https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbRVMua0HUc

Shame about the enormous tornado of shite at the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3U9-2HKyZU

(Somewhat NSFW later.)

Is here.

For those of you not familiar with this venerable institution:

‘Straight 8 invites anyone anywhere to make a short film on one cartridge of super 8 — without editing. The first time filmmakers see their film is at one of our awesome worldwide premieres, like at our infamous Cannes Film Festival screening…watch some of our best films, check out our guest editor’s picks, come to one of our events, or join our mailing list.‘

Visit the site, download the app, make a film…

Here’s an exchange from last week’s blog post ‘Frank and Jonathan are back‘:

Ciaran McCabe wrote:

Wouldn’t it be nice if, in the spirit of Sibelius’ “A statue has never been erected in honor of a critic,” once you had critiqued an ad, you had to say “Compare it with this ad I created.”

ben wrote:

Do I have to do the same with movies/music etc.?

Ciaran McCabe wrote:

Ben,
Not unless you create movies and music.

ben wrote:

I don’t think that’s consistent with the Sibelius quote.

And are we supposed to do that with ads we like as well?

Toast wrote:

Walt did the screenplay for the film

And if the ad is coming into my living room I can criticise anything

ben wrote:

Absolutely. You can look at an ad as a consumer and say whether or not you like it.

And even then, you can say what you like about anything.

Free country, innit?

You no like, you no visit blog.

Ciaran McCabe wrote:

Perhaps I missed part of the Sibelius quote, but I don’t recall his commenting on critics liking something. As for the fact that it is a free country and anyone can say “… as a consumer …” whether or not you like something, absolutely true. I find it hard to equate most of the comments with what a consumer, who doesn’t work in advertising, might say about an ad.

The right to comment on something is the absolute essence of this and many other blogs, so I thought we’d bring that subject out into the light so that it can get the attention it deserves.

I can see where Ciaran is coming from, but I don’t agree with him for a second. For a start, as my first response suggests, I don’t see why we’re allowed to say things are good but not that they’re otherwise (I’m now going to repeat my occasionally-mentioned theory that if you can sue people for the damage caused if they say something mean about you, a person who says something nice about you should be entitled to a percentage of any benefit that results from such a boost). Opinion is opinion and whichever way it comes out should surely be subject to the same principles of validity. After all, what right to do I have to say that I like Jonathan or Frank’s work? I’ve never made an ad that’s up there with their best work so I should just keep my mouth shut. Then again, I’m just over 99.9999999999999% certain Ciaran would not have commented vis-a-vis anyone’s right to criticise if we’d all said the ads were great, loveable, wonderful etc.

On to the second point: Toast’s rejoinder that anything that comes into his living room is fair game for whatever you want to say about it. Absolutely true. All art is to be consumed and advertising falls under the wider definitions of art. It’s a piece of creativity purely designed to be seen by the largest number of people (at least it is in this case. Some ads are deliberately targeted at quite specific audiences; I don’t think these fall into that category), and besides that, you have less choice about consuming it. You have to choose to visit an art gallery or cinema; adverts just come at you whether you like them or not. Yes, you can switch them off, but you tend to have to see them before you feel inclined to do that. If I shove a drawing under the noses of passers by in the street or read out my novel in the middle of Oxford Circus I can expect a reaction that I’m not allowed to choose. If I want that reaction to be good I have to make sure my work is good. Equally I can accept that different people think different things and accept that not everyone might like what I create, but if I choose to create and distribute it than I have to take the responses on the chin.

