A crash course in speech-giving, for everyone (but especially for Ed)

July 13, 2012 11:13 am

“There are always three speeches, for every one you actually gave. The one you practiced, the one you gave, and the one you wish you gave.” (Dale Carnegie)

When an actor has to deliver a speech, the first thing s/he has to think about is how to make it sound improvised – in other words how to make it not sound like a speech. The best politicians understand this instinctively. Others need to learn – and in certain people’s
case, learn fast. There will be a general election in the next few years and Ed Miliband deserves to become Prime Minister, and would be an excellent one. But there are one or two people he has to convince first, and giving great speeches is going to be a huge part
of this.

So, here is my crash course in speech-giving, for everyone, but especially for Ed.

Step One: learn your speech. This is the obvious bit. Learn it as thoroughly as you possibly can. If you have to read it from auto cue, let it be only as a prompt. The best speeches must come from memory. It is never surprises me to remember that Churchill wrote his own speeches – and some of Obama’s and Tony Blair’s best speeches have also been their own work.

Step Two: Warm up your voice. This may sound too “technical” but you only have to look at George Osborne croaking his way through his budget speeches reaching ever more frequently for his glass of water, to see that it really matters. First, make sure your neck and shoulders are relaxed, and your nose and sinuses clear (this may involve steaming for a short while) then hum and do lip rolls for a couple of minutes. Vocalise some letters – start with m, and then move on to b, p, g and n. Experiment with your different “resonators” – ie the bits of your body that you use to amplify the sound your vocal chords make – the chest, the nasal cavity, the oral cavity and the sinuses. Move the sound round these different areas. Finish with some tongue twisters. (I could write pages about all this, but you get the idea.)

Step Three: Your speech. Think about who you are addressing. Every time an actor opens his or her mouth on stage they are addressing someone – even if it is only another version of themselves in their imagination. Every word has a target, a landing-place – a person intended to hear it. When you give a speech you need to think specifically about your target. Who are you talking to – and most importantly – what are you trying to do to them? What is the change you are trying to evoke in them? For that is what we are all doing when we speak – attempting in some small way to make things other than they are. When you gives a speech as a politician you are attempting to affect a lot of people and you must think about exactly how you are trying to affect them. Your target may morph and change during the speech as people take on board what you are saying. You need to stay open to this, try and sense it and run with it. You must connect with your audience. It is not about reciting words, it is about actually doing something.

Ok. Let’s look at some examples:

Here Charlie Chaplin’s unknown Jewish barber who has assumed the identity of the evil dictator, Adenoid Hynkel, is taken to the capital of Osterlich to make a victory speech. The speech is remarkable for several reasons:

1. Chaplin’s voice is a well-tuned instrument. The world’s most famous silent actor actually has a terrific speaking voice, and obviously trained it well for this film. Not a single consonant is lost, not a single vowel muffed, not a syllable garbled.

2. We absolutely believe that the character is making this speech up as he goes along. Of course he isn’t. Chaplin will have spent hours learning and rehearsing these words, but he makes them sound improvised. He keeps his vocal energy going – he doesn’t drop words, or final vowel sounds – because he keeps his imaginative energy going.

3. Chaplin paces the speech brilliantly. His character starts of tentatively but senses that his audience are going with him as he speaks, and his delivery gets increasingly passionate. He doesn’t drop his energy – ever – he doesn’t pause and lower his eyes (as Ed Miliband does) between thoughts – he keeps his energy on the audience, and thinks on the line rather than before it. By doing this he keeps the audience engaged, and keeps them with him – which is what allows him to gather the pace in the way he does.

