1 00:00:05,760 --> 00:00:08,239 Speaker 1: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your mind. My name 2 00:00:08,240 --> 00:00:11,119 Speaker 1: is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and it's Saturday. 3 00:00:11,240 --> 00:00:13,200 Speaker 1: Time to go into the vault for an older episode 4 00:00:13,200 --> 00:00:17,560 Speaker 1: of the show. This one originally published on January two, 5 00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:19,520 Speaker 1: and it was part one of our series about the 6 00:00:19,560 --> 00:00:23,479 Speaker 1: coolest shov effect and interesting psychological effect having to do 7 00:00:23,560 --> 00:00:27,760 Speaker 1: with film editing. Alright, let's jump right in. Hey, everybody, 8 00:00:27,880 --> 00:00:30,319 Speaker 1: Joe here, I'm just cutting in before the music with 9 00:00:30,400 --> 00:00:34,760 Speaker 1: a brief editorial insert it's happened before it happened again. 10 00:00:34,840 --> 00:00:37,000 Speaker 1: This is one of those episodes that went long. Rob 11 00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:39,640 Speaker 1: and I originally planned it to be one standalone chat, 12 00:00:39,640 --> 00:00:42,440 Speaker 1: but it started taking on an unwieldy form while we 13 00:00:42,440 --> 00:00:45,560 Speaker 1: were recording, so we decided to go ahead and chop 14 00:00:45,600 --> 00:00:47,960 Speaker 1: it up into two parts. So this is why in 15 00:00:48,000 --> 00:00:50,320 Speaker 1: a few minutes you might hear me make references to 16 00:00:50,440 --> 00:00:52,760 Speaker 1: things I'm going to bring up later in the episode, 17 00:00:53,320 --> 00:00:55,680 Speaker 1: but we actually won't get to them until part two, 18 00:00:55,800 --> 00:00:59,200 Speaker 1: So apologies for any confusion on that front. As a 19 00:00:59,240 --> 00:01:02,200 Speaker 1: general outline, and we're going to introduce and illustrate our 20 00:01:02,200 --> 00:01:05,080 Speaker 1: central topic in part one here and then we'll be 21 00:01:05,120 --> 00:01:08,360 Speaker 1: going deeper into the weeds of subsequent research in part two. 22 00:01:08,560 --> 00:01:11,800 Speaker 1: So without any further delay, I'll now plunge you back 23 00:01:11,840 --> 00:01:17,759 Speaker 1: into the show. Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind 24 00:01:18,040 --> 00:01:27,240 Speaker 1: production of My Heart Radio. Hey you welcome to Stuff 25 00:01:27,280 --> 00:01:29,320 Speaker 1: to Blow Your Mind. And my name is Robert Lamm 26 00:01:29,600 --> 00:01:32,600 Speaker 1: and I'm Joe McCormick. And today we're gonna be talking 27 00:01:32,720 --> 00:01:37,840 Speaker 1: about a concept known as the coolest Shop effect. This 28 00:01:37,920 --> 00:01:41,120 Speaker 1: is an idea from film theory. But I think this 29 00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:44,800 Speaker 1: will make a really interesting episode because it's, first of all, 30 00:01:44,840 --> 00:01:47,680 Speaker 1: it's at that that weird intersection space, you know, the 31 00:01:47,800 --> 00:01:52,559 Speaker 1: midnight at the crossroads of of art and science. And 32 00:01:52,600 --> 00:01:55,320 Speaker 1: then uh, Secondarily, I think it's one of those great 33 00:01:55,360 --> 00:02:00,280 Speaker 1: observations that is simple, almost obvious in its implication, ends 34 00:02:00,400 --> 00:02:03,120 Speaker 1: when when you first grasp it, but you the more 35 00:02:03,240 --> 00:02:06,120 Speaker 1: you think about it, the weirder and more powerful it gets, 36 00:02:06,200 --> 00:02:10,160 Speaker 1: especially in a historical context. Yeah, this is an interesting 37 00:02:10,200 --> 00:02:11,959 Speaker 1: topic and one I have to admit that I don't 38 00:02:11,960 --> 00:02:14,720 Speaker 1: think i'd ever really absorbed before. I don't know if 39 00:02:14,720 --> 00:02:16,959 Speaker 1: it ever came up in um, any of like the 40 00:02:17,400 --> 00:02:21,440 Speaker 1: film classes that I took, like in college. Um, same 41 00:02:21,480 --> 00:02:24,320 Speaker 1: here and uh and and at the same time, Yeah, 42 00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:26,800 Speaker 1: I read about this and then went out and actually 43 00:02:26,840 --> 00:02:30,280 Speaker 1: watched um um, I watched a film and watched you know, 44 00:02:30,320 --> 00:02:32,560 Speaker 1: probably a couple of TV shows over the weekend, and 45 00:02:32,560 --> 00:02:34,600 Speaker 1: so I had it fresh on my mind looking for it. 46 00:02:35,000 --> 00:02:37,320 Speaker 1: And on one hand, you do see it everywhere, but 47 00:02:37,360 --> 00:02:40,480 Speaker 1: then you don't like, it's, uh, it's this thing that 48 00:02:40,480 --> 00:02:42,600 Speaker 1: that when you're when you first read about it, it 49 00:02:42,639 --> 00:02:44,320 Speaker 1: sounds like, oh, well, this is like part of the 50 00:02:44,320 --> 00:02:47,560 Speaker 1: blueprint of how film works. And that's kind of that's 51 00:02:47,639 --> 00:02:49,400 Speaker 1: kind of one of the arguments that's made for it. 52 00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:53,320 Speaker 1: And yet it's not necessarily as a parent as you 53 00:02:53,400 --> 00:02:55,400 Speaker 1: might expect it to be, but there are some wonderful 54 00:02:55,400 --> 00:02:58,760 Speaker 1: examples to be to be dwelt upon. Well, the way 55 00:02:58,800 --> 00:03:00,680 Speaker 1: I'd put it, after having done all the research for 56 00:03:00,680 --> 00:03:02,760 Speaker 1: this episode, is that I think it is sort of 57 00:03:02,840 --> 00:03:06,160 Speaker 1: part of the blueprint of how film works, except in 58 00:03:06,200 --> 00:03:10,200 Speaker 1: the way it's usually explained, it's just a few degrees off. Yeah, yeah, 59 00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:12,320 Speaker 1: that would I think that would make sense. But I'll 60 00:03:12,320 --> 00:03:14,600 Speaker 1: explain more about that as as we go on. Another 61 00:03:14,639 --> 00:03:17,240 Speaker 1: thing that's interesting about this though, is it's something that's 62 00:03:17,280 --> 00:03:20,400 Speaker 1: originally from the realm of art and esthetic criticism. You know, 63 00:03:20,440 --> 00:03:23,560 Speaker 1: it's from film theory, but it also has a sort 64 00:03:23,560 --> 00:03:27,560 Speaker 1: of mixed research history within the fields of experimental psychology 65 00:03:27,560 --> 00:03:31,680 Speaker 1: and neuroscience. You know, there's some empirical experiments that seem 66 00:03:31,760 --> 00:03:34,480 Speaker 1: to find evidence of the effect and others do not 67 00:03:34,680 --> 00:03:37,480 Speaker 1: find it. And I think part of the part of 68 00:03:37,520 --> 00:03:40,320 Speaker 1: the difference there is how you ask the question and 69 00:03:40,360 --> 00:03:42,600 Speaker 1: what kind of stimula you use. But it could be 70 00:03:42,680 --> 00:03:44,920 Speaker 1: interesting to see what the difference is there as well. 71 00:03:45,000 --> 00:03:48,160 Speaker 1: But I guess we should get straight to explaining what 72 00:03:48,280 --> 00:03:52,400 Speaker 1: the coolest Jov effect allegedly is. So, in the words 73 00:03:52,400 --> 00:03:55,680 Speaker 1: of the authors of a two thousand six neuroscience paper 74 00:03:55,720 --> 00:03:57,880 Speaker 1: by mobs at All that I'll refer to later in 75 00:03:57,880 --> 00:04:01,640 Speaker 1: the episode, the coolest Jov effect is the following proposition. 76 00:04:01,800 --> 00:04:05,680 Speaker 1: It is that quote, the manipulation of context can alter 77 00:04:05,800 --> 00:04:12,960 Speaker 1: an audiences perception of an actor's facial expressions, thoughts, and feelings. Yeah. Yeah, 78 00:04:12,960 --> 00:04:16,360 Speaker 1: And this is something that is at at the very 79 00:04:16,440 --> 00:04:19,320 Speaker 1: root of everything. Is is based on theory of mind, 80 00:04:19,800 --> 00:04:24,560 Speaker 1: that we as humans look at another person and we 81 00:04:25,120 --> 00:04:27,720 Speaker 1: simulate what's going on in their head, what what are 82 00:04:27,760 --> 00:04:32,159 Speaker 1: their thoughts, what are their motivations, what are their intentions, etcetera. 