{"id":103,"date":"2012-05-16T19:26:32","date_gmt":"2012-05-17T02:26:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/imho.kileozier.com\/?p=103"},"modified":"2012-05-16T19:26:32","modified_gmt":"2012-05-17T02:26:32","slug":"overproduction-the-left-brain-and-whats-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/imho.kileozier.com\/?p=103","title":{"rendered":"Overproduction – The Left Brain and What’s Right"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Perils of TMI<\/strong><\/p>\n

Tell \u2018em everything, show \u2018em everything, lay it all out and your audience will leave with less than you might otherwise have given them had the experience been better crafted to engage rather than, in a sense, spell-out.<\/p>\n

Less truly is<\/em> More \u2026 more often than not, and to articulate every moment, point and beat of a story does, I believe, a disservice to our audience.<\/p>\n

In conversations with clients, it is not unusual to hear arguments in favor of spelling things out \u201c…in case someone doesn\u2019t get it…\u201d Well, we can do<\/em> that; but giving it all away like that, spelling it all out, makes it a Show, while offering a well-crafted, creative \u201cLess\u201d can elevate said Show into an Experience that is deeper and more resonant…and more personal.<\/p>\n

Let the audience do some of the work. (We\u2019ve talked<\/em> about this! <g>)<\/p>\n

It sometimes seems that many producers and directors strive to eradicate any doubt in the minds of an audience as to what is intended or meant, what may be every thought of the main characters, the Why that motivates each action or word\u2026 This Leading of the audience, step-by-step, through a story may seem thorough and complete, in theory – and, in a sense, it is both thorough and complete; but such completeness isn\u2019t necessarily a foundation for powerful storytelling.<\/p>\n

Sometimes, allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions based on their experience of what you presented can result in deeply-felt convictions as to motive and eventuality, differing widely from seat to seat in your theatre.<\/p>\n

Harking back to earlier conversations around Subliminal Engagement and the Liberation of Preconception; filling-in all the blanks and wrapping it all in a pretty, no-loose-ends bow isn\u2019t necessarily the most effective approach to an audience recalling and re-experiencing what was given them long after Curtain and often into the days and weeks that follow.<\/p>\n

This relates to the theory and methodologies that apply to communication with an audience through the left and right lobes of the brain. This division of mental labor is, I think, often discussed or referenced yet not so often actually examined and applied in the context of creating event or ride experience, producing theatre, even making film and video for the occasional capital campaign.<\/p>\n

As you likely know, the left brain leans toward the analytical while the right holds most of the feelings and emotions: the cerebral versus the visceral.<\/p>\n

That being the general case (it\u2019s more complicated than that; but for purposes of our discussion, today\u2026), there are some general rules I tend to follow as much as possible when creating film or video or theatre in order to keep the left brain quiet (if not dormant) and the right brain engaged and active.<\/p>\n

When making film, the banning of print or titles from the screen is worthy of exploration and adherence. A line must often be walked, especially when on-camera interviews are a part of the piece, with deciding how and when to identify a given speaker. If you can get away without identifying a person, then by all means do it!<\/p>\n

Depending on one\u2019s audience and familiarity with the speaker, identification may not even be necessary\u2026 Or, list speakers and faces at the end of the video, or at the beginning; however your storytelling can support it without obstruction.<\/p>\n

Truly adept would be finding a way for a previous speaker to reference the next, or the light-handed use of a narrator from segment-to-segment. There isn\u2019t always<\/em> a way, though there very often is at least one\u2026<\/p>\n

Frankly, imho, there is rarely, rarely<\/em> a situation where it serves the delivery of information to put data onscreen, anyway. More often than not, it is that very data that can \u201cdate\u201d a video piece sooner than anything else. One can refer to data, fact and figure and send the audience to Google (if they haven\u2019t already been there).<\/p>\n

We did this for a non-profit capital campaign in Southern California a few years back; with Jane Seymour as the Ambassador, describing the experience, engaging the audience with her description of the programs, referencing the \u201c…reams of facts and figures\u2026\u201d and sending \u2018em to Google. Worked like a charm…<\/p>\n

“Don’t worry,” she says to the camera, “I’m not going to show you all those facts and figures; that’s why we have Google! What I am going to do…”<\/p>\n

Feel free to check it out on my YouTube Channel:<\/p>\n