Beautiful Film, Stunning Sound Design

Pivot from Pivot on Vimeo.

Reminds me of this
from Dave Trott.

Finding the emotion in sport

Ernest Hemingway said that he had spent his time as a sportswriter in
Chicago in the 1920s looking for “the unnoticed things that made
emotions, such as the way an outfielder tossed his glove without
looking back to where it fell”

From the Guardian

The root of the problem and film editing

Walter Murch is one of the finest film editors and sound engineers the
world has ever seen. He’s also renowned for editing his films whilst
standing up (it creates a more physical, engaging act).

I first heard of him whilst writing an essay on The Conversation,
Francis Ford Coppola’s early film and a sound designers dream.

He went on to mix the sound for The Godfather II and Apocalypse Now,
and edit The English Patient.

Because Murch’s job is about story telling he’s fascinated by how
people understand them.

In his book, ‘In the blink of an eye’ (“Try cutting when the actors
blink, since blinking often signifies the completion of a thought.”),
Murch talks about audience research and trying to understand the
feedback that they give.

Often the research will report that people didn’t like a scene.

Digging a little deeper Murch will find out that they didn’t
understand the scene.

Digging even further demonstrates that they saw what happened in the
scene but couldn’t grasp why it was happening or why it was of
consequence. In other words they understood the scene, but didn’t have
enough information to make sense of the scene.

The research found the symptom of the problem, but not the cause.

There’s something fascinating about this.

Most people in film or in marketing / advertising would just cut the
scene or rework it.

But Murch isn’t most people.

Rather than taking the easy, literal way out, he digs deeper looking
for the root of the problem.

Look who’s up to no good in Gotham City

henrylambert.com
+44 7941 588834

You’ve got to do it for yourself

 

The World Cup and England’s disappointing performance so far has brought up the usual criticisms of the England players. Much of it is along the lines of “they should be playing for the shirt/flag/nation/empire etc”. The idea being that footballers should be able to transcend themselves and find inspiration in the dreams of millions of their countrymen. 

Which all kind of makes sense. The fabric of English culture comes from inspirational speeches. Think Henry V: “Cry ‘God for Harry, England, and Saint George!”; Admiral Nelson: “England Expects that every man will do his duty.”; Winston Churchill: “never have so many owed so much to so few”. Englishmen being inspired to do their jobs by soaring nationalist rhetoric. 

The trouble is that it’s not really how things work. 

Psychologists and behavioural scientists have spent decades looking into what actually motivates us. And as it turns out the most powerful thing at motivating us is us. 

In 1997 a bunch of sports scientists from the University of Rochester and the University of Utah decided to look at motivation and exercise to see what would help sustain frequent physical activity. (Intrinsic Motivation and Exercise Adherence. Ryan et al)

They found that people who did exercise to get fit or to be healthy were much more likely to give up after a short period of time than people who did exercise because they liked doing it. 

In other words, internal motivations i.e. enjoyment are much more powerful than external motivations i.e. to look better. In the language of the psychologists, intrinsic reasons beat extrinsic reasons.

We know from our own experience that if we do things because the act of doing them is satisfying then we’re likely to keep on doing them. 

Whereas things we’re less keen on doing we stop doing, even if there’s a good reason to do them. 

Doing things for intrinsic reasons is enjoyable. Doing things for extrinsic reasons is a chore. 

The speeches mentioned above worked because they tapped into an intrinsic reason to succeed – personal survival. I’m pretty sure Agincourt and Trafalgar would have gone the same way without the speeches. 

So back to England’s footballers. Telling them that they should play well because “England expects” doesn’t help, it’s an extrinsic reason. 

We need them to enjoy playing well. To win because it satisfies them. Only then can we look forward to a long World Cup campaign. 

“Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do. Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do.” – Mark Twain

Bad ads. And why it’s all Jon Steel’s fault

One word: insights. 

Jon Steel made everyone insight crazy.  

In Truth, Lies and Advertising he talked about the power of insights in GS&P's great work. 

For example (if I remember correctly, my copy is in storage): 

* Got Milk? 

* Porsche

* Sega

All these insights are brilliant. They're also proper insights, not statements of the bleeding obvious. 

In responsible hands it could have been OK. People could have taken 'insights' to mean 'a statement that sheds new light'. 

But they didn't. 

They took them at face value. 

So because they're all 'human insights', the marketing and advertising world decided that the only interesting place to look for insights is in human behaviour. 

Then they went insight crazy. "We need more human insights" became a boardroom cry.  

The trouble with human insights is that it's very hard to find new and interesting ones. 

There are lots of human insights, but most aren't really insights. They're just statements. 

The place to find 'real' insights is elsewhere. 

It's in the uncomfortable and unexpected:

In the client's business. In culture. In the economic climate. In future trends. In old behaviours. In the product. Where ever.  

I'll leave you with this from the old but very wise Jeremy Bullmore:

"An insight has to be interesting. It can't just be a statement of fact that is then made interesting through creative interpretation. It has to be based in fact, but have gaps to be filled in, that beg to be filled in, by the reader."

The bad but brilliant ambiguity

I have a love-hate relationship with ambiguity. 

I love it for all the brilliant stuff that it makes. For making the world a bunch of different colours and not just black and white. For making simple things complicated and rich. For allowing me to blunder into things and find delightful stuff that other wise I’d have missed. For leaving gaps that begged to be filled. 

But on the hand I hate it. For creating confusion. For making blame possible. For stealing decisiveness. And for making things harder than they should be. 

In summary my view on ambiguity is a little bit ambiguous. 

The latest ad trend: consequences

1. Nike – Wayne Rooney

2. AT&T – Ripple Effect 

3. Target – Life's a Moving Target

Francis and the Lights. Pop Promo Edited By Light

http://vimeo.com/11474503
<p>Music Video – “Darling, It’s Alright” – Francis and the Lights from Francis and the Lights on Vimeo.</p>

Francis and the Lights latest promo. Shot by the talented Jake Schreier. 

Most good advertising doesn’t create culture it just reflects back the interesting bits

Haven't really thought this through yet. But writing it down might clarify it for me. 

I wanted to take a bit of interesting marketing orthodoxy and challenge it. 

What I think I mean is that it's rare that advertising creates something new. 

It takes a messy, nebulous bit of culture and makes it simple and understandable. 

Yes, it can speed up cultural change, but it doesn't create cultural change.

A few examples:

Apple: Think Different (Apple's hard core users came from the creative industries)

Dove: Real Beauty (feminism – stereotypes of beauty damage women's self esteem)

Nike: Just Do It (people who participate in sport have more get up and go)

Omo: Dirt Is Good (mollycoddling kids doesn't do them any good)

Lynx: The Lynx Effect (boys want to attract girls)

Bored of this thought now. 

Next.