The ancient orators had the advantage of a captive audience, no commercial interruptions, and not being on an online platform that treated them like crap. So they had a forum to fine-tune the way they talked and addressed others which is barely possible today, save for perhaps those offered to public figures like the President of the United States (in the hands of skilled orators like Lincoln, FDR and Obama, rather than the more incompetent ones).
Audiences of feature films and television typically don't like being lectured to for minutes at a time (which is the sole of oratory), and the one-liner (one of the basic forms of comedy) often can fill the function more concisely and save everyone some time. So sometimes Cicero doesn't really have a shot, whereas Bob Hope can get people to stand up and take notice with a few, well-chosen words.
But those are the extreme examples of expertise- not everyone can pull it off, but no one wants to tell the makers of the MCU that their work sucks...
All very good points, I guess I’m weird in that I find long winded speeches captivating and one liners boring. I think though I’m weird and that you might be right, about how skilled those three men are some of the best orators in American history.
I need to consider your wise words mon ami, as many don’t have the attention span in this part of the world for speeches.
Even though I disagree about Joss Whedon (seriously, there’s some really great dialogue in Firefly, including a couple of fantastic “last stand” and “do the right thing” kind of speeches you speak of here), I too tire of the one-liners.
But it isn’t just about what is being said, it’s also in how it’s delivered. My choir teacher long ago said it isn’t enough to just sing the words to a song. You need to feel it. You need to feel every word and sing as though you believe it. Same goes for any speech. You need to believe (or your character) what you are saying.
I’m French but love Shakespeare, though what saddens me is he would have despised me had he met me, as he hated the French and despised the greatest of all the Saints after the Apostles; Jehanne D’Arc.
But the Troy clip I considered using was the lions speech. I may have to analyze the whole of the movie Troy and the Iliad as Maryh has done but this time from the perspective of what makes them positive male or female figures.
Kenneth Brannagh’s investment in the role and portrayal is the best of those who have played Henry V over in Hollywood, just as Christian Bale’s Hamlett or Amled is the best.
All fantastic points with so much food for thought. One point I would contend is that translations of historical speeches and texts tend to be beautified by translators to appeal to readers (I saw this in real time during the last election where a certain candidate’s ramblings were made to sound coherent and rational), and in doing so lose the connection with the listener that makes the rhetoric effective. Speaking to people’s souls requires triggering a response in the simpler parts of the brain, which understand emotion better than logic. And thence lies the power of the memorable phrase that can be repeated.
Awesome and inspiring piece! My challenge as a writer is to adapt rhetoric to period as well as personality and culture. While the political upheavals of the 1930s made for some curious oratory (e.g. Hitler), how would it affect the parlance of ordinary folk?
Very good point, I myself have begun reading and listening to Hitler’s speeches along with Charles DeGaullle (they stood on opposite sides of the two WW) and their styles are very different yet they’re very fascinating in their rhetorical skills. Hitler may not be well liked by many, but his skill as an orator is undeniable.
I myself though find the Romans more interesting, I like looking also at French orators in history more than German ones if I may be so blunt. I only look at Hitler, Bismarck and Wilhelm to get me out of my shell so to speak (from an oratory perspective).
How might speeches like this affect the parlance of the ordinary folks? You must remember that people are strongly affected by romance and powerful words so that they’ll imitate and incorporate the great speeches they hear currently being spoken.
In to-day’s world there’s not many great orators, the best ones might just be Abe Shinzo & Eric Zemmour (I don’t like the latter all that much anymore, but I do like his speeches). I’ve noticed a slight tendency to affectate their patterns of speech and rhetoric in my own techniques, and also a tendency to copy Cicero’s out of fondness for him.
And ouais there’s lots of possibilities here once one learns to master speeches.
The ancient orators had the advantage of a captive audience, no commercial interruptions, and not being on an online platform that treated them like crap. So they had a forum to fine-tune the way they talked and addressed others which is barely possible today, save for perhaps those offered to public figures like the President of the United States (in the hands of skilled orators like Lincoln, FDR and Obama, rather than the more incompetent ones).
