1
00:00:05,760 --> 00:00:07,320
Speaker 1: Hey, are you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind?

2
00:00:07,320 --> 00:00:09,960
Speaker 1: My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and

3
00:00:10,000 --> 00:00:13,200
Speaker 1: it's Saturday. Let's head into the vault this week. It

4
00:00:13,560 --> 00:00:16,200
Speaker 1: is part two of our series on the Coolest Jov Effect.

5
00:00:16,320 --> 00:00:25,040
Speaker 1: This episode originally aired January. I hope you enjoy Welcome

6
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:34,760
Speaker 1: to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of My Heart Radio. Hey,

7
00:00:34,920 --> 00:00:36,920
Speaker 1: welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My name is

8
00:00:37,000 --> 00:00:39,920
Speaker 1: Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and we're back with

9
00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:43,200
Speaker 1: part two of our series on the Coolest Jov Effect. Now,

10
00:00:43,240 --> 00:00:46,040
Speaker 1: as I explained last time, this is one that originally

11
00:00:46,080 --> 00:00:48,040
Speaker 1: was going to be one episode. We ended up splitting

12
00:00:48,080 --> 00:00:51,480
Speaker 1: it into so we're doing a little time traveling right now.

13
00:00:51,520 --> 00:00:54,400
Speaker 1: This is an out of sequence introduction, but I guess

14
00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:56,720
Speaker 1: from here we'll just jump right back into the middle

15
00:00:56,760 --> 00:01:00,320
Speaker 1: of our conversation from last time. Let's do it well. Anyway,

16
00:01:00,400 --> 00:01:03,040
Speaker 1: So I wanted to talk about a very interesting paper

17
00:01:03,520 --> 00:01:07,280
Speaker 1: that analyzed the the history and meaning of the cool

18
00:01:07,319 --> 00:01:12,080
Speaker 1: Shov effect and then also tried to recreate the Mojukan experiment.

19
00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:16,960
Speaker 1: So this paper was published in the Cinema Journal by

20
00:01:17,400 --> 00:01:21,559
Speaker 1: Stephen Prince and Wayne E. Hensley called the Coolershov Effect

21
00:01:21,680 --> 00:01:26,360
Speaker 1: Recreating the classic experiment your nineteen. I think both of

22
00:01:26,400 --> 00:01:30,399
Speaker 1: the authors on this paper were at the time professors

23
00:01:30,440 --> 00:01:34,280
Speaker 1: at Virginia Tech. Stephen Prince is a is a film

24
00:01:34,319 --> 00:01:35,800
Speaker 1: scholar who I know has done a lot of work

25
00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:39,080
Speaker 1: on a Kirakurasawa. And I'm not going to cover the

26
00:01:39,200 --> 00:01:41,480
Speaker 1: entire paper, but i just want to note some parts

27
00:01:41,480 --> 00:01:44,120
Speaker 1: of it that struck me as as relevant and interesting.

28
00:01:44,280 --> 00:01:47,880
Speaker 1: So they start off by telling the story of the

29
00:01:47,920 --> 00:01:51,680
Speaker 1: Kolashov effect experiment, the experiment with that actor mojuk In

30
00:01:51,760 --> 00:01:54,400
Speaker 1: making the neutral face and then either being intercut with

31
00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:57,280
Speaker 1: with soup or with the woman in the coffin, and

32
00:01:57,400 --> 00:02:01,040
Speaker 1: the audience is raving about how how expressive and powerful

33
00:02:01,120 --> 00:02:04,560
Speaker 1: the emotions in the performance were. Now, one thing they

34
00:02:04,560 --> 00:02:06,760
Speaker 1: do at the beginning is they note some differences in

35
00:02:06,800 --> 00:02:10,239
Speaker 1: the details of the story that arise from different recountings

36
00:02:10,240 --> 00:02:12,880
Speaker 1: of it, and so they end up casting doubt on

37
00:02:13,680 --> 00:02:17,000
Speaker 1: whether the accounts of this experiment are first of all,

38
00:02:17,080 --> 00:02:21,720
Speaker 1: historically accurate and second analytically valid, and so the author's

39
00:02:21,840 --> 00:02:24,320
Speaker 1: right quote. The goal here is to provide a clearer

40
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:29,560
Speaker 1: contextualization of Kolashev's work distinguishing between its incontrovertible importance for

41
00:02:29,600 --> 00:02:33,919
Speaker 1: an understanding of how cinema communicates and certain of its limitations,

42
00:02:34,040 --> 00:02:39,360
Speaker 1: especially it's incautious merging of theoretical claim and observational assertion.

43
00:02:39,760 --> 00:02:42,440
Speaker 1: As we will see, Kulashev may have been right, but

44
00:02:42,560 --> 00:02:45,960
Speaker 1: perhaps for the wrong reasons. So the top line of

45
00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:49,359
Speaker 1: this paper is that they try to recreate the Majukan

46
00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:52,000
Speaker 1: experiment as it is usually described, and they do not

47
00:02:52,200 --> 00:02:56,200
Speaker 1: produce the same result. But this doesn't necessarily mean that

48
00:02:56,240 --> 00:03:00,800
Speaker 1: the broader implications of the Kolashov effect are wrong theoretically, uh,

49
00:03:00,840 --> 00:03:03,320
Speaker 1: but it might mean something about the specific claims about

50
00:03:03,320 --> 00:03:08,000
Speaker 1: a neutral face. Um. So they start off talking Aboutkulashev's

51
00:03:08,080 --> 00:03:11,560
Speaker 1: belief in the power of montage and his arguments that

52
00:03:11,760 --> 00:03:14,680
Speaker 1: editing is far more important the meaning generated by a

53
00:03:14,720 --> 00:03:18,119
Speaker 1: film than the contents of the shots. So they talked

54
00:03:18,120 --> 00:03:20,760
Speaker 1: about the masou Can experiment and then the other things

55
00:03:20,760 --> 00:03:25,160
Speaker 1: we mentioned, creative geography and creative anatomy, and they described

56
00:03:25,200 --> 00:03:29,480
Speaker 1: the general takeaway from the masuk And experiment as follows. Quote.

57
00:03:30,080 --> 00:03:35,480
Speaker 1: Naturalistic emotive performances by actors were not considered by Kulashev

58
00:03:35,520 --> 00:03:39,800
Speaker 1: to be essential to cinema because of the demands of montage,

59
00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:44,840
Speaker 1: actors were to provide minimal restraint and fairly unambiguous gestural

60
00:03:44,920 --> 00:03:48,680
Speaker 1: and facial expressions. As kola Chev puts it, quote, the

61
00:03:48,720 --> 00:03:54,760
Speaker 1: presence of montage necessitated that the shots should be constructed simply, clearly, distinctly.

62
00:03:55,320 --> 00:03:58,440
Speaker 1: Otherwise the flickering of a rapid montage would not be

63
00:03:58,480 --> 00:04:01,920
Speaker 1: sufficient for a full scrutin any of its contents. And

64
00:04:01,960 --> 00:04:05,200
Speaker 1: then the authors go on reacting, partly against the over

65
00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:09,200
Speaker 1: emoting found in some silent films. Kulashov noted that quote,

66
00:04:09,200 --> 00:04:14,120
Speaker 1: a preoccupation with psychologism rooted in the actor's performance was

67
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:17,680
Speaker 1: quite useless for the cinema. So in a in a

68
00:04:17,680 --> 00:04:19,679
Speaker 1: lot of ways, it sounds like Kolashov kind of wanted

69
00:04:19,720 --> 00:04:22,599
Speaker 1: to take the acting out of acting. He was like,

70
00:04:22,839 --> 00:04:26,080
Speaker 1: there's too much psychology and acting. What we need instead

71
00:04:26,320 --> 00:04:29,840
Speaker 1: is just sort of like shots of actors doing kind

72
00:04:29,839 --> 00:04:33,680
Speaker 1: of like plain, unambiguous moments that can then be selected

73
00:04:33,720 --> 00:04:37,160
Speaker 1: by the editor to insert in a sequence to make

74
00:04:37,240 --> 00:04:40,839
Speaker 1: meaning of m Yeah, that's I mean, it reminds me

75
00:04:40,839 --> 00:04:45,920
Speaker 1: of so many other discussions we've had about performance and direction. Uh.

76
00:04:46,360 --> 00:04:49,480
Speaker 1: I'm always reminded of that that final sequence from A

77
00:04:49,560 --> 00:04:53,359
Speaker 1: Geary The Wrath of God, where you have you have

78
00:04:53,440 --> 00:04:56,520
Speaker 1: what ends up being a rather balanced and and and

79
00:04:56,720 --> 00:05:00,720
Speaker 1: interesting performance by klaus Kinsky. But apparently it's because Vernon

80
00:05:00,760 --> 00:05:03,760
Speaker 1: Herzag just wore him out, made him do take after

81
00:05:03,839 --> 00:05:07,880
Speaker 1: take until he wasn't doing like a frenzied um uh

82
00:05:07,920 --> 00:05:12,040
Speaker 1: you know, over almost you know, overacting overly intense performance.

83
00:05:12,560 --> 00:05:15,000
Speaker 1: He's not raging, he's just actually you know, you know,

84
00:05:15,920 --> 00:05:18,120
Speaker 1: emoting it at the level that the director wants and

85
00:05:18,120 --> 00:05:22,400
Speaker 1: then can therefore be uh be used effectively in the edit. Yeah,

86
00:05:22,839 --> 00:05:24,560
Speaker 1: and though if that story is true, it may have

87
00:05:24,600 --> 00:05:26,960
Speaker 1: worked in this case. So I want to say I

88
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:32,039
Speaker 1: do not necessarily endorse directing by exhaustion. No. Now that

89
00:05:32,160 --> 00:05:35,599
Speaker 1: was a special relationship obviously, But you often see this

90
00:05:35,640 --> 00:05:37,720
Speaker 1: brought up, and you know, there's this idea of like,

91
00:05:37,880 --> 00:05:40,919
Speaker 1: is this is it the is is this about the

92
00:05:40,960 --> 00:05:44,920
Speaker 1: actor and the acting performance? Is it about uh editing?

93
00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:48,080
Speaker 1: Is it about the director's vision? And you do often

94
00:05:48,080 --> 00:05:49,960
Speaker 1: see that sort of push and pull be a you know,

95
00:05:50,080 --> 00:05:54,120
Speaker 1: Klauskinski in vern Or Herzog or Jimmy Stewart and Alfred Hitchcock. Uh,

96
00:05:54,160 --> 00:05:56,479
Speaker 1: you know, the the actor has a certain vision about

97
00:05:56,480 --> 00:05:58,960
Speaker 1: how things want need to be, and then the director

98
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:01,839
Speaker 1: had maybe has another eye dea not not only about

99
00:06:01,880 --> 00:06:04,640
Speaker 1: like this particular character in this particular performance, but how

100
00:06:04,720 --> 00:06:07,960
Speaker 1: it fits into the the overall film, how it fits

101
00:06:07,960 --> 00:06:10,480
Speaker 1: into the final edit. And so you could you can

102
00:06:10,560 --> 00:06:13,000
Speaker 1: imagine somebody going into it with this this sort of

103
00:06:13,080 --> 00:06:16,159
Speaker 1: very kulashav idea of just shoot, all we needed as

104
00:06:16,240 --> 00:06:19,640
Speaker 1: neutral actors, we don't really need any of this emotion

105
00:06:19,680 --> 00:06:22,159
Speaker 1: one way or another. And um, I don't know, there's

106
00:06:22,160 --> 00:06:24,880
Speaker 1: probably some examples of filmmakers who tend to lean in

107
00:06:24,920 --> 00:06:29,559
Speaker 1: that direction with very neutral performances. Yeah, you could almost

108
00:06:29,600 --> 00:06:32,200
Speaker 1: look at that approach as uh, something that might be

109
00:06:32,240 --> 00:06:35,440
Speaker 1: more common saying like music videos and stuff than in

110
00:06:35,560 --> 00:06:38,520
Speaker 1: narrative films. Being probably find at some in narrative films

111
00:06:38,520 --> 00:06:43,160
Speaker 1: as well, where the filming part of the filmmaking process

112
00:06:43,440 --> 00:06:46,000
Speaker 1: is just sort of like creating a bunch of building

113
00:06:46,040 --> 00:06:50,560
Speaker 1: blocks that can later be used in various arrangements to

114
00:06:50,640 --> 00:06:55,359
Speaker 1: do whatever the director editor later decides to do with them. Yeah,

115
00:06:55,520 --> 00:06:58,200
Speaker 1: it also reminds me how, you know, a lot of

116
00:06:58,240 --> 00:07:00,760
Speaker 1: the films we're watching weird how cinema will sometimes feature

117
00:07:01,520 --> 00:07:05,120
Speaker 1: non actors or you know, very very green actors, But

118
00:07:05,960 --> 00:07:09,200
Speaker 1: the right sort of non actor can really excel in

119
00:07:09,240 --> 00:07:11,560
Speaker 1: a scene if utilized correctly, you know, like not the

120
00:07:11,640 --> 00:07:14,160
Speaker 1: kind of non actor where they're just really outrageous with

121
00:07:14,800 --> 00:07:17,720
Speaker 1: you know, but but where they're just sort of very

122
00:07:17,920 --> 00:07:20,200
Speaker 1: they're very neutral, they're they're almost barely there at all,

123
00:07:20,680 --> 00:07:22,520
Speaker 1: and if enough of the other stuff is in the

124
00:07:22,600 --> 00:07:25,080
Speaker 1: right place, it can really work. Now. I gotta say, though,

125
00:07:25,120 --> 00:07:28,560
Speaker 1: as this paper ends up describing kola Chev's theory of

126
00:07:28,720 --> 00:07:32,720
Speaker 1: film and montage, I think I can't agree with with

127
00:07:32,760 --> 00:07:35,320
Speaker 1: what it sounds like Coolshov's vision actually was, because cool

128
00:07:35,320 --> 00:07:38,640
Speaker 1: a Show apparently said things like the film shot is

129
00:07:38,680 --> 00:07:42,120
Speaker 1: not a still photograph. The shot is a sign a

130
00:07:42,320 --> 00:07:46,320
Speaker 1: letter for montage. So I think he's saying like a

131
00:07:46,360 --> 00:07:49,360
Speaker 1: still photograph can have meaning on its own, but a

132
00:07:49,400 --> 00:07:52,560
Speaker 1: shot in a movie is more like a letter in

133
00:07:52,720 --> 00:07:56,160
Speaker 1: a sentence. Something which does not have meaning on its own,

134
00:07:56,560 --> 00:08:00,320
Speaker 1: but is combined in sequence to make meaning clearly has

135
00:08:00,360 --> 00:08:03,040
Speaker 1: some truth to it, because, as we've said, editing does

136
00:08:03,280 --> 00:08:06,080
Speaker 1: constitute a major part of the the sense making or

137
00:08:06,120 --> 00:08:08,280
Speaker 1: meaning making of a film. But I think that's also

138
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:11,120
Speaker 1: pretty overstated. You know, a lot of meaning lies in

139
00:08:11,160 --> 00:08:13,800
Speaker 1: the editing, but the contents of the shots also stand

140
00:08:13,800 --> 00:08:17,240
Speaker 1: alone to a greater extent and and matter a lot

141
00:08:17,320 --> 00:08:21,400
Speaker 1: more than Kolashaw was giving credit here. Um. Though, again,

142
00:08:21,440 --> 00:08:23,400
Speaker 1: to be fair, I think it's important for us not

143
00:08:23,480 --> 00:08:26,600
Speaker 1: to forget that in the nineteen teens and early nineteen twenties,

144
00:08:27,240 --> 00:08:30,440
Speaker 1: you know, film was still fairly young, Editing was still

145
00:08:30,480 --> 00:08:34,760
Speaker 1: fairly new in cinema, and its powers were still being discovered. Uh.

