11 Paradoxes of Public Speaking

I'm pleased to present a guest blog from fellow writer and communicator Mike Brown. Mike is the founder of The Brainzooming Group, which helps organizations become more successful by expanding their strategic options and creating innovative plans they can implement efficiently. A friend forwarded to me Mike's recent post titled "The 11 Paradoxes of Public Speaking." I was taken by it for two different reasons: Either Mike listed advice that I always give my own clients (hey, I need validation sometimes, too!), or he brought up an entirely new point that I will steal, I mean, borrow for the future. Mike kindly gave me permission to present his blog post with my own comments and observations added (in red italicized type). You can click here if you want to see Mike's original post, unadulterated.

We’ve all heard how frightened nearly everyone is of public speaking. Maybe that’s understandable, but it creates the potential for lots of misinformed conventional wisdom spread by people who have to make presentations but haven’t had the opportunity to learn what really works. To help correct some misperceptions about what creates better presenters and presentations, here are eleven public speaking paradoxes for reluctant presenters to accept, embrace, and follow:

1. Minimize your public speaking nerves by looking for as big an audience as possible. My theory on nerves and speaking? We all have a certain amount of nerves getting up in front of a crowd: the more people in the audience, the smaller the amount of your nervousness each audience member has to absorb. The theory may sound silly, but with more people in the audience, there’s a greater likelihood of spotting individuals who get your message and show it in their eyes – always a comforting sign for a speaker. The more people, the more likely someone will find your jokes funny and start laughing or be moved by your remarks and start applauding (and trust me, it takes somebody being the first to applaud). These nerve-settlers all benefit from having a bigger crowd.
I was influenced to speak to big audiences as often as possible by the great Toastmaster Champion, Darren LaCroix. For many of us in public speaking, Darren's mantra is well known" "Stage time, stage time, stage time." I have occasionally accepted many low- or no-paying gigs just to get in front of an audience, just as many burgeoning stand-up comics may do. I also advise this.

2. If you’re concerned about forgetting what you’ll say, take all the words off your slides.
The typical crutch to avoid forgetting your presentation is to put every word on your slides so you can turn around and read them aloud – which always makes for a deadly presentation. Putting everything on-screen also allows the audience to stop paying attention to you since they can more efficiently read your slides themselves. With only images (or at least very few words) displayed, however, if you forget your remarks or cover something different from what was originally written, nobody knows because the audience has no visual reference to spot the variation. You enjoy all kinds of freedom to change up what you say and how you say it, making it much easier to cover your forgetful moments.
There are countless reasons to eschew PowerPoint, and this is one. If you want to learn to walk without a crutch, throw the crutch away! Following Mike's suggestion will encourage you to learn your speech. One other tip I give speakers with PowerPoint: Hit the "B" or "W" buttons on your presentation laptop from time to time, as this will make the screen go black or white, respectively. This throws the attention to YOU rather than your slides, making YOU the center of the audience's attention.

3. To compare more favorably to the great motivational speaker on the agenda, ask to speak right after them.
Unsure speakers try valiantly to stay as far away as possible on the agenda from exciting speakers because they think they’ll seem worse by immediately following a keynoter. That’s simply a bad strategy. There’s invariably a buzz among the audience after an exciting, engaging speaker, and it’s wonderful to bask in it as the agenda’s next presenter. Not only do you get a free pass to lunch off the audience love the previous speaker created, you can always refer back to a point your predecessor made to refresh the audience’s glow while you’re onstage.
Wow, this is a new one on me. I never heard this before, but the logic is perfect. As a speaker, you want to have buzz in the room. Generally you should do your best to create that sense of excitement yourself. However, if it is there regardless of the source, just take advantage of it and enjoy the ride.

4. To satisfy audience requests for presentation materials, refuse to provide slide printouts. Handing out your slides before the presentation creates a distraction as audience members are tempted to look at them and ignore you. Plus if you’ve taken the advice to primarily use graphics on your slides, having them won’t be of much learning value anyway. Instead, write an article with your presentation’s key points and invite the audience to visit your blog to review it. If you don’t have a blog, write your presentation summary to share with the event organizer for its blog or website. You’ll expand your reach, providing both your in-person audience and others interested in your topic the opportunity to learn from what you have to say.
I totally agree with Mike that handouts will distract the audience from you. The thought behind this advice matches my disdain for PowerPoint. If the audience want to have notes, they are free to create their own. Also, giving away handouts for a paid presentation is a controversial topic among many professional speakers, as it may cause you to lose control of your intellectual property. I am in that camp. However, I make one exception: I do a good deal of pro bono speaking for certain groups, mostly the unemployed. I am happy to give such disadvantaged people the benefit of my work.

