The topic of music is familliar. However relating it to religion was not. It is innovative in that sense, rather than just being about a garage band the documentary went into philosophy and theory.

2) If a unique topic, how does the video rely on documentary conventions?

Convention is relied upon through the use of additional footage. The topic is shot in a traditional style.

3) How does the framing of the shots/their juxtaposition affect your reading?

The framing of the shots created a personable level with the interviewee, and the shots of the microphone and band playing allowed a realistic or close level.

4) How is voice over narration utilized?

The interviewee voices over some footage (as to break away from only seeing him), but there is not a traditional voice over.

5) What information supports the director’s conclusions (need to know)?

The directors conclusions are based soley on the statements made by the musician. They are all his opinions and beliefs on music. As such, the conclusion derived is that music and religion have a unique similarity.

6) What information maintains viewer interest (want to know)?

The viewers interest is maintained through the explanation of this mans past, and what made him believe what he does. If one is not interested in music or religion it may be difficult to want anything from the video.

7) Does the director advance the viewer’s understanding of the topic?

My understanding of religious music was not really broadened. Rather I just was given an understanding of one man’s opinion on music and religion.

Does the director challenge or subvert viewer preconceptions?

I would say my preconceptions were not challeneged. An arguement was not posed for me to question or think about, rather I felt most of the documentary was about the mans admiration to religion and its use of music.

9) Is the work personality driven or built on action?

The work is definetly driven by the personality of this man. He is the sole interviewer and no action is really made within the documentary. The use of additional footage is minimum and you are not learning as much has you are experiencing his thoughts.

10) Does the video follow unfolding events? Is there suspense?

The video does not really have any suspense. It is outlining a view point, and does not leave anything up to unfolding events.

11) Does the video recount the past? Is it about the human condition?

I would say the video is more about the human condition than the past. Its really about having a mindset and sticking with it. Applying feeling to your music is definetly a part of the human condition. It solidifies the importance of music to the individual.

The topic is unfamiliar to me, so the pretty shots of farming and the narration work nicely to tell the story.

2.If a unique topic, how does the video rely on documentary conventions?

The topic isn’t really unique, except in the fact that’s it’s not so much about the process of farming then it is the impotance of it. The comraderie of the voiceover narration and the images really convey the difference between farming and store bought foods.

3.How does the framing of shots/their juxtaposition affect your reading?

The framing is pretty standard. The clip is careful to show the freshness of the produce, but it’s not attempting to make any grande statements. It’s just simply showing the way farming is.

4.How is voiceover narration utilized?

The whole clip is narration. Instead of interviews with the farmers, the narrator tells the whole story. The narration is quite interesting.

5.What information supports the director’s conclusions (need to know)?

The only thing the clip is really trying to say is that farming gives one a connection to their food that is lost when buying produce from a store. You don’t know where it came from, you’re just relying on commerical advertisements. By farming, not only do you cultivate your own food, but you have a greater connection with Earth.

6.What information maintains viewer interest (want to know)?

Obviously the pretty shots of the food and the narration about the farming connection.

7.Does the director advance the viewer’s understanding of the topic?

Yes, it kind of denoucnes any misconceptions I had of farming. It gives you a greater appreciation for it.

8.Does the director challenge or subvert viewer preconceptions?

It tries to show farmers in an important life. Without them, we wouldn’t be gettng half the food we eat. Even though many in this society see farming as a low skileld occupation, this clip shows us how much work actually goes into it.

9.Is the work personality driven or built on action?

Personally driven because of the narration.

10.Does the video follow unfolding events? Is there suspense?

The events are pretty straight forward. The story is told in chronological order, leaving no room for suspense.

11.Does the video recount the past? Is it about the human condition?

Yes, it’s definately about the human condition. It goes into great detail about the connection to the Earth the farmers have and how people feel a great sense of fulfillment when they farm food for others.

If a unique topic, how does the video rely on documentary conventions?
It uses voice over, archival materials, and interviews in a typical historical documentary style.

How does the framing of shots/their juxtaposition affect your reading?
The shots of photographs are all still shots. We thought it would be more interesting to sort of start with a wide shot and zoom in a bit on some of them to mix it up a bit, particularly where the woman is talking about the legs of the subjects in one of the paintings. Starting wide with a slow zoom would help understanding. The interviews are fairly close up and casual.

How is voiceover narration utilized?
The voiceover is central to the film because the majority of the shots are of still paintings and photographs and without voiceover the viewer would not know what he/she is looking at or why.

What information supports the director’s conclusions (need to know)?
I’m not really sure what conclusions the director was trying to make. It seemed more like learning about a piece of American art. Information is gained through the voiceover and the interviews with an expert in the art field and a reenactor.

