Still on holiday: here’s a commencement speech to fire your loins

From George Saunders:

Down through the ages, a traditional form has evolved for this type of speech, which is: Some old fart, his best years behind him, who, over the course of his life, has made a series of dreadful mistakes (that would be me), gives heartfelt advice to a group of shining, energetic young people, with all of their best years ahead of them (that would be you).

And I intend to respect that tradition.

Now, one useful thing you can do with an old person, in addition to borrowing money from them, or asking them to do one of their old-time “dances,” so you can watch, while laughing, is ask: “Looking back, what do you regret?”  And they’ll tell you.  Sometimes, as you know, they’ll tell you even if you haven’t asked.  Sometimes, even when you’ve specifically requested they not tell you, they’ll tell you.

So: What do I regret?  Being poor from time to time?  Not really.  Working terrible jobs, like “knuckle-puller in a slaughterhouse?”  (And don’t even ASK what that entails.)  No.  I don’t regret that.  Skinny-dipping in a river in Sumatra, a little buzzed, and looking up and seeing like 300 monkeys sitting on a pipeline, pooping down into the river, the river in which I was swimming, with my mouth open, naked?  And getting deathly ill afterwards, and staying sick for the next seven months?  Not so much.  Do I regret the occasional humiliation?  Like once, playing hockey in front of a big crowd, including this girl I really liked, I somehow managed, while falling and emitting this weird whooping noise, to score on my own goalie, while also sending my stick flying into the crowd, nearly hitting that girl?  No.  I don’t even regret that.

But here’s something I do regret:

In seventh grade, this new kid joined our class.  In the interest of confidentiality, her Convocation Speech name will be “ELLEN.”  ELLEN was small, shy.  She wore these blue cat’s-eye glasses that, at the time, only old ladies wore.  When nervous, which was pretty much always, she had a habit of taking a strand of hair into her mouth and chewing on it.

So she came to our school and our neighborhood, and was mostly ignored, occasionally teased (“Your hair taste good?” – that sort of thing).  I could see this hurt her.  I still remember the way she’d look after such an insult: eyes cast down, a little gut-kicked, as if, having just been reminded of her place in things, she was trying, as much as possible, to disappear.  After awhile she’d drift away, hair-strand still in her mouth.  At home, I imagined, after school, her mother would say, you know: “How was your day, sweetie?” and she’d say, “Oh, fine.”  And her mother would say, “Making any friends?” and she’d go, “Sure, lots.”

Sometimes I’d see her hanging around alone in her front yard, as if afraid to leave it.

And then – they moved.  That was it.  No tragedy, no big final hazing.

One day she was there, next day she wasn’t.

End of story.

Now, why do I regret that?  Why, forty-two years later, am I still thinking about it?  Relative to most of the other kids, I was actually pretty nice to her.  I never said an unkind word to her.  In fact, I sometimes even (mildly) defended her.

But still.  It bothers me.

So here’s something I know to be true, although it’s a little corny, and I don’t quite know what to do with it:

What I regret most in my life are failures of kindness. 

Those moments when another human being was there, in front of me, suffering, and I responded…sensibly.  Reservedly.  Mildly.

Or, to look at it from the other end of the telescope:  Who, in your life, do you remember most fondly, with the most undeniable feelings of warmth?

Those who were kindest to you, I bet.

It’s a little facile, maybe, and certainly hard to implement, but I’d say, as a goal in life, you could do worse than: Try to be kinder.

Now, the million-dollar question:  What’s our problem?  Why aren’t we kinder?

Here’s what I think:

Each of us is born with a series of built-in confusions that are probably somehow Darwinian.  These are: (1) we’re central to the universe (that is, our personal story is the main and most interesting story, the only story, really); (2) we’re separate from the universe (there’s US and then, out there, all that other junk – dogs and swing-sets, and the State of Nebraska and low-hanging clouds and, you know, other people), and (3) we’re permanent (death is real, o.k., sure – for you, but not for me).

Now, we don’t really believe these things – intellectually we know better – but we believe them viscerally, and live by them, and they cause us to prioritize our own needs over the needs of others, even though what we really want, in our hearts, is to be less selfish, more aware of what’s actually happening in the present moment, more open, and more loving.

So, the second million-dollar question:  How might we DO this?  How might we become more loving, more open, less selfish, more present, less delusional, etc., etc?

Well, yes, good question.

Unfortunately, I only have three minutes left.

So let me just say this.  There are ways.  You already know that because, in your life, there have been High Kindness periods and Low Kindness periods, and you know what inclined you toward the former and away from the latter.  Education is good; immersing ourselves in a work of art: good; prayer is good; meditation’s good; a frank talk with a dear friend;  establishing ourselves in some kind of spiritual tradition – recognizing that there have been countless really smart people before us who have asked these same questions and left behind answers for us.

