JFK vs PP III
Good Things Come In Threes
Despite the fact that part 2 of my JFK vs. PowerPoint project was something of a flop compared to the original I've decided to finish the trilogy. (New readers should probably look through part 1 and part 2 before the read on). This time I have not limited myself to the use of Slide Ware (PowerPoint/Keynote). I've made a dynamic presentation based on the same audio-clip as I've used in the previous examples.
Seductive Visuals
Hopefully you'll find that this version commands attention and is actually quite interesting to watch. And I really hope it serves to demonstrate a point. That point being that despite this latest iteration probably being the most visually pleasing, it is no more effective in presenting the message than the original 'boring PowerPoint'.
While the two version differs a lot in quality and dynamics they have at least one problem in common: When you force the audience to read they cannot give their full attention to the spoken word. This means that no matter how beautiful the text is displayed on your PowerPoint-slides they will harm your presentation if delivered at the same time as you speak. If you look at the second example however you'll find that the imagery is designed to augment the speech. The images should work either to make the message clearer or to strengthen your audience's emotional connection to the material.
The first rule towards better PowerPoint presentations is in my mind so simple it's almost ridiculous. Text = Bad. Imagery = Good.
As always there is also a higher quality QT version available.
Technology Schmecologny
-Tools in the hands of tools
I love technology. Not all technology of course, but great looking, seamlessly working gizmos and cleverly designed software are things that bring a smile to my face. As much as I love technology I am also depressed at some people's blind belief in the tools of the digital age. Technological advances and lower prices have put professional tools in the hands of anyone willing to part with the cash. In the 80's desktop publishing, advanced computer-typefaces and photocopiers drove a lot of smaller advertising agencies out of business. A lot of executives figured 'we can do it ourselves and save money!' No one would claim to be a carpenter simply because they bought a hammer and some nails. Yet this was essentially the logic governing their decision.
Picasso’s La Guernica
Today I doubt you'll find any serious company that make their own advertising material. (Short of them having a professional marketing department). As people got used to seeing material with fancy font-work it became apparent that smooth fonts and clipart alone does not make professional looking documents. While most people wouldn't know how to design a print-ad, most people do know a bad one when they see one. Over time, talent prevails. After all, most people reading this could probably afford to buy material better than that used to paint the Guernica. Most would probably not come close in their artistic efforts though. Even if they did have the time (and space!) on their hands.
If you need an illustration would you rather buy it from an accountant who just bought the latest version of Photoshop or from a proven artist using Microsoft Paint?
From YouTube/EclecticAsylumArt
As you can see from the above example great artists can make great artwork even with limited tools. The combination of great tools and great artists is the stuff dreams are made of. If you can only have one of these you should choose the artist - every time.
Interactive Movies
-Why they don't work, and how they could
Interactive
Movie : a hybrid of a movie and a video game is
an art-form that never seemed to take off. They
were created in a way where the movie
stopped/paused at a certain point and the user's
interaction would decide the continuation of the
movie. One of the best known examples is the
Laserdisc
based arcade game Dragon's
Lair. While Dragon's Lair was commercially
successful, few would argue that it worked
particularly well as a game or that its narrative
was worthy of any awards. Thanks to the work of
legendary animator Don
Bluth and his team it looked brilliantly
though; and for a while the novelty of the visual
quality was enough to forget about all the
shortcomings. [Un]fortunately, later attempts at
repeating the success would demonstrate that the
format was basically flawed.
-Flawed format
Possibly the best looking video game of all ages
Despite the fact that the technology used was crude compared to today's standards, I don't think the major problem was of a technical nature. Let me elaborate: When we watch a movie the filmmakers tell us a story. This is the basic premise of the narrative movie and from the spectator's point of view it is a passive medium. (Not taking into account the emotions a good movie can evoke). This is what we sign up for an it is in many ways an evolutionary step from the storyteller traditions of yore. When the audience have to "help" the hero or decide where the story should go it breaks the mould. We're basically experiencing the storyteller putting his hands up saying «I don't know, what do you think?». It simply doesn't work. We've trusted you to tell us a story, now tell us a freakin' story!