Audiences of feature films and television typically don't like being lectured to for minutes at a time (which is the sole of oratory), and the one-liner (one of the basic forms of comedy) often can fill the function more concisely and save everyone some time. So sometimes Cicero doesn't really have a shot, whereas Bob Hope can get people to stand up and take notice with a few, well-chosen words.
But those are the extreme examples of expertise- not everyone can pull it off, but no one wants to tell the makers of the MCU that their work sucks...
All very good points, I guess I’m weird in that I find long winded speeches captivating and one liners boring. I think though I’m weird and that you might be right, about how skilled those three men are some of the best orators in American history.
I need to consider your wise words mon ami, as many don’t have the attention span in this part of the world for speeches.
Great piece!
Even though I disagree about Joss Whedon (seriously, there’s some really great dialogue in Firefly, including a couple of fantastic “last stand” and “do the right thing” kind of speeches you speak of here), I too tire of the one-liners.
But it isn’t just about what is being said, it’s also in how it’s delivered. My choir teacher long ago said it isn’t enough to just sing the words to a song. You need to feel it. You need to feel every word and sing as though you believe it. Same goes for any speech. You need to believe (or your character) what you are saying.
Your choir teacher sounds very wise and like he had a beautiful soul.
He really was. The majority of my favorite memories from school were spent with choir. I miss it sometimes.
I can get that, I’m glad you have that experience.
You beat me to it. I was going to use Kenneth Branah's St.Crispin's Day speech from Henry V as to how great a speech it was.
Shakespeare was a genius when it came to speeches. His characters were loaded.
The clip from Troy was just as good.
I could almost recite the St.Crispin's day speech from memory.
We few, We happy Few. We band of brothers.
But I leave you with this one: From Hamlet -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjuZq-8PUw0
I’m French but love Shakespeare, though what saddens me is he would have despised me had he met me, as he hated the French and despised the greatest of all the Saints after the Apostles; Jehanne D’Arc.
But the Troy clip I considered using was the lions speech. I may have to analyze the whole of the movie Troy and the Iliad as Maryh has done but this time from the perspective of what makes them positive male or female figures.
Kenneth Brannagh’s investment in the role and portrayal is the best of those who have played Henry V over in Hollywood, just as Christian Bale’s Hamlett or Amled is the best.
All fantastic points with so much food for thought. One point I would contend is that translations of historical speeches and texts tend to be beautified by translators to appeal to readers (I saw this in real time during the last election where a certain candidate’s ramblings were made to sound coherent and rational), and in doing so lose the connection with the listener that makes the rhetoric effective. Speaking to people’s souls requires triggering a response in the simpler parts of the brain, which understand emotion better than logic. And thence lies the power of the memorable phrase that can be repeated.
Ohh good point, hadn’t thought of that. Good point about translations.
Awesome and inspiring piece! My challenge as a writer is to adapt rhetoric to period as well as personality and culture. While the political upheavals of the 1930s made for some curious oratory (e.g. Hitler), how would it affect the parlance of ordinary folk?
A lot of stuff for literary growth here.
Very good point, I myself have begun reading and listening to Hitler’s speeches along with Charles DeGaullle (they stood on opposite sides of the two WW) and their styles are very different yet they’re very fascinating in their rhetorical skills. Hitler may not be well liked by many, but his skill as an orator is undeniable.
I myself though find the Romans more interesting, I like looking also at French orators in history more than German ones if I may be so blunt. I only look at Hitler, Bismarck and Wilhelm to get me out of my shell so to speak (from an oratory perspective).
How might speeches like this affect the parlance of the ordinary folks? You must remember that people are strongly affected by romance and powerful words so that they’ll imitate and incorporate the great speeches they hear currently being spoken.
In to-day’s world there’s not many great orators, the best ones might just be Abe Shinzo & Eric Zemmour (I don’t like the latter all that much anymore, but I do like his speeches). I’ve noticed a slight tendency to affectate their patterns of speech and rhetoric in my own techniques, and also a tendency to copy Cicero’s out of fondness for him.
And ouais there’s lots of possibilities here once one learns to master speeches.