Blog

I’ve been fascinated by movies since I was a child. I loved the figures and the excitement—but most of all the reports. I aspired to be an artist. And I believed that I’d get to do the things that Indiana Jones did and go on interesting activities. I also came up with concept movies that my friends and I could render and sun in. But they never went any farther. However, I did end up working in user experience ( UI). Today, I realize that there’s an element of drama to UX— I hadn’t actually considered it before, but consumer research is story. And to get the most out of customer studies, you must tell a compelling story that involves stakeholders, including the product team and decision-makers, and piques their interest in learning more.

Think of your favorite film. It probably follows a three-act narrative architecture: the layout, the conflict, and the resolution, which is prevalent in literature. The second act shows what exists now, and it helps you get to know the figures and the challenges and problems that they face. Act two sets the scene for the fight and introduces the action. Here, difficulties grow or get worse. And the solution is the third and final work. This is where the issues are resolved and the figures learn and change. This structure, in my opinion, is also a fantastic way to think about customer research, and it might be particularly useful for explaining user research to others.

Use story as a framework for conducting analysis

It’s sad to say, but many have come to see studies as being dispensable. Research is frequently one of the first things to go when expenses or deadlines are tight. Instead of investing in study, some goods professionals rely on manufacturers or—worse—their personal judgment to make the “right” options for users based on their experience or accepted best practices. That may get groups a little bit out of the way, but that approach is therefore easily miss out on resolving people ‘ real issues. To be user-centered, this is something we really avoid. Design is enhanced by consumer research. It keeps it on record, pointing to problems and opportunities. Being aware of problems with your goods and taking corrective actions can help you keep ahead of your competition.

In the three-act structure, each action corresponds to a part of the process, and each part is important to telling the whole story. Let’s examine the various functions and how they relate to consumer analysis.

Act one: layout

Fundamental analysis comes in handy because the setup is all about comprehending the background. Basic research ( also called conceptual, discovery, or preliminary research ) helps you understand people and identify their problems. Just like in the movies, you’re learning about the difficulties users face, what options are available, and how those challenges impact them. To do basic research, you may conduct cultural inquiries or journal studies ( or both! ), which may assist you in identifying both prospects and problems. It doesn’t need to be a great investment in time or money.

Erika Hall writes about the most effective anthropology, which can be as straightforward as spending 15 hours with a customer and asking them to” Walk me through your morning yesterday.” That’s it. Current that one ask. Opened up and listen to them for 15 days. Do everything in your power to keep yourself and your pursuits out of it. Bam, you’re doing ethnography”. According to Hall, “[This ] will likely prove quite fascinating. In the very unlikely event that you didn’t learn anything new or helpful, carry on with increased confidence in your way”.

This makes sense to me in all its entirety. And I love that this makes consumer studies so visible. You can simply attract participants and carry out the recruitment process without having to make a lot of paperwork! This can offer a wealth of knowledge about your customers, and it’ll help you better understand them and what’s going on in their life. That’s what action one is really all about: understanding where people are coming from.

Maybe Spool talks about the importance of basic research and how it may type the bulk of your research. If you can substitute what you’ve heard in the fundamental research by using more customer information that you can obtain, such as surveys or analytics, or to highlight areas that need more research. Together, all this information creates a clearer picture of the state of things and all its deficiencies. And that’s the start of a gripping tale. It’s the place in the story where you realize that the principal characters—or the people in this case—are facing issues that they need to conquer. This is where you begin to develop compassion for the heroes and support their success, much like in the movies. And maybe partners are now doing the same. Their concern may be with their company, which may be losing money because people are unable to complete specific tasks. Or probably they do connect with people ‘ problems. In either case, action one serves as your main strategy for piqueing interest and investment from the participants.

When partners begin to understand the value of basic research, that is open doors to more opportunities that involve users in the decision-making approach. And that can help product teams become more user-centric. This benefits everyone—users, the product, and stakeholders. It’s similar to winning an Oscar in terms of filmmaking because it frequently results in your product receiving good reviews and success. And this can be an incentive for stakeholders to repeat this process with other products. The secret to this process is storytelling, and knowing how to tell a compelling story is the only way to entice stakeholders to do more research.

This brings us to act two, where you iteratively evaluate a design or concept to see whether it addresses the issues.

Act two: conflict

Act two is all about digging deeper into the problems that you identified in act one. This typically involves conducting directional research, such as usability tests, where you evaluate a potential solution ( such as a design ) to see if it addresses the issues you identified. The issues could include unmet needs or problems with a flow or process that’s tripping users up. More problems will come up in the process, much like in the second act of a film. It’s here that you learn more about the characters as they grow and develop through this act.

According to Jakob Nielsen, five users should be typically in usability tests, which means that this number of users can typically identify the majority of the issues:” You learn less and less as you add more and more users because you will keep seeing the same things over and over again… After the fifth user, you are wasting your time by repeatedly observing the same findings but not learning much new.”

There are parallels with storytelling here too, if you try to tell a story with too many characters, the plot may get lost. With fewer participants, each user’s struggles will be more memorable and accessible to other stakeholders when presenting the research. This can help convey the issues that need to be addressed while also highlighting the value of doing the research in the first place.

Usability tests have been conducted in person for decades, but you can also conduct them remotely using software like Microsoft Teams, Zoom, or other teleconferencing software. This approach has become increasingly popular since the beginning of the pandemic, and it works well. You might consider in-person usability tests like attending a play and remote sessions as more of a movie watching experience. There are advantages and disadvantages to each. Usability research in person is a much more valuable learning experience. Stakeholders can experience the sessions with other stakeholders. Additionally, you get real-time reactions, including surprises, disagreements, and discussions about what they’re seeing. Much like going to a play, where audiences get to take in the stage, the costumes, the lighting, and the actors ‘ interactions, in-person research lets you see users up close, including their body language, how they interact with the moderator, and how the scene is set up.

If conducting usability testing in the field is like watching a play that is staged and controlled, where any two sessions may be very different from one another. You can take usability testing into the field by creating a replica of the space where users interact with the product and then conduct your research there. Or you can meet users at their location to conduct your research. With either option, you get to see how things work in context, things come up that wouldn’t have in a lab environment—and conversion can shift in entirely different directions. You have less control over how these sessions end as researchers, but this can occasionally help you understand users even better. Meeting users where they are can provide clues to the external forces that could be affecting how they use your product. In-person usability tests add a level of detail that remote usability tests frequently lack.

That’s not to say that the “movies” —remote sessions—aren’t a good option. A wider audience can be obtained from remote sessions. They allow a lot more stakeholders to be involved in the research and to see what’s going on. Additionally, they make the doors accessible to a much wider range of users. But with any remote session there is the potential of time wasted if participants can’t log in or get their microphone working.

You can ask real users questions to understand their thoughts and understanding of the solution as a result of usability testing, whether it is done remotely or in person. This can help you not only identify problems but also glean why they’re problems in the first place. Additionally, you can test your own hypotheses and determine whether your reasoning is correct. By the end of the sessions, you’ll have a much clearer picture of how usable the designs are and whether they work for their intended purposes. The excitement is in the second act, but there are also potential surprises in the third. This is equally true of usability tests. Unexpected things that are said by participants frequently alter how you view things, and these unexpected developments in the story can lead to unexpected turns in your perception.

Unfortunately, user research is sometimes seen as expendable. Usability testing is frequently the only method of research that some stakeholders believe they ever need, and it’s too frequently the case. In fact, if the designs that you’re evaluating in the usability test aren’t grounded in a solid understanding of your users ( foundational research ), there’s not much to be gained by doing usability testing in the first place. That’s because you’re narrowing down the area of focus on without considering the needs of the users. As a result, there’s no way of knowing whether the designs might solve a problem that users have. In the context of a usability test, it’s only feedback on a particular design.

On the other hand, if you only do foundational research, while you might have set out to solve the right problem, you won’t know whether the thing that you’re building will actually solve that. This demonstrates the value of conducting both directional and foundational research.

In act two, stakeholders will—hopefully—get to watch the story unfold in the user sessions, which creates the conflict and tension in the current design by surfacing their highs and lows. And in turn, this can encourage stakeholders to take action on the issues raised.

Act three: resolution

The third act is about resolving the issues from the first two acts, whereas the first two acts are about understanding the context and the tensions that can compel stakeholders to act. While it’s important to have an audience for the first two acts, it’s crucial that they stick around for the final act. That includes all members of the product team, including developers, UX experts, business analysts, delivery managers, product managers, and any other parties who have a say in the coming development. It allows the whole team to hear users ‘ feedback together, ask questions, and discuss what’s possible within the project’s constraints. Additionally, it enables the UX design and research teams to clarify, suggest alternatives, or provide more context for their decisions. So you can get everyone on the same page and get agreement on the way forward.

Voiceover narration of this act is typically used with audience input. The researcher is the narrator, who paints a picture of the issues and what the future of the product could look like given the things that the team has learned. They provide the stakeholders with their suggestions and direction for developing this vision.

Nancy Duarte in the Harvard Business Review offers an approach to structuring presentations that follow a persuasive story. The most effective presenters employ the same methods as great storytellers: By reaffirming the status quo and then revealing a better way, they create a conflict that needs to be resolved, writes Duarte. ” That tension helps them persuade the audience to adopt a new mindset or behave differently”.

This type of structure aligns well with research results, and particularly results from usability tests. It provides proof for “what is “—the issues you’ve identified. And “what could be “—your recommendations on how to address them. And so forth.

You can reinforce your recommendations with examples of things that competitors are doing that could address these issues or with examples where competitors are gaining an edge. Or they can be as visual as quick sketches of a potential solution to a problem. These can help generate conversation and momentum. And this continues until the session is over when you’ve concluded everything by summarizing the key points and offering suggestions for a solution. This is the part where you reiterate the main themes or problems and what they mean for the product—the denouement of the story. This stage provides stakeholders with the next steps and, hoped, the motivation to take those steps!

