WEBVTT 00:00:16.420 --> 00:00:19.750 Still photographs are the DNA of everything I do. 00:00:19.750 --> 00:00:23.230 Even when the subject is in a contemporary or relatively 00:00:23.230 --> 00:00:26.620 contemporary period where you've got a great deal of footage, 00:00:26.620 --> 00:00:29.080 perhaps more footage than stills, 00:00:29.080 --> 00:00:30.000 stills themselves remain this-- 00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:32.110 stills themselves remain this-- 00:00:32.110 --> 00:00:35.170 the building block, the essential element 00:00:35.170 --> 00:00:37.400 of how I construct a narrative. 00:00:37.400 --> 00:00:40.270 And so you'll see in the opening of the Vietnam film, 00:00:40.270 --> 00:00:42.820 there's a great deal of footage and disconnected action. 00:00:42.820 --> 00:00:45.790 But when we stop to say, this is what it's about, 00:00:45.790 --> 00:00:46.930 it's in still photographs. 00:00:46.930 --> 00:00:50.620 So what is film itself but the persistence of vision? 00:00:50.620 --> 00:00:53.800 It is the physiological limitation of the human brain 00:00:53.800 --> 00:00:59.410 to be able to read the fact that we're looking at 24 images 00:00:59.410 --> 00:01:00.000 at a 48th of a second filled in with black. 00:01:00.000 --> 00:01:02.470 at a 48th of a second filled in with black. 00:01:02.470 --> 00:01:04.540 And persistence of vision gives us 00:01:04.540 --> 00:01:06.280 the sense of apparent motion. 00:01:06.280 --> 00:01:10.010 So it is the still photograph which is the building block. 00:01:10.010 --> 00:01:12.655 Now, I've got a personal connection, too. 00:01:12.655 --> 00:01:15.170 It kind of fits in to who I am. 00:01:15.170 --> 00:01:18.730 And so much of what I do is issued from who I am. 00:01:18.730 --> 00:01:21.770 My very first memory, when I was two years old, 00:01:21.770 --> 00:01:23.570 is my father building a darkroom. 00:01:23.570 --> 00:01:27.330 He was an anthropologist, but an amateur still photographer. 00:01:27.330 --> 00:01:30.000 And so it's not too much later that I end up 00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:31.450 And so it's not too much later that I end up 00:01:31.450 --> 00:01:35.080 at Hampshire College in 1971, thinking 00:01:35.080 --> 00:01:37.229 I'm going to be a Hollywood film director. 00:01:37.229 --> 00:01:39.520 That's what I've wanted to be since I was 12 years old. 00:01:39.520 --> 00:01:42.500 But all the teachers there are social documentary still 00:01:42.500 --> 00:01:45.700 photographers that remind me, quite correctly, 00:01:45.700 --> 00:01:48.430 that there is as much drama in what is 00:01:48.430 --> 00:01:53.650 and what was as in anything the human imagination dreams up. 00:01:53.650 --> 00:01:56.080 And so they sort of rearranged my molecules 00:01:56.080 --> 00:01:59.230 and permitted me to become a filmmaker, 00:01:59.230 --> 00:02:00.000 documentary filmmaker, still feeling this sense 00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:03.370 documentary filmmaker, still feeling this sense 00:02:03.370 --> 00:02:06.490 that the still photograph, the presentation of an image, 00:02:06.490 --> 00:02:07.280 was important. 00:02:07.280 --> 00:02:10.930 So what I did is, I took that still photograph and said, 00:02:10.930 --> 00:02:13.450 that's my master shot that I would 00:02:13.450 --> 00:02:15.130 have as a feature filmmaker. 00:02:15.130 --> 00:02:16.960 That has a long shot in it, a medium 00:02:16.960 --> 00:02:20.170 shot in it, a close shot, an extreme close-up, a tilt, 00:02:20.170 --> 00:02:23.560 a pan, a reveal, inserts of details. 