83 00:04:32,720 --> 00:04:36,200 Speaker 1: Um uh so, Yeah, it's theory theory, theory of mind 84 00:04:36,240 --> 00:04:38,320 Speaker 1: at heart, but it's not just the face. It's also 85 00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:41,640 Speaker 1: something else. And basically this gets into just an into 86 00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:45,279 Speaker 1: filmmaking and editing. Right, it's the the idea of montage. 87 00:04:45,800 --> 00:04:48,960 Speaker 1: That's the word that's often used here, but that would 88 00:04:48,960 --> 00:04:51,840 Speaker 1: probably give us ideas of a very specific technique of like, 89 00:04:52,160 --> 00:04:55,080 Speaker 1: you know, you're like the training montage and Rocky film 90 00:04:55,160 --> 00:04:57,960 Speaker 1: or something. You should actually be thinking of montage when 91 00:04:57,960 --> 00:04:59,919 Speaker 1: we say it in this episode. More broadly, it's not 92 00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:04,919 Speaker 1: just that. It means the the arrangement of different shots 93 00:05:04,960 --> 00:05:08,200 Speaker 1: into a sequence through editing. No matter what kind of 94 00:05:08,240 --> 00:05:11,240 Speaker 1: technique you're using there, if you're taking different shots and 95 00:05:11,279 --> 00:05:15,760 Speaker 1: putting them into a sequence, that is montage for today's purposes. Yeah, 96 00:05:15,800 --> 00:05:18,080 Speaker 1: and and again it all comes back to editing. The 97 00:05:18,080 --> 00:05:21,120 Speaker 1: way the footage is put together. You can basically think 98 00:05:21,160 --> 00:05:25,520 Speaker 1: of it as like face p O V shot face um. 99 00:05:25,600 --> 00:05:29,640 Speaker 1: For instance, Alfred Hitchcock described it once as being a 100 00:05:29,680 --> 00:05:33,200 Speaker 1: situation where okay, again, think of three shots. First shot, 101 00:05:33,279 --> 00:05:35,919 Speaker 1: he says, his man looking out the window. Shot number 102 00:05:35,960 --> 00:05:39,800 Speaker 1: three is a man smiling. Now what you put in 103 00:05:39,839 --> 00:05:42,919 Speaker 1: that second slot, whatever, that second shot is that you 104 00:05:42,960 --> 00:05:47,159 Speaker 1: insert that changes the context entirely. Now, uh, as we 105 00:05:47,200 --> 00:05:50,280 Speaker 1: were discussing before we recorded here, this Alfred Hitchcock example, 106 00:05:50,279 --> 00:05:53,360 Speaker 1: the widely cided is also a little imperfect because if 107 00:05:53,400 --> 00:05:55,680 Speaker 1: you want to get right down to the like the 108 00:05:55,680 --> 00:05:58,359 Speaker 1: core theory, it's just it's Shot one should be a 109 00:05:58,360 --> 00:06:00,919 Speaker 1: man looking out a window. Shot number three should just 110 00:06:00,960 --> 00:06:03,760 Speaker 1: be that man looking out a window, no smile. But 111 00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:06,119 Speaker 1: it still comes down to what is shot number two, 112 00:06:06,360 --> 00:06:09,240 Speaker 1: because that changes how you think about that man in 113 00:06:09,279 --> 00:06:12,920 Speaker 1: shot three, right, you seem to see something different in 114 00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:15,280 Speaker 1: the man, even though you could use the exact same 115 00:06:15,320 --> 00:06:19,360 Speaker 1: footage of him. So the editing context changes what we 116 00:06:19,440 --> 00:06:22,159 Speaker 1: think we see in a previous or a subsequent shot, 117 00:06:22,240 --> 00:06:25,200 Speaker 1: even though you're using the exact same shots. So one 118 00:06:25,240 --> 00:06:28,440 Speaker 1: of the funny in Hitchcock's example, he uh, he talks 119 00:06:28,480 --> 00:06:30,680 Speaker 1: about this in a famous interview I think he did 120 00:06:31,279 --> 00:06:33,839 Speaker 1: with maybe it was with the CBC or somebody, but 121 00:06:34,200 --> 00:06:36,359 Speaker 1: but he was using the example of Okay, in the 122 00:06:36,440 --> 00:06:40,640 Speaker 1: first sequence, imagine that the middle shot that's intercut there 123 00:06:40,800 --> 00:06:43,720 Speaker 1: is like a mother playing with a baby, and in 124 00:06:43,760 --> 00:06:46,919 Speaker 1: that case, oh, he's a kindly old grandfather man. And 125 00:06:46,920 --> 00:06:49,120 Speaker 1: then the second option is that the middle shot is 126 00:06:49,120 --> 00:06:51,440 Speaker 1: a woman in a bathing suit, in which case, he says, 127 00:06:51,520 --> 00:06:53,599 Speaker 1: then you perceive his smile as being that of a 128 00:06:53,640 --> 00:06:56,000 Speaker 1: dirty old man. And I guess it kind of helps 129 00:06:56,000 --> 00:06:59,520 Speaker 1: because it's actually Alfred Hitchcock they use in the visual example. 130 00:07:00,640 --> 00:07:03,239 Speaker 1: Now we'll come back to more about what this idea 131 00:07:03,560 --> 00:07:06,560 Speaker 1: is and what it might mean, but maybe first we 132 00:07:06,600 --> 00:07:09,840 Speaker 1: should just do a little bit of biography on the 133 00:07:10,520 --> 00:07:14,520 Speaker 1: namesake of this idea. So the Kolashov effect is named 134 00:07:14,560 --> 00:07:18,400 Speaker 1: after a guy named Lev Kulashev, who was a Russian 135 00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:22,720 Speaker 1: filmmaker and film theorist who I think, I don't know, 136 00:07:22,800 --> 00:07:24,560 Speaker 1: you could say it was like a major force in 137 00:07:24,600 --> 00:07:28,480 Speaker 1: the history of film theory and uh, and is primarily 138 00:07:28,520 --> 00:07:34,920 Speaker 1: responsible for popularizing this alleged effect. Yes, Lev Kulashev, who 139 00:07:34,920 --> 00:07:40,400 Speaker 1: lived seventy Russian director film theorist who started out in art, 140 00:07:40,400 --> 00:07:46,040 Speaker 1: direction and some acting before moving increasingly into directing, experimental editing, 141 00:07:46,120 --> 00:07:48,320 Speaker 1: and scholarship. He was one of the founders of the 142 00:07:48,320 --> 00:07:52,560 Speaker 1: world's first film school, the Moscow Film School. And yeah, 143 00:07:52,600 --> 00:07:55,800 Speaker 1: he introduced the American film concept of montage into Soviet 144 00:07:55,880 --> 00:07:59,560 Speaker 1: cinema based on examining the works of directors such as 145 00:07:59,640 --> 00:08:03,760 Speaker 1: DDA be Griffith, and as David Gilevskie points out in 146 00:08:03,840 --> 00:08:06,800 Speaker 1: his book Early Soviet Cinema, he quote played a more 147 00:08:06,880 --> 00:08:09,640 Speaker 1: significant part in the development of the Golden Age of 148 00:08:09,720 --> 00:08:14,560 Speaker 1: Russian cinema than any other figure with the exception of Eisenstein. 