5. When you want the whole presenting experience to just be over as quickly as possible, show up way early and make a day of it.
One of the best things you can do as a nervous presenter is to arrive early since it provides several advantages. You can see where you’ll be speaking, determine where to stand, and figure out solutions to challenges the equipment or conference venue create. You’ll also be able to arrange the setup so your computer will be in front of you – serving as a monitor – eliminating the tendency to turn away from the audience to see what’s on the screen. Being there early allows you to meet and interact with audience members, learning what interests them. Finally, you can watch other presenters so you can amplify or avoid points they’ve made, as appropriate. All these benefits will help make your presenting time seem to pass much more quickly.
I have frequently written and advised speakers to show up early to introduce themselves to their audience. That creates a bond with them that you may not have otherwise. Like Mike, I also agree that you need first to put your feet on that stage, survey the room and get a feel for your audience. Finally, you can only learn from the other speakers, even if it is to avoid some egregious behavior that they exhibited. It's all good.

6. If answering questions makes you nervous, encourage lots of them.
Questions are a giant opportunity to customize your content to what’s most relevant to the audience. They also provide a chance to catch your breath and drink some water as you turn the attention over to the audience momentarily. To get questions started, plant a few with people you’ve met before the talk so you begin with ones you are ready to address. Plus always remember: if you’re stumped for an answer, ask other audience members to share their perspectives on the challenging question.
Mike articulates a very important point here: "Customize your content to what's most relevant to the audience." Isn't serving the audience the reason behind why we are there in the first place? Also, I have used Mike's strategy of including the audience when I'm stumped for an answer. However, I have also asked audiences to ask questions throughout my presentation, time permitting. I share this philosophy with my listeners: "I think it's the height of arrogance for me to talk at you for (whatever time), and expect you to simply listen passively. So please feel free to join in with your questions and your own observations."

7. If you have a really loud voice, demand a microphone.
So many people, especially self-conscious men, try to avoid using microphones because they talk loud. Use the microphone. With a microphone, you can speak at your normal volume while also raising and lowering your voice as you’d like to create continued interest in what you’re saying and how you’re delivering the message.
This is good advice, as many speakers do not learn to use a microphone properly. Some wave their heads and mouths all over, and the sound gets lost. But used properly, a microphone adds consistency to the volume.
A microphone also works for a speaker who uses the voice for dramatic effect. In my own case, I can get to my low tones to convey emotion without losing volume.

8. Stand up while you present on a conference call or webinar because no one can see you.
Suppose you’re doing a webinar or other phone-based presentation. The natural tendency is to sit at your desk since the audience isn’t watching. True, but the wrong move nonetheless. Standing up and “presenting” your comments gives your voice more energy, which translates to a better phone-based talk. Bonus tip: don’t speak in the same volume you normally would for a phone conversation. Instead, over-emote since the phone dampens your delivery style. Delivering your message in this manner creates a much more engaging audience experience.
I agree with Mike, but again for a slightly different reason: I used many of my singing techniques to my speaking, and I have learned to stand while singing to extend my diaphragm. This is also important in speaking, too. I advise that you avoid speaking under all circumstances, whether in person or in an off-site medium,

9. Since presentation mistakes are embarrassing when they’re noticed, point them out and have fun with them.
Some speaking mistakes are small and go unnoticed. Others (the computer or projector fails, a video doesn’t play) are apparent to the audience. Rather than dreading them, here are two things to do. First, anticipate what might go wrong and have a funny (ideally self-deprecating) comment to share for each one. Secondly, have a backup plan for each of the potential disasters. When you handle presentation adversity with a laugh and a quick recovery, you’ll win an audience over even faster than by delivering a seamless speech.
This sort of improvisation brings your speech alive. I am confident that your audience will not see themselves as great speakers, so your vulnerability brings you down to earth and helps them identify with you. This technique also works during technical problems. Remember my disdain for PowerPoint? Whenever the system has problems -- and I guarantee you that it will -- I have the opportunity to feign indignation, wink at the audience and say, "See? I told you!"

10. If you don’t like the sound of your voice, record it and listen to it over and over. The single best investment I’ve made as a speaker has been a digital audio recorder to capture every presentation I do. While it can be tough to listen to yourself if you’re uncomfortable speaking, the gaffes you’ll hear quickly pinpoint areas to improve your skills. Another advantage? Next time you’re speaking on the same topic, you can review your previous presentation while rehearsing to remind yourself of what parts worked best and effective ad-libs that weren’t planned in your original remarks.
Referring back to Darren LaCroix, he advises speakers to record every speaking occasion for this very reason. It is a chance to review what you said, how you said it, and how to make it better. In my case, I also look for the occasional slurring of speech or tripping over vocal diphthongs.