146
00:08:34,800 --> 00:08:37,040
Speaker 1: You know, it's like, like we talked about the very

147
00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:40,439
Speaker 1: earliest films from the eighteen nineties and such, we're usually

148
00:08:40,480 --> 00:08:43,199
Speaker 1: not edited at all. They'd just be one continuous shot.

149
00:08:43,720 --> 00:08:46,960
Speaker 1: And even after editing was introduced, films of the Silent

150
00:08:47,040 --> 00:08:50,200
Speaker 1: era typically did not have as many cuts as movies

151
00:08:50,200 --> 00:08:54,120
Speaker 1: were used to today. Furthermore, the authors of of this

152
00:08:54,720 --> 00:08:58,640
Speaker 1: paper argue that a theory comparing film to language is

153
00:08:58,679 --> 00:09:01,200
Speaker 1: actually not super useful because there's just a lot of

154
00:09:01,200 --> 00:09:04,120
Speaker 1: ways in which that doesn't work. Like film does things

155
00:09:04,200 --> 00:09:07,480
Speaker 1: language cannot do. So you don't have to learn a

156
00:09:07,559 --> 00:09:10,400
Speaker 1: language to appreciate the meanings of films. You you learn

157
00:09:10,520 --> 00:09:13,040
Speaker 1: some conventions, but you know, you can just watch a

158
00:09:13,080 --> 00:09:15,040
Speaker 1: movie and make some sense of it, even if you're

159
00:09:15,040 --> 00:09:18,480
Speaker 1: not familiar with conventions. You to understand the language, you

160
00:09:18,520 --> 00:09:22,520
Speaker 1: have to learn the language. Um. Meanwhile, language does things

161
00:09:22,520 --> 00:09:25,600
Speaker 1: that film can't do, like photographic images used in a

162
00:09:25,679 --> 00:09:29,480
Speaker 1: film cannot be recombined freely to make endless meaning the

163
00:09:29,480 --> 00:09:33,280
Speaker 1: way a language can. There's also an interesting digression in

164
00:09:33,280 --> 00:09:37,160
Speaker 1: this paper about Kolashaw being influenced by the ideology of

165
00:09:37,240 --> 00:09:42,160
Speaker 1: industrial efficiency on the model of the American engineer Frederick Taylor,

166
00:09:42,280 --> 00:09:46,040
Speaker 1: who was a big proponent of finding ways to make

167
00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:49,640
Speaker 1: you know, production processes and factories more efficient, finding all

168
00:09:49,679 --> 00:09:53,360
Speaker 1: the places where waste and and and problems creep in

169
00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:58,679
Speaker 1: and eliminating those, And that Taylor's ideas of industrial efficiency

170
00:09:58,679 --> 00:10:01,439
Speaker 1: were apparently very popular in the Soviet Union at the time,

171
00:10:02,080 --> 00:10:05,240
Speaker 1: and that in a way, the authors say that you

172
00:10:05,280 --> 00:10:10,480
Speaker 1: could view Kolashaw's emphasis on economy and acting as a

173
00:10:10,600 --> 00:10:15,080
Speaker 1: type of industrial efficiency technique applied to film theory. Yeah,

174
00:10:15,080 --> 00:10:17,160
Speaker 1: And based on what I was reading it, it doesn't.

175
00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:18,920
Speaker 1: It does seem like a lot of his work was

176
00:10:18,960 --> 00:10:22,080
Speaker 1: based in let's figure out what's working, and then how

177
00:10:22,120 --> 00:10:24,480
Speaker 1: we can we can do that? How how do we

178
00:10:24,559 --> 00:10:27,760
Speaker 1: make how do what is the most economic means of

179
00:10:27,800 --> 00:10:31,680
Speaker 1: making effective film now? Ultimately, Prince and Hensley make the

180
00:10:31,720 --> 00:10:35,560
Speaker 1: case that Koulishev really was trying to dress up his

181
00:10:35,720 --> 00:10:40,360
Speaker 1: theoretical convictions about how film works with the imper mater

182
00:10:40,480 --> 00:10:43,520
Speaker 1: of empirical science with this alleged experiment them as you

183
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:47,079
Speaker 1: can experiment, uh, And I think I'm pretty convinced by

184
00:10:47,200 --> 00:10:49,280
Speaker 1: their description of it that way. I think this is

185
00:10:49,320 --> 00:10:51,880
Speaker 1: something you've always got to be cautious of because obviously,

186
00:10:52,480 --> 00:10:56,280
Speaker 1: you know, I don't object in principle to exploring or

187
00:10:56,320 --> 00:11:00,480
Speaker 1: building upon artistic theories with empirical methods. But I would

188
00:11:00,480 --> 00:11:02,800
Speaker 1: also say, my personal opinion is that a lot of

189
00:11:02,840 --> 00:11:08,320
Speaker 1: these efforts to inject scientific methods into esthetics and and

190
00:11:08,520 --> 00:11:12,640
Speaker 1: art and stuff can be confusing and unnecessary. Like I

191
00:11:12,679 --> 00:11:16,679
Speaker 1: don't think you have to have an empirical scientific justification

192
00:11:17,080 --> 00:11:19,959
Speaker 1: for an opinion about where meaning comes from in art

193
00:11:20,080 --> 00:11:23,360
Speaker 1: or in film. Obviously, I'm a huge believer in empirical science.

194
00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:26,559
Speaker 1: I just don't think it has to pervade every domain,

195
00:11:26,760 --> 00:11:31,040
Speaker 1: Like aesthetics and art don't necessarily need scientific evidence and

196
00:11:31,120 --> 00:11:34,240
Speaker 1: theories behind them that those fields just you know, work

197
00:11:34,320 --> 00:11:36,680
Speaker 1: by different standards. And I think also a lot of

198
00:11:36,679 --> 00:11:42,600
Speaker 1: times if you try to generate empirical scientific justifications for

199
00:11:42,679 --> 00:11:46,680
Speaker 1: your beliefs about art or aesthetics or whatever, you're often

200
00:11:46,720 --> 00:11:50,760
Speaker 1: just gonna end up doing sloppy experiments or drawing unjustified conclusions,

201
00:11:50,760 --> 00:11:54,080
Speaker 1: even if you do a good one. Yeah. Um, like

202
00:11:54,320 --> 00:11:56,360
Speaker 1: I'm reminded, you know of the fact that obviously you

203
00:11:56,400 --> 00:11:58,960
Speaker 1: have a such thing. There's such a thing as outsider

204
00:11:59,080 --> 00:12:04,040
Speaker 1: art and oursider cinema. Um, and and examples of outsider

205
00:12:04,120 --> 00:12:06,800
Speaker 1: art and outsider cinema can be amazing, uh, you know.

206
00:12:07,080 --> 00:12:10,040
Speaker 1: And on the other side of things, you don't hear

207
00:12:10,080 --> 00:12:16,600
Speaker 1: as much about maybe outsider architecture, outsider structural engineering, things

208
00:12:16,600 --> 00:12:20,640
Speaker 1: of this nature. Outsider medicine is probably you know, best

209
00:12:20,880 --> 00:12:23,760
Speaker 1: avoided if you can, no matter how it's being dressed up. Well,

210
00:12:23,760 --> 00:12:26,880
Speaker 1: I mean, I think empirical methods are good for fields

211
00:12:26,880 --> 00:12:31,360
Speaker 1: in which you are trying to achieve very clearly specified goals,

212
00:12:31,559 --> 00:12:35,240
Speaker 1: certain kinds of outcomes and get them as reliably as possible.

213
00:12:35,720 --> 00:12:39,679
Speaker 1: And empirical methods are are less important in fields where

214
00:12:39,720 --> 00:12:43,000
Speaker 1: you're you're just trying to be expressive or be creative

215
00:12:43,000 --> 00:12:46,560
Speaker 1: and see what kind of emergent results come out. But

216
00:12:46,600 --> 00:12:49,480
Speaker 1: if it's like like this turns my mind to like

217
00:12:49,520 --> 00:12:54,840
Speaker 1: a b testing and focus groups used in film and television. Um.

218
00:12:54,880 --> 00:12:57,200
Speaker 1: You know, not not necessarily a bad idea at all,

219
00:12:57,280 --> 00:12:59,800
Speaker 1: especially when you're dealing again with a very mainstream product

220
00:12:59,840 --> 00:13:02,440
Speaker 1: you want to appeal to a you know, a wide

221
00:13:02,440 --> 00:13:06,040
Speaker 1: population of individuals. Um. But you know, there are plenty

222
00:13:06,080 --> 00:13:07,960
Speaker 1: of arguments to be made about it as a potential,

223
00:13:08,280 --> 00:13:11,160
Speaker 1: you know, sloppy experiment. As you say, perhaps one of

224
00:13:11,200 --> 00:13:14,000
Speaker 1: the best critiques of all of this is that that

225
00:13:14,040 --> 00:13:16,640
Speaker 1: episode of The Simpsons, the Itchy and Scratchy and Pucci Show,

226
00:13:18,480 --> 00:13:22,000
Speaker 1: one of my favorites. It's just an old, creaky mirror.

227
00:13:22,120 --> 00:13:26,079
Speaker 1: Sometimes it sounds like it's coughing or talking softly. Yes,

228
00:13:33,920 --> 00:13:36,920
Speaker 1: But anyway, to come back to uh, Prince and Henley's

229
00:13:36,960 --> 00:13:43,760
Speaker 1: description of methodological problems with the common descriptions of Kolashov's

230
00:13:43,760 --> 00:13:46,720
Speaker 1: alleged experiment the Masukan experiment with the neutral face and

231
00:13:46,760 --> 00:13:48,920
Speaker 1: the soup and the and the coffin and stuff. And

232
00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:51,400
Speaker 1: they list a bunch of questions, they say, quote for

233
00:13:51,440 --> 00:13:54,840
Speaker 1: such a seminal and basically uncontested study, there is virtually

234
00:13:54,840 --> 00:13:59,360
Speaker 1: no information available about Kolashov's actual method and procedure. Did he,

235
00:13:59,480 --> 00:14:02,840
Speaker 1: for example, will interview the subjects individually or in a group.

236
00:14:03,200 --> 00:14:05,520
Speaker 1: What did he tell them beforehand about the purpose of

237
00:14:05,520 --> 00:14:08,400
Speaker 1: the presentation, What, if anything, did he tell them about

238
00:14:08,440 --> 00:14:11,520
Speaker 1: the nature of film editing or montage. What was the

239
00:14:11,559 --> 00:14:14,480
Speaker 1: frequency of outlier opinions e g. People who did not

240
00:14:14,760 --> 00:14:19,360
Speaker 1: think Masukan was saddened by the dead woman. Published accounts

241
00:14:19,360 --> 00:14:23,800
Speaker 1: suggest the responses were uniform. Was this so? Unfortunately we

242
00:14:23,880 --> 00:14:27,000
Speaker 1: do not know the answers to any of these questions. So,

243
00:14:27,360 --> 00:14:31,880
Speaker 1: given these limitations, they attempt to recreate and try to

244
00:14:31,920 --> 00:14:34,920
Speaker 1: replicate as best they can the conditions of the original

245
00:14:34,960 --> 00:14:38,000
Speaker 1: experiment to see if they get the same result. So

246
00:14:38,040 --> 00:14:40,600
Speaker 1: what they did was they put together a videotape that

247
00:14:40,880 --> 00:14:44,880
Speaker 1: had some auditions for actors to produce a close up

248
00:14:44,880 --> 00:14:47,680
Speaker 1: shot of a face that was just totally neutral and

249
00:14:47,760 --> 00:14:49,360
Speaker 1: expression list And they had to go through a couple

250
00:14:49,400 --> 00:14:53,080
Speaker 1: of rounds because in the first round the actor's neutral

251
00:14:53,120 --> 00:14:57,600
Speaker 1: face was not perceived as neutral enough by the control group. Um.

252
00:14:57,800 --> 00:15:00,240
Speaker 1: But so so they got a neutral face on a

253
00:15:00,320 --> 00:15:02,760
Speaker 1: video and they did the same thing. They intercut it

254
00:15:03,240 --> 00:15:06,240
Speaker 1: with a woman lying in a coffin, a girl playing

255
00:15:06,240 --> 00:15:08,240
Speaker 1: with a teddy bear and a bowl of soup on

256
00:15:08,280 --> 00:15:10,800
Speaker 1: a table, and they tried as best they could to

257
00:15:11,320 --> 00:15:15,760
Speaker 1: follow Kolashov's cues about what what the cinematography techniques for

258
00:15:15,880 --> 00:15:17,960
Speaker 1: making this work the best would be, so it would

259
00:15:17,960 --> 00:15:22,120
Speaker 1: be UH people visible on a darkened black velvet background.

260
00:15:22,600 --> 00:15:25,440
Speaker 1: Apparently the actors were told that they just needed someone

261
00:15:25,520 --> 00:15:29,680
Speaker 1: to uh to model for an instructional video in which

262
00:15:29,720 --> 00:15:32,840
Speaker 1: they would be required to do an expressionless or neutral face.

263
00:15:33,640 --> 00:15:36,400
Speaker 1: So one difference is that instead of one long sequence

264
00:15:36,440 --> 00:15:39,280
Speaker 1: intercutting with all of them, they did separate sequences for

265
00:15:39,360 --> 00:15:43,840
Speaker 1: each reaction. So for example, it might go face soup,

266
00:15:44,280 --> 00:15:47,840
Speaker 1: face fade out or face coffin, face fade out, and

267
00:15:47,920 --> 00:15:51,400
Speaker 1: each shot was seven seconds long. And the separate sequences

268
00:15:51,440 --> 00:15:53,520
Speaker 1: make sense to me because you might get a different

269
00:15:53,560 --> 00:15:57,120
Speaker 1: reaction with some pairings than you would with others. So

270
00:15:57,400 --> 00:16:00,160
Speaker 1: viewers each saw one sequence selected at random, and they

271
00:16:00,160 --> 00:16:04,080
Speaker 1: were told that the experimenters needed help evaluating an acting performance.

272
00:16:04,600 --> 00:16:07,040
Speaker 1: And then the viewers were supposed to select from a

273
00:16:07,080 --> 00:16:09,640
Speaker 1: list of emotions that they thought were being portrayed by

274
00:16:09,680 --> 00:16:16,960
Speaker 1: the actor. Options included happiness, sadness, anger, fear, Surprise, discussed hunger,

275
00:16:17,320 --> 00:16:22,000
Speaker 1: no emotion, and other Apparently the participants were undergrads at

276
00:16:22,000 --> 00:16:24,800
Speaker 1: a mid Atlantic university. I'm going to assume based on

277
00:16:24,840 --> 00:16:29,640
Speaker 1: the author's affiliations, this was probably Virginia Tech. They said

278
00:16:29,680 --> 00:16:33,840
Speaker 1: that interestingly, film students were excluded from the experiments since

279
00:16:33,880 --> 00:16:37,640
Speaker 1: they might detect the connection to Kolashov and understand what

280
00:16:37,720 --> 00:16:41,040
Speaker 1: the experiment was getting at, which could bias results. And

281
00:16:41,160 --> 00:16:43,560
Speaker 1: in support of this decision, I mean, it seems like

282
00:16:43,600 --> 00:16:46,040
Speaker 1: a good choice either way. But to justify this decision,

283
00:16:46,440 --> 00:16:50,240
Speaker 1: they wrote about another recent attempt to replicate the Monsieur

284
00:16:50,240 --> 00:16:55,000
Speaker 1: can experiment in France among film students who allegedly gave

285
00:16:55,040 --> 00:16:58,320
Speaker 1: answers like the following quote. We know that the man

286
00:16:58,360 --> 00:17:01,280
Speaker 1: does not change his expression, but because of the montage,

287
00:17:01,360 --> 00:17:04,639
Speaker 1: we think we see him change or quote. We know

288
00:17:04,760 --> 00:17:09,159
Speaker 1: the Cooleshov effect and it works. And then Princeton Hensley

289
00:17:09,160 --> 00:17:11,359
Speaker 1: also had a control condition where they showed the face

290
00:17:11,400 --> 00:17:14,800
Speaker 1: to twenty four film students, this time but without any

291
00:17:14,800 --> 00:17:18,000
Speaker 1: inner cutting. They were just showing them the face by

292
00:17:18,040 --> 00:17:21,560
Speaker 1: itself and asking them what emotion it was showing for

293
00:17:21,680 --> 00:17:24,960
Speaker 1: the face that they actually used in the experiment. Percent

294
00:17:25,080 --> 00:17:27,080
Speaker 1: said there was no emotion on the face. So this

295
00:17:27,200 --> 00:17:29,919
Speaker 1: is a very good neutral face. You know that. That

296
00:17:30,000 --> 00:17:33,440
Speaker 1: reminds me though of of use of neutral face uh

297
00:17:33,480 --> 00:17:37,960
Speaker 1: sort of not still pictures, but just seen sequences where um,

298
00:17:38,000 --> 00:17:41,400
Speaker 1: a character and individual is staring directly into the camera. Um.