149 00:08:14,760 --> 00:08:19,000 Speaker 1: And this would refer to Sergei Eisenstein, another big name 150 00:08:19,000 --> 00:08:22,160 Speaker 1: and film a big big name Russian film director of 151 00:08:22,240 --> 00:08:26,080 Speaker 1: the time period, theorist of the day who listeners might 152 00:08:26,120 --> 00:08:30,040 Speaker 1: know from such films as a Battleship Attempkin from that's 153 00:08:30,080 --> 00:08:34,160 Speaker 1: the old baby Stroller down the Stairs movie right now. 154 00:08:34,400 --> 00:08:36,960 Speaker 1: One thing I do remember from actual film classes that 155 00:08:37,040 --> 00:08:39,200 Speaker 1: I took in college was that a lot of early 156 00:08:39,320 --> 00:08:43,560 Speaker 1: Soviet cinema does make use of the montage, more in 157 00:08:43,679 --> 00:08:47,200 Speaker 1: the sense of the specific film technique where you're like 158 00:08:47,480 --> 00:08:50,199 Speaker 1: taking a bunch of different images and and putting them 159 00:08:50,200 --> 00:08:52,880 Speaker 1: together to suggest a kind of, uh, a kind of 160 00:08:52,920 --> 00:08:56,240 Speaker 1: sequence or progression, more like the training montage. But the 161 00:08:56,480 --> 00:08:58,840 Speaker 1: main example I remember there is a movie we watched 162 00:08:58,880 --> 00:09:02,200 Speaker 1: by or TV called The Man with the Movie Camera, 163 00:09:02,320 --> 00:09:05,319 Speaker 1: which is basically the whole movie is just a montage 164 00:09:06,440 --> 00:09:10,000 Speaker 1: of of you know, Russian public life by the way, 165 00:09:10,200 --> 00:09:12,280 Speaker 1: if anyone out there wants to hear us talk even 166 00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:14,480 Speaker 1: more about silent film. We did an episode of Weird 167 00:09:14,520 --> 00:09:17,280 Speaker 1: How Cinema UM at some point in the last year 168 00:09:17,520 --> 00:09:20,000 Speaker 1: where we did like a silent film double feature where 169 00:09:20,040 --> 00:09:22,959 Speaker 1: we we picked out just a couple maybe three different 170 00:09:23,080 --> 00:09:25,840 Speaker 1: silent films and talked about what was neat about them 171 00:09:25,840 --> 00:09:27,960 Speaker 1: and just talked about sort of the the challenges to 172 00:09:28,000 --> 00:09:31,920 Speaker 1: the modern viewer that that silent film poses, but also 173 00:09:31,960 --> 00:09:35,000 Speaker 1: the rewards of watching them. So what one of the 174 00:09:35,080 --> 00:09:38,960 Speaker 1: main things Kolashov was doing here was that he was 175 00:09:39,200 --> 00:09:42,840 Speaker 1: he wasn't even um even even shooting new footage in 176 00:09:42,840 --> 00:09:47,600 Speaker 1: these experiments. UH, he was taking pre existing footage silent 177 00:09:47,600 --> 00:09:52,720 Speaker 1: film footage usually um Czarist era silent film, and re 178 00:09:52,840 --> 00:09:56,319 Speaker 1: cutting them to to see what could be done with 179 00:09:56,360 --> 00:10:00,000 Speaker 1: this montage feature like how how to arrange the uh 180 00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:04,719 Speaker 1: the footage to get different, um you know, emotional results. 181 00:10:05,040 --> 00:10:06,920 Speaker 1: And a lot of it was based again and looking 182 00:10:06,960 --> 00:10:09,120 Speaker 1: at what was going on and what seemed to be 183 00:10:09,200 --> 00:10:12,960 Speaker 1: working in uh in in in Western film, in American 184 00:10:13,000 --> 00:10:15,840 Speaker 1: film specifically again like the work of d. W. Griffith, 185 00:10:16,320 --> 00:10:20,760 Speaker 1: and UH just in general. Kulashofice was it was somewhat 186 00:10:20,800 --> 00:10:25,400 Speaker 1: controversial at times, apparently in in these uh, these experiments, 187 00:10:25,600 --> 00:10:28,719 Speaker 1: you know, he's looking at American models, Western models, So 188 00:10:29,000 --> 00:10:31,559 Speaker 1: he was accused by Communist Party members at times of 189 00:10:31,600 --> 00:10:35,400 Speaker 1: appealing to Western ideas and forms too much. And he's 190 00:10:35,440 --> 00:10:38,520 Speaker 1: also apparently been accused of living it up during tough 191 00:10:38,559 --> 00:10:42,560 Speaker 1: times in Russia and destroying archives silent era films during 192 00:10:42,600 --> 00:10:47,320 Speaker 1: this editing work, which again the work that wasn't really 193 00:10:47,360 --> 00:10:50,800 Speaker 1: based that so much in shooting new footage and experimenting 194 00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:53,360 Speaker 1: with how you might added them together, but taking pre 195 00:10:53,400 --> 00:10:57,640 Speaker 1: existing footage from the archive and adding it together. Now, 196 00:10:57,679 --> 00:11:01,520 Speaker 1: as a director, Kulashov is apparently and I'm speaking largely 197 00:11:01,559 --> 00:11:04,120 Speaker 1: of a director that I really didn't know anything about before, 198 00:11:04,200 --> 00:11:08,640 Speaker 1: so me neither. But he's apparently best known for ninety 199 00:11:08,720 --> 00:11:11,680 Speaker 1: four's The Extraordinary Adventures of Mr West in the Land 200 00:11:11,679 --> 00:11:14,760 Speaker 1: of the Bolsheviks. He also adapted the works of Jack 201 00:11:14,840 --> 00:11:18,800 Speaker 1: London and Oh Henry, but especially for this show, we 202 00:11:18,840 --> 00:11:21,320 Speaker 1: should really highlight that he also made a death Ray 203 00:11:21,400 --> 00:11:24,920 Speaker 1: spy thriller. I thought this was really interesting. Somehow, I 204 00:11:24,960 --> 00:11:27,640 Speaker 1: guess this never came up when we did our invention 205 00:11:27,679 --> 00:11:31,280 Speaker 1: episodes on the Death Ray or if it did, I've 206 00:11:31,320 --> 00:11:33,760 Speaker 1: forgotten about it because this seemed new to me. But 207 00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:36,920 Speaker 1: it fits right in there, because if you haven't heard 208 00:11:36,920 --> 00:11:39,600 Speaker 1: our episodes of the Invention podcast on the death Ray, 209 00:11:39,760 --> 00:11:42,000 Speaker 1: those were some of my favorites that we did, especially 210 00:11:42,000 --> 00:11:44,520 Speaker 1: because we got to talk about an invention that never 211 00:11:44,600 --> 00:11:50,079 Speaker 1: really existed and yet was the subject of a popular fervor. 212 00:11:50,120 --> 00:11:52,840 Speaker 1: You know that, like people were really excited about death 213 00:11:52,960 --> 00:11:56,640 Speaker 1: rays for the nineteen twenties and that just there was 214 00:11:56,679 --> 00:12:00,040 Speaker 1: never any such thing. Yeah, yeah, the invention it's of 215 00:12:00,160 --> 00:12:02,120 Speaker 1: never existed, but you had kind of a global death 216 00:12:02,200 --> 00:12:05,800 Speaker 1: ray fever going on, and this is so it's right 217 00:12:05,920 --> 00:12:08,319 Speaker 1: smack dab in the middle of it. A film titled 218 00:12:08,640 --> 00:12:13,319 Speaker 1: lut Smirty or the Death Ray. Galepsi describes it as 219 00:12:13,400 --> 00:12:18,400 Speaker 1: quote a relatively violent film about international espionage. So I 220 00:12:18,400 --> 00:12:20,920 Speaker 1: had to look in. I looked at footage the available 221 00:12:20,920 --> 00:12:23,520 Speaker 1: footage that I could find out. It wasn't wasn't super 222 00:12:23,559 --> 00:12:27,040 Speaker 1: great to watch, but there's some impressive stills that The 223 00:12:27,080 --> 00:12:29,880 Speaker 1: plot is spot on for what you might expect from 224 00:12:29,880 --> 00:12:32,079 Speaker 1: a Soviet death ray movie at the time period. We 225 00:12:32,200 --> 00:12:36,520 Speaker 1: follow a socialist revolutionary who has to flee an unnamed 226 00:12:37,080 --> 00:12:41,280 Speaker 1: fascist capitalist country, the socialist revolutionary has to flee to 227 00:12:41,360 --> 00:12:44,000 Speaker 1: the Soviet Union, and once there he is introduced to 228 00:12:44,200 --> 00:12:48,760 Speaker 1: the new technology of the death ray, which can explode 229 00:12:48,800 --> 00:12:51,960 Speaker 1: gunpowder at a distance, which is a key detail because 230 00:12:51,960 --> 00:12:55,080 Speaker 1: that's exactly, uh that the sort of thing that was 231 00:12:55,160 --> 00:12:57,559 Speaker 1: part of the death ray fever that we discussed in 232 00:12:57,600 --> 00:13:00,200 Speaker 1: the Invention episode. That's right. So the brief top line 233 00:13:00,240 --> 00:13:03,599 Speaker 1: on that is that, uh, basically a lot of this 234 00:13:03,679 --> 00:13:06,760 Speaker 1: death ray fever came from reaction to the horrors of 235 00:13:06,840 --> 00:13:10,400 Speaker 1: long range bombing aerial bombing in World War One, and 236 00:13:10,440 --> 00:13:13,800 Speaker 