While we are nearly at the end of this story, let’s reflect on the idea that user research is storytelling. The three-act structure of user research contains all the components for a good story:

Act one: You meet the protagonists ( the users ) and the antagonists ( the problems affecting users ). This is the plot’s beginning. In act one, researchers might use methods including contextual inquiry, ethnography, diary studies, surveys, and analytics. These techniques can produce personas, empathy maps, user journeys, and analytics dashboards as output.

Act two: Next, there’s character development. The protagonists encounter problems and difficulties, which they must overcome, and there is conflict and tension. In act two, researchers might use methods including usability testing, competitive benchmarking, and heuristics evaluation. Usability findings reports, UX strategy documents, usability guidelines, and best practices can be included in the output of these.

Act three: The protagonists triumph and you see what a better future looks like. Researchers may use techniques like presentation decks, storytelling, and digital media in act three. The output of these can be: presentation decks, video clips, audio clips, and pictures.

The researcher plays a variety of roles, including producer, director, and storyteller. The participants have a small role, but they are significant characters ( in the research ). And the audience is the audience, as well. But the most important thing is to get the story right and to use storytelling to tell users ‘ stories through research. By the end, the parties should leave with a goal and an eagerness to address the product’s flaws.

So the next time that you’re planning research with clients or you’re speaking to stakeholders about research that you’ve done, think about how you can weave in some storytelling. In the end, user research is beneficial to everyone, and all parties must be interested in the conclusion.

As a solution contractor for too many times, I can’t recall how many times I’ve seen promising ideas go from being heroes in a few weeks to being useless within months.

Financial goods, which is the industry in which I work, are no exception. It’s tempting to put as many features at the ceiling as possible and hope someone sticks because people’s true, hard-earned money is on the line, user expectations are high, and a crammed market. However, this strategy is a formula for disaster. Why, you see this:

The perils of feature-first growth

It’s easy to get swept up in the enthusiasm of developing innovative features when you start developing a financial product from scratch or are migrating existing client journeys from papers or phone channels to online bank or mobile applications. You might be thinking,” If I can only put one more thing that solves this particular person problem, they’ll appreciate me”! What happens, however, when you eventually encounter a roadblock caused by your security team? don’t like it, right? When a battle-tested film isn’t as well-known as you anticipated or when it fails due to unforeseen difficulty?

The concept of Minimum Viable Product ( MVP ) comes into play in this area. Even though Jason Fried doesn’t usually refer to it that way, his podcast Rework and his book Getting True frequently address this concept. An MVP is a product that offers only enough significance to your users to keep them interested, but not so much that it becomes difficult to keep up. Although the idea seems simple, it requires a razor-sharp eye, a ruthless edge, and the courage to stand up for your position because it is easy to fall for” the Columbo Effect” when there is always” just one more thing …” to add.

The issue with most fund apps is that they frequently turn out to be reflections of the company’s internal politics rather than an experience created exclusively for the customer. This implies that the priority should be given to delivering as some features and functionalities as possible in order to satisfy the requirements and wishes of competing internal departments as opposed to crafting a compelling value proposition that is focused on what people in the real world actually want. As a result, these products can very quickly became a mixed bag of misleading, related, and finally unhappy customer experiences—a feature salad, you might say.

The significance of the foundation

What is a better strategy, then? How may we create products that are user-friendly, firm, and, most importantly, stick?

The concept of “bedrock” comes into play here. The main component of your item that really matters to people is Bedrock. The foundation of worth and relevance over time is built upon it.

The core must be in and around the standard servicing journeys in the retail banking industry, which is where I work. People only look at their existing accounts once every blue sky, but they do so every day. They purchase a credit card every year or every other year, but they at least once a month assess their stability and pay their bills.

The key is in identifying the main tasks that individuals want to complete and therefore persistently striving to make them simple, reliable, and trustworthy.

But how do you reach the foundation? By focusing on the” MVP” strategy, giving convenience precedence, and working iteratively toward a clear value proposition. This means avoiding unnecessary functions and putting your customers first, and adding real value.

It also requires some nerve, as your coworkers might not always agree on your eyesight right away. And in some cases, it might even mean making it clear to consumers that you won’t be coming over to their home to prepare their meal. Sometimes you need to use “opinionated user interface design” ( i .e., clumsy workaround for edge cases ) to test a concept or to give yourself some more time to work on something else.

Functional methods for creating reliable financial goods

What are the main learnings I’ve made from my own research and knowledge, then?

1. What trouble are you trying to solve first, and make a distinct “why”? For whom? Make sure your goal is unmistakable before beginning any work. Make certain it also complies with the goals of your business.
2. Avoid the temptation to put too many characteristics at once and focus on getting that right first. Choose one that actually adds price, and work from that.
3. Give clarity the precedence it deserves over difficulty when it comes to financial products. Eliminate unwanted details and concentrate on what matters most.
4. Accept ongoing iteration: Bedrock is not a fixed destination; it is a fluid process. Continuously collect customer feedback, make improvements to your product, and move toward that foundation.
5. Halt, look, and listen: You don’t just have to test your product during the delivery process; you must also test it consistently in the field. Use it for yourself. A/B tests are run. User opinions on Gear. Speak to those who use it, and change things up correctly.

The foundational conundrum

This is an intriguing conundrum: sacrificing some of the potential for short-term progress in favor of long-term stability is at play. But the reward is worthwhile: products built with a focus on rock will outlive and surpass their rivals over time and provide users with long-term value.

How do you begin your quest for rock, then? Taking it one step at a time. Start by identifying the underlying factors that your customers actually care about. Focus on developing and improving a second, potent have that delivers real value. And most importantly, check constantly because, whatever you think, Abraham Lincoln, Alan Kay, or Peter Drucker are all in the same boat! The best way to foretell the future is to build it, he said.

Have you recently read the news? I haven’t suggest it. You’d be better off gazing out of a screen at any shade, trees, or, if you’re happy, the odd dog. Despite this, daylight hours are generally the glass solution. You’ll need to switch somewhere for entertainment when nightfall arrives. That’s where the]… ]

The Best British TV Series of 2025 ( So Far ) appeared first on Den of Geek.

Small-time American crime Mark Read had a celebrity past that might not have existed in the 1990s before the release of the movie Chopper. Read became an unlikely bestselling author and discussion topics, usually accepting payment for crimes he was found guilty of, as well as many others, while serving time in the American prison structure after being found guilty of shooting a friend in the chest.

However, that 2000 crime drama, an original that brought writer-director Andrew Domink, sun Eric Bana, and of course the person and story Chopper to an international audience, as well as many others who later came up with the legend, completely strengthened his legend. That includes American Jai Courtney, who admits that he was unaware of Read as a child growing up in the 1990s until someone gave him the Helicopter DVD.

25 years after the movie’s release, Courtney laughs,” God knows if I was also allowed to watch it.” It was definitely one of those movies that rolled about on DVD and left people in their laps. It eventually made its way into his DVD player, and many more have since. It’s a must if you meet someone and talk about the movies you like, but one hasn’t seen them. I’ve actually been guilty of buying a DVD person and finding the Video on eBay to display it for people who haven’t seen the movie before.

It served as a guide for the upcoming <a href=””>Suicide Squad and Exception stars, and it continues to be used as a tool by Courtney today. For instance, when he stops by our studio to appear in the In the Den video series above, it is in advance of the release of Dangerous Animals, a bloody clever riff on the serial killer and shark movie subgenre. In that movie, Courtney portrays a guy named Tucker as one of the two predators who occasionally takes tourists out to swim with sharks and eventually ends up feeding them to the sharp-toothed beasties.

” Tucker is such a performer,” Courtney asserts. The boat deck serves as a kind of stage for him because he’s such a storyteller. He is a guy who may not bring all visitors home, but regardless of how the trip turns out, he is having a good time. He adores it. I believe he is really passionate about it, passionate about his conservation and the fight he’s engaged in, and truly sees himself as one with the shark.

It’s a turn that Courtney acknowledges may have subconscious influences from watching what Bana did with the real-life Chopper Read in the 2000s.

Courtney says,” I think what you see Eric do with that role is quite profound.” He transforms what might be thought of as a two-dimensional villain type into a truly endearing character. If you’ve ever watched an interview with Mark” Chopper” Read himself, you’ll know how incredible this is. Sincerely speaking, it almost feels like an impersonation. He’s like a top mimic, as Bana is.

Before Chopper made Bana a global star, opening the door to everything from <a href=””>Hulk and <a href=””>Troy to Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the actor was primarily known as a stand-up and sketch comic on Australian television shows like Full Frontal and. According to Courtney, who was a kid,” He had a few great, very quotable characters.” And, according to legend, the real-life Chopper was also a fan who watched the series while incarcerated before telling Andrew Dominik to make Bana as the movie version of himself.

” I don’t know how true that is, but from what I understood, he kind of handpicked him,” Courtney says. Whether or not it was true, I’m certain he would make that claim. The real-life Read, as the movie Chopper demonstrates, had a talent for accepting credit for crimes he presumably had no connection to.

According to Courtney, “one of the interesting things about him being such a colorful character is that he laid claim to many more killings than he was ever ever charged with,” and some of that may have been partially made up. And I believe that has somewhat damaged his ego, which is interesting.

However, for a young aspiring actor growing up in Australia, the appeal of Chopper was just the bravado of the performance and being able to quote so many of Bana-as-Read’s lines. Even though the movie has real-world roots and that the majority of the first half of Chopper was shot in Pentridge Prison, a Victorian correctional facility where Read spent decades, his theatrical moments and violence have a Hollywood crime thriller-like quality.

Consider the two first scenes of that prison setting, in which Chopper stabs Keithy George ( David Field ) and when his real-life mate Jimmy Loughnan ( Simon Lyndon ) stabs Chopper. In both scenes, Bana plays the victim as a quasi-astonished and even sympathetic figure-as-as-a-fire.

According to Courtney,” There’s that incredibly acute attack on Keithy,” which kind of comes out of it being very calculated. There is a critical moment before a hyperviolent beat and this kind of violent explosion. He then passes him a cigarette and is almost remorseful right away. There is empathy in there. Just this guy, who had so much light and shade, gave me such a dynamic performance. It really motivates me.