11. Deal with your anxieties about audience reactions by rewarding them for immediately sharing opinions.
While most conferences survey attendees, it’s often weeks later, and speakers frequently never receive results. That’s why the second best investment you can make in becoming a better presenter is creating your own simple evaluation form. Offer audience members a chance to win a book or give-away relevant to your presentation for sharing one thing they liked, didn’t like, found interesting, and would recommend about your talk. These four points from each presentation provide incredible feedback and reactions you never could have anticipated. The total cost of the books I’ve given away has paled in comparison to the improvement opportunities this strategy has yielded – especially from things people didn’t like.
I totally agree, and I have to say honestly that most of my speeches are marked by good participation and involvement with the audience. I also encourage participation with a treat that I learned from speaker Sharon Bowman. I keep a dollar bill handy at the lectern or some other place close to me. When a person in the audience raises a question or makes an additional point, I say, "I really appreciate your question/participation. To show that appreciation, Mary, here is a dollar!" The audience laughs, and I have given them permission to participate. When the NEXT person chimes in, I say, "Joe, thank you for your participation. Mary, give him your dollar!" Then the dollar goes to Joe and is passed to everyone who speaks up. The last person to take part keeps the dollar, but in the meantime, you often have more participation than you might have otherwise. (I encourage all speakers to get Sharon's book, "Preventing Death By Lecture!")

There you have it. If you don’t enjoy speaking, these eleven paradoxes may seem very unnatural, but using them to your advantage will allow you to make dramatic improvements in your abilities as a public communicator!
And thank you, Mike, for sharing your knowledge and allowing me to participate in it.

The Shirley Sherrod Show Shames All of Us

A race-baiting journalist named Andrew Breitbart (shown here) took less than three minutes of a 43-minute video and tried to embarrass the NAACP with it. In that time, he created a firestorm as surely as a careless Tenderfoot Scout with matches could bring down a forest. He did it with the help of Fox News, who so far has expressed no remorse or culpability in the matter. In this entire process, he nearly ruined the career of a hapless government official named Shirley Sherrod, and the unwitting, cowardly accomplices in this crime were the Obama White House and the NAACP.

This blog is dedicated to communication, but this particular post is about a danger that has long been with us in the U.S. That danger reared its ugliest head ever in the last 24 hours. The danger is communication by zealots who want to further their agenda without facts, yet are armed with the viral power of the New Media. In their own way, they are as dangerous as the faceless, uniformless terrorists who threaten our country.

The Danger of Out-of-Context Edits
To begin, I ask that you watch the entire speech by Mrs. Sherrod.

Mr. Breitbart says he posted a portion of the video as an angry reaction to the NAACP's recent accusations of racism among members of the Tea Party. He says even now that his video that is evidence that the NAACP looks the other way when there is racism among their own. Enter his evidence: Shirley Sherrod, a official of the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Georgia, is supposedly shown making anti-white statements at an NAACP event, where the audience "laughed" at what she said.
Any of us might have thought the same if we had watched only this edited clip from the dinner (about 17 minutes into the video), which appeared on the web. This clip purports to show Sherrod's disdain for white farmers and how she did not fully serve them as part of her job.

The Real Reel Story
If you watched the speech in its entirety, you would have learned that Sherrod was ashamed of her racism and learned from it. She did not want her audience to be racist toward white Americans, and she asked them not to be so.
Furthermore, you would have caught some nuances that could not have been captured in the edited version. For example, Sherrod expressed gratitude to God for her position the crowd responded by saying "amen," and then applauding. Furthermore, the crowd acknowledged her when she said that she learned from her experiences that many of the problems of the farmers she served was due to being poor, not their skin color. Finally, she said that she "came a long way. I couldn't live with hate."
Sherrod lamented that there were only African Americans in the room hearing her. "We have to overcome the divisions that we have," she said.
Sherrod went on the exhort the younger members of the audience to work hard and not let life pass them by. More specifically, she encouraged them to go into agriculture, a profession not usually embraced by African Americans. She went on to plead with the young people in the audience to "reach back and help somebody" once they have become successful. "It seems to me that the more, the better we (African Americans) do (i.e., accomplish), the more free we are, the more divided we become."
As a speaker, I did not find Sherrod particularly skilled or articulate. However, her words and her message engaged me, and I believe her speech was heartfelt. It also strikes me that belief in God's grace, personal responsibility, and caring for others less fortunate are virtues to be celebrated, not ignored. But those sentiments did not make it on the air.