1: people wanted the idea of something that could shoot bombers 237 00:13:13,880 --> 00:13:16,280 Speaker 1: out of the sky from a great distance before they 238 00:13:16,320 --> 00:13:18,800 Speaker 1: got to your cities, and the death ray filled in 239 00:13:18,840 --> 00:13:23,839 Speaker 1: that gap exactly. So basically, the evil spy follows them 240 00:13:23,880 --> 00:13:27,240 Speaker 1: and steals the death ray technology so that they can 241 00:13:27,320 --> 00:13:30,320 Speaker 1: use it to suppress labor strikes. But don't worry, the 242 00:13:30,400 --> 00:13:34,240 Speaker 1: labor strikers steal the death ray technology back and use 243 00:13:34,320 --> 00:13:37,120 Speaker 1: it to blow up their oppressors bomber aircraft which is 244 00:13:37,160 --> 00:13:41,560 Speaker 1: about to be used against the strikers. This almost makes 245 00:13:41,559 --> 00:13:44,240 Speaker 1: me want to compile and watch a list of all 246 00:13:44,360 --> 00:13:47,120 Speaker 1: the death ray movies of the nineteen twentys. Just put 247 00:13:47,160 --> 00:13:51,200 Speaker 1: them all together and see see what kind of picture emerges. Yeah, yeah, 248 00:13:51,320 --> 00:13:54,080 Speaker 1: or and I'm curious, like, what is the best death 249 00:13:54,160 --> 00:13:56,680 Speaker 1: ray movie? I'm I'm assuming the best death ray movies 250 00:13:56,800 --> 00:14:00,719 Speaker 1: came later. Um came in the way of films such 251 00:14:00,760 --> 00:14:09,080 Speaker 1: as this, Thank thank Okay, Well, so that's love kol 252 00:14:09,080 --> 00:14:11,200 Speaker 1: Ashov and I wanted to get a little bit into 253 00:14:11,200 --> 00:14:14,240 Speaker 1: the background of this idea of the cool Ashov effect 254 00:14:14,280 --> 00:14:17,839 Speaker 1: by consulting his own words. So I found a book 255 00:14:17,920 --> 00:14:21,200 Speaker 1: called cool a Shov on Film Writings. This was published 256 00:14:21,200 --> 00:14:24,200 Speaker 1: by the University of California Press in nineteen seventy four. 257 00:14:24,280 --> 00:14:27,680 Speaker 1: I'm not positive. I think this might be a reprint 258 00:14:28,200 --> 00:14:32,119 Speaker 1: of some earlier writings of Kola Shovs, but the context 259 00:14:32,160 --> 00:14:34,800 Speaker 1: is um. I was consulting an early section of this 260 00:14:34,840 --> 00:14:39,600 Speaker 1: book where he's discussing a series of investigations he and 261 00:14:39,640 --> 00:14:42,440 Speaker 1: his colleagues carried out in the late nineteen teens and 262 00:14:42,560 --> 00:14:45,880 Speaker 1: into the twenties, essentially to try to figure out how 263 00:14:45,960 --> 00:14:49,800 Speaker 1: film actually works. That they were asking questions like how 264 00:14:49,880 --> 00:14:53,320 Speaker 1: do audiences make meaning out of the images they see 265 00:14:53,400 --> 00:14:56,720 Speaker 1: over the course of a film? Which is a great question, 266 00:14:56,800 --> 00:14:59,760 Speaker 1: and it is something that early filmmakers really had to 267 00:14:59,800 --> 00:15:02,080 Speaker 1: fe guar out. We we can take a lot of 268 00:15:02,400 --> 00:15:06,600 Speaker 1: film meaning making for granted these days, because uh, you know, 269 00:15:06,920 --> 00:15:10,880 Speaker 1: film techniques are so well honed these days that they're 270 00:15:10,880 --> 00:15:13,640 Speaker 1: often invisible to us. You know, you you if you 271 00:15:13,680 --> 00:15:17,240 Speaker 1: watch a professionally made movie, you will you will not 272 00:15:17,360 --> 00:15:19,880 Speaker 1: even notice the fact that, say, all of the eye 273 00:15:19,920 --> 00:15:22,680 Speaker 1: lines and it have been aligned correctly so that when 274 00:15:22,720 --> 00:15:24,960 Speaker 1: a character looks at something and then it cuts to 275 00:15:25,040 --> 00:15:28,239 Speaker 1: that thing, it's lined up so that it's not confusing. 276 00:15:28,480 --> 00:15:30,600 Speaker 1: But that's like a technique that had to be learned, 277 00:15:30,640 --> 00:15:32,680 Speaker 1: and there are tons of things like that. They're just 278 00:15:32,800 --> 00:15:35,000 Speaker 1: invisible to us now, as as a lot of good 279 00:15:35,080 --> 00:15:38,400 Speaker 1: filmmaking techniques are I mean ideally, I guess, well, I 280 00:15:38,440 --> 00:15:40,440 Speaker 1: mean there are different ideas of this, but you know, 281 00:15:40,600 --> 00:15:43,320 Speaker 1: a common view I think among a lot of filmmakers 282 00:15:43,480 --> 00:15:46,200 Speaker 1: is that techniques should not call attention to themselves, but 283 00:15:46,240 --> 00:15:49,400 Speaker 1: instead should disappear and allow you to just become totally 284 00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:51,960 Speaker 1: absorbed in the narrative to help bring about the raw 285 00:15:52,120 --> 00:15:56,160 Speaker 1: experience quality of modern cinema. Yeah. Yeah, and that's I mean, 286 00:15:56,160 --> 00:15:59,240 Speaker 1: that's something I like to stick to. I mean, unless 287 00:15:59,280 --> 00:16:05,200 Speaker 1: the film is so uh poor. It's a execution that 288 00:16:05,280 --> 00:16:07,720 Speaker 1: you can't help but but notice it, you know, well 289 00:16:07,760 --> 00:16:10,320 Speaker 1: when yeah, And certainly there's plenty of examples of that. 290 00:16:10,680 --> 00:16:13,760 Speaker 1: But so Kolashav and colleagues are trying to investigate how 291 00:16:13,800 --> 00:16:17,320 Speaker 1: does film work? What what are the techniques that that 292 00:16:17,400 --> 00:16:20,600 Speaker 1: cause an audience to think or feel a certain way? 293 00:16:20,840 --> 00:16:24,640 Speaker 1: And so famously Kolashov feels that he has achieved a 294 00:16:24,680 --> 00:16:28,040 Speaker 1: breakthrough when he starts to discover the power of montage 295 00:16:28,320 --> 00:16:31,320 Speaker 1: or editing. He starts to think of editing as a 296 00:16:31,360 --> 00:16:35,160 Speaker 1: sort of master key behind the power of cinema, and 297 00:16:35,280 --> 00:16:38,320 Speaker 1: he believes that montage has a power greater than simply 298 00:16:38,480 --> 00:16:41,960 Speaker 1: showing you a series of moving images in sequence so 299 00:16:42,000 --> 00:16:45,080 Speaker 1: that you think, well, one follows the other. Instead, he 300 00:16:45,080 --> 00:16:48,400 Speaker 1: comes to think that by ordering shots in a sequence, 301 00:16:48,760 --> 00:16:53,320 Speaker 1: you actually change the meaning of the shots themselves, or 302 00:16:53,480 --> 00:16:57,040 Speaker 1: change the perception of what is contained in the shots. 303 00:16:57,480 --> 00:17:00,240 Speaker 1: And there's a memorable example that Kolashov describes in the book. 304 00:17:00,440 --> 00:17:03,840 Speaker 1: I'll just read it directly. He says, I saw this 305 00:17:03,880 --> 00:17:07,520 Speaker 1: scene I think in a film by Razumni, a priest's 306 00:17:07,560 --> 00:17:10,639 Speaker 1: house with a portrait of Nicholas, the second hanging on 307 00:17:10,720 --> 00:17:13,800 Speaker 1: the wall that though that would be the czar right uh, 308 00:17:14,000 --> 00:17:16,639 Speaker 1: the village is taken over by the Red Army. The 309 00:17:16,720 --> 00:17:20,040 Speaker 1: frightened priest turns the portrait over, and on the reverse 310 00:17:20,119 --> 00:17:23,720 Speaker 1: side of the portrait is the smiling face of Lenin. However, 311 00:17:24,040 --> 00:17:27,080 Speaker 1: this is a familiar portrait, a portrait in which Lenin 312 00:17:27,280 --> 00:17:30,439 Speaker 1: is not smiling. But that spot in the film was 313 00:17:30,480 --> 00:17:33,639 Speaker 1: so funny, and it was so uproariously received by the 314 00:17:33,680 --> 00:17:38,320 Speaker 1: public that I, myself scrutinizing the portrait several times, saw 315 00:17:38,359 --> 00:17:43,200 Speaker 1: the portrait of Lenin as smiling. Especially intrigued by this, 316 00:17:43,520 --> 00:17:46,280 Speaker 1: I obtained the portrait that was used and saw that 317 00:17:46,320 --> 00:17:49,359 Speaker 1: the expression on the face in the portrait was serious. 