
Kuleshov effect - petethomas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuleshov_effect
======
sn41
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.

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

~~~
0815test
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
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.

~~~
Fnoord
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.)

------
ohiovr
I would like to see examples of this effect in advertising

~~~
zwkrt
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
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
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.

------
marius_k
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
> [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
> 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
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).

------
cosmic_ape
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
It's likely linked to the fact that phones mirror selfies because that matches
oneself mental image better

------
heyjudy
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.

------
sabalaba
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
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)

~~~
porpoisely
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
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.

~~~
vowelless
NYTimes is print media. This effect is for film editing. Better question would
be for Fox News, MSNBC, etc.

