6 ms·

Kuleshov effect

151 points by petethomas 8y ago

ohiovr 8y ago
I would like to see examples of this effect in advertising
- zwkrt 8y ago
  The entirety of video advertising utilizes this effect. A shot of carpet cleaner is less effective than that same shot juxtaposed with a happy couple enjoying dinner in a clean home. The naive advertising of Kermit the Frog (Ocean Breeze soap will get you clean!) Is rarely as effective as showing successfully happy people, even if they aren't using the product! Really the Kuleshov effect is so pervasive in visual media that we don't think of it as an effect, just as the way things are. It would be like trying to imagine living without object permanance.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Which isn't to take away from Kuleshov at all, cinema was a very new medium back then and this effect wasn't immediately obvious. Furthermore we might expect that people who grew up with cinema and video everywhere might be sophisticated enough not to be subject to the effect, but the recent replications of the effect and it's continued efficacy in advertising show that we still are.
    - Scriptor 8y ago
      I wish I could take a class on early film history. It's fascinating to see how people figured out all these techniques, tricks, rules, and conventions in the first few decades of movie-making. It's simply incredible how quickly it developed as an art form so quickly.
Kenji 8y ago
This effect does not work for me at all. I watched the clip before reading about what the effect actually is and I saw nothing like they described in the article.
PavlikPaja 8y ago
I wonder how is the lack of this effect connected to autism.
- 0815test 8y ago
  I wonder about this as well. That example on Wikipedia had no effect on me. On the other hand could it be the advertising industry using it too much and some people getting "anesthetized" to it? I don't think it's autism for me because generally I'm hyper aware of people's emotions.
  - petercooper 8y ago
    I came to the comments specifically to make a similar point and was glad to see people already addressing it. I (diagnosed ASD) watched the video on Wikipedia and thought it was weird he had the same neutral expression each time.
    - heyjudy 8y ago
      There's his expression in clip A, and the following subject in clip B. The viewer's impression of his social calibration (his appropriateness) in A changes after they see B. A is a neutral expression. B is a somber event where restraint is required: A is appropriate. B is a happy event or perhaps a close family member: A then B implies he's cold, underwhelmed or disapproving. B is some random, inanimate object: B holds no new social meaning of A, unless B is symbolic or a plot Macguffin. It's the same A, but it's the clip B following it that rewrites socioemotional history of the viewer. At a higher level of abstraction, it and other socioemotional back-rationalizations imply most people allow the future to rewrite their impression of the past, making the past not entirely cast in stone. People can easily turn on each other and then forget about it simply because they choose to rewrite history in their minds, twice.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
      Like commercials, I don't think it works when you watch with suspicion. So you cannot watch this movie and draw conclusions from it because you're focussed on the context of the Kuleshov effect (which also makes it more difficult to replicate). Even movies are different when you watch them critically. (FWIW, I have ASD as well, and for me the expressions on his face are meaningless.)
marius_k 8y ago
This scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail came back to my mind: https://youtu.be/DPXG4pdPj4w?t=18 https://youtu.be/DPXG4pdPj4w?t=18
- mysterypie 8y ago
  > [Monty Python scene of two guards who see a distant hazy image of a knight charging the castle, but do nothing because the image is so distant and hazy, but are surprised when the knight finally arrives and kills one of them] I'm intrigued that you used that particular scene as an example. I've watched a lot of Monty Python and I've seen this movie at least a couple times, but that scene makes no sense to me. I don't get how it's supposed to be funny and why it's even there. It is possible to explain it?
  - lowercased 8y ago
    > I don't get how it's supposed to be funny and why it's even there. It is possible to explain it? I think you just covered about 70% of monty python for me. I think much of it falls under "if I have to explain to you, you won't get it". FWIW, I get (and like) a lot of british humour, but really not much of MP.
    - mcbits 8y ago
      I think the humor comes from the shock and incongruity of a "battle" where he's brutally murdering innocent civilians and clueless guards for no reason. He probably could have just sauntered past them all. It's called the WTFLOL Effect (no Wikipedia entry yet).
  - kace91 8y ago
    For me the humor lies in the buildup. The music gives you the feeling that a fight is about to develop as soon as he gets closer. Pretty much the only thing you wouldn't expect to happen is for them to be caught off guard.
  - Retra 8y ago
    It works like most humor works: it sets up an expectation and then defies it. The expectation is that they see him charging combatively from a mile away. They should be readied for an attack or at least an urgent situation. This is defied by him popping up almost immediately. It's also defied in very "British humor" style, with the characters seriously under-reacting to the situation. Under-reacting to the approaching threat (which conveniently also serves to highlight the distance) and to the attack itself.
cosmic_ape 8y ago
There probably is a similar effect when people look at their own photos versus other people looking at the same photos. Wonder if anyone experimentally verified that.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  It's likely linked to the fact that phones mirror selfies because that matches oneself mental image better
sabalaba 8y ago
I think that this is a big part of why tiktok works so well as an app. You can always re-phrase one video in the context of a new one to create a lot of creative mashups.
Fishysoup 8y ago
Steve Bannon is - inspired, I guess? by this method and he and others at Breitbart build on it to trick people into forming associations between things that aren't really there. "The opposition with Jordan Klepper" has an excellent bit on it, where one of the correspondents goes undercover at a "citizen journalism" workshop taught by one of the Breitbart editors. The relevant bit is here, on the second clip: The https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhniP-mAChI&t=1m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhniP-mAChI&t=1m20s And here's the first clip, just for completeness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkgWXIjBEIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkgWXIjBEIU
- daodedickinson 8y ago
  The Soviets invented it, the Chinese mastered it, and Brietbart has never been anything but completely transparent in articulating his strategy as taking Saul Alinky's tactics and applying them toward better ends.
- porpoisely 8y ago
  What does Bannon have to do with the article or the effect? It's a 100 year old discovery that's been used by everyone in the media for decades. It's why films have editors. It's why news companies edit their interviews. The article even has a hitchcock example. "In the first version of the example, Hitchcock is squinting, and the audience sees footage of a woman with a baby. The screen then returns to Hitchcock's face, now smiling. In effect, he is a kind old man. In the second example, the woman and baby are replaced with a woman in a bikini, Hitchcock explains: "What is he now? He's a dirty old man."" Bannon does it, but so does everyone in the media.
  - dkural 8y ago
    Can you substantiate your claim, for instance, when did NYTimes use this effect to create an association in support of false facts? It seems that Breitbart has a much higher rate of misleading or outright false information compared to WSJ, NYTimes, etc. and much more supportive of using various strategies to trick its readers into believing falsehoods.
heyjudy 8y ago
It's a manifestation of back-rationalization whereby future experiences alter and redefine memories of the past. This is just another example of how people are infinitely manipulatable, unreliable and that their memories, and even their experiences, are entirely mutable.
sn41 8y ago
Perhaps this has been studied before, but this might be relevant in advertising as well. The book "Pre-suasion" by Robert Cialdini describes how for example, showing certain imagery before asking a person to make a choice produces specified effects - for example, showing flags before posing a question usually elicits a response that tends to be more aligned with Republican viewpoints.

