frontline Special!

While both Bush’s War and Obama’s War were brought to us by the same network, PBS and Frontline, they were very different from one another. They were both good, just took different approaches.

Bush’s War started off by having a lot of little black and white images and videos form a bigger picture of Bush’s face. This intro was accompanied with dramatic music. This really set the tone. A lot of still shots were used through out this production. Usually before an interview there would be a still shot of the individual that was zoomed in directly on them and then it would cut to actual interview footage. The interviews were filmed in a straight on fashion, with the interviewer not being in the shot and the person being interviewed taking up most of the frame. Stills were also featured in retelling the events of 9/11- from the meetings between the Vice President and the CIA to the Twin Towers, stills played a major role. Often when the stills were shown they would be accompanied with a camera-clicking noise. This gives the feeling of credibility to the production- like these pictures actually captured not only that visual moment in time, but also the emotions. Also many of the photos were done in black and white. This highlights and questions the idea of what is right and what is wrong.

Obama’s War was quite different. It began with actual footage captured from a field reporters camera who was staying with the Echo Company. In this footage we see actual battle scenes and even the death of Marine Sharpe. While shocking and unsettling, this footage connects to the viewer. It is very effective in drawing us in. Another interesting scene from Obama’s war was when we first hear Obama’s voice. A U.S. plane is flying over unidentifiable land (nothing) in the Middle East and we hear the voice of President Obama asking what is our purpose in Afghanistan/Iraq. We asked a question of purpose and left with a visual of nothing. It just kinda made me think.

Honest HOPE

The first videos I watched were both of the parts to Bush's War, and I noted right off the back the confused tone to the videos. It seemed like the government officials only thought they knew what they were doing, but they could not really help the screams of help coming from the citizens. The thing that stood out to me the most in the videos was that all of the reasons that the government officials were using to blame Iraq and Saddam Hussein seemed like they had no basis, and no evidence. The part that this was most evident was when the government officials wer sure that they had killed Husain, but he showed up on TV a few days later. This was probably, because when I started watching the video, I already had this opinion of how stupid and horrible those eight years were. I was more eager to know what Obama's plans were for us in Afghanistan.
Okay, now it comes to Obama's War. Wow. I cannot begin to count howmany times I found similarities with the Vietnam War. I felt that Obama's War was honest when it came to saying that there is a change that we will lose, but yet it had an air of hope. It had an air of honesty, lacking deception. The line at the beginning of the video that Obama says where he leaves his audience hanging about what we are supposed to do in Afghanistan shows that the government still is somewhat lost about how they are going to go about everything, but that their goal of helping the civilians is a goal that they want to do everything to reach. This is where I began noticing similarities between the Vietnam War and Obama's War. The documentary stressed that the soldiers were not there to fight the Taliban, but instead to protect the civilians, sort of like Vietnam, except with Obama's War. The documentary stressed that the soldiers were not there to fight the Taliban, but instead to protect the civilians, sort of like Vietnam, except with Obama's War, the soldiers actually looked like they cared about the people, and were introducing themselves and giving them advice. The part that stood out to me the most was the speech made at 2:20 by the general. Most war videos have speeches by generals who talk about American pride, and killing the enemy, and revenge. But this one was the complete opposite. It was about making a difference, and dying for a cause.
That is when I first realized what this video was about. Hope. Not the kind of hope that ends up making you feeling like a failure, but the kind of hope that is realistic.

War

When I first started watching Bush's War, I suddenly got really saddened. It had been a while since I had seen the scenes from 9/11 and it was so new to see them all over again after 8 years.
I tried watching out for all the ways that rhetoric would be used in the documentary and I noticed that it was too overwhelming, it is everywhere.
What really caught my attention was when they were talking to that one man who was representing Iraq and how he spoke about the terrorist that had been part of 9/11. He said that man from Al Queda had been associated with Iraqis and that there was proof to prove it. Then the reporter came on to say that no evidence of this accusation had ever been proved. It just seemed crazy that it had been insinuated that this man was a liar.
I suddenly started feeling like U.S had been framed by Iraq people against Husein. They had done so much in their power to get the U.S to come into Iraq when the whole time, the plan was for the U.S to go into Afghanistan and get bin Laden.
I don't know, it all confused me so much and at then end, I no longer knew what to believe.
Rhetoric just seems so complicated and tactical, everything is so well planned and thought out.

Frontline Episodes

These episodes were by far the most interesting thing we have watched so far. It is because everything hit so close to home. The beginning was the September 11th attacks so it automatically started off on a serious note and pulled us in. These stood out to me because they taught me so much but they weren't trying to make us think one way or another about the war. But isn't that what makes it so successful in rhetoric? That it's not obvious and we can't tell what they are trying to persuade us to think?

We could look at these episodes and get some tips for our video essay. We are taking a different route than Frontline did but I think they would be similar  in the fact that it doesn't solely have to be about one specific event or controversy but take one thing to "shed light" on other aspects we want to express.

