Back to selection
“The Final Film Often Grows From a Process of Letting Go of Preconceived Ideas…” Editor Stephania Dulowski on Bunnylovr
Still from Bunnylovr. Courtesy of Sundance Institute. In Katarina Zhu’s Sundance Competition debut, Bunnylovr, a New York City-based Chinese American cam girl (played by the writer/director) navigates a number of fraught personal relationships (her ex, terminally ill father, artist best friend and one boundary-pushing client) while also caring for a white rabbit, a gift from said client. Working with Zhu to hone and focus these storylines was editor Stephania Dulowski, a Sundance veteran who cut Haley Elizabeth Anderson’s 2024 title, Tendaberry. Below, Dulowski talks about focusing on character, delineating the film’s final beats, and how working within a commercial house has influenced her approach to editing.
Filmmaker: How and why did you wind up being the editor of your film? What were the factors and attributes that led to your being hired for this job?
Dulowski: I was recommended to be the editor of Bunnylovr by Neon Heart Productions, one of the production companies behind the film. We had a successful collaboration on Tendaberry, which premiered at Sundance 2024 in the NEXT Category. They often commend me for navigating the complexities of the film’s multiyear edit process, which made their recommendation especially strong. Additionally, Radish, one of the other executive producers behind the film, strongly advocated for me.
Filmmaker: In terms of advancing your film from its earliest assembly to your final cut, what were goals as an editor? What elements of the film did you want to enhance, or preserve, or tease out or totally reshape?
Dulowski: In terms of advancing the film from its earliest assembly to the final cut, my primary goal as an editor was to ensure that the emotional arcs of the characters resonated and felt authentic.
I’m always cautious about the first rough cut. On the one hand, it’s a relief to have a visual guide map of the film, but on the other, so much inevitably changes by picture lock. Hosting test screenings was incredibly valuable for this project. The feedback we received played a critical role in adjusting the film’s pacing and the emotional resonance.
One of the main goals we had in the edit was to parallel Becca’s (the main character) relationship with two different characters. Initially, one of these relationships advanced much faster than the other, creating an imbalance in Becca’s emotional journey. As a result, her arc didn’t align since there were two different storylines at different paces. To address this, we revisited and rearranged scenes so the progression of both relationships mirrored her emotional development. This adjustment was essential to making sure the audience could connect with her story on a deeper level.
Filmmaker: How did you achieve these goals? What types of editing techniques, or processes, or feedback screenings allowed this work to occur?
Dulowski: We hosted three feedback screenings for Bunnylovr. I cannot recommend feedback screenings enough! The parts of a film that work and don’t work really reveal themselves through people’s feedback. Of course, there is a lot of feedback circulating when you’re editing a film, and sometimes you need to recognize that the feedback is actually a symptom of a different issue so you need to be careful with how you decipher notes. Also, always take feedback with a grain of salt as the director’s vision is always the north star.
Filmmaker: As an editor, how did you come up in the business, and what influences have affected your work?
Dulowski: I didn’t formally study filmmaking, but I graduated from the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and then landed a job where I was trained to be an assistant editor at a post house in Chicago. After two years, I took a job at Exile Edit, founded by editor Kirk Baxter, where I’ve been represented commercially since. One of the things I love about Exile is that it represents editors who work across both commercials and features. This dual focus aligns perfectly with my passion for both forms of storytelling.
Working in both commercials and features has deeply influenced my approach to editing. The storytelling process in commercials—condensing a narrative into 30, 60, or 90 seconds—has taught me how to expedite storytelling. These skills, like crafting impactful jump cuts and trimming excess fat, have proven invaluable in feature editing. At the same time, the depth and complexity of feature-length storytelling remind me to slow down and let moments breathe. I’ve found that both commercial and feature editing often cross-pollinate, making me a more versatile and thoughtful editor overall.
Filmmaker: What editing system did you use, and why?
Dulowski: I was trained as an assistant editor in Avid, which gave me a strong technical foundation. However, I actively edit in Premiere Pro now. For me, Premiere has always felt incredibly intuitive and allows for a faster workflow, enabling me to focus more on the creative aspects of editing. I especially love using ‘Review with Frame.io’ in Premiere, which allows me to ingest everyone’s comment right into my timeline on the exact timecode. This proves especially helpful when review links are floating around to the rest of the team.
Filmmaker: What was the most difficult scene to cut and why? And how did you do it?
Dulowski: I’d say endings are always hard to edit. There are multiple storylines to wrap up and sometimes you have to choose which are more important and which can you let go of so you don’t end up with five different beats for the ending. We were always so sure of the final sequence of the film but the lead up to it was difficult as we kept moving around these other storyline endings. We started to figure out which beats were the most important to land through feedback screenings where unbiased opinions were crucial.
Filmmaker: Finally, now that the process is over, what new meanings has the film taken on for you? What did you discover in the footage that you might not have seen initially, and how does your final understanding of the film differ from the understanding that you began with?
Dulowski: As I previously said, the picture locked edit always feels so different from the initial rough cut. I’m consistently surprised by how much changes throughout the process—what scenes we end up cutting, how we rearrange sequences within acts, and how some elements that felt essential in the beginning prove unnecessary for the story.
That said, we definitely had a few scenes that remained mostly untouched from the initial assembly and that’s always a fun moment to say we almost nailed it from the start, but you never know where the film will end up from the first moment of screening.
Sometimes you plan to assemble a scene in a particular way, but once you see the footage, you have to react to what’s there and adapt. The final film often grows from a process of letting go of preconceived ideas and letting the footage guide you. By the time we reached picture lock, the story felt leaner, more cohesive, and emotionally resonant in ways I couldn’t have fully anticipated at the start.