Kuleshov effect

151 points by petethomas 8y ago

ohiovr 8y ago

I would like to see examples of this effect in advertising

zwkrt 8y ago
The entirety of video advertising utilizes this effect. A shot of carpet cleaner is less effective than that same shot juxtaposed with a happy couple enjoying dinner in a clean home. The naive advertising of Kermit the Frog (Ocean Breeze soap will get you clean!) Is rarely as effective as showing successfully happy people, even if they aren't using the product! Really the Kuleshov effect is so pervasive in visual media that we don't think of it as an effect, just as the way things are. It would be like trying to imagine living without object permanance.
- simonh 8y ago
  Which isn't to take away from Kuleshov at all, cinema was a very new medium back then and this effect wasn't immediately obvious. Furthermore we might expect that people who grew up with cinema and video everywhere might be sophisticated enough not to be subject to the effect, but the recent replications of the effect and it's continued efficacy in advertising show that we still are.
  - Scriptor 8y ago
    I wish I could take a class on early film history. It's fascinating to see how people figured out all these techniques, tricks, rules, and conventions in the first few decades of movie-making. It's simply incredible how quickly it developed as an art form so quickly.

Kenji 8y ago

This effect does not work for me at all. I watched the clip before reading about what the effect actually is and I saw nothing like they described in the article.

PavlikPaja 8y ago

I wonder how is the lack of this effect connected to autism.

0815test 8y ago
I wonder about this as well. That example on Wikipedia had no effect on me. On the other hand could it be the advertising industry using it too much and some people getting "anesthetized" to it? I don't think it's autism for me because generally I'm hyper aware of people's emotions.
- petercooper 8y ago
  I came to the comments specifically to make a similar point and was glad to see people already addressing it. I (diagnosed ASD) watched the video on Wikipedia and thought it was weird he had the same neutral expression each time.
  - heyjudy 8y ago
    There's his expression in clip A, and the following subject in clip B. The viewer's impression of his social calibration (his appropriateness) in A changes after they see B. A is a neutral expression. B is a somber event where restraint is required: A is appropriate. B is a happy event or perhaps a close family member: A then B implies he's cold, underwhelmed or disapproving. B is some random, inanimate object: B holds no new social meaning of A, unless B is symbolic or a plot Macguffin. It's the same A, but it's the clip B following it that rewrites socioemotional history of the viewer. At a higher level of abstraction, it and other socioemotional back-rationalizations imply most people allow the future to rewrite their impression of the past, making the past not entirely cast in stone. People can easily turn on each other and then forget about it simply because they choose to rewrite history in their minds, twice.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    Like commercials, I don't think it works when you watch with suspicion. So you cannot watch this movie and draw conclusions from it because you're focussed on the context of the Kuleshov effect (which also makes it more difficult to replicate). Even movies are different when you watch them critically. (FWIW, I have ASD as well, and for me the expressions on his face are meaningless.)