It was the performance that eventually led to the release of Gladiator, which was later followed by a similarly insane turn by Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper ( 1992 ), which was also the catalyst for Mel Gibson’s acutely named Mad Max ( 1979 ). Roger Ebert questioned “is everyone in Australia a few degrees away from the true north” in his 2001 review of Chopper.

Courtney makes a joke about how” that’s a good quote.” He also mentions how many of his fellow Australian performances, such as those of Bana and Crowe, had an impact on him when he first started out.

” Russell’s a friend,” says Courtney. I started working with him ten years ago, but those guys are incredibly inspiring. Hugh Jackman and Head Ledger are both close to my generation, and Joel Edgerton is a little closer. When it was either starting to feel like a distant dream in my eyes or something that I felt like I was on the verge of seeing all those guys who were succeeding,

The line also entices comparisons to Sean Byrne’s directed film, which is distinctly Australian, Dangerous Animals, which is heightened and genre-mad.

Courtney ponders whether or not people are making comparisons to dangerous animals. It was a fascinating movie to make. I wasn’t entirely sure of what I was entering. Really, you can’t predict anything about these processes. You can only make educated guesses about how things will turn out, and Sean worked well with him. So when I read it, my instinct was to be bold with this character in order for it to succeed and give it that color. Because I don’t like how he plays with this kind of evil intent, I find it to be more interesting. However, Tucker sounded like the person you could be stranded next to in the bar, the guy driving your taxi that wouldn’t stop, or the guy you were sitting next to in the back seat. He has a familiarity to him.

You can’t escape these guys, like sharks in the sea.

Dangerous Animals is currently performing in the United States.

The first article on Den of Geek was Jai Courtney Dives into the Legacy of Chopper and Australian Genre Cinema.

It was crucial that the classic cut of the movie, which was submitted by director Joel Schumacher, suddenly discover the light of day because Batman Forever was a transitory movie in the background of Batman on display and superhero movies in public. This month, 30 years ago, Warner Bros. Pictures released Batman Forever.

The first post on Den of Geek was Batman Forever: It’s Time Release the Schumacher Cut.

Small-time Australian criminal Mark Read achieved the kind of celebrity that might only exist in the ’90s before the release of the movie Chopper. Despite serving time in the Australian prison system after being found guilty of shooting a friend in the chest, Read rose to the position of an unlikely bestselling author and interviewer, always willing to accept credit for crimes he was found guilty of, as well as many others he was not.

But that 2000 film, a crime movie so novel that it introduced writer-director Andrew Domink, star Eric Bana, and of course the man and myth that was Chopper, as well as many others who came up afterward, fully reaffirmed his legend. That includes Australian Jai Courtney, who admits to never having heard of Read as a child growing up in the 1990s until a friend gave him a copy of the Chopper DVD.

25 years after the movie’s release, Courtney laughs,” God knows if I was even allowed to watch it.” It was probably one of those things that rolled around on DVD and made you pass between your pals. It eventually made its way into his DVD player, and many more have since. It’s a must if you meet someone and talk about the movies you like, but no one has seen them. I’ve even found myself buying a DVD player and finding the DVD on eBay to show it to people who haven’t seen the movie before.

It served as a guide for the upcoming <a href=””>Suicide Squad and Exception stars, and it continues to be used as a tool by Courtney today. For instance, when he stops by our studio to appear on the In the Den video series above, it is in advance of the release of this summer’s bloody clever riff on the shark and serial killer subgenres, Dangerous Animals. In that movie, Courtney portrays a guy named Tucker as one of the two predators who occasionally takes tourists out to swim with sharks and eventually ends up feeding them to the sharp-toothed beasties.

According to Courtney, Tucker is a performer of this caliber. The boat deck serves as a kind of stage for him because he’s such a storyteller. He is a guy who may not bring all visitors home, but regardless of how the trip turns out, he is having a good time. He adores it. He really sees himself as one with the shark, and I believe he is very passionate about it. He is also passionate about his conservation and his fight against the shark.

Courtney acknowledges that watching Bana’s take on the real-life Chopper Read in the 2000s might have had an impact on her choice of direction.

” I think what you see Eric do with that role is quite profound,” Courtney thinks. He transforms what might be thought of as a two-dimensional villain type into a truly endearing character. If you’ve ever seen an interview with Mark” Chopper” Read himself, I’m sure you’ve got an idea of how incredible this is. It almost seems like an impersonation, to be honest. Bana is like a top mimic, and he is.

Before Chopper made Bana a global star, opening the door to everything from <a href=””>Hulk and <a href=””>Troy to Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the actor was primarily known as a stand-up and sketch comic on Australian television shows like Full Frontal and. According to Courtney,” He had a few great, very quotable characters,” he recalls watching the show as a kid. And, legend has it, the real-life Chopper was a fan before telling Andrew Dominik to make him the Bana kid from the movie version of himself.

” I don’t know how true that is, but from what I understood, he kind of handpicked him,” Courtney asserts. Whether or not it was true, I’m certain he would make that claim. The real-life Read, as the movie Chopper demonstrates, had a talent for accepting credit for crimes he presumably had no connection to.

One of the interesting things about him being such a vibrant character is that he claimed to have committed many more murders than he was ever charged with, according to Courtney, and that some of that perception may have been that it may have been entirely made up. And that, in my opinion, somewhat damaged his ego, which is interesting.

However, for a young aspiring actor growing up in Australia, the appeal of Chopper was just the bravado of the performance and being able to quote so many of Bana-as-Read’s lines. Even though the movie has real-world roots and that the majority of the first half of Chopper was shot in Pentridge Prison, a Victorian correctional facility where Read spent decades, his theatrical moments and violence have a Hollywood crime thriller vibe.

Consider two of the opening sequences in that prison setting, one in which Chopper stabs Keithy George ( David Field ) and another in which his real-life mate Jimmy Loughnan ( Simon Lyndon ) stabs Chopper. In both scenes, Bana plays the victim as a quasi-astonished and even sympathetic figure on the other end of the knife before playing the attacker.

According to Courtney,” There’s that incredibly acute attack on Keithy,” which kind of comes out of it being very calculated. There is a critical moment, and then there is a hyper violent beat and this kind of violent explosion. He then passes him a cigarette and is almost remorseful right away. There is empathy in there. I think it was just this dude who had so much light and shade that gave it such a dynamic performance. It’s really inspiring.

It was the performance that eventually led to the release of Gladiator, which was only a few months after Mel Gibson established the Aussie genre mania in the intensely titled Mad Max ( 1979 ), which set the stage for another similarly illogical turn by Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper ( 1992 ). Is everyone in Australia a few degrees away from the true north, Roger Ebert wrote in his 2001 review of Chopper for a reason.

Courtney makes a joke about how” that’s a good quote.” He also mentions how many of those Australian performances by fellow Australians like Bana and Crowe had an impact on him when he was just starting out.

” Russell’s a friend,” says Courtney. I started working with him ten years ago, but those guys are incredibly inspiring. Hugh Jackman and Head Ledger, of course, and Joel Edgerton, who is a little more contemporary than I am. I was watching all those men who were succeeding at a time when it was either starting to feel more like a distant dream or something that made me feel like I was on the cusp of”.

The line also entices comparisons to Sean Byrne’s directed film, which is distinctly Australian, Dangerous Animals, which is heightened and genre-mad.

Courtney ponders whether or not people are making comparisons to dangerous animals. It was a fascinating movie to produce. I wasn’t entirely sure of what I was entering. Really, you can’t predict anything about these processes. You can only make educated guesses about how things will turn out, and Sean worked well with him. So when I read it, my instinct was to go big with this character in order for it to work and give it that color. Because I believe it’s just less interesting for me if he plays with this kind of evil intention. However, Tucker sounded like someone you could be stuck next to on the bus, the bar owner, or the driver of your taxi that wouldn’t stop. He has a familiarity with him.

You can’t escape these guys, much like sharks in the sea.

Dangerous Animals is currently touring the United States.

The first post on Den of Geek was Jai Courtney Dives into the Legacy of Chopper and Australian Genre Cinema.

One of the most peculiar movies to appear on windows recently is Mike Flanagan’s novel film The Life of Chuck. The Life of Chuck, based on the Stephen King short story, has a strange, three-part narrative all about the cosmic significance of one non-descriptive businessman ( Tom Hiddleston ). For fans of]… ]

The first episode of Den of Geek was titled Mike Flanagan’s Best Dramedy Monologues.

Small-time American crime Mark Read had a celebrity past that might not have existed in the 1990s before the release of the movie Chopper. Read became an unlikely bestselling author and discussion topics, usually accepting payment for crimes he was found guilty of, as well as many others, while serving time in the American prison structure after being found guilty of shooting a friend in the chest.

However, that 2000 crime drama, an original that brought writer-director Andrew Domink, sun Eric Bana, and of course the person and story Chopper to an international audience, as well as many others who later came up with the legend, completely strengthened his legend. That includes Asian Jai Courtney, who admits that he was unaware of Read until he received the Chopper DVD as a young child in the 1990s.

25 times after the movie’s release, Courtney laughs,” God knows if I was also allowed to watch it.” ” You perhaps passed between your colleagues because it was one of those things that kicked around on DVD,” you might say. It eventually made it means into his DVD player, as well as many others. It’s a must if you meet someone and talk about the movies you like, but no one has seen them. I’ve actually been guilty of buying a DVD person and finding the DVD on eBay to show it to people who haven’t seen the film before.

It served as a guide for the upcoming <a href=””>Suicide Squad and Exception stars, and it continues to be used as a tool in Courtney’s work now. For instance, when he stops by our studio to appear on the In the Den movie set over, it is in advance of the transfer of this season’s terrible clever riff on the fish and serial killer themes, Dangerous Animals. In that movie, Courtney portrays a guy named Tucker as one of the predators who occasionally feeds tourists to the sharp-toothed beasties.