00:02:23.560 --> 00:02:26.890 We normally sort of wish we had footage all the time. 00:02:26.890 --> 00:02:29.770 And we hold that still photograph at arm's length 00:02:29.770 --> 00:02:30.000 until we can get the-- 00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:31.240 until we can get the-- 00:02:31.240 --> 00:02:32.830 I don't believe in that at all. 00:02:32.830 --> 00:02:35.860 I revel in the fact, and you can see even in something 00:02:35.860 --> 00:02:39.880 as sort of jangly and contemporary 00:02:39.880 --> 00:02:43.240 and disassociated as Vietnam, the still photograph 00:02:43.240 --> 00:02:47.530 becomes an anchor and serves part of that same creation 00:02:47.530 --> 00:02:48.490 of that same mood. 00:02:48.490 --> 00:02:50.995 So to me, that's the DNA. 00:02:58.510 --> 00:03:00.000 The second you put two images together, 00:03:00.000 --> 00:03:00.710 The second you put two images together, 00:03:00.710 --> 00:03:03.490 which is, of course, editing, which is, of course, what 00:03:03.490 --> 00:03:05.560 we do in filmmaking, and of course, a film 00:03:05.560 --> 00:03:07.810 will have, you know, hundreds and sometimes 00:03:07.810 --> 00:03:10.780 thousands of edits in it, you've changed something. 00:03:10.780 --> 00:03:12.460 And you have to understand that there is 00:03:12.460 --> 00:03:14.140 a reality to shot number one. 00:03:14.140 --> 00:03:16.530 Shot number one is, in some ways, the easiest. 00:03:16.530 --> 00:03:20.650 It's also the hardest, because this is your first attempt 00:03:20.650 --> 00:03:22.130 at a good impression. 00:03:22.130 --> 00:03:25.130 And if you blow it, you've already set things a-kilter. 00:03:25.130 --> 00:03:27.970 But you put the second shot up there, and all of a sudden, 00:03:27.970 --> 00:03:30.000 you're in conversation with each other. 00:03:30.000 --> 00:03:30.190 you're in conversation with each other. 00:03:30.190 --> 00:03:33.190 You're in juxtaposition, whether the image is complimentary 00:03:33.190 --> 00:03:35.570 or, in fact, a juxtaposition. 00:03:35.570 --> 00:03:37.750 So you've got the memory of the first image. 00:03:37.750 --> 00:03:39.670 You have the new image coming in. 00:03:39.670 --> 00:03:42.730 It's got a different dynamic, compositional range. 00:03:42.730 --> 00:03:47.860 By the time you've hit shot two, you're deep into it-- 00:03:47.860 --> 00:03:51.850 either deep in trouble or on your way to something else. 00:03:51.850 --> 00:03:53.680 What is it that you'll do? 00:03:53.680 --> 00:03:56.170 That, to me, is what we're doing in filmmaking. 00:03:56.170 --> 00:03:59.040 And you have to actually be the master of that. 00:04:05.780 --> 00:04:10.790 In radio, it's a wonderfully active medium. 00:04:10.790 --> 00:04:13.060 Television's rather passive. 00:04:13.060 --> 00:04:14.890 And even movies are, to an extent. 00:04:14.890 --> 00:04:16.892 You let it wash over you. 00:04:16.892 --> 00:04:18.850 At least you get up, and you go to the theater, 00:04:18.850 --> 00:04:21.070 and you share this beautiful communion 00:04:21.070 --> 00:04:22.840 with strangers in dark rooms. 00:04:22.840 --> 00:04:25.150 But television is a little bit more passive. 00:04:25.150 --> 00:04:28.570 Radio, you get to be your own cinematographer. 00:04:28.570 --> 00:04:30.000 You get to be your own editor. 00:04:30.000 --> 00:04:30.100 You get to be your own editor. 00:04:30.100 --> 00:04:32.230 You get to be your own casting director. 00:04:32.230 --> 00:04:36.010 You get to be everything. 00:04:36.010 --> 00:04:37.360 And it's a wonderful thing. 00:04:37.360 --> 00:04:38.720 And it's very active. 00:04:38.720 --> 00:04:41.260 And so what I've tried to do in our documentary 00:04:41.260 --> 00:04:45.230 is to trust the audience to be a little bit more engaged. 00:04:45.230 --> 00:04:48.750 And then, what you're doing is, you're saying to your audience, 00:04:48.750 --> 00:04:51.460 I'm unafraid of these limitations. 00:04:51.460 --> 00:04:53.890 I am going to invest those limitations 00:04:53.890 --> 00:04:56.860 with all the possibilities I want and activate 00:04:56.860 --> 00:04:58.280 your imagination. 