I have two hypotheses:
a) It may be a kind of hindsight bias. You watched the video in the context of an article on the Kuleshov effect and knew it was the same neutral expression each time.
b) You cannot gage the mood of the embedded scene and thus cannot transfer it onto the encasing scene. The end result is that you are not affected in this instance. But it would not be because of some immunity to the Kuleshov effect itself.
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.
(FWIW, I have ASD as well, and for me the expressions on his face are meaningless.)
Autism's partial face-blindness may include an inability to learn prejudices about the emotional content of faces.
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.
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?
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.
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.
And here's the first clip, just for completeness.
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.
I feel the comment is exactly what comments are for, adding further context around an article with a different perspective. Can you explain why you think he shouldn't have made this comment, outside of "Bannon is not the only person who does this, you can't make this comment unless you mention every other form of media that does."