If This Is A Blog Then What's Christmas?

Back in 1991 Extreme made clear the importance of using ‘more than words’.

It was a magical, beautiful song, but also unwittingly prescient.

We now operate in a world of visual-verbal communication that is vastly different even to ten years ago. We now write so many texts, IMs, status updates, Tweets and emails that they are now our primary form of communication. Whether we write ‘to you’ or ‘2U’,’I’m happy’ or :-), there is a need to make the written word work harder so that it carries the delicate nuances we use to shape our spoken words.

As a fan of the evolution of the English language, I rather like neologisms such as ‘pwned’ and ‘teh’, but I realise they have to be pointed in the right direction and I’m aware that occasionally putting those words in the communications of someone who is pushing 40 has a kind of self-conscious irony (that might only be in my head). I sometimes add ‘z’ to ‘skill’ for that very reason, and whether I refer to the internet as ‘t’internet’ or the interwebs or whatever the ‘amusing’ nom du jour might be, it’s all gravy (there I go again).

So a word is not just a word. If I say chair there is little meaning beyond that thing we all sit on, but whether or not I sign off an email with ‘cheers’, ‘best’, ‘Bx’ or any one of several other options depends on who I’m talking to, how well I know them, how they sign off their emails and the mood I’m trying to convey. I usually go for ‘cheers’ because it’s noncommittally affable as well as versatile, but there are plenty of people who would think something was wrong with me if I didn’t add a little ‘x’ to the end.

Emoticons also fascinate me. I think they’ve changed from being irredeemably twee to being essential additions to many communications. Because we live in a world so steeped in irony it’s difficult not to have, say, a sarcasm font that allows us to make a joke a little clearer. For me this is where the 😉 (I always use the nose, BTW) comes in. I’m joking, but not 🙂 happy. Actually, I think that’s the only emoticon I use, but I use it daily.

Then we have grammar. I sense a new role for the much-maligned exclamation mark: like the emoticon it started off as a sledgehammer that ought to be used sparingly, but I now find myself adding it my emails to kind of suggest I’m in a good mood about what I’ve written. Consider how ‘thanks’ looks compared to ‘thanks!’. I feels the latter denotes a brighter, cheerier form of gratitude, while the former can seem grumpy or reluctant. Of course, both of these depend on the context, but it’s just another example of how we are (or at least I am) having to adapt written style to more accurately convey meaning or mood.

I think it’s a very interesting time for English: old prejudices must be reexamined and new ways forward explored. There is much trial and error to come, but I think that a written English that can work as hard a the spoken version is both welcome and overdue!!!!!!!!!!

UPDATE: I didn’t know WordPress would turn my emoticons into yellow faces. That was not, and never has been, my intention 🙁

Sublime… Sartre Wars (thanks, T):

Behind the scenes of Rosemary’s Baby (thanks, T).

Photos of New York, 1970-1989 (thanks, G).

And vintage crime scenes superimposed on modern photos of New York (also thanks, G).

Octopi make chameleons look like dogs’ nuts.

More accidental penises (thanks, J).

Pixar’s 22 rules of storytelling (thanks, G).

Difficult-to-strip-to hits (thanks, R).

The writer of Out Of Sight and Get Shorty on writing movies:

The habits of happy people (thanks, G).

I’ve posted clips before, but here is all of ‘Talking Funny’:

Have an acid trip without taking acid (thanks, R).

Terrible estate agent photos (thanks, G).

Stairway To Heaven brilliantly reworked by Heart. Yes, Heart. (Thanks, R.):

Ah, South African students… (Thanks, G):

Looking for a technique to steal for your ad? (Thanks, N.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mzlh18EvVDs

Directed by Gondry (he’s back too!).

(Thanks, G: for the title and the link.)

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).