00:04:58.280 --> 00:05:00.000 We're not interested in the Ken Burns effect as just this, 00:05:00.000 --> 00:05:01.870 We're not interested in the Ken Burns effect as just this, 00:05:01.870 --> 00:05:03.880 zoom in, zoom out, pan. 00:05:03.880 --> 00:05:06.430 That, the Ken Burns effect, such as it 00:05:06.430 --> 00:05:10.360 is, is an attempt to will a still photograph to life 00:05:10.360 --> 00:05:15.294 in the service of complex dramatic narrative exposition. 00:05:15.294 --> 00:05:16.585 You know, is the cannon firing? 00:05:16.585 --> 00:05:17.940 [CANNON BLAST] 00:05:17.940 --> 00:05:19.045 Are the troops tramping? 00:05:19.045 --> 00:05:20.240 [SOLDIERS YELLING] 00:05:20.240 --> 00:05:21.477 Is the bat cracking? 00:05:21.477 --> 00:05:22.060 [BAT CRACKING] 00:05:22.060 --> 00:05:23.170 Is the crowd cheering? 00:05:23.170 --> 00:05:23.290 [CROWD CHEERING] 00:05:23.290 --> 00:05:23.980 Is ice cubes-- 00:05:23.980 --> 00:05:24.813 [ICE CUBES RATTLING] 00:05:24.813 --> 00:05:27.910 --on the glass on the bar in the jazz club tinkling? 00:05:27.910 --> 00:05:30.000 So it becomes not just a visual, but an aural experience 00:05:30.000 --> 00:05:32.470 So it becomes not just a visual, but an aural experience 00:05:32.470 --> 00:05:36.040 in willing them to life, of waking that dead moment 00:05:36.040 --> 00:05:37.690 and saying, it is alive. 00:05:37.690 --> 00:05:39.470 And anybody can do that. 00:05:39.470 --> 00:05:41.360 It's not limited to one person. 00:05:41.360 --> 00:05:45.250 If you don't activate your audience's imagination, 00:05:45.250 --> 00:05:48.370 you've just said, I didn't really know what to do. 00:05:48.370 --> 00:05:51.520 Here's my slideshow-- boom, boom, boom, boom. 00:05:51.520 --> 00:05:53.760 And we're not interested in a little slideshow. 00:05:59.400 --> 00:06:00.000 We live in a media culture in which we 00:06:00.000 --> 00:06:01.800 We live in a media culture in which we 00:06:01.800 --> 00:06:05.460 have begun to exploit the possibilities of quick cutting, 00:06:05.460 --> 00:06:06.090 you know? 00:06:06.090 --> 00:06:07.590 People would say to me, oh, nobody 00:06:07.590 --> 00:06:10.140 will ever watch your films, because they're too long. 00:06:10.140 --> 00:06:13.410 And we're in an MTV thing where we have these fast-paced music 00:06:13.410 --> 00:06:14.340 videos. 00:06:14.340 --> 00:06:16.260 There's a huge difference between 00:06:16.260 --> 00:06:18.520 the physiological reception of an image. 00:06:18.520 --> 00:06:21.354 If I do one 48th of a second and show you a house, 00:06:21.354 --> 00:06:22.770 you'll say, oh, I can see a house. 00:06:22.770 --> 00:06:23.850 That's fine. 00:06:23.850 --> 00:06:27.550 But the reception of meaning is a different thing. 00:06:27.550 --> 00:06:29.411 And so I stay with a photograph. 00:06:29.411 --> 00:06:29.910 It's read. 00:06:29.910 --> 00:06:30.000 And then I stay longer. 00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:31.206 And then I stay longer. 00:06:31.206 --> 00:06:33.330 And sometimes, I go to the animation house and say, 00:06:33.330 --> 00:06:34.500 I need a 30-second zoom. 00:06:34.500 --> 00:06:37.140 They go, 30-seconds zoom on a picture of somebody's head? 00:06:37.140 --> 00:06:38.280 I go, yeah. 00:06:38.280 --> 00:06:40.620 And they-- and early on, they just 00:06:40.620 --> 00:06:44.400 couldn't deal with the fact that you could bring meaning, 00:06:44.400 --> 00:06:46.110 and by staying with something, bring 00:06:46.110 --> 00:06:47.760 more meaning and more meaning. 00:06:47.760 --> 00:06:51.160 And so these things move in lots of different ways. 00:06:51.160 --> 00:06:53.130 There's not a kinesthetic movement 00:06:53.130 --> 00:06:56.430 to speak of in the still photograph. 00:06:56.430 --> 00:06:59.670 But by moving on it, you can give apparent motion. 00:06:59.670 --> 00:07:00.000 But more importantly, you can bring movement 00:07:00.000 --> 00:07:02.340 But more importantly, you can bring movement 00:07:02.340 --> 00:07:05.130 in terms of emotions by what you reveal. 