According to Courtney, Tucker is a performer of this caliber. The boat deck serves as a kind of stage for him because he is such a storyteller. He may not return all visitors, but he is enjoying himself regardless of how the trip turns out. He adores it. I believe he is really passionate about it, passionate about his conservation and the fight he’s engaged in, and truly sees himself as one with the shark.

Courtney acknowledges that watching what Bana did with the real-life Chopper Read in the 2000s might have had a subconscious influence on this turn.

Courtney says,” I think what you see Eric do with that role is quite profound.” He transforms what might be thought of as a kind of two-dimensional villain type into something incredibly endearing. If you’ve ever seen an interview with Mark” Chopper” Read himself, I’m sure you’ve got an idea of how incredible this is. Sincerely speaking, it almost feels like an impersonation. He’s like a top mimic, as Bana is.

Before Chopper made Bana a global star, opening the door to everything from <a href=””>Hulk and <a href=””>Troy to Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the actor was primarily known as a stand-up and sketch comic on Australian television shows like Full Frontal and. According to Courtney,” He had a few great, very quotable characters,” he recalls watching the show as a kid. And, legend has it, the real-life Chopper was a fan before telling Andrew Dominik to make him the Bana kid from the movie version of himself.

” I don’t know how true that is, but from what I understood, he kind of handpicked him,” Courtney asserts. Whether or not it was true, he would be certain that. The real-life Read had a knack for taking credit for crimes he probably had nothing to do with, as the movie Chopper shows.

One of the interesting things about him being such a vibrant character is that he claimed to have committed many more murders than he was ever charged with, according to Courtney, and that some of that perception may have been that it may have been entirely made up. And I believe that has somewhat damaged his ego, which is interesting.

The appeal of Chopper was only the bravado of the performance and being able to quote so many of Bana-as-Read’s lines, for a young aspiring actor growing up in Australia. Even though the movie has real-world roots and that the majority of the first half of Chopper was shot in Pentridge Prison, a Victorian correctional facility where Read spent decades, his theatrical moments and violence have a Hollywood crime thriller-like quality.

Consider the two first scenes of that prison setting, in which Chopper stabs Keithy George ( David Field ) and when his real-life mate Jimmy Loughnan ( Simon Lyndon ) stabs Chopper. In both scenes, Bana plays the victim as a quasi-astonished and even sympathetic figure-as-as-a-fire.

According to Courtney,” There’s that incredibly acute attack on Keithy,” which kind of comes out of it being very calculated. There is a critical moment before a hyperviolent beat and this kind of violent explosion. He then passes him a cigarette and is almost remorseful right away. There is empathy in there. Just this guy, who had so much light and shade, gave me such a dynamic performance. It’s really motivating.

It was the performance that eventually led to the release of Gladiator, which was only a few months after Mel Gibson established the Aussie genre mania in the intensely titled Mad Max ( 1979 ), which set the stage for another similarly illogical turn by Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper ( 1992 ). Is everyone in Australia a few degrees away from the true north, Roger Ebert wrote in his 2001 review of Chopper for a reason.

” That’s a good quote,” Courtney chuckles. He also mentions how many of those Australian performances by fellow Australians like Bana and Crowe influenced him when he was just starting out.

Courtney responds,” Russell’s a friend.” I started working with him ten years ago, but those guys are incredibly inspiring. Hugh Jackman and Joel Edgerton are both close to my generation, and they are also a little closer to my generation. I was watching all those men who were succeeding at a time when it was either starting to feel more like a distant dream or something that made me feel like I was on the cusp of”.

The line also entices comparisons to Sean Byrne’s directed film, which is distinctly Australian, Dangerous Animals, which is heightened and genre-mad.

Courtney ponders about people making comparisons with Dangerous Animals, saying,” It’d be cool.” It was a fascinating movie to produce. I wasn’t entirely sure what I was entering. Really, you can’t predict anything about these processes. You can only make an educated guess as to how you want things to turn out, and Sean was a great partner. So when I read it, my instinct was to be bold with this character in order for it to succeed and give it that color. Because I don’t like how he plays with this kind of evil intent, I find it to be more interesting. However, Tucker sounded like someone you could be stuck next to on the bus, the bar owner, or the driver of your taxi that wouldn’t stop. He has a familiarity to him.

You can’t escape these guys, just like sharks in the sea.

Dangerous Animals is currently performing in the United States.

On Den of Geek, Jai Courtney dived into the legacy of the Chopper and Australian Genre Cinema.

Small-time American crime Mark Read achieved the kind of celebrity that might only exist in the ’90s before the release of the movie Chopper. Despite serving time in the American prison program after being found guilty of shooting a friend in the chest, Read rose to the position of an unlikely bestselling author and interviewer, often willing to accept payment […]

The first article on Den of Geek was Jai Courtney Swims into the Legacy of Chopper and Australian Genre Cinema.

Small-time American crime Mark Read had a celebrity past that might not have existed in the 1990s before the release of the movie Chopper. Read became an unlikely bestselling author and discussion topics, usually accepting payment for crimes he was found guilty of, as well as many others, while serving time in the American prison structure after being found guilty of shooting a friend in the chest.

However, that 2000 film, a crime drama so novel that it introduced writer-director Andrew Domink, sun Eric Bana, and of course the person and myth that was Chopper, as well as many others who came up finally, who later became deeply enamored with the legend, completely consolidated his legend. That includes American Jai Courtney, who admits to not having heard of Read as a child growing up in the 1990s until a friend gave him a copy of the Chopper DVD.

25 years after the movie’s release, Courtney laughs,” God knows if I was also allowed to watch it.” ” You probably passed between your colleagues because it was one of those things that kicked around on DVD,” you might say. It eventually made its way into his DVD player, and many more have since. It’s a must if you meet someone and talk about the movies you like, but no one has seen them. I’ve actually been guilty of buying a DVD player and finding the DVD on eBay to show it to people who haven’t seen the film before.

It served as a guide for the upcoming <a href=””>Suicide Squad and Exception stars, and it continues to be used as a tool in Courtney’s work immediately. For instance, when he stops by our studio to appear on the In the Den movie set over, it is in advance of the transfer of this season’s terrible clever riff on the fish and serial killer themes, Dangerous Animals. In that movie, Courtney portrays a guy named Tucker as one of the two predators who occasionally takes tourists out to swim with sharks and eventually ends up feeding them to the sharp-toothed beasties.

” Tucker is such a performer,” Courtney asserts. The boat deck serves as a kind of stage for him because he is such a storyteller. He is a guy who may not bring all visitors home, but regardless of how the trip turns out, he is having a good time. He adores it. He really sees himself as one with the shark, and I believe he is very passionate about it. He is also passionate about his conservation and his fight against the shark.

It’s a turn that Courtney acknowledges may have subconscious influences from watching what Bana did with the real-life Chopper Read in the 2000s.

Courtney says,” I think what you see Eric doing in that role is quite profound.” He transforms what might be thought of as a kind of two-dimensional villain type into something incredibly endearing. If you’ve ever watched an interview with Mark” Chopper” Read himself, you’ll understand how incredible this is. Sincerely speaking, it almost resembles an impersonation. He’s like a top mimic, as is Bana.

Before Chopper made Bana a global star, opening the door to everything from <a href=””>Hulk and <a href=””>Troy to Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the actor was primarily known as a stand-up and sketch comic on Australian television shows like Full Frontal and. According to Courtney,” He had a few great, very quotable characters,” he recalls watching the show as a kid. And according to legend, the real-life Chopper was also a fan who watched the series while incarcerated before telling Andrew Dominik to make Bana as the movie version of himself.

” I don’t know how true that is, but from what I understood, he kind of handpicked him,” Courtney asserts. Whether or not it was true, he would be certain that. The real-life Read had a talent for accepting credit for crimes he probably had no business doing, as the movie Chopper demonstrates.

According to Courtney, “one of the interesting things about him being such a colorful character is that he laid claim to many more killings than he was ever ever charged with,” and some of that may have been partially made up. And I believe that has somewhat damaged his ego, which is interesting.

The appeal of Chopper was only the bravado of the performance and being able to quote so many of Bana-as-Read’s lines, for a young aspiring actor growing up in Australia. Even though the movie has real-world roots and that the majority of the first half of Chopper was shot in Pentridge Prison, a Victorian correctional facility where Read spent decades, his theatrical moments and violence have a Hollywood crime thriller-like quality.

Consider the two first scenes of that prison setting, where Chopper stabs Keithy George ( David Field ) and when his real-life mate Jimmy Loughnan ( Simon Lyndon ) stabs Chopper. In both scenes, Bana plays the victim as a quasi-astonished and even sympathetic figure on the other end of the knife before playing the attacker.

There is an “incredibly acute attack on Keithy,” Courtney recalls,” which kind of comes out of it being very calculated. There is a critical moment before a hyperviolent beat and this kind of violent explosion. He then passes him a cigarette and is almost remorseful right away. There is empathy in there. I think it was just this dude who had so much light and shade that gave it such a dynamic performance. It’s really inspiring.

It was the performance that eventually led to the release of Gladiator, which was only a few months after Mel Gibson established the Aussie genre mania in the intensely titled Mad Max ( 1979 ), which set the stage for another similarly illogical turn by Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper ( 1992 ). Roger Ebert questioned “is everyone in Australia a few degrees away from the true north” in his 2001 review of Chopper.

Courtney makes a joke about how” that’s a good quote.” He also mentions how many of those Australian performances by fellow Australians like Bana and Crowe influenced him when he was just starting out.

” Russell’s a friend,” says Courtney. I started working with him ten years ago, but those guys are a lot of fun. Hugh Jackman and Joel Edgerton are both close to my generation, and they are also a little closer to my generation. I was watching all those men who were succeeding at a point where it was either starting to feel like I was on the verge of something.

The line also entices comparisons to the heightened and genre madness in the distinctively Australian Dangerous Animals, which is directed by the Tasmanian-born Sean Byrne.

Courtney ponders whether or not people should compare their behavior to that of Dangerous Animals. Making the movie was fascinating. I wasn’t entirely sure what I was entering. Really, you can’t predict anything about these processes. You can only make educated guesses about how things will turn out, and Sean worked well with him. So when I read it, my instinct was to make this character more interesting and more colorful in order for it to work. Because I believe it’s just less interesting for me if he plays with this kind of evil intention. However, Tucker sounded like the person you could be stranded next to in the bar, the guy driving your taxi that wouldn’t stop, or the guy you were sitting next to in the back seat. He has a familiarity with him.

You can’t escape these guys, like sharks in the sea.

Dangerous Animals is currently performing in the United States.

The first article on Den of Geek was Jai Courtney Swims into the Legacy of Chopper and Australian Genre Cinema.

Many of the wonders of the sea, which have been discovered thousands of years ago, still remain a secret in a sizable, connected network of varieties and habitats that are constantly evolving. Ocean With David Attenborough, a strong feature-length video from Silverback Films and Open Planet Studios, will air on National Geographic on June 7th, […]

The second article on Den of Geek was Ocean With David Attenborough Isn’t Just A Documentary, It’s a Wake-Up Call.

Small-time American crime Mark Read had a celebrity past that might not have existed in the 1990s before the release of the movie Chopper. Read became an unlikely bestselling author and discussion topics, usually accepting payment for crimes he was found guilty of, as well as many others, while serving time in the American prison structure after being found guilty of shooting a friend in the chest.

However, that 2000 crime drama, an original that brought writer-director Andrew Domink, sun Eric Bana, and of course the person and story Chopper to an international audience, as well as many others who later came up with the legend, completely strengthened his legend. That includes American Jai Courtney, who admits to not having heard of Read as a child growing up in the 1990s until a friend gave him a copy of the Chopper DVD.

25 years after the movie’s transfer, Courtney laughs,” God knows if I was also allowed to watch it.” It was definitely one of those items that rolled about on DVD and made you pass between your pals. It eventually made it means into his DVD player, as well as many others. It’s a must if you meet someone and talk about the movies you like, but no one has seen them. I’ve also found myself buying a DVD player and finding the DVD on eBay to show it to people who haven’t seen the film before.

It served as a guide for the upcoming <a href=””>Suicide Squad and Exception stars, and it continues to be used as a tool in Courtney’s work now. For instance, when he stops by our studio to appear on the In the Den movie set over, it is in advance of the transfer of this season’s terrible clever riff on the fish and serial killer themes, Dangerous Animals. In that movie, Courtney portrays a guy named Tucker as one of the two predators who occasionally takes tourists out to swim with sharks and eventually feeds them to the sharp-toothed beasties.

” Tucker is such a performer,” Courtney asserts. The boat deck serves as a kind of stage for him because he is such a storyteller. He is a guy who may not return all visitors, but he is having a good time no matter how the trip turns out. He adores it. I believe he is really passionate about it, passionate about his conservation and the fight he’s engaged in, and truly sees himself as one with the shark.

Courtney acknowledges that watching what Bana did with the real-life Chopper Read in the 2000s might have had a subconscious influence on this turn.

” I think what you see Eric do with that role is quite profound,” Courtney thinks. He transforms what might be thought of as a kind of two-dimensional villain into something incredibly endearing. If you’ve ever watched an interview with Mark” Chopper” Read himself, you’ll understand how incredible this is. It almost seems like an impersonation, to be honest. He’s like a top mimic, as is Bana.

Before Chopper made Bana a global star, opening the door to everything from <a href=””>Hulk and <a href=””>Troy to Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the actor was primarily known as a stand-up and sketch comic on Australian television shows like Full Frontal and. According to Courtney,” He had a few great, very quotable characters,” he recalls watching the show as a kid. And according to legend, the real-life Chopper was also a fan who watched the series while incarcerated before telling Andrew Dominik to make Bana as the movie version of himself.

” I don’t know how true that is, but from what I understood, he kind of handpicked him,” Courtney asserts. Whether or not it was true, I’m sure he would make that claim. The real-life Read, as the movie Chopper demonstrates, had a talent for accepting credit for crimes he presumably had no connection to.

One of the interesting things about him being such a vibrant character is that he claimed to have committed many more murders than he was ever charged with, according to Courtney, and that some of that perception may have been that it may have been entirely made up. And that, in my opinion, somewhat damaged his ego, which is interesting.

The appeal of Chopper was only the bravado of the performance and being able to quote so many of Bana-as-Read’s lines, for a young aspiring actor growing up in Australia. Even though the movie has real-world roots and that the majority of the first half of Chopper was shot in Pentridge Prison, a Victorian correctional facility where Read spent decades, his theatrical moments and violence have a Hollywood crime thriller-like quality.

Consider the two first scenes of that prison setting, in which Chopper stabs Keithy George ( David Field ) and when his real-life mate Jimmy Loughnan ( Simon Lyndon ) stabs Chopper. In both scenes, Bana plays the victim as a quasi-astonished and even sympathetic figure-as-as-a-fire.

According to Courtney,” There’s that incredibly acute attack on Keithy,” which kind of comes out of it being very calculated. There is a critical moment, and then there is a hyper violent beat and this kind of violent explosion. But then he almost remorsellessly passes him a cigarette and is almost immediately out of his mind. There’s a sense of compassion there. I think it was just this dude who had so much light and shade that gave it such a dynamic performance. It’s really inspiring.

It was the performance that eventually led to the release of Gladiator, which was later followed by a similarly insane turn by Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper ( 1992 ), which was also the catalyst for Mel Gibson’s acutely named Mad Max ( 1979 ). Roger Ebert questioned “is everyone in Australia a few degrees away from the true north” in his 2001 review of Chopper.

” That’s a good quote,” Courtney chuckles. He also mentions how many of those Australian performances by fellow Australians like Bana and Crowe influenced him when he was just starting out.

” Russell’s a friend,” says Courtney. I started working with him ten years ago, but those guys are incredibly inspiring. Hugh Jackman and Joel Edgerton are both close to my generation, and they are also a little closer to my generation. I was watching all those men who were succeeding at a time when it was either starting to feel more like a distant dream or something that made me feel like I was on the cusp of”.

The line also entices comparisons to Sean Byrne’s directed film, which is distinctly Australian, Dangerous Animals, which is heightened and genre-mad.

Courtney ponders whether or not people should compare their behavior to that of Dangerous Animals. It was a fascinating movie to produce. I wasn’t entirely sure of what I was entering. Really, you can’t predict anything about these processes. You can only make an educated guess as to how you want things to turn out, and Sean was a great partner. So when I read it, my instinct was to be bold with this character in order for it to succeed and give it that color. Because I believe it’s just less interesting for me if he plays with this kind of evil intention. However, Tucker sounded like the person you could be stranded next to in the bar, the guy driving your taxi that wouldn’t stop, or the guy you were sitting next to in the back seat. He has a familiarity with him.

You can’t escape these guys, just like sharks in the sea.

Dangerous Animals is currently touring the United States.

On Den of Geek, Jai Courtney dived into the legacy of the Chopper and Australian Genre Cinema.

The name of the Nintendo Switch 2 contains the majority of the information you need to know about it: it is the primary movie to the Switch. It has a stronger, stronger, and processed foundation, and is bigger, stronger, and more sophisticated. You’re almost certain to except the Switch 2 if you liked the first one. But whether ]…]

The Nintendo Switch 2: Is It For Its Initial Purchase? second appeared on Den of Geek.

Small-time American crime Mark Read had a celebrity past that might not have existed in the 1990s before the release of the movie Chopper. Read became an unlikely bestselling author and discussion topics, usually accepting payment for crimes he was found guilty of, as well as many others, while serving time in the American prison structure after being found guilty of shooting a friend in the chest.

However, that 2000 film, a crime drama so novel that it introduced writer-director Andrew Domink, sun Eric Bana, and of course the person and myth that was Chopper, as well as many others who came up finally, who later became deeply enamored with the legend, completely consolidated his legend. That includes American Jai Courtney, who admits that he was unaware of Read until he received the Chopper DVD as a young child in the 1990s.

25 years after the movie’s transfer, Courtney laughs,” God knows if I was also allowed to watch it.” It was definitely one of those items that rolled about on DVD and made you pass between your pals. It eventually made it means into his DVD player, as well as many others. It’s a must if you meet someone and talk about the movies you like, but no one has seen them. I’ve actually been guilty of buying a DVD person and finding the DVD on eBay to show it to people who haven’t seen the film before.

It served as a guide for the upcoming <a href=””>Suicide Squad and Exception stars, and it continues to be used as a tool by Courtney now. For instance, when he stops by our studio to appear in the In the Den movie set over, it is in advance of the transfer of Hazardous Animals, a terrible clever rhythm on the serial killer and fish video subgenre. In that movie, Courtney portrays a guy named Tucker as one of the predators who occasionally feeds tourists to the sharp-toothed beasties.

According to Courtney, Tucker is a performer of this caliber. The boat deck serves as a kind of stage for him because he’s such a storyteller. He may not return all visitors, but he is enjoying himself regardless of how the trip turns out. He adores it. He really sees himself as one with the shark, and I believe he is very passionate about it. He is also passionate about his conservation and his fight against the shark.

Courtney acknowledges that watching what Bana did with the real-life Chopper Read in the 2000s might have had a subconscious influence on this turn.

” I think what you see Eric do with that role is quite profound,” Courtney thinks. He transforms what might be thought of as a kind of two-dimensional villain type into something incredibly endearing. If you’ve ever seen an interview with Mark” Chopper” Read himself, I’m sure you’ve got an idea of how incredible this is. Sincerely speaking, it almost feels like an impersonation. He’s like a top mimic, as is Bana.

Before Chopper made Bana a global star, opening the door to everything from <a href=””>Hulk and <a href=””>Troy to Steven Spielberg’s Munich, the actor was primarily known as a stand-up and sketch comic on Australian television shows like Full Frontal and. According to Courtney,” He had a few great, very quotable characters,” he recalls watching the show as a kid. And according to legend, the real-life Chopper was also a fan who watched the series while incarcerated before telling Andrew Dominik to make Bana as the movie version of himself.

” I don’t know how true that is, but from what I understood, he kind of handpicked him,” Courtney asserts. Whether or not it was true, he would be certain that. The real-life Read had a knack for taking credit for crimes he probably had nothing to do with, as the movie Chopper shows.

According to Courtney, “one of the interesting things about him being such a colorful character is that he laid claim to many more killings than he was ever ever charged with,” and some of that may have been partially made up. And I believe that has somewhat damaged his ego, which is interesting.

However, the appeal of Chopper was merely due to the bravado of the performance and being able to quote many of Bana-as-Read’s lines for a young, aspiring actor from Australia. Even though the movie has real-world roots and that the majority of the first half of Chopper was shot in Pentridge Prison, a Victorian correctional facility where Read spent decades, has theatrical and violent moments that resemble those of a Hollywood crime thriller.

Consider two of the opening sequences in that prison setting, one in which Chopper stabs Keithy George ( David Field ) and another in which his real-life mate Jimmy Loughnan ( Simon Lyndon ) stabs Chopper. In both scenes, Bana plays the victim as a quasi-astonished and even sympathetic figure on the other end of the knife before playing the attacker.

According to Courtney,” There’s that incredibly acute attack on Keithy,” which kind of comes out of it being very calculated. There is a critical moment, and then there is a hyper violent beat and this kind of violent explosion. He then passes him a cigarette and is almost remorseful right away. There is empathy in there. Just this guy, who had so much light and shade, gave me such a dynamic performance. It’s really inspiring.

It was the performance that eventually led to the release of Gladiator, which was later followed by a similarly insane turn by Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper ( 1992 ), not long after Mel Gibson established a precedent for this type of Aussie genre mania in the acutely titled Mad Max ( 1979 ). Is everyone in Australia a few degrees away from the true north, Roger Ebert wrote in his review of Chopper in 2001 for a reason.

Courtney makes a joke about how” that’s a good quote.” He also mentions how many of his fellow Australian performances, such as those of Bana and Crowe, had an impact on him when he first started out.

Courtney responds,” Russell’s a friend.” I started working with him ten years ago, but those guys are incredibly inspiring. Hugh Jackman and Head Ledger, of course, and Joel Edgerton, who is a little more contemporary than I am. I was watching all those men who were succeeding at a time when it was either starting to feel more like a distant dream or something that made me feel like I was on the cusp of”.

The line also entices comparisons to the heightened and genre madness in the distinctively Australian Dangerous Animals, which is directed by the Tasmanian-born Sean Byrne.

Courtney ponders whether or not people are making comparisons to dangerous animals. It was a fascinating movie to make. I wasn’t entirely sure of what I was entering. Really, you can’t predict anything about these processes. You can only make an educated guess as to how you want things to turn out, and Sean was a great partner. So when I read it, my instinct was to be bold with this character in order for it to succeed and give it that color. Because I believe it’s just less interesting for me if he plays with this kind of evil intention. However, Tucker sounded like someone you could be stuck next to on the bus, the bar owner, or the driver of your taxi that wouldn’t stop. He has a familiarity with him.

You can’t escape these guys, like sharks in the sea.

Dangerous Animals is currently performing in the United States.

The first post on Den of Geek was Jai Courtney Dives into the Legacy of Chopper and Australian Genre Cinema.

But what on earth is a zealous stress?

Envision a person determined to do it all. She is homeschooling two wonderful children while her husband, who is also working mildly, is likewise homeschooling. She has a demanding customer fill at work—all of whom she loves. She wakes up early to get some movement in ( or frequently catch up on work ), prepares dinner while the kids are having breakfast, and works while positioning herself near the end of her “fourth grade” to watch as she balances clients, tasks, and budgets. Sound like a bit? Yet with a supportive group both at home and at work, it is.

Sounds like this person needs self-care because she has too much on her disk. But no, she doesn’t have occasion for that. She begins to feel as though she’s dropping pellets. Never accomplishing much. There’s not enough of her to be here and that, she is trying to divide her head in two all the time, all day, every day. She begins to question herself. And as those thoughts creep in more and more, her domestic tale becomes more and more important.

She instantly KNOWS what she must do! She really Would MORE.

This is a challenging and dangerous period. Know the reasons. Because when she doesn’t end that new purpose, that storyline will get worse. She instantly starts failing. She isn’t doing much. SHE is not enough. She may fail, she might refuse her family, but she’ll discover more to do. She doesn’t nap as much, proceed because much, all in the attempts to do more. Not succeeds in any objective target despite constantly trying to prove herself to herself. Not feeling “enough”.

But, yeah, that’s what zealous burnout looks like for me. It doesn’t develop immediately in a great sign; it develops gradually over the course of several weeks and months. My burning out process looks like speeding up, hardly a man losing focus. I move quickly and steadily, and then I simply quit.

I am the one who was

It’s amusing the things that shape us. Through the camera of my youth, I witnessed the battles, sacrifices, and fears of a person who had to make it all work without having much. I was happy that my mom was so competent and my dad sympathetic, I never went without and also got an extra here or there.

When my mother gave me food stamps as a child, I didn’t think shame; rather, I would have good started any debates about the subject, orally eviscerating anyone who dared to criticize the handicapped girl who was attempting to ensure all of our needs were met with so little. As a child, I watched the way the worry of not making those ends meet impacted persons I love. As the non-disabled people in my home, I did take on many of the real things because I was” the one who was” make our lives a little easier. I soon realized that I had to put more of myself into it because I was the one who could. I learned first that when something frightens me, I can double down and work harder to make it better. I am capable of taking on the problem. When individuals have seen this in me as an adult, I’ve been told I seem brave, but make no mistake, I’m not. If I seem courageous, it’s because this behavior was forged from another person’s fears.

And here I am, more than 30 years later, also feeling the urge to aimlessly force myself forward when faced with daunting tasks in front of me, assuming that I am the one who is and consequently does. I find myself driven to show that I may make things happen if I work longer hours, take on more responsibility, and do more.

Because I have seen how powerful a fiscally challenged person can be, I don’t think they are failures because they are pulled down by that flood. I really get that I have been privileged to be able to prevent many of the problems that were current in my children. That said, I am also” the one who can” who feels she does, but if I were faced with not having much to make ends meet for my own home, I do see myself as having failed. Despite my best efforts and education, the majority of this is due to great wealth. I will, but, allow myself the pride of saying I have been cautious with my options to have encouraged that success. My sense of identity comes from the notion that I am” the one who can” and feel compelled to accomplish the most. I can choose to stop, and with some quite literal cold water splashed in my face, I’ve made the choice to before. But that choosing to stop is not my go-to, I move forward, driven by a fear that is so a part of me that I barely notice it’s there until I’m feeling utterly worn away.

Why the long history, then? You see, burnout is a fickle thing. Over the years, I have read and heard a lot about burnout. Burnout is real. Especially now, with COVID, many of us are balancing more than we ever have before—all at once! It’s difficult, and the avoidance, shutting down, and procrastination have an impact on so many amazing professionals. There are important articles that relate to what I imagine must be the majority of people out there, but not me. That’s not how I look at burnout.

The dangerous invisibility of zealous burnout

A lot of work environments see the extra hours, extra effort, and overall focused commitment as an asset ( and sometimes that’s all it is ). They see someone attempting to overcome obstacles, not a person who is ensnared in fear. Many well-meaning organizations have safeguards in place to protect their teams from burnout. However, in situations like this, those alarms don’t always ring, and some organization members are surprised and depressed when the inevitable stop happens. And sometimes maybe even betrayed.

Parents—more so mothers, statistically speaking—are praised as being so on top of it all when they can work, be involved in the after-school activities, practice self-care in the form of diet and exercise, and still meet friends for coffee or wine. Many of us have watched endless streaming episodes of COVID to see how challenging the female protagonist is, but she is strong and funny, and can do it. It’s a “very special episode” when she breaks down, cries in the bathroom, woefully admits she needs help, and just stops for a bit. Truth be told, countless people are hidden in tears or doom-scrolling to escape. We know that the media is a lie to amuse us, but often the perception that it’s what we should strive for has penetrated much of society.

Women and burnout

I adore men. And though I don’t love every man ( heads up, I don’t love every woman or nonbinary person either ), I think there is a beautiful spectrum of individuals who represent that particular binary gender.

Despite this, especially in these COVID stressed out times, women are still more likely than their male counterparts to be burnout vulnerable. Mothers in the workplace feel the pressure to do all the “mom” things while giving 110 %. Mothers not in the workplace feel they need to do more to” justify” their lack of traditional employment. Women who are not mothers frequently feel the need to do even more because they don’t feel the pressure that comes with being a mother. It’s vicious and systemic and so a part of our culture that we’re often not even aware of the enormity of the pressures we put on ourselves and each other.

And there are costs that go beyond happiness. Harvard Health Publishing released a study a decade ago that “uncovered strong links between women’s job stress and cardiovascular disease”. The CDC noted,” Heart disease is the leading cause of death for women in the United States, killing 299, 578 women in 2017—or about 1 in every 5 female deaths”.

According to what I’ve read, this connection between work stress and health is more dangerous for women than it is for their non-female counterparts.

But what if your burnout isn’t like that either?

That might not be you either. After all, each of us is so different and how we respond to stressors is too. It’s part of what makes us human. Don’t put too much emphasis on how burnout looks; instead, learn to recognize it in yourself. Here are a few questions I sometimes ask friends if I am concerned about them.

Are you content? This simple question should be the first thing you ask yourself. Chances are, even if you’re burning out doing all the things you love, as you approach burnout you’ll just stop taking as much joy from it all.

Do you feel like you have the authority to decline? I have observed in myself and others that when someone is burning out, they no longer feel they can say no to things. Even those who don’t” speed up” feel pressured to say “yes” and not let the people around them be disappointed.