Because kindness, it turns out, is hard – it starts out all rainbows and puppy dogs, and expands to include…well,everything.

One thing in our favor:  some of this “becoming kinder” happens naturally, with age.  It might be a simple matter of attrition:  as we get older, we come to see how useless it is to be selfish – how illogical, really.  We come to love other people and are thereby counter-instructed in our own centrality.  We get our butts kicked by real life, and people come to our defense, and help us, and we learn that we’re not separate, and don’t want to be.  We see people near and dear to us dropping away, and are gradually convinced that maybe we too will drop away (someday, a long time from now).  Most people, as they age, become less selfish and more loving.  I think this is true.  The great Syracuse poet, Hayden Carruth, said, in a poem written near the end of his life, that he was “mostly Love, now.”

And so, a prediction, and my heartfelt wish for you: as you get older, your self will diminish and you will grow in love.  YOU will gradually be replaced by LOVE.   If you have kids, that will be a huge moment in your process of self-diminishment.  You really won’t care what happens to YOU, as long as they benefit.  That’s one reason your parents are so proud and happy today.  One of their fondest dreams has come true: you have accomplished something difficult and tangible that has enlarged you as a person and will make your life better, from here on in, forever.

Congratulations, by the way.

When young, we’re anxious – understandably – to find out if we’ve got what it takes.  Can we succeed?  Can we build a viable life for ourselves?  But you – in particular you, of this generation – may have noticed a certain cyclical quality to ambition.  You do well in high-school, in hopes of getting into a good college, so you can do well in the good college, in the hopes of getting a good job, so you can do well in the good job so you can….

And this is actually O.K.  If we’re going to become kinder, that process has to include taking ourselves seriously – as doers, as accomplishers, as dreamers.  We have to do that, to be our best selves.

Still, accomplishment is unreliable.  “Succeeding,” whatever that might mean to you, is hard, and the need to do so constantly renews itself (success is like a mountain that keeps growing ahead of you as you hike it), and there’s the very real danger that “succeeding” will take up your whole life, while the big questions go untended.

So, quick, end-of-speech advice: Since, according to me, your life is going to be a gradual process of becoming kinder and more loving: Hurry up.  Speed it along.  Start right now.  There’s a confusion in each of us, a sickness, really:selfishness.  But there’s also a cure.  So be a good and proactive and even somewhat desperate patient on your own behalf – seek out the most efficacious anti-selfishness medicines, energetically, for the rest of your life.

Do all the other things, the ambitious things – travel, get rich, get famous, innovate, lead, fall in love, make and lose fortunes, swim naked in wild jungle rivers (after first having it tested for monkey poop) – but as you do, to the extent that you can, err in the direction of kindness.  Do those things that incline you toward the big questions, and avoid the things that would reduce you and make you trivial.  That luminous part of you that exists beyond personality – your soul, if you will – is as bright and shining as any that has ever been.  Bright as Shakespeare’s, bright as Gandhi’s, bright as Mother Theresa’s.  Clear away everything that keeps you separate from this secret luminous place.  Believe it exists, come to know it better, nurture it, share its fruits tirelessly.

And someday, in 80 years, when you’re 100, and I’m 134, and we’re both so kind and loving we’re nearly unbearable, drop me a line, let me know how your life has been.  I hope you will say: It has been so wonderful.

Congratulations, Class of 2013.

I wish you great happiness, all the luck in the world, and a beautiful summer.



Di Dup Di Do dah cotton eye joe, i’ve been married long time ago, where did you come from the weekend?

Stanley Kubrick’s titles in search of a script (thanks, C).

Stanley Kubrick on planning (thanks, T).

Why is getting kicked in the nuts funny? (Thanks, J.)

How to snap like a diva (thanks, J):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX9reaHLwhk&feature=player_embedded

Many TV themes (thanks, B).

Star Wars crisps (thanks, A).

Awkward rave (thanks, G):

What happens online in 60 seconds (thanks, G).

Habib stole my phone (thanks, J).

All the movie references in The Simpsons (thanks, G).

 Celebrities as midgets (thanks, G).

Annotated Alien script (thanks, T).



(A)WAR(DS) – huh! – what are they good for? Almost absolutely nothing if you’re a creative.

When D&AD was in its infancy its mission statement was ‘stimulation not congratulation’, i.e.: the point of the awards was to show the non-winners just how great advertising could be, thus stimulating them to reach for greater heights of excellence. And that made good sense, in both a ‘I wish I’d done that, I must try harder next time’ way and also a ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’ way.

But does it still hold true today?

I suppose it depends on whether or not you look at the winners of these awards (including Cannes, The One Show etc.) and react in the way described above.

