Very interesting read! I first saw you, yep you’ve guessed it, on Yesterday, counterbalancing some of the rather weird & out-there theories on “Forbidden History.” I think it’s a good example of the “talking head” not agreeing with some of the theories. It showed, as you said, that you had done your research on that episode’s subject. I would be following the conspiracy theories, saying “wow! Really? No way!” Then you’d pop up, I would roll my eyes & say “oh no here’s Guy, he’s going to shoot this theory down & be sensible”
I came across you first as a talking head (rather than as an author) on Netflix, but I missed the pop up line saying who you were, and I wound it back to check if you were Niall Ferguson. Then I googled you and then bought your book "The Leader" - so it led to a direct sale in that instance!
What a great read! Being able to get the message across succinctly and clearly is a great skill. I was watching a programme on Rommel, and one "talking head", a historian from Liverpool (not Frank McDonough) who's name l can't recall was summing up his view as Rommel being a good general, but not quite as good as everyone thinks, sort of a second string Field Marshal (my words) and providing an interesting analogy by comparing him to Liverpool FC manager Jürgen Klopp. It immediately made sense as long as you knew who Klopp is, and weren't a Liverpool supporter.
A very interesting read, sounds like you’ve really hit a sweet spot in the industry. Didn’t realise being a presenter is declining as a result of Talking Heads. Indeed, you could say it was a Road to Nowhere…
Genuinely insightful thank you. I guess watching such shows one doesn’t think about the work (and emotional toll!) going into the talking heads segments.
Very informative Guy. I like the blend of topics you are writing about here. War crimes, gin & Dubonnet and talking heads. I do believe your buddy James has a different opinion about the industry. I seem to recall a rant on Twitter not so long ago.
Good insights. I think very few people realise how artificial it can be when placed in front of the camera with a mic stuffed in your face, rephrasing something for the third time but trying to keep the emphasis fresh -- all with an interviewer/presenter checking something else like their next piece, instead of listening to your reply (which they have in fairness heard twice already) Bless the ones who feed you just a modicum of eye-contact. I remember a journalist once warning me that "it's not a conversation" when talking about interviews -- it's a place to make your point.
Live broadcast contributions are another thing again, and one I enjoy doing enormously. The producer chuckling or issuing instructions in your ear while trying to respond to a question is a level of multi-tasking that amazes me anyone can master.
I absolutely loved this, and had no idea that it worked this way. I'm afraid, though, that what I laughingly like to refer to as my 'professional expertise' did spot one wee typo: "What directors want from talking heads is not limitless expert knowledge, but an inability to transmit a relatively basic amount of knowledge in a way that is watchable." Presume the "in" should be deleted from "inability"?
I found this quite enlightening. Thank you. I don’t think you are one of “Yesterday’s men”. I prefer the David Cameron line, which I use against myself “we were the future, once”….. QED.
An interesting insight. I do enjoy your participation in these shows but I always wonder what has been edited out of your comments. The brevity is one of the reasons I enjoyed your five night presentations, really possible to drill down into a topic.
Interesting stuff again Guy. And not one that I’ve paid a lot of attention to. Or, honestly really thought about. Have watched many docs in which you and the usual suspects appear, and I guess the reason I’ve not thought about it, is that you guys ( in the main) are so proficient at it, that it just seems, well natural. Not even noticed the “presenter” aspect. You all come over as consummate professionals. Relatable, knowledgeable, and sometimes very tongue in cheek professionals. I guess that’s what makes you all in such demand. Thanks again for the insight. 👍🏽
Very interesting, Guy. I work in academia and over the years colleagues have expressed their frustration with the media experience. Some were so scarred by it that they never wanted to do it again. You make it all look very easy, which is a real skill - and you keep the viewer engaged and entertained. Big thumbs up all round!
Made me think about a particular talking head who crops up regularly & talks about my field (women's suffrage) when her expertise is something quite different! Obvs I'm far too dreary for TV. Hey ho!