What are three things you’ve done for yourself? Another observance is that we all tend to stop doing things for ourselves. anything from avoiding conversations with friends to skipping showers and eating poorly. These can be red flags.

Are you using justifications? Many of us try to disregard feelings of burnout. Over and over I have heard,” It’s just crunch time”,” As soon as I do this one thing, it will all be better”, and” Well I should be able to handle this, so I’ll figure it out”. And it might actually be crunch time, a single objective, and/or a set of skills you need to master. That happens—life happens. BUT if all of this doesn’t stop, be open to yourself. If you’ve worked more 50-hour weeks since January than not, maybe it’s not crunch time—maybe it’s a bad situation that you’re burning out from.

Do you have a plan to stop feeling this way? If something is only temporary and you have to push through, it has an exit route and a reward system.
defined end.

Take the time to listen to yourself as you would a friend. Be honest, allow yourself to be uncomfortable, and break the thought cycles that prevent you from healing.

So now what?

Although what I just described is a different path to burnout, it is still burnout. There are well-established approaches to working through burnout:

• Get enough sleep.
• Eat healthy.
• Work out.
• Leave the house.
• Take a break.
• Practice self-care in general.

Those are hard for me because they feel like more tasks. If I’m in the burnout cycle, doing any of the above for me feels like a waste. Why would I take care of myself when I’m dropping all those other balls, according to the narrative? People need me, right?

Your inner voice might already be pretty bad if you’re deeply in the cycle. If you need to, tell yourself you need to take care of the person your people depend on. If your roles are pushing you toward burnout, use them to help make healing easier by justifying the time spent working on you.

I have come up with a few things that I do when I start to feel like I’m going into a zealous burnout to help remind myself of the airline attendant advice to put the mask on yourself first.

Cook an elaborate meal for someone!

Okay, since I’m a “food-focused” person, I’ve always been a fan. There are countless tales in my home of someone walking into the kitchen and turning right around and walking out when they noticed I was” chopping angrily”. But it’s more than that, and you should give it a try. Seriously. It’s the perfect go-to if you don’t feel worthy of taking time for yourself—do it for someone else. Because the majority of us work in a digital world, cooking can pique all of your senses and make you immerse in the moment in all your ways of seeing the world. It can break you out of your head and help you gain a better perspective. In my house, I’ve been known to pick a place on the map and cook food that comes from wherever that is ( thank you, Pinterest ). I enjoy making Indian food because it’s warm and the bread needs just enough kneading to keep my hands busy, and the process requires real attention because it’s not what I was raised to do. And in the end, we all win!

Vent like a sniveling jerk.

Be careful with this one!

I have been making an effort to practice more gratitude over the past few years, and I recognize the true benefits of that. Having said that, sometimes you just need to let it all out, even the ugly ones. Hell, I’m a big fan of not sugarcoating our lives, and that sometimes means that to get past the big pile of poop, you’re gonna wanna complain about it a bit.

When that is required, turn to a trusted friend and give yourself some pure verbal diarrhea, yelling at you all the way through. You need to trust this friend not to judge, to see your pain, and, most importantly, to tell you to remove your cranium from your own rectal cavity. Seriously, it’s about getting a reality check here! One of the things that I admire most about my husband is how he manages to simplify things down to the simplest. ” We’re spending our lives together, of course you’re going to disappoint me from time to time, so get over it” has been his way of speaking his dedication, love, and acceptance of me—and I could not be more grateful. Of course, it required that I remove my head from that rectal cavity. So, again, usually those moments are appreciated in hindsight.

Pick up a book!

There are many books out there that are more like you sharing their stories and how they’ve come to find greater balance than they are self-help. Maybe you’ll find something that speaks to you. Among the titles that have stood out to me are:

• Thrive by Arianna Huffington
• Tools of Titans by Tim Ferriss
• Girl, Stop Apologizing by Rachel Hollis
• Dare to Lead by Brené Brown

Or, a tactic I enjoy using is to read or listen to a book that is NOT related to my work-life balance. I’ve read the following books and found they helped balance me out because my mind was pondering their interesting topics instead of running in circles:

• The Drunken Botanist by Amy Stewart
• Darin Olien’s Superlife
• A Brief History of Everyone Who Ever Lived by Adam Rutherford
• Toby Hemenway’s Gaia’s Garden

If you’re not into reading, pick up a topic on YouTube or choose a podcast to subscribe to. I’ve watched countless permaculture and gardening topics in addition to how to raise chickens and ducks. I don’t currently own any livestock of any kind, nor do I have a particularly large food garden. I just find the topic interesting, and it has nothing to do with any aspect of my life that needs anything from me.

Give yourself a break.

You are never going to be perfect—hell, it would be boring if you were. It’s OK to be broken and flawed. It’s human nature to be depressed, anxious, and tired. It’s OK to not do it all. Although being imperfect is terrifying, you cannot be brave without being fearful.

This last one is the most important: allow yourself permission to NOT do it all. You never promised to be everything to everyone at all times. We have greater power than the repressed fears that motivate us.

This is hard. I struggle with it. It’s what’s driven me to write this—that it’s OK to stop. It’s OK that your unhealthy habit that might even benefit those around you needs to end. You can still succeed in life.

I recently read that we are all writing our eulogy in how we live. What will your professional accomplishments say, knowing that your speech won’t include them? What do you want it to say?

Look, I get that none of these ideas will “fix it”, and that’s not their purpose. None of us has complete control over our surroundings, but only how we react to them. These suggestions are to help stop the spiral effect so that you are empowered to address the underlying issues and choose your response. Most of the time, I find these to be effective. Maybe they’ll work for you.

Does this sound familiar?

If something resounds familiar to you, it’s not just you. Don’t let your negative self-talk tell you that you “even burn out wrong”. It is not improper. Even if rooted in fear like my own drivers, I believe that this need to do more comes from a place of love, determination, motivation, and other wonderful attributes that make you the amazing person you are. We’re going to be OK, ya know. The lives that come before us might never have the same meaning as the one we’re striving for, which is acceptable because the only way to judge is in the mirror when we stop and look around.

Do you remember that Winnie the Pooh sketch that had Pooh eat so much at Rabbit’s house that his buttocks couldn’t fit through the door? It came as no surprise when he abruptly declared that this was unacceptable because I already associate a lot with Rabbit. But do you recall what happened next? He put a shelf across poor Pooh’s ankles and decorations on his back, and made the best of the big butt in his kitchen.

We are resourceful and aware that we can push ourselves when we are needed, even when we are exhausted to the core or have a ton of clutter in our room. None of us has to be afraid, as we can manage any obstacle put in front of us. And maybe that means we need to redefine success in order to make room for comfort in human nature, but that doesn’t really sound so bad either.

So, wherever you are right now, please breathe. Do what you need to do to get out of your head. Give thanks and be considerate.

One of the most powerful gentle abilities we have at our disposal is the ability to work together to improve our designs while developing our own abilities and perspectives, regardless of how it is used or what it might be called.

Feedback is also one of the most underestimated equipment, and generally by assuming that we’re now great at it, we settle, forgetting that it’s a skill that can be trained, grown, and improved. Bad feedback can lead to conflict in projects, lower confidence, and long-term, undermine trust and teamwork. Quality opinions can be a revolutionary force.

Practicing our knowledge is absolutely a good way to enhance, but the learning gets yet faster when it’s paired with a good base that programs and focuses the exercise. What are some fundamental components of providing effective opinions? And how can comments be adjusted for isolated and distributed job settings?

A long history of sequential comments can be found online: code was written and discussed on mailing lists before becoming an open source standard. Currently, engineers engage on pull calls, developers post in their favourite design tools, project managers and sprint masters exchange ideas on tickets, and so on.

Design analysis is often the label used for a type of input that’s provided to make our job better, jointly. It generally shares many of the principles with comments, but it also has some differences.

The material

The content of the feedback is the bedrock of every effective analysis, so where do we need to begin? There are many versions that you can use to design your information. The one that I personally like best—because it’s obvious and actionable—is this one from Lara Hogan.

This calculation, which is typically used to provide feedback to users, even fits really well in a design critique because it finally addresses one of the main issues that we address: What? Where? Why? How? Imagine that you’re giving some comments about some pattern function that spans several screens, like an onboard movement: there are some pages shown, a stream blueprint, and an outline of the decisions made. You notice a flaw in the situation. If you keep the three components of the equation in mind, you’ll have a mental unit that can help you become more precise and effective.

A comment that appears to be fair at first glance could be included in some feedback, as it only appears to partially fulfill the requirements. But does it?

Not confident about the keys ‘ patterns and hierarchy—it feels off. Does you alter them?

Observation for style feedback doesn’t really mean pointing out which part of the software your input refers to, but it also refers to offering a viewpoint that’s as specific as possible. Do you offer the user’s viewpoint? Your expert perspective? A business perspective? From the perspective of the project manager? A first-time user’s perspective?

When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back.

Impact is about the why. Just pointing out a UI element might sometimes be enough if the issue may be obvious, but more often than not, you should add an explanation of what you’re pointing out.

When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow.

The question approach is meant to provide open guidance by eliciting the critical thinking in the designer receiving the feedback. Notably, in Lara’s equation she provides a second approach: request, which instead provides guidance toward a specific solution. While that’s a viable option for feedback in general, in my experience, going back to the question approach typically leads to the best solutions because designers are generally more at ease in being given an open space to explore.

The difference between the two can be exemplified with, for the question approach:

When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Would it make sense to unify them?

Or, for the request approach:

When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same pair of forward and back buttons.

At this point in some situations, it might be useful to integrate with an extra why: why you consider the given suggestion to be better.

When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.

Choosing the question approach or the request approach can also at times be a matter of personal preference. I did rounds of anonymous feedback and reviewed feedback with other people before putting a lot of effort into improving it a while ago. After a few rounds of this work and a year later, I got a positive response: my feedback came across as effective and grounded. Until I changed teams. Quite unexpected, my next round of criticism from one particular person wasn’t very positive. The reason is that I had previously tried not to be prescriptive in my advice—because the people who I was previously working with preferred the open-ended question format over the request style of suggestions. However, there was one person in this other team who now preferred specific guidance. So I adapted my feedback for them to include requests.