318 00:17:49,800 --> 00:17:53,600 Speaker 1: The montage was so edited that we involuntarily imbued a 319 00:17:53,720 --> 00:17:58,560 Speaker 1: serious face with a changed expression characteristic of that playful moment. 320 00:17:59,000 --> 00:18:01,840 Speaker 1: In other words, the work of the actor was altered 321 00:18:01,920 --> 00:18:05,320 Speaker 1: by means of montage. In this way, montage had a 322 00:18:05,359 --> 00:18:09,040 Speaker 1: colossal influence on the effect of the material. It became 323 00:18:09,040 --> 00:18:12,280 Speaker 1: apparent that it was possible to change the actor's work, 324 00:18:12,640 --> 00:18:16,679 Speaker 1: his movements, his very behavior in either one direction or 325 00:18:16,760 --> 00:18:20,560 Speaker 1: the other through montage. I thought this was a great example, 326 00:18:20,560 --> 00:18:23,080 Speaker 1: because I haven't seen the film in question. But but 327 00:18:23,160 --> 00:18:27,639 Speaker 1: I can understand exactly the effect he's describing here with 328 00:18:27,680 --> 00:18:30,879 Speaker 1: this portrait of Lenin because of the tone of the scene. 329 00:18:30,960 --> 00:18:34,439 Speaker 1: The context makes it darkly comedic, like it's funny, but 330 00:18:34,480 --> 00:18:38,440 Speaker 1: it's also threatening, that a serious or neutral face could 331 00:18:38,480 --> 00:18:42,600 Speaker 1: be perceived as having a kind of wicked grin. M. Yeah, 332 00:18:43,440 --> 00:18:47,120 Speaker 1: you know, this reminds me just in general, of any 333 00:18:47,119 --> 00:18:48,560 Speaker 1: time you have kind of a a kind of a portrait 334 00:18:48,720 --> 00:18:51,280 Speaker 1: he had a painting or a photograph. Um, I guess that. 335 00:18:51,400 --> 00:18:54,560 Speaker 1: You know, just in general outside of film, it can 336 00:18:54,560 --> 00:18:58,360 Speaker 1: seem to take on different dimensions based on what you 337 00:18:58,400 --> 00:19:02,280 Speaker 1: are doing or what your mindset is. If you're sort 338 00:19:02,280 --> 00:19:05,600 Speaker 1: of imagining that the that the subject of the painting 339 00:19:05,680 --> 00:19:08,040 Speaker 1: or picture can see you, or you're leaning into that 340 00:19:08,119 --> 00:19:14,159 Speaker 1: sort of interpretation, like why is Vigo the Carpathian staring 341 00:19:14,160 --> 00:19:16,600 Speaker 1: in there like that? Is he? Is he proud? Is 342 00:19:16,600 --> 00:19:19,520 Speaker 1: he angry at me? Is he smiling? Oh? That makes 343 00:19:19,520 --> 00:19:22,560 Speaker 1: me wonder did they when the film Ghostbusters too, did 344 00:19:22,560 --> 00:19:26,000 Speaker 1: they have multiple paintings of Vigo with slightly different expressions 345 00:19:26,040 --> 00:19:29,280 Speaker 1: on his face or did they just use one portrait 346 00:19:29,359 --> 00:19:31,520 Speaker 1: and and rely on the cool a shov effect? For 347 00:19:31,760 --> 00:19:34,399 Speaker 1: I read emotions into it. I wish I thought of 348 00:19:34,440 --> 00:19:37,439 Speaker 1: this earlier. Well, anyway, so we're about to get to 349 00:19:37,520 --> 00:19:42,160 Speaker 1: the description of the main alleged experiment that establishes the 350 00:19:42,160 --> 00:19:44,560 Speaker 1: this that we're about to get into canonical cool Ashov 351 00:19:44,600 --> 00:19:49,879 Speaker 1: effect territory. So, following this realization about the power of 352 00:19:50,040 --> 00:19:53,760 Speaker 1: editing or montage to change what is perceived within the 353 00:19:53,800 --> 00:19:57,879 Speaker 1: shot itself, there's this famous story about an experiment cool 354 00:19:57,880 --> 00:20:00,600 Speaker 1: a Shov supposedly carried out to put the idea to 355 00:20:00,680 --> 00:20:03,639 Speaker 1: the test. And I want to flag at the beginning 356 00:20:03,640 --> 00:20:07,159 Speaker 1: here that multiple sources I have read raised questions about 357 00:20:07,240 --> 00:20:09,880 Speaker 1: whether this test ever actually took place in the way 358 00:20:09,960 --> 00:20:13,560 Speaker 1: it is described. Um, but I'd say it doesn't especially matter, 359 00:20:13,640 --> 00:20:16,000 Speaker 1: because we're going to be just using this story to 360 00:20:16,119 --> 00:20:18,480 Speaker 1: illustrate an idea. Then we can look at other tests 361 00:20:18,560 --> 00:20:22,280 Speaker 1: later not to provide evidential force that it must be, 362 00:20:22,320 --> 00:20:25,880 Speaker 1: as Kolashev says, So whether or not this event actually 363 00:20:25,880 --> 00:20:28,520 Speaker 1: took place exactly like this, this is how it's described 364 00:20:28,560 --> 00:20:31,520 Speaker 1: in a book called How Movies Work by Bruce Kawen. 365 00:20:32,000 --> 00:20:37,000 Speaker 1: This was University of California Press. Kawen writes as follows 366 00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:41,400 Speaker 1: about Kolashev's experiment. He found some old footage of a 367 00:20:41,440 --> 00:20:46,879 Speaker 1: pre revolutionary actor named Yvonne mujukin a single long take, 368 00:20:47,160 --> 00:20:50,440 Speaker 1: probably a makeup test, in which the face showed an 369 00:20:50,520 --> 00:20:55,800 Speaker 1: unvarying neutral expression. Kulashev then cut three different shots into 370 00:20:55,840 --> 00:20:58,800 Speaker 1: this take, one of a child playing with a toy, 371 00:20:59,440 --> 00:21:02,239 Speaker 1: one of a bowl of soup, and one of an 372 00:21:02,280 --> 00:21:05,600 Speaker 1: old woman in a coffin the sequence when as follows 373 00:21:06,040 --> 00:21:13,960 Speaker 1: face child face, soup face, woman face. When he showed 374 00:21:13,960 --> 00:21:16,280 Speaker 1: this short film to an audience, although this may be 375 00:21:16,400 --> 00:21:19,639 Speaker 1: a bit of cinematic folklore, they remarked what a great 376 00:21:19,720 --> 00:21:23,560 Speaker 1: actor Masukan was. They enjoyed the subtle way he expressed 377 00:21:23,560 --> 00:21:27,640 Speaker 1: affectionate delight at the child's playing, hunger for soup, and 378 00:21:27,720 --> 00:21:30,160 Speaker 1: grief at the death of the woman whom they assumed 379 00:21:30,320 --> 00:21:33,560 Speaker 1: was his mother. The Masoukan experiment, as it has since 380 00:21:33,600 --> 00:21:36,399 Speaker 1: been called, had a permanent impact on the theory of 381 00:21:36,440 --> 00:21:40,199 Speaker 1: screen acting. It showed that audiences will read shots in 382 00:21:40,320 --> 00:21:43,400 Speaker 1: terms of each other, and therefore that a film actor 383 00:21:43,720 --> 00:21:47,399 Speaker 1: who ought ideally to under act could allow the montage 384 00:21:47,480 --> 00:21:50,360 Speaker 1: to suggest some of his or her emotions and thoughts. 385 00:21:50,800 --> 00:21:53,959 Speaker 1: The point for our immediate purposes, however, is simply that 386 00:21:54,000 --> 00:21:58,159 Speaker 1: the impression of continuity is often generated by the audience. 