TPM Election Central | Talking Points Memo | Now An Anti-Obama Version Of 1984-Video Makes The Rounds

I think it's funny. I think most people (outside of the political junkie crowd) are simply going to laugh, and then wonder why the Bears are being dissed like that.

As a response to the faux-original anti Hillary ad? Doesn't really work, because it's really no longer new again.

But I'd sure like to hear from those who were so deeply offended and angry about the first version of this...

Posted by CT Voter
March 21, 2007 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink

Um...the Bears won the game that Obama did that Sunday Night Football intro for...

But I'm sure Hillary knows that, being the good Bears fan that she is.

Posted by Old 33
March 21, 2007 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink

Um I dunno where's the Guiliani ad? I'm sure a good one could be made out of his speeches.

Posted by markg8
March 21, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink

I'm waiting to see The Birdcage recut as a pro-Giuliani ad.

Posted by joejoejoe
March 21, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink

Uh ... kinda makes me like Obama. He's forceful and funny, a bright spot of life in the drab surroundings.

The Obama folks should spread this around, too.

Posted by BriVT
March 21, 2007 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink

Maybe it's just me, but I think it's a pretty stupid counter. I thought the original anti-Hillary ad was kind of dumb, too - but at least that ad presumably resonated with some sort of already-existing fear of Hillary as Big Brother (or rather, Sister) kind of entity. I don't understand how the anti-Obama ad resonates with any already-existing Big Brother-related emotions about Obama.

Posted by JayinWI
March 21, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink

The valiant little tailor threw stones at the two sleeping giants. Each giant believed the other giant was trying to hurt him.

Republicans read the Grimm Brothers too.

MW

Posted by Milton Wiltmellow
March 21, 2007 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

Posted by NJ Lawyer
March 21, 2007 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink

Ok this thing looks like it was thrown together in an hour. I cant think any "professional video editors" would claim it.
The original version with Hillary had some style since the compositing was professional looking, and it was well thought out. But this looks basically un-professional, I'm wondering if Dick Morris had something to do with it...

Posted by PeterLHammond
March 21, 2007 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink

I don't care who you support, this remake of remake is crap. But it is exciting to see the public getting involved in making innovative commercials and ads for their candidates!

Posted by sedonaredrock
March 21, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink

I'm pretty sure this is actually an anti-Clinton ad. It's obviously designed to make Clinton supporters look like uncreative amateurs.

Posted by fwiffo
March 21, 2007 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink

Wow, that's really lame.

It doesn't look professional at all -- I agree with PeterLHammond, it looks entirely amateur. Deliberately so, I think. What Hillary's campaign probably wants -- more than a slick comeback -- is to create the impression that real people out there, not part of her paid staff or insider network, would create something like this on their own.

Honestly, what's the population of voters out there who are really cheering for Hillary, not just to win -- but to beat Obama? And does anyone else think this mass of people exists? I don't think she's making the notion any less implausible.

Posted by nandrews3
March 21, 2007 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink

Didn't they have sports bras back then?

Posted by tenaciousd
March 21, 2007 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink

PeterLHammond is right. The compositing on the anti-Hillary one is very good. The perspective has been adjusted on the Hillary footage so it's a close match to the master shot from the Apple commercial.

The talent and equipment to do this efficiently isn't found only in Hollywood. There are capable postproduction companies in all the major ad centers who do this sort of thing every day. NY, Chi, Miami, Minneapolis, Dallas, Portland, and SF.

All of those companies would also have a clean copy of 1984 to work with. The ad world still considers it the best American commercial ever. Whatever's 2nd doesn't come close. It's been noted elsewhere that whoever did it used an updated version Apple used for the 2004 MacWorld convention. (The Hammer thrower is wearing iPod headphones.)

Although links to the clip have been kicking around the blogosphere for a couple of weeks, the story hit the MSM via the SF Chronicle. So my guess is that a creative team in SF was working on the post for a spot and started talking politics with the post artist. One thing led to another. I can't explain it, but the idea behind the spot seems to be the kind that more likely would come from SF creatives.