299
00:17:41,440 --> 00:17:48,360
Speaker 1: I'm thinking it's certainly about Ron fricksm Baraka, which features

300
00:17:48,400 --> 00:17:51,119
Speaker 1: a number of these uh sequences where you'll you'll just

301
00:17:51,160 --> 00:17:54,000
Speaker 1: have an individual from from one culture or another just

302
00:17:54,080 --> 00:17:56,919
Speaker 1: staring into the camera. Or Another example that comes to

303
00:17:57,000 --> 00:18:00,199
Speaker 1: mind is the film The Mission, where at the very

304
00:18:00,280 --> 00:18:03,399
Speaker 1: end of the film there's you who just have several

305
00:18:03,440 --> 00:18:07,680
Speaker 1: beats of one of the primary characters, uh staring into

306
00:18:07,720 --> 00:18:12,199
Speaker 1: the camera and very neutral expression. And of course you

307
00:18:12,240 --> 00:18:15,600
Speaker 1: have the entire film you've just watched to help uh

308
00:18:15,920 --> 00:18:20,400
Speaker 1: inform your idea of what's going through that that character's head. Um.

309
00:18:20,480 --> 00:18:22,600
Speaker 1: But but but still, it's it's a it's a great

310
00:18:22,680 --> 00:18:25,199
Speaker 1: use of neutral expression, Like he doesn't it doesn't look

311
00:18:25,240 --> 00:18:29,440
Speaker 1: particularly sad in that case, but you in you can

312
00:18:29,480 --> 00:18:32,480
Speaker 1: see sadness in the character. You know. Well, yeah, that's

313
00:18:32,480 --> 00:18:34,640
Speaker 1: a good example, but I think it also does raise

314
00:18:34,760 --> 00:18:37,840
Speaker 1: questions about something that's supposed to be sort of outside

315
00:18:37,920 --> 00:18:43,120
Speaker 1: the the standard interpretation of this of this experiment, which

316
00:18:43,160 --> 00:18:45,119
Speaker 1: is like, well, wait, what are the actual contents of

317
00:18:45,160 --> 00:18:48,000
Speaker 1: the face? Maybe that does matter. That's going to come

318
00:18:48,040 --> 00:18:50,560
Speaker 1: up in the author's interpretation of the results they get.

319
00:18:51,000 --> 00:18:53,239
Speaker 1: But so in the actual experiment they did, they had

320
00:18:53,240 --> 00:18:56,320
Speaker 1: a hundred and thirty seven participants, including the control group.

321
00:18:56,640 --> 00:19:00,760
Speaker 1: In the experimental group. In every condition, whether it was soup, coffin,

322
00:19:00,880 --> 00:19:05,040
Speaker 1: or child, the majority of people said there was no emotion.

323
00:19:05,119 --> 00:19:07,760
Speaker 1: So they saw the face that was supposedly neutral, they

324
00:19:07,760 --> 00:19:10,280
Speaker 1: saw it intercut with whatever it was, the soup or

325
00:19:10,320 --> 00:19:13,320
Speaker 1: the coffin, and they said, nope, there is no emotion

326
00:19:13,400 --> 00:19:16,800
Speaker 1: on this face. In the soup condition, sixty eight percent

327
00:19:16,880 --> 00:19:21,880
Speaker 1: selected no emotion. In both the child and the coffin condition,

328
00:19:22,000 --> 00:19:25,520
Speaker 1: sixty one percent said no emotion, and so comparing that

329
00:19:25,560 --> 00:19:29,480
Speaker 1: to the control group, in the control eight percent said

330
00:19:29,480 --> 00:19:31,760
Speaker 1: there was no emotion, and that dropped down to sixty

331
00:19:31,840 --> 00:19:35,880
Speaker 1: eight in the soup and sixty one in the child

332
00:19:35,960 --> 00:19:38,520
Speaker 1: and the coffin. So you could say this is a

333
00:19:38,600 --> 00:19:42,000
Speaker 1: small increase in perceived emotion, though the authors note that

334
00:19:42,080 --> 00:19:44,080
Speaker 1: for the size of the group they tested, it actually

335
00:19:44,080 --> 00:19:47,200
Speaker 1: doesn't reach statistical significance, so it might just be a

336
00:19:47,280 --> 00:19:51,160
Speaker 1: random fluke. Furthermore, in the cases where the viewers picked

337
00:19:51,160 --> 00:19:55,280
Speaker 1: in emotion, it was usually not the expected emotion, so

338
00:19:55,320 --> 00:19:58,119
Speaker 1: it was not happiness for the child and so forth.

339
00:19:58,560 --> 00:20:02,080
Speaker 1: So either way, this experiment find something somewhere between no

340
00:20:02,280 --> 00:20:06,080
Speaker 1: effect and small effect on perceived emotion, which is a

341
00:20:06,160 --> 00:20:08,760
Speaker 1: very far cry either way from Kolashev's reports about the

342
00:20:08,760 --> 00:20:13,440
Speaker 1: audience is unanimous raving about the actor's subtle emotional performances,

343
00:20:14,200 --> 00:20:16,080
Speaker 1: And so the authors say here that you know, in

344
00:20:16,160 --> 00:20:19,119
Speaker 1: less contrary evidence emerges, it seems true to say that

345
00:20:19,200 --> 00:20:24,320
Speaker 1: quote the Kolashov effect as reported no longer exists, even

346
00:20:24,400 --> 00:20:27,040
Speaker 1: if the effect did play a role at one time,

347
00:20:27,520 --> 00:20:30,320
Speaker 1: though emphasis there should be on as reported, because some

348
00:20:30,359 --> 00:20:34,600
Speaker 1: of the broader implications of it probably do still hold true. Now,

349
00:20:34,920 --> 00:20:38,040
Speaker 1: this raises an interesting question. If we assume, for the

350
00:20:38,040 --> 00:20:41,920
Speaker 1: sake of argument, that Kolashev was basically reporting the results

351
00:20:41,920 --> 00:20:46,480
Speaker 1: of his experiment accurately or with only slight exaggeration, what

352
00:20:46,600 --> 00:20:49,720
Speaker 1: could account between the difference. Why did Kolashov get people

353
00:20:49,840 --> 00:20:53,080
Speaker 1: raving about the subtle emotion in the neutral face, but

354
00:20:53,280 --> 00:20:56,159
Speaker 1: that that didn't really happen in a modern experiment? The

355
00:20:56,200 --> 00:20:58,320
Speaker 1: authors offer some ideas here, and I think they're all

356
00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:02,880
Speaker 1: pretty possible via and certainly interesting. So one would be

357
00:21:03,440 --> 00:21:08,159
Speaker 1: changes in audience expectation. You know, audiences today are accustomed

358
00:21:08,200 --> 00:21:11,840
Speaker 1: to highly effective editing techniques that have been perfected over time,

359
00:21:11,920 --> 00:21:15,360
Speaker 1: such as, like I mentioned earlier, the preservation of eyelines

360
00:21:15,480 --> 00:21:19,760
Speaker 1: to enforce continuity of of perspective and reverse shots. Yeah, yeah,

361
00:21:19,800 --> 00:21:21,520
Speaker 1: I think this is this is a big one. And

362
00:21:21,640 --> 00:21:23,240
Speaker 1: I mean it comes down to like some of the

363
00:21:23,240 --> 00:21:25,920
Speaker 1: basics of what we said earlier about how at least

364
00:21:25,920 --> 00:21:28,000
Speaker 1: for many of us and certainly for me, like trying

365
00:21:28,000 --> 00:21:31,760
Speaker 1: to watch an actual cooler show film is very difficult.

366
00:21:31,800 --> 00:21:35,080
Speaker 1: Like it's just film has come has evolved so much

367
00:21:35,160 --> 00:21:39,080
Speaker 1: since then, um, and and the effects are subtle in

368
00:21:39,119 --> 00:21:42,480
Speaker 1: a way that you really the film only has to

369
00:21:42,520 --> 00:21:45,680
Speaker 1: be even halfway competent to really just draw you in

370
00:21:45,920 --> 00:21:49,360
Speaker 1: and create the illusion. Right, So uh so the author's

371
00:21:49,440 --> 00:21:51,719
Speaker 1: right quote. It may be that a modern audience, by

372
00:21:51,800 --> 00:21:55,560
Speaker 1: virtue of increased media exposure relative to cool A. Shov's day,

373
00:21:55,680 --> 00:21:59,480
Speaker 1: has become accustomed to a more systematic and complex set

374
00:21:59,520 --> 00:22:02,679
Speaker 1: of associate creational cues, such as those supplied by the

375
00:22:02,720 --> 00:22:07,000
Speaker 1: continuity system of editing. And is correspondingly less likely to

376
00:22:07,040 --> 00:22:10,359
Speaker 1: respond to a montage sequence that employs a blank face

377
00:22:10,400 --> 00:22:14,480
Speaker 1: and minimal, if any associated cues within shots. So maybe

378
00:22:14,480 --> 00:22:19,320
Speaker 1: the bar for perceiving emotion in films has has gone up,

379
00:22:19,400 --> 00:22:21,959
Speaker 1: you know, it's just harder to do now. And at

380
00:22:22,000 --> 00:22:26,520
Speaker 1: the time the Kolashov did his experiment, allegedly maybe the

381
00:22:26,600 --> 00:22:30,399
Speaker 1: audiences were just we're just more it was easier for

382
00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:33,320
Speaker 1: them to project that emotion now that There could be

383
00:22:33,359 --> 00:22:35,359
Speaker 1: a number of ways to read that. One way is

384
00:22:35,359 --> 00:22:38,840
Speaker 1: is thinking about how much exposure modern audiences have to

385
00:22:38,960 --> 00:22:43,000
Speaker 1: modern editing techniques. Um the other way, I guess, and

386
00:22:43,280 --> 00:22:46,199
Speaker 1: the authors don't really favor this explanation, but they say

387
00:22:46,240 --> 00:22:48,600
Speaker 1: another way of looking at it is naivete on the

388
00:22:49,040 --> 00:22:51,560
Speaker 1: part of the early audiences. There's some kind of projection

389
00:22:51,600 --> 00:22:55,120
Speaker 1: going on, because maybe early film audiences were just so

390
00:22:55,200 --> 00:22:59,560
Speaker 1: bewildered by moving pictures that they almost like hallucinated projections

391
00:22:59,560 --> 00:23:02,560
Speaker 1: of emotion. And uh, the authors don't think this is

392
00:23:02,600 --> 00:23:05,800
Speaker 1: a very good explanation for one thing, because they argue

393
00:23:05,880 --> 00:23:08,400
Speaker 1: that a lot of the stories that are used to

394
00:23:08,400 --> 00:23:12,159
Speaker 1: to illustrate the sort of bewilderment of early film audiences,

395
00:23:12,240 --> 00:23:14,880
Speaker 1: like that, you know, the semi mythological things about the

396
00:23:14,880 --> 00:23:17,880
Speaker 1: audiences running away from the Loomi air train and stuff

397
00:23:17,880 --> 00:23:20,560
Speaker 1: that they say that I mean, there were sort of

398
00:23:20,600 --> 00:23:24,119
Speaker 1: events of this kind, but they have been mythologized in

399
00:23:24,160 --> 00:23:28,280
Speaker 1: a way that over emphasizes how naive early audiences were,

400
00:23:28,359 --> 00:23:30,639
Speaker 1: and that a lot of these kinds of reactions may

401
00:23:30,640 --> 00:23:33,480
Speaker 1: have just been audiences playing along there at the theater

402
00:23:33,640 --> 00:23:36,240
Speaker 1: having a good time, and they're playing along with what

403
00:23:36,320 --> 00:23:39,520
Speaker 1: the suggested reaction was supposed to be. That's true once

404
00:23:39,560 --> 00:23:41,879
Speaker 1: you especially when you're dealing with a group of people,

405
00:23:41,960 --> 00:23:45,080
Speaker 1: you know, watching watching anything with a group, even even

406
00:23:45,080 --> 00:23:48,359
Speaker 1: today with our our modern exposure to cinema, you know,

407
00:23:48,480 --> 00:23:51,040
Speaker 1: if one person jumps, everybody can jump. That sort of thing,

408
00:23:51,119 --> 00:23:53,639
Speaker 1: you know, you're more maybe you're more likely to to

409
00:23:53,720 --> 00:23:56,320
Speaker 1: laugh or scream if you're watching it with with other people.

410
00:23:56,400 --> 00:23:59,399
Speaker 1: That sort of thing makes me think about William Castle

411
00:23:59,440 --> 00:24:01,240
Speaker 1: and the Tingle are trying to get people screaming in

412
00:24:01,280 --> 00:24:06,600
Speaker 1: the movie theaters. Yea, yeah, which which is uh is infectious.

413
00:24:06,640 --> 00:24:08,800
Speaker 1: As I think I mentioned in that Tingler episode, I

414
00:24:08,840 --> 00:24:11,640
Speaker 1: got to see the Tingler UH in a theater and

415
00:24:11,840 --> 00:24:14,639
Speaker 1: people were totally playing into it, like it's still worked today,

416
00:24:15,040 --> 00:24:18,000
Speaker 1: so good. Okay. A couple of other possible explanations for

417
00:24:18,000 --> 00:24:21,159
Speaker 1: the difference between Kolashov's report and then and then they

418
00:24:21,200 --> 00:24:25,520
Speaker 1: failed attempt to replicate those findings. Another one is response bias.

419
00:24:25,560 --> 00:24:28,960
Speaker 1: So this seems quite possible to me. Maybe it was

420
00:24:29,000 --> 00:24:33,960
Speaker 1: originally a sloppy experiment. Maybe Kolashov primed his test subjects

421
00:24:34,000 --> 00:24:37,320
Speaker 1: to react the way they did and they complied. Uh.