-A way for the viewer to participate
I think however that there is room for a different kind of Interactive Movie, one where the storyteller doesn't give up on the story. Greater minds than mine* may already have thought of this, but nevertheless my idea is as follows:
The Interactive Movie v 2.0 will start like any other movie, setting up the basic premisses, introduce the characters etc. At a certain point the story will diverge into two parallel actions. This is already a widely used storytelling tool in the world of movies, enabling switching between the different parts of the story. The difference is that it will now be up to the viewer to decide when to switch. At certain times the two strains of the story will again converge and most times they should come together to form a satisfying conclusion to the story.
The Arcade ‘Trailer’ in all its glory, courtesy of YouTube/Digital Leisure
I think this could work brilliantly. I don't know about you, but I'm an avid channel-switcher. When I watch television I've found that it is possible to follow two programs at once by switching back and forth between the two. In my proposed Interactive Movie you could have the hero struggling to break out of the villain's stronghold while his comrade-in-arms is on his way to bomb the building to smithereens. The viewer will have to switch back and forth to see if the hero will make it in time. In a way, the viewer becomes the editor.
Obviously there are caveats as some Storytelling Tools will be left useless. (The moviemakers can't cut away to another part of the story to increase tension). It does however allow the viewer to engage him- or herself in the story deciding which part to watch without breaking the story as a whole. The storyteller is still in charge of the story, but the viewer can decide which part of it to follow at any given time.
*I've been told they exist
Setting the mood
How your story might start sooner than you think
May the 22nd Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull opens in theaters worldwide. Probably the most eagerly awaited film of the year thanks to the huge following of the franchise and the time passed since the last one was released. I am part of the fold and have huge expectations for the next Indy-installment. I have a fairly clear idea about what I am going to get. Any fear of Lucas and Spielberg messing with the formula has been removed by the marketing material. As soon as the first teaser-poster was released I was convinced this film will deliver. "The Man With the Hat" is really back.
The poster was, of course, created by one of my heroes, Drew Struzan. He has become the semi-official Indy-illustrator and his work immediately puts you in the right frame of mind: This is Indiana Jones done the way it has always been done. This is Indiana Jones done right!
Only 3 more weeks left to wait!
A Lesson To Be Learned
I am not suggesting that you hire Mr. Struzan for all your projects (but if you have the means, feel free). It is however important to acknowledge that the presentation of your "story" starts earlier than you might think. If your "story" is a PowerPoint Presentation then what do you put up on the screen before you start the show? A blank slide? A Windows desktop? The latter will hardly put anyone in a mindset ready to be inspired. Is your story a DVD you've made or a book? Then what does the cover look like? Does it look good? Or more importantly, does it look right? If you've written your doctorate thesis on the use of nano-technology in cancer-treatment please tell me you didn't use the dreadful comic sans-font!
Of course the quality of your work might
win your audience over, but why make it more
challenging to begin with? Always think about your
audience's first impression of your work. As the
saying goes: "You only get one chance to make a
good first impression". I'll leave you with this
YouTube Classic. Robert
Ryang made an "alternative" trailer for
Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining".
Reinventing the wheel
Why not use the round wheels of filmmaking?
Changes don't always equal improvements
I'm a fairly conservative guy when it comes to Film Aesthetics. I don't mind people experimenting with the form and trying out new approaches . It is actually required to improve the art-form. What I really don't get though is how some of the world's current directorial hot-shots seem to let style getting in way of their stories. Surely storytelling is what directing is all about?
The problem
Yet, several "modern" directors go out of their wits to cram so much spectacle and fancy camerawork in there that it's bound to detract from the story. When watching films with excessive Camera Movements and edits that seem to be made simply to look "cool" I'm just annoyed. Huge vistas, helicopter fly-bys and some incredible effects-work is perfect to make great trailers, but have to be used with care if they're not to hurt the story.
So if it looks cool what's the problem? The problem is it pulls me out of the reality of the story. I dabble a bit with film-stuff myself and am generally interested in the technical side of things. Yet, I find that if a film works I never consciously notice the techniques while watching a film for the first time. (I probably will on second or third viewing). When I notice the filmmakers have failed in my book. It would be like reading a Crime Novel and then starting to think about how the sentences are built or perhaps what a brilliant font they've used.
The Wheel - it really works!