The version using Obama's MNF introduction maybe the lamest thing I've seen this year.

It's a big advantage if your independent viral producers are really smart and talented.

Posted by Mark Paul
March 21, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink

Someone mentioned on a thread that the first ad was probably a GOP hit piece. I'm starting to believe that and this one too. What better way to make the top Dem candidates look bad than to post these absurd videos?

They seem to have a subtle hint of Democrats = "Big Brother" = Big Government. That reeks of GOP.

Posted by gqmartinez
March 21, 2007 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink

But...here's the thing. There were millions of people (courtesy Monday Night Football) who will have seen the actual Obama footage, and will recognize this (if they even see it) as just a joke.

I interpreted the "anti-Hillary" version more as a "politics as usual sucks" ad, but I'm willing to see that one as a possible GOP hit piece, but this one? Too many people have seen the original (in the last six months) for it to be anything but an obvious take-off on something.

I don't think either of these is going to have an effect on how people actually feel, but each might have an effect on how these campaigns are portrayed in the MSM, and that's worrisome. (given the state of MSM)

Posted by CT Voter
March 21, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink

So, should Obama supporters demand an apology from Hillary Clinton? Seems that yesterday, the outrage was over how dishonest Obama was for claiming he had nothing to do with the ad. Is the same outrage going to be elicited for this situation?

Posted by CT Voter
March 21, 2007 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink

No, it doesn't work.

Hillary's delivery is strident, and despite very little experience, her time as first lady and connection to Clinton makes her appear very Establishment.

Obama is most fairly attacked based on his inexperience. What makes this unlikely, however, is that none of the three front runners have any experience.

Posted by catD
March 21, 2007 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink

But why would the GOP want to go after Hillary during the primaries? There's nothing they'd like better than to see Hillary as the Democratic candidate.

Posted by catD
March 21, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink

Duh. I completely forgot that the Bears were in the Superbowl this year. They were, weren't they?

Quite obviously, NOT a Bears fan.

Posted by CT Voter
March 21, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink

debcoop

This was not a pro. The anti Hillary version did one thing to make her visage on the screen look forboding and authoritarian to fit the image of "Big Brother".

THEY TOOK THE VIDEO OF HER INITIAL CONVERSATION IN WHICH SHE WAS SHOT FULL HEAD ON...A NORMAL, FRIENDLY WAY TO TALK TO PEOPLE..EYE TO EYE.... AND OPTICALLY ALTERED THE ANGLE AT WHICH SHE IS SEEN ON THE SCREEN. YOU ARE LOOKING AT HER FROM BELOW. THAT MAKES HER LOOK MUCH MORE DISTANT FROM PEOPLE AND PORTRAYS AUTHORITARIANISM.

That is why I thought the intent of the ad was not like PC's are old, and Macs are new because the way they altered her on the sreen was definitely meant to portray authoritarian menace.

I thought that was dirty pool. The face of authoritarianism is Dick Cheney scowling and George Bush smirking at us all

Posted by debcoop
March 21, 2007 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink

debcoop

there was nothing strident about what she said. The stridency here is in the eye of the beholder.

they optically reshot her footage to make her look menacing and suthoritarian. That is the meta message coming off the video. This is a pro with some decent equipment on hand who made the anti Hillary ad. .

Posted by debcoop
March 21, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink

That's my theory.

Posted by KingElvis
March 21, 2007 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink

I guess looking authoritarian is in the eye of the beholder too--For those of you out there more knowledgeable, is there any evidence that these altered camera angles will a) be detected by the typical viewer and b) then have an effect?

I know from basic visual perception work that there is an impressive amount of information that's not encoded by the visual system unless you're attending to that information, and I also know that visual information can have relatively long lasting effects, but I'm not at all familiar with the research literature on camera angles, etc, and how much people remember of political ads.