BUSH AND OBAMAAAAAA

Bush and Obama’s War
I haven’t read anyone’s post yet, but I started by watching Bush’s War first. I thought it was very emotional to begin with because it ran right into the attack of the twin towers. The animation at the beginning was very deep too, I felt that the different pictures going into the big picture of Bush played a very big role in showing how this all relates to president Bush. This is effective to show the audience that Bush is our main guy but at the same time the “small pictures” represent those that played big roles throughout the whole Iraqi War but had to respond and tell Bush exactly what’s going on. I felt that Bush made the final decisions, but there were others that gave him information to influence his decision whether the information was actually factual or not. For instance, the location of Saddam’s bunk was false, but it was attacked anyways. The animations and black/grey tone of the pictures help portray the emotions built into the topic. Every picture showed the president or his cabinet as very sad and emotional, even the picture of C. Rice after they were victorious in liberating the Iraqi people. It was a happy moment, but C. Rice’s black and grey toned picture is still sad and serious. I thought the voice of the commentator (not seen) in Bush’s War effectively pulled off the tone as well.
I didn’t really like Obama’s War that much, it was really different. It just really showed actual footage and I wasn’t really notified of the time of events. It was different in terms of effectiveness though because there are a lot of actual footage in Obama’s War that shows what is going on in the war battles, not what Obama is actually doing. It was only towards the middle where they start to talk about the officials doing and actual interviews. The more moving out of the two and more effective I would say is Bush’s War, mainly because of the way it’s presented with the animations and the timing of the pictures with the commentary from the narrator.

Frontline episodes

The two Frontline episodes were definitely different than the other documentaries we've seen thus far. They still utilized the same things (footage from important events, interviews, etc.), but the structures of the documentaries were very different. Mostly, I think, because they represented actual documentaries. Both of the episodes were actually the kinds of documentaries I expected they were going to be. Especially since they're from PBS. The other documentaries we've seen (Fog of War and Hearts and Minds) always felt as if they either relied too much on emotions or rhetorical purposes. And those rhetorical purposes were alway so heavy you could feel them clearly. But such is not the case with Frotnline episodes. I didn't feel as if they were persuading me to do anything, or believe anything.

For every interview, there was usually a plain background, with the camera zoomed into the interviewee's face, like every other interview we see on the television. The documentaries also had the same boring voiceovers most documentaries had. The interviewees were all official looking, but maybe that's because every person interviewed was some major political character. Often they would use black and white to highlight some major (usually negative) event that happens, as is custom for most documentaries. The general feel of the documentary was very....typical documentary like. I couldn't even tell if they were using rhetoric or not, which, I think is a good thing. I know that rhetoric manages to seep into everything, and honestly, I'm pretty sure the documentaries had it. But it was pretty subtle.

Frontline

I enjoyed both Frontline videos very much, and thought they provided a very non biased out look on the wars. Each documentary just helped to inform the audience without trying to sway toward a certain side which made me enjoy them more by how there was so information. Both movies helped to explain the military action that are going on in both Afghanistan and Iraq and showed the hard fighting that is taking place. In Obama's war we are taken even farther by how they are with the Marine 8th division Echo company, being able to see how the marines are trying to help and the crap they have to put up everyday was something very interesting to watch. Plus how it shows the control the Taliban has over the people of Afghanistan helps to emphasize why the mission over there is getting worse the intimidation techniques of the Taliban.

Bush's war was very long but at the same time all the information it provided helped to show all the workings that was going on in the government and the military at the time. Through this it helped me to understand even more the mess that is Iraq and I just enjoyed seeing and hearing all the information. Plus with the addition of all the interviews helped to reinforce the information that was prevented making it seem more credible and believable. Also the interviews of the soldiers and hearing what the Afghanistani people had to say helped to show even more how different the two sides are.

Both of these documentaries were very interesting and kept me stuck to the tv instead of being bored like I was in Maya Lin, I am going to recommend by friends to watch both because of how well made they are. Both documentaries in my opinion do a good job of informing and explaining the two wars very well and showing the American people all the problems and chaos that is going on over there.

Frontline Video

After watching the two Frontline videos on Bush and Obama’s war, I feel like our own video essay could be structured in a similar way. One thing I noticed initially that could help the production of our own film is that even though each of the episodes addressed the president and the actions that they took in response to war, there was not a sole focus given to their character or story alone. Similar to our thesis, we will not be only addressing the issues in Vietnam but rather using them as evidence to support our overall argument on the textbook controversy.

I also noted that there was a variety of video footage, pictures, interviews and commentary throughout the film to really give viewers a full and unbiased perspective of how each war progressed. In regards to this, I think that we could also consider including more than just interviews and John Stewart-like clippings to argue our point. Even still shots with corresponding music or voiceovers in the background would be an effective way to reach our audience.

Since our topics are obviously being interpreted in a different way where we are taking a more satirical approach, I think that we need to make our interviews a little more light-hearted yet hard-hitting at the same time. At times in the frontline videos i felt like there was a little too much evidence provided in terms of information and details; since we are making this video with different motives, we need to consider keeping things consistent with out message and audience to have the most impact.

"I've coalition of the willing"

Frontline: Bush's War was one of those documentaries that pleased liberals and conservatives and its not hard to figure out why: there were plenty of scenes that made the republicans look like fools for the left and there were enough scenes that proved the war's existences to please the right.

Frontline: Obama’s War and Frontline: Bush's War both used opening sequences that elicited great emotional response: in Bush’s, the crashing of the planes into the World Trade Centers on 9/11; in Obama’s, the harsh reality of life on the front lines. In each, no expense was made to hide authenticity. In Obama’s, these scenes resonate with the audience because the remainder of the film will be more of the same war footage, whereas Bush’s deviates from this outline.

Bush’s highlights the power struggle going on in the White House immediately after September 11, 2001: Colin Powell/Condoleezza Rice versus Donald Rumsfeld/Dick Cheney. The nonsensical, ego-tripped battle must have had liberals laughing hysterically as nothing was getting accomplished in the White House in any quick manner. However this is not to say the conservatives didn’t get a piece of the pie too: Bush’s capitalized on the difficulty of the decisions that President Bush had to make—that is if he were to make decisions. Bush’s spun the decisions for the war’s point of attack to Dick Cheney/Rumsfeld rather than at Bush, which undoubtedly had to please conservatives who can say See? He didn’t make bad decisions? It was the idiots around him!.

