Weekly Linkly

Lots of stuff for you all this weekend so let's dispense with the chit chat and head straight to the links.

BY THE WORD

  • Writing Tips from George Tannenbaum. And good ones at that.

BY THE PICTURE


Harold Ramis' advice to filmmakers. (via @RobSchrab)


News report about Kenyan slang contains three languages. Puts US news to shame.


New Richmond Sausages ad from Saatchi London.


Most amazing instrument I've even seen.


Impressive security cam footage. 


Teaser for the upcoming Harmontown Documentary.

BY THE WAY
Thanks for stopping by. I mean I really, really enjoyed this. Kinda needed it honestly. Hope you'll call. Oh that? Yeah it happens from time to time. Well, bye I guess. Unless you want me to make you some food? You're okay? That's good. Should I call you an Uber? No. Alright, bye now.

So dramatic, that Mamet

Last night I was listening to an exceptional writers panel from The Nerdist. They covered a wide variety of topics: pitches, drafts, working the room, failure, directing. You could do worse things than spend an hour listening to this.

One of the writers, Emily Halpern, happened to work on The Unit under David Mamet. While talking about that experience the moderator mentioned an infamous memo Mamet sent out to the writers room. This was something I'd never heard about so I took to google to see what the fuss was about.

It's good. Very good.

Because it's the keys to writing good drama (a least one way to writing drama). It's a subject I was very unfamiliar with. Like most people in advertising I default to comedy writing and wrote off drama* a while ago. As a result, I know a decent amount about the ins and outs of comedy writing. And very little about writing drama.

Now, however, thanks to David Mamet and some kind soul who leaked this letter, I know a little more. Here's the long letter, in full. Warning: the whole thing is in caps. And it's the most worthwhile thing in rage-text you'll ever read. Enjoy.

"TO THE WRITERS OF THE UNIT

GREETINGS.

AS WE LEARN HOW TO WRITE THIS SHOW, A RECURRING PROBLEM BECOMES CLEAR.

THE PROBLEM IS THIS: TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DRAMA AND NON-DRAMA. LET ME BREAK-IT-DOWN-NOW.

EVERYONE IN CREATION IS SCREAMING AT US TO MAKE THE SHOW CLEAR. WE ARE TASKED WITH, IT SEEMS, CRAMMING A SHITLOAD OF INFORMATION INTO A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

OUR FRIENDS. THE PENGUINS, THINK THAT WE, THEREFORE, ARE EMPLOYED TO COMMUNICATE INFORMATION -- AND, SO, AT TIMES, IT SEEMS TO US.

BUT NOTE:THE AUDIENCE WILL NOT TUNE IN TO WATCH INFORMATION. YOU WOULDN'T, I WOULDN'T. NO ONE WOULD OR WILL. THE AUDIENCE WILL ONLY TUNE IN AND STAY TUNED TO WATCH DRAMA.

QUESTION:WHAT IS DRAMA? DRAMA, AGAIN, IS THE QUEST OF THE HERO TO OVERCOME THOSE THINGS WHICH PREVENT HIM FROM ACHIEVING A SPECIFIC, ACUTE GOAL.

SO: WE, THE WRITERS, MUST ASK OURSELVES OF EVERY SCENE THESE THREE QUESTIONS.

1) WHO WANTS WHAT?

2) WHAT HAPPENS IF HER DON'T GET IT?

3) WHY NOW?

THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS ARE LITMUS PAPER. APPLY THEM, AND THEIR ANSWER WILL TELL YOU IF THE SCENE IS DRAMATIC OR NOT.

IF THE SCENE IS NOT DRAMATICALLY WRITTEN, IT WILL NOT BE DRAMATICALLY ACTED.

THERE IS NO MAGIC FAIRY DUST WHICH WILL MAKE A BORING, USELESS, REDUNDANT, OR MERELY INFORMATIVE SCENE AFTER IT LEAVES YOUR TYPEWRITER. YOU THE WRITERS, ARE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE EVERY SCENE IS DRAMATIC.