That was certainly the case when I was younger, as my peers and I would rush down to the D&AD launch, grab our annuals and study the fuck out of them until our eyes bled and all those great ads seeped into our minds. But I’m pretty sure that’s not so much the case any more, so does D&AD’s original aim still stand?

I’ve written before about how the D&AD Annual is no longer the object of reverence it once was (there are now so many online ways for the best work in the world to be distributed as it is released that a yearly collection is never going to hold the novelty and surprise it used to), and I’ve mentioned many times the cash and fun reductions that have led to a talent drain. Have the two combined to make the stimulation effect of awards less significant? If the work has not been improving in this country for several years then either people aren’t caring enough about awards to be stimulated by their possibility, or they do care, but it isn’t having an effect. And if either of those are the case then why bother with awards at all? (That’s a facetious/rhetorical question. I know the purpose awards now serve: to give agency creds a Gunn Report rating to crow about, and to give awards bodies the opportunity to make lots of dough).

So now D&AD is more about congratulation/cash than stimulation. Fine.

But as I continued to think about it I wondered about the extent to which awards ever do the job of stimulation. I have trouble believing that Grammys and Oscars truly affect the standard of people’s work. Does Daniel Day-Lewis act any better because he wants a golden statuette? Does David Bowie stay in the studio any longer in the hope of winning a small, ultimately pointless bauble? I think certain films are put together with Oscars in mind because, like the current D&AD, that can have a financial benefit to the winners, but does it stimulate people to higher standards? That’s a harder one to argue. Some actors probably want to die as ‘Oscar-winning Mr. Blah-Blah, but I think that informs their choice of movie rather than the standards they apply to their performances. Sure, Bruce Willis acts better in ‘better’ movies but that’s probably down to the kind of work that Die Hard 5 and G.I. Joe 2 demand vs the needs of Pulp Fiction and The Sixth Sense.

That’s interesting because actors definitely want Oscars, either for posterity or to get more/better work/money in future, and creatives definitely want D&AD Pencils for similar reasons. Perhaps that’s what’s behind the ‘stimulation’: the rewards that come from the winning are great enough to stimulate people to try to win. Does that mean they’re not motivated by the pure increase in quality, the possibility of doing their best and fulfilling their potential? Maybe, but then there’s always a further question of motivation behind all those things: do you do your best to gain more respect because you feel insecure? Do you want more cash because you want your kids to go to a better school?

But now advertising awards don’t lead to the same rewards. The raises are smaller, the cool new briefs are less £1m budget+Tarsem+vague fame and more a £250,000 budget+the chance to do a multichannel online campaign your mates will never see. So it’s not so much that awards have lost their own shine, because it was never about that. It was always about the benefits the awards would bring. Now they are less, the prestige of awards is less, so it’s lucky for Cannes et al that holding companies have started caring more about them. That means the cash continues to flow in even though the rewards have long since been reduced to the point where their supposed stimulation has little effect on improved creativity.

D&AD: cash stimulation, a bit of pointless congratulation.

(PS: I’m now on holiday for a couple of weeks, so posting may be sporadic. I have housesitters, though, so don’t bother trying any burglary stuff.)



‘Cause your friends don’t dance and if they don’t dance well that’s no friends of the weekend

Lack of hair=violence.

The meanings of prison tattoos (thanks, G).

Terrible death scenes (thanks, J):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl6UmyfYpO4&feature=youtu.be

This is how you die (thanks, J):

The Stairway to Heaven deleted scene from Almost Famous:

The 90s button (thanks, G).

Ad-dtional fiction (thanks, R).

Hyphen Killer (thanks, T).

Someone done a poo on a spaceship (scroll down to page 414. Thanks, G).

The Tube in the 80s (thanks, T).

Ad agency comes up with plausible fake reality shows (thanks, G).

Good wall of death promo (thanks, B):

Movie posters made with Comic Sans and clip art (thanks, V).

Royal baby thing for Great Ormond Street (thanks, C).

Behind the scenes of The Empire Strikes Back (thanks, G).

Bringing $1bn to life (thanks, G):

Evangelist Street Fighter (thanks, G):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqYAyBNk16A

Bryan Cranston disguised himself as himself and no one noticed (thanks, G).

Lovely story (thanks, G):



Before they were famous

Have you ever wondered what today’s creative big shots (and me) were like as students?

What work did Trevor Beattie, Mark Denton, Noel Fielding produce when they were students, trying to convince their own heroes that they were worth taking a chance on?

beforetheywerefamous.org is an online gallery of the student scamps of some of today’s top creatives (I’m going to stop adding ‘and me’ to sentences like that).

Check it out and enjoy the hell out of it.



I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’m starting to not dislike Campaign quite so much

Campaign magazine has been the UK ad industry’s rag of choice for as long as anyone can remember (years ago someone – I think it was John Hegarty – ran an ad for it with the line ‘when was the last time someone stole your copy of Marketing Week?’).