387 00:21:59,320 --> 00:22:02,359 Speaker 1: Now will come with some additional history of research to 388 00:22:02,760 --> 00:22:06,879 Speaker 1: build upon this later, But Kulashov used this alleged experiment 389 00:22:06,960 --> 00:22:10,200 Speaker 1: in support of his broader theory of how film worked, 390 00:22:10,880 --> 00:22:12,760 Speaker 1: one of the main points of which was that the 391 00:22:12,800 --> 00:22:16,840 Speaker 1: soul of a film was in the editing process, and 392 00:22:16,880 --> 00:22:19,679 Speaker 1: that the edit of the film actually had more power 393 00:22:19,880 --> 00:22:24,160 Speaker 1: over the film's effect than the contents of any individual shot. 394 00:22:24,880 --> 00:22:27,199 Speaker 1: I think another way of phrasing this is that the 395 00:22:27,240 --> 00:22:30,719 Speaker 1: way you edit your footage together is ultimately more important 396 00:22:30,800 --> 00:22:34,520 Speaker 1: than what an actor does while the cameras rolling, because 397 00:22:34,560 --> 00:22:37,760 Speaker 1: the meaning of an actor's performance can be totally changed 398 00:22:37,880 --> 00:22:42,280 Speaker 1: by the editing context. And in fact, Kolashov allegedly carried 399 00:22:42,280 --> 00:22:45,280 Speaker 1: out a couple of other experiments along these lines that 400 00:22:45,359 --> 00:22:50,320 Speaker 1: are known sometimes as creative geography and creative anatomy. Creative 401 00:22:50,320 --> 00:22:55,240 Speaker 1: anatomy would be using shots of parts of different bodies 402 00:22:55,320 --> 00:22:58,840 Speaker 1: from different actors, creating the illusion that they all belonged 403 00:22:58,880 --> 00:23:00,679 Speaker 1: to the same person. So you and show a different 404 00:23:00,720 --> 00:23:04,359 Speaker 1: person's hands, lips, legs, and so forth, and create an 405 00:23:04,359 --> 00:23:08,639 Speaker 1: imaginary composite person that doesn't exist. He also did the 406 00:23:08,680 --> 00:23:11,400 Speaker 1: same thing with physical geography, so he would have, for example, 407 00:23:11,440 --> 00:23:15,560 Speaker 1: a shot of people walking along a street in Moscow 408 00:23:16,080 --> 00:23:18,720 Speaker 1: and then maybe going up a staircase and then going 409 00:23:18,760 --> 00:23:22,160 Speaker 1: to a mansion that was actually the White House in Washington, 410 00:23:22,280 --> 00:23:25,560 Speaker 1: d C. Creating the illusion that they're all there's just 411 00:23:25,640 --> 00:23:28,600 Speaker 1: one continuous walk, all in the same place, but they're 412 00:23:28,640 --> 00:23:31,719 Speaker 1: on different continents, which at the time they looked at 413 00:23:31,720 --> 00:23:34,879 Speaker 1: that discovery as revelatory. They're like, oh wow, like you 414 00:23:35,160 --> 00:23:39,520 Speaker 1: actually don't need to shoot stuff that's in the same 415 00:23:39,560 --> 00:23:42,520 Speaker 1: geographic place in order to suggest being in the same 416 00:23:42,520 --> 00:23:46,480 Speaker 1: geographic place. You can invent geographies that don't exist out 417 00:23:46,520 --> 00:23:49,719 Speaker 1: of different parts, which, of course now it's just this 418 00:23:49,800 --> 00:23:52,800 Speaker 1: is just how you make films. You know, you you 419 00:23:52,800 --> 00:23:55,680 Speaker 1: you have one exterior and maybe the interior is a 420 00:23:55,760 --> 00:23:58,720 Speaker 1: set or it's somewhere on the other side of the country. 421 00:23:58,800 --> 00:24:01,560 Speaker 1: You know. Um, you know, you read you read any 422 00:24:01,800 --> 00:24:04,720 Speaker 1: behind the scenes making just any of your favorite films, 423 00:24:04,720 --> 00:24:07,600 Speaker 1: and you'll find stuff like like the Library and Ghostbusters 424 00:24:07,640 --> 00:24:10,240 Speaker 1: the first Ghostbusters film, I think parts of that are 425 00:24:10,240 --> 00:24:12,280 Speaker 1: and just you know, they're from all over depending on 426 00:24:12,320 --> 00:24:15,000 Speaker 1: whether you're outside or your inside you you're in the basement. 427 00:24:15,880 --> 00:24:17,919 Speaker 1: And then uh, and then also when it comes to 428 00:24:18,080 --> 00:24:20,399 Speaker 1: the anatomy question here, I mean it's it's why you 429 00:24:20,480 --> 00:24:24,359 Speaker 1: have stunt doubles, body doubles. It's why you can finish 430 00:24:24,359 --> 00:24:29,480 Speaker 1: a film. Uh, even though Bell Leghosi died whilst shooting it. Right, 431 00:24:29,720 --> 00:24:32,320 Speaker 1: So that's probably you're getting into the poor example of it, 432 00:24:32,400 --> 00:24:35,879 Speaker 1: and that that does specific example no. Plan nine for 433 00:24:35,960 --> 00:24:38,959 Speaker 1: matter space is a is a wonderful example of of 434 00:24:39,000 --> 00:24:48,040 Speaker 1: what you can do with the magic of cinema editing. 435 00:24:49,119 --> 00:24:51,760 Speaker 1: But but to get back to the core idea here, 436 00:24:51,880 --> 00:24:54,280 Speaker 1: these spitting and I think it'll be important for us 437 00:24:54,320 --> 00:24:57,200 Speaker 1: to think about the coolest off effect in a couple 438 00:24:57,200 --> 00:25:00,360 Speaker 1: of different ways. One is just the broader idea that 439 00:25:01,280 --> 00:25:05,640 Speaker 1: editing context can radically change the meaning of individual shots, 440 00:25:05,680 --> 00:25:08,760 Speaker 1: which I think we just all know from experiences is 441 00:25:08,800 --> 00:25:13,200 Speaker 1: obviously true. This is a fact about how movies work. 442 00:25:13,840 --> 00:25:16,360 Speaker 1: But the other thing is the more specific claim of 443 00:25:16,400 --> 00:25:19,480 Speaker 1: the alleged MOSU can experiment that you can take a 444 00:25:19,600 --> 00:25:24,520 Speaker 1: totally neutral shot of an actor's face displaying no emotion whatsoever, 445 00:25:25,000 --> 00:25:29,080 Speaker 1: and by intercutting it with other footage you can change 446 00:25:29,119 --> 00:25:32,800 Speaker 1: what the audience perceives. In those shots of the actor's face, 447 00:25:33,160 --> 00:25:36,560 Speaker 1: you can the audience will come to think that, you know, 448 00:25:36,680 --> 00:25:39,680 Speaker 1: a neutral face intercut with the image of a child 449 00:25:39,760 --> 00:25:43,000 Speaker 1: playing is like a happy parental uh, you know, and 450 00:25:43,400 --> 00:25:45,840 Speaker 1: like a bowl of soup means they're they're they're filled 451 00:25:45,880 --> 00:25:48,560 Speaker 1: with pangs of hunger, even though it's the exact same 452 00:25:48,600 --> 00:25:52,320 Speaker 1: neutral footage of the face. So that's the more specific claim. 453 00:25:52,400 --> 00:25:54,720 Speaker 1: And I think it's that second one that's more questionable 454 00:25:54,760 --> 00:25:57,280 Speaker 1: but but also interesting in its own regard. And we're 455 00:25:57,280 --> 00:25:59,639 Speaker 1: gonna look at at least a couple of papers about 456 00:25:59,680 --> 00:26:01,920 Speaker 1: that as we go on, but I thought it might 457 00:26:01,920 --> 00:26:04,400 Speaker 1: be good to just discuss a few examples that this 458 00:26:04,600 --> 00:26:08,560 Speaker 1: uh thinking about this effect calls to mind from uh 459 00:26:08,800 --> 00:26:11,359 Speaker 1: from movies that you and I have seen. And one 460 00:26:11,400 --> 00:26:15,040 Speaker 1: thing I find very interesting is that, at least personally anecdotally, 461 00:26:15,680 --> 00:26:18,439 Speaker 1: I feel a kind of experience of the coolest Shov effect, 462 00:26:18,520 --> 00:26:22,800 Speaker 1: even the more specific version, with neutral faces in movies 463 00:26:22,840 --> 00:26:28,000 Speaker 1: that don't actually involve real faces. A really great example 464 00:26:28,000 --> 00:26:30,879 Speaker 1: I came across was mentioned on the TV Tropes website 465 00:26:30,880 --> 00:26:33,080 Speaker 1: for the coolers Shov effect. If you never never been 466 00:26:33,080 --> 00:26:35,600 Speaker 1: to that website, it's a great it's like a wiki style, 467 00:26:35,680 --> 00:26:38,400 Speaker 1: you know, user submitted content. But it just includes big 468 00:26:38,440 --> 00:26:42,960 Speaker 1: lists of different sorts of conventions of of TV and 469 00:26:43,040 --> 00:26:46,959 Speaker 1: movies and things like that, narrative conventions, filmmaking conventions, uh, 470 00:26:47,080 --> 00:26:50,119 Speaker 1: cliches and such. And so they've got a page on 471 00:26:50,119 --> 00:26:53,080 Speaker 1: the cooler shov effect and it mentioned how in two 472 00:26:53,080 --> 00:26:55,760 Speaker 1: thousand one of Space Odyssey, which I thought was a 473 00:26:55,800 --> 00:26:59,840 Speaker 1: fantastic example. Oh, I absolutely agree, and I wouldn't have 474 00:27:00,000 --> 00:27:02,919 Speaker 1: thought of it at first myself. But yeah, you just 475 00:27:03,000 --> 00:27:06,359 Speaker 1: have that red light that how has no face at all, 476 00:27:06,440 --> 00:27:09,160 Speaker 1: not even the semblance of the face exactly. So yeah, 477 00:27:09,200 --> 00:27:11,440 Speaker 1: it's not even a computer screen that kind of looks 478 00:27:11,480 --> 00:27:14,320 Speaker 1: like a face. It's just a red light. Uh. And 479 00:27:14,400 --> 00:27:17,679 Speaker 1: so that completely removes the possibility of picking up on 480 00:27:18,240 --> 00:27:22,000 Speaker 1: queues and micro expressions based on the feelings or mind 481 00:27:22,040 --> 00:27:24,880 Speaker 1: state of a human actor. House face is just the light. 