What information maintains viewer interest (want to know)?
The subject itself maintains viewer interest. This could be very appealing to a history buff.

Does the director advance the viewer’s understanding of the topic?
Yes definitely. The film explains in detail some of the history behind a classic piece of American art and culture.

Does the director challenge or subvert viewer preconceptions?
Not really. I don’t think there are really any preconceptions regarding this subject.

Is the work personality driven or built on action?
It’s personality driven. The painter’s personality comes out a bit through the voiceover. Also the woman interviewed gives the painting something of its own personality.

Does the video follow unfolding events? Is there suspense?
There isn’t any suspense. It’s more of a look back at history.

Does the video recount the past? Is it about the human condition?
It does recount the past. It describes the history of the painting as well as the painter that made it, and also includes a little critique.

2) If a unique topic, how does the video rely on documentary conventions?
The topic is interesting because it relies on narration and montage imagery to tell the story almost like that of a TV news special.

3) How does the framing of the shots/their juxtaposition affect your reading?
The shots are mostly still and some are slightly mobile to give a sense of an all around atmospheric feel that you are there with the farmers. Showing all aspects of the market, the produce and the people involved.
.
4) How is voice over narration utilized?
There is voice over the whole duration of the film that provides insight into the agricultural field and the common misconceptions about the career. The narrater is never know, but it feels as though he is painting a positive picture of the topic

5) What information supports the director’s conclusions (need to know)?
That there are people everyday that just have that consumer mentality about farming and don’t care or even take the time to realize what they are buying when they go shopping. They have no idea the processes involved to grow and prepare the food they commonly buy and eat. And that people must be educated in this field in order to better understand and appreciate the hard work and knowledge it takes to be a successful farmer.

6) What information maintains viewer interest (want to know)?
The montage scenes of the produce and farming process. Also the informative facts about the misconceptions and positive facts to back up farmers.

7) Does the director advance the viewer’s understanding of the topic?
Yes, through insightful information about the farming business by debunking stereotypical and ignorant thinking.

Does the director challenge or subvert viewer preconceptions?
It’s sort of a combination of both by tying to show people who may think that farmers are dumb how much knowledge and skill go behind making food. And for anyone who isn’t ignorant it serves as a lesson for further understanding.

9) Is the work personality driven or built on action?
It is definitely personality driven because it focuses on the viewers understanding and the personality of the person talking about the farming industry and the farmers too.

10) Does the video follow unfolding events? Is there suspense?
There is no progression it’s just a montage of different images and a non-chronological telling of information. There is no suspense.

11) Does the video recount the past? Is it about the human condition?
There is some past knowledge about people’s perceptions about farmers, but mostly it’s related to the present. The story is heavily rooted in human condition because despite all the ignorance people have when it comes to knowing and respecting farmers, they in despite of everything, strive and persevere in order to keep the consumers fed and support the country’s agriculture.

1) If a familiar topic, how is the video innovative in approach?
This is a very familiar topic for our group. We feel that it was an innovative approach towards this topic. This documentary as all a voice over, and the shots that were taken were very unique. They resembled shots that a news crew would take while editing a story.
2) If a unique topic, how does the video rely on documentary conventions?
This documentary relied on one solid documentary convention: The voice over. This entire film was voiced over. While the narrator was talking about the importance of the food, the camera was focused on the process of the food being grown.
3) How does the framing of the shots/their juxtaposition affect your reading?
The framing of the shots, really did remind us of a news feed. The angles that were taken, the lack of audio with footage, the fades that were used, and the tone of the voice over are all examples of how we reached this conclusion.
4) How is voice over narration utilized?
The voice over is utilized over all of the footage taken. Another voice is never portrayed throughout the entire film.
5) What information supports the director’s conclusions (need to know)?
The information that supports the director’s conclusions lies within the narration. The information is the director’s conclusions within itself. He is talking about how much more he appreciates farming, and how food is grown. He talks about his understanding of how farming works, and how much respect he has for the entire agricultural process.
6) What information maintains viewer interest (want to know)?
The viewer’s interest is maintained through the tone, and pace of the narration. The framing of the shots was also interesting. Other techniques could have been used, such as interviews, or effects. But we realize that this piece was taken out of context, and these techniques could have been used somewhere else in the piece.
7) Does the director advance the viewer’s understanding of the topic?
He does, but he could have advanced our understanding so much more. A lot of the information is just his opinion, on the public view towards agriculture and farming. He could have gone into detail of the science behind farming, for the audience to have a better understanding on what he was referring to.
Does the director challenge or subvert viewer preconceptions?
It does in a way. We were aware of the stereotype the title of a farmer takes on. This piece breaks that stereotype. However it fails to go into detail on why.
9) Is the work personality driven or built on action?
This work was absolutely personality driven. The entire piece is built off of the narrator’s personal opinion on the subject. There is also action within the piece. The action is the shots of the farming process.
10) Does the video follow unfolding events? Is there suspense?
The video does not follow unfolding events. Instead, it just presents the views of one person towards the subject being studied. Suspense is an element that was absent throughout the film.
11) Does the video recount the past? Is it about the human condition?
This piece is about the human condition. It focuses on people’s stereotypical views towards farming. It shows the narrator’s new human condition aimed towards the world of agriculture, and the science behind farming.

