A particularly nasty and vicious rumor is circulating "teh Twitterz" that I had something to do with Herman Cain's ad showing Mr. Brock, his campaign manager, gushing over Herman Cain, and then having a cigarette.
I had absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
For one thing, just because an ad is "controversial" it does not mean that I created it. There is "controversy," and then there is the worst ad in the history of politics. Don't confuse the two, please. Just because you change the subject in the media from one thing to another, that is not always a good thing. Cain supporters are claiming victory in this respect. And legions of smokers are now on his side. The smoking aspect of it is fine, it's all the rest that does Mr. Cain ill service. He probably won't hear any of this because he, like all the other candidates, are insulated by good folks who think they're doing a good job, when they're not.
So look: while I would be happy to make an ad for any of the GOP primary candidates (with the notable exceptions of Huntsman and Roemer, whom I consider hemmoroid-free), I am not working on any presidential campaign at the moment. Point being: I am not violently disavowing this ad because I have a horse in the fight and want to see one candidate win over another. I don't. I'd vote for any one of them over Obama; they're all good men and women.
For those who see, but have no understanding of what they see, you can tell the difference between my work and the fellow who currently makes Herman Cain's ads using the following handy guide:
1. Does it look like it was shot on a $5 cell phone as opposed to a $125,000 Red or Epic camera? Then it's not a Ladd ad.
2. Does it look like it was poorly edited by a person with no sense of timing in about three minutes? Then it's not a Ladd ad.
3. Does it make the candidate look unintentionally creepy? Then it's not a Ladd ad.
4. Does it lack a three-act structure? Not a Ladd ad.
5. Does it feature people that shouldn't be in the ad, like campaign managers? Then it's not a Ladd ad.
6. Does it take six hours to get to the point, which is obscure anyway? Then it's not a Ladd ad.
7. Does it go unintentionally viral by making the candidate look like he has a wedding videographer on his team? Then it's not a Ladd ad.
8. Does it have crappy music? Then it's not a Ladd ad. I use either Mark Slater, an accomplished symphony director and composer who has won many awards, or I use accomplished artists in the required genre (like Splack Pack) if I can.
9. Is it the ad below? Then I had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
10. Is it this other ad below, which has all the camerawork craftsmanship of a baby having epileptic seizures, the editing power of Ed Wood, and the writing of Ernest Hemmingway, post-suicide? Then it isn't mine.
You can have an ad go viral without the ad looking like it's infected by a virus.
This is my work:
This is my work. Any idiot with two eyes and ears should be able to tell the difference.
contact ladd @ filmladd dot com