482 00:27:25,440 --> 00:27:29,240 Speaker 1: And yet the editing context, at least for me, absolutely 483 00:27:29,320 --> 00:27:34,359 Speaker 1: causes me to read emotional expression and emotional content into 484 00:27:34,440 --> 00:27:37,720 Speaker 1: the red light. So sometimes, depending on what it's being 485 00:27:37,760 --> 00:27:41,160 Speaker 1: intercut with, the light looks calm. Other times the red 486 00:27:41,240 --> 00:27:45,720 Speaker 1: light looks suspicious or even paranoid. Yeah, Yeah, that's I think. 487 00:27:45,760 --> 00:27:48,480 Speaker 1: This is this is a this is a great read. Um. 488 00:27:48,560 --> 00:27:51,479 Speaker 1: It reminds me of another example that I ran across. 489 00:27:51,600 --> 00:27:53,920 Speaker 1: I was I was just looking for at first, I 490 00:27:54,000 --> 00:27:56,960 Speaker 1: was just looking for mainstream examples, you know, and h 491 00:27:57,080 --> 00:28:00,760 Speaker 1: I ran across um a video from king star Wars 492 00:28:00,800 --> 00:28:03,639 Speaker 1: dot net that points to some examples in Star Wars, 493 00:28:03,800 --> 00:28:06,280 Speaker 1: the first of which is is just pretty pretty standard. 494 00:28:06,359 --> 00:28:08,560 Speaker 1: I imagine, Um, you have the scene where Luke is 495 00:28:08,600 --> 00:28:11,679 Speaker 1: surveying the destruction of his aunt and uncle's home, shots 496 00:28:11,680 --> 00:28:15,280 Speaker 1: of devastation, shots of of Luke's face. Uh, you know, 497 00:28:15,359 --> 00:28:18,879 Speaker 1: so they inform each other. But the more impressive examples, 498 00:28:18,920 --> 00:28:22,040 Speaker 1: I thought, we're discussions of how you have shots of 499 00:28:22,119 --> 00:28:26,000 Speaker 1: Darth Vader during the final confrontation in UM the Return 500 00:28:26,040 --> 00:28:29,240 Speaker 1: of the Jedi. Uh, this is this is where uh, 501 00:28:29,320 --> 00:28:32,920 Speaker 1: Emperor Palpatine has has had Luke Invader fight, and then 502 00:28:33,040 --> 00:28:36,960 Speaker 1: Luke refuses to kill his father, and so, uh, the 503 00:28:37,000 --> 00:28:39,640 Speaker 1: Emperor is just going to force lightning him to death 504 00:28:39,680 --> 00:28:42,600 Speaker 1: in front of Vader. And we of course, you know 505 00:28:42,680 --> 00:28:44,840 Speaker 1: later in the film we see Vader's face, but you 506 00:28:44,840 --> 00:28:47,320 Speaker 1: don't see Vader's face. You just see this, uh, this 507 00:28:48,080 --> 00:28:53,960 Speaker 1: emotionless bug skull helmet. But in that scene where we're 508 00:28:54,240 --> 00:28:57,440 Speaker 1: seeing what he's seeing, we're seeing shots of Luke's suffering, 509 00:28:57,520 --> 00:29:02,240 Speaker 1: writhing under the agony of the force lightning. Um we 510 00:29:02,120 --> 00:29:04,920 Speaker 1: we we we see that change Invader, even though we 511 00:29:04,920 --> 00:29:07,520 Speaker 1: don't see his face. I totally agree. I think this 512 00:29:07,600 --> 00:29:10,440 Speaker 1: is another great example. Yeah, it's just the mask, so 513 00:29:10,560 --> 00:29:13,720 Speaker 1: you can't be picking up on human expressions. But yeah, 514 00:29:13,760 --> 00:29:17,120 Speaker 1: you read expression into the mask face based on what's 515 00:29:17,160 --> 00:29:22,760 Speaker 1: happening to Luke, you start to almost see him feeling compassion. Yeah. 516 00:29:22,760 --> 00:29:25,560 Speaker 1: Another example they bring up is the Mandalorian TV show 517 00:29:25,640 --> 00:29:28,520 Speaker 1: where through most of it, the title character of the 518 00:29:28,520 --> 00:29:31,800 Speaker 1: Mandalorian does not remove his helmet. And you probably have 519 00:29:32,080 --> 00:29:35,520 Speaker 1: more room to even explore how this works in that 520 00:29:35,600 --> 00:29:39,080 Speaker 1: TV show because you know Vader Vader's you know, you're 521 00:29:39,160 --> 00:29:43,040 Speaker 1: generally dealing with severe situations. But in the over the 522 00:29:43,080 --> 00:29:45,840 Speaker 1: course of the Mandalorian TV show, you have him interacting 523 00:29:45,880 --> 00:29:48,960 Speaker 1: with with light and cute things, with comedic things as 524 00:29:48,960 --> 00:29:51,960 Speaker 1: well as serious things, and so there's plenty of opportunity 525 00:29:52,280 --> 00:29:55,760 Speaker 1: for that. Again, this you know, emotionless Mandalorian helmet in 526 00:29:55,760 --> 00:30:00,120 Speaker 1: this case uh to to seem to convey uh for 527 00:30:00,160 --> 00:30:02,880 Speaker 1: an emotions. Uh. And of course that's not to discount 528 00:30:02,920 --> 00:30:06,040 Speaker 1: body language and plenty of other you know, cues that 529 00:30:07,040 --> 00:30:09,760 Speaker 1: enable us to lean into it. But but still, you know, 530 00:30:09,800 --> 00:30:12,160 Speaker 1: all these things work together to help us form that 531 00:30:12,200 --> 00:30:15,360 Speaker 1: theory of mind. What's going on inside Vader's mind, what's 532 00:30:15,360 --> 00:30:19,800 Speaker 1: going on inside the Mandalorian's mind, or Howe's mind. Absolutely, Yeah, 533 00:30:19,800 --> 00:30:23,000 Speaker 1: another great example. Now, one example I was I was 534 00:30:23,120 --> 00:30:26,760 Speaker 1: looking into and thinking about two brings us back to Hitchcock. 535 00:30:26,840 --> 00:30:31,000 Speaker 1: I was thinking about Psycho, which of course has has 536 00:30:31,040 --> 00:30:33,800 Speaker 1: a number of scenes that are very iconic, and you know, 537 00:30:33,840 --> 00:30:36,080 Speaker 1: we that easily come to mind, and you may even 538 00:30:36,080 --> 00:30:38,920 Speaker 1: be able to picture even if you haven't seen the film. Um, 539 00:30:38,960 --> 00:30:41,680 Speaker 1: but there's there's one scene in particular where Janet Lee's 540 00:30:42,000 --> 00:30:44,680 Speaker 1: Marian Crane is changing clothes in her room at the 541 00:30:44,720 --> 00:30:49,920 Speaker 1: Bates Motel. Norman Bates played by the handsome Anthony Perkins, Uh, 542 00:30:50,080 --> 00:30:52,720 Speaker 1: is in an adjacent room. He approaches a picture frame, 543 00:30:52,840 --> 00:30:56,360 Speaker 1: he removes it and reveals a peephole. Uh. He puts 544 00:30:56,400 --> 00:30:58,200 Speaker 1: his eye to the peepole, and we switched to a 545 00:30:58,240 --> 00:31:00,960 Speaker 1: p O V shot of his voice rhythm. Here's Marion 546 00:31:01,040 --> 00:31:05,040 Speaker 1: Crane undressing. Then a close up of his eye eyeball 547 00:31:05,200 --> 00:31:08,320 Speaker 1: like side view of his eyeball staring through the peephole. 