I liked this piece and thought it was a very interesting topic. I think that the part with the older man in the beginning where he states that MIT students don’t care enough about voting set the general idea. You went on to show that it wasn’t so much that they didn’t care, but that they were just so busy most of the time that it wasn’t considered enough of a priority. Then you counted down through the three main reasons why so few students here voted and showed some statistics that quantified just how much under the national average we are. What I liked most about this piece is that the facts you showed against the black screens were backed up by the interviews you took. For example, the main reason students didn’t vote is because they didn’t know how or didn’t have the reasons, and in the interviews almost everyone was unsure about how to go about voting by absentee ballot.
As someone had suggested in class, I think actually giving the solution to the problem and showing the viewer just how they would go about voting in Massachusetts would be a really nice addition. I could see that taking up a bit of time as I am sure that it is probably not as simple as it should be, but I think that would be a good idea if you were to make this into a longer piece, such as the final documentary.
Posted almost 2 years by email@example.com
1) In response to my asking you about why students’ political views were put in, you said that the views will derail from your overreaching argument. I really respect that editorial decision as I do believe that this piece in itself present the problem without compounding other issues like political views. Moreover, the film captured many voices, one including an actual former-candidate, which added to the legitimacy of the issue (if a student can directly talk to a candidate, why won’t they have enough say to help a candidate win the election).
2) I would like to see different persons interviewed for this issues, perhaps grad students, and faculties, for further grouping. The film was presented in a PSA style which was good but was in itself a big too long, and dragged out the message and its effectiveness by repeating what was said. The effect was abrupt. It included background noise, which I’m not sure if that did anything.
Posted almost 2 years by firstname.lastname@example.org
Very interesting topic and something real to our student body. I liked the rhythm that flipped between black screen statistics and interviews with actual students. I loved the intro. All the different shots of MIT campus really set an exciting tone for the rest of the piece and drew me in immediately. This piece is definitely a huge improvement from the last piece, so good job! You did good work!
Some of the audio was hard to hear because of background noise so wondering if you should’ve cut them out or subtitled them. I personally would’ve preferred to see the statistics after the personal interviews because I felt a disconnect between the story you’re telling with the statistics and the public opinions we were getting from students. Finally, the piece became monotonous towards the end because the rhythm doesn’t change or end with a bang as I expected. The music was doing a great job building up the tension but the endding audio seemed to have poofed instead of banged out.
Great job! It was an interesting watch.
Posted almost 2 years by email@example.com
Wow, I must say that this was an excellently shot and edited documentary. You had a great variety of camera angles coupled with an excellent variety of viewpoints and opinions that aided in adding interest to the piece. I liked the pacing and the upbeat music, and I must say that you did a great job working everything together into a smooth-flowing piece. I also liked your interjection of factoids throughout the piece; it helped to organize your shots and provide a sense of context which your interviewees confirmed.
There were only a couple of things that need to be improved. Now, the statistics were gender-independent, but /all/ of your interviewees were girls. I’d like to see you add a variety of interviewees to your piece, more than the people you know, that way I get a broader opinion of MIT in general. Also, the end of your documentary, while informative seemed like a commercial and detracted from the overall feel of the piece. Just fix those things, and you’ll improve from a great documentary to an excellent one!
Posted almost 2 years by firstname.lastname@example.org
Once again, another excellently edited and shot documentary. I liked the pacing and speed of this piece — there was a lot of movement and it never felt like it was dragging. The editing was nicely concise — that is, we heard enough but not too much of each interview, and it allowed you to splice together similar answers without boring the audience.
I think this documentary suffers most in its lack of interview variety. All of the interviewees were female — with the exception of the voting volunteer. There is statistical evidence that women have a significantly different voting experience then men — this may have been an interesting point to focus on, but for a documentary that bills itself as Student Voting and not Female Student Voting, you seem to lack a variety of viewpoints. Perhaps it is true that any boys you interviewed would give you the same answer — however, as an audience we don’t see that, and the documentary suffers.
Posted almost 2 years by email@example.com
The beginning was very catchy. Particularly your choice of putting the overall message regarding students taking responsibility through the man with the tough character at the first frame was good. I loved the different high and low angles you used to visually introduce the student scene on the MIT campus. The fast-beat music throughout the piece matched the busy life of students at MIT as well.
Right off the bat, you set the scene for the characters who would be in your interviews by asking the center-stage question of whether they were registered to vote from each of them. That was a nice back-to-back cutting from one person to another. Even though some people in class pointed to all the interviewees being girls, I thought actually that they were still a diverse group of girls each with their own views on and issues with voting. Filming a group of the girls having conversations also added realism to this piece. It also served as a way to prove the points brought up about the reasons for not voting through the responses of each individual in the conversations.
It seemed that your structure was showing each of the reasons for students not voting from the third reason to the first. Your organization throughout involved showing the issue and reason in typing first and then through people explaining. However, this order was not followed exactly, which was a bit bothersome. It seemed that in between, you showed some of the typing AFTER the students explained them through their own experience. For example, at one point, which was when the number three reason for not voting was presented actually after one student explained being busy, the second reason was followed in typing right after the third reason in typing to go back to the order of showing typing first and then explanation. This randomness in order of showing typing and explanation did not match the overall orderly sense of the piece. Maybe choosing one order and following through consistently with that order would be a good idea.
Posted almost 2 years by firstname.lastname@example.org
I really enjoyed this video. I think it is a very relevant and important issue. I think the sincerity in your subjects came through and made for an attention grabbing video. I was interested as a lot of their thoughts or beliefs are shared by me or I have heard others express the same thoughts. You did a nice job with the visuals and overlaying music nicely. It made the video transition well and flow logically.
I would have like to see more variety in your interviewees. We already discussed how it would have been nice to have more male opinions. I also would have liked to hear more from the man in the beginning or others in positions similar to his.
Posted almost 2 years by email@example.com
I thought you did an excellent job building up the issue. You presented the issue and very carefully outlined the top reasons as to why eligible student voters particularly at MIT choose to not vote. You got excellent non interview footage which was really relevant to the subject. I thought were editing was spot on, you did a good job transitioning in facts into the film, and had a clear narrative structure.
The only thing I would have liked to see would have been diversity in interviews. You only interviewed a couple people from the republican voting station and women. It would have been nice to see a male perspective or make this video more about student female voters. With diversity this film could have been a lot stronger! :)
Posted almost 2 years by andreagu
Your choice of topic for this video was very relevant and interesting to me. I liked hearing the perspectives of many different people, which seemed very sincere particularly because they were put on the spot. A lot of useful information was conveyed by the title cards that were interspersed throughout the video. The fast cuts and the music helped maintain the high energy and pace of the video.
I feel that some of the points you made in the title cards could have been conveyed through the interviewees, for example the top three reasons students do not vote could have been conveyed verbally rather than textually. In addition, I was hoping to see some sort of call to action at the end, encouraging students to register.
Posted almost 2 years by firstname.lastname@example.org
You need to log in, in order to post comments. If you don’t have an account yet, sign up now!
Updated almost 2 years ago
Added 2 years ago