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.