I heard Tom say that he didn't like to see a talking head for more than 15 seconds. That's quite a feat, so I think I'll shoot for 30 seconds in my next video. To do it right, I guess you need to make sure you say things that lend themselves to images. I also noticed that Marty "digresses" a lot (thinking of the bit with the guy's last name), perhaps that's a good way to keep from being so monotonous. Most people stop watching my videos after about the 3/4 mark. That means I need to either limit myself to 7.5 minutes or so, or come up with more segments and transitions. I do sympathize, though I do enjoy a much larger attention span than most people seem to have these days. I still maintain that you're better off with a tight 5 minutes than a loose 10 minutes.

I also liked how he shifted between close, focused shots and rapid transitions. Seems to give the video a more intimate feel than the long shots I tend to use. Of course, it'd be ideal to have a camera operator who could make those shifts for you, but difficult in practice. I think it looks cheesy in documentaries when they keep shifting angles seemingly just for the hell of it; the guy talking usually has to retrain on the moved camera, and that looks worse than if they'd just kept it still. I've seen Fox get around this by scrolling some text or putting them against a colorful background or the like; even then you start to feel "strained" to keep watching the head for more than a few minutes. All in all, though, I like how Fox is willing to just show talking heads for so long, whereas the others seem to want to make so many cuts. In any case, it of course helps when the talking head has a lot of facial expression, good speaking skills, and an obvious stance (such as O'Reilly's scathing cynicism, Limbaugh's cheerful jingoism, or Beck's "common sense" skepticism). When you get away from the obvious stereotypes the speakers have to go so far out to keep interest; consider the huge range you get out of somebody like Jon Stewart compared to any of these guys.