Obama’s offers explanations as to what is happening in Afghanistan, but not why the decisions are being made or who is making them—a win for the conservatives. But rather allows insight into the war torn country of Afghanistan. Other than that, there doesn’t seem to be much of an agenda.

In the entirety of the three hour and two minute documentary, Bush’s, not once was the oil controversy mentioned. Not only was this shocking, but it speaks loudly at the point of the film: President Bush himself wasn’t the target, rather the person who actually ran the office, Dick Cheney was (or rather, maybe Bush was because he appointed Cheney).

Through the use of mixed interviews, juxtaposed with audio of newscasts from around the world, the over-the-top exaggeration (or was it?) of the infighting that occurred pinned the audience to believe the White House was a debacle in Bush’s War.

**And for those of you seeking comedic relief after watching 3 hours and 2 minutes of Bush's War, look no further....and because it wont let me imbed the video...Black Bush**

Frontline: Bush and Obama.

The Frontline specials about Bush's War and Obama's War were very enlightening. To say the least, this should be a staple in history classes across the nation. It definitely opened my eyes to an event that was a big part of our nation's history. Aside from the historical significance of special, I was really intrigued by the film making aspect of the special as well.
Some areas that definitely stood out to me was the beginning, since it was the start of the special, all our attention was fresh and focused. The starting piece opened with the 9/11 attacks and the voices of callers calling in about the attacks. Goosebumps were everywhere and chills were sent up my spine. I think by only allowing the viewer to only hear the voices of the victims, it made the audience definitely feel the sense of terror and fear they were experiencing since what we got was pure emotion.
The interview method they used really reminded me of Hearts and Minds, with the mixing of clips and pictures with real footage. I think I like this documentary style interview the best out of what we've seen because it is not a constant screen. We are not on the same kind of frame throughout the whole film which adds excitment to it and changes it up. The straightforward approach is informative but monotonous to me, by adding clips and pictures we keep it fresh with new images and video footage while still getting our point across.
With Obama's War, I had similar opinions as my classmates had. The noticeable beggining difference caught my eye, since it was more direct and started with a speech, it had an overall different tone to it than Bush's War did. It didn't start with emotion as it did character. I felt less attached to Obama's War than with Bush and I think part of the reason was that you barely saw Obama, with Bush you saw him, saw his speeches and it was like he was talking to you; but with Obama it just wasn't the same, it felt disconnected from the start.
One thing I did like about both videos was that they used a lot of people. There were many different point of views to the story and they all had a part in providing information and justifying the points and message the film was trying to get across. I think we should take that into account because more reliable resources does make our story more believable, since I feel like it worked for these documentaries.

Frontline

These two documentaries had two completely different effects on me. I'll start with Bush's War because I was glued to it and it really touched me. Since I am not in this class, I feel like I pay more attention to the rhetorical strategies of movies/documentaries rahter than the content (strangely enough). From frame one, this documentary hit me hard. The director timed this out very well and the way it was organized, was designed to make me get emotional. From closeups of the Rice's face that showed anger, strength, and slight sadness, to the stunned American's peering up into the sky, there was impact. The scenes were placed so smoothly and the timing of the voices were perfect. This made me emotional and it brought back memories even though I was young when this happened. Not only were the effects amazing, but the credibility was definately there all the way. The production was professionally done and the information that was given about the attacks, seemed very real becasue of this. I didn't doubt anything they said. Like Allie said, I was VERY shocked when they focused more on the Iraqi influence rather than Afganastan. It confused me at first, but the information helped ease that and I began to see why we are still so involved with them.

In Obama's War, it was a completely different take to me. I felt like I was there and apart of the war against the Taliban. The constant retaliation caught me off guard since I am here in my bed in America. I do not get to see what our soldiers go through, but now I think about that much more. From the nasty food to the constant language barrier when communication to the civilians and tryin to get information form them, thier lives are difficult over there. The part that struck my emotional trigger was seeing the injured marine that died in his fellow marines' arms. It made me think about how I need to not take my loved one's for granted. The director did a great job when he constantly referred back to that by zooming in on the memorial 'RIPs" on the men's helmets. The style of this documentary was different,but I think it had to be. To get the facts across effectively and get the audience to see Obama's War, we needed to see the men in action. They wanted us to see us over there trying to help the civilians from the Taliban and see how bad Taliban were to the people and see the fear that controlled them. We saw first hand why they are there. I may not know every side, but the director made me understand his argument and feel that we should do good for their people.

Our video has to find that perfect way to make them want to side with our argument. These two documentaries did just that with two different techniques.

Bush & Obama

I liked how the beginning of Bush's War started off clips from the 9/11 attacks. These attacks were a big event during his presidency which he had to be strong towards his country during this hard time. Watching these clips again reminded me of when 9/11 first happened. My teacher bursted in crying and turned on the news channel. The tone was set by having dramatic music which engaged me more into the video. I also liked how the interviews were shown, where the shot taken was only the person being interviewed, not the interviewer. This reminded me of Fog of War, where McNamara was just sitting solo, talking away, and taking up most of the shot. The sounds and noises in the backgrounds of the clips made me feel as if I was there experiencing that particular clip. It was very effective to crap any viewers attention and keep them engaged to this frontline.

