Mozart wrote for audiences who were only half paying attention. If that is all he had done -- and it was all that most of his peers did -- he would be forgotten. But at the same time he also wrote for audiences who were paying the closest possible attention. He is remembered for doing both. It is quite a trick, as you will see if you try it. Netflix do not even see the need for it, and therefore, their "works" will be forgotten.
Good question. The literature does not tend to be very informative on this point. It is a difficult topic to discuss because you can either handwave and presume agreement, or else go very deep. It has a lot to do with the amount and kind of repetition, and that is where the analogy between music and prose gets wobbly. The nearest thing we had to a Mozart in living memory was Stephen Sondheim. Something like "Comedy Tonight" would have been very familiar to Mozart, in purpose if not in all the details of execution.
In terms of technical writing for multiple audiences, it comes immediately to vocabulary, and there, again, the analogy fails, because it is much harder to get away with using unfamiliar words. For your purposes, Churchill might be a more direct model than Mozart. Look particularly at how he deploys words of one syllable, two syllables, etc. to shape phrases and produce climactic rhythms. Occupational dialect, full of terms-of-art, is obviously an obstacle to this kind of thing.
Some TV is already like this. I recall critics of Teletubbies complaining about the repeated statements and actions (Tinky-Winky says "Again! Again!"). Then I spent time in Asia and all their popular entertainment (eg Running Man) continually repeats the last 10 seconds of each action. It's crazy making to me, but it evidently is what the viewers like.
That's in screenwriter circles called the hook, not the plot. You don't reiterate the whole plot for the innate viewers, you just deepen the hook, usually by giving wrong hooks, which are then replaced by better hooks.
It's not that Netflix invented TV scripting. Even with festival movies you turn it off within the first 5 minutes if you have to judge 200 to 2000 admissions in a month. Same with distributors. They certainly don't watch the whole movie if it starts bad. It usually doesn't get better in the third act.
The HN headline misses the point that Netflix told Matt Damon this.
I'd guess more people will watch Matt Damon's new movie on Netflix than watched Adolescence before it won the awards
People want to see (are more likely to watch) super and action hero movies with big stars in - but there's been so many of these with fairly similar plotlines that outside the attention grabbing action and fight scenes the quiet/story development scenes become like ad breaks and people start looking at their phones.
If Matt Damon made different movies for Netflix (like adolescence!), he'd get less views but be given more freedom.
> shows like “Adolescence” are “the exception,” Affleck said he felt the show “demonstrates you don’t have to do” the Netflix tricks to please audiences.
Turkish TV series have been operating on this exact "second screen" logic for decades. They are massive global exports specifically because their 140-minute episodes rely heavily on meaningful stares, flashbacks, and circular dialogue.
They are designed for people ironing or cooking; you can leave the room for twenty minutes and miss absolutely nothing.
Personally, I can't bear them, the constant spoon-feeding is torture if you are actually paying attention, but Netflix is effectively just adopting this proven, low-attention retention strategy.
I am of two minds here. I can understand how the filmmakers can feel insulted by this demand but I am also one of those viewers that watches movies with one eye on my phone so spoon feeding the audience benefits people like me. I only pay full attention to one or two shows (usually those that I watch with my spouse) and every other show can only get my divided attention. My product manager sense says that you should give people what they want even if my artistic sense is indignant.
I am daft: why do people past a certain age continue to watch movies and tv shows so religiously. What’s the never ending allure? It’s very formulaic as per the articles. Once in awhile I can sort of understand but beyond that, is it escapism? Addiction?
I recently heard some workmates discussing some new TV show - one told the other that they definitely can't double-screen for this show - it needs full attention.
21 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 58.0 ms ] threadhttp://bekindrewrite.com/2011/02/04/what-does-hang-a-lantern...
when done artfully it works well, rather than insulting intelligences, or seeming intentionally dumbed down.
Any chance you have a source where I could learn more about this aspect of Mozart's work?
In terms of technical writing for multiple audiences, it comes immediately to vocabulary, and there, again, the analogy fails, because it is much harder to get away with using unfamiliar words. For your purposes, Churchill might be a more direct model than Mozart. Look particularly at how he deploys words of one syllable, two syllables, etc. to shape phrases and produce climactic rhythms. Occupational dialect, full of terms-of-art, is obviously an obstacle to this kind of thing.
The worst show I've seen for this was american - mythbusters.
Casual Viewing – Why Netflix looks like that
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42529756
The new literalism plaguing today’s movies
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44567683
Why 90s Movies Feel More Alive Than Anything on Netflix
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46062198
Netflix will probably absorb them and make them even worse than they are now.
That's in screenwriter circles called the hook, not the plot. You don't reiterate the whole plot for the innate viewers, you just deepen the hook, usually by giving wrong hooks, which are then replaced by better hooks.
It's not that Netflix invented TV scripting. Even with festival movies you turn it off within the first 5 minutes if you have to judge 200 to 2000 admissions in a month. Same with distributors. They certainly don't watch the whole movie if it starts bad. It usually doesn't get better in the third act.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2gB03p44_4
I'd guess more people will watch Matt Damon's new movie on Netflix than watched Adolescence before it won the awards
People want to see (are more likely to watch) super and action hero movies with big stars in - but there's been so many of these with fairly similar plotlines that outside the attention grabbing action and fight scenes the quiet/story development scenes become like ad breaks and people start looking at their phones.
If Matt Damon made different movies for Netflix (like adolescence!), he'd get less views but be given more freedom.
> shows like “Adolescence” are “the exception,” Affleck said he felt the show “demonstrates you don’t have to do” the Netflix tricks to please audiences.
They are designed for people ironing or cooking; you can leave the room for twenty minutes and miss absolutely nothing.
Personally, I can't bear them, the constant spoon-feeding is torture if you are actually paying attention, but Netflix is effectively just adopting this proven, low-attention retention strategy.
If people can't pay attention, fuck them.