422
00:24:37,359 --> 00:24:39,400
Speaker 1: You know that This is why double blind tests are

423
00:24:39,520 --> 00:24:43,880
Speaker 1: very useful. If the person administering the test doesn't know

424
00:24:43,960 --> 00:24:47,399
Speaker 1: what hypothesis is being tested, it's harder for them to

425
00:24:47,440 --> 00:24:50,359
Speaker 1: behave in a way that would bias, that would bias

426
00:24:50,440 --> 00:24:53,600
Speaker 1: the subject response in favor of it. And there is

427
00:24:53,640 --> 00:24:57,359
Speaker 1: of course extensive evidence that Kolashov was already committed to

428
00:24:57,480 --> 00:25:00,399
Speaker 1: his theory about the power of montage, but for he

429
00:25:00,440 --> 00:25:04,160
Speaker 1: allegedly conducted this experiment like he he already had the

430
00:25:04,200 --> 00:25:07,440
Speaker 1: result he was looking for in mind. Yeah, like the

431
00:25:07,720 --> 00:25:11,120
Speaker 1: neutral face. I keep thinking of examples now of neutral

432
00:25:11,160 --> 00:25:14,080
Speaker 1: face or very neutral or or just you know, low

433
00:25:14,160 --> 00:25:17,640
Speaker 1: key acting performances, And one that instantly comes to mind

434
00:25:18,119 --> 00:25:21,280
Speaker 1: is the sequence in The Godfather where al Pacino's character

435
00:25:21,440 --> 00:25:25,520
Speaker 1: is in the restaurant with uh, what is the the

436
00:25:25,680 --> 00:25:30,040
Speaker 1: corrupt police officer and Sterling Hayden and yeah, and the turk,

437
00:25:30,320 --> 00:25:32,920
Speaker 1: right is that the other character his name also it's

438
00:25:32,960 --> 00:25:36,199
Speaker 1: also um And of course what's gonna happen is he's

439
00:25:36,200 --> 00:25:37,800
Speaker 1: gonna go to the toilet, he's gonna come back with

440
00:25:37,840 --> 00:25:39,480
Speaker 1: a gun, and then he's going to shoot them both.

441
00:25:39,520 --> 00:25:42,040
Speaker 1: That's the plan. And there's that great sequence where you

442
00:25:42,080 --> 00:25:44,720
Speaker 1: see al Pacino's face and he's he had a very again,

443
00:25:44,800 --> 00:25:48,159
Speaker 1: very neutral expression, and I previously just always thought, well,

444
00:25:48,200 --> 00:25:50,480
Speaker 1: that's just he's just he was such a great actor

445
00:25:50,520 --> 00:25:52,640
Speaker 1: at that point in his career, Like like you can

446
00:25:52,680 --> 00:25:55,280
Speaker 1: just see the wheels turning, you can see all the

447
00:25:55,320 --> 00:25:58,240
Speaker 1: tension going on behind the scenes. But maybe not, maybe

448
00:25:58,280 --> 00:26:01,320
Speaker 1: he's just thinking about, you know what, what what he

449
00:26:01,320 --> 00:26:02,960
Speaker 1: needs to pick up at the grocery store later on

450
00:26:03,000 --> 00:26:05,400
Speaker 1: in the day, and it's just all about everything else

451
00:26:05,440 --> 00:26:07,120
Speaker 1: going on in the scene and how it's been put

452
00:26:07,160 --> 00:26:09,480
Speaker 1: together that could be there. They're actually a number of

453
00:26:09,480 --> 00:26:13,760
Speaker 1: shots in The Godfather in particular where they're memorable because

454
00:26:13,920 --> 00:26:18,280
Speaker 1: of al Pacino's expressionless face, like when when Carlo Ritzie

455
00:26:18,480 --> 00:26:22,600
Speaker 1: confesses at the end to having killed Sonny, and Michael

456
00:26:22,640 --> 00:26:25,200
Speaker 1: just looks at him with the blank expression. But you

457
00:26:25,280 --> 00:26:27,879
Speaker 1: read a lot into that blank expression. It is a

458
00:26:27,960 --> 00:26:31,800
Speaker 1: murderous blank expression. But there's another way of reading the

459
00:26:31,840 --> 00:26:36,480
Speaker 1: al Pacino example here, and also of possibly interpreting the

460
00:26:36,480 --> 00:26:41,119
Speaker 1: original Mojoukan experiment. I really like this explanation. What if

461
00:26:41,160 --> 00:26:45,680
Speaker 1: Kulashov's montage was loaded with more conventional emotional content than

462
00:26:45,720 --> 00:26:48,680
Speaker 1: he claimed. There could be a million ways this could

463
00:26:48,720 --> 00:26:51,760
Speaker 1: be true. But for example, what if there was something

464
00:26:51,880 --> 00:26:55,879
Speaker 1: special about the face of Majukin. What if there was

465
00:26:55,880 --> 00:26:59,800
Speaker 1: something special about the face that Kulashov used in this

466
00:27:00,000 --> 00:27:03,800
Speaker 1: supposedly neutral test film, there was less neutral than we

467
00:27:03,800 --> 00:27:06,840
Speaker 1: would be led to believe. The authors of this ninety

468
00:27:06,880 --> 00:27:09,680
Speaker 1: two paper note quote there is a difference between an

469
00:27:09,720 --> 00:27:14,639
Speaker 1: expressionless face and an ambiguous expression. And they started an

470
00:27:14,680 --> 00:27:17,320
Speaker 1: experience from their own experiment. They talked about how the

471
00:27:17,400 --> 00:27:19,919
Speaker 1: very first tape they created, if somebody trying to do

472
00:27:19,960 --> 00:27:23,159
Speaker 1: a neutral face had to be rejected and replaced with

473
00:27:23,200 --> 00:27:26,320
Speaker 1: a different actor because it failed to be rated as

474
00:27:26,400 --> 00:27:29,280
Speaker 1: neutral in the control condition. So that was the control

475
00:27:29,320 --> 00:27:33,000
Speaker 1: when there were no shots juxtaposed, the control group thought

476
00:27:33,040 --> 00:27:36,200
Speaker 1: they perceived a range of emotions in the first neutral

477
00:27:36,280 --> 00:27:38,560
Speaker 1: face they looked at, and then the author's got a

478
00:27:38,600 --> 00:27:41,960
Speaker 1: different tape, different actor, and it succeeded at being perceived

479
00:27:42,000 --> 00:27:45,240
Speaker 1: as more neutral in the original control. This is great

480
00:27:45,280 --> 00:27:47,800
Speaker 1: to point out, Yeah, the difference between a neutral face

481
00:27:47,800 --> 00:27:51,560
Speaker 1: and an ambiguous face, because obviously this is one of

482
00:27:51,560 --> 00:27:54,879
Speaker 1: the arguments for why the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da

483
00:27:54,920 --> 00:27:59,120
Speaker 1: vinci Is is such a an admired piece of art.

484
00:27:59,560 --> 00:28:03,600
Speaker 1: Is because you can easily read what the Mona Lisa

485
00:28:03,800 --> 00:28:07,080
Speaker 1: is um is thinking or feeling, but that she has

486
00:28:07,119 --> 00:28:10,119
Speaker 1: this ambiguous countenance, right, And the difference would be that

487
00:28:10,160 --> 00:28:13,280
Speaker 1: there there is a difference between ambiguous and neutral. Neutral

488
00:28:13,600 --> 00:28:15,720
Speaker 1: is something we look at and we see I I

489
00:28:15,800 --> 00:28:19,760
Speaker 1: don't see any emotion on that face. Ambiguous is you

490
00:28:19,800 --> 00:28:22,320
Speaker 1: see emotion, but it's not clear what it is. It

491
00:28:22,400 --> 00:28:26,520
Speaker 1: maybe suggests something that could go in different directions. Oh,

492
00:28:26,560 --> 00:28:29,879
Speaker 1: but then the author's come back to talking about this

493
00:28:30,000 --> 00:28:33,800
Speaker 1: more ambiguous, more emotional face that they got the first

494
00:28:33,800 --> 00:28:36,320
Speaker 1: time they tried to record a tape, they said quote.

495
00:28:36,320 --> 00:28:39,160
Speaker 1: When other viewers were shown this face and sequence, many

496
00:28:39,200 --> 00:28:42,680
Speaker 1: attributed a wide range of emotions to the actor, some

497
00:28:42,800 --> 00:28:46,520
Speaker 1: consistent with the coolishev effect others not. The sequence with

498
00:28:46,560 --> 00:28:54,320
Speaker 1: the soup, for example, elicited interpretations of apathy, disgust, contemplation, detachment, dislike, indifference,

499
00:28:54,600 --> 00:28:57,920
Speaker 1: lack of interest, as well as an occasional attribution of hunger.

500
00:28:58,600 --> 00:29:02,000
Speaker 1: The ambiguous expression see him to offer a stronger interpretive

501
00:29:02,040 --> 00:29:05,520
Speaker 1: cue for the viewer than did the expressionless face. If

502
00:29:05,560 --> 00:29:09,000
Speaker 1: cool a Chauvian montage may not be capable of making

503
00:29:09,040 --> 00:29:12,600
Speaker 1: an expressionless face emotive, it may very well do with

504
00:29:12,680 --> 00:29:16,880
Speaker 1: an ambiguous expression, since the objects like soup, coffin, or

505
00:29:17,000 --> 00:29:22,080
Speaker 1: child provide a context for resolving the ambiguity. And I

506
00:29:22,160 --> 00:29:26,479
Speaker 1: think this interpretation seems very likely to me because again,

507
00:29:26,960 --> 00:29:31,560
Speaker 1: the allegation is that Mozukin was a famed actor, and

508
00:29:31,760 --> 00:29:35,360
Speaker 1: so there's naturally you can imagine a famed actor's face

509
00:29:35,480 --> 00:29:39,160
Speaker 1: has something special about it's kind of brimming with with

510
00:29:39,320 --> 00:29:43,320
Speaker 1: the the implication of emotion, even when they're being relatively

511
00:29:43,360 --> 00:29:46,120
Speaker 1: subtle or not, you know, offering a big smile or

512
00:29:46,160 --> 00:29:49,400
Speaker 1: frown or whatever, right right that this may well have

513
00:29:49,440 --> 00:29:53,239
Speaker 1: been the sort of performer that was highly aware of

514
00:29:53,280 --> 00:29:55,000
Speaker 1: what their face is doing. That is, you know, that

515
00:29:55,160 --> 00:29:57,880
Speaker 1: is practiced in front of the mirror that knows what

516
00:29:57,920 --> 00:30:02,000
Speaker 1: they're projecting, and therefore to you know, to a certain extent,

517
00:30:02,120 --> 00:30:04,640
Speaker 1: might be incapable of a neutral face at least when

518
00:30:05,360 --> 00:30:08,240
Speaker 1: when when told to pull some sort of face. Right,

519
00:30:08,280 --> 00:30:11,120
Speaker 1: So if there's something to this interpretation, I would say

520
00:30:11,160 --> 00:30:13,719
Speaker 1: that that the coolest off effect, even in the specific

521
00:30:13,800 --> 00:30:17,200
Speaker 1: case of interpreting neutral faces, as you know, based on

522
00:30:17,320 --> 00:30:22,160
Speaker 1: the the editing context, it's absolutely tapping into something real,

523
00:30:22,400 --> 00:30:26,120
Speaker 1: but there might be like thresholds or limits, like there

524
00:30:26,240 --> 00:30:28,600
Speaker 1: is some truth to it, but it can't overcome some

525
00:30:28,760 --> 00:30:34,520
Speaker 1: truly deeply blandly neutral faces, you know, like some ambiguous

526
00:30:34,520 --> 00:30:38,680
Speaker 1: faces just offer more hooks on which to hang emotional

527
00:30:38,760 --> 00:30:43,520
Speaker 1: values created by the context. Yeah. Yeah, I also wonder

528
00:30:44,120 --> 00:30:47,160
Speaker 1: what would what would happen if you you took exceptional

529
00:30:47,200 --> 00:30:49,200
Speaker 1: faces and you threw them in, you know, and not

530
00:30:49,240 --> 00:30:53,840
Speaker 1: necessarily even exceptionally dashing faces, but like just exceptionally evocative faces,

531
00:30:53,920 --> 00:30:55,760
Speaker 1: like like I don't know, like a Peter Laurie. You know,

532
00:30:56,320 --> 00:30:58,480
Speaker 1: if you put Peter Laurie in there, just even you know,

533
00:30:58,520 --> 00:31:00,280
Speaker 1: even though he's gonna do you know, a new traw

534
00:31:00,360 --> 00:31:03,400
Speaker 1: ambiguous face. Uh, you know, what would happen to the

535
00:31:03,400 --> 00:31:05,680
Speaker 1: experiment of course, in that case, you'd also have to

536
00:31:05,840 --> 00:31:08,920
Speaker 1: not know it was Peter Lori, because then you're gonna

537
00:31:08,960 --> 00:31:11,160
Speaker 1: you're gonna start typecasting, like, oh, we know what kind

538
00:31:11,200 --> 00:31:14,840
Speaker 1: of guys this this this actor plays. Yeah, you'd be suspicious,

539
00:31:14,840 --> 00:31:18,920
Speaker 1: you'd be reading negative emotional or suspicious mind content. What

540
00:31:19,080 --> 00:31:21,080
Speaker 1: is the planning for that soup? He's going to poison

541
00:31:21,120 --> 00:31:24,320
Speaker 1: that soup? Isn't he right? Anyway? I think the authors

542
00:31:24,360 --> 00:31:26,280
Speaker 1: make the point in the end that the the broader

543
00:31:26,320 --> 00:31:28,840
Speaker 1: implications of the cool A show of myth that that

544
00:31:28,920 --> 00:31:32,760
Speaker 1: individual shots, which may be low on meaning or emotion

545
00:31:32,840 --> 00:31:36,200
Speaker 1: by themselves, can become highly charged with meaning by the

546
00:31:36,240 --> 00:31:39,800
Speaker 1: power of the surrounding editing. This is obviously true, and

547
00:31:39,880 --> 00:31:43,080
Speaker 1: it is largely the basis for the magic of cinema,

548
00:31:43,760 --> 00:31:47,600
Speaker 1: But the specific claim about supposedly neutral faces appears to

549
00:31:47,640 --> 00:31:51,560
Speaker 1: be not true, at least for some audiences or some faces.

550
00:31:52,200 --> 00:31:55,520
Speaker 1: But this raises really interesting questions like, what are the

551
00:31:55,560 --> 00:32:00,320
Speaker 1: properties of the maximally cool A show ambiguous face? You know, what,

552
00:32:00,320 --> 00:32:02,480
Speaker 1: what kind of skills would you want an actor to

553
00:32:02,560 --> 00:32:06,640
Speaker 1: have to be able to have these you know, subtle

554
00:32:06,680 --> 00:32:12,280
Speaker 1: ambiguous expressions that can be sort of driven any which way.