The third point, that this is a free country, so you should be able to say whatever you like is a little more complicated. A couple of months ago I wrote about offence, suggesting that it’s all in the mind of the offended and that you could simply choose whether or not something was offensive. I still think that’s true, but I also understand that it would be disingenuous to suggest that everyone should be able to simply shrug off, say, an extended campaign of intense cyberbullying (on that subject you might like to watch and share this new ad from Ed Morris). So where do we draw the line? What is free speech and what is genuinely harmful? And what harm is permissible? If we all have a go at the head of the EDL until he disbands his party, is that OK? What if he commits suicide a week later? Perhaps the difference lies between hurt and anger. If I say that Muhammed is a twat then you’d think that a Muslim could just laugh that off, his strength of faith crushing the pain a daft comment like that could cause. But no, a simple cartoon can lead to death threats, so it’s a distinction with little consistence or clarity. However, I think that disliking an ad in a public forum is not quite the same as questioning the validity or existence of someone’s god. If you make an ad you’re holding it up for people to react to. If you don’t think you’re doing that or you don’t like it, get another job.

Ciaran’s last point, that these comments are not those of consumers so much as advertising professionals, is pretty specious. Advertising professionals are also consumers. Just because our jobs might be a bit different to those of the majority of our fine planet it doesn’t mean we’re not in the target market. And even if the ad isn’t aimed squarely at us in particular we can still, as ad people, discuss its good and bad points with a context and knowledge that is more extensive than most people’s. And that doesn’t make our opinions less valid, or more in need of specific credentials to back them up. If anything it makes us more able to accurately analyse than a film critic who has never been near a set or written a screenplay. We know what it takes, what goes into an ad, why some ads are harder than others. I think in the case of last week’s post that was particularly pertinent: Audi+BBH+Glazer is quite a favourable set of circumstances that sets the bar very high. Most punters don’t know that so they just say whether or not they like it, and that opinion is fine, but it’s less informed. This blog is written by a creative director and read by lots of other creative directors and creatives. It’s not the opinion of Joe Bloggs. If you want to see what that’s like put the ad on Mumsnet and see what they say. Then again, you might put the ad on a forum for boxers who criticise the legwork of the caucasian fighter. Is that less valid? Of course not, but would it still be from a consumer? Yes.

The Sibelius quote goes: ‘Pay no attention to what the critics say. A statue had never been erected in honor of a critic’. As I understand it Sibelius is talking about people who criticise professionally, someone whose job is that of a ‘critic’. As I said above, nearly everyone who does that job has never done the job he is criticising. This blog is generally different: it’s people who have made ads discussing, for better or worse, the ads of other people. And that’s valid, even if the ads made by those who offer less than favourable opinions are not as good as the ads under discussion.

No one is asking for a statue; they’re just calling it how they see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUtnas5ScSE

It’s officially an ad for the game/app rather than an ad for Chipotle, but, y’know, it’s also an ad for Chipotle.

It’s beautifully made, capturing perfectly the tone of exhausted despair they established so well in Back To The Start (by the way, does everyone now have to get a slightly left-of-centre cover version of an old song as the soundtrack to their ad? Of course, they did it brilliantly in the first one, but as it spreads throughout the less original corners of adland this technique is beginning to grate).

However, this time they seem to have felt the need to pile layers on top of what is a very simple story: we make our food in ethically sound ways; other companies don’t.

When you look at Back To The Start it says everything necessary and sets the bar so high that much of the rest of advertising pales in comparison. So how do you follow that up? Apparently you tell the same story but in a more obtuse way and make it part of a game/app.

Ironically enough that leaves me with the feeling that Chipotle has added the unnecessary injections and disguises they are criticising other companies for employing. Food that’s simple and good=advertising that’s simple and good makes sense to me. Food that’s simple and good=advertising that’s unnecessarily elaborate, obscuring a clear message with some la-di-dah extras? Less so.

It’s not bad by any stretch; it’s just a little off target for me.

(By the way, I eat at Chipotle almost every weekday. I love Chipotle. Three cheers for Chipotle.)

What do you mean…? (Thanks, J):

Tiger Woods throws his cap (thanks, G).

Thom Yorke tatt (thanks, J).

Looking for a burger in the US? (Thanks, V.)

Shit rough drafts (thanks, J).

Richest directors (thanks, G).

Yahoo-ise any logo (thanks, J).

Duck death animation for my mate’s company (thanks, P).

Utterly amazing ageing process thingie (thanks, H):

Toilet location quiz (thanks, J).