00:07:05.130 --> 00:07:09.330 So you can take a photograph in the Civil War. 00:07:09.330 --> 00:07:11.880 And it may be a tilt up. 00:07:11.880 --> 00:07:13.770 And what you're seeing are two revolvers 00:07:13.770 --> 00:07:16.230 in the waistband of someone. 00:07:16.230 --> 00:07:21.150 And as you tilt up, it reveals an angelic, baby-face kid. 00:07:21.150 --> 00:07:23.130 That's telling an unbelievable story, just 00:07:23.130 --> 00:07:26.040 in the simplest of pans up from these two 00:07:26.040 --> 00:07:30.000 threatening revolvers up to a baby, a baby in this. 00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:31.290 threatening revolvers up to a baby, a baby in this. 00:07:31.290 --> 00:07:33.480 And then you could do it-- you could tilt down. 00:07:33.480 --> 00:07:36.270 You could look at that baby, this child, that 14 00:07:36.270 --> 00:07:38.910 or 15-year-old kid, and then tilt down 00:07:38.910 --> 00:07:40.080 and see the revolvers. 00:07:40.080 --> 00:07:44.040 And you now have a different form of this sinister threat 00:07:44.040 --> 00:07:46.080 or the implied violence in that. 00:07:46.080 --> 00:07:48.270 That's all with a still photograph. 00:07:48.270 --> 00:07:52.320 And this would be completely familiar dynamic 00:07:52.320 --> 00:07:55.440 to Sergei Eisenstein or Martin Scorsese. 00:07:55.440 --> 00:07:58.710 They would understand that-- that instead of following 00:07:58.710 --> 00:08:00.000 the rules of sort of documentary, 00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:01.290 the rules of sort of documentary, 00:08:01.290 --> 00:08:05.160 and political advocacy, and that sort of stuff, 00:08:05.160 --> 00:08:07.740 I'm following the rules of a feature film. 00:08:07.740 --> 00:08:10.150 It's just, I've got different kinds of essential building 00:08:10.150 --> 00:08:10.650 blocks. 00:08:17.050 --> 00:08:21.870 It's hugely important to realize that because we are using 00:08:21.870 --> 00:08:25.680 the limited available resource, you're still not going 00:08:25.680 --> 00:08:28.830 to be able to have the footage or the photograph of everything 00:08:28.830 --> 00:08:30.000 you're talking about. 00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:30.090 you're talking about. 00:08:30.090 --> 00:08:33.510 You're looking for equivalence in another way, too. 00:08:33.510 --> 00:08:36.419 You can find a symbolic moment. 00:08:36.419 --> 00:08:38.700 In the Jack Johnson film, for example, 00:08:38.700 --> 00:08:40.950 we don't have the car crash that would 00:08:40.950 --> 00:08:45.360 kill him at the end of his, I'm happy to say, long life. 00:08:45.360 --> 00:08:48.090 We found a photograph of a North Carolina road 00:08:48.090 --> 00:08:50.370 with a-- with a telephone pole. 00:08:50.370 --> 00:08:54.900 And we know that we could have you imagine what's 00:08:54.900 --> 00:08:58.920 going on offstage is sometimes better than actually showing 00:08:58.920 --> 00:09:00.000 you what happened. 00:09:00.000 --> 00:09:00.140 you what happened. 00:09:00.140 --> 00:09:02.610 So those-- you always have to be aware 00:09:02.610 --> 00:09:04.170 that you're never, at any moment, 00:09:04.170 --> 00:09:07.200 limited, except by your own imagination, 00:09:07.200 --> 00:09:09.030 and that you can figure out a way to do it. 00:09:09.030 --> 00:09:10.950 And feature films do this all the time. 00:09:10.950 --> 00:09:15.510 It is sometimes more horrific in a scary film 00:09:15.510 --> 00:09:19.770 to hear off camera what's happening than to see 00:09:19.770 --> 00:09:21.450 the actual thing happening. 00:09:21.450 --> 00:09:24.750 And all we've done is just say, why 00:09:24.750 --> 00:09:28.480 make the documentary a kind of second child, 00:09:28.480 --> 00:09:30.000 a sort of poor cousin, to the feature film? 00:09:30.000 --> 00:09:31.860 a sort of poor cousin, to the feature film? 00:09:31.860 --> 00:09:35.960 If it obeys the same laws of that, just use the same laws. 00:09:35.960 --> 00:09:39.190 You can do what you need to do to tell those stories. 