Very interesting read! I first saw you, yep you’ve guessed it, on Yesterday, counterbalancing some of the rather weird & out-there theories on “Forbidden History.” I think it’s a good example of the “talking head” not agreeing with some of the theories. It showed, as you said, that you had done your research on that episode’s subject. I would be following the conspiracy theories, saying “wow! Really? No way!” Then you’d pop up, I would roll my eyes & say “oh no here’s Guy, he’s going to shoot this theory down & be sensible”
I came across you first as a talking head (rather than as an author) on Netflix, but I missed the pop up line saying who you were, and I wound it back to check if you were Niall Ferguson. Then I googled you and then bought your book "The Leader" - so it led to a direct sale in that instance!
What a great read! Being able to get the message across succinctly and clearly is a great skill. I was watching a programme on Rommel, and one "talking head", a historian from Liverpool (not Frank McDonough) who's name l can't recall was summing up his view as Rommel being a good general, but not quite as good as everyone thinks, sort of a second string Field Marshal (my words) and providing an interesting analogy by comparing him to Liverpool FC manager Jürgen Klopp. It immediately made sense as long as you knew who Klopp is, and weren't a Liverpool supporter.
A very interesting read, sounds like you’ve really hit a sweet spot in the industry. Didn’t realise being a presenter is declining as a result of Talking Heads. Indeed, you could say it was a Road to Nowhere…
Genuinely insightful thank you. I guess watching such shows one doesn’t think about the work (and emotional toll!) going into the talking heads segments.
And, World War Weird ... *chef’s kiss*
Very informative Guy. I like the blend of topics you are writing about here. War crimes, gin & Dubonnet and talking heads. I do believe your buddy James has a different opinion about the industry. I seem to recall a rant on Twitter not so long ago.
Good insights. I think very few people realise how artificial it can be when placed in front of the camera with a mic stuffed in your face, rephrasing something for the third time but trying to keep the emphasis fresh -- all with an interviewer/presenter checking something else like their next piece, instead of listening to your reply (which they have in fairness heard twice already) Bless the ones who feed you just a modicum of eye-contact. I remember a journalist once warning me that "it's not a conversation" when talking about interviews -- it's a place to make your point.
Live broadcast contributions are another thing again, and one I enjoy doing enormously. The producer chuckling or issuing instructions in your ear while trying to respond to a question is a level of multi-tasking that amazes me anyone can master.
I absolutely loved this, and had no idea that it worked this way. I'm afraid, though, that what I laughingly like to refer to as my 'professional expertise' did spot one wee typo: "What directors want from talking heads is not limitless expert knowledge, but an inability to transmit a relatively basic amount of knowledge in a way that is watchable." Presume the "in" should be deleted from "inability"?
I found this quite enlightening. Thank you. I don’t think you are one of “Yesterday’s men”. I prefer the David Cameron line, which I use against myself “we were the future, once”….. QED.
An interesting insight. I do enjoy your participation in these shows but I always wonder what has been edited out of your comments. The brevity is one of the reasons I enjoyed your five night presentations, really possible to drill down into a topic.
Interesting stuff again Guy. And not one that I’ve paid a lot of attention to. Or, honestly really thought about. Have watched many docs in which you and the usual suspects appear, and I guess the reason I’ve not thought about it, is that you guys ( in the main) are so proficient at it, that it just seems, well natural. Not even noticed the “presenter” aspect. You all come over as consummate professionals. Relatable, knowledgeable, and sometimes very tongue in cheek professionals. I guess that’s what makes you all in such demand. Thanks again for the insight. 👍🏽
Abandoned Engineering has taken the big reveal to a new level. Has Rob Bell done a RADA course? I’m not saying high or low. Simply, new.
Sweet of you Guy, but nonetheless likely true! It is difficult, though, to make Suffragettes boring!
Very interesting, Guy. I work in academia and over the years colleagues have expressed their frustration with the media experience. Some were so scarred by it that they never wanted to do it again. You make it all look very easy, which is a real skill - and you keep the viewer engaged and entertained. Big thumbs up all round!
Thanks, Guy. Fascinating insight into your world.
Made me think about a particular talking head who crops up regularly & talks about my field (women's suffrage) when her expertise is something quite different! Obvs I'm far too dreary for TV. Hey ho!