Posted by CT Voter
March 21, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink

I just think it's hysterical that they used one of the best TV spots he's done -- people LOVED that bit before Monday Night Football, ending with his signature grin. I get that they wanted to tie him to a "losing" team, but they really should have gone a different direction and picked a more unflattering piece. There must be a bad one out there, somewhere.

Posted by lapis
March 21, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink

The person who made this was Hillary's finance chair.

Posted by faithfull
March 21, 2007 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink

The first ad was anti-Clinton but NOT pro-Obama (just said "anybody but Clinton"). So it's silly that the press concludes someone on Obama's staff might have created it.

This ad is just silly. Not effective as an anti-Obama ad (or as a pro-Clinton ad). The punch-line bears no relationship to the ad.

Posted by MS
March 21, 2007 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink

debcoop

Ever see Eisenstein? Ivan the terrible? This is filmmaking 101. Remember the shots of Citizen Kane at that angle? If you look at any movie with authoritarian tendencies like say Triumph of the Will? there are shots intended to produce that effect as well as the closer ones which are called mid camera shots which are intended to make the subject warmer and human, even Adolf himself.

Any decent filmmaker knows everyone of these rules and how different camera angles work emotively.

I have worked in movies in the past and my film knowledge is encyclopedic. There is just no quibbling here.

Posted by debcoop
March 21, 2007 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink

debcoop

look below for my comment. I thought it was going here

Posted by debcoop
March 21, 2007 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink

debcoop

I saw it again. There is in addition to the angle the screen with her on it has weird little lines going across which makes it look unreal and artifiacial.

Thirdly the music is technoloke and what we would call in aHitchcock movie prefigures anxiety and tension, the movie is forboding.

Third they do something very crucial, they run her voice through some vocal modifier to make her voice tinny and to reverberate as though she's speaking from deep wihtin the bowels of some terrible place..like a dungeon.

Every alterationin how she was presented was not neutral but was designed to make her appear to mean, authoritarian, cruel and not not a human being.

It was all added on

Posted by debcoop
March 21, 2007 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink

I have no argument with your encyclopedic film knowledge--I don't necessarily agree with the comment that the Clinton ad made her look evil and authoritarian--but whatever.

In my day job, as a visual scientist, I am interested in different facets of visual information than ad makers are. And I was just wondering if there's any research out there that says all these modifications do have an effect on behavior. I won't bore this audience with information about basic research, but I am curious.

Just because "Triumph of the Will" is considered a classic in propaganda doesn't answer the question of whether manipulating camera angles produces a significant change in attitudes. We assume it does, but really, it's an empirical question, and not a jab at your "encyclopedic knowledge" of film, or your experience.

Posted by CT Voter
March 21, 2007 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink

Best thing about the first ad: The words "This is our conversation" superimposed in white letters on Hillary speaking. IMO the message of the ad was that Hillary's "conversation" wasn't brilliant and well-produced but obvious insincere pablum.

Posted by Karen444
March 21, 2007 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink

I thought the whole presentation was kind of confusing, and probably pointless on top of that.
There's some Big Issues on the plate, sort of, energy, the war, national debt, just to name a few, and you won't change those one way or the other no matter how many video clips you splice together. Too bad the creator of this clip didn't put their efforts into a 10-minute how-to presentation on how to get your car to be 15-20% more efficient through some simple upkeep...but that would be functional, effective, economical, probably here-and-now type stuff that people could identify with, maybe even act on, and doesn't have a lot of dark and foreboding imagery in it. Next!

Posted by impeachtoday
March 21, 2007 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink

What I do not get is why Apple Computer hasn't done something to enforce it's copyright over the commercial used in both cases? Corporations always go for the juggler when it goes after people downloading any other content so Apple's silence thus far is more than a bit suspicious.

They could find out the IP and other information of the person who uploaded the video in a New York minute.

Posted by mm232
March 22, 2007 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink