This was an interesting film it really challenged me to think about history and how some people look up to and idolize people we really don't know. This film takes an interesting route by saying that all of the greats in history are frauds and that all of the true hero's are lost to history. I liked that they modernized the piece instead of using archival pictures or film. The shots seemed rather simple but worked for the story being told. I enjoyed the film and the different take they took on history and how history can be seen as a contested battle that you either win or lose.
I'm usually not a fan of period pieces but this short made the time period and the history interesting. I think that the voice over helped to make the story more dramatic because of the speaker's tone of voice. I like that the short used more re-enactment type footage instead of file or archival footage. I also liked how the story was modernized as the character walked through present New York and the speaker discusses how the country has changed.
I think the way that they portrayed history in a creative way cinematically really worked. I didn't love the way they brought in the painting but it did make the story more real. When they flashed the images, I thought that was a very good way to show a historic story. Didn't love the voice over in the first half, but for some reason once it got to the image of the dollar it got less cheesy. After that, the shots and background music really picked up. The shots actually quite aesthetically pleasing for the most part, I think the only thing I would have changed was the voice over... Maybe the way it sounds sort of staticky. It did make a historic story entertaining though!
This film was visually, very strong, but I wasn't a huge fan of the narrative. Cinematically, I thought the shots were all very well done and aesthetically pleasing. I also thought the b-roll did a nice job of helping the narrator to tell the story, but what I found odd was how the story took place in both the past and the present. For example, he had the actors portraying a famous battle during the American Revolution, but then later had Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton texting each other. I understand that it was supposed to be a comedy, and I think this did add a little to the humor, but I still think it was a little odd. However, I do think that it was an interesting take on the famous story that we all know about the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.
Dan Bryan: Oh-ho-ho, I *love* it! Okay, so, let's put aside the historical accuracy of this film for the purposes of this class. I don't really want to devote too much time in making this particular critique to fact-checking the accuracy of its historical claims, because I think we can all agree that because of its style of presentation, it's more important that we judge this piece on how well it entertains rather than how well it informs. Every claim Burr makes in this film could be a bold-faced lie and I'd still love this thing. Some of the other commentators here have been critical of the anachronisms strewn about the piece, but those anachronisms really didn't bother me. It honestly felt less like we were being addressed by Aaron Burr himself than by his reputation, given a voice. Or, perhaps Aaron Burr had been given some kind of vehicle to peek ahead in time, and has constructed this revisionist counter-argument to common historical beliefs by assembling a presentation that would appeal to modern sensibilities. Either way, I've seen enough Doctor Who to know not to get hung up on the exact how's or why's; it's the presentation itself that matters here. The slowed-down walking sequences juxtaposed to the imposition of historical paintings really helped sell the idea that this was some bizarre hybrid of a historical documentary and a Quentin Tarantino or John Woo movie. The writing was great, getting across that Burr couldn't entirely keep his ego or disdain entirely reined in, even when he was trying his hardest to be objective and only state the facts. This was a great way to inform the audience about his character; we get a bead on what kind of person Burr is portrayed as, are given incentive to sympathize with him because of his situation despite whatever negative character traits he might have, and are then left with the desire to find out about the truth about Burr's integrity for ourselves after the film has ended. I even loved the grainy audio texture imposed on Burr's voice-over narration; it gives the impression that Burr is some kind of underground resistance fighter for the truth of history, informing us through a low-tech, unrestricted radio frequency about the prevalent lies we've been fed that have ruined his good name. Am I reading too much into this? Maybe. But I do still love how this film tries to give a fresh coat of paint to historical depiction, dramatizing it in such a fashion that it oozes coolness out of every pore. If it turns out that Burr really was a victim of historical inaccuracy, all the better. But either way, this film is fun as hell.
This short was a unique way to show history and showing some clips from the past. It really challenged the viewer to think about the events in the past and to think about how they are arguing these events. Throughout the whole 8 minutes it keeps you engaged because there are so many moving images. Along with the moving images, the music and voiceover kept it interesting because all the sounds changed with the tone of the short. This was a really cool way to look at history and it was filled with many elements we have learned this semester.
I didn't particularly enjoy this one. I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a mockery of how serious some documentaries are, or if it was supposed to be an actual serious film. At the beginning when Aaron Burr was practicing drawing his gun in the room, I found the acting almost comical, and I thought it was intended to be so. I wasn't a fan of the way the filmmaker tried to bring the historical incident into present day, and I didn't like that Burr was narrating it himself--it sounded to me like he was bragging, and I feel it made the information in the film less credible. I did, however, greatly appreciate the effort put into the costume and set design.
Making use of a practical lighting affect early on in the battle scene was great. Especially the beginning of that scene with the trees being outlined by the flashes of light. It went well with the tone and style of this particular film. The pacing and music made for a fun satire-ish history lesson. It's always interesting to take a look at a story from the "other side".
This film was both interesting and not interesting at the same time. It was nice to watch at the beginning but it just got outright boring. While the shots were visually appealing they kept going back to the same stuff and therefore it got boring really quick. I liked the voice over but I felt it was a little stale by the end as well. I like how they tried to modernize this historic duel but overall I felt the film was just missing something.
I really enjoyed this one. The idea of what if Aaron Burr lived during this time is interesting to me. No one really knows what it was like back in the colonial times. People prefer legends to reality. I love that quote. The mix of both modern times and history are shot very well. The only problem I saw in it was the text on screen was too light to see. Other than that it was a good film.
I found this movie quite interesting. Anything that has to do with history, I'm deeply invested. I love lies and corruption that show up in politics and this film did a great job of retelling a well know historical story. I found the narration quite off and compressed as well as the shot sequence with the strobe lights not being as effective as a I assume the filmmaker expecting.
Wilson Weirich: I really loved the modern take on the story of this dual. The cinematography was notable at multiple points of Aaron Burr, Part 2. About three quarters through, the panning follow shot of the protagonist walking through New York blew me away. I thought the soundtrack worked incredibly well for the film with the exception of the slow song when we got a close up of Hamilton on the 10 dollar bill. The song didn’t seem to fit, and the lyrics clashed with the narration making the audio sound too busy. The narration itself successfully set the tone of the film, and was a great way to progressive the narrative.
This was an interesting film it really challenged me to think about history and how some people look up to and idolize people we really don't know. This film takes an interesting route by saying that all of the greats in history are frauds and that all of the true hero's are lost to history. I liked that they modernized the piece instead of using archival pictures or film. The shots seemed rather simple but worked for the story being told. I enjoyed the film and the different take they took on history and how history can be seen as a contested battle that you either win or lose.
ReplyDeleteI'm usually not a fan of period pieces but this short made the time period and the history interesting. I think that the voice over helped to make the story more dramatic because of the speaker's tone of voice. I like that the short used more re-enactment type footage instead of file or archival footage. I also liked how the story was modernized as the character walked through present New York and the speaker discusses how the country has changed.
ReplyDeleteI think the way that they portrayed history in a creative way cinematically really worked. I didn't love the way they brought in the painting but it did make the story more real. When they flashed the images, I thought that was a very good way to show a historic story. Didn't love the voice over in the first half, but for some reason once it got to the image of the dollar it got less cheesy. After that, the shots and background music really picked up. The shots actually quite aesthetically pleasing for the most part, I think the only thing I would have changed was the voice over... Maybe the way it sounds sort of staticky. It did make a historic story entertaining though!
ReplyDeleteThis film was visually, very strong, but I wasn't a huge fan of the narrative. Cinematically, I thought the shots were all very well done and aesthetically pleasing. I also thought the b-roll did a nice job of helping the narrator to tell the story, but what I found odd was how the story took place in both the past and the present. For example, he had the actors portraying a famous battle during the American Revolution, but then later had Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton texting each other. I understand that it was supposed to be a comedy, and I think this did add a little to the humor, but I still think it was a little odd. However, I do think that it was an interesting take on the famous story that we all know about the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr.
ReplyDeleteDan Bryan: Oh-ho-ho, I *love* it!
ReplyDeleteOkay, so, let's put aside the historical accuracy of this film for the purposes of this class. I don't really want to devote too much time in making this particular critique to fact-checking the accuracy of its historical claims, because I think we can all agree that because of its style of presentation, it's more important that we judge this piece on how well it entertains rather than how well it informs. Every claim Burr makes in this film could be a bold-faced lie and I'd still love this thing.
Some of the other commentators here have been critical of the anachronisms strewn about the piece, but those anachronisms really didn't bother me. It honestly felt less like we were being addressed by Aaron Burr himself than by his reputation, given a voice. Or, perhaps Aaron Burr had been given some kind of vehicle to peek ahead in time, and has constructed this revisionist counter-argument to common historical beliefs by assembling a presentation that would appeal to modern sensibilities. Either way, I've seen enough Doctor Who to know not to get hung up on the exact how's or why's; it's the presentation itself that matters here. The slowed-down walking sequences juxtaposed to the imposition of historical paintings really helped sell the idea that this was some bizarre hybrid of a historical documentary and a Quentin Tarantino or John Woo movie. The writing was great, getting across that Burr couldn't entirely keep his ego or disdain entirely reined in, even when he was trying his hardest to be objective and only state the facts. This was a great way to inform the audience about his character; we get a bead on what kind of person Burr is portrayed as, are given incentive to sympathize with him because of his situation despite whatever negative character traits he might have, and are then left with the desire to find out about the truth about Burr's integrity for ourselves after the film has ended. I even loved the grainy audio texture imposed on Burr's voice-over narration; it gives the impression that Burr is some kind of underground resistance fighter for the truth of history, informing us through a low-tech, unrestricted radio frequency about the prevalent lies we've been fed that have ruined his good name.
Am I reading too much into this? Maybe. But I do still love how this film tries to give a fresh coat of paint to historical depiction, dramatizing it in such a fashion that it oozes coolness out of every pore. If it turns out that Burr really was a victim of historical inaccuracy, all the better. But either way, this film is fun as hell.
This short was a unique way to show history and showing some clips from the past. It really challenged the viewer to think about the events in the past and to think about how they are arguing these events. Throughout the whole 8 minutes it keeps you engaged because there are so many moving images. Along with the moving images, the music and voiceover kept it interesting because all the sounds changed with the tone of the short. This was a really cool way to look at history and it was filled with many elements we have learned this semester.
ReplyDeleteI didn't particularly enjoy this one. I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a mockery of how serious some documentaries are, or if it was supposed to be an actual serious film. At the beginning when Aaron Burr was practicing drawing his gun in the room, I found the acting almost comical, and I thought it was intended to be so. I wasn't a fan of the way the filmmaker tried to bring the historical incident into present day, and I didn't like that Burr was narrating it himself--it sounded to me like he was bragging, and I feel it made the information in the film less credible. I did, however, greatly appreciate the effort put into the costume and set design.
ReplyDeleteMaking use of a practical lighting affect early on in the battle scene was great. Especially the beginning of that scene with the trees being outlined by the flashes of light. It went well with the tone and style of this particular film. The pacing and music made for a fun satire-ish history lesson. It's always interesting to take a look at a story from the "other side".
ReplyDeleteThis film was both interesting and not interesting at the same time. It was nice to watch at the beginning but it just got outright boring. While the shots were visually appealing they kept going back to the same stuff and therefore it got boring really quick. I liked the voice over but I felt it was a little stale by the end as well. I like how they tried to modernize this historic duel but overall I felt the film was just missing something.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this one. The idea of what if Aaron Burr lived during this time is interesting to me. No one really knows what it was like back in the colonial times. People prefer legends to reality. I love that quote. The mix of both modern times and history are shot very well. The only problem I saw in it was the text on screen was too light to see. Other than that it was a good film.
ReplyDeleteI found this movie quite interesting. Anything that has to do with history, I'm deeply invested. I love lies and corruption that show up in politics and this film did a great job of retelling a well know historical story. I found the narration quite off and compressed as well as the shot sequence with the strobe lights not being as effective as a I assume the filmmaker expecting.
ReplyDeleteWilson Weirich: I really loved the modern take on the story of this dual. The cinematography was notable at multiple points of Aaron Burr, Part 2. About three quarters through, the panning follow shot of the protagonist walking through New York blew me away. I thought the soundtrack worked incredibly well for the film with the exception of the slow song when we got a close up of Hamilton on the 10 dollar bill. The song didn’t seem to fit, and the lyrics clashed with the narration making the audio sound too busy. The narration itself successfully set the tone of the film, and was a great way to progressive the narrative.
ReplyDelete