-
Storytelling – The Primary Skill of Video Professionals
What’s quite odd about video professional forums is that almost all of the conversation centers around the technology of the business and only rarely do people talk about the single most important thing that we do – tell stories.
A million dollars worth of video production and post-production gear is rendered useless if you don’t know how to tell a story in an engaging and effective manner.
One great example of fantastic storytelling comes from one of the most boring areas of the corporate world – Insurance. Prudential Insurance has very quietly been creating a series of videos in which the storytelling is stellar and therefore the company shines as a result.
Here’s one example of the truly great work that their agency has been creating:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tmprods
tallmanproductions.net -
14 Replies
-
Absolutely agree that this is a wonderful, even life-enhancing piece of work.
But is it “story-telling”?
A story by definition has structure and narrative development. This has none – at least not in any real sense other than that we observe the same situations as (a very short period of) time passes.
I am uncomfortable with the way that “story-telling” gets appropriated by film-makers who don’t actually tell stories.
I think we need a different word for what we are talking about in this case. Not sure what it is.
But I will defend “story-telling” against any land grab anyone wants to try – it’s too precious and special for that.
Simon Ubsdell
-
I hear what you’re saying Simon. I don’t necessarily differentiate between traditional narrative storytelling and short form of advertising storytelling.
To me, any time you’re taking a viewer on a journey from point A to point B you’re telling a story.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tmprods
tallmanproductions.net -
Fair point. But I think I’d disagree.
Story is more than a line between two points – it’s a line between several points. It’s a structure – not a rope.
Simon Ubsdell
-
[Simon Ubsdell] “Story is more than a line between two points – it’s a line between several points. It’s a structure – not a rope.”
And that’s what makes advertising all the more impressive. A story told in with extreme efficiency.
Would you consider this a story?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tmprods
tallmanproductions.net -
[greg janza] “Would you consider this a story?”
No, I wouldn’t. It’s a two-line slogan. Powerfully delivered. But it’s only a two-liner. And that’s not a “story”.
A story has a structure – it’s not a straight line between two points. Its very claim to be story is in how the structure is developed.
The unique genius of story is that, even at its very simplest, it’s complicated. In fact you could say that story *is” complication.
Story is in essence non-linear. It comes into being in the detours that it makes.
A story isn’t A-B.
A story is A-X-B.
It’s X that makes it a story.
Simon Ubsdell
-
Great thoughts Simon. We completely diverge though on what constitutes a story.
At it’s core, storytelling involves connecting with other humans on an emotional level through the collective human experience.
I would say that the Nike piece tells a sweeping and epic story of the history of bias against women in sports and their long-term fight for gender equality. The Nike slogan is only a mere tag line to the larger story.
Stories are inherently emotional journeys. The best stories should sweep a viewer off their feet and completely engage them in the journey. Each and every time I watch that Nike piece I go on that same emotional journey. To me that’s a story told very well.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tmprods
tallmanproductions.net -
Attributed to Hemingway, but probably not written by him, the shortest story ever written is:
For sale: baby shoes, never worn.
Why is it a story?
It’s not: baby is born and then dies before wearing the shoes. That’s a two-liner and not a story.
The story resides in everything in between, supplied in this case by our imagination: the parents’ dreams of having a family, the conception of the baby, the anticipation, the birth, the complications, the anxiety, the trauma, the despair, the numb aftermath, the resignation …
Story is a process not a statement.
The reason I labour this is that I’ve worked on so many films where the makers have convinced themselves they have a story … when all they have is a proposition.
It’s all too easy to be seduced by false signifiers and I see that all the time. You describe the Nike ad as being “epic” and of course it is – it has huge scope. It has what most people would see as the trappings of story – but it’s missing the essential core.
This is a huge subject and I’m not doing it justice – I’ll go away and try to formulate my position better, but thank you for raising it as a topic because it’s endlessly fascinating and hugely important. Not just for film-makers but for everything we are as human beings … and that really does take us into deep waters!
Simon Ubsdell
-
Just a bit more though on the Nike ad:
Our takeaway from it is: “People might tell you you can’t do stuff, but you can.”
OK, it uses examples that are “stories” but using those examples doesn’t turn it into a story. It just underscores that it’s an essay proposition. A story never says: “For example …”
You could turn it into a story by showing *how* you get from being told you can’t do stuff to finding out that you can. (Note that if all that consists in is a montage of how hard you trained, then that’s not a story either …!)
But if all you do is show us the start and end of the journey, you haven’t built a story.
We can find the proposition emotionally engaging and satisfying and uplifting – but it’s not “story” that’s engaging. It’s other stuff.
We need a name for that other stuff because it works and it’s got value and we need to understand it – but we don’t help ourselves by calling it “story”.
Simon Ubsdell
-
The reason I maintain that this is important is that if we devalue the concept of story by using it too freely, when it actually comes time to tell a story we will find we have unlearned the discipline of how to actually make it work.
Far too many film-makers simply don’t understand that story is “what happens in Act Two”. As a consequence they are completely unable to write Act Two and instead they resort to “marking time” between Act One and Act Three.
Act Two isn’t “filler”.
It’s the difference between having a film that works and one that falls flat.
Act Two is where everything that makes our film worthwhile should be happening.
Simon Ubsdell
-
I think I understand why you want to differentiate between things that fit into a definitive story structure and other items that, while potentially being extraordinarily engaging to a viewer, may not technically be stories by this defined standard.
I say I think I understand it because I do think that in dramatic filmmaking the story structure is everything. And when people get it wrong it’s highly problematic.
It may also be a simple case of apples and oranges when talking about storytelling in different forms of video or film but I think too that the differentiation isn’t essential when analyzing the overall effectiveness of a video.
The most important questions to me when watching something are: Did I connect and engage with the piece on an emotional level? Did it move me in some way? Did it change how I think about the subject or at least cause me to re-evaluate how I think about the subject?
If I answer those questions in a positive way then the filmmaker has successfully taken me on an emotional journey and in my mind that journey occurs through the art of storytelling.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tmprods
tallmanproductions.net
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up