It's as good and healthy as a sports director digitally manipulating a goal in football - there is a line that shouldn't be crossed

Nelly, Paris, France

As an actor, I have mixed feelings on this. Yes, the craft is one of illusion - make-up, props, technique - but in a post-Stanislavski world, actors aim for an inner truth to their performance to make it more convincing for an ever more canny audience, and there is a beauty in that notion of 'truth' which will be lost with technological sleight-of-hand. But one can get too precious about these things...

Alexander Fiske-Harrison, London, England

This seems unjustified that people are becoming annoyed because tears can be digitally added. I mean if a director or an actor is incapable of displaying real emotion or giving the correct meanning through a scene why should the audience have to suffer because of it.

All acting is artificial within films so why must so many people complain that emotion or pain can be digitally or artificially enhanced.

Ryan A, Lancashire, UK

I think we all accept that special effects are there for safety and other reasons. (Charleton Heston did not really pull the lance out of his real leg in "El Cid"). The art lies in his convincing us that his pain was real and so was the event for the character at that time. I feel a deep disquiet about digitally making a performance better or worse than it is. Remember, it can work both ways. How many people would a really nasty actor have to pay off to make him look good digitally? How many bad actors would have their reputations enhanced by this practice? No, this is a cause for concern. Art must be truthful or else it degrades itself.

Carlyle Braden, Croydon, U.K.

“Acting is all about honesty". Hahahahahahaha!

No. Acting is all about pretending to be other people. Complaints about the dishonesty of editing are ridiculous.

Norm, Mayberry,

I think the above example is kind of rotten anyway. I mean, adding tears in post-production? Most onscreen tears have been artificial since the beginning of film, frequently added with an eyedropper...this simply ensures that the tear will definitely look authentic. As with everything in the film industry, the gloss provided by this procedure is only a crutch to the talentless - for everyone who CAN act or direct or whatever, it's just a bonus. And for the record, Ms. Connelly falls into the latter category.

Peter Raleigh, Chicago, IL

I had a similar reaction to that statement. In light of the two previous comments, I think there are two varieties of 'honesty' being discussed here. I prefer Calvin's. For me, honesty is about transparency: revealing inner workings, seeing what something is made of. It's the opposite of acting, pretending, and persuasion.

It's also noteworthy that actors feel the need to persuade themselves of their honesty. The concern for honesty looks more like evidence of a carefully-contrived self-delusion.

As for adding tears digitally: how is that different from makeup? If a post-performance artist can add nuance to an existing scene through digital backgrounds, and animations, those things become part of a collaborative project. It's only entertainment, so it's of no concern.

David, Birmingham, UK

Mr Power,

I just wanted to point out that to say that reactions must always be real while pretending makes no sense at all. And where did we learn about real and pretend ? Kinder garden. Which I'm afraid trumps your "elementary". Anyways its not about the actors its about the movie and the people who pay to watch it. If they can make it cheaper or better without me noticing it then I say great. Movies cost too much these days and if it will dalay the next ticket price hike a few months I'm all for it. As for reading Mr. Powers I suggest "Dick and Jane". Or "See Dog Run"

Rex Ettleman, Phoenix, az, US

This is a disgrace. It's bad enough that every story is dominated by special effects and actors who don't have the talent to utter a line convincingly, now we're going to alter the performances of those that do?

I can't believe we've gotten to the point where we are correcting an artist work because we're convinced we know better. What next? Are we going to airbrush the smile from the mona lisa because it's too seductive for what we're trying to impart?

mjweir, new york,

This has been happening in music almost since the microphone was invented. Every performance, every track you have ever ever heard (and that's not an exaggeration) has been treated and changed sonically - so why not on film too? It seems quite obvious really...........

Stuart Rawlinson, Shanghai, China

editing a scene can change the entire look and feel of a performance. Using a two shot and then a close-up from two different takes is the same "dishonest" moment as changing a facial expression. That's why it's called "editing". The film is a story that the director is in charge of bringing to an audience, not displaying acting ability. Sure, it's a crutch for directors who don't know what they're doing, but then again so is a good editor.

jacob, The Cityville, State State

I think there's nothing wrong with manipulation, but directors should respect that a film, as well as being their own creation, is also part of an actor's own CV, and so the actor should have the right to say "yes, that's still essentially me" before the film goes out.

Andy Drysdale, London, UK

Mr. Dodge -

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Yes, actors are working in a "pretend" moment, but their reactions within that moment must be real to be believed by the audience. Any credible acting teacher will tell you this - it is elementary and fundamental to good acting. If you would like to learn a little bit more about acting, may I recommend "Acting: The First Six Lessons" by Richard Boleslavsky, "Respect for Acting" by Uta Hagen, or "Sanford Meisner on Acting" by Sanford Meisner. These are just a few of the good books out there on the subject.

Max Power, Anytown, USA

You quote a technician as saying "Acting is all about honesty".

What a ludicrous statement! Acting is all about faking an emotion or reaction, since the actors are creating and responding to fictional events. To some extent their appearance is faked, too, thanks to makeup artists (one can easily find web sites with "before" and "after" pictures showing the difference makeup provides).

Frankly, I see little difference between and actor faking tears in a scene, and a technician adding them afterwards. So it's silly for actors to complain that "reality" is being altered.

Calvin Dodge, Loveland, Colorado, US

So does this mean that pretty well anything we see as a documentary could be faked:
Ferenhiet 911, Bowling for Columbine, Black Coffee, In inconvenient Truth, who killed the electric car, and so on and so on.....

So if it is filmed it is just as doctored as if it were a fictional novel!

Shawn Wiggins, Minitonas, Manitoba, CA

It would be nice to see some examples, or before and after pictures.

Scott, Miami,

I don't see what the problem is, when acting in itself is a profession of liars. No one seems to have a problem with entirely digital performances, so why not make a movie (fictional story) better.

Robert, Davis, California

Who cares whether an actor's performance is altered after the fact? The only important thing is: "Was this a good movie? Did it entertain us?" If we're going to worry about whether a limp was made more or less convincing, we might as well worry that Mickey wasn't a real mouse.

Carl, Cambridge,

On the contrary, acting is all about honesty - of course, the performance is 'pretend' but the emotional content must be absolutely genuine if it is to be satisfying to the audience. Calling acting - or any kind of fiction - 'lying' is to entirely miss the point!

Huw Bowen, Warwick, UK

Acting isn't about "honesty". Acting is about lying well enough to convince the viewer you are whomever you're portraying. Who cares really if something is enhanced. It's Hollywood, remember? Is anything on those people real anyway?

Rob C, Norman, OK