The Role of Fox News
This story did not see the light of day until it was aired by Fox News, their disingenuous denials aside. They aired it, and then they exploited it. After all, Andrew Breitbart is a contributor to the network. But as I often do, I watched Fox cover the story today. It struck me in the hour that I watched their coverage of this story, the network's commentators made villains of the NAACP and the White House for jumping on the story, yet they never once commented on the fact that Andrew Breitbart presented an edited, out-of-context snippet of a longer speech. This, after all, was the cause of the story.
Equally damning was their lack of introspection at their own role in the matter. What has been more typical is this smarmy, self-serving review by commentator Charles Krauthammer.

Overreaction by White House, NAACP
Smarting from all the criticism that they have received of double standards, it appears that both the NAACP and the Obama White House did all they could to act quickly and decisively against Sherrod, who did appear to be racist in that selected segment. However, neither body did their homework first. Instead, they acted like hanging-judge and jury, declaring Sherrod guilty without sufficient evidence. This was incredibly naive on both their parts and does not speak well of their judgment. But this is particularly disturbing of the White House, which is the chief administrative body of the U.S. government. For all of the alleged media savvy of Obama and his staff, they made a decision quickly and with little factual basis.
"Members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on both sides of this have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced today. "Without a doubt, Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology." In response, political media expert David Gergen asked on CNN, "Where was the due process?" Indeed, could we expect the administration to make other, more important, decisions in a similar matter?
Furthermore, is this an indication of how thin-skinned Obama and his White House could be? If so, he has many hardships ahead. I suspect that Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their ilk smell blood in the water, and they will bait him as often as possible.
Candidate Obama decried the 24-hour news cycle. President Obama allowed himself to be victimized by it.

Upshot
I am reminded of a story that occurred in 1989, when Charles Stuart of Boston, Mass., left a maternity class with his pregnant wife, Carol. Stuart drove his car to Mission Hills, a predominantly African American neighborhood, and he shot Carol in the head and stabbed himself. The black citizens of Boston had their civil rights violated for several days. They were stopped, questioned and accused indiscriminately by the police until Stuart's ruse was uncovered. It was a shameful moment for all involved.
Similarly, a minor, insignificant player named Andrew Breitbart has now dominated the news for 24 hours because we as a people allowed him to do so. We gave this weasel a platform and credibility that he did not earn or deserve. As a nation, many of us should be ashamed of the way we reacted. At the very least, we should be wary, as this is an indication of bigger blowups that may be ahead.

There are other instances like this playing out around the country, questioning the histories of public officials and twisting their words. I have written extensively about the lack of civility in our public dialogue. Now our nerves are becoming so frayed that we are beginning to believe the worst in any of us with the flimsiest of evidence. The slightest intimation of racism, however unfounded, cost a good-hearted woman her job, even if for only a day. It is strikingly, frighteningly similar to the hysteria of the 1950s, where one could be guilty by accusation.

We have been warned. What will we do with this information?

The Power of Images: Nine out of 10 Doctors Know for Sure!

Are you old enough to remember this iconic shot of Richard Chamberlain as Dr. Kildare on the old NBC TV series? Perhaps the average member of the American Medical Association (AMA) doesn't remember either, but surely they understand the power of the image of a white lab coat. Facing a 21 percent Medicare physician pay cut that was to take affect on June 1, AMA members signed white lab coats and delivered them to Congress as part of an effort to convince the legislators that they should reverse the cut. The so-called "Write Coat Rally" was part of the organization's annual conference, held this year in Chicago.
Kudos to the docs. They understood that the symbol of a white lab coat would cut through the cerebral clutter of the average Senator's mind in a unique way. It is similar to the symbol of the anti-abortion movement: a badge of the soles of tiny feet, illustrating the size of an aborted fetus. It is a striking and sobering image.

Oh, by the way, did the letter-writing... I mean lab coat-writing campaign work? Not really. Instead, the physicians got a mess through Congressional ineptitude. Although the U.S. Senate passed a bill rescinding the cut in the Medicare payment rate on June 18, the House has yet to act on the measure, allowing the cut to remain in effect and creating a complicated payment situation for physicians. But I guess that's a story unto itself.

Speaking the Unspeakable (and you know what I'm talking about!)

