Wild Applause, Secretly Choreographed (2013)
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
It left a sour taste in my mouth because I genuinely think the audience would have cheered for most or all of it anyhow, but knowing how it was forced really ruined it for me.
I suspect the main significant thing in looking at Russia is that you have an important in-person performance rather than performance broadcast on a screen. In Russia, in-person performance is important while TV and later media are what matter in the West.
On a screen, a lot is by definition fake since real people and situations look strange broadcast on a screen with no tweaks/improvements.
There's a warm-up act to rev up the audience and get them high-energy and excited! But all this is just to put them in a state of mind: once the cameras are rolling, it was all real.
What show did you go to and how did they "prod"?
What was a bit offputting was how quiet Colbert was when the camera was not running and how much more energetic he was when it was. I know they are playing it up for the camera, but it does make it feel ungenuine.
And add to that the format of the talk show. Each of the guests sorta comes up with a routine, planned by their publicists. If all goes well, they get their message across while being spontaneous. A hard thing to do, but also something that feels authentic. It's not just two buddies hanging out on TV.
You also realize that the TV audience is by far the most important part of the filming process. You're just a setpiece.
I'd almost say don't go to a talk show taping if you like them.
I had to think of Dick Cavett when I read that. They don't make 'em quite like that anymore.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dick+cavett+int...
I think this may depends a lot on the guest - search youtube for clips of Norm Macdonald on Conan. Then again, maybe Norm is just that good at faking it?
Fallon and Colbert are pretty controlled probably due to their mainstream audience - and advertisers.
It’s interesting to contrast Bill Burr’s appearance on all 3 shows.
Burr is most at home on Conan and worst on Colbert - who ran the interview like an interrogation; lost a lot of respect for Colbert after that (if you are going to be a wet blanket, might as well not book him).
On Fallon ... it’s hilarious to see Fallon fumble and panic as he tries to steer him towards the script then giving up half way.
I only watch him on Youtube, but Colbert's audience comes across as quite genuine. Sometimes he doesn't get quite the reaction he was expecting and reacts to that. And he's genuinely funny, so the audience doesn't need much prodding.
I find it interesting to hear that he's quiet when the cameras are off. Trevor Noah also puts some "between the scenes" bits on Youtube where he banters with the audience. Not full of scripted jokes like the regular bits, but frequently funny, and he seems quite genuine.
If Colbert was as energetic off-camera as he is on-camera, I'd expect him to get tired really fast.
I have some experience campaigning. I can relate.
Being in public is exhausting. A real marathon.
Politicians, performers, athletes are super human. Talent, smarts, drive, charisma aren't even close to enough. You also need strength, endurance, cast iron stomach, amazing immune system, and a mental resilience to keep pushing forward.
I'd totally shut down the moment I went "off stage". Exhaustion. Rehearsing the next stump speech. Replaying the performance in my head. Remembering a zillion things that need doing.
Writing about this... It occurs to me that running for office is what transformed me from extrovert to introvert.
That's normal for introverted performers. There's a whole lot of them, from George Harrison, Kurt Cobain, David Bowie, Charlie Chaplin and more, who have been known to be quiet when offstage, and turned on when performing.
How much of that is because the general audience is conditioned over time to adapt to that particular kind humour?
I’m more and more convinced every day that the ability to detect fake signals of quality is becoming an essential life skill that should be taught in school or something. From fake reviews on Amazon and Yelp to PR masquerading as news to payola on the radio, to web site SEO / search rank manipulation, phony followers on Twitter accounts, you can’t seem to rely on anything as an impartial measure of quality. There’s no way to tell what’s any good anymore without observing yourself. It’s all fake!
For example, in the real world I did some independent marketing jobs in undergrad and while some marketing is obvious (ex. red bull team giving free red bull or handing free packs of gum out on the beach)...ever see a good looking couple driving a new car (yeah in my day driver was paid $25/hour to drive around a model in the passenger seat who got $50/hour. And it’s dozens in every major city), ever have someone at a bar casually engage you in conversation and buy you a drink/beer (yeah good chance that was paid marketing, and we aren’t talking bud light girls).
And don’t think for a minute part of the car set up is not placing a significantly more attractive female with a less attractive male. And if people are really looking at that set up and thinking oh if I buy that car I’ll be young too (which I never mentioned anything about young), they may need more than critical thinking skills. Anyway it’s the same concept as social media influencers...people actually do buy the things other people buy that they envy.
As to the bar thing...it’s pretty effective, 1. Go to where people are drinking already, 2. Chat them up in a social environment, 3. Buy them the drink/beer they wouldn’t have ever otherwise tried...it leaves an overall good experience in the mind of the consumers they relate to the drink...and trust me it works.
If the group consists of two members, then you just decreased its size by half. Great job!
Now suppose a influence campaign sponsored by a nation state helps an anti-vaccination group grow from 2 members to 20 members.
Now your critical thinking skills only decrease the group's size by 5%.
Your impact is an order of magnitude smaller without your skills having decreased.
So I don't think this is a matter of "critical thinking."
Then you sign up and find out 2 weeks later that your fellow attendees at the loss-leader conference are your trainers at the big gig.
The NFL one the other hand doesn't generally pay the people who it signs up to be "enthusiastic" about the half-time performance.
http://www.espn.com/espnmag/story?id=3883771
Sometimes the half-time show can be a dud, but it looks good on TV due to them focusing on the "enthusiastic" volunteers.
https://www.businessinsider.com/crowd-quiet-justin-timberlak...
“Artists have very fine and delicate natures, they have a very delicate nervous system, and, unfortunately, all of them have a strongly inflated self-image,”
https://nplusonemag.com/issue-32/fiction-drama/some-of-the-p...
These days, getting an invitation to a product reveal is a rare treat for employees (because there aren't that many seats), so I'm pretty sure the enthusiasm is genuine. I generally watch these reveals in satellite offices (where there are no cameras or audience for whose benefit one would have to fake enthusiasm), and there is still applause.
The other 7/8 might be interested, but are either taking notes or outwardly upset they have to support whatever new feature or product being pushed.
Developer quality of life improvements, cool demos, and non-novelty product announcements get real applause.