And now, have a look at Marlon Brando as Mark Anthony in Julius Ceasar, giving the famous “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” speech:

Again, here is an actor making us believe entirely that he is making this speech up – a feat even more remarkable than than in the previous example, because these words are so well known. Again, the voice is properly warmed up, the articulation perfect and the breath control superb – meaning that he can rise to quite a pitch and volume in the latter part of the speech. Unlike Chaplin’s tentative barber, here we see a speaker who is absolutely convinced of his argument from the beginning, but is also aware that he has a lot of
convincing to do to persuade his audience to believe him. Notice that he doesn’t disengage with them for a second – he only breaks eye -contact to refer to other people and his voice retains its intensity throughout. Again, this is about connecting with the audience and making the speech about what he is trying to do to them, rather than just rattling off a series of words and hoping them to do the job on their own.

Now let’s look at an actual politician. Here is Barack Obama back in 2008 (you only need look at the first 1:30 of this…)

Obama pitches his voice well, and uses plenty of chest resonance. And he never stops engaging with the audience – his tone has a sense of urgency, of profound belief, and of the need to take the audience with him on his journey. Interestingly, this speech contains a lot of questions – always useful to speakers, as asking a question demands a slight upward inflection at the end of a sentence, and so ensures that you don’t nosedive and lose vocal energy as the sentence nears its end, which so often happens with Ed Miliband. Obama never disengages, never loses eye-contact and only uses pauses to let a sentence or an idea ring in his audience’s heads; he keeps his focus on them at all times.

And finally, let’s turn our attention to Ed.

Right. Let’s look at this speech.

First: Ed’s articulation is not great. “Worrying” sounds like “worring” and often “immigration” in this speech sounds like “mmigration”. These issues are easily solved with a bit of practice, and once eliminated will lend his voice more authority, and give him far more command over the text he is delivering .

Second: there is no sense of trying to connect with his audience – honestly, look at that speech and he could be speaking to a row of stuffed toys – perhaps he was, I don’t know. In theatre we talk about “inventing” your audience before you can speak to them – it is the same in politics: you have to know who you are talking to, and believe in them, before you can speak to them.

Next, he should look at his notes far, far less -and when he does look at them he should finish his sentence before looking down or he risks sounding like a weather forecaster. (My bete noir – they breathe in the middle of sentences and are already thinking about the next sentence halfway through the current one. Grrr.)

His vocal energy is terrible – he drops the end of nearly every sentence and throws words away as though they don’t matter. No, Ed. Every word matters. If it doesn’t then you shouldn’t be saying it. Keep your vocal energy going right through to the last syllable. This
is as much about connecting with the audience as it is about vocal technique. If you truly commit to the idea of changing your audience, if you actually need them to believe you, then the right vocal energy will follow.

He needs to think on the line, rather than before it. So often his mind is in one place (the next sentence) while his mouth is in another. This is a disaster. It’s almost impossible to really listen to someone who delivers a speech like this. It’s no wonder he often need to
release the text of his speech the night before he gives it – if the press had to sit and listen to that without having read the speech in advance they would be hard pressed to make much sense of it.

Which brings me to my final point: a sense of theatre. The really great speech-givers, whether actors or politicians, have a sense of drama, of the magic of trying to change the world by words alone. To me, releasing a speech before it is delivered kills this drama
before its had a chance. And not just that – Ed Miliband needs to enjoy the live experience far more than he seems to when he gives a speech. When he improvises, Ed is brilliant. He is engaged, passionate and what we in the theatre call “in the moment” – his focus is
entirely on his audience, not on the text of a speech, and he is using the words as a tool rather than as an end in themselves. Because he’s convinced by what he’s saying he sounds convincing. Because he what he is saying matters to him, he becomes charismatic and we suddenly want to listen to him. And this is what he needs to achieve wit his written speeches. It’s not easy, but it’s entirely possible, and if he can manage it we may stand a fighting chance of getting a decent government in 2015.

So, there we are.

I leave you with one of my favourite film moments of all time. It’s a magnificent example of an actor making us believe that his character is talking on-the-hoof – and carrying a room full of people with him as he does so. A great speech, brilliantly delivered by Dustin Hoffman.

Tootsie: the reveal. Enjoy.