In a recent Toastmaster competition, I decided to cover about a subject to which members only allude. It is usually referred to only euphemistically, sending the message that says, "You and I both know what I mean here, but I better not say it out loud." Yes, this dreaded topic is...
(drum roll, please)
SEX!
Yes, let me repeat that. it's SEX!, for goodness sakes.
In a time when our children face unwanted pregnancies, the threat of sexually transmitted disease, and rampant misinformation, and disinformation, about the sexual relations. So I decided to take this on, and have fun in the process. (Click here to see the video.)
I wrote a speech about the time I spoke with my son, Francis, about sex. I needed to have this discussion with him earlier -- when he was only 8 years old. I thought there was a lesson in there, so I constructed this speech. However, I thought that it was risky to even approach this subject, so I followed this strategy:

1. OPEN WITH A JOKE. This put the audience at ease right away.
2. ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUBJECT OF THE SPEECH UP FRONT, ALONG WITH OUR RELUCTANCE TO SPEAK ABOUT IT. By doing this, the audience felt they were in on the joke. It also gave them "permission" to let themselves go and enjoy the speech. (However, it was then incumbent upon me to treat the subject with taste.)
3. EMPATHIZE WITH THE AUDIENCE'S SENSITIVITIES. I acknowledged their own discomfort with the subject with humor and made myself one of the audience members in that regard.
4. PUT THEM IN THE SITUATION. I was once advised TO "be the speech;" don't just deliver the speech. I introduced the audience to Francis by portraying him as a child, and I acted out the situation that led to the discussion.
5. GIVE YOUR MORAL TO THE STORY. A subject as important as this doesn't exist in a vacuum. The story was not the very fact that I had the discussion with Francis. It was that I took my responsibilities as a father seriously and imparted my values to him. The moral I gave may not fit your morals, but I hope you would respect that, as I would respect whatever you chose to tell me.

The speech was well received, as you will hear when you view the video. More important, I felt that I had broken some ground with my colleagues in Toastmasters on tackling a previously verboten topic.

BP Teaches Us Just How Bad Communication Can Be

Let's get to the point: BP was not only unprepared for the oil spill they have caused, but they deceived the public, and possibly themselves, about their level of preparation.
I will turn this space to Mr. Dick Polman, columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer. The utter incompetence of BP, combined with the company's mendacity, is stultifying.

Annual Report Language, Translated to English

Over the years, I have contributed to many annual reports. I know that they can be confusing to read given the language that is often chosen. As a public service to all shareholders and employees out there, here are translations of key phrases you will often see in an annual report.

1. We performed well in a difficult economy.
   Translation: As usual, we didn't make our numbers, but at least this year we have an excuse.
2. I am pleased to report that we continue to make excellent progress on achieving our long-term goals.
   Translation: We didn't make our numbers, but we got a little closer this year.
3. We were able to deliver shareholder value by managing our costs.
   Translation: We laid off employees to make sure that our investors received their dividends.
4. We have focused our business.
   Translation: We sold off the dogs that were losing money because we didn't know how to manage them. By the way, when our current lines start to lose money, we will sell those, too.
5. In these difficult times, we experienced a lot of pain over the past year.
   Translation: We had a second round of layoffs in order to increase our profits.
6. The pain was shared across the company.
   Translation: While we in executive management still received our bonuses, it was difficult to watch from our office windows as employees left the company for the last time.
7. Our portfolio contains legacy products with a long record of success behind them.
   Translation: A lot of our lines are outmoded, so nobody buys buy them anymore.
8. We have a healthy backlog.
   Translation: Our manufacturing is so lousy that we can't get product out the door, so the orders just keep piling up.
9. We have grown through acquisition throughout our long and proud history.
   Translation: We don't know how to innovate, and we put no money into research and development. We know only how to buy other businesses.
10. Our brand still appears fresh and new in the market.
    Translation: After all these years, they still don't know who we are.

The Pony Express — On its 150th Anniversary, the Myth Endures

On April 3, 1860, rider Joseph Fry departed St. Joseph, Missouri and launched the famed and legendary Pony Express. This enterprise was designed as a speedy mail service from St. Joseph, Missouri, to Sacramento, and it became the west's most direct means of east-west communication before the invention of the telegraph.

Today, the legendary Pony Express name lives on in a variety of ways. There are many memorial statues in Sacramento; Nevada (two); Utah; Wyoming; Colorado; Kansas; and Missouri (two). St Joseph, MO boasts the original and most famous statue, which was dedicated on April 20, 1940. Eagle Mountain, Utah, located on the original Pony Express Trail in Utah, has several locations and events that commemorate the Pony Express. Plus Pony Express Boulevard in Eagle Mountain, Utah may be the only street built on the original Pony Express Trail that is named after the Pony Express, or so says Wikipedia. Pony Express Days, the annual community celebration of Eagle Mountain, are celebrated the first week of June of each year. There is also the Pony Express Elementary School located in Eagle Mountain.