1) If a familiar topic, how is the video innovative in approach?
This was not a familiar topic what so ever. One of our group members is taking an American Art course this semester, and even with this, we did not know what was happening within the film. It was not that innovative of an approach. We have seen a number of historical documentaries in the past. This was poorly made, and the transitions between scenes were very sloppy. Also, we thought that the text being read on the screen was insulting to the viewer’s intelligence.
2) If a unique topic, how does the video rely on documentary conventions?
It was a unique topic to us, because we have never heard of the subjects being spoken of. This relied heavily on the conventions of a historical documentary. However, it was really dry, and basically just pumped out useless information.
3) How does the framing of the shots/their juxtaposition affect your reading?
They used a series of different shots. For example, they framed art work, photos, gave interviews to costumed characters, gave more formal interviews sitting down, etc. They used a very elementary technique while reading text that was projected on the screen.
4) How is voice over narration utilized?
The voice over was constantly used. The only exception was during the interviews.
5) What information supports the director’s conclusions (need to know)?
We feel that there was no real conclusion. We did not see any type of conflict, story, or interesting information, so how could there be a conflict.
6) What information maintains viewer interest (want to know)?
The only thing that captured our interest in this video clip was confusion. We were trying not only to figure out what the narrator was talking about, but a point behind it. The man dressed in the Revolutionary clothing caught our interest, but we lost it quickly again because we didn’t know what he was talking about.
7) Does the director advance the viewer’s understanding of the topic?
Yes and no. Since this documentary was straight information, we did take a little from it. We understand that this footage was taken out of context, so it is more difficult to understand. However, we feel if this documentary was taken from a different approach our understanding would be greater.
Does the director challenge or subvert viewer preconceptions?
No. We did not have any preconceptions on this subject. This documentary was more factual than opinionated.
9) Is the work personality driven or built on action?
With the use of the interviews, and because it is about a historical subject it is a little bit of both. There is action within the stories being told, and the personalities are shown through the use of the interviews.
10) Does the video follow unfolding events? Is there suspense?
There is not really suspense. It follows some of the artist’s artwork. So in a certain sense it does follow unfolding events, but in a very boring way.
11) Does the video recount the past? Is it about the human condition?
Yes, and it is about the human condition. This is because it is accounting the artist’s take on past events. It shows his viewpoint which is a reflection of his own human condition, during that time period.

This topic isn’t familiar to us, bu the video uses several documentary filming techniques. It combines video and pictures which go along with what the talking heads are saying.

2. If a unique topic, how does the video rely on documentary conventions?

This is a unique topic. Not many films talk about the personal details of the civil war. It combines standard documentary techniques of intercutting A-roll and B-roll

3. How does the framing of the shots/their juxtaposition affect your reading?

The shot framing was varied depending on the speaker. Some of them were standing or sitting, and some shots were either head or a little to the side. The sitting ones I took more seriously, and the guy standing up talking I almost looked at in a comical way.

4. How is voice over narration utilized?

The narration lays out the story and organization of the film.

5. What information supports the director’s conclusions (need to know)?

The narrations and images supports the director’s conclusions about the people involved in the story at that time.

6. What information maintains viewer interest (want to know)?

The information about the people maintains the viewer interest because it’s a more personal touch and has more meaning.

7. Does the director advance the viewer’s understanding of the topic?

Yes, if the viewer can get a general idea of the civil war era before watching.

8. Does the director challenge or subvert viewer preconceptions?

There is nothing really to challenge. it’s just presenting the information as is.

9. Is the work personality driven or built on action?

The work is personality driven because it centers around personal stories.. not so much historical facts.

10. Does the video follow unfolding events? Is there suspense?

The video follows the events of the people’s stories. There is some suspense in it.

11. Does the video recount the past? Is it about the human condition?

The video definitely recounts the past and is about the human condition since it tells personal stories of the people in the civil war.

The topic is historically familliar, but personally not. The video is innovative in it’s approach because it uses both narration, talking head, archival material and black and white text techniques.

