Good Unclear vs. Bad Unclear: Balancing Clarity and Storytelling
- Jennifer Beman
- Jul 28
- 3 min read
One of the most challenging parts of editing documentaries is figuring out whether something “matters.”
You notice something — a point that isn’t 100% clear, a visual that’s slightly ambiguous, a moment where the logic isn’t ironclad — and then you have to ask:
Should it be made clearer?
It’s not a simple yes or no.
Maybe the story is stronger if this point stays ambiguous for a while. Maybe spelling it out would slow the rhythm down too much. Maybe what you notice as unclear, the audience would never even think about, because they don’t have your insider knowledge.
The Flaw Equation, Revisited
This question connects directly to what I think of as the Flaw Equation (a concept I wrote about in another post):
Many editorial decisions involve accepting a flaw in order to make something else possible.
You can't eliminate all the flaws, you can only decide: Is the flaw worth the value it creates?
Let's say for example the “flaw” is lack of total clarity.The “value” might be:
Keeping the story moving
Preserving a sense of mystery
Allowing the audience to experience an emotional reveal later
Keeping the rhythm lively and engaging
If making a point clearer would cost you momentum, tension, or emotional payoff — you have to really question whether “fixing” the flaw is the right move.
Collaboration: Balancing Clarity and Storytelling
These judgment calls often become the heart of editor-producer discussions.
One person says, “This doesn’t make sense.”The other says, “It doesn’t matter.”
And the truth is — both are trying to channel the audience's experience.They just have different instincts about what the audience will feel.
The real debate isn’t about factual clarity — it’s about emotional clarity.
Does the audience FEEL confused?Or are they enjoying the ride, trusting the story will reveal itself?
That’s the north star for me.
In the tension between perfect clarity and entertainment, I usually lean toward entertainment — as long as the audience doesn't feel lost or betrayed.
The Invisible Art of "Entertaining Unclear"
Good editors develop a sixth sense for where a little bit of productive ambiguity actually helps the story:
Letting the audience ask a question without immediately answering it
Holding back exposition until it emotionally matters
Trusting viewers to live with mystery for a beat or two
Not everything needs to be delivered on a platter.In fact, if you pre-digest every moment for the audience, you rob them of some of the active pleasure of discovery.
Clarity is important — but over-clarity can dull the experience.
Shot flaws
Same for flaws in the shot. An amazing moment but shitty image quality? Doesn't matter. Make the rough image quality part of the story: this was amazing capture
Not perfect match on the action? If they can't match but these shots move the story forward the best, then it doesn't matter. Make the lack of matching the vibe of the scene.
Final Thoughts: Editing Is an Act of Trust
Choosing when to clarify and when to leave space, when to fix something and when not to, isn’t just a technical choice — it’s a trust decision:
Trusting the audience to stay with you
Trusting yourself to know when to guide and when to hold back
Trusting your collaborators enough to debate it without defensiveness
And like everything else in editing, it comes down to balancing flaws:
What imperfection are you willing to accept in order to create the best possible experience?
Because no shot, no scene, no sequence, no film is flawless.
But a story that moves you, surprises you, and carries you through — even with a few rough edges — is a far greater achievement than one that’s technically airtight and emotionally flat.
Comments