In more ephemeral media, a TV show titled "The Young Riders," which ran for three seasons from September 1989 to July 1992, presented a fictionalized account of a group of young Pony Express riders. The cast included Emmy winner Anthony Zerbe, Stephen Baldwin as a young "Buffalo Bill" Cody, Josh Brolin as "Wild Bill" Hickok" (who, unlike Cody was NOT a Pony Express rider), and Melissa Leo, who was nominated for an Oscar in 2008 for "Frozen River."

Wait, there's more! McGraw Hill produced the game Pony Express Rider in 1996. And a school in Utah is named Pony Express Elementary. It is said that the school was built around the area where pony express rider rode through.

Oh, by the way, the Pony Express was a failure. But nobody tells you that.

It wasn't for lack of trying. The Pony Express was successful in reducing the time to deliver mail between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to about ten days. (Looking at that objectively, even from a 21^st Century perspective, that seems really fast for the time.) The Pony Express did successfully demonstrate that a cross-country delivery system was possible all year around. But like many businesses, it was done in by technology. In this case, it was the telegraph, which made transcontinental communication possible without paper. (See, mail was threatened even then.)

The Pony Express went out of business in October 1861. The company had grossed $90,000 and lost $200,000 (according to Wired magazine, the equivalent of $4.7 million today). The Pony Express announced its closure on October 26, 1861, two days after the transcontinental telegraph reached Salt Lake City and connected Omaha, Nebraska and Sacramento, California.

The demise of the Pony Express has not diminished its lore or its fabled standing in American culture. This all stems from the rugged individualism of the riders, strapping young men who could ride for hours through dangerous terrain. But in the end, these guys were no match for thin little wires carrying electrical impulses from coast to coast.

The short rise and quick fall of the Pony Express created three truths that exist today:

1. Legend is a powerful thing that can easily outlive facts, whether they pertain to an enterprise, an invention, or a person's military record.

2. Technology will almost certainly drive an existing business to its knees, especially if its mission can be fulfilled with fewer people.

3. Paper continues to be threatened as a communication medium, though its death is a long and tedious one.

Oscars, How Did I Hate Thee? Let Me Count the Ways...

1. SLOW, DULL, LOW-ENERGY SHOW. Last year's show was filled with verve and innovation, such as having five high-voltage previous winners pay tribute to each of the acting nominees. This year, they copied that only with the lead performers, not the supporting actors. Everything seemed to take forever.
2. WHERE'S THE LOVE FOR THE HONORARY WINNERS? How nice it would have been to have a tribute to the iconic Lauren Bacall and the legendary schlockmeister, Roger Corman? Instead, their awards were given in December, and they merely stood in the audience tonight. What a waste of wattage from genuine stars.
3. GOOD HOSTS GONE BAD. I certainly would not want to follow last year's host, Hugh Jackman. But the producers did no favors to this year's estimable and talented hosts, Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. They were hardly on the screen, far less than they deserved, given how they sparkled in the few times they appeared. Such a shame. Thank goodness that they knew how to take full advantage of show-stopping show opener Neil Patrick Harris. What a terrific performance.
4. WHERE'S THE LOVE FOR THE NOMINATED SONGS? Miley Cyrus announced that this year's Academy Awards marked the 75th anniversary of the "Best Song" category. So they marked it by playing portions of each nominated song in clips from the films. Nice tribute to movie songs in its diamond anniversary. Co-winner T-Bone Walker didn't even care enough to give an acceptance speech. I can't say I blame him.
5. HARDLY A TRIBUTE TO THE TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES OF TELEVISION. The sound dipped noticeably at key moments of the show. Lights wiped out some of the clothing of the stars. There was noise in the background. Obviously television professionals don't care about the movies' biggest night... at least not tonight.

Congrats to the deserving movie makers who walked away with awards. For the rest of us who had to slog through the winners' biggest nights of their career, well, there's always next year.

Which is Best of the Oscar-nominated Films?

It’s all because of “The Dark Knight.”

Last year, the TV ratings for the Oscars were in the toilet again. After all, the Batman flick ruled the box office but gathered few nominations, so viewers were not engaged in the competition. Similarly, the highest previous ratings for Oscar telecasts were in those years when two box office champs prevailed: Titanic and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.

To fix this problem, the Academy doubled the nominations for “Best Picture” to ten this year. So how did it all end up? Well, we got the five we would have had anyway, plus five more of varying quality or popularity. In other words, it was a wash.