Mr Pimpgoodgame (thanks, G).

It’s not porn… (thanks, J):

Accidental penis (thanks, A).

How to make every tech commercial every made (thanks, J).

Ricky Gervais interview with The New York Times.

Skier needs a hug (thanks, G):

Gravity (thanks, J):

This bit of Putney Swope, starring Robert Downey Snr, is spookily similar to Robert Downey Jnr’s new HTC ad (thanks, E).

1. Writing things down on pieces of paper, particularly A4 pieces of paper, is work.

This one has to be ingrained at school, innit? We are so used to thinking of writing stuff down as work that we can’t escape it. Every idea for a movie is just a history essay in disguise, and that means it must not form part of our free time. School fucks you up in more ways than you realise.

2. Work is unpleasant.

Churchill said something like, ‘find a job you enjoy and you’ll never work another day in your life’. I guess a lot of people don’t enjoy their jobs, but even those that do consider getting up on a Monday morning to do some sort of activity for the money of someone else to be work, and therefore bad. The four-letter-word status of work is smashed into us early and often, and it pretty much never stops: weekends are good, holidays are brilliant and work is BAD. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

3. Anything that doesn’t look like work isn’t work.

I have lots of good ideas walking down the street, sitting on a sofa or riding a roller coaster. When I do so I look as if I’m just having a little brain holiday where I’m letting the lyrics of Gary Numan songs go around and around in my noggin. But no! I’m actually doing the most valuable and constructive part of my job. The funny thing is, we all know this and yet no one wants to let people spend their working day walking, relaxing and rollercoastering because it doesn’t look like they’re having a shit time, sacrificing enjoyment for the man and the money. That’s why work has to look like misery or boredom.

4. Going abroad for any reason is wonderful.

Again, this one is drummed into us from an early age, and for the most part it’s true, but if you’re going to be away from your family or visiting somewhere a bit shit then it’s not a real pleasure. And airports. And jet lag. And shitty food. And missing things at home. These can also put a bit of a downer on what otherwise sends your thoughts in the direction of the word ‘holiday’.

5. Meetings are awful things.

Some of them are. In fact, a lot of them are. Then again, lots of stuff gets done in meetings. It’s become a bit of a dirty word, but with some emotionally-charged banter and chat and a few jokes, a meeting can be a not-unpleasant experience that allows you to accomplish more greatness.

6. Children are something of a drag on your ability to get drunk.

They are. Then again, maybe getting drunk isn’t what you need to do right now.

7. Any opportunity to drink alcohol is wonderful.

Ingrained from the teenage years: alcohol is good. More alcohol is better. Free alcohol is stupendous. Good quality free alcohol is unbeatable. But it’s also rare, and warm, shitty white wine, warm beer and feeling the need to drink to make a difficult situation bearable aren’t the greatest things in the world.

xx

Here’s a new Frank Budgen Hyundai ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kyfMds8k_8

And a new spot for Audi from Jonathan Glazer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VABnJWPsjyU

That first one really could have been done by anyone.

The second one is a lot better, but not quite up to the heights of VW Polo or, y’know, Guinness Surfer.

But I do hear Jonathan’s new movie is excellent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwndLOKQTDs

I’ve been sent this a lot over the last few days.

The reaction seems to be overwhelmingly positive, but I’m not so taken with it.

I like the twist; it’s clever, unexpected and feels like you ought to have seen it somewhere before.

But I don’t like the seriousness, the portentous music, the wanky VO or the attempt to make this gag into an ad for beer.

What it’s got to do with Guinness (other than the fact that friends drink Guinness together, as they do virtually every other beer on earth)?

So it felt pretentious and up its own arse – not great attributes in a beer ad.

UPDATE: here’s an ice cream ad from 2011 (thanks, S&C):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHIngSfm_ck

Which just proves the point about it having nowt to do with Guinness.

Or ice cream.

Or anything, really.

UPDATE 2: and the music is from this other, equally up-its-own-arse ad (thanks, A):