THIS MEANS ALL THE "LITTLE" EXPOSITIONAL SCENES OF TWO PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD. THIS BUSHWAH (AND WE ALL TEND TO WRITE IT ON THE FIRST DRAFT) IS LESS THAN USELESS, SHOULD IT FINALLY, GOD FORBID, GET FILMED.

IF THE SCENE BORES YOU WHEN YOU READ IT, REST ASSURED IT WILL BORE THE ACTORS, AND WILL, THEN, BORE THE AUDIENCE, AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE BACK IN THE BREADLINE.

SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE THE SCENE DRAMATIC. IT IS NOT THE ACTORS JOB (THE ACTORS JOB IS TO BE TRUTHFUL). IT IS NOT THE DIRECTORS JOB. HIS OR HER JOB IS TO FILM IT STRAIGHTFORWARDLY AND REMIND THE ACTORS TO TALK FAST. IT IS YOUR JOB.

EVERY SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. THAT MEANS: THE MAIN CHARACTER MUST HAVE A SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, PRESSING NEED WHICH IMPELS HIM OR HER TO SHOW UP IN THE SCENE.

THIS NEED IS WHY THEY CAME. IT IS WHAT THE SCENE IS ABOUT. THEIR ATTEMPT TO GET THIS NEED MET WILL LEAD, AT THE END OF THE SCENE,TO FAILURE - THIS IS HOW THE SCENE IS OVER. IT, THIS FAILURE, WILL, THEN, OF NECESSITY, PROPEL US INTO THE NEXT SCENE.

ALL THESE ATTEMPTS, TAKEN TOGETHER, WILL, OVER THE COURSE OF THE EPISODE, CONSTITUTE THE PLOT.

ANY SCENE, THUS, WHICH DOES NOT BOTH ADVANCE THE PLOT, AND STANDALONE (THAT IS, DRAMATICALLY, BY ITSELF, ON ITS OWN MERITS) IS EITHER SUPERFLUOUS, OR INCORRECTLY WRITTEN.

YES BUT YES BUT YES BUT, YOU SAY: WHAT ABOUT THE NECESSITY OF WRITING IN ALL THAT "INFORMATION?"

AND I RESPOND "FIGURE IT OUT" ANY DICKHEAD WITH A BLUESUIT CAN BE (AND IS) TAUGHT TO SAY "MAKE IT CLEARER", AND "I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT HIM".

WHEN YOU'VE MADE IT SO CLEAR THAT EVEN THIS BLUESUITED PENGUIN IS HAPPY, BOTH YOU AND HE OR SHE WILL BE OUT OF A JOB.

THE JOB OF THE DRAMATIST IS TO MAKE THE AUDIENCE WONDER WHAT HAPPENS NEXT. NOT TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT JUST HAPPENED, OR TO*SUGGEST* TO THEM WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

ANY DICKHEAD, AS ABOVE, CAN WRITE, "BUT, JIM, IF WE DON'T ASSASSINATE THE PRIME MINISTER IN THE NEXT SCENE, ALL EUROPE WILL BE ENGULFED IN FLAME"

WE ARE NOT GETTING PAID TO REALIZE THAT THE AUDIENCE NEEDS THIS INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE NEXT SCENE, BUT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE SCENE BEFORE US SUCH THAT THE AUDIENCE WILL BE INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS NEXT.

YES BUT, YES BUT YES BUT YOU REITERATE.

AND I RESPOND FIGURE IT OUT.

HOW DOES ONE STRIKE THE BALANCE BETWEEN WITHHOLDING AND VOUCHSAFING INFORMATION? THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL TASK OF THE DRAMATIST. AND THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IS WHAT SEPARATES YOU FROM THE LESSER SPECIES IN THEIR BLUE SUITS.

FIGURE IT OUT.

START, EVERY TIME, WITH THIS INVIOLABLE RULE: THE SCENE MUST BE DRAMATIC. it must start because the hero HAS A PROBLEM, AND IT MUST CULMINATE WITH THE HERO FINDING HIM OR HERSELF EITHER THWARTED OR EDUCATED THAT ANOTHER WAY EXISTS.