Fiona Laird is a theatre director, writer and film maker

  • treborc

    It’s not how you say it, it’s what you say which matters, sadly Miliband speech writers are pretty boring to be honest. Blair had a new take on speaking he’d leave the Autocue and walk across the stage speaking to the people directly, and people took to it, it seemed he was talking to them directly. Brown tried it and very one knew what he was doing and it failed especially as he tried the hand movement .

    Speaking is an art, some get away with it by having a strong voice like Nye Bevan, but a strong voice is a waste of time if  your speech is empty and drivel.

    Yes Miliband is a poor speaker but add to that his speeches are about a promise to tell us about what he will do at election time, so his speeches are a promise of things to come.

    I think Miliband should sack his speech writers and come out with  quick chat about what he see what he thinks, if he is talking to the press then ok if your speaking to the bankers fine get a speech writer, but if your talking to your voters to the members it would be far better to speak from the heart off the top of your head allow the public maybe to ask a question.

    Because at the moment Miliband is poor very poor.

    But of course actors are acting, if Miliband is acting the people will see right through him.

  • Chilbaldi

    Superb post Fiona. Ed should give you a job in the leader’s office!

    • Krisp06

      Couldn’t agree more.  Ed is a sincere guy, he believes in stuff  but he won’t change the world unless he listens and learns how to effect the change and to get the world to listen. 

      It’s not ACTING or theatrical to take advice from a top directors who knows exactly how to get a point across, simply and effectively.

      Dave is the easiest political Tory leader and opponent to wipe the floor with  in years.  Ed should just be grateful he isn’t facing John Redwood on a weekly basis now he has a brain, business and commercial experience, is articulate and is a master of economics’ doesn’t raise his voice and NEVER does Angry Birds.

      Do exactly as Chilbaldi says Ed, take Fiona to lunch at the Dartmouth Arms and begin your road journey to Number 10. 

      • Alexwilliamz

        Acting is about communicating a message it should not be seen as deception if a politician engages in theatrical techniques if it aids him in presenting a message. The deception is whether or not he believes what he is saying. The point is that we are all motive creatures and we respond not only to the words but how they are being conveyed. Good oration remains an important part of any good leader as people need to both believe what you say but also that others will follow too. It is called inspiring people. Good oration should not be seen as the same as bombastic or overblown, it is more about enhancing the character of the person delivering and sometimes an understated delivery can be equally effective provided the speaker understands and uses timing, suspense and pace.

      • Brumanuensis

        Redwood? Master of economics? Have I missed something?

    • Fiona Laird

      haha – thank you. 

  • Losange

    To be honest I think the problem is more the message than the messenger.

    Miliband’s speeches range the gambit from atrocious to mediocre. 

    Few of us can forget his notorious Coin House speech about meeting a “man” who had been injured at work (without stating know how the injury had been sustained, what it was, or how it affected the man in respect to his previous career) and subsequently forced to live on sickness benefits for ten years who Miliband felt could be doing “something” (without stating what, where, or for whom this “something” would be undertaken, or, indeed, whether this fabled “something” was actually gainful employment or compulsory unpaid workfare – or worse).

    Don’t kill the messenger but, for God’s sake, give him a better message to carry!

  • Alan Giles

    Please God, no more “theatrical” Prime Ministers. Sincerity is more important than gestures of hands or speech. Telling the public they are in danger of attack by WMD in 45 minutes, might get you noticed, but perhaps not in the way you would like.

    As others have suggested, the material Ed is working is not of the best – trying to pretend you are totally against the Coalition, while, at the same time, having broadly similar policies, or policies you can’t define, is a difficult trick.

    Ed isn’t a great orator – but then there are very few anyway. They were never ten a penny but now they are very rare. At least Ed doesnt sound as condescending and self-important as his brother, but he doesn’t convey that last ounce of poetry from his ideas – in January when he wanted to inspire British manufacturing, on a lengthy interview on Radio 4′s World At One, his biggest idea seemed to be to put a “Made in Britain” label physically on each product. “Assembled in Britain” would be more appropriate, thanks to the decimation and downgrading of industry over the past 30 years, but A LABEL? – it’s a far cry from “the Britain that will be forged from the white heat”.