555
00:32:12,360 --> 00:32:14,920
Speaker 1: By the surrounding context, by a bowl of soup or

556
00:32:14,960 --> 00:32:18,000
Speaker 1: by a coffin. I guess, you know, I'm just guessing here,

557
00:32:18,000 --> 00:32:20,040
Speaker 1: but at the bare minimum, you need to have some

558
00:32:20,120 --> 00:32:23,560
Speaker 1: sort of like spark of attention, Like they're saying, it's

559
00:32:23,600 --> 00:32:27,080
Speaker 1: not not enough perhaps to just rely solely on the

560
00:32:27,240 --> 00:32:29,760
Speaker 1: editing to imply that there's a connection between this shot

561
00:32:29,800 --> 00:32:33,160
Speaker 1: and the other. But the person's face appears to be

562
00:32:33,320 --> 00:32:36,400
Speaker 1: looking with interest at something. You know, Yeah, that's that's

563
00:32:36,400 --> 00:32:38,760
Speaker 1: a good point. I mean, I think sometimes with these studies,

564
00:32:38,800 --> 00:32:42,280
Speaker 1: like the face doesn't just look neutral. It looks like

565
00:32:42,360 --> 00:32:45,680
Speaker 1: it's not seeing anything, right, Like if it's just like

566
00:32:45,760 --> 00:32:49,000
Speaker 1: mug shot and then and then pick a plate of spaghetti,

567
00:32:49,080 --> 00:32:50,520
Speaker 1: Like okay, you show me a mug shot, and you

568
00:32:50,560 --> 00:32:53,719
Speaker 1: show me some spaghetti. Maybe something that's crucial is that

569
00:32:53,920 --> 00:32:57,280
Speaker 1: the even if they're not showing a very clear emotion,

570
00:32:57,360 --> 00:33:00,600
Speaker 1: that it looks like they're looking at what ever is

571
00:33:00,640 --> 00:33:11,680
Speaker 1: being shown. So Princeton Henley is very interesting, but it

572
00:33:11,760 --> 00:33:14,640
Speaker 1: was by no means the last study on the cooler

573
00:33:14,640 --> 00:33:17,120
Speaker 1: shop effect, the last attempt to look at it empirically,

574
00:33:17,680 --> 00:33:20,200
Speaker 1: And actually since then some other studies have kind of

575
00:33:20,400 --> 00:33:22,560
Speaker 1: come back on the other side have found a little

576
00:33:22,600 --> 00:33:27,640
Speaker 1: more support for the original alleged finding. So one example

577
00:33:28,040 --> 00:33:31,680
Speaker 1: is the is the study by Dean mobs at All

578
00:33:31,760 --> 00:33:35,080
Speaker 1: from two thousand six called the Cooler Shop Effect the

579
00:33:35,120 --> 00:33:38,840
Speaker 1: influence of contextual framing on emotional attributions. This was in

580
00:33:38,960 --> 00:33:42,640
Speaker 1: social cognitive and effective neuroscience, and the test here was

581
00:33:42,680 --> 00:33:45,760
Speaker 1: a little bit different, but they did basically look for

582
00:33:45,880 --> 00:33:49,080
Speaker 1: the same type of effect and did succeed in producing

583
00:33:49,120 --> 00:33:52,760
Speaker 1: it experimentally. So in this case, they didn't use just

584
00:33:53,000 --> 00:33:58,000
Speaker 1: a single supposedly neutral face as the stimulus. They used

585
00:33:58,200 --> 00:34:01,680
Speaker 1: neutral faces and then what they call faces displaying subtly

586
00:34:01,960 --> 00:34:06,200
Speaker 1: fearful or happy facial expressions, which if you want to

587
00:34:06,200 --> 00:34:08,160
Speaker 1: look up the study you can see the stimuli they

588
00:34:08,239 --> 00:34:11,560
Speaker 1: use the yeah, they're they're play their faces that are

589
00:34:11,680 --> 00:34:14,880
Speaker 1: almost neutral. They've just got the barest little hint of

590
00:34:14,920 --> 00:34:18,120
Speaker 1: a smile or kind of an apprehensive frown. And then

591
00:34:18,120 --> 00:34:20,640
Speaker 1: they put together a task where they would actually they

592
00:34:20,640 --> 00:34:23,640
Speaker 1: paired it with neuroimaging in the study, so they'd have

593
00:34:23,719 --> 00:34:27,160
Speaker 1: people doing neuroimaging while they gave them the task to

594
00:34:28,000 --> 00:34:30,440
Speaker 1: look at this face and then imagine that the person

595
00:34:30,719 --> 00:34:33,440
Speaker 1: is watching a movie of various kinds. It could be

596
00:34:33,480 --> 00:34:37,000
Speaker 1: a happy movie scene or a scary movie scene. Uh.

597
00:34:37,040 --> 00:34:40,080
Speaker 1: And they did find that people were, on average more

598
00:34:40,160 --> 00:34:44,280
Speaker 1: likely to interpret neutral or only very subtle expressive faces

599
00:34:44,840 --> 00:34:47,480
Speaker 1: more in alignment with the emotion that you would expect

600
00:34:47,560 --> 00:34:50,560
Speaker 1: if they believed the person was watching either a scary

601
00:34:50,680 --> 00:34:52,960
Speaker 1: or a happy movie. And so it's worth noting that

602
00:34:53,000 --> 00:34:55,799
Speaker 1: there is an effect here, but it's not as shockingly

603
00:34:55,920 --> 00:34:59,200
Speaker 1: powerful and unanimous as like those original tellings of the

604
00:34:59,400 --> 00:35:04,440
Speaker 1: Cooler Show experiment would suggest. Mm hmm, yeah, this is interesting.

605
00:35:04,480 --> 00:35:06,640
Speaker 1: This is something we'll continue to look at. I also

606
00:35:06,680 --> 00:35:09,920
Speaker 1: like that they were looking at scary and happy movie

607
00:35:09,960 --> 00:35:14,399
Speaker 1: scenes because it also brings to mind episodes we've done

608
00:35:14,400 --> 00:35:18,719
Speaker 1: in the past on audience reactions too scary movies and

609
00:35:18,800 --> 00:35:22,239
Speaker 1: how oftentimes, like like the the reaction you have to

610
00:35:22,440 --> 00:35:26,920
Speaker 1: a pleasant movie or certainly a funny movie compared to

611
00:35:26,920 --> 00:35:29,279
Speaker 1: that of a scary movie. Uh, that they may be

612
00:35:29,400 --> 00:35:32,360
Speaker 1: more like than one might think. Oh yeah, because a

613
00:35:32,360 --> 00:35:36,719
Speaker 1: lot of times people laugh when something is scary. Yeah, laughing, Uh,

614
00:35:36,960 --> 00:35:39,160
Speaker 1: you know, reacting to the way that people around them

615
00:35:39,160 --> 00:35:42,279
Speaker 1: are reacting. And if you are acting frightened during a

616
00:35:42,280 --> 00:35:44,880
Speaker 1: frightening movie, it's I feel like, it's very often a

617
00:35:45,000 --> 00:35:47,400
Speaker 1: kind of excited frightening you know, that's safe kind of

618
00:35:47,600 --> 00:35:49,799
Speaker 1: like I am. I am afraid for the characters, but

619
00:35:49,840 --> 00:35:52,960
Speaker 1: I'm not necessarily afraid for myself. You know, I've actually

620
00:35:52,960 --> 00:35:56,520
Speaker 1: wondered before if so. A lot of my movie going

621
00:35:56,640 --> 00:36:00,719
Speaker 1: entertainment pleasure comes from watching be horror movie is essentially

622
00:36:00,760 --> 00:36:05,080
Speaker 1: as unintentional comedies and having a good time laughing laughing

623
00:36:05,080 --> 00:36:08,000
Speaker 1: along with them. But I wonder if part of that

624
00:36:08,280 --> 00:36:11,400
Speaker 1: grows out of a kind of defense mechanism learned in childhood,

625
00:36:11,480 --> 00:36:15,000
Speaker 1: that that I could protect myself from something scary if

626
00:36:15,040 --> 00:36:18,200
Speaker 1: I sort of forced myself to see it instead as

627
00:36:18,200 --> 00:36:21,480
Speaker 1: something funny. Yeah, I don't know. I I certainly catch

628
00:36:21,560 --> 00:36:27,480
Speaker 1: myself going like ah, more like that exact um sound

629
00:36:28,120 --> 00:36:31,240
Speaker 1: if it is say a slightly goofy or goofy monster

630
00:36:31,360 --> 00:36:34,399
Speaker 1: that is suddenly jumping out as opposed to a more

631
00:36:35,160 --> 00:36:39,920
Speaker 1: I don't know, effective looking special effect. Uh there's something

632
00:36:39,960 --> 00:36:42,520
Speaker 1: about I don't know, it's probably you know, all this

633
00:36:42,560 --> 00:36:45,799
Speaker 1: is highly subjective, but for me at least, uh, you know,

634
00:36:45,880 --> 00:36:49,799
Speaker 1: maybe I'm just leaning into the imagination more in those cases. Now,

635
00:36:49,840 --> 00:36:52,759
Speaker 1: just very briefly, I wanted to point out a couple

636
00:36:52,800 --> 00:36:55,120
Speaker 1: more studies I dug up that looked into the cooler

637
00:36:55,120 --> 00:36:57,640
Speaker 1: Shov effect more recently than this one. So there was

638
00:36:57,680 --> 00:37:00,840
Speaker 1: a study in the journal Perception in in two thousand

639
00:37:00,880 --> 00:37:04,320
Speaker 1: and sixteen by Daniel Barrett at All called does the

640
00:37:04,360 --> 00:37:07,319
Speaker 1: cool a Shov effect really exist? Revisiting a classic film

641
00:37:07,360 --> 00:37:12,520
Speaker 1: experiment on facial expressions and emotional context. So they note

642
00:37:12,520 --> 00:37:14,360
Speaker 1: some of the stuff we already did, doubts about the

643
00:37:14,360 --> 00:37:17,960
Speaker 1: original experiment, and then the fact that recent attempts to

644
00:37:18,080 --> 00:37:22,080
Speaker 1: reproduce the effect have had conflicting results. So they tried

645
00:37:22,120 --> 00:37:25,080
Speaker 1: it out with a group of thirty six participants who

646
00:37:25,080 --> 00:37:30,239
Speaker 1: were presented with twenty four film sequences of neutral faces

647
00:37:30,280 --> 00:37:34,160
Speaker 1: across six different emotional conditions, so trying to reproduce the

648
00:37:34,200 --> 00:37:37,400
Speaker 1: same effect, and they actually did find a correlation. It

649
00:37:37,440 --> 00:37:39,680
Speaker 1: may it may not have been huge, but they said

650
00:37:39,800 --> 00:37:43,360
Speaker 1: quote for each emotional condition, the participants tended to choose

651
00:37:43,360 --> 00:37:47,960
Speaker 1: the appropriate the appropriate category more frequently than alternative options,

652
00:37:48,320 --> 00:37:51,200
Speaker 1: while the answers to the valence and arousal questions also

653
00:37:51,239 --> 00:37:54,279
Speaker 1: went in the expected direction. So they did find a

654
00:37:54,320 --> 00:37:57,520
Speaker 1: mild existence of the cool A Shov effect in their

655
00:37:57,600 --> 00:38:01,360
Speaker 1: research here and then there was Another one by Baranowski

656
00:38:01,400 --> 00:38:05,640
Speaker 1: and Hate in UH Perception in two thousand seventeen, called

657
00:38:05,680 --> 00:38:10,080
Speaker 1: the auditory cool Ashov Effect multisensory integration and movie editing.

658
00:38:10,480 --> 00:38:12,480
Speaker 1: The study tried to see if there were any cool

659
00:38:12,520 --> 00:38:15,120
Speaker 1: a Show of type effects, not for cross cutting with

660
00:38:15,280 --> 00:38:18,600
Speaker 1: visual images, but for music. So the question is does

661
00:38:18,800 --> 00:38:23,920
Speaker 1: music affect what emotions people detect on other people's supposedly

662
00:38:23,960 --> 00:38:27,120
Speaker 1: neutral faces, And according to the authors of this study,

663
00:38:27,480 --> 00:38:30,799
Speaker 1: their results were yes. They found that sad music did

664
00:38:30,840 --> 00:38:34,200
Speaker 1: in fact make people more likely to rate a supposedly

665
00:38:34,239 --> 00:38:38,640
Speaker 1: neutral face as sad and vice versa. Well that that

666
00:38:38,640 --> 00:38:41,760
Speaker 1: that doesn't surprise me at all. I mean, music, especially

667
00:38:41,880 --> 00:38:46,160
Speaker 1: music and film, is highly manipulative at times. And uh

668
00:38:46,239 --> 00:38:48,359
Speaker 1: and I think we've all seen experiments with this sort

669
00:38:48,360 --> 00:38:53,040
Speaker 1: of amateur experiments with this online where you take, um,

670
00:38:53,120 --> 00:38:55,719
Speaker 1: Johnny cash Is cover of nine inch Nails Hurt, and

671
00:38:55,719 --> 00:38:59,359
Speaker 1: you play it in the background of virtual virtually any uh,

672
00:38:59,440 --> 00:39:02,920
Speaker 1: neutral or ambiguous footage, and you're going to get a

673
00:39:02,960 --> 00:39:07,480
Speaker 1: sense of like deep personal anguish and and hurt. I'm

674
00:39:07,520 --> 00:39:09,279
Speaker 1: just I'm just putting it all together in my mind

675
00:39:09,400 --> 00:39:12,280
Speaker 1: right now. I'm seeing I'm seeing clips from like happy

676
00:39:12,360 --> 00:39:16,239
Speaker 1: Gilmore or something, but with with the Johnny Cash Yeah,

677
00:39:16,600 --> 00:39:19,520
Speaker 1: to see if I still feel. And then finally one

678
00:39:19,600 --> 00:39:22,880
Speaker 1: last one there was a paper by mullinicks at All

679
00:39:23,040 --> 00:39:26,560
Speaker 1: from twenty nineteen in pl Os one that also looked

680
00:39:26,560 --> 00:39:29,120
Speaker 1: at the cool a Shov effect, trying to see if

681
00:39:29,160 --> 00:39:34,160
Speaker 1: it existed for still photographs instead of dynamic film sequences.

682
00:39:34,520 --> 00:39:37,520
Speaker 1: And the authors say, yes, they did the cool Ashov

683
00:39:37,600 --> 00:39:40,319
Speaker 1: type experiment, but just with still photos, and they found

684
00:39:40,400 --> 00:39:42,840
Speaker 1: there was in fact a cool Ashov type effect for

685
00:39:42,960 --> 00:39:48,160
Speaker 1: just for still images. Okay, also not surprising to me anyway.

686
00:39:48,280 --> 00:39:50,919
Speaker 1: So it looks like more of the recent studies into

687
00:39:51,000 --> 00:39:53,560
Speaker 1: this have found some kind of effect, though I think

688
00:39:53,640 --> 00:39:56,200
Speaker 1: sometimes the effects are, you know, the kinds of things

689
00:39:56,280 --> 00:39:58,799
Speaker 1: you're more likely to normally see in psychology experiments, kind

690
00:39:58,800 --> 00:40:02,800
Speaker 1: of modest effects rather other than the overwhelming unanimous effect

691
00:40:02,960 --> 00:40:07,200
Speaker 1: described in the the original Masoukan experiment. Now, I'd like

692
00:40:07,239 --> 00:40:10,160
Speaker 1: to take um all these points we've been hitting and

693
00:40:10,320 --> 00:40:13,840
Speaker 1: come back around to something that I briefly discussed, and

694
00:40:13,880 --> 00:40:17,560
Speaker 1: that was Leonardo da Vinci's famous sixteenth century painting The

695
00:40:17,600 --> 00:40:20,200
Speaker 1: Mona Lisa. One of the most intriguing aspects of this

696
00:40:20,280 --> 00:40:25,480
Speaker 1: painting is the the ultimate ambiguity of the expression. You know,

697
00:40:25,520 --> 00:40:28,759
Speaker 1: the Mona Lisa smile especially, Uh, it's a it's a

698
00:40:29,239 --> 00:40:31,320
Speaker 1: it's a it's a slight smile. It's a kind of

699
00:40:31,320 --> 00:40:34,880
Speaker 1: an ambiguous smile. What is she smiling about or beginning

700
00:40:34,880 --> 00:40:38,320
Speaker 1: to smile about? Um? You know there there there have

701
00:40:38,400 --> 00:40:40,239
Speaker 1: been a number of papers written about this, and I'm

702
00:40:40,239 --> 00:40:42,360
Speaker 1: certainly not going to do them all justice here, but

703
00:40:42,400 --> 00:40:45,279
Speaker 1: I wanted to touch on some findings that I think

704
00:40:45,360 --> 00:40:49,520
Speaker 1: can potentially contribute to this conversation. Now, wait, did this

705
00:40:49,600 --> 00:40:53,840
Speaker 1: originally come up in our making a distinction between neutrality

706
00:40:53,880 --> 00:40:56,880
Speaker 1: and ambiguity and so so that maybe you're suggesting that

707
00:40:56,920 --> 00:40:59,680
Speaker 1: the Mona Lisa's face might be one of those famous

708
00:40:59,680 --> 00:41:03,640
Speaker 1: face is that is ambiguous but not neutral? Right, it

709
00:41:03,680 --> 00:41:06,600
Speaker 1: doesn't look like a death mask. But also you know,

710
00:41:06,680 --> 00:41:10,240
Speaker 1: she's not she's not scowling, she doesn't look like Vigo

711
00:41:10,280 --> 00:41:13,600
Speaker 1: the compathion. She's not smiling ear to ear. It's a

712
00:41:13,760 --> 00:41:18,640
Speaker 1: very interesting expression, to say the least. Um that people

713
00:41:18,760 --> 00:41:22,480
Speaker 1: have been discussing and studying for for for decades and

714
00:41:22,920 --> 00:41:26,160
Speaker 1: for for ages. Uh So I'm not going to cover

715
00:41:26,200 --> 00:41:28,360
Speaker 1: all the studies, but there there've been there's been plenty

716
00:41:29,080 --> 00:41:31,760
Speaker 1: but I was looking at one. This was a theory

717
00:41:31,800 --> 00:41:35,360
Speaker 1: that was put forth by Professor Margaret Livingstone of Harvard

718
00:41:35,440 --> 00:41:42,840
Speaker 1: University UM. She argues that, UM, a lot of what

719
00:41:43,040 --> 00:41:46,320
Speaker 1: fascinates us about this painting is because the smile appears

720
00:41:46,400 --> 00:41:50,200
Speaker 1: differently depending on where you're standing in position to the painting.

