Similar. I don’t actually look at performance – that is very much outside my remit. And I can’t watch performance per se, as I am somewhat occupied constantly scanning all the other things that are part of my remit.^[1][2] Hence the only aspect of performance I’m actively watching is continuity of performance.

In theory watching for performance continuity covers making sure^[3] that Marla isn’t crying in one shot and ecstatic the next.^[4] You might think this isn’t likely to come up (and that I should keep well out if it does), and you’d generally be right. At least with adult human actors.^[5]

But if say there are performance variations between takes – Take 4 was the low-key withdrawn one, Take 7 the Here’s Johhhnny one – someone needs to be keeping track of which is which and which is being used for matching when we come to the subsequent shot in two weeks time. Someone = me.

1. Well, okay, obviously I do look at it – it’s right there in my earpiece and on the monitor in front of me. But it’s more like I’m looking (and listening) past it to everything else. And either way, I don’t watch for it or have any judgement on what’s good/bad/indifferent – that is a sacred relationship between the actor and the director, and no-one else on set should be involved. [↩︎]
2. There is only one director on set. At least until the executive producer turns up “just to see how it’s all going”. [↩︎]
3. Very tactfully. [↩︎]
4. Okay, maybe not the best example… [↩︎]
5. Don’t ask me about greyhounds. Please. [↩︎]

3 Comments To "Got it. Performance Continuity?"

#1 Comment By Diane Hounsell On August 12, 2009 @ 5:40 am

#2 Comment By That Continuity Guy On August 14, 2009 @ 12:07 am

#3 Comment By That Continuity Guy On August 14, 2009 @ 12:12 am