    My advice to Ed Miliband or anyone else is NOT to act but to be yourself, acting merely makes you look bogus and insincere

    • treborc

      lets be honest Miliband has had a number of speeches, not one of them gives a direction or talks about policies or which way he’s going to swing.

      I think we are getting a better view now with policies being made by the socialist team of Purnell and Blair, with Cruddas name on the door  but he will be long gone.

    • Chilbaldi

      Ed isn’t a good orator, but neither is Cameron. Not every PM is a great orator, but they do at least have a certain level of mediocrity that combined with the message gets them by.

      Ed doesn’t always reach that level of mediocrity, often he is a very poor speaker. The speech he gave at the Fabian conference the other weekend was fantastic – engaging, passionate, detailed, a message that connected with the ordinary man on the street and the financial expert. But the following week he gave a speech on a similar theme and was back to the self-conscious, hesitant, slightly mumbling and incoherent Ed that we know.

      The article above hits the nail on the head. Public speaking can be trained. Ed needs to put a bit of thought into that as he is looking like an excellent leader in other ways.

      Your point about not wanting theatrical PMs is wrong-headed and I note that you couldn’t resist the irrelevant dig at Blair. I swear you couldn’t talk about the daffodills growing in the park without making a ham-fisted links to Blair’s perceived failings as a Prime Minister. Presentation is an invaluable weapon to have in the arsenal. As I said, it can be trained.

      • Alan Giles

        I am “wrong-headed” not to enjoy theatrical histrionics from political leaders am I?. If you say so, but if I want to be entertained by great actors I would go to the theatre. Or listen to the radio if I wanted comedy. By the way, what special qualifications do you hold to opine that somebody is “wrong headed”?

        If a politician – regardless of party – finds it necessary to “act”, you immediately wonder how you can know if he/she is being sincere, or “putting on a show”.

        Politicians at one time didn’t try to be actors – either you are an orator or you not. Really none of today’s shower (all parties) are. Most of them lookm and sound like deputy managers of building societies

        If you feel you need to be entertained, even by politicians, then I think it is the case you prefer the box to the chocolates.

        By the way, I mentioned Blair in this connection since he is the most obviously theatrical PM since Mrs Thatcher – and he wore more powder and paint than her!

    • Fiona Laird

      I don’t mean he has to be theatrical – just that he ought to use some theatre techniques. But a sense of the power of the spoken word (which is what I meant by a “sense of theatre”) would also help. I agree we don’t want a “theatrical” Prime Minister…

  • http://twitter.com/RF_McCarthy Roger McCarthy

    Wonderful piece which however misses a crucial point – nobody other than political obsessives watch full-dress speeches which are now purely ritual observances with little or no political impact.

    TV news now use only the minutest soundbites and instead give us analysis of what is being said even while the speech is being delivered (the classic example of this being a speech given by Gordon Brown during the election campaign where the BBC did not show us Gordon actually speaking but the odious Nick Robinson perched on some steps above talking about what Gordon was really saying http://maxatkinson.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/brown-speaks-and-bbc-doesnt-tell-you.html ).

    This has actually been made worse by e-mail delivery of texts before the event – in the past if you were lucky you might have got a grubby paper copy of a draft just before but still had to listen to the speech itself in case it had changed  – now journalists seem to get the final autocue copy well in advance.

    And as those speeches are now only released in autocue format (rather than being tidied up into actual sentences and paragraphs) newspapers couldn’t publish them or quote them in extenso even if they wanted to (which of course they don’t).

    So delivery is increasingly irrelevant – what is important are those more informal and off the cuff events (PMQs, leader debates, F2F interviews) where even TV can’t cut away to presenters after a few seconds – and in these arenas Ed actually does seem to be improving and scoring real points.

