‘Familiar Touch' Review: Kathleen Chalfant Faces Fading Memories
Take one scene in which Ruth, getting a checkup, interrupts the routine questions to ask, 'Do you know the recipe for borscht?' She proceeds to explain, in detail, how to make the soup. But Ms. Chalfant turns this into a monologue of rhythmic intensity, bringing a subtle, breathtaking urgency to Ruth's exhibition of her own acuity. Never have we watched a character search for the words 'cabbage' and 'boil' with such driven seriousness.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Learn About: NASA's Lucy Spacecraft Flyby With Asteroid Donaldjohanson
Learn more about the Lucy mission "fly past 52246 Donaldjohanson -NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Dan Gallagher: Producer/Narrator Adriana Manrique Gutierrez: Animator Kel Elkins: Animator Johathan North: Animator Michael Lentz: Animator/Art Director Walt Feimer: Animation Lead Nancy Jones: Public Affairs Katherine Kretke: Public Affairs Universal Production Music: 'Nico's Journey' by Nicholas Smith [PRS]; 'Knowing Half the Future' and 'Temporal Timings' by Lee John Gretton [PRS]; 'Poly Propulsion' by Alfie Solo [PRS]
Fast Company
42 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Creative litigation versus creative instigation
I imagine that—like me—many of us got into advertising because it beat the alternatives. No real rules. No 'right way to do it.' No boxes you have to check. That sense of creative freedom chirped and blinked like an EXIT sign in the smoke-filled hallway of career choices. We ran to that EXIT, bypassing doors leading to more stringent, structured careers like lawyer or accountant or 'business consultant.' And before technology and analytics usurped advertising—like it has other entertainment-based industries like sports and film—that creative freedom drove the industry. Look at how analytics has all but eliminated the creativity in the mid-range game in the NBA and the subsequent Finals ratings. Advertising is in a similar state: seeking ideas that feel like predictable, analytically defensible, 'high-value' shots. This thinking is now making us operate more and more like those stringent, structured industries we avoided in the first place. BRAND STRATEGISTS AS CREATIVE LITIGATORS Take brand strategy for instance. Our main role now is 'creative litigator.' We gather stakeholder interviews like depositions, review client's internal documentation and data like evidence discovery, and research competitor companies and culture like case histories, statutes, and laws that give us the precedents to build off of. Then, ultimately, we piece together findings into a cohesive story like an opening statement that lays out the case for creative work. That's great for stakeholders, but not so much for viewers. People are paying $100+/month to avoid the 'disruption and irritation of advertising.' However, being disruptive or irritating shouldn't be the worry for brands. They should worry about being boring. THE RISK OF BEING BORING Jon Evans estimates the ' cost of being boring ' at $189B for brands in the U.S. Creators and influencers know this. Their freedom to 'just shoot' and develop an understanding of 'how not to be boring' enables them to run circles around ad agencies in terms of engagement and efficacy. In fact, a recent Deloitte study showed 56% of Gen Z and 43% of millennials find user-generated social media content 'more relevant than traditional TV shows and movies.' WHAT BRAND STRATEGISTS REALLY NEED TO DO In short, boring inputs result in boring outputs. To change that, in the case of brand strategists, we need to be thinking more often like creative instigators and agitators than just litigators. We need to approach our work like a journalist or a stand-up comedian. Because we're after 'interesting,' not justice. And you don' t get to 'interesting' by filling in funnels or bogus 'white space' quadrants or any assortment of rectangles in a framework. You get there by passively observing rather than actively 'working a case' at all times. Allowing anomalies to appear and not just looking for commonalities. Not looking for white spaces, but for colorful ones. Being able to 'explain the situation like I'm five,' but being able to ask questions like a 5-year-old first. Why? Why? Why? Getting the time to be the dumbest in the room, not the smartest. To be able to find something and show it to someone and say, 'Is this anything?' With the advertising industry's current landscape and dominant forces as they are, the sell of creative work will always require litigation. But it's much easier to sell creative work when the decider is focused on the tears in their eyes and not whether the idea is 'ownable' or 'culturally relevant' or 'shareable' or whatever analytics creativity is foolishly judged against today. Great creative ideas deserve to exist and shouldn't live and die based on their ability to fit in Meta, Alphabet, or Amazon's 'predictable' boxes. Come to think of it—maybe we are after justice after all?
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
LeBron James still acts like the King, but the NBA isn't the same
It's strange to ponder an NBA that doesn't cater to LeBron James. Since 2003, when he arrived at the draft wearing that white suit, he has been a focal point. The question 'What does LeBron want?' has dominated the plans of his many teams and the interest of the entire league. It once seemed his basketball career wouldn't end before a mad scramble to buy him the perfect retirement gift.