In the twenty-or-so years I’ve been a reader, it’s changed a great deal, generally with the ebb and flow of the industry itself. When things were a bit more fun and glamorous in the 90s Campaign was equally so, reflecting the position we thought the industry was in as a purveyor of million-pound Levi’s ads that the public swooned over.

But even in those days it was generally considered to be little more than the perfect way to occupy the time it took to do a Thursday morning dump. Yes, everyone read it and by default gave a shit (pun intended) about what was in it, but to a great extent that was because there was no decent competition.

But in the last decade or so it’s been particularly poor. Last August I wrote a post about its insane run of front page headlines that mentioned pitches and speculated thus:

1. Nothing interesting is happening in advertising beyond these pitches. Possible, but surely someone has started up an agency in this time. When did 101 start?  What’s Beta doing now?  What about when Farah Ramzen left AMV? Wasn’t that a big enough story for the front page?

2. Campaign doesn’t consider anything but account moves to be significant enough for the front page. Maybe. I mean, it is a really awful, lazy, dull, unambitious, craven excuse for a magazine. It’s just possible that they can’t be bothered to do anything other than regurgitate press releases.

One of the two.

A commenter pointed out that it was indeed mainly made up of press releases from firms who used this PR company, which coincidentally was run by the husband Campaign’s then editrix.

So far so shite, but sometime recently, perhaps this year, it seems to have been taken over by people who, while they may not exactly be Woodward and Bernstein, do seem to have added a bit more meat to a few of their articles and opinions.

I confess I don’t read it every week, but it just seems to have a touch more substance these days (aside from the ridiculousness of doing a radio Private View).

Perhaps it will continue to improve. I’ll keep an eye on every third copy and see what happens.



Need a good title? Just nick it off someone else (especially Shakespeare)

Keane, ‘Hopes and Fears’ (Oh Little Town Of Bethlehem).

Mumford and Sons ‘Sigh No More’ (Much Ado About Nothing).

The Doors (Huxley’s The Doors of Perception).

Agatha Christie ‘The Mousetrap’ (Hamlet).

Hemingway, ‘For Whom The Bell Tolls’ (John Donne, No Man Is An Island).

Steinbeck ‘The Grapes Of Wrath’, (Mine Eyes Have Seen The Glory Of The Coming Of The Lord).

Faulkner ‘The Sound And The Fury’ (Macbeth).

TV show, ‘London’s Burning’ (nursery rhyme London’s Burning).

Sting, ‘Nothing Like The Sun’ (Sonnet CXXX).

Huxley ‘Brave New World’ (The Tempest).

Hitchcock’s ‘North by Northwest’ (Hamlet).

Ray Bradbury, ‘Something Wicked This Way Comes’ (Macbeth).

‘Where Eagles Dare’ (Richard The Third).

There are loads of others, but I’m a bit jetlagged so I’m off to bed.

 



To the extreme I rock a mic like a vandal, light up the stage and wax a chump like it’s the weekend

Fighting figures beautifully smashed (thanks, T).

The subplots of Back To The Future.

A day with a Russian Billionaire (thanks, G):

Great/awful business slogans (thanks, J).

How not to break a window (thanks, J):

The Pixar connection theory.

Geeks vs nerds (thanks, A).

Japanese posters of David Lynch films (thanks, T).

Colbert roasts Chevy Chase (thanks, G):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taPTqd8g7yg

Brilliant Korean Photoshop trolls.

Obscure actors: where are they now (thanks, G).

David Attenborough narrates gang fight (thanks, J):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1Adi2Hbj78

Another fine advertising blog.

Guns in space (thanks, G):

Russia vs Trucks (thanks, J):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZzuw-lQ_yQ&feature=player_embedded



Be more dog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMzgl0nFj3s

The first few times I saw that I stopped watching after 30 seconds, assuming it was an ad for Pedigree Chum.

Then I saw it in the cinema (no escape) and finally understood.

Or rather I didn’t.

You see, I don’t get what being ‘more dog’ has to do with a mobile network.

‘Click on the link, Ben! Visit the website!’

Sorry. If the ad doesn’t make me do that, I don’t do it. That’s how ads do/don’t work.

I think it’s very well shot though, and the script is pretty good.



Workability: it’s all that matters

In my old age I’ve come round to thinking that the only thing that really has any significance is the degree to which something is or isn’t workable.

You want to have a long and happy marriage? Are you doing things that will make that work?

You want to win a D&AD Pencil? Are your current circumstances likely to make that work?

You want to go to sleep? How does what you’re doing make that work?

It’s as simple as that. Either you are doing what works for what you want to achieve or you aren’t.

If not, change your behaviour until you’re doing something that make your aim more workable.

I think that way happiness lies.