    Now I’d love to turn the clock back to the days of Churchill and Bevan (or even Thatcher and Kinnock)  but our political class are now trained in a very different way and almost never have to give true public speeches to real audiences (as opposed to carefully controlled rallies) that need to be persuaded of something important. 

    In fact the only way of restoring the art of political oratory may be the restoration of inner party democracy – if Labour conferences could freely vote and dictate actual party policy then our leaders would have to relearn those skills (it’s no accident that Tony Blair is the last Labour leader who could deliver a speech worth watching as at least in the beginning he still had to persuade conference to vote themselves into impotence).

    • Chilbaldi

      very true about only political obsessives watching/listening to whole speeches. But the news still shows clips of these speeches on a regular basis. Don’t underestimate the impact of a 20 second segment showing Ed talking as Fiona describes above, versus a 20 second segment of him speaking poorly (or the news not showing him speaking at all as it wasn’t interesting enough).

    • Saffronwaldenlabour

      and an extra like for “odious Nick Robinson”.   Yes, why can we not hear the genuine version; how often do we hear “this conference is all about….”

  • Brumanuensis

    I have to disagree with Alan that there was ever an age where politicians weren’t theatrical. Politics has always been about presentation – why else do so many lawyers go into politics, especially barristers? Lloyd George wasn’t exactly reticent and Gladstone used oratory to spectacular effect in the Midlothian Campaign. F.E. Smith practically built a career on bon mots*. So this idea that politicians of today are unusually windy doesn’t hold up, to my mind.

    I think the real problem is that today’s politicains read widely, but not deeply. Recently I read Kenneth Morgan’s biography of Michael Foot. Whilst affectionate, it did point out some of his weaknesses – a near complete lack of interest in economics and foreign affairs, as well as an inability to come up with an actual political philosophy. However what came across very clearly was the extraordinary depth of Foot’s literary knowledge, which he used to great effect in his rhetoric. I can’t imagine many politicians quoting from Hazlitt or Paine today, in their speeches and admittedly Foot was exceptional. But it just goes to show how impoverished our leaders’ public speaking is. Aneurin Bevan, who, like Ed Balls, had a stammer, overcame it through reading Marx and William Morris. Can you imagine anyone doing that today? A good corpus to ground one’s oratory in is crucial; Obama and Martin Luther King used and use, the Bible. Ed just needs some fine literature. He needs to go away and read the complete works of Shakespeare. That would help.

    *My favourite anecdote about F.E. Smith is when, whilst Lord Chancellor, he was asked by a judge “what do you think one ought to give a man who allows himself to be buggered?”

    To which Smith replied, “Oh, thirty shillings ortwo pounds; whatever you happen to have on you”.

    • Brumanuensis

      I would just add, for clarity, that Bevan learned the works of Marx and Morris off by heart and then recited them from memory.

      • Alan Giles

        I take your point,  Brumanensis – perhaps Bevan, MacMillan  were more natural. I should imagine if a Labour minister, or even MP could quote Marx from memory now it would result in severe article of censure of LL by Paul Richards and Rob Marchant! ( :-) . Just the sort of news to put Progress lovers into a real old lather.

        I think the difference is there was a genuine world of difference between, say Bevan and MacMillan (and many others), and they spoke with greater conviction than todays lightweights who have known nothing but Oxbridge and Westminster – they had seen a bit of life, and like most of us ordinary people came from different backgrounds which shaped those views: certainly when you have 3 parties more or less trying for the same audience with almost interchangeable spokespeople.

        Also, of course, the public expected politicians to take part in public meetings, and to adapt to the cut and thrust, so although life was more formal they had to interact with a wider
         spread of individuals. Now (as we saw, literally, the other week) speeches are tailored to be read off an autocue. Old politicians often referred to notes, but now they have to pretend to be delivering it ad lib, they have to gesticulate and try to appear they are not doing what we all know they are doing (reading it).

        TV has a lot to answer for – Churchill loathed TV (“a tuppeny Punch and Judy show” was his verdict after doing a pilot for a PPB in 1955). Perhaps if politicians didn’t worry so much about what they look like, they wouldn’t need to act their role.