LOOK AT YOUR LOG LINES. ANY LOGLINE READING "BOB AND SUE DISCUSS..." IS NOT DESCRIBING A DRAMATIC SCENE.

PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR OUTLINES ARE, GENERALLY, SPECTACULAR. THE DRAMA FLOWS OUT BETWEEN THE OUTLINE AND THE FIRST DRAFT.

THINK LIKE A FILMMAKER RATHER THAN A FUNCTIONARY, BECAUSE, IN TRUTH, YOU ARE MAKING THE FILM. WHAT YOU WRITE, THEY WILL SHOOT.

HERE ARE THE DANGER SIGNALS. ANY TIME TWO CHARACTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT A THIRD, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

ANY TIME ANY CHARACTER IS SAYING TO ANOTHER "AS YOU KNOW", THAT IS, TELLING ANOTHER CHARACTER WHAT YOU, THE WRITER, NEED THE AUDIENCE TO KNOW, THE SCENE IS A CROCK OF SHIT.

DO NOT WRITE A CROCK OF SHIT. WRITE A RIPPING THREE, FOUR, SEVEN MINUTE SCENE WHICH MOVES THE STORY ALONG, AND YOU CAN, VERY SOON, BUY A HOUSE IN BEL AIR AND HIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE THERE FOR YOU.

REMEMBER YOU ARE WRITING FOR A VISUAL MEDIUM. MOST TELEVISION WRITING, OURS INCLUDED, SOUNDS LIKE RADIO. THE CAMERA CAN DO THE EXPLAINING FOR YOU. LET IT. WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERS DOING -*LITERALLY*. WHAT ARE THEY HANDLING, WHAT ARE THEY READING. WHAT ARE THEY WATCHING ON TELEVISION, WHAT ARE THEY SEEING.

IF YOU PRETEND THE CHARACTERS CANT SPEAK, AND WRITE A SILENT MOVIE, YOU WILL BE WRITING GREAT DRAMA.

IF YOU DEPRIVE YOURSELF OF THE CRUTCH OF NARRATION, EXPOSITION,INDEED, OF SPEECH. YOU WILL BE FORGED TO WORK IN A NEW MEDIUM - TELLING THE STORY IN PICTURES (ALSO KNOWN AS SCREENWRITING)

THIS IS A NEW SKILL. NO ONE DOES IT NATURALLY. YOU CAN TRAIN YOURSELVES TO DO IT, BUT YOU NEED TO START.

I CLOSE WITH THE ONE THOUGHT: LOOK AT THE SCENE AND ASK YOURSELF "IS IT DRAMATIC? IS IT ESSENTIAL? DOES IT ADVANCE THE PLOT?

ANSWER TRUTHFULLY.

IF THE ANSWER IS "NO" WRITE IT AGAIN OR THROW IT OUT. IF YOU'VE GOT ANY QUESTIONS, CALL ME UP.

LOVE, DAVE MAMET

SANTA MONICA 19 OCTO 05

(IT IS NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT IT IS YOUR, AND MY, RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW AND TO ASK THE RIGHT Questions OVER AND OVER. UNTIL IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE. I BELIEVE THEY ARE LISTED ABOVE.)"

Letter via

*Despite writing a commercial called "The most dramatic, suspenseful lunchbox opening of all time." (Seen it?) Ater Mamet's list I fear it is not up to snuff in the dramatic department.



George Lois Has A New Book!

And it has quite a few things going for it.

1. It's George Lois. That means it will be full of great advice, acerbic wit, confidence.

2. It's published by Phaidon. They simply do not make bad books. Their books are always well art directed. Always well written. Always a good length. They also print on a thicker stock. If you know Paul Arden's books, you know Phaidon.

3. It's $9.95. Other, older, Lois books go for well over $100. They are fantastic books, I was lucky enough to work with people who owned "Lois on Advertising," but most people don't have that kind of money lying around. Affordable George Lois is a very good thing indeed.

