Deception

I have just viewed an interesting talk on TED.com by Marco Tempest. It can be seen at

http://www.ted.com/talks/marco_tempest_the_magic_of_truth_and_lies_on_ipods.html

In this video the speaker makes some excellent points about the positive uses of deception. It really goes back to the basic concept of suspension of disbelief. This is the psychological technique of temporarily engrossing the attention of the audience to the point where they briefly forget that they are viewing a work of fiction. The deeper the suspension of disbelief becomes, the more enjoyable the audience finds the production.

People will believe what they want to believe. The key to developing a successful strategy for using deception in a positive manner is to provide a nonharmful method of conceptual reorientation that leads people to a conclusion that they would have reached on their own. Or, more specifically, it’s about giving people what they don’t know they want before they realize that they want it.

The concept of using deception tends to have a negative image attached to it. This is only exacerbated by books like The Art of Deception in which Kevin Mitnick describes his use of personal deception to cause damage to individuals and businesses through computer hacking.

The concept gains further notoriety through the expansion of ideas like social engineering as described by Sarah Granger. Social engineering is an specific methodology for following the negative example initially established in The Art of Deception.

This then leads to larger issues of corporate deception such as the clean coal ads described in Dirty Business. This represents the common practice of corporate funded special interest groups that parrot the message that the company itself would like people to accept.

The important thing, however, is that all of these techniques can be used to encourage a positive message rather than a destructive force. By following the message of Marco Tempest it is possible to help people to help themselves in a way that seems to them as a matter of their own volition.

Film Office

            The film office is an invaluable asset to the production community. More importantly it is an asset to the entire area by bringing in jobs and millions of dollars in revenue annually. However, the film office is in a constant war to maintain its’ existence. The terrifying thing is that the enemy that is constantly trying to eliminate the existence of this beneficial service provider is a group who think they are doing the right thing by limiting government spending. The problem is that they are all “early exiters”.

            An “early exiter” is a person who jumps out of their seat at the theater and runs for the door the second the credits start to roll. If you ask them why, they will tell you that the credits are long and boring. That is where we have a problem.

            The people who want to eliminate tax incentives for production companies and cut the budget to the film office always say that providing for the film industry is just a matter of handing tax dollars over to rich movie companies. But, the people who say this are all “early exiters” who have never stayed in the theater long enough to see just how many people are actually employed by an individual film production.

            It’s a bit of juxtaposition. First, they say the list of people employed by a production (the credits) is too long to sit through. Then, they say that film production doesn’t benefit the community. How is this possible? If the industry creates so many jobs that you can’t even sit through the list of people who work on one single project, how can the industry not be financially benefiting the community?

            This then leads to the second problem. Those who fail to see the benefits for the community then try to eliminate the office all together. That’s where you end up with situations such as what happened to Lisa Strout. 

            Lisa Strout was the Director of the New Mexico Film Office for seven years until she was let go

during an administrative shake up where the “early exiters” decided the film office wasn’t needed. Fortunately, she was then hired as the Director of the Boston Film Office where they obviously have a better grasp of the benefits that can be provided to the community.

            In the end, the only suggestion I can think of is this: Anytime a politician suggests tampering with their local film office they should be required to sit through the credits from every movie ever shot in their area. Seriously, the only thing that brings in more money is tourism. Getting rid of the film office is like destroying everything in you neighborhood that the tourists might want to see. It is nothing more than an ill informed attempt to shoot yourself and your neighbor both in the foot.

            If you are unsure where your local film office is check this link HERE. And, don't hesitate to send them an email just to show your support. The more people there are in the community who show support for the film office, then the more support the film office will be able to provide for that community.