        • treborc

          Of course what helped Bevan, and he thought Engels was the person closer to his ideology, but Bevan had a real  bad stammer  so when in London getting his education paid for by the Union, he took elocution lessons. My wife’s  father said when he was in the mine he would hardly speak to people because of his stammer and he was very shy about speaking, so he worked hard to get over this.

          My wife’s Uncle was a chap called Tom Adlam who went to fight in the Spanish war , he was captured when he came back to the valleys he set up a Job center with the miners Union, and with the help of Nye Bevan  each miner who paid into the kitty for health care also got money if they lost their jobs, dole. It was also where any job were listed from other collieries around the country, and in the end became the model used for the Job centers around the country.

          History for you.

          • Alan Giles

            Thanks for that Robert. He sounds an interesting man.

  • Mickelmas

    In this age of “the medium being more important than the message” your observations on Ed’s delivery is spot on. Although his speeches have displayed more assurance they fall woefully short of a standard necessary to convert impartial voters to Labour’s cause. I fear that he lacks the character and personality to overcome his innate weaknesses.

  • Fiona Laird

    Disappointed to see the Sunday Times selectively quote from this piece, focusing solely on the negative aspect. “But it seems the Labour leader still has a lot to learn about making speeches, according to the theatre director Fiona Laird. “There is no sense of trying to connect with his audience,” she says about his recent speech on immigration. “He could be speaking to a row of stuffed toys.” Offering oratory tips on the LabourList website, the Greenwich Theatre director continues: “His vocal energy is terrible — he throws words away as though they don’t matter.” “

Latest

  • News Seats and Selections Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft selected as Labour’s PPC for Lewisham Deptford

    Vicky Foxcroft has been selected by Lewisham Deptford CLP as the party’s candidate for 2015 at a selection meeting this afternoon. Here’s a brief biography: Vicky grew up in the North West in a single parent household, and was the first person in her family to go to university. She has held many positions in the party including Chair of Labour Students, has sat on the National Policy Forum and is currently a local councillor and is Chair of Lewisham [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Labour’s future schools policy: why accountability matters

    Stephen Twigg, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary is one of the more thoughtful and pragmatic individuals to hold this vitally important brief for some time. To his credit Stephen has been out and about these past two years listening to pupils, teachers, parents and governors and finding out more about the challenges they face on a day-to-day basis. In addition Stephen has been looking closely at some local, regional, national and international programmes that have had a demonstrable impact in raising [...]

    Read more →
  • News Seats and Selections Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    Falkirk selection process suspended by the party

    The Labour Party have this afternoon suspended the selection process for Falkirk, after concerns were raised about “membership recruitment”. We understand that Ed Miliband was “keen to act swiftly” as the selection process was due to formally begin on Sunday. An officer of the party – yet to be confirmed – will investigate. A Labour spokesperson told us this afternoon: “We have suspended the start of the selection process of the Falkirk parliamentary seat. Concerns have been raised about membership [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Seats and Selections Unions Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    Working Class MPs – the end of a era?

    It is interesting to see that the Labour Party is returning to the vexed issue of its parliamentary selection process. The changes may be well and good.  But maybe we should be asking a bigger question – are we  witnessing the end of working class representation in Parliament? When the Labour Party was first founded it was more simple. Then the explicit  aim was to secure working class representation, and specifically organised labour, in Parliament. Inevitably it became more complicated [...]

    Read more →
  • Local Government News An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    An absolutely classic Lib Dem bar chart

    Earlier this week we brought you a decidedly dodgy bar chart from the Tories, but it seems that they’re not the only party in Camden adopting dubious use of bar charts. Step forward Camden Lib Dems, with this classic of the dodgy Lib Dem bar chart genre (courtesy of Theo Blackwell). Even by the pretty shoddy standards of the yellows, this is a corker:   Update: Haringey Lib Dems might want to work on their bar charts  maths too (via [...]

    Read more →