Watch the master
The guy who knows how
The thing that makes the situation even more
absurd is the fact that the most successful
director of the last 30 years does use this
language. Steven Spielberg seems to have an
incredible understanding of the psychological value
of the camerawork. This is probably the reason why
many will have a hard time pointing out what
makes his films work so well. Witness the T-Rex
attack on the car in
Jurassic Park
Unfortunately a lot of the younger filmmakers today seem to have missed the point completely. While they are more than willing to let themselves be inspired by the fantastic premises of Spielberg's films the key to great filmmaking seems to elude them...
Resolution Schmesolution
Why image quality in films doesn't really matter
Okay, that last sentence is a lie, but it got your attention didn't it? But while image quality does matter I am convinced that resolution and general image-quality is among the least important aspects of storytelling. The information the images contain and the look (composition, colours, lighting, etc.) is however vital if you want to succeed in telling your story.
To some of you the mere idea that resolution is unimportant is bordering on blasphemy. If you spend a large chunk of your money on home-theatre equipment and an equally large part of your time fine tuning the equipment you're probably fuming at these preposterous lies! And I understand. Really, I do. I own a Laserdisc Player for Pete's sake! I too prefer to watch films displayed in the best technical quality possible, but I've also found that good films work fine even when presented in more meager ways. If not, how did television ever succeed? It has never been able to compete with the vivid imagery found in the cinema.
Lo-fi Success Story
I
recall watching badly made 3rd. generation
VHS-copies of films like
Aliens
and
Robocop
without feeling any detraction from the
enjoyment*. A more up to date example would be
the incredible success of YouTube or some of
the dodgy pirate-copies of films on
miscellaneous torrent sites. Admittedly most
people might wait for a higher quality version
but only because it'll come along shortly. For
the most eagerly awaited titles the fans seem
to take whatever they can get. Surely, if
image quality was really that important no one
would bother with these low-quality options at
all?
Sing, Sing, Sing
I am of course singing the age-old "story, story, story"-chorus: If the story is strong enough and it is told with the right use of visuals most viewers will soon forget the technical quality. This is something worth keeping in mind in an age when everyone is trying to sell us the latest Real-HD-1080p-BlueLaser-X-Camstation-3000-Videoplayer. Even more importantly than the consideration for our wallets: It is something for those of us dabbling with visual storytelling to be mindful of. By all means - get the best quality imagery you can, but don't let a few missing pixels prevent you from telling your story...
*Don't worry Hollywood I bought both on VHS and DVD later on.
JFK vs PP II
Time for a sequel
Some
of you might remember my post
Killer Looks where I sought to illustrate how
bad visuals, or more specifically bad Power Point,
can destroy even the greatest of speeches. My
example seemed to work quite well and I received a
fair amount of positive feedback. As the post was
also one of the most popular posts I've made, a
sequel was inevitable. The thing that irked me
about the original was that while it demonstrated
the point I was trying to make it was also rather
contrived. The Power Point Presentation was
designed to be bad and while I've
experienced similar examples in real life it did
tickle the "do-better"-itch.
The original "Boring Powerpoint" clip
The where- and whats
What if I tried to make a proper presentation to
go with the same speech? Would it still detract
from JFK's dynamic delivery? To make the experiment
more comparable to presentations in the wild I
decided not to pull out the big motion-graphics
guns. Everything was created in Apple's Keynote
which is part of the excellent
iWork
The Result
I find it hard to distance myself from my own work and the legendary status of President Kennedy's Inaugural Speech makes it even harder. I am confident that it works okay but Kennedy's charisma is so strong it will always be dificult to improve upon. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this presentation detracts or ads to the speech...
Winning visuals
Visual storytelling and the secret of greatness
This blog was eventually dedicated to visual
storytelling simply because most of the posts I
made had something to do with the subject.
Reflecting over this made it clear to me that
visual storytelling has always been a big part of
my life. I've always been inclined towards the
visual arts and traditional fairy-tales were a
natural part of my upbringing. The last bit is
something I as an adult find rather fascinating.
The fairy-tales have been passed down through
generations and are in many ways links to our
forefathers. Their storyteller tradition is often
referred to as an oral tradition but I find this
definition a bit narrow.
What makes a great storyteller
The best storytellers have always been the ones who could paint the most vivid pictures. Surely these individuals used every trick they had up their sleeve. Acting out the different parts of their stories: An attacking boar. A sneaking hunter. Essentially creating visuals to enhance the experience.