I believe this was a pretty good year for the movies, as we got a nice variety of entertainment, uplifting messages, and advancement of the cinematic arts. If there was a year to increase the number of Oscar-nominated films, the films of 2009 were a worthy place to start. Here are my thoughts on the best of the nominated films, in ascending order. I am not predicting the winner; I am naming only my preferences. Also, in evaluating films, I take a page from critic Roger Ebert, who names his best film of the year according to a single criterion: Did it make him look at film differently?
Here is how I see the ten nominated films in terms of quality and innovation.

10. THE BLIND SIDE -- As Richard Corliss wrote in Time, “For evidence of Sandra Bullock's front-runner status in the Best Actress race, look at how she pulled her movie, indistinguishable from a dozen other sports inspirationals, into the Best Picture race.” How true. There is nothing cinematically exceptional, innovating, interesting or even particularly skillful about this movie. In fact, even its veracity is in doubt. It subject, football star Michael Oher, does not promote the film, softly citing its inaccuracies. Several people I know raved about the film. When I saw it, I thought it was made in the 1970s, hardly the standard for a “best film award.” The Blind Side stole a nomination from other worthier films (e.g. Bright Star, The Young Victoria).

9. A SERIOUS MAN -- You could have titled this “Jewish-American Beauty,” as it contains many of the minimalist plotlines and cinematic tics of that earlier film. A Serious Man, written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, centers around Professor Larry Gopnik, who is suffering all forms of tsuris. His wife, leaving him for a neighbor, asks Larry to move out to the local motel. Gopnik’s tenure is threatened by a student trying to bribe him AND blackmail him at the same time. His son and daughter are stealing his money. And this laugh fest is populated by some of the most offensive Jewish stereotypes I have ever seen. I guess the Academy believes that the Coens’ previous successes warrant an automatic nomination. They should think again.

8. AN EDUCATION -- Refer back to Sandra Bullock, as this film’s success rests on the charming performance of its star, Carey Mulligan. Based on a true story, Jenny, a 17-year-old schoolgirl who is bright beyond her years, is taken in by a older gentleman (Peter Sarsgaard), who seems to charm all around him. Soon the two are off to Paris and other adventures before Jenny receives some harsh life lessons. Mulligan is wonderfully believable, a star in the making who is sometimes reminiscent of Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. But a Best Picture contender? Not much there to support that.

7. UP -- Ah, now we begin to see the real cinematic achievers among the nominees. Pixar does it again, perhaps better than ever. Widower Carl Fredricksen sees his life withering away after he loses Ellie, his wife and the sparkplug of his life. In order to gain some control again, Carl decides to go on the adventure that he and Ellie never could. In the process, Carl learns what it is like to really live — a lesson that Ellie tried to teach him in their time together. If you think that animation is for children, experience the wordless, heartbreaking synopsis of Carl and Ellie’s life at the beginning of the film. And I haven’t seen a balloon look so thrilling since David Niven and Cantinflas traveled Around the World in Eighty Days.

6. PRECIOUS -- I got so lost in this for a while that I has to remind myself, “Wait, this isn’t a documentary.” Such is the skill of Lee Daniel’s direction that he makes this world of poverty so real. I stayed away from Precious for a while, worried that it was too depressing. Don’t make the same mistake. Unspeakably cruel at times, it shines a light on many inconvenient truths about our society. While filled with good performances, Mo’Nique shines as the mother who brutalizes her daughter in a wide variety of ways. Her final scene, staring into the camera and expressing all her guilt, fears, regrets and rationalizations is an acting lesson all by itself.

5. UP IN THE AIR -- A comedy that actually has cinematic value! Who’d have thought? Jason Reitman has created a small gem that may well turn out to be a classic among this crop of nominees. This film has it all: a witty screenplay, whipsmart performances, and movement. Yes, rather than merely talking us to death with its witty dialogue, Up in the Air actually moves us across the country , taking us into the zeitgeist of corporate downsizing. And George Clooney probably has proven, once and for all, that he is indeed this generation’s answer to Cary Grant. This may be the best, most modern film comedy that I have seen since Tootsie.

4. INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS -- I haven’t liked anything Quentin Tarantino has done since Pulp Fiction. But like that earlier work, Inglourious Basterds creates an crackling cinematic energy. You must first suspend your belief, as it is, at heart, a revenge fantasy against Hitler and his Holocaust. Once you accept that conceit, the film is radiant. The art direction is luxurious, creating elegant settings to support the ambitious scenario, especially in the climatic movie theater scene. Christoph Waltz is brilliant as Hans Landa, the SS officer who veers as effortlessly between four languages as he does from comic looniness to sadistic madness.