4. It tells you whether or not you're in the target market. Right in the title. "Damn Good Advice (for people with talent!)." Even if you think you don't have any talent(!), you might want to check this out. A professor of mine once kicked everyone out of class who hadn't read the material for the day. At the end of class he said, "If any of you still here didn't do the reading, but had the intelligence to stay anyway, that's good. You stole the lesson. I would have done the same." Steal the lessons in this book.

5. It comes out March 26th. If you don't have $10 to spend on it now, save $2 a week and buy it then.

Now, after all that convincing, here's the link. Go buy it now.

(Hat tip to Dave Trott for tweeting about this earlier)

Weekly Linkly

Weekly Linkly is back after a far too long hiatus. We've got links, we've got videos, we've got a little bit of everything for anyone. All for the shockingly low price of $0.00. It's been bugging me that I let this go so it's back in full force. Enjoy!


A quick glimpse into the food of Vietnam (which I happen to be a big fan of).

  • Crabs. This is how you prepare them. This is how you eat them. This is how you write about them. (It reminds me of the long copy I'm so fond of in The Copy Book)


This documentary is going to dabble in a lot of interesting things. Very excited to see it/fund it.


The Van Halen Brown M&M's story. This is the stuff of lore. (via)

  • One of the creators of Makin Ads set up a new site. You can get ideas for stuff to put into your book, or get your book reviewed by a senior creative. Check it out.


Werner Herzog is just the right kind of crazy/brilliant. I'll never be able to look at chickens the same way.

Good Advice From Chris Rock

I've been listening to a lot of podcasts lately. One of my favorites (and I know how late I am to this) is WTF with Marc Maron. Maron is a comic's comic and has some of the greatest interviews I've ever heard. Every interview is chock-full of quotes about advice, inspiration, and perseverance.

He talks to some of the best people in any field and gets the story of their lives. You also get a little bit more of Marc's story with every episode.

The episode I'm listening to now has Chris Rock as the guest. I didn't know what to expect from this interview but loved these quotes in the first 5 minutes of the recording:

It's weird, because I know the young comics listen to this, I always tell comics—they always ask me, you know, guys ask me questions—and I'm like, 'dude you hang with too many people. You have to be alone. you have to live in your head.'

You know I just see comics go into clubs like girls going to a fucking club. It's like, "We're all going to the club!" Shut the, what the fuck are you doin? You gotta go by yourself. You gotta fucking take a drive. You gotta listen to music. You gotta get in that zone. You gotta live in ya head, man....I still live in my head.

I love to see other industries aren't that much different from advertising. Often the best advice for creating good advertising work doesn't come from advertising books or blogs. Listening to stuff like WTF helps me think differently. Makes me think about how things work in other industries and how I can apply that to my work.

WTF isn't always so inspirational. It's not always pretty. But it helps keep my head out of the advertising minutiae.

The Lowest Common Denominator Isn't The Issue. The Issue is Us.

ALERT: Super Bowl reflection post below.

People complain that the majority of Super Bowl commercials are sub-par every year. In turn this gets blamed on the American Public or, as many others in the field like to call it, the lowest common denominator.

The problem is appealing to what we think is the lowest common denominator. Or thinking our ads have to be worse to appeal to all people*. They don't. But it does take a slightly different approach to make an ad that delights and sells when 100 million people are watching.

And it's not like there haven't been successful Super Bowl spots in the past. It wasn't long ago that Bud ruled the game with their frogs and wassup. It was just two years ago that Old Spice reigned supreme with The Man Your Man Could Smell Like (which actually ran before the game). Even VW's Little Vader was universally loved and slightly humorous (though the selling point was a little weak).

Contrast that with the "sophisticated" approach Bud Light Platinum took. Those spots were universally panned in polls and post-game commentary. They offered nothing to the audience and blended in with the blandervitisng we see every day. It was as though the creatives had never drank a beer in their lives (let alone a Platinum).

So while it's possible to make something that doesn't suck you have to understand where you're advertising. the point is to entertain groups of half-interested individuals. These people are cheering for a good ad. This is the one time a year they might actually care. It's not good to go in with the attitude that appealing to people sucks. That's something that should be celebrated.

