ASSIGNMENT
For this assignment, you will describe, analyze, and evaluate one of the short videos in the New York Times’ Op-Doc section.
Here is a link: https://www.nytimes.com/video/op-docsLinks to an external site.
These are short, opinionated videos made by a variety of filmmakers to present unique points of view.
Remember: YouTube has these videos for free–you don’t need to subscribe. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4CGYNsoW2iCb4uQUNgWK6TJJgNVp-MpPLinks to an external site.
First, select one of these short films. View it several times so that you are clear on its message and purpose.
To begin your essay, you will want to summarize the Op-Doc and describe it to your reader (assume they have not seen the film). Identify the communicator and the message that they are delivering. Who is the audience? What is the filmmaker’s thesis? What is their purpose for creating this film?
Then, you will need to come up with your own argument based on your viewing. Your thesis should tell the reader why this film was successful or not in persuading you of the filmmakers’ argument. Was this short film effective or not in achieving its purpose—was it convincing and persuasive? Throughout the body of your essay, you’ll be explaining what it was in the filmmaking (the visuals, imagery, text, music, composition, ethos/pathos/logos, etc.) that led you to this conclusion.
Here are some questions to think about as you view your film. You will shape the relevant answers into your body paragraphs. (you don’t need to answer all of these questions in your essay! Pick at least three areas to focus on–always including ethos/logos/pathos!).
What is the filmmakers’ thesis?
What is the structure? How is it organized?
What imagery is used? What connotations do you have with this imagery? What do the color choices say about the message and its purpose?
What is the purpose?
Who is the intended audience?
What is the tone of this film?
How is the thesis supported? What evidence does the author use to support their claim?
Note the ethos, logos, and pathos in this film. What does this tell you about the filmmakers and their message? How do those emotional appeals help persuade you (or help not to persuade you).
Has anything been left out? Does the argument feel incomplete? Was anything left out on purpose?
Is the argument biased? How do you know?
Was anything confusing or unclear?
What type of music is used, and to what effect?
What made it successful?
What features made it successful (these last two questions become your thesis!)