00:09:39.190 --> 00:09:45.270 Now, I could have easily done the Vietnam War 99% footage. 00:09:45.270 --> 00:09:46.050 I didn't want to. 00:09:46.050 --> 00:09:49.290 I felt the still photographs would do something else. 00:09:49.290 --> 00:09:53.250 To be able to linger on them, to be able to isolate a detail, 00:09:53.250 --> 00:09:56.040 was to do what we did in Jack Johnson's death, 00:09:56.040 --> 00:09:58.710 is to just focus on a telephone pole 00:09:58.710 --> 00:10:00.000 and realize that the drama was taking place off camera. 00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:02.640 and realize that the drama was taking place off camera. 00:10:02.640 --> 00:10:05.464 And that was perfectly fine. 00:10:05.464 --> 00:10:07.380 NARRATOR: Johnson took the wheel of his latest 00:10:07.380 --> 00:10:11.580 high-powered automobile, racing north along Highway 1 00:10:11.580 --> 00:10:14.580 at better than 70 miles an hour. 00:10:14.580 --> 00:10:16.890 Hurtling around a sharp curve near the little town 00:10:16.890 --> 00:10:21.760 of Franklinton, he lost control. 00:10:21.760 --> 00:10:25.350 The car swerved across the white line 00:10:25.350 --> 00:10:27.180 and slammed into a telephone pole. 00:10:29.900 --> 00:10:30.000 Fred Scott was thrown clear and survived. 00:10:30.000 --> 00:10:34.580 Fred Scott was thrown clear and survived. 00:10:34.580 --> 00:10:40.130 Jack Johnson died in the hospital a few hours later. 00:10:40.130 --> 00:10:40.680 He was 68. 00:10:49.320 --> 00:10:53.310 You've got to understand that you can liberate yourself 00:10:53.310 --> 00:10:55.800 from the tyranny of mere illustration. 00:10:55.800 --> 00:10:59.040 That is to say, there's something worrisome, I noticed, 00:10:59.040 --> 00:11:00.000 among colleagues and others about approaching the idea 00:11:00.000 --> 00:11:03.090 among colleagues and others about approaching the idea 00:11:03.090 --> 00:11:06.290 of doing a historical documentary, and you know, 00:11:06.290 --> 00:11:10.230 whew, cannot wait to get till there's news reels, 00:11:10.230 --> 00:11:12.974 and sync sound, and talking heads. 00:11:12.974 --> 00:11:14.140 That's not the way to do it. 00:11:14.140 --> 00:11:15.660 That's just mere illustration. 00:11:15.660 --> 00:11:18.630 But if you can get into equivalencies, 00:11:18.630 --> 00:11:22.170 new ways of having the word and the picture both 00:11:22.170 --> 00:11:24.720 relate, but also talk to each other 00:11:24.720 --> 00:11:27.600 and have a conversation, and allowing things 00:11:27.600 --> 00:11:30.000 to be dichotomous, that you can see that there's contradiction, 00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:31.450 to be dichotomous, that you can see that there's contradiction, 00:11:31.450 --> 00:11:34.950 that the image may be counterintuitive-- 00:11:34.950 --> 00:11:36.750 in "The Civil War," in the first episode, 00:11:36.750 --> 00:11:40.050 you've got this beautiful dawn shot 00:11:40.050 --> 00:11:41.910 of going up a river in Georgia. 00:11:41.910 --> 00:11:45.930 And the sun is just beginning to peek over the horizon. 00:11:45.930 --> 00:11:49.140 Everything is dark, dark with a beautiful light. 00:11:49.140 --> 00:11:51.960 And what you're hearing is this beautiful quote 00:11:51.960 --> 00:11:53.880 from Morgan Freeman, reading the words 00:11:53.880 --> 00:11:56.370 of Frederick Douglass, who's saying something 00:11:56.370 --> 00:11:58.410 about the beauty of America. 00:11:58.410 --> 00:12:00.000 But it's checked by this. 00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:00.390 But it's checked by this. 00:12:00.390 --> 00:12:02.700 And so you're still forced to understand 00:12:02.700 --> 00:12:04.290 the beauty of the country. 