Some of them might have used shadow-images on the cave walls and we know ancient men made beautiful cave-paintings, perhaps in an attempt to strengthen the impact of their words. The point I am trying to make is that we have always used visuals when telling our stories. It almost seems like it is an integral part of who we are as a species.
Think
It
does not work without an effort though.
Storytelling does not automatically become
great simply because visuals are added. The
imagery has to support the story. If the two
competes for attention neither one will reach
their full potential. In the same way
abstractions may confuse the audience. We are
however probably more advanced when it comes
to reading complex visuals than ever. No
surprise, as we are constantly bombarded with
the stuff. TV-commercials, billboards,
computer-games, magazines, websites and films.
We couldn't avoid it if we wanted to.
Tough crowd
The flip side to this is of course that your audience is not so easily impressed. Some try to counter this with a more-is-more approach. I personally find this incredibly annoying. Spectacle will make a spectacle of you. You might keep your audience's interest for a while, but both you and your audience might loose track of the story in the process. While the correct use of great visuals will help the story become all that it can be - they cannot elevate a mediocre story to greatness.
The good thing about the omnipresence of advanced visual stimuli is of course that inspiration should not be hard to come by. Inspirational sparks from other people's works can be the starting point of greatness. We all have to find our ideas somewhere and can't all expect to have a divine muse available every time we feel a bit dried out creatively. I am of course not talking about copying the work of others.
Be great
The final piece of the puzzle is not exactly revolutionary: Work. We all want to be the best that we can be and most of us can't expect to have more than a couple of truly great ideas in a lifetime. We might have quite a few good and decent ones but greatness is hard to come by. But as a great idea can be buried by poor execution we owe it to ourselves to make sure our moments of inspiration reach their full potential.
So to sum up:
- Have something to tell.
- Enhance/tell it with visuals, but make sure the visuals are right.
- Work until you're satisfied it is as good as it can be.
Not the most original list of tips but certainly something it can be easy to loose track of. The first of these points is something that should be written on Hollywood Hill for every movie-executive to see...
Uncle George and I
I remember reading that George Lucas wouldn't start work on the Star Wars prequels before he felt the technology was ready to serve his vision. I am, in case you were wondering, not a legendary writer/producer/director with a huge foot-print on our popular culture. I do however have an experience not unlike the bearded one's: Technology becomes cheaper over time and now even average-Joe's like me can afford tools that used to be the exclusive domain of the film-studios. This means that today "anyone" can produce films of a professional quality. Luckily, having the technology is not enough. Talent is still a necessity but at least the stinking-rich-but-talently-challenged will have a harder time succeeding. And there are a other things to be happy about: Thanks to the web new channels makes it easier to reach an audience.
George Lucas is not considered a rich dilettante by this blogger
So this should mean everything is in place for a new quality=success regime, right? Unfortunately, dilettantes with deep pockets still have an advantage: Despite sites like YouTube making it possible for anyone to share their work with the world "anyone" might find it hard to get noticed. It is still possible to get more attention simply by shouting louder (spending more money). All is not lost however, but it takes your help!Let people know! If you find something you really like, share it with your friends. If you find a small clip you like, an article, a piece of music send an email to people you think might enjoy your find. Be honest though, don't go head over heels to share every mediocrity you come across, this will just turn people off after a while. However if you are truly moved/inspired/cracked up by something you really shouldn't keep it to yourself. If we all pass it on perhaps we can reach a state where the web truly becomes a stage full of interesting niches.
We'll probably never get completely rid of the
moron-with-money but at least we can make him run
for his...
Before anyone ask: no George Lucas is not my uncle!
Killer looks
One of the ideas I was experimenting with in my recent superman-film was the attempt of making the visuals entertaining enough to overcome the world's least passionate voice-over. Based on the feedback I received it seems I had a certain degree of success. I'm sure you'll also agree that well delivered speeches can work brilliantly on their own. I therefore started to ponder the thought: "can a brilliant speech be ruined by poor visuals?"
Powerpoint-presentations are today's most used form of oral-visual presentations. It is also the most loathed one. The last few years have spurred a lot of articles about how Powerpoint is often used in a way that actually lessens the impact of a message, so the answer to my question should be fairly obvious. But how far can you push it? I chose a few seconds from President Kennedy's inaugural address as this is one of the most inspirational speeches made in the last century. Below you can see how it comes across when I've "complimented" the speech with slides from a standard Powerpoint-template.