Obama's War was different from Bush's War. The beginning of it reminded me of Patton's speech, where it was directed towards the troops. In contrast from Bush's War, this frontline we saw the death of a marine, which made me emotional. This footage was very effective because it grasped my attention even more..Personally, I enjoyed Bush's War more than Obama's War. I wasn't as drawn to Obama's War as I was drawn to Bush's War. I found the 9/11 clips and imagery very interesting and more eye-catching than clips shown from Obama's War

Read between the Frontlines

Not gonna lie, I started watching in a state of absolute distraction, but by the time I was ten minutes into Bush's War, I was totally hooked. Overall, Bush's War was a much more emotional episode in the sense that the audience was made to feel strong emotions. Conversely, Obama's War was a much more though provoking episode, focused more on the future, things to come, etc.
All of the 9/11 imagery is really painful to watch because I'm older now, and I'm more sensitive to the gravity of those events. I can see why so many people we're behind Bush right after the attacks. The people needed a leader to tell them everything would be ok after an something that traumatic.
The beginning sequence for BW made a really profound statement to me, actually. It starts with little pictures that end up forming a bigger picture of Bush. This was sort of a way of saying that even though there were key players in the starting of the Iraq war, ultimately it was all Bush who had the final say, and any consequences/rewards were to be reaped by him.

Obama's War had episodes had scenes with really heavy visual/voice over juxtaposition. The imagery would tie into what was being said, yes, but it made you think about the connections between the two as well

I saw both episodes tying back to something we read in Thank You for Arguing. The author says something about how different parts of time are used for different types of appeals...just a thought...

On the Frontline

The Frontline documentaries were really amazing. I watched them looking for rhetorical techniques and taking notes, but I am totally going to watch them again because I thought they were really engaging and at the same time factual. I got goose bumps at the opening of Bush’s War when the emergency calls were coming in from the Trade Towers. It definitely took me back to that day and where I was and what I was doing; yet now I was able to feel more emotion since I have a better understanding of the whole situation. At the same time the beginning gave me queasy feeling imagining the lives that were lost and the devastation and scale of the attack. What I found really rhetorically interesting was in the beginning of the Bush War how Iraq slid into the documentary and how to me it symbolized how it happened in reality. The interviewee’s claimed that Iraq had always been on the agenda yet there was never a reason or vehicle for us to take action against it. Rhetorically in the documentary Iraq being throw into the plans after 9-11 if vaguely explained, but then the interviewee’s and narrator goes on to say “Iraq” over and over again. Which to me, is similar to how the government treated Iraq never explaining the reasoning but being very concentrated on the mission.

            The beginning of Obama’s War began with a speech to the troops that mirrored Patton’s speech. It immediately gave me the impression that the beginning of this documentary is very different. There was reason in the beginning of Bush’s to go to war. But in the opening scene of Obama’s rhetorically shows that the moral of the troops has lowered and that the reasons now for war are unclear, and they need a pep talk similar to Patton’s to redirect them and remind them of the reason. Because Obama’s War is now future oriented there are less concrete facts and more speculation. However, as a viewer the interviewee’s are still credible in my eyes and the footage from Afghanistan and especially the his stress recording in the beginning gives an accurate depiction of what life is like over there.

            In both documentaries I didn’t feel really as if there was a bias. Anything that was accusatory that was said just reflected the interviewee’s personal party affiliation and believes which didn’t sway me but instead made me feel as if it were fairly balanced. I also didn’t come to the conclusion that anything was right or wrong, just a better understanding of what went on behind the scenes and the many parties involved in the war and the consequences of just one small but loaded phrase, “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them”, could make such a giant mess. 

Bush's War and Obama's War

With these videos we get to see two different, yet similar structures of films. Both Frontline episodes captured my attention but Bush's war seemed to capture it a bit more considering that it was able to piece together clips more appropriately in order to evoke the proper emotions from its audience.

Bush's War began with the music introduction, just like Obama's War, but began with clips of 9/11 piecing together to create a picture of Bush himself, signifying that he was in charge and the face of our country during this time. The clip placement in the beginning and through out this episode made me get emotional. The zooming in of clips to signify specific people and events played a rhetorical role for viewers to grasp the meaning and people behind the solving of the 9/11 attacks. In a lot of the clips in Bush's War I felt like the sound effects played a vital role in making the audience feel like it was live rather than clips and photos. The air noise in the background as photos of the attacks came on screen allowed viewers to become involved in the scenes and feel emotion. With the muffled radio commands in the background of scenes where a voice over had just said military was arriving made the audience feel like those radio sounds were commanding the military to go and the audience was hearing it first hand. Also, much like Hearts and Minds, in Bush's war clips of interviews were placed purposely with clips of real life footage in order to create a direct link between the two. One example, among many, was when other people were discussing what Bush had just said and then directly after a clip of Bush saying a statement was placed to create a link between the two. All of these structural elements of Bush's war drew me in emotionally and visually.

For Obama's War I felt drawn in but not to the entirety I did when viewing the structure of Bush's War. The introduction to Obama's war was not as intense as the pictures creating Bush's face, but instead were soldiers shooting back and forth. The director of the episode seemed to have placed the clips of our soldiers and then their soldiers shooting each other to make us think that these specific soldiers were in real life shooting directly at one another, which could or could not be the case. As far as music and noise as a developing part of this structure I felt it was more a necessary part of Bush's war's structure than this one. The helicopter noises in the background did help to image we were there, but for me did not create the same emotion as the sounds in Bush's War. One emotional part for me was when the marine was shot and killed and they gave the name of the soldier. To me they gave that name intentionally to evoke a stronger emotion from the audience. Also, when they spoke of the tough conditions soldiers were facing then immediately showed their living conditions it made it an emotional part as well. These emotional parts were placed at good length from one another, as well as others, to create a structure for this episode that made the viewer keep getting drawn in by these parts of the whole video. Towards the end of the episode when they shot parts of Afghanistan back to back it seemed like they were showing parts of the whole, almost what I saw the whole structure as being. Much like Bush's war this drew me in in more ways than one.

