sremec, Rudolf. 1962. Otvoreni horizonti / Open Horizon. Zora film.
Feman, Mladen. 1962. Krsto Hegedušić / Krsto Hegedusic. Zagreb film.
Feman, Mladen. 1962. Ljepotica Jadrana / Adriatic beauty. Zagreb film.
Goldstein, Slavko. Drežnica / Dreznica. Zagreb film.
Galić, Eduard. 1968. Klesari / Stonecutters. Zagreb film.
Galić, Eduard. 1968. Osveta / Vengeance. Zagreb film.
Borojević, Milica. 1968. Duša naša zagorski je kraj / Our soul is our land. FAS
Berković, Zvonimir. 1969. Dubrovačke ljetne igre / Dubrovnik summer festival. Zagreb film.
Borojević, Milica. 1969. Buna (Matija Gubec) / Matija Gubec. FAS.
Jojić, Ljiljana. 1969. Zeleni Juraj / Green Juraj. Zagreb film and FAS.
Hadžić, Fadil. 1969. Hokus-pokus / Hocus-pokus. Zagreb film.
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1970. Pliva commercial short, Čekaonica / Waiting room. Centar - filmski odjel
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1970. Pliva commercial short, Prijatelj / Friend. Centar - filmski odjel
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1970. Pliva commercial short, Dio lične garderobe / personal wardrobe. Centar - filmski odjel
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1970. Pliva commercial short, Putovanje / Journey. Centar - filmski odjel
Jojić, Ljiljana. 1970. Paške čipke / Pag lace. Zagreb film and FAS.
Hetrich, Ivan. 1970. Hena / Hena. Ozeha.
Kurelec, Tomislav. 1971. ...I sve je dobro / … and all is well. Zagreb film.
Vrdoljak, Antun. 1973. Ivan Lacković Croata / Ivan Lackovic Croata. Zagreb film.
Feman. Mladen. 1973. Plitvička jezera / Plitvice lakes. Adria film.
Sremec, Rudolf. 1973. Zemljo, primi me / Take me, land. Zagreb film.
Žižić, Bogdan. 1974. Nož / Knife. Zagreb film.
Galić, Eduard. 1974. Đurđica Bjedov ili o sreći / Djurdjica Bjedov or Hapiness. Zagreb film.
Galić, Eduard. 1974. Pred zoru / Before the dawn. Zagreb film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1974. XX Stoljeće (Umjetnost na tlu Jugoslavije) / XX century (from: Art in Yugoslavia). Adria film
Senečić, Željko. 1976. Od kolijevke pa do groba najljepše je đačko doba / Cradle to grave, school is the best. Adria film.
Tanhofer, Nikola. 1977. Agrokoka / Agrokoka. Adria film.
Modrić, Jelena. 2018. “Radojka Tanhofer, Croatia’s Pioneering Film Editor.” Women Cutting Movies: Editors from East and Central Europe (ed. by Adelheid Heftberger and Ana Grgic). Special Issue of Apparatus. Film, Media and Digital Cultures in Central and Eastern Europe 7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17892/app.2018.0007.113
URL: http://www.apparatusjournal.net/
Copyright: The text of this article has been published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This license does not apply to the media referenced in the article, which are subject to the individual rights owner's terms.