Actors V Editors

[Brian Kavanagh]

I was bemused by this quote for 'our Nicole' explaining the way she works. I put this forward as a discussion point for editors who have to deal with performers who employ this - for want of a better word - 'technique'.
It, after all, creates a challenge to deliver a seam free performance from a jumble of emotions, to use Ms Kidman's terminology. It may require Oscar winners in future to acknowledge the editor's contribution to the award winning portrayal.
It also begs the question, does the actor have a real understanding of the character he or she is creating? Or is it a hit or miss effort for the editor to clean up?
Brian
*********

Margot at the Wedding
Ms. Kidman, speaking by telephone from the set of Baz Luhrmann’s period romance “Australia,” said of Margot: “She’s an original.” As a mother of two, though, she added: “I found it hard to understand being a mother like that. Noah and I really had to discuss it.

With the way I work — which is never to do the same performance each take —

I would draw on a range of emotions and motivations. I’d tap into my instinctual thrust of the character and then his.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/movies/11lim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[JWRL]

That sounds to me like it requires the same sort of handling as cutting animals and small children - you find the bits that look most like a performance and cobble them together. What a professional! It might go a long way towards explaining the variability of her output though.

It must make very hard on her coperformers too.

Another variant on that - I've edited a young lady who used to do her close-ups at full emotional pitch, but feed the other actor with a very flat read. The result - she'd sparkle, while the other actor's CU was played down. When challenged she claimed to be marshalling her resources for her own performance. Sure.

[Daz]

Mind you, if she (Nic or JW's mate) did the ws 'big' and the cu 'smaller', then that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

[Bill]

I find a great performance leads you, tells you where and when to cut. The rhythms, the delivery and the bodily expression inform your instincts.... you can feel it.

Then there are the other "performers". Something I worked on not that long ago had one character who seemed to be constantly declaiming from the "stage" with facial expressions that could be read from the back row. This lead to the elimination of many lines of dialogue and an endless search for silent looks, nods and glances to pull the performance right back. This developed a very different character than the one performed.

This is not my first experience of this kind, especially with some of our actors who have a reputation for a bit of a thirst. With adequate coverage things can often be pieced together (manufactured).

Sometimes a slightly different read of a line on different takes can be a godsend, but deliberately doing a different performance on each take sounds as though the actor may not really understand the character and their role in the story. We can only hope that our Nic was misquoted.

Many a reputation has been saved/created by the cutting room. Equally a good performance can be diminished or destroyed in the edit. Rarely is the audience aware of the true state of affairs.

[Daz]

There's that great story of Richard Burton & Liz Taylor while filming 'Cleopatra'. Being a great stage actor, he's giving it large in the two shot - and complains bitterly that she's flat. Next day when viewing the rushes on the big screen, he realises that he looks like a circus clown, while her raised eyebrow speaks volumes.

Stephen Poliakoff was in the room next to me, cutting his new drama: "Capturing Mary". They had an interesting technique: they would cut all day on nice big flat screens, but then at the end of the day would turn all the lights off, go to the back of the room, then project the days work on the wall. I was very envious!

[Brian Kavanagh]

It is important to view the film on a large screen: that's the way an audience sees it.

[Daz]

Sorry - the irony is that his drama is for the small screen. No-one will se it that way, except for them...and me (peeking through the window)

[Emma]

Originally posted by Daz
There's that great story of Richard Burton & Liz Taylor while filming 'Cleopatra'. Being a great stage actor, he's giving it large in the two shot - and complains bitterly that she's flat. Next day when viewing the rushes on the big screen, he realises that he looks like a circus clown, while her raised eyebrow speaks volumes.


Nice story there Daz - that made me laugh out loud.

[Richard Clark]

Surely that is a mute point and surely we need to remember what we are, what we do, we are first and foremost storytellers, albeit behind the scenes. But that, I believe, is what we do, it is our relationship with Directors that, to me, is of importance, we are the hands, the heart and hands of film making, the ability to find the pearls, any more and ego gets in the way. I, for one, am quite happy to work anonymously. I know what I do, that is enough. At the end i can walk away knowing I gave it my all. However, others may see it differently, wouldn't be the first time :)