Bush & Obama

Bush’s War and Obama’s War were structured differently but were both informative. However, neither of them provided a definitive answer as to how long the United States can expect to be involved in that shitty mess in the Middle East.
Personally, I believe Bush’s War more effectively grabbed the attention of its audience. I credit this to the beginning of the documentary when audio and visual flashbacks to the September 11th Attacks slowly appeared on the screen. As horrific as those flashbacks are for Americans, it is difficult to turn away at times. The main reason we cannot stop watching is because we want answers, mainly on when this war will be over. Well, Bush’s War failed. For example, one former speech by then- President George W. Bush was shown and all we heard was “This is going to be a long war.”
As is the case with many documentaries over American wars (particularly Vietnam), this one made excuses. Yes, of course we were caught off guard by the 9-11 attacks; but couldn’t Rumsfeld put aside his differences with the CIA in order to preserve the well-being of his country? Obama’s War was even worse when it came to this. By the end I felt like they were blaming the entire thing on the uncooperative Pakistani government.
I thought both Frontline documentaries were impersonal. Unlike Fog of War, the interviewees never looked directly in to the camera, thus making what they were saying difficult to believe. The way Obama’s War was presented did not keep me as interested as Bush’s War. As I already mentioned, Bush’s War began with scenes that were difficult to stop watching. Obama’s War began with actual troops in combat, but that does not evoke emotion like 9-11 scenes. The combat scenes were not extremely graphic, which is what keeps many people interested. It looked like something we see on the news all the time except that the word ‘fuck’ wasn’t censored.
Overall both documentaries failed to give me an idea of when this war will finally come to an end. Honestly, the documentaries made the current war and the Vietnam War seem even more similar. Our own government officials cannot agree on decisions that need to be made quickly, the citizens of Afghanistan are not cooperating, Pakistan’s government is not cooperating, so on and so forth it goes. When will it come to an end? There is no way to tell, as Obama’s War and Bush’s War made clear.

Frontline Special!

While both Bush’s War and Obama’s War were brought to us by the same network, PBS and Frontline, they were very different from one another. They were both good, just took different approaches.

Bush’s War started off by having a lot of little black and white images and videos form a bigger picture of Bush’s face. This intro was accompanied with dramatic music. This really set the tone. A lot of still shots were used through out this production. Usually before an interview there would be a still shot of the individual that was zoomed in directly on them and then it would cut to actual interview footage. The interviews were filmed in a straight on fashion, with the interviewer not being in the shot and the person being interviewed taking up most of the frame. Stills were also featured in retelling the events of 9/11- from the meetings between the Vice President and the CIA to the Twin Towers, stills played a major role. Often when the stills were shown they would be accompanied with a camera-clicking noise. This gives the feeling of credibility to the production- like these pictures actually captured not only that visual moment in time, but also the emotions. Also many of the photos were done in black and white. This highlights and questions the idea of what is right and what is wrong.

Obama’s War was quite different. It began with actual footage captured from a field reporters camera who was staying with the Echo Company. In this footage we see actual battle scenes and even the death of Marine Sharpe. While shocking and unsettling, this footage connects to the viewer. It is very effective in drawing us in. Another interesting scene from Obama’s war was when we first hear Obama’s voice. A U.S. plane is flying over unidentifiable land (nothing) in the Middle East and we hear the voice of President Obama asking what is our purpose in Afghanistan/Iraq. We asked a question of purpose and left with a visual of nothing. It just kinda made me think.

Two Men, One War

What I first noticed about Bush's War was the dramatic opening theme. It really put me in a solemn mood which was the overall tone of the whole video. The video begins with a voice-over done by Bush and other speakers while a narrator says an introduction. In the background, many mini screens move around to eventually make up Bush's face in black and white. This kind of rhetoric was effective because it really associates Bush with the war on terror.

As for the structure of the video, I noticed the director used a lot of voice-overs with pictures and footage in the background. Someone would be speaking and the audience can only see various pictures or video clips and then the speaker would be shown in an interview setup. The narrator's voice sounded deep and serious, adding to the somber mood. The director also liked to display pictures and zoom in on them (sometimes slowly and other times quickly). Sometimes, the pictures were also slanted. Real footage was used which showed the chaos in the East Coast and Iraq. I also noticed that some of the interviewees had their faces zoomed in more than others and they were mostly not centered. I found it interesting how the interviewer was seen and heard interviewing the Marine general towards the end unlike in the other interviews.

Music wasn't played noticeably but I did hear a soft, low-pitched beat at certain times. This beat was slow and added more drama to the conflicts addressed. Other times a high-pitched sound was played which was the kind that could be placed in a scary movie.

Obama's War was a lot different than Bush's War. One of the first things I noticed was the narrator's voice. It was a lot more pleasant and casual than the narrator's voice of Bush's War. The video reminded me a lot like something that would be shown in The Discovery Channel. The footage of the Marines in action was obviously uncensored, which I found surprising. I thought they would've at least bleeped out the curse words.