2) If a unique topic, how does the video rely on documentary conventions?

The topic is unique in some sense for me because I never hear about fiffers or civil war musicians. Especially one specific person from that era. The video relies on conventions by using talking head interviews and archival material to explain the character’s story.

3) How does the framing of the shots/their juxtaposition affect your reading?

The shots and their framing tend to change around. The first interview had the speakers full body standing up. And the second was a woman sitting down. It made the interviewers seem seperate or disconnected on subjects. My reading of the video also changed once the text was displayed. At first I was confused but then took the information in.

4) How is voice over narration utilized?

The narration is utilized primarily in the beginning, and is also used to set up the context of the story.

5) What information supports the director’s conclusions (need to know)?

The archival material and the second interview support the directors conclusions. It gives a basic knowledge of the subject and provides insight.

6) What information maintains viewer interest (want to know)?

The viewers interest is maintained primarily with both interviews and the text in the middle of the documentary. Both of those parts were easier to get into, though the text is a little out of place, it allows the viewer to be brought in if they lost focus.

7) Does the director advance the viewer’s understanding of the topic?

Ideally yes, but if the viewer has little interest in the subject, then no. The fiffer subject does however give insight to what those in the civil war did if they were not fighting.

Does the director challenge or subvert viewer preconceptions?

All of the information seems factual so I do not think any preconceptions were misunderstood. Unless a viewer did not know of military musicians.

9) Is the work personality driven or built on action?

Because it is a historical documentary I would say action is a driving force. Were not seeing any unique personality literally on the screen (except for the first intervewee). And although the personality of the historical subject is mentioned we are getting factual evidence on him, we are not actually seeing him.

10) Does the video follow unfolding events? Is there suspense?

I would say the video does not follow unfolding events. Its more historical so any suspense of what happened is already known to the viewer. It is factual.

11) Does the video recount the past? Is it about the human condition?

Clearly the past is recounted as it is about the civil war. The human condition of that time is mentioned in some sense, about how people went about fiffing, or their artwork.

1) If a familiar topic, how is the video innovative in approach?

The topic was familiar to us. As a group we did know that the United States military tested Nuclear Weapons on their own soldiers. However, it was a very innovative approach towards the subject. Having an actual victim giving a testimonial was a very “real” approach, and affective towards us.

2) If a unique topic, how does the video rely on documentary conventions?
This documentary relied heavily on a personal experience. This man was talking about how his entire family bloodline was ruined, after 4 generations of good genes. He also gave a very horrific detailed description of the explosion of the bomb. He used details of the shock wave, the initial explosion, and the following implosion afterwards.
3) How does the framing of the shots/their juxtaposition affect your reading?
This was a very straight on approach. We did not hear the questions, or hear the interviewer; this made the documentary more dramatic. The only text was towards the end, which finally gave us an insight of what this veteran was talking about. This addition of the text was a very powerful and satisfying ending. It was a statistic that will be imprinted in the viewers mind.
4) How is voice over narration utilized?
There was no voice over. This made the documentary more powerful, especially with the addition of the text.
5) What information supports the director’s conclusions (need to know)?
The director’s conclusions were obvious: It is a devastating fact that the United States Military would ever conduct these experiments on their own soldiers. The statistic at the end of the film emphasized this.
6) What information maintains viewer interest (want to know)?
The veteran’s attention towards the detail of the story kept our interest. His emotion while describing the story made this piece very personal. The set-up of the interview caught our attention because 1. He was mumbling at first, which caused some confusion, 2. He was emotional while describing the story, and 3. The director did not give the background information to the story until the end of the piece.

7) Does the director advance the viewer’s understanding of the topic?
Yes, but on a more personal level. We understood the action of a nuclear bomb, and the fact that the United States Military tested on their own soldiers. But we did not know this story on such a personal level. We have never come across anyone who had lived to tell about an exploding nuclear weapon.

8.) Does the director challenge or subvert viewer preconceptions?
No. He does not challenge our conception of the subject, but he sets up a new one. It was a personal story about a horrific event.
9.) Is the work personality driven or built on action?
This was a personal recollection of an event. So it is entirely personality driven.

10) Does the video follow unfolding events? Is there suspense?
Somewhat. He describes the bomb exploding ideally, but the events that unfold later ruin his family bloodline. He creates suspense through the tone of his voice; we could see through body language that he was holding back from crying.

11) Does the video recount the past? Is it about the human condition?
Both. It follows the memory of the veteran. It’s about the human condition, because it is his own reaction towards this story. His mood, and tone carries through towards the viewers, affecting the mood and perception towards the story.