Edit: I've replaced the original quicktime-file with the YouTube clip
To me the effect is almost unbelievable. I find the 40 seconds or so to be mind shattering dull. Now here's the trick: Try playing the clip again, but with your eyes closed. It's better isn't it? So, if poor visuals can lessen the power of JFK in his prime, then just think what they could do to your average presenter. Does this mean you should just skip the visuals the next time you're making a presentation. Not necessarily. The right visuals can improve the audience's experience and their emotional connection with the material. However, if you're not willing to invest the time and resources to get the visuals right, you're probably better off leaving Powerpoint at home...Games - is there a greater point?
"Super Mario Galaxy!" The jolly voice of the grand-old-man of game-characters always brings a smile to my face. The game with the same name
has proven to be one of the best
gaming-experiences I've ever had. Now, Mario
has always been about gaming with a capital G.
The latest iteration is an incredible
collection of creative playfullness when it
comes to game-mechanics and I'm thrilled with
how the developers at Nintendo have managed to
constantly surprise me with new ways to play
the game without ever breaking the internal
logics. As a "game for the fun of it" this is
about as good as it gets.
But can games be more than pure entertainment? And should they be more? Now, in some respects they already are. Improved eye to hand coordination is a well known positive effect and a recent study from the University of Toronto indicates improved spatial skills from gaming as well. But this is not what I'm looking for. I'm awaiting the moment where games can truly be considered great art. Now "art" is a fairly elusive subject, I know. The "certified-art" stamp on it's own isn't necessarily worth a lot. Obviously games already have a lot of artistic elements about them, but I'm still awaiting that one clearly defined moment where a game changes our understanding of society.
Most(?) people have probably had experiences with art that have changed their outlook on life and/or society. Perhaps a book, a film, a painting or any of the other clearly defined artforms. Even more impressively a handfull of artworks can actually be said to have transformed society itself. But a game? I've had my share of "wow this is great"-experiences but none that could be said to have changed my outlook on the world. How often do games put you in a truly moral dilema? I believe part of the problem comes from the nature of games. You play to win. People don't care why they have to kill the aliens as long as the action provides the necessary rush. I am not requesting optional paths for the player to choose in mechanical fashion. No, it could be as simple as changing the perceived reality a bit during the span of a game. What if you start out as a butch alien-killer only to find out that the aliens you have been killing are friendly creatures with families. This might seem cruel but if games never provokes us to think like this they'll for always be the funny, but shallow, cousin of the art-family.
Hopefully I'll be able to experience the La Guernica of gaming in my lifetime...
* Yes I know there are female gamers as well, it's just the way I write...
Macbook Air - a well dressed Dodo?
Yesterday Steve Jobs, Mr. Black Turtleneck himself, took the podium to reveal Apple's latest Macintosh computer. Their new baby, an ultra-thin portable named Macbook Air looks dead gorgeous. Immediately my geek-heart started throbbing for this newest and most precious piece of industrial-design.
But just one day later I have a hard time seeing the point of Apple's latest creation. Who is it for? Where are the benefits? The "Air" is incredibly thin but it still has the exact same footprint as the cheaper and better equipped Macbook. And the Air is actually 100% unusable for stuff life wide-editing as it does not sport a firewire-port. This means there's no direct way to get footage onto the machine, no practical way to edit, as the included HD is too small and too slow. In other words 1/3 of the iLife-suite is next to useless on this thing.
What's really worrying is that this resembles the G4-cube so much it's almost hard to believe. For those of you who don't remember the G4 Cube was one of Apple's very few clear misses since Steve Jobs returned to the company. When released it was in many ways the pinnacle of industrial design. It looked gorgeous it was completely quiet (no fans) and was put together in a manner that still impress. There was only one problem: It was more expensive than the better specified PowerMacs of the time. So, why most people agreed the Cube was a brilliant piece of hardware-enginering "no-one" bought one. Now I'm not putting all my money on the bet that this thing is going to flop, but I think it's a distinct possibility.
It's useless for video-editing. For journalists the inability to switch battery-packs is probably a deal-breaker. For photographers the glossy-screen is no good. For the average punter it is too expensive for what i does. It's probably the most brilliant surf-the-web-write-an-essay-do-small-stuff-machine(tm) ever released. But here's the thing: I want one, but I don't think I'd buy one...