The interviewees were once again off center and the camera zoomed in on them, showing them chest-up. The correspondent was seen and heard asking questions for a few of the interviews but not for all of them. One interview was done by a Marine casually talking to the cameraman while he did his work, contrasting with how all the interviews were done in Bush's War. I didn't see any pictures used, it was all video clips. The camera shots varied: some shots were zoomed in, others zoomed out, some scenes were shot from behind, others in front, etc. Again, voice-overs were used and connected different scenes together.

Unlike Bush's War, this video only had one voice-over from Obama and no film of him. Obama was mentioned only a few times. I find this interesting since the video was called Obama's War and he was rarely in it. I expected to see or hear more of him like in Bush's War but this was not the case. As for music, I barely heard any. No scary movie violins or low-pitched beats.

March 30, Class Review

How many of you left class and wondered what the f*ck just happened?

WONDER NO MORE!!

Today we decided on a definite "thesis" for our video essay.

We finally came up with the following:

· OFFICIAL TOPIC: Vietnam to shed light on Textbook Controversy

· GENERAL STRUCTURE

o Vietnam summary (basic overview of what happened

o Why we try to forget this information

o Texas' influence on this (Johnson)

o Texas Textbook controversy and influence now

o The problems this will cause; how it will continue to keep us in the dark about Vietnam and maybe Iraq and Afghanistan (See Obama's West Point Speech)

Also:

Ron came up with a list of roles (descriptions on the doc)

· Host

· Correspondent #1

· Correspondent #2

· Correspondent #3

· Board Members

We're also compiling a list of questions for our Sociologists to use when they're interviewing on the Google doc

Focus of next class:

Basically we need to finish up our discussion on how we're going to go about interviews before we move to anything else.

Matt's rough outline & Ron's roles

supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

The first thing that caught my attention as I walked into the museum was the complete silence. Unlike the LBJ museum, there were no voice over’s, and that confused me. I would think it would be the opposite, since the movies involve so much enthusiasm, and positive attitude. But this atmosphere brought on such a serene and calming mood that I was completely shocked. I kept wandering around, from one place to another, getting lost in each display. It wasn’t until the middle of the exhibit that I found the answer to my unasked question: The silence was there for a reason. The movies might be about the entertainment, and the movies might create an exciting mood, but they also have another side to them. One that tries to capture the audience into a world that is not real. A world that the reader does not live in. That is what the Making the Movies exhibit was trying to do. Capture the audience in a way that they feel like they were on the set of the movie itself. That is why they had headphones instead of voice over’s, in my opinion at least. And that is why they let the pictures absorb you instead of the music or voice over's distract you.

Another thing I noticed was that the sketches of the costumes were so different from the costumes themselves. They were so vague, and that made me realize how hard it must be for the designer to, not only, make costumes that capture the character’s personality and that tell a story, but also turn those sketches into perfect costumes.

I really liked that the exhibit did not only have the movies and the actors, but also the different roles that go into making a movie. It makes you realize that maybe, just maybe, the men and women behind the scenes should be much more famous than the men and women on the screen. I was only expecting a bunch of costumes, and pictures, and stories, and plots, but on the sides, I saw the roles, and those were one of the only parts of the exhibit that I read, and stared at for longer than 15 seconds.

The best part of this whole exhibit was me learning how to legitimately spell supercalifragilisticexpialidocious (from the music sheet). Of course this is an exaggeration, but still it was pretty interesting.

HRC

So of course I knew going into the HRC it would most likely be an amazing display but wow it was more amazing than I expected. I loved seeing all the costumes and details that went into movie making. Of course I knew movie making is very difficult and includes so many minute details but to see all the details so greatly laid out made it seem like an even more amazing task. I greatly appreciated the exhibits and enjoyed them. Of course through the exhibit I got to see some amazing storyboards that made me excited to get to work on ours.

I have worked on storyboards before, but nothing to the extent in which the ones on display were. Of course I know Allie and I are no professionals, but being able to see what professionals do put together helped me realize what all needs to go into our storyboard. I realize each scene must be strategically planned out in all ways possible in order to guide the movie smoothly. Much like it's been told to me before I realized that the storyboard is a map that guides everyone through the movie scene by scene in order to provide an outlook the directors and producers are looking for.

Working closely with everyone is a must for us. I could really tell that the storyboards presented had to be produced by people who worked with others in order to create a well rounded, smooth storyboard.

HRC

I didn't see anything that I did not already expect to see. I saw a lot of costumes and scripts and how there is so many roles, (such as producers, editors, technicians, composers, set designers, etc.) that must take place simultaneously in order for this project to take place. From the looks for the exhibit, I can see that it is a long, hard and expensive process to make a movie but then again I had an idea of this because we all know that Hollywood is a multi-million dollar industry.
My favorite part was to learn about the makeup tests that were performed on Viviane Leigh for the role of Scarlet O'Hara in Gone with the Wind. Gone with the Wind is my all time favorite movie of all time and I thought it was cool to see how some of the tasks performed contributed to this project.
I thought the whole exhibition was good but it didn't really catch my attention because those other movies in the exhibit are all movies that I have never seen or heard of in my life. Robert DeNiro is a great actor but I never saw Taxi Driver. I could have appreciated his work more if I had felt a connection to it.
From the exhibit, I learned that all the roles that take place are equal and not one can take place without the other. That is why I know understand how much we all need each other in order for this process to run smoothly and take place. It will be a long procedure but I am excited for our upcoming project to come out of this adventure.

Not completely surprised.