marius_k 8y ago

This scene from Monty Python's Holy Grail came back to my mind: https://youtu.be/DPXG4pdPj4w?t=18 https://youtu.be/DPXG4pdPj4w?t=18

mysterypie 8y ago
> [Monty Python scene of two guards who see a distant hazy image of a knight charging the castle, but do nothing because the image is so distant and hazy, but are surprised when the knight finally arrives and kills one of them] I'm intrigued that you used that particular scene as an example. I've watched a lot of Monty Python and I've seen this movie at least a couple times, but that scene makes no sense to me. I don't get how it's supposed to be funny and why it's even there. It is possible to explain it?
- lowercased 8y ago
  > I don't get how it's supposed to be funny and why it's even there. It is possible to explain it? I think you just covered about 70% of monty python for me. I think much of it falls under "if I have to explain to you, you won't get it". FWIW, I get (and like) a lot of british humour, but really not much of MP.
  - mcbits 8y ago
    I think the humor comes from the shock and incongruity of a "battle" where he's brutally murdering innocent civilians and clueless guards for no reason. He probably could have just sauntered past them all. It's called the WTFLOL Effect (no Wikipedia entry yet).
- kace91 8y ago
  For me the humor lies in the buildup. The music gives you the feeling that a fight is about to develop as soon as he gets closer. Pretty much the only thing you wouldn't expect to happen is for them to be caught off guard.
- Retra 8y ago
  It works like most humor works: it sets up an expectation and then defies it. The expectation is that they see him charging combatively from a mile away. They should be readied for an attack or at least an urgent situation. This is defied by him popping up almost immediately. It's also defied in very "British humor" style, with the characters seriously under-reacting to the situation. Under-reacting to the approaching threat (which conveniently also serves to highlight the distance) and to the attack itself.

cosmic_ape 8y ago

There probably is a similar effect when people look at their own photos versus other people looking at the same photos. Wonder if anyone experimentally verified that.

LoSboccacc 8y ago
It's likely linked to the fact that phones mirror selfies because that matches oneself mental image better

sabalaba 8y ago

I think that this is a big part of why tiktok works so well as an app. You can always re-phrase one video in the context of a new one to create a lot of creative mashups.

Fishysoup 8y ago

Steve Bannon is - inspired, I guess? by this method and he and others at Breitbart build on it to trick people into forming associations between things that aren't really there. "The opposition with Jordan Klepper" has an excellent bit on it, where one of the correspondents goes undercover at a "citizen journalism" workshop taught by one of the Breitbart editors. The relevant bit is here, on the second clip: The https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhniP-mAChI&t=1m20s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhniP-mAChI&t=1m20s And here's the first clip, just for completeness. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkgWXIjBEIU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkgWXIjBEIU

daodedickinson 8y ago
The Soviets invented it, the Chinese mastered it, and Brietbart has never been anything but completely transparent in articulating his strategy as taking Saul Alinky's tactics and applying them toward better ends.
porpoisely 8y ago
What does Bannon have to do with the article or the effect? It's a 100 year old discovery that's been used by everyone in the media for decades. It's why films have editors. It's why news companies edit their interviews. The article even has a hitchcock example. "In the first version of the example, Hitchcock is squinting, and the audience sees footage of a woman with a baby. The screen then returns to Hitchcock's face, now smiling. In effect, he is a kind old man. In the second example, the woman and baby are replaced with a woman in a bikini, Hitchcock explains: "What is he now? He's a dirty old man."" Bannon does it, but so does everyone in the media.
- dkural 8y ago
  Can you substantiate your claim, for instance, when did NYTimes use this effect to create an association in support of false facts? It seems that Breitbart has a much higher rate of misleading or outright false information compared to WSJ, NYTimes, etc. and much more supportive of using various strategies to trick its readers into believing falsehoods.

heyjudy 8y ago

It's a manifestation of back-rationalization whereby future experiences alter and redefine memories of the past. This is just another example of how people are infinitely manipulatable, unreliable and that their memories, and even their experiences, are entirely mutable.

sn41 8y ago

Perhaps this has been studied before, but this might be relevant in advertising as well. The book "Pre-suasion" by Robert Cialdini describes how for example, showing certain imagery before asking a person to make a choice produces specified effects - for example, showing flags before posing a question usually elicits a response that tends to be more aligned with Republican viewpoints.