721
00:41:51,000 --> 00:41:53,880
Speaker 1: So if you look at it with your fobial or

722
00:41:53,880 --> 00:41:58,240
Speaker 1: direct vision, uh, then arguably there's not really a smile

723
00:41:58,320 --> 00:42:01,200
Speaker 1: going on there. But if you view it from your

724
00:42:01,600 --> 00:42:04,520
Speaker 1: with your peripheral vision, out of the corner of your eye,

725
00:42:04,960 --> 00:42:07,520
Speaker 1: then it seems like there's a pronounced smile. Now this

726
00:42:07,560 --> 00:42:11,440
Speaker 1: doesn't This this little tidbit doesn't particularly I have a

727
00:42:11,440 --> 00:42:15,040
Speaker 1: lot to reveal about the broader topic we're discussing here,

728
00:42:15,040 --> 00:42:17,360
Speaker 1: but I found it interesting just talking about. And indeed,

729
00:42:17,360 --> 00:42:18,759
Speaker 1: it's one that you can You can pull up an

730
00:42:18,760 --> 00:42:21,880
Speaker 1: image of the Mona Lisa on your computer or your phone,

731
00:42:22,000 --> 00:42:25,279
Speaker 1: or if you have a copy hanging in your your

732
00:42:25,400 --> 00:42:27,320
Speaker 1: your house. You can do it this way as well,

733
00:42:27,600 --> 00:42:30,560
Speaker 1: and you'll find I think that you do get this

734
00:42:30,600 --> 00:42:31,920
Speaker 1: effect if you kind of look at out of the

735
00:42:31,920 --> 00:42:33,800
Speaker 1: corner of your eye, it seems like there's a pronounced smile.

736
00:42:34,200 --> 00:42:37,680
Speaker 1: Look at her directly and uh, it's it's not there.

737
00:42:38,040 --> 00:42:40,520
Speaker 1: I see exactly what you mean. Another interesting thing is

738
00:42:40,560 --> 00:42:45,239
Speaker 1: that my mental image of the Mona Lisa is smiling

739
00:42:45,400 --> 00:42:48,040
Speaker 1: more than the actual image seems to be when I

740
00:42:48,080 --> 00:42:52,320
Speaker 1: look at it. Yeah, something about the lower resolution copy

741
00:42:52,400 --> 00:42:55,919
Speaker 1: in my brain appears to have accentuated the smile. And

742
00:42:56,200 --> 00:42:59,560
Speaker 1: maybe somehow that's picking up on the kind of subtle

743
00:42:59,640 --> 00:43:02,680
Speaker 1: shade ding of the contours of her cheeks which looks

744
00:43:02,719 --> 00:43:05,600
Speaker 1: like they could be continuing the lines of her mouth,

745
00:43:05,719 --> 00:43:09,840
Speaker 1: but it's not her mouth. Yeah, yeah, so yeah, I

746
00:43:10,280 --> 00:43:11,960
Speaker 1: think that that's that's very much it. And of course

747
00:43:12,000 --> 00:43:13,960
Speaker 1: you can get into deeper discussions of you know, to

748
00:43:14,000 --> 00:43:17,000
Speaker 1: what extent um you know this is intended and you

749
00:43:17,000 --> 00:43:20,920
Speaker 1: know what Leonardo Vinci's trying to do with this, um

750
00:43:21,120 --> 00:43:23,719
Speaker 1: Because another another aspect of the smile that's frequently brought

751
00:43:23,800 --> 00:43:26,759
Speaker 1: up is that it's um uh, it's it's not a

752
00:43:26,760 --> 00:43:31,520
Speaker 1: symmetrical smile. Um. And this is often cited as is

753
00:43:31,560 --> 00:43:35,320
Speaker 1: one of the key interesting aspects of the Mona Lisa's smile,

754
00:43:35,440 --> 00:43:40,239
Speaker 1: of Mona Lisa's face in general, um. Now, the emotional

755
00:43:40,280 --> 00:43:43,239
Speaker 1: impact of her expression has been much debated over the years,

756
00:43:43,239 --> 00:43:45,000
Speaker 1: and he is like like a lot of what we

757
00:43:45,040 --> 00:43:48,600
Speaker 1: discussed in part one and in this episode. It's one

758
00:43:48,600 --> 00:43:50,640
Speaker 1: of those areas where you can you can science it

759
00:43:50,680 --> 00:43:53,560
Speaker 1: all day, but you're still working with subjective art rather

760
00:43:53,600 --> 00:43:56,640
Speaker 1: than objective principles. But there are some papers that I

761
00:43:56,640 --> 00:43:59,640
Speaker 1: think have some revealing information based generally on you know,

762
00:43:59,719 --> 00:44:03,520
Speaker 1: small studies looking at asking people to look at the

763
00:44:04,239 --> 00:44:07,600
Speaker 1: painting or look at portions of the paintings sometimes they've

764
00:44:07,600 --> 00:44:11,080
Speaker 1: been manipulated in a key way, and see what people

765
00:44:11,120 --> 00:44:13,279
Speaker 1: have to say about it. And this is where we're getting, uh,

766
00:44:13,320 --> 00:44:16,160
Speaker 1: you know, we're getting into something that's more in line

767
00:44:16,719 --> 00:44:19,400
Speaker 1: with the broader topic here. When you look at the

768
00:44:19,600 --> 00:44:24,960
Speaker 1: Mona Lisa, what kind of emotional um understanding is passing

769
00:44:25,040 --> 00:44:28,000
Speaker 1: between the painting and yourself? Does it depend on what

770
00:44:28,120 --> 00:44:30,640
Speaker 1: painting is across the room from her on the other wall,

771
00:44:30,880 --> 00:44:33,000
Speaker 1: so like what you're perceiving her to be looking at.

772
00:44:33,880 --> 00:44:36,560
Speaker 1: They didn't get into that, uh as much, but I

773
00:44:36,640 --> 00:44:38,279
Speaker 1: couldn't help but think of it. I kept thinking of

774
00:44:38,320 --> 00:44:43,200
Speaker 1: her looking at soup and so forth. But one paper

775
00:44:43,239 --> 00:44:46,080
Speaker 1: I was looking at was a twenty nineteen paper from

776
00:44:46,120 --> 00:44:50,120
Speaker 1: Marsilli at All published in Cortex, the journal Cortex in

777
00:44:50,160 --> 00:44:53,319
Speaker 1: which the researchers asked forty two individuals to rate which

778
00:44:53,360 --> 00:44:55,960
Speaker 1: of the six basic emotions as well as a neutral

779
00:44:55,960 --> 00:45:02,000
Speaker 1: expression of emotion was related in chimerical images, uh, constructed

780
00:45:02,040 --> 00:45:05,120
Speaker 1: from the photos. So chimerical images in this sense are

781
00:45:05,200 --> 00:45:09,840
Speaker 1: formed from opposing halves of a pair of same or

782
00:45:09,880 --> 00:45:13,239
Speaker 1: different faces, usually in like studies in courtroom settings. But

783
00:45:13,280 --> 00:45:15,160
Speaker 1: in this case it would be like you know, um,

784
00:45:15,239 --> 00:45:17,719
Speaker 1: my understanding here is like mirroring different parts of the face,

785
00:45:17,760 --> 00:45:20,880
Speaker 1: stealing with the with the asymmetry. You know, like what

786
00:45:20,960 --> 00:45:24,839
Speaker 1: if you had side A is the and you just

787
00:45:24,880 --> 00:45:27,520
Speaker 1: cloned it onto side B. That sort of thing. Now,

788
00:45:27,600 --> 00:45:30,800
Speaker 1: the results in this case indicated that happiness is expressed

789
00:45:30,880 --> 00:45:34,440
Speaker 1: only on the left side of Mona Lisa's face, not

790
00:45:34,520 --> 00:45:38,120
Speaker 1: on the right. Uh. And this actually leans into the

791
00:45:38,160 --> 00:45:41,120
Speaker 1: interpretation that the Mona Lisa's smile is not a legitimate

792
00:45:41,160 --> 00:45:43,960
Speaker 1: smile at all, but a fake smile uh, something that

793
00:45:44,080 --> 00:45:46,640
Speaker 1: is either you know, a noteworthy subject of of the

794
00:45:46,719 --> 00:45:48,719
Speaker 1: art in and of itself, or has a more specific,

795
00:45:48,760 --> 00:45:52,840
Speaker 1: even cryptic purpose in da Vinci's art here, but and

796
00:45:53,080 --> 00:45:56,239
Speaker 1: I think potentially makes it more interesting. Peace it's not

797
00:45:56,239 --> 00:45:57,960
Speaker 1: of just a painting of a woman smiling. It's a

798
00:45:57,960 --> 00:46:02,319
Speaker 1: painting of a woman pretending to smile, yeah, faintly. This

799
00:46:02,400 --> 00:46:04,880
Speaker 1: is interesting because I know that's something I've read, and

800
00:46:04,920 --> 00:46:06,960
Speaker 1: I don't know how legitimate this is, but I've I've

801
00:46:07,000 --> 00:46:11,880
Speaker 1: at least read um facial expression ambiguity as one of

802
00:46:11,920 --> 00:46:16,240
Speaker 1: the features people use to detect fakeery of emotions in others.

803
00:46:16,440 --> 00:46:18,759
Speaker 1: So when people look at somebody else and they see

804
00:46:18,800 --> 00:46:22,239
Speaker 1: that their smile is asymmetrical, they're more likely to think

805
00:46:22,239 --> 00:46:25,799
Speaker 1: they're faking it, right right, um. And this is a

806
00:46:25,840 --> 00:46:27,719
Speaker 1: topic we've we've covered on the show before because you

807
00:46:27,760 --> 00:46:31,239
Speaker 1: get into that whole topic of of micro expressions and

808
00:46:31,320 --> 00:46:36,040
Speaker 1: reading micro expressions and uh, the the idea that that

809
00:46:36,239 --> 00:46:39,400
Speaker 1: a fake smile looks one way, but there's a more profound,

810
00:46:39,520 --> 00:46:45,879
Speaker 1: pronounced um muscle definition to a legitimate smile. And so that's,

811
00:46:45,920 --> 00:46:47,600
Speaker 1: I mean, that's on it on its own, is something

812
00:46:47,640 --> 00:46:52,680
Speaker 1: we might take into account when considering ambiguous like semi happy,

813
00:46:52,880 --> 00:46:58,520
Speaker 1: semi smiling, ambiguous uh images and ambiguous faces used in

814
00:46:58,560 --> 00:47:02,040
Speaker 1: one of these experiments. Now, another study I looked at

815
00:47:02,040 --> 00:47:05,760
Speaker 1: here was one from seventeen by leacci at All published

816
00:47:05,760 --> 00:47:11,360
Speaker 1: in Scientific Reports. The researchers here manipulated This one's actually

817
00:47:11,440 --> 00:47:15,960
Speaker 1: kind of funny. I think manipulated Mona Lisa's mouth curvature. Uh,

818
00:47:16,000 --> 00:47:19,800
Speaker 1: and studied how a range of happier and sadder face

819
00:47:19,920 --> 00:47:25,160
Speaker 1: variance influenced perceptions of her emotions. So, um, the actual

820
00:47:25,160 --> 00:47:27,160
Speaker 1: paper gets into a lot of like they bust out

821
00:47:27,160 --> 00:47:29,680
Speaker 1: some equations and math on this, but basically they're just

822
00:47:29,840 --> 00:47:32,279
Speaker 1: doing what you're imagining now, like making the smile more

823
00:47:32,320 --> 00:47:36,920
Speaker 1: pronounced or making it less pronounced. And um, they were

824
00:47:36,920 --> 00:47:41,799
Speaker 1: able to manipulate perception along a sadness happiness um uh spectrum,

825
00:47:42,480 --> 00:47:45,840
Speaker 1: but contended ultimately that their data indicates that the natural

826
00:47:45,920 --> 00:47:49,360
Speaker 1: Mona Lisa, at any rate, is always happy. But I

827
00:47:49,360 --> 00:47:53,600
Speaker 1: found this more telling quote observers recognize positive facial expressions

828
00:47:53,760 --> 00:47:58,080
Speaker 1: faster than negative expressions. Uh. This is not a finding,

829
00:47:58,080 --> 00:48:01,799
Speaker 1: but just a reality that they were discussing in in

830
00:48:01,920 --> 00:48:06,760
Speaker 1: the paper. So in other words, faces spiraling down through neutrality,

831
00:48:06,800 --> 00:48:12,120
Speaker 1: ambiguity and into other emotional states require more contemplation. Uh.

832
00:48:12,160 --> 00:48:15,400
Speaker 1: And and I'm making assumptions here, but but more nuance.

833
00:48:15,960 --> 00:48:18,600
Speaker 1: So like the like the face that's smiling ear to

834
00:48:18,680 --> 00:48:21,560
Speaker 1: ear or is in a you know, the vego of

835
00:48:21,560 --> 00:48:24,360
Speaker 1: the coppathion scowl. We don't have to think long and

836
00:48:24,400 --> 00:48:26,920
Speaker 1: hard about that, like what kind of emotion is this

837
00:48:26,960 --> 00:48:30,000
Speaker 1: person having about the soup. We know that they they're

838
00:48:30,000 --> 00:48:32,360
Speaker 1: either ecstatic over the soup or they just hate the

839
00:48:32,400 --> 00:48:35,080
Speaker 1: soup or something involved with the soup. We don't have

840
00:48:35,120 --> 00:48:37,200
Speaker 1: to uh to think about it much. But when you

841
00:48:37,280 --> 00:48:40,840
Speaker 1: have that that that ambiguous smile or even a slight

842
00:48:41,320 --> 00:48:44,319
Speaker 1: uh frown, you know, that's that's when that's when that

843
00:48:44,400 --> 00:48:47,480
Speaker 1: really makes you think, like what is this person thinking?

844
00:48:47,840 --> 00:48:50,719
Speaker 1: My my theory of mind has to maybe engage more

845
00:48:50,760 --> 00:48:52,800
Speaker 1: to try and figure it out, and then ultimately we

846
00:48:52,880 --> 00:48:54,560
Speaker 1: have to remember, I mean, one of the key things

847
00:48:54,600 --> 00:48:58,080
Speaker 1: about people's faces is that the face itself is a

848
00:48:58,080 --> 00:49:02,560
Speaker 1: communication array. So like we're trying to get information potentially

849
00:49:02,600 --> 00:49:06,480
Speaker 1: about that soup, right, like like that this individual might

850
00:49:06,480 --> 00:49:08,440
Speaker 1: know of that soup is good. I want to know

851
00:49:08,800 --> 00:49:12,040
Speaker 1: like what the inside track is on the soup um

852
00:49:12,280 --> 00:49:15,839
Speaker 1: or on other human beings before I myself decide how

853
00:49:15,880 --> 00:49:17,759
Speaker 1: I feel about it. I know this is sort of

854
00:49:17,800 --> 00:49:19,960
Speaker 1: besides your main point, but it also makes me think

855
00:49:19,960 --> 00:49:23,799
Speaker 1: about the strange biological contingency that one of the main

856
00:49:23,920 --> 00:49:27,280
Speaker 1: features of that communication arrays also the whole that soup

857
00:49:27,360 --> 00:49:31,160
Speaker 1: goes in. It's true. Do you ever think about how

858
00:49:31,239 --> 00:49:33,239
Speaker 1: weird that is? You know, didn't have to be that way,

859
00:49:33,280 --> 00:49:36,040
Speaker 1: but we just we we cram in, we cram in

860
00:49:36,120 --> 00:49:39,879
Speaker 1: nutrition and speak through the same orifice. It's weird. It's true,

861
00:49:39,920 --> 00:49:42,000
Speaker 1: it's weird, But you know, it's always a reminder that

862
00:49:42,040 --> 00:49:43,719
Speaker 1: we shouldn't try and do both at the same time.

863
00:49:44,960 --> 00:49:47,000
Speaker 1: But to bring it back to Koloshov, I do think

864
00:49:47,040 --> 00:49:50,400
Speaker 1: this drives home a little bit of the susceptibility of

865
00:49:50,520 --> 00:49:54,839
Speaker 1: ambiguous faces. You know that we can if the face

866
00:49:54,920 --> 00:49:56,880
Speaker 1: is ambiguous, we have to think more about it, We

867
00:49:56,960 --> 00:50:00,319
Speaker 1: have to think more about the context. But you know,

868
00:50:00,560 --> 00:50:05,879
Speaker 1: what is the relationship between um shot A and shot B, right?

869
00:50:05,920 --> 00:50:08,080
Speaker 1: I mean that would go along with what mobs that

870
00:50:08,200 --> 00:50:10,319
Speaker 1: all said in their background again, which is that, you know,

871
00:50:10,440 --> 00:50:14,520
Speaker 1: the broad finding of behavioral researches that people rely most

872
00:50:14,600 --> 00:50:17,279
Speaker 1: on context to interpret the faces of others when the

873
00:50:17,320 --> 00:50:20,359
Speaker 1: clarity of the facial expression is low, so that could

874
00:50:20,360 --> 00:50:23,200
Speaker 1: be ambiguity or other things maybe or maybe just like

875
00:50:23,239 --> 00:50:25,640
Speaker 1: it's hard to see, and when the clarity of the

876
00:50:25,680 --> 00:50:28,920
Speaker 1: context is high, so when there's information in the context

877
00:50:29,000 --> 00:50:32,360
Speaker 1: and less information in the face you reach for the context.

878
00:50:37,040 --> 00:50:40,600
Speaker 1: Thank you well anyway. I guess this all brings us

879
00:50:40,600 --> 00:50:43,360
Speaker 1: back to one of the questions posed by the Prince

880
00:50:43,360 --> 00:50:47,120
Speaker 1: in Hensley paper, which is, you know, I wonder if

881
00:50:47,600 --> 00:50:53,160
Speaker 1: certain actors are just more likely to um more likely

882
00:50:53,239 --> 00:50:56,439
Speaker 1: to give rise to this effect than others are. And

883
00:50:56,560 --> 00:50:59,640
Speaker 1: that again drawing on that observation that there's actually a

884
00:50:59,640 --> 00:51:02,640
Speaker 1: different ins between a neutral face and an ambiguous face.

885
00:51:03,280 --> 00:51:07,680
Speaker 1: I was trying to think of examples of actors who's

886
00:51:08,280 --> 00:51:12,080
Speaker 1: what you might call blank or neutral faces might tend

887
00:51:12,239 --> 00:51:17,080
Speaker 1: more toward expressive ambiguity rather than true neutrality. So even

888
00:51:17,080 --> 00:51:20,120
Speaker 1: when their face is supposedly at rest, you could look

889
00:51:20,160 --> 00:51:23,640
Speaker 1: at it and and it would seem valid to interpret

890
00:51:23,680 --> 00:51:27,240
Speaker 1: a wide range of intense emotions to them. The best

891
00:51:27,280 --> 00:51:29,399
Speaker 1: example I could think of, and I didn't pick him

892
00:51:29,400 --> 00:51:31,200
Speaker 1: just because I love him as an actor, though I do.

893
00:51:31,520 --> 00:51:34,000
Speaker 1: The best example I could think of was Toshiro Mufune,

894
00:51:34,239 --> 00:51:37,320
Speaker 1: who you might know from a cure Kua Sawa movies.

895
00:51:37,360 --> 00:51:39,520
Speaker 1: You know, he's the star of your Jimbo and movies

896
00:51:39,560 --> 00:51:43,040
Speaker 1: like that. I would say he is somebody who, even

897
00:51:43,120 --> 00:51:46,160
Speaker 1: when he's doing something very stoic with his face even

898
00:51:46,200 --> 00:51:49,239
Speaker 1: when his face appears to be at rest, you could

899
00:51:49,239 --> 00:51:53,520
Speaker 1: easily imagine that it is expressing a range of diametrically

900
00:51:53,560 --> 00:51:56,200
Speaker 1: opposing emotions. And Rob I I pasted in a picture

901
00:51:56,239 --> 00:51:58,680
Speaker 1: for you to look at here. That's just a portrait

902
00:51:58,719 --> 00:52:00,839
Speaker 1: of him. I don't think this is even from a film.

903
00:52:00,880 --> 00:52:03,480
Speaker 1: I think this might just be like a studio portrait still,

904
00:52:04,360 --> 00:52:06,520
Speaker 1: because this is one where I've seen, you know, like

905
00:52:06,560 --> 00:52:09,680
Speaker 1: that he's done autographs on and stuff. To my eye,

906
00:52:09,719 --> 00:52:13,360
Speaker 1: in this portrait, he could be happy, he could be sad,

907
00:52:13,560 --> 00:52:17,040
Speaker 1: he could be affectionate, he could be hungry, he could

908
00:52:17,040 --> 00:52:21,080
Speaker 1: be angry. All seemed totally plausible with the expression on

909
00:52:21,160 --> 00:52:24,279
Speaker 1: his face. And I guess this seems to correspond with

910
00:52:24,320 --> 00:52:27,759
Speaker 1: the fact that I'd say he's an actor known simultaneously

911
00:52:28,280 --> 00:52:32,280
Speaker 1: for having a highly emotionally expressive face and for often

912
00:52:32,320 --> 00:52:36,760
Speaker 1: playing kind of stoic characters. Yeah. Yeah, you think about

913
00:52:36,800 --> 00:52:40,040
Speaker 1: the especially some of the samurai type characters that he played,

914
00:52:40,080 --> 00:52:43,320
Speaker 1: it attends to be an intense stoicism to those characters.

915
00:52:43,440 --> 00:52:45,520
Speaker 1: Though at the same time, I mean, you think of

916
00:52:45,600 --> 00:52:50,080
Speaker 1: his the McBeth character or the equivalent of McBeth pretty

917
00:52:50,080 --> 00:52:53,120
Speaker 1: wise and Throne of Blood, you know, certainly he's you know,

918
00:52:53,160 --> 00:52:56,240
Speaker 1: there's plenty of wide eyed crazy shots in that film,

919
00:52:56,360 --> 00:52:58,120
Speaker 1: especially towards the end. But yeah, a lot of a

920
00:52:58,120 --> 00:53:01,560
Speaker 1: lot of the characters he plays, how have a certain sternness,

921
00:53:01,600 --> 00:53:06,480
Speaker 1: a certain stoic quality. Uh that that has ultimately has

922
00:53:06,520 --> 00:53:09,960
Speaker 1: an intense ambiguity to it, And it makes me think

923
00:53:10,000 --> 00:53:13,319
Speaker 1: about a difference that. You know, sometimes you read psychological

924
00:53:13,360 --> 00:53:17,920
Speaker 1: studies that are measuring emotions in some context, and they

925
00:53:17,960 --> 00:53:22,520
Speaker 1: measure emotions in terms of both valence and intensity, where

926
00:53:22,960 --> 00:53:25,799
Speaker 1: valence means what the emotion is, so it could be

927
00:53:25,840 --> 00:53:30,000
Speaker 1: like positive emotion or negative emotion, and intensity is how

928
00:53:30,120 --> 00:53:34,040
Speaker 1: strongly it is felt. Thinking about this makes me wonder

929
00:53:34,200 --> 00:53:38,680
Speaker 1: if maybe there are some people whose emotional expression naturally

930
00:53:38,800 --> 00:53:43,080
Speaker 1: tends to be high in intensity, even when the valence

931
00:53:43,200 --> 00:53:47,920
Speaker 1: is unknown or unclear, If that makes any sense. Yeah, yeah,

932
00:53:48,080 --> 00:53:50,240
Speaker 1: so I wonder if that's especially the kind of person

933
00:53:50,280 --> 00:53:53,360
Speaker 1: that you use a picture of, that kind of actor

934
00:53:53,920 --> 00:53:56,040
Speaker 1: trying to do a neutral face. But then you do

935
00:53:56,040 --> 00:53:59,640
Speaker 1: a Coolishov type experiment and people would be like, yes,

936
00:53:59,800 --> 00:54:02,040
Speaker 1: you know, you show them looking at the coffin, they're

937
00:54:02,160 --> 00:54:04,279
Speaker 1: very sad. You show them looking at the soup, they

938
00:54:04,280 --> 00:54:08,399
Speaker 1: are ravenous, whereas there are other actors who whose face

939
00:54:08,520 --> 00:54:13,040
Speaker 1: is just more successfully convey a blank neutrality where people

940
00:54:13,080 --> 00:54:14,960
Speaker 1: see it and they say, I don't think this person

941
00:54:15,000 --> 00:54:18,879
Speaker 1: is feeling anything. Yeah, yeah, I think it's a good

942
00:54:18,880 --> 00:54:20,759
Speaker 1: point and to try and sort of prove it out

943
00:54:20,760 --> 00:54:23,759
Speaker 1: for our own purposes. You posted this picture of a

944
00:54:23,840 --> 00:54:26,560
Speaker 1: man in our notes, and I posted a picture of

945
00:54:26,600 --> 00:54:29,160
Speaker 1: soup next to him. And indeed, if I look at

946
00:54:29,160 --> 00:54:30,680
Speaker 1: the two and I sort of go back and forth,

947
00:54:30,960 --> 00:54:32,920
Speaker 1: if yeah, I can read, I can lean into different

948
00:54:32,960 --> 00:54:36,560
Speaker 1: interpretations like is he he is angry that the soup

949
00:54:36,600 --> 00:54:38,880
Speaker 1: has been served, maybe it was served too early, or

950
00:54:38,920 --> 00:54:41,200
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's clearly cold, or he just had

951
00:54:41,200 --> 00:54:43,759
Speaker 1: the soup yesterday and therefore he has uh he is

952
00:54:43,800 --> 00:54:46,839
Speaker 1: I rate? But he also could be like, yes, now

953
00:54:46,960 --> 00:54:51,719
Speaker 1: it's time to to really get into this soup. Yeah, yeah,

954
00:54:51,880 --> 00:54:54,640
Speaker 1: or or various other interpretations. You know. Weirdly, some of

955
00:54:54,640 --> 00:54:57,360
Speaker 1: the other actors I know who fit into this mold

956
00:54:57,840 --> 00:55:00,279
Speaker 1: are not just film actors. I mean a lot them

957
00:55:00,320 --> 00:55:04,680
Speaker 1: are film actors, but especially people who have done like modeling,

958
00:55:04,800 --> 00:55:08,960
Speaker 1: like fashion modeling or art modeling like Grace Jones comes

959
00:55:09,000 --> 00:55:11,560
Speaker 1: to mind as somebody who could have have a facial

960
00:55:11,560 --> 00:55:17,560
Speaker 1: expression that is ambiguous in valence but high in intensity. No, yeah,

961
00:55:17,680 --> 00:55:21,120
Speaker 1: I definitely, yeah, I definitely can see that with Grace Jones.

962
00:55:21,640 --> 00:55:23,359
Speaker 1: I was thinking, I was trying to think of good

963
00:55:23,360 --> 00:55:26,360
Speaker 1: examples of this, and uh, like my mind turned to

964
00:55:26,520 --> 00:55:28,600
Speaker 1: some actors who certainly, you know, have kind of like

965
00:55:28,640 --> 00:55:32,359
Speaker 1: a smoldering uh stare or have you know, good at

966
00:55:32,360 --> 00:55:34,600
Speaker 1: the stoic type characters are especially the sort of Joe

967
00:55:34,640 --> 00:55:37,439
Speaker 1: cool characters, you know, as I think of them, where

968
00:55:37,480 --> 00:55:40,520
Speaker 1: you know, it's like it's playing some cool, cool dude

969
00:55:40,680 --> 00:55:42,960
Speaker 1: is like a detective or something, and he's you know,

970
00:55:43,000 --> 00:55:46,759
Speaker 1: he's acting pretty much unfazed by everything around him. But

971
00:55:47,080 --> 00:55:50,480
Speaker 1: I think the better example I ended up turning to

972
00:55:50,760 --> 00:55:53,920
Speaker 1: is Harry Dean Stanton, who often played very you know,

973
00:55:54,040 --> 00:55:57,359
Speaker 1: very sort of emotionally muted characters. I would say, though

974
00:55:57,400 --> 00:56:00,000
Speaker 1: not Joe cool characters, you know, not not a character

975
00:56:00,080 --> 00:56:02,520
Speaker 1: or that's so far above it all that he feels

976
00:56:02,520 --> 00:56:05,520
Speaker 1: completely at ease. Oh, I think Harry Dean's potentially another

977
00:56:05,560 --> 00:56:10,000
Speaker 1: great example. Yeah. Yeah. And another like actually kind of

978
00:56:10,040 --> 00:56:14,279
Speaker 1: like a suite of answers that came to mind were

979
00:56:14,400 --> 00:56:18,080
Speaker 1: from the uh, the the Alien film franchise. The various

980
00:56:18,120 --> 00:56:24,040
Speaker 1: actors that you had playing androids. UM, specifically thinking of

981
00:56:24,080 --> 00:56:29,160
Speaker 1: Ian Holme, Um, Lance Hendrickson, and Michael Fassbender, all three

982
00:56:29,520 --> 00:56:34,240
Speaker 1: very talented actors, um but um, But in all cases

983
00:56:34,280 --> 00:56:39,319
Speaker 1: they're supposed to be playing this artificial human type of

984
00:56:39,360 --> 00:56:43,680
Speaker 1: being that has no emotions but but has an intent

985
00:56:44,320 --> 00:56:46,719
Speaker 1: and in depending on which film you're landing on, in

986
00:56:46,760 --> 00:56:50,400
Speaker 1: which particular incarnation of of the android, that intent maybe

987
00:56:50,719 --> 00:56:55,279
Speaker 1: um benevolent or or might lean more neutral or might

988
00:56:55,320 --> 00:57:00,160
Speaker 1: be malicious. UM. And Yeah, I don't know if i'd

989
00:57:00,200 --> 00:57:02,880
Speaker 1: go there with Ian Holme actually, because Ian Holmes seems

990
00:57:03,000 --> 00:57:07,720
Speaker 1: unusually capable of projecting absolute blank neutrality where you don't

991
00:57:07,760 --> 00:57:11,480
Speaker 1: get that that ambiguity that spins off in all the directions.

992
00:57:11,520 --> 00:57:13,440
Speaker 1: Like I think he would be he would be great

993
00:57:13,520 --> 00:57:16,920
Speaker 1: to have people like absolutely fail to reproduce the coolish

994
00:57:17,000 --> 00:57:20,479
Speaker 1: of results have him doing blank face. But other ones

995
00:57:20,800 --> 00:57:23,520
Speaker 1: you're saying, I agree, Yeah, so I don't. I don't know.

996
00:57:24,000 --> 00:57:26,280
Speaker 1: Like I was just thinking back on those films, and

997
00:57:26,600 --> 00:57:29,280
Speaker 1: even though these are the characters that are not supposed

998
00:57:29,320 --> 00:57:32,840
Speaker 1: to have emotional states, in some cases, I feel like

999
00:57:33,000 --> 00:57:35,400
Speaker 1: I have a better handle on their emotional states versus

1000
00:57:35,520 --> 00:57:39,320
Speaker 1: other human characters in those pictures. Yeah, but I have

1001
00:57:39,360 --> 00:57:42,040
Speaker 1: to admit I did not paste all of their photos

1002
00:57:42,080 --> 00:57:44,520
Speaker 1: into our document and put them opposite soup, so I

1003
00:57:44,520 --> 00:57:47,160
Speaker 1: haven't tested it myself. Oh you did put fast spender

1004
00:57:47,200 --> 00:57:50,800
Speaker 1: next to soup, though, And I gotta say, he looks hungry. Yeah, yeah, yeah,

1005
00:57:50,800 --> 00:57:53,880
Speaker 1: he looks. He does look like he is, um, he's

1006
00:57:53,920 --> 00:57:56,520
Speaker 1: about to dine on some soup. Can't you just imagine

1007
00:57:56,760 --> 00:57:59,360
Speaker 1: a scene of him sensually teaching his twin how to

1008
00:57:59,440 --> 00:58:03,360
Speaker 1: peel above or nut squash. Yeah, that would be good,

1009
00:58:03,400 --> 00:58:06,800
Speaker 1: feeding each other's soup with wooden spoons. Yeah. Well, anyway,

1010
00:58:06,840 --> 00:58:09,439
Speaker 1: all this is just to say, and to be fair,

1011
00:58:09,520 --> 00:58:12,880
Speaker 1: maybe some studies have done this and I didn't realize it,

1012
00:58:12,880 --> 00:58:15,560
Speaker 1: but it seems like maybe one good move to try

1013
00:58:15,600 --> 00:58:21,000
Speaker 1: to avoid the the the the interactor effects of the

1014
00:58:21,200 --> 00:58:24,920
Speaker 1: of the stimulus you use in Kolashov type experiments is

1015
00:58:24,960 --> 00:58:27,760
Speaker 1: to just like get a whole lot of pictures of

1016
00:58:27,800 --> 00:58:31,240
Speaker 1: neutral faces and then serve them up at random, and

1017
00:58:31,320 --> 00:58:33,840
Speaker 1: so you can get kind of the neutral face photo

1018
00:58:34,080 --> 00:58:37,560
Speaker 1: averaged out over a big population, instead of having it

1019
00:58:37,640 --> 00:58:42,200
Speaker 1: fluctuate based on like how truly neutral your supposedly neutral

1020
00:58:42,240 --> 00:58:46,160
Speaker 1: face looks. I'd be delighted to hear from listeners out

1021
00:58:46,160 --> 00:58:49,600
Speaker 1: there what their thoughts are and their specific examples, uh,

1022
00:58:49,760 --> 00:58:54,480
Speaker 1: from cinema and from you know, the faces of various actors.

1023
00:58:54,840 --> 00:58:56,400
Speaker 1: You know, I wanted to come back to something that

1024
00:58:56,480 --> 00:58:59,040
Speaker 1: which which I thought is kind of interesting about this. Uh.

1025
00:58:59,320 --> 00:59:01,320
Speaker 1: Even if you'll accepted that the cool as show of

1026
00:59:01,320 --> 00:59:06,840
Speaker 1: effect is rather modest or only applies sometimes, it is

1027
00:59:06,840 --> 00:59:11,440
Speaker 1: still pretty interesting that it indicates how flexible the human

1028
00:59:11,520 --> 00:59:17,480
Speaker 1: brain is at constructing artificial scenarios and still applying like

1029
00:59:17,640 --> 00:59:20,360
Speaker 1: human logic to them. That like, you know, you're not

1030
00:59:20,800 --> 00:59:23,720
Speaker 1: observing a real scenario in life where you're trying to

1031
00:59:23,720 --> 00:59:26,240
Speaker 1: guess if somebody is hungry. You're looking at a photo

1032
00:59:26,680 --> 00:59:29,680
Speaker 1: or you're looking at an image on a on a screen,

1033
00:59:30,000 --> 00:59:32,040
Speaker 1: and then it's being intercut with a you know, a

1034
00:59:32,040 --> 00:59:34,240
Speaker 1: coffin that they might be sad at, or a just

1035
00:59:34,320 --> 00:59:37,440
Speaker 1: a picture of soup or something, and we we start

1036
00:59:37,480 --> 00:59:40,400
Speaker 1: applying the same logic we apply to real life to

1037
00:59:40,520 --> 00:59:45,120
Speaker 1: these obviously artificial stimuli. Yeah. Yeah, And I think it's

1038
00:59:45,120 --> 00:59:48,919
Speaker 1: a great reminder of just how film works and and

1039
00:59:48,920 --> 00:59:51,920
Speaker 1: and other mediums of virab but especially film, how you

1040
00:59:51,960 --> 00:59:55,360
Speaker 1: know there they still require a viewer. And if there's

1041
00:59:55,400 --> 00:59:59,160
Speaker 1: not a viewer, uh, there's not a movie go or

1042
00:59:59,440 --> 01:00:02,480
Speaker 1: there's no film experience, since therefore there's no film, and

1043
01:00:02,560 --> 01:00:04,800
Speaker 1: so there's no matter how polished the thing on the

1044
01:00:04,840 --> 01:00:09,200
Speaker 1: screen is, there's something that takes place not only between

1045
01:00:09,600 --> 01:00:12,160
Speaker 1: the film and the viewer, but inside the viewer's mind.

1046
01:00:12,320 --> 01:00:14,560
Speaker 1: That's that's critical, and that a lot of times we

1047
01:00:14,600 --> 01:00:18,480
Speaker 1: don't notice how many gaps were filling in as film viewers, Like, Yeah,

1048
01:00:18,600 --> 01:00:21,640
Speaker 1: you don't realize how much work you're doing, and it's

1049
01:00:21,680 --> 01:00:24,320
Speaker 1: work that is apparently pretty easy to do. It's just

1050
01:00:24,400 --> 01:00:27,600
Speaker 1: something we we tend to do pretty much automatically while

1051
01:00:27,640 --> 01:00:30,880
Speaker 1: we're watching movies is fill in those gaps of logic,

1052
01:00:31,080 --> 01:00:35,360
Speaker 1: make connections between one image and another, make assumptions about

1053
01:00:35,400 --> 01:00:37,800
Speaker 1: what's going on in an actor's head when they're portrayed

1054
01:00:37,800 --> 01:00:41,120
Speaker 1: on screen based on the context or the music, you know,

1055
01:00:41,200 --> 01:00:44,480
Speaker 1: what was shown just before after. But it's one of

1056
01:00:44,520 --> 01:00:46,560
Speaker 1: those things where it gets pretty weird when you start

1057
01:00:46,560 --> 01:00:49,440
Speaker 1: to notice all of those like assumptions you're having to

1058
01:00:49,520 --> 01:00:52,000
Speaker 1: make and mental work you're having to do for a

1059
01:00:52,080 --> 01:00:54,680
Speaker 1: movie to make sense, which in reality is a flickering

1060
01:00:54,720 --> 01:00:58,640
Speaker 1: succession of moving images, which you know, sometimes if you

1061
01:00:58,680 --> 01:01:01,120
Speaker 1: were to be very literal roll about them, are are

1062
01:01:01,160 --> 01:01:03,880
Speaker 1: totally unconnected. Like you see like a staircase that's from

1063
01:01:03,960 --> 01:01:06,440
Speaker 1: one state and then a house that's from another, and

1064
01:01:06,440 --> 01:01:08,920
Speaker 1: then somebody's coming in through a front door, and you

1065
01:01:09,000 --> 01:01:10,880
Speaker 1: just connect it all is this is all in the

1066
01:01:10,920 --> 01:01:15,000
Speaker 1: same place, persons just moving through their their daily routine. Yeah.

1067
01:01:15,560 --> 01:01:18,560
Speaker 1: We often think of of viewing films and watching TV

1068
01:01:18,680 --> 01:01:20,840
Speaker 1: programs as being kind of a shut your brain off

1069
01:01:20,920 --> 01:01:24,000
Speaker 1: kind of a situation, at least with certain types of

1070
01:01:24,000 --> 01:01:26,920
Speaker 1: of film and TV. And you know, we think that, Okay,

1071
01:01:27,120 --> 01:01:29,160
Speaker 1: if it's a it's a highly crafted product, we're not

1072
01:01:29,200 --> 01:01:31,720
Speaker 1: gonna have to mainstream product, we're not gonna have to

1073
01:01:31,800 --> 01:01:34,520
Speaker 1: do much thinking. It's gonna hold our hand the whole way.

1074
01:01:34,560 --> 01:01:37,080
Speaker 1: But but yeah, even even in the case if you're

1075
01:01:37,120 --> 01:01:41,040
Speaker 1: sort of you know, by the numbers summer Blockbuster, uh,

1076
01:01:41,080 --> 01:01:44,160
Speaker 1: you know, very much repeating a plot you've seen before,

1077
01:01:44,280 --> 01:01:46,840
Speaker 1: with the sort of characters you've seen before, your brain

1078
01:01:46,920 --> 01:01:49,680
Speaker 1: is still filling in these little gaps, like you say.

1079
01:01:49,880 --> 01:01:52,200
Speaker 1: But on the same hand, I think one one thing

1080
01:01:52,240 --> 01:01:54,120
Speaker 1: we can drive home based on what we've been discussing

1081
01:01:54,120 --> 01:01:57,000
Speaker 1: here is that that the opposite, uh, in a way

1082
01:01:57,120 --> 01:01:59,280
Speaker 1: is true, is that if you're dealing with a film

1083
01:01:59,320 --> 01:02:01,920
Speaker 1: that's say, is uh, you know of a of a

1084
01:02:01,960 --> 01:02:04,280
Speaker 1: genre you're not that familiar with, or a time period

1085
01:02:04,320 --> 01:02:08,480
Speaker 1: of filmmaking and out of familiar with. Um, perhaps it's

1086
01:02:08,560 --> 01:02:10,840
Speaker 1: a you know, more more of an art film, or

1087
01:02:10,880 --> 01:02:13,440
Speaker 1: it's you know, foreign language, etcetera. A lot of it

1088
01:02:13,520 --> 01:02:17,640
Speaker 1: is still going to come down to human or humanoid

1089
01:02:17,920 --> 01:02:21,480
Speaker 1: entities interacting with things in each other, and then our

1090
01:02:21,520 --> 01:02:25,320
Speaker 1: brain is going to make presumptions about their mental state

1091
01:02:25,480 --> 01:02:28,600
Speaker 1: and their emotional state. Oh yeah, yeah, you you infer

1092
01:02:28,800 --> 01:02:31,760
Speaker 1: drama even when the thing you're looking at is almost

1093
01:02:31,760 --> 01:02:35,360
Speaker 1: actively resisting it, and that that goes beyond movies. In fact,

1094
01:02:35,440 --> 01:02:39,400
Speaker 1: I mean what is drama. Drama is somebody wanting something

1095
01:02:39,520 --> 01:02:41,760
Speaker 1: or trying to get something and then coming up against

1096
01:02:41,800 --> 01:02:45,640
Speaker 1: resistance in some way. Uh. People infer those kinds of

1097
01:02:45,720 --> 01:02:49,680
Speaker 1: dramas on like balls rolling around on the table. They're

1098
01:02:49,720 --> 01:02:52,040
Speaker 1: literally studies of that. You know, people will say, like

1099
01:02:52,280 --> 01:02:55,520
Speaker 1: the ball wanted to go down in this hole, but

1100
01:02:55,600 --> 01:02:57,960
Speaker 1: it you know, it couldn't get there because something was

1101
01:02:58,040 --> 01:03:01,560
Speaker 1: preventing it. All Right, we're gonna go ahead and close

1102
01:03:01,600 --> 01:03:03,160
Speaker 1: it out there, but we would love to hear from

1103
01:03:03,200 --> 01:03:06,040
Speaker 1: everybody if you have particular thoughts on the clue Shov effect.

1104
01:03:06,680 --> 01:03:10,800
Speaker 1: Various examples and studies we've discussed in these episodes. Uh,

1105
01:03:10,840 --> 01:03:15,880
Speaker 1: some of the various examples from film and acting that

1106
01:03:15,920 --> 01:03:18,960
Speaker 1: we have alluded to. Perhaps you have some better examples

1107
01:03:19,720 --> 01:03:22,320
Speaker 1: that you would like to bring to our attention. Just

1108
01:03:22,440 --> 01:03:25,040
Speaker 1: write in and let us know. In the meantime, if

1109
01:03:25,040 --> 01:03:26,920
Speaker 1: you would like to check out other episodes of Stuff

1110
01:03:26,960 --> 01:03:29,120
Speaker 1: to Blow Your Mind, check it out in this Stuff

1111
01:03:29,160 --> 01:03:31,800
Speaker 1: to Blow your Mind podcast feed. You'll find that wherever

1112
01:03:31,840 --> 01:03:34,600
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. We have core episodes on Tuesday

1113
01:03:34,680 --> 01:03:38,640
Speaker 1: and Thursday. We have a listener mail on Monday, short

1114
01:03:38,680 --> 01:03:41,480
Speaker 1: form artifact episode on Wednesday, and on Friday we do

1115
01:03:41,560 --> 01:03:44,000
Speaker 1: Weird How Cinema. That's our time to set aside most

1116
01:03:44,400 --> 01:03:48,800
Speaker 1: serious matters and just discuss a weird film. Um. If

1117
01:03:48,800 --> 01:03:50,320
Speaker 1: you want a quick way to get to our podcast,

1118
01:03:50,360 --> 01:03:51,760
Speaker 1: you can just go to Stuff to Blow your Mind

1119
01:03:51,760 --> 01:03:54,040
Speaker 1: dot com. That should still redirect you over to the

1120
01:03:54,160 --> 01:03:57,960
Speaker 1: I heart listing for our page. Huge thanks as always

1121
01:03:57,960 --> 01:04:01,400
Speaker 1: to our excellent audio producers Seth and Pollis Johnson. If

1122
01:04:01,400 --> 01:04:03,040
Speaker 1: you would like to get in touch with us with

1123
01:04:03,160 --> 01:04:05,680
Speaker 1: feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest a

1124
01:04:05,720 --> 01:04:07,800
Speaker 1: topic for the future, or just to say hello. You

1125
01:04:07,840 --> 01:04:10,520
Speaker 1: can email us at contact at stuff to Blow your

1126
01:04:10,560 --> 01:04:20,920
Speaker 1: Mind dot com. Stuff to Blow Your Mind is production

1127
01:04:20,960 --> 01:04:23,720
Speaker 1: of I Heart Radio. For more podcasts for my heart Radio,

1128
01:04:23,920 --> 01:04:26,600
Speaker 1: visit the i heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever

1129
01:04:26,640 --> 01:04:37,120
Speaker 1: you listening to your favorite shows.