One comment that I heard come up a few times is that this kind of feedback is quite long, and it doesn’t seem very efficient. No, but also yes. Let’s explore both sides.

No, this kind of feedback is effective because the length is a byproduct of clarity, and giving this kind of feedback can provide precisely enough information for a sound fix. Also if we zoom out, it can reduce future back-and-forth conversations and misunderstandings, improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration beyond the single comment. Imagine that in the example above the feedback were instead just,” Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons”. The designer receiving this feedback wouldn’t have much to go by, so they might just implement the change. In later iterations, the interface might change or they might introduce new features—and maybe that change might not make sense anymore. Without explaining the why, the designer might assume that the change is one of consistency, but what if it wasn’t? So there could now be an underlying concern that changing the buttons would be perceived as a regression.

Yes, this style of feedback is not always efficient because the points in some comments don’t always need to be exhaustive, sometimes because certain changes may be obvious (” The font used doesn’t follow our guidelines” ) and sometimes because the team may have a lot of internal knowledge such that some of the whys may be implied.

The equation above is not intended to provide a predetermined template for feedback, but rather a mnemonic to reflect and enhance the practice. Even after years of active work on my critiques, I still from time to time go back to this formula and reflect on whether what I just wrote is effective.

The tone

Well-grounded content is the foundation of feedback, but that’s not really enough. The soft skills of the person who’s providing the critique can multiply the likelihood that the feedback will be well received and understood. It has been demonstrated that only positive feedback can lead to sustained change in people, and tone alone can determine whether content is rejected or welcomed.

Since our goal is to be understood and to have a positive working environment, tone is essential to work on. I’ve tried to summarize the necessary soft skills over the years using a formula that resembles the one for content: the receptivity equation.

Respectful feedback comes across as grounded, solid, and constructive. It’s the kind of feedback that, whether it’s positive or negative, is perceived as useful and fair.

The term “timing” describes the moment when the feedback occurs. To-the-point feedback doesn’t have much hope of being well received if it’s given at the wrong time. When a new feature’s entire high-level information architecture is about to go live, it might still be relevant if the questioning raises a significant blocker that no one saw, but those concerns are much more likely to have to wait for a later revision. So in general, attune your feedback to the stage of the project. Early iteration? Iteration that was later? Polishing work in progress? Each of these needs a different one. The right timing will make it more likely that your feedback will be well received.

Attitude is the equivalent of intent, and in the context of person-to-person feedback, it can be referred to as radical candor. That entails checking before writing to see if what we have in mind will actually help the person and improve the project overall. This might be a hard reflection at times because maybe we don’t want to admit that we don’t really appreciate that person. Hopefully that’s not the case, but it can happen, which is fine. Acknowledging and owning that can help you make up for that: how would I write if I really cared about them? How can I avoid being passive aggressive? How can I encourage constructive behavior?

Form is relevant especially in a diverse and cross-cultural work environments because having great content, perfect timing, and the right attitude might not come across if the way that we write creates misunderstandings. There could be many reasons for this, including the fact that occasionally certain words may cause specific reactions, that non-native speakers may not be able to comprehend all thenuances of some sentences, that our brains may be different, and that we may perceive the world differently. Neurodiversity is a requirement. Whatever the reason, it’s important to review not just what we write but how.

A few years back, I was asking for some feedback on how I give feedback. I was given some sound advice, but I also got a surprise comment. They pointed out that when I wrote” Oh, ]… ]”, I made them feel stupid. That wasn’t my intention at all! I felt really bad, and I just realized that I provided feedback to them for months, and every time I might have made them feel stupid. I was horrified … but also thankful. I quickly changed my situation by adding “oh” to my list of replaced words (your choice between aText, TextExpander, or others ) so that when I typed “oh,” it was immediately deleted.

Something to highlight because it’s quite frequent—especially in teams that have a strong group spirit—is that people tend to beat around the bush. It’s important to keep in mind that having a positive attitude doesn’t necessarily mean passing judgment on the feedback; rather, it simply means that you give it constructive and respectful feedback, whether it be difficult or positive. The nicest thing that you can do for someone is to help them grow.

We have a great advantage in giving feedback in written form: it can be reviewed by another person who isn’t directly involved, which can help to reduce or remove any bias that might be there. The best, most insightful moments for me came when I shared a comment and asked a trusted person how it sounds, how can I do it better, or even” How would you have written it”? I discovered that by seeing the two versions side by side, I’ve learned a lot.

The format

Asynchronous feedback also has a significant inherent benefit: we can devote more time to making sure that the suggestions ‘ clarity of communication and actionability fulfill two main objectives.

Let’s imagine that someone shared a design iteration for a project. You are reviewing it and leaving a comment. Let’s try to think about some factors that might be helpful to consider, as there are many ways to accomplish this, and context is of course a factor.

In terms of clarity, start by grounding the critique that you’re about to give by providing context. This includes specifically describing where you’re coming from: do you know the project well, or do you just see it for the first time? Are you coming from a high-level perspective, or are you figuring out the details? Are there regressions? Which user’s point of view are you addressing when offering your feedback? Is the design iteration at a point where it would be okay to ship this, or are there major things that need to be addressed first?

Even if you’re giving feedback to a team that already has some background information on the project, providing context is helpful. And context is absolutely essential when giving cross-team feedback. If I were to review a design that might be indirectly related to my work, and if I had no knowledge about how the project arrived at that point, I would say so, highlighting my take as external.

We frequently concentrate on the negatives and attempt to list every improvement that could be made. That’s of course important, but it’s just as important—if not more—to focus on the positives, especially if you saw progress from the previous iteration. Although this may seem superfluous, it’s important to keep in mind that design is a field with hundreds of possible solutions for each problem. So pointing out that the design solution that was chosen is good and explaining why it’s good has two major benefits: it confirms that the approach taken was solid, and it helps to ground your negative feedback. In the longer term, sharing positive feedback can help prevent regressions on things that are going well because those things will have been highlighted as important. Positive feedback can also help, as an added bonus, prevent impostor syndrome.

There’s one powerful approach that combines both context and a focus on the positives: frame how the design is better than the status quo ( compared to a previous iteration, competitors, or benchmarks ) and why, and then on that foundation, you can add what could be improved. There is a significant difference between a critique of a design that is already in good shape and one that isn’t quite there yet.

Another way that you can improve your feedback is to depersonalize the feedback: the comments should always be about the work, never about the person who made it. It’s” This button isn’t well aligned” versus” You haven’t aligned this button well”. This can be changed in your writing very quickly by reviewing it just before sending.

In terms of actionability, one of the best approaches to help the designer who’s reading through your feedback is to split it into bullet points or paragraphs, which are easier to review and analyze one by one. You might also consider breaking up the feedback into sections or even across multiple comments if it is longer. Of course, adding screenshots or signifying markers of the specific part of the interface you’re referring to can also be especially useful.

One approach that I’ve personally used effectively in some contexts is to enhance the bullet points with four markers using emojis. A red square indicates that it is something I consider blocking, a yellow diamond indicates that it needs to be changed, and a green circle provides a thorough, positive confirmation. I also use a blue spiral � � for either something that I’m not sure about, an exploration, an open alternative, or just a note. However, I’d only use this strategy on teams where I’ve already established a high level of trust because it might turn out to be quite demoralizing if I deliver a lot of red squares, and I’d have to reframe how I’d communicate that.

Let’s see how this would work by reusing the example that we used earlier as the first bullet point in this list:

• 🔶 Navigation—When I see these two buttons, I anticipate one to go forward and the other to go back. But this is the only screen where this happens, as before we just used a single button and an “×” to close. This seems to be breaking the consistency in the flow. Let’s make sure that all screens have the same two forward and back buttons so that users don’t get confused.
• � � Overall— I think the page is solid, and this is good enough to be our release candidate for a version 1.0.
• � � Metrics—Good improvement in the buttons on the metrics area, the improved contrast and new focus style make them more accessible.
• Button Style: Using the green accent in this context gives the impression that it’s a positive action because green is typically seen as a confirmation color. Do we need to explore a different color?
• Given the number of items on the page and the overall page hierarchy, it seems to me that the tiles should use Subtitle 2 instead of Subtitle 1. This will keep the visual hierarchy more consistent.
• � � Background—Using a light texture works well, but I wonder whether it adds too much noise in this kind of page. What is the purpose behind using that?

What about giving feedback directly in Figma or another design tool that allows in-place feedback? These are generally difficult to use because they conceal discussions and are harder to follow, but in the right setting, they can be very effective. Just make sure that each of the comments is separate so that it’s easier to match each discussion to a single task, similar to the idea of splitting mentioned above.

One final note: say the obvious. Sometimes we might feel that something is clearly right or wrong, and we don’t say it. Or sometimes we might have a doubt that we don’t express because the question might sound stupid. Say it, that’s fine. You might have to reword it a little bit to make the reader feel more comfortable, but don’t hold it back. Good feedback is transparent, even when it may be obvious.

Asynchronous feedback also has the benefit of automatically guiding decisions, according to writing. Especially in large projects,” Why did we do this”? There’s nothing better than open, transparent discussions that can be reviewed at any time, and this could be a question that arises from time to time. For this reason, I recommend using software that saves these discussions, without hiding them once they are resolved.

Content, tone, and format. Although each of these subjects offers a useful model, improving eight of the subjects ‘ observation, impact, question, timing, attitude, form, clarity, and actionability is a lot of work to put in all at once. One effective approach is to take them one by one: first identify the area that you lack the most (either from your perspective or from feedback from others ) and start there. Then the second, followed by the third, and so on. At first you’ll have to put in extra time for every piece of feedback that you give, but after a while, it’ll become second nature, and your impact on the work will multiply.

Thanks to Brie Anne Demkiw and Mike Shelton for reviewing the first draft of this article.