548 00:31:08,720 --> 00:31:10,320 Speaker 1: She moves out of you in the in the p 549 00:31:10,440 --> 00:31:13,080 Speaker 1: o V shot, and then he places the picture frame 550 00:31:13,120 --> 00:31:16,320 Speaker 1: back over the peephole, back still turned to us. But 551 00:31:16,360 --> 00:31:19,600 Speaker 1: then he turns and we see his face, and he 552 00:31:19,400 --> 00:31:22,160 Speaker 1: in his face is very interesting in this performance and 553 00:31:22,160 --> 00:31:25,640 Speaker 1: particularly in the scene because it is I mean, it's 554 00:31:25,680 --> 00:31:28,920 Speaker 1: it's hard to to to register exactly what he's feeling like. 555 00:31:29,040 --> 00:31:32,000 Speaker 1: It's not like it's kind of blank. I mean, I 556 00:31:32,120 --> 00:31:34,200 Speaker 1: end up reading into it if i'm you know, I'm 557 00:31:34,240 --> 00:31:36,480 Speaker 1: thinking about it, like what's he thinking? Obviously I know 558 00:31:36,560 --> 00:31:38,560 Speaker 1: what's about to happen. He's going to go in there 559 00:31:38,560 --> 00:31:40,680 Speaker 1: and kill her while she's in the shower. So it's 560 00:31:40,720 --> 00:31:43,760 Speaker 1: easy to read in like grim determination. But he's not like, 561 00:31:44,080 --> 00:31:48,560 Speaker 1: you know, snarling and snickering with with with fiendish desire 562 00:31:48,680 --> 00:31:53,240 Speaker 1: in this scene or anything. Um. And it's also interesting 563 00:31:53,280 --> 00:31:56,719 Speaker 1: to think about this in terms of of subversion, because 564 00:31:57,240 --> 00:31:59,200 Speaker 1: you know, we think of Anthony Perkins now, we think 565 00:31:59,240 --> 00:32:02,400 Speaker 1: of Psycho. We think of him playing this um, this 566 00:32:02,760 --> 00:32:07,400 Speaker 1: very troubled, uh murderous individual. But prior to this film, 567 00:32:07,440 --> 00:32:10,120 Speaker 1: he was like a Jimmy Stewart esque leading man in 568 00:32:10,160 --> 00:32:13,600 Speaker 1: a former teen heartthrob. So, so Hitchcock was averting this 569 00:32:14,000 --> 00:32:16,400 Speaker 1: image in Psycho. So it's it's interesting to think about 570 00:32:16,440 --> 00:32:19,440 Speaker 1: that watching a scene like this. Yeah. So I also 571 00:32:19,480 --> 00:32:22,040 Speaker 1: have to add that having your character look through a 572 00:32:22,080 --> 00:32:26,680 Speaker 1: peopole like this is is hardly like neutral. That gives 573 00:32:26,760 --> 00:32:28,800 Speaker 1: us a different idea. I mean, in the scene earlier, 574 00:32:28,840 --> 00:32:32,080 Speaker 1: he's he's got a very boy next door kind of energy. 575 00:32:32,120 --> 00:32:35,080 Speaker 1: He seems, uh, you know, just kind of like a sweet, shy, 576 00:32:35,160 --> 00:32:38,400 Speaker 1: handsome young guy. Yeah. But yeah, once he's looking through 577 00:32:38,400 --> 00:32:41,080 Speaker 1: the people, that does charge the way we read his 578 00:32:41,160 --> 00:32:45,239 Speaker 1: face very differently. Right now, speaking of Hitchcock and uh 579 00:32:45,280 --> 00:32:49,640 Speaker 1: and voyeurism, it's also worth worth noting that Rear Window, 580 00:32:50,040 --> 00:32:52,760 Speaker 1: starring the actual Jimmy Stewart, has plenty of examples of 581 00:32:52,800 --> 00:32:54,320 Speaker 1: this sort of thing, where, you know, a lot of 582 00:32:54,320 --> 00:32:57,760 Speaker 1: that movie is Jimmy Stewart's character looking through a telescope 583 00:32:58,360 --> 00:33:00,320 Speaker 1: and then we have po V shots of he is 584 00:33:00,360 --> 00:33:04,240 Speaker 1: seeing in other apartments and then he and then cuts 585 00:33:04,280 --> 00:33:07,160 Speaker 1: back to him. Yeah, now one one more sort of 586 00:33:07,280 --> 00:33:08,960 Speaker 1: it's sort of an example of it, but also kind 587 00:33:08,960 --> 00:33:12,320 Speaker 1: of a subversion of it. Is a Spielberg face. This 588 00:33:12,480 --> 00:33:14,600 Speaker 1: is the close up of awe and wonder on an 589 00:33:14,600 --> 00:33:17,880 Speaker 1: actor's glazed face in reaction to something they're looking at, 590 00:33:17,960 --> 00:33:20,520 Speaker 1: like a like a big old shark or a UFO 591 00:33:20,880 --> 00:33:23,360 Speaker 1: or a field full of dinosaurs or something. Well, in 592 00:33:23,360 --> 00:33:25,720 Speaker 1: the more specific sense, generally, I would say, these are 593 00:33:25,720 --> 00:33:30,600 Speaker 1: not neutral faces, but they are faces that are clearly 594 00:33:30,600 --> 00:33:34,000 Speaker 1: they're having some kind of powerful inner experience. But it 595 00:33:34,200 --> 00:33:36,840 Speaker 1: sometimes might be ambiguous if you were to just see 596 00:33:36,840 --> 00:33:39,800 Speaker 1: the face by itself, But then when it's inter cut 597 00:33:39,840 --> 00:33:43,640 Speaker 1: with what they're looking at, it's it's very often awe, right, 598 00:33:43,760 --> 00:33:46,920 Speaker 1: And and sometimes this is actually manipulated to uh, to 599 00:33:47,240 --> 00:33:50,760 Speaker 1: a comedic effect online. For instance, in the Jurassic Park 600 00:33:50,800 --> 00:33:53,120 Speaker 1: sequence where they're you know, they're awe, they're getting out 601 00:33:53,160 --> 00:33:56,280 Speaker 1: of the car. They're just you know, completely zombified by 602 00:33:56,320 --> 00:33:59,360 Speaker 1: something utterly amazing and holy before them. You don't know 603 00:33:59,400 --> 00:34:00,600 Speaker 1: what it is yet. I mean, you know it's going 604 00:34:00,640 --> 00:34:03,240 Speaker 1: to be dinosaurs, but you haven't seen it yourself yet. 605 00:34:03,520 --> 00:34:05,840 Speaker 1: And so I feel feel like there's been a number 606 00:34:05,960 --> 00:34:09,880 Speaker 1: of of comedic debts where someone has has inserted something 607 00:34:09,920 --> 00:34:13,839 Speaker 1: else there, uh, you know, something maybe more mundane than 608 00:34:14,280 --> 00:34:17,560 Speaker 1: than gigantic dinosaurs brought back to life through science the 609 00:34:17,560 --> 00:34:21,440 Speaker 1: new Taco Bell menu item exactly. All right, Well, we 610 00:34:21,520 --> 00:34:23,239 Speaker 1: ended up having a lot to say about the cool 611 00:34:23,280 --> 00:34:25,680 Speaker 1: As shov effect. Actually, so I think we're gonna have 612 00:34:25,760 --> 00:34:28,640 Speaker 1: to call part one there. But when we come back, 613 00:34:28,800 --> 00:34:32,160 Speaker 1: we can talk about some uh, some attempts to replicate 614 00:34:32,200 --> 00:34:35,680 Speaker 1: the original cool As show, study, some interpretations of what 615 00:34:35,760 --> 00:34:38,240 Speaker 1: maybe lying behind it to the extent that it's true, 616 00:34:38,280 --> 00:34:41,440 Speaker 1: and then maybe a little more research about ambiguous spaces 617 00:34:41,480 --> 00:34:43,799 Speaker 1: in general. In the meantime, if you would like to 618 00:34:43,800 --> 00:34:46,080 Speaker 1: listen to other episodes of Stuff to Blow Your Mind, 619 00:34:46,200 --> 00:34:47,680 Speaker 1: you can find them in the Stuff to Blow Your 620 00:34:47,680 --> 00:34:51,719 Speaker 1: Mind podcast feed with core episodes on Tuesday and Thursday, 621 00:34:52,040 --> 00:34:55,480 Speaker 1: listener mail on Monday, artifact on Wednesday, and hey, we're 622 00:34:55,480 --> 00:34:58,520 Speaker 1: talking about film, so be aware that on Fridays that's 623 00:34:58,520 --> 00:35:01,040 Speaker 1: weird how cinema. That's our time to outside most serious 624 00:35:01,080 --> 00:35:04,960 Speaker 1: concerns and just talk about a weird or unusual film. 625 00:35:05,160 --> 00:35:08,080 Speaker 1: Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer Seth 626 00:35:08,160 --> 00:35:10,640 Speaker 1: Nicholas Johnson. If you would like to get in touch 627 00:35:10,719 --> 00:35:12,919 Speaker 1: with us with feedback on this episode or any other 628 00:35:13,000 --> 00:35:15,480 Speaker 1: to suggest topic for the future, or just to say hello, 629 00:35:15,560 --> 00:35:18,040 Speaker 1: You can email us at contact Got Stuff to Blow 630 00:35:18,080 --> 00:35:27,960 Speaker 1: Your Mind dot com. Stuff to Blow Your Mind is 631 00:35:28,000 --> 00:35:30,680 Speaker 1: production of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts for my 632 00:35:30,719 --> 00:35:33,800 Speaker 1: heart Radio, visit the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or 633 00:35:33,800 --> 00:35:44,359 Speaker 1: wherever you're listening to your favorite shows.