00:12:04.290 --> 00:12:08.250 But in all those dark places, bad stuff is happening. 00:12:08.250 --> 00:12:12.630 We've taken you back into a moment on the eve of the Civil 00:12:12.630 --> 00:12:16.230 War, where the crux of the issue of slavery 00:12:16.230 --> 00:12:18.870 is being brought by an African-American who 00:12:18.870 --> 00:12:22.110 has been a slave, has stolen himself to freedom, 00:12:22.110 --> 00:12:27.150 and now is trying to describe the failed promise of America. 00:12:27.150 --> 00:12:30.000 The image, in all of its benign beauty, 00:12:30.000 --> 00:12:30.750 The image, in all of its benign beauty, 00:12:30.750 --> 00:12:32.764 then aids what's going on. 00:12:32.764 --> 00:12:34.180 But they're totally contradictory. 00:12:34.180 --> 00:12:38.470 And that's an important way to use archives. 00:12:38.470 --> 00:12:41.180 NARRATOR: "In thinking of America, 00:12:41.180 --> 00:12:45.100 I sometimes find myself admiring her bright blue sky, 00:12:45.100 --> 00:12:50.570 her grand old woods, her fertile fields, her beautiful rivers, 00:12:50.570 --> 00:12:55.710 her mighty lakes and star-crowned mountains. 00:12:55.710 --> 00:12:58.540 But my rapture is soon checked. 00:12:58.540 --> 00:13:00.000 When I remember that all is cursed with the infernal spirit 00:13:00.000 --> 00:13:02.640 When I remember that all is cursed with the infernal spirit 00:13:02.640 --> 00:13:06.480 of slaveholding and wrong, when I remember 00:13:06.480 --> 00:13:09.960 that with the waters of our noblest rivers, 00:13:09.960 --> 00:13:14.080 the tears of my brethren are borne to the ocean, 00:13:14.080 --> 00:13:19.380 disregarded and forgotten, that her most fertile fields drink 00:13:19.380 --> 00:13:24.750 daily of the warm blood of my outraged sisters, 00:13:24.750 --> 00:13:29.550 I am filled with unutterable loathing." 00:13:29.550 --> 00:13:30.000 Frederick Douglass. 00:13:30.000 --> 00:13:32.690 Frederick Douglass. 00:13:32.690 --> 00:13:35.390 All of that has a wonderful kind 00:13:35.390 --> 00:13:39.710 of counterintuitive effectiveness, 00:13:39.710 --> 00:13:43.880 because you aren't merely safely illustrating. 00:13:43.880 --> 00:13:46.250 If one and-- if you just do equals, 00:13:46.250 --> 00:13:47.540 that's the illustration. 00:13:47.540 --> 00:13:48.980 But if you're looking for a moment 00:13:48.980 --> 00:13:50.930 where one and one, the beautiful river 00:13:50.930 --> 00:13:54.680 shot, but the terrifying quote by Frederick Douglass that 00:13:54.680 --> 00:13:58.310 ends with, "I am filled with unutterable loathing" 00:13:58.310 --> 00:14:00.000 about the United States, then you've got something going on. 00:14:00.000 --> 00:14:01.790 about the United States, then you've got something going on. 00:14:01.790 --> 00:14:03.620 And maybe that one and one-- 00:14:03.620 --> 00:14:07.190 in this case, the picture and the word-- 00:14:07.190 --> 00:14:09.280 equal three, something else entirely. 00:14:09.280 --> 00:14:11.450 And that's what I think you're looking for. 00:14:11.450 --> 00:14:15.300 And that's what art is, is just something else. 00:14:15.300 --> 00:14:16.892 That's what we look for in our faith. 00:14:16.892 --> 00:14:17.850 There's something else. 00:14:17.850 --> 00:14:19.462 That's what we look for in our love. 00:14:19.462 --> 00:14:20.420 There's something else. 00:14:20.420 --> 00:14:23.540 So it's, to me, throw away your crutches. 00:14:23.540 --> 00:14:27.800 Throw away the simple things, the obvious illustration, 00:14:27.800 --> 00:14:30.000 and try to achieve something that's-- that's a little bit 00:14:30.000 --> 00:14:31.190 and try to achieve something that's-- that's a little bit 00:14:31.190 --> 00:14:32.870 more difficult and dissonant. 00:14:32.870 --> 00:14:35.010 And you might find new meaning in that. 00:14:35.010 --> 00:14:37.720 And I would urge that all the time.