I’ve kind of been around all of this already. I couldn’t really look at the exhibits rhetorically though (probably because used to looking at EVERYTHING rhetorically). I’ve been around cinematographers, editors, music editors, photographers, actors, dancers, and such. I didn’t really find anything new so I just walked around the exhibit, but it was still cool to look at how everything is run at a higher and excelled level than the amateur level that my graduated friends are doing (Not to take anything away from them, but they’re becoming experts!) I was just more interested with looking at the call sheets and storyboards and whatnot because THAT was what I knew least. Looking at the screenplays were cool too because I’ve watched some of the movies before. Overall I know it’s going to take a lot of work to put this together, which is why I know I’ll be able to help with almost all of the positions in some sort. I’m strongest within the acting, video editing, video recording, and music editing fields. Let’s get to work! Hopefully I don’t get anyone sick.

Stunningly Complicated

Stunning. The first thought across my mind as I walked into the exhibit. Spanning the entire first floor (sans the ¡Vive! portion. Did anyone else find that the two exhibits didn’t quite fit together so well?), the Making Movies exhibit took my breath away. Snapping back to reality, a film put together in seven weeks by students unversed in the art of filmmaking will be a daunting task; nevertheless, it can and will be done. After walking through the exhibit, putting together a production never seemed so impossible. All of the roles, moving together as one, depending on each other, requiring constant communication, never seemed so…real. The purpose of the exhibit appeared to be to give people a real worldview of just how difficult a production is--we will all see just how much work goes into making these moving parts work seamlessly.

HRC

The HRC helped to show me how the process of making movies is so complicated and how it takes so much to create a movie. I liked seeing the memos, parts of scripts, models, and all the other tools that are used to create the many films that are out there. The two movies I liked seeing the most were Top Gun and Casino, especially how they had the burnt up pink suit Robert Dinero wore when his car blows up at the begenning of the movie. The exhibit had so many interesting pieces to look at and the explanations of each position helped me understand what exactly each person involoved in a movie does. This helped to show that no position is more important than the other and each must be done very well to make the film work if not then the film might fall through. When I finally left the HRC I felt a lot more informed about the movie making process and understood a little bit more what exactly it takes to create a film.

Wow Movies are Intense

When I sit to watch one of my favorite movies like Pearl Harbor, I completely ignore the fact that a crazy amount of work was actually put into this 2 hour movie. This exhibit opened my eyes to the labor that is put into this a single movie. The notes, the organization, and all the elements such as the costumes and music really make or break a movie. I realized that everyone has to be on top of their game at all times and communication is going to be crucial. It makes me kind of nervous since we have little to no experience, but after walking through the exhibit, I got the drive to make this work. The scribbled out notes made me laugh because that's what my stuff looks like, but if I had to do that for a movie, you wouldn't be able to read mine at all! It takes awhile for them to make it perfect. We all know our roles and we are at a great start so I know it is possible to make a great movie.

When it came to my role as a composer, I didn't get to see a lot, but I guess that's ok because we don't have an orchestra at our finger tips and don't know much about music, but Jan and I can make this work. They used their movie to help create the music, but we don't have the time to do that. I think Jan and I are going to have to do this as we go along and really get the feel of the movie from the directors, script writers, and the story board creators. The exhibit helped, but I think analyzing the documentaries and seeing how they really used it to make the movie. We will help control what the audience is feeling and I didn't realize it until I went and actually thought about the movie't I have watched. Music is often th reason why I cover my eyes or the reason why I cry. It's dang powerful! This exhibit showed me that EVERY role is important and the movie cannot happen without every one's contribution. Every one's specialty is considered and desperately needed.

I didn't know that exhibits like that were here on campus, so now I'm going to keep a look out more often to see what else they offer. I will now actually look at a movie and realize what kind of work went into it as I'm watching it.

HRC

            I’ve always known that making movies is no simple task, but I was completely unaware of all the important positions that are vital to the making of a movie, but rarely publicized. I like how the exhibit flowed from position to position and explained the important role and contribution of each person involved in filmmaking.  What interested me the most was the section about Gone with The Wind, which is one of my favorite movies. Not only did I sit and stare at Scarlett’s red dress in amazement, but I also learned some background on storyboarding. Gone with the Wind was an immensely expensive and influential movie back in the day. So, in order to save money and not waste money on repeated special effects they developed a way to plan every shot and conserve the time and money on the perfect clip. In order to this Selznick, one of the producers who pioneered story boarding, drew out the particular shots in the burning city scene. I can’t imagine what it must have been like to be making a movie during this time without the technology of computers and special effects, but Selznick was still able to make it one of the most talked about movies of all time.

            Selznick’s sketches were very detailed and also painted. While, in different sections of the museum other sketches are not. I am not sure to what extent Erica and I are going to do our storyboard, but I now have a better understanding of how to go about the process and the help I need from writers to do so.I am amazed I have been walking past the HRC for 6 months now, and never knew the treasures in side. I would definitely go back to check out other exhibits and take advantage of the great location. 

Behind the Scenes at the HRC

If you’re curious about some of the key elements necessary for producing a successful film, the Harry Random Center is definitely the place to go. While walking visitors through a visually enticing exhibit, the museum provides everything from descriptions of key roles to actual costumes, scripts and pictures from award-winning cinema. I was astonished by the amount of work that actually goes in to making these films and was interested to see how our classes project may use the information provided to our benefit.