3. THE HURT LOCKER -- Director Kathryn Bigelow creates a timely, timeless tale of the Iraq war. You will be tense throughout The Hurt Locker, which is evidence of Bigelow’s genius. She takes you into the center of a most maddening job — defusing incendiary devices. She shows how these experts may not know the intentions of those around them; even a simple cell phone may ignite the bomb under question. The only aspect of this film that doesn’t place it at the top of my list is its screenplay, which allows little story or character development. Otherwise, it is a great use of film medium, especially the art of editing.

2. AVATAR TV is eating into film receipts, as audiences can be entertained for free at home. Hollywood responds with spectacle and a larger-than-home life experience. The year? No, not now, but 1959. The film that turns around Hollywood’s fortunes? Ben-Hur.
I believe Avatar is as significant in this era as Ben-Hur was in its time. James Cameron uses all available film technology to fashion a unique work that is best experienced on the big screen. He did his homework, too, creating creatures, a new language and a culture that is literally out of this world. Say what you want about the man; he bets big and wins big (re: Titanic). But he is certainly no screenwriter. That is why my favorite of the nominees is…

1. DISTRICT 9 -- Director Neill Blomkamp debuts impressively with his allegory about extra-terrestrials held prisoner in South Africa. His documentary style places us at the center of the action. He also gets more on the screen for his $30 million budget that Avatar does for its estimated $300 to 500 million. Also, the Oscar-nominated screenplay has more wit and character development than one normally sees in a sci-fi flick. One feels sympathy for the trapped aliens who want desperately to return home. In one poignant scene, an alien trembles fearfully when forced into a weapons experiment that will surely kill him. And the main earthling, Wikus (brilliantly portrayed by Sharlto Copley), makes us part of his own descent into alienation. In creating a world gone mad, District 9 did it better, and with fewer resources, than nearly any other film I have seen.

Oscar nominations, like all lists of “the best,” open up lots of debates. I expect to hear from many readers questioning my judgment and perhaps even the origins of my birth as a result of these opinions. Not to worry. The Academy’s collective opinion will hold far more sway than mine will. Furthermore, public opinion counts most of all, as that determines which films get made. So if you like a particular type of film, support it with your ticket dollars. And vote often. I still contend that a movie ticket is one of the best entertainment bargains around.

Gumby and Avatar: Lessons for Communicators

How ironic that I saw the film “Avatar”
the same weekend that Art Clokey passed.

Mr. Clokey’s name is not as familiar as that of his famous creation, Gumby, the flexible toy and cartoon character. But that’s because Gumby lived for decades in many incarnations. He was first famous in moralistic cartoons from The Lutheran Church. Later his fame was revived by comedian Eddie Murphy on “Saturday Night Live” as a vulgar, cigar-chomping show business loudmouth.

“Avatar,” of course, is the feature film phenomenon from creator James Cameron that is earning record revenues worldwide, the most since… well, since Cameron’s previous blockbuster, “Titanic.”

How are these seemingly disparate works similar? Both use film technology (admittedly, sophisticated vs. primitive) to create stunning and unique worlds that defy our notions of the physical world. And this appeals to the child in all of us. Consider these words by playwright William Kozlenko, from his essay, “The Animated Cartoon and Walt Disney”:

“The psychologist will undoubtedly tell us that this interest in make-believe reveals a desire to revert to an adolescent state; an inclination to escape from the rigors of a disordered existence. From another point of view, this interest may be traced to a latent desire on the part of adults to relive the imaginative experiences of their childhood. In either case, however, the element of escape is perhaps the touchstone of the whole matter. The uniqueness of the animated cartoon lies in the fact that, of all film forms, it is the only one that has freed itself from the restrictions of an oppressive reality.”

Said differently, animation allows us to soar and dream. Look at the way Gumby experiences space travel in this clip from the mid-1950s.

Now look at the world created by Cameron in this trailer from “Avatar.”

In both cases, the artists put their characters in the worlds of their own creation, unencumbered by material and logical conventions.

We as communicators — speakers, story tellers and media artists — have the same opportunities. We can insert our audiences in a separate time and place through the brilliance of our language, the vibrancy of our stories, or the luminosity of our visuals. It is why Art Clokey’s Gumby, in its simplicity, lives on today with affection and why James Cameron strikes gold around the world with striking images that speak to many people across their disparate cultures.

For those of us with only language in our arsenals, it tells why the work of such disparate wordsmiths like Shakespeare, Shalom Aleichem and Martin Luther King live on today. Even without the tools of celluloid or pixels, such artists reach deep into our minds and souls to make their messages shine brightly.

Godspeed, Mr. Clokey, and thanks for passing this way. Continued good luck to you, Mr. Cameron. You bet big and you win big because you know how to tap into our most basic needs.