Which dialogue editing style is better?

Or would most audiences like? When I edit conversations between actors, there are two ways I can think of doing it. I could edit for storytelling, which is where I decide ideally, who the camera should be on, at what point of the conversation, for conveying something.

Or I could edit for performance, in which case, I choose my cuts based on where the actors give the best performances. This results in more cutting back and forth, but also quicker and more sudden cutting though, and I often have to cut in mid sentence, to get the best parts of the performances, from the certain sections of those takes. So this might not feel as smooth, as the former, but definitely has more of quantity range of best moments throughout.

So is it better cutting for storytelling smoothness, and not as much mid sentence, or performance, which results in cutting to meet the right moment of the right take alot? I find try to go for both if I can, but have ended up choosing the latter more so far. Good?
 
A tough question!
Again, I think you've kind of touched on it being dependent on the type of person watching it.

Think of something like the TED talks, which are probably more to the storytelling type of thing (i.e: trying to turn something which may be dry into something which is not!).

This seems to work well for a general audience. But again, depending on their expectations...
 
I believe a general audience will be none the wiser to a "less than ideal" performance - but - will burn you on a cross over transgressions of story content, timing, and flow.

However, audiences are also "somewhat" forgiving, meaning their minds will fill tiny gaps here and there, so you should slip in moments of the better performances.

In other words: consider a hybrid edit between the two styles.

Honestly, I think it will be a lot of six of one/half dozen of the other.





Question b) if you don't have the answers to question a), which do YOU prefer? You might even want to do a rough edit both ways to see which version feels the way you want the film to feel.
Excellent suggestion.
I believe studios regularly conduct test screenings for this very purpose, even for trailers.
 
Last edited:
Question a) what do you know about the audience for YOUR film? What do they look for/dislike in the sort of film you are trying to make?

Question b) if you don't have the answers to question a), which do YOU prefer? You might even want to do a rough edit both ways to see which version feels the way you want the film to feel.
 
I'm a believer that you ALWAYS serve your story. Besides, performances will look better if the story if compelling.

But that being said, high-lighting certain parts of the performance can help improve the storytelling...

Interesting side note, Robert Rodriguez recorded his sound wild on El Mariachi. i.e., he filmed the action, then used a tape recorder and had his actor repeat their lines afterward. His choices on where to cut simply served to better sync up the dialogue with the action. And several times, he received compliments on his choices for editing.
 
I like it where one avoids ping pong conversations...meaning dont only show the one talking, show the reaction to one talking, show the clock ticking, the car pulling up outside, hand wringing...etc Then snap to the talent when they have said something important
 
This is where a good dialog editor enters the picture. There may be some takes with a great visual performance, and others with a better dialog performance. Someone like me can sift through all of the dialog performances and create an exceptional dialog performance to match the stunning visuals the editor has cut together.

But, there is a caveat... You need the production dialog to be technically consistent all the way through the scene so the dialog editor has the material to make that wonderful dialog performance. Which is why I preach so much about quality production sound.

Another caveat... You need the tools, the experience and the patience - and an intern or assistant doesn't hurt - to sort through all of the dialog takes and organize them, then listen through it all. And, no matter how much material is available and how skilled you are, you still make some compromises; not that 99.99% of the audience and 95% of filmmakers would notice once the job is completed.
 
The primary rule a director and editor must both follow is to always make an actor look their best.

There are exceptions to the rule. For instance, in my last two productions, there has been a cast member (a different cast member than the other production. But, nevertheless, the actor is so bad at dialogue that they can't remember their lines from take to take. The best way to edit their dialogue is to cut to reaction shots of different actors and piece together the dialogue of that actor to make sense.

In the end, use what is best for both the production and the actor. Also, remember the importance of reaction shots without dialogue that help to further a mood and your story.
 
Also remember, that serving your story and serving the performance of your actors don't have to be mutually exclusive endeavors. Both help to complement each other.

But, from beginning to end, story is always king.
 
Yeah I agree that story is king if you had to pick, but sometimes I feel I have to cut at mid sentence to capture another actors good performance. I will show two rough edits to some friends, and they can pick which is better.

I am doing what Alcove was talking about and picking the best audio performance to sync up to the best visual performance. However you can notice the dialogue switch over. It matches the mouths perfectly after I sync it up right, but it just sounds different, in different takes. Kind of like how some video takes look brighter or a little more yellower than others, and I have to give them the same look. I will have to research on how to get all my dialogue to sound the same, after cleaning it up.
 
Yeah I agree that story is king if you had to pick, but sometimes I feel I have to cut at mid sentence to capture another actors good performance.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself well. By doing that, you ARE serving the story. Just in the same way you're serving the story by cutting a scene that does nothing to push the story forward. You need to know which part of the performance (or whatever else) to show to properly convey the story.

When I said serve the story, I didn't mean to keep the shot fixed on the actor saying the line, then go to the next actor when they say their line, etc... I meant using the best angle to show the right facial expression, or the best audio take to get the right vocal inflection, or whatever you feel is needed to give the audience the emotion you want them to have at that moment as well as the information that they need to follow the narrative properly.

That's what I meant by the two things not being mutually exclusive. You can serve both purposes equally with the right choices.
 
This is more of a shooting approach but if you watch a lot of Woody Allen movies you see a common approach to dialogue scenes.

So let's say there are four people at a table, two on the left, two on the right. He'll place the camera at the corner-center of the table, where a 5th middle chair would go. And he'll gracefully turn the camera back and forth between the left and right as the people talk. This creates a sense of observation. It places the audience in that fifth chair and it feels like, as it would in real life, that we're listening and turning our heads according to where the speaker is. In my opinion, this is the most realistic approach to SHOOTING dialogue scenes. The editing conflict you mentioned, however, is really interesting.

Good luck!
 
When I said serve the story, I didn't mean to keep the shot fixed on the actor saying the line, then go to the next actor when they say their line, etc... I meant using the best angle to show the right facial expression, or the best audio take to get the right vocal inflection, or whatever you feel is needed to give the audience the emotion you want them to have at that moment as well as the information that they need to follow the narrative properly.
Exactly, and likely just what IndieBudget meant above:
I like it where one avoids ping pong conversations...meaning dont only show the one talking, show the reaction to one talking, show the clock ticking, the car pulling up outside, hand wringing...etc Then snap to the talent when they have said something important

You DON'T want Character A going "Blah blah blah", angle switches to Character B saying "Yada yada yada", back to Character A "Blah blah blah", back to Character B saying "Yada yada yada", back to Character A "Blah blah blah", back to Character B saying "Yada yada yada", back to...
OMG, no.
That's elementary school editor horrible.

Character A "Blah blah blah", Character B begins saying "Yada yada... ", then the angle switches to B "... yada", Character A "Blah...", angle switches to close up of Character A's hands fidgeting with a coffee cup as his voice over continues "... blah blah... ", close up angle on of B's face smiling as the A's voice continues "... blah", quick cut to close up of A responding to B smiling, back to B saying "Yada yada yada".

Yeah.
It's a pain in the @ss editing, but the dynamic integration of image and voice brings a more rich experience to the audience.
 
For dialog, I prefer to cut the audio to sound A) convincing and B) the best possible combination of bits to serve the story (not one or the other, but both)... then I fit the visuals above it. -- to serve the conversation you've cut together and what you, as an audience member, wants to see next, whether that be the person talking or the reaction of the person being spoken to. I like to think of the conversation as being on the part of the current receiver... either showing what they see (POV or OTS) or how they react to it. I'm less concerned about the speaker as I am the receiver.
 
Back
Top