It's easy to blame people when work doesn't go over well. They didn't get it, they just weren't smart enough, what does the public know? The issue is the public is our audience: including the lowest common denominator. An ad that doesn't work for them isn't really worth anything.

And if that doesn't make sense to marketers then the Lowest Common Denominator might be us.

*This is one point I disagree with George Tannenbaum on. For a balanced perspective check out his take on Super Bowl ads.

The Best Posts I Encountered in 2011 (pt.2 AKA the exciting conclusion!)

Welcome back. I hope you've had time enough to digest the monstrous number of posts I presented in the first part of this. Though 2012 is already upon us I have the best posts from the second half of 2011 to share. That's not a bad thing. Learning from the best that the past had to offer isn't a terrible affliction. Besides, good ideas tend to get repeated year after year (like this excellent Ira Glass video) enjoy part 2.

First, make rice - Seth Godin
This is included because it is the one post that has been stuck in my mind since I read it. Seriously. It's short but imparts a great lesson about really learning a craft. Building a strong foundation before we are entranced by shiny technology. (Fun fact "sushi" does not mean raw fish, it means "with rice." So the next time somebody says "I don't like sushi, I hate fish," you have full permission to smack them upside the head. Or verbally, whichever you prefer.)

What's your short cut? - Vinny Warren
This is great to read if you feel like you're just spinning your wheels. Instead of digging yourself out of a rut it's important to think about what you really want to do, and how to do that. It worked for Vinny.

Unfortunately... - David Oakley
Losing sucks. Especially losing a pitch you feel you deserved to win. This post is about adding some perspective (a theme of 2011) to the loss. If you don't get hired by an agency, and someone you know who does completely different work does, it's not always you. But this shouldn't be mistaken as a cop-out.

Whatever you're making, make it way better than it has to be. - Luke Sullivan
I liked this piece so much that I blogged about it the day it came out. I think we are nearing the release date for the next edition of Hey Whipple (which includes this piece) so if you've worn out the binding on yours you should wait on a copy to come out. Simply put this is a really good post.

The Twitter - mtlb
AKA talk how people talk. If you're not being authentic in your own stream how can anybody trust you? Cool video of Penn Gillette talking about how to communicate with people.

Speaking Of Shyness - Russell Davies
Honestly this doesn't have much to do with advertising. However, it did have a whole lot to do with understanding myself. If you think you may be every the tiniest bit introverted you should read it.

Infidelity, Inertia and Unsegmented Markets: The Impossibility of 'Alienating' Consumers And Why Marketingland Needs To Man Up - Martin Weigel
Settle in for a very, very, very long read. Every bit of it is important because it champions the idea that good, interesting work is worth alienating a few people. It's about combating the bad. You don't want to be bad, do you?

Fail Upwards and On Losing Your Marbles - Dave Trott
Two of the most memorable posts Dave put out last year. I am almost certain I posted about them here before and I know that I tweeted them. Needless to say, Dave's blogs are worth reading. But if you're stubborn at least read these two. (The first taste is always free)

Thank you all for reading again. Best of luck in 2012 and do keep reading. There's only better stuff to come. Promise. And, as always, leave something in the comments if you have something to say.

A Post You Might Consider Reading If You Actually Want To Work In Advertising.

It's The Ad Contrarian's "The Universal and The Transient in Advertising."

The basic gist of it is this: current and future advertisers should know the history of their field. But there's a lot more than that and it's really well written.

During my first internship I started to realize a lot of the problems we think of as new today are the same problems they faced decades ago. The platforms have changed and the field has gotten bigger but if you look at the rhetoric of the past you will see how closely it resembles the present.

It should stand that the most important thing we can do today is learn from the past. Don't obsess over it, wish that things "were the way they once were," decry all new technology. But learn from it. Even if it's learning about the names dropped in Mad Men that's a good place to start.

Pick up a book, or an e-book, and learn some history. It's a great investment in yourself.

Here's a comment I really liked from that post: