Good acting versus good editing

[Jimmy Pierce]

From a director and from an actor, they share the philosophy of bringing out the best performance. But then in post, the actor's varied performances and director's varied ideas are ignored, shredded, and combined. A series of good performances can create a GREAT performance in a scene and sometimes a great performance is only the briefest of moments, sometimes in one shot, sometimes in a series of shots and the viewer goes "wow", and are locked in to that character.

So how much is good acting and how much is good editing and can you draw a line between the two?

The same question could be raised about cinematography and production design. They both serve to tell the story visually and a well designed set can make a cinematographer's job that much easier, as well as a cinematographer can bring the best out of a set. Many cinematographers (and actors) have admitted this when they say how great it was to work with the set piece that was laid out for them.

 

[DPStewart]

In "most" instances acting and editing are absolutely intertwined and interconnected.
They depend on each other equally.
Now, yes of course, there are some instances of very long takes that rely very heavily on the actor - and those are very important. But they are also far, far less common than the back and forth dance of the acting and editing that make up the vast majority of everything.

Cinematography and production design are the same, but only in the real world. Once you get into virtual sets and actors working against greenscreens then the roles of production designer and cinematographer become shared with those responsible for creating the CGI virtual additions. I guess they have more sharing to work out nowadays.

 

[Agafilm]

It's a collaboration. If you want to keep it philosophical, I would say that it's like music. A great soloist with a group probably sounds good on her own, and the band sounds good without her; but it's different when they work together, and you can't separate the two.

 

[Josh Bass]

what about the post production audio guy whose job it is to make the audio as sweet as can be, including using audo from one take with video from another, combining audio from different takes to make up a single "perfect" line, stretching and compressing individual syllables to make them fit lip sync, and possibly even adjusting pitch of individual syllables to change inflection? surely all of that affects the perceived performance as well?

 

[David Jimerson]

You can cut a bad actor into a good performance. Sometimes.

But it's always better if they give you a good performance.

Performance can be the enemy of "good editing," such as when Scorcese doesn't worry about continuity so much and just uses the takes with the best performance.

 

[rsbush]

The line is the degree of believability in the actor as the character. A good editor can improve the tempo, timing, emphasis, cohesion and evenness of a performance, but only the actor can provide the believability.

 

[Jimmy Pierce]

This is part of post production and is a form of editing.

what about the post production audio guy whose job it is to make the audio as sweet as can be, including using audio from one take with video from another, combining audio from different takes to make up a single "perfect" line, stretching and compressing individual syllables to make them fit lip sync, and possibly even adjusting pitch of individual syllables to change inflection? surely all of that affects the perceived performance as well?

A dance between the actor and editing is a good way of wording. As far as believability, isn't tempo, timing, emphasis, cohesion, and evenness the ingredients that make it believable?

The line is the degree of believability in the actor as the character. A good editor can improve the tempo, timing, emphasis, cohesion and evenness of a performance, but only the actor can provide the believability.

If I'm angry and want you to believe I'm angry, my tone is going to be in a specific range to achieve that realism.

I ask this question because I've heard personally from at least two seasoned actors and have read the common opinion that some actors find editing actually hurts what their intended performance was. Like if my meal was intended to be spicy and I altered it and took the spicy out because I thought it tasted better or vice versa.

Now, I respect those actors and actors in general, and perhaps this philosophy might stem from stage acting versus film acting. But I think ultimately it's a collaboration and editing can help lift that actors intended performance to a new level or at the very least mold it into what works in that moment and for the whole film.

 

[combatentropy]

You can cut a bad actor into a good performance. Sometimes. But it's always better if they give you a good performance.

I agree with David Jimerson here.

Like if my meal was intended to be spicy and I altered it and took the spicy out because I thought it tasted better or vice versa.

I was about to appeal to cooking before I read your post. How funny! As you can enhance a dish with spice, so you can enhance acting with editing. But you can pull the raw material only so far, and there's nothing like making something from just a few great ingredients. You can make an interesting film with a chop-suey style of editing, but in my old age (thirties) I've come to love the oner, particularly in the Spielberg style.

 

[Jimmy Pierce]

It's interesting that the video doesn't mention Lincoln (2012) at all which is filled with those takes. The Old Hollywood style of film making was based upon stage presence, hence why melodramatic acting was so prominent. The dynamics of a shot were pronounced on a set as much as on a stage. You can see numerous long takes in films as recent as the 1970s where the camera didn't even move forward, just left to right. Sometimes with a dolly move inward or outward that followed the action but not necessarily for dramatic effect like Hitchcock but just to change the scenery (like that video mentions in regards to JAWS). It gives the actors free reign over the scene and allows for a range of emotions to be seen uncut. What I think editing does other than mold a performance together is visually stimulate the scene, say something about what the character is going through or better undersand the situation by utilizing a certain type of shot at a certain moment in the scene.

But like the video discusses, you can achieve that in long takes by having the camera move with the action but move in for a different kind of shot.

 

[Rolf Silber]

I ask this question because I've heard personally from at least two seasoned actors and have read the common opinion that some actors find editing actually hurts what their intended performance was. Like if my meal was intended to be spicy and I altered it and took the spicy out because I thought it tasted better or vice versa.

In a lot of cases you will find no greater gap of perception as between what an actor thinks his intended performance was and what his performance was for real. This is not to deride actors - it's a principal problem of humans which is only accuminated in the delicate act of acting. So, yes, the floor (or the digital trash-can)of an editing suite is littered with the snippets of wrong hopes and imprecise self-assessment of both actor or director .

Editing is the critique of the shooting process - I think Godard said it so it must be a truism... ;-) Only problem is: Sometimes critics can be wrong too.

 

[rsbush]

As far as believability, isn't tempo, timing, emphasis, cohesion, and evenness the ingredients that make it believable?

These are all elements of a performance that arise from the moment to moment playing of a character that give it shape. How much truth an actor brings to each moment is how believable they are in the role. An editor can alter how those moments are played out in time, affecting the shape and perception of the performance, but they can't infuse more truth into the moments.

 

[hscully]

I don't know. I have seen performances fundamentally changed as to the original actor's intention at the moment it was shot. I would not underestimate the ability of the editor to fundamentally change the performance by choice of takes, choosing a certain reaction shot and staying on it through the dialog of another, or staying on one character as opposed to the other. I say that the performance is very fungible in the edit and all the better for it.

Think about using the slate shot. I've taken moments from completely different scenes, punched in on them and used them as reaction shots and I'm an actor

 

[combatentropy]

In a lot of cases you will find no greater gap of perception as between what an actor thinks his intended performance was and what his performance was for real.

Yes, I would think so too. The greatest acting comes when the actor isn't watching himself but is instead being in the moment. That's partly why actors need a director. It felt good, but I have no idea what I looked like, or whether it was good or bad. What do you think, Mr. Director? The director is the stand-in for the audience, so that the actor can let go.

Disclaimer: I acted a little in high school and college, and have read a lot of books on directing, but I am neither a professional actor nor director.

 

[David W. Richardson]

From a director and from an actor, they share the philosophy of bringing out the best performance. But then in post, the actor's varied performances and director's varied ideas are ignored, shredded, and combined.

Properly done, the director should be directly involved in the post production process every step of the way. So there should be no situation where the director's ideas are 'ignored, shredded, and combined.'

 

[Jimmy Pierce]

Properly done, the director should be directly involved in the post production process every step of the way. So there should be no situation where the director's ideas are 'ignored, shredded, and combined.'

A director's ideas can change. That's what I meant. Like the phrase, "the film is made in the editing room", thereat the characters can be too.

What films are out there that are just a series of single takes? Not THE first and only take, a series of single shots. I'm sure there are many scenes, but how about an entire film?

 

[combatentropy]

Is there a question unanswered or something you would like to talk more about? I'm having a hard time thinking of anything more to say.

Can acting be molded by editing? Yes.
To what degree? I don't know, it depends on the script and the takes to choose from.
I think everyone basically agrees. On just how far you can change the acting, we of course might disagree a little, but not enough to really talk much more about it generally.

What do you want out of this discussion?

 

[Jimmy Pierce]

This has been an honest discussion. I receive no personal gain from asking questions except knowledge, and am not looking for anyone to agree or disagree with me. If the discussion ends here, that's fine. I asked if there were any films that bare example to the original question. Nothing wrong with that and if nobody has an answer, then maybe the discussion has ended. If me asking another question in connection to the first bothers you, you have the right to go to another thread. I'm glad you added your input to this thread because I think this question is important to the dynamics of a film and enjoyed hearing everyone's answers.

 

[combatentropy]

The question is fine. Maybe my tone sounds harsh over the Internet.

 

[Josh Bass]

i would think the editor's (via the director) goal would be to make the acting look as good as possible---if its okay, try to make it look great, if its great, leave it alone and let it breathe. some of this is subject to scene pacing etc where things might be necessarily compressed for the overall good of the project

 

[alex whitmer]

You can cut a bad actor into a good performance. Sometimes.

In the process of that now, though passable is probably a better word. It can mean cutting material that would have otherwise added to the whole if the acting was good to start with. Some of it just can't be salvaged, but the bigger tragedy is when a good actor's part has to be cut along with it.

Editing can't fix everything, so I would not advise anyone to go into a project with the idea that editing can cover their ass on poor casting, poor writing, directing and on down the line.


The notion of directing a film is the invention of critics - the whole eloquence of film is achieved in the editing room. Orson Wells