The Deer Hunter Exhibit was one example of the preparation that goes in to preparing roles for movies. Robert Deniro, who played a soldier in the Vietnam film, did extensive research in his efforts to really embody the character by which he was cast. In order to focus closely on his particular role, he looked at first hand accounts and kept a notebook with notes about the story and the character. Additionally, he carried photos of men from the Viet Cong Prison with him to provide inspiration and direction in becoming his character. Even though not all of us will be playing an actor role in our particular class project, I think his dedication to the film should serve as a model of how to portray our thesis and evidence as authentically as possible.

Some of the other roles included in addition to the actor in the museum were music, editing, cinematography, producing, directing and costume design, many of which are assigned to individuals in the class. As a sociologist, I did not see one section dedicated to my role solely though obtained a lot of good information from some of the others on how to best carry out my position. Overall, Hannah and I as interviewers should focus on asking questions to best reflect our ideas as a class and provide solid evidence to our beliefs on Vietnam in history textbooks. Hopefully, as they did in Hearts and Minds, these interviews can offer a degree of credibility to our argument that couldn’t be obtained otherwise.

HRC

The Harry Ransom Center's exhibit over making movies was very informative. We never stop to think how much goes into the very entertaining films we see in theatres. However, after going to the exhibit, I quickly realized how much I had underestimated the task of movie making. First of all, I didn't know there were so many different roles and important figures behind the scenes that played such pivotal parts. Furthermore, I never knew just how many different detailed aspects went in to making the movie turn out great. How the music has to be picked just right, and how each scene has to be shot a certain way with a camera for the maximum effect, and how the costumes and set designs had to be a specific way in order for each and every scene to work just perfectly. It boggles my mind how these people manage to do all of this!

Thankfully, our film isn't this huge major motion picture event, where everything has to be precise and perfect because we're attempting to win an Oscar. Still, the exhibit has changed my vision dramatically on exactly how much work is going to go into making this video. Initially, it sounded deceptively simple. Yet I'm beginning to see that this isn't going to be just some regular, easy everyday task. A lot of planning and creativity and precision and detail and just about every other thing imaginable is going to go into this thing to make it become exactly what we want it to be. However, after touring the exhibit, I feel as if the end result is definitely going to be one we are going to be proud of, not just because I'm sure the video is going to be awesome, but because in the end we're going to appreciate all the hard work that goes into making such a deceivingly straightforward piece of work.

the HRC: a visual picture of all the stuff I'm going to have to figure out.

The HRC was really, really amazing. It was a lot smaller than the LBJ Museum, but I enjoyed it so much more. The layout was better and it just felt more relaxed. There was so much to see in there! Old scripts, storyboards, pictures…it all really cool. The costumes were also fascinating. The way it laid out the different aspects and roles of the movie process is also very well done and helpful. I wasn’t really sure what the exact role of a director would be in making this movie, but the museum really helped clear that up. I know I am going to have to start really looking at camera’s and think about what angles and lighting will work best. I also realized I’m basically going to have to make a whole lot of components come together in a short amount of time. I’m also really going to have to get on top of organizing things and do a good job of delegating. It seems like a pretty HUGE task. I’m up for the challenge though. The HRC just gave me a tangible picture of all the work, which I guess is a good thing! haha

I was most taken aback by the very first wall thing that introduced the whole exhibit. It really caught my eye. It was so concise and to the point. It really put me in the right mind frame for the exhibit. Maybe we could do something like that at the beginning of our video essay. Jason and Cullen suggested using Matt’s quote and I think that is a great idea! Overall, the HRC > LBJ.

Harry Ransom Center

The “Making the Movies” exhibit at the Harry Ransom Center displayed the difficult process that is creating a successful film. The scripts, the various notes, the props – the HRC had it all. Most importantly, it made me realize that as a director I must be productive above anything else.
As I examined the numerous multiple theatrical posters throughout the exhibit, I noticed that some had the words “Directed by…” printed on them. These words highlighted how vital the director is to any film. After all, director James Cameron is always mentioned when the highly successful movie Avatar is advertised. After seeing the exhibit and judging from prior directing knowledge, my job is to keep the pieces together. In our case, the pieces are everywhere. Over 20 people are working on our video essay, so I want to make intelligent decisions in a timely fashion.
All of the notes to and from various production crew members that decorated the HRC’s walls makes the video essay seem really difficult. We do not have several years to complete the film…we do not even have several months. Therefore the class must make decisions quickly. We have spent a lot of time brainstorming ideas, and now we must actually work toward completing them. As one of two directors, I consider my biggest task to be dealing with organization. If the class as a whole is not organized, we will not complete anything. The movies on display at the HRC are not up there because they had a lazy director. Teamwork really is key in our situation, and by what I saw at the HRC, this is the case for any effective film.

HRC

I never thought about movies the way that the Harry Ransom Center displayed them. It was so interesting to see what goes on behind the scenes and all of the exact details they have to perfect to come out with the final product. I never thought of movies being that complicated and the different roles that each have such an important part in the end result. 

Visiting the HRC made me realize that we definitely have our work cut out for us with our video essay. Even though we know it's not going to be like Top Gun or Gone With the Wind, like they showed on display, it still is going to take so much work to make sure all of our parts and work are coordinated together. 

The main thing I learned at the HRC and rhetoric is the the cinematographer has the most rhetorical power because the way he shoots the scenes, along with the lighting and other strategies, shapes the argument of the film. 

I also thought the special effects display was cool to see and read about. My favorite movie that was on display was Top Gun. That has always been one of my favorite movies since I was a little girl but I never thought about it the way the HRC displayed it. 

The HRC made me appreciate the art of film and all of the work that goes into the making of it. I think taking a class about film making would be very interesting.