Megan explained the main theme of the documentary, Berkley in the 60s, very clearly. I understood the focus of the film to be on the countercultural actions of the Berkley students, whether they concerned civil rights or their freedom of speech rights. However, Megan did not answer how the theme related to our AP Government class, although, it is self-explanatory that we have covered our First Amendment rights and civil liberties given in the Bill of Rights. The pacing of Megan’s review was steady and even. She followed the order of the film and answered all of the required questions in chronological order, making it easy to follow. Overall, her summary of the film was logical and satisfactory. The volume was easy to hear, not too loud or too soft, and she seemed well prepared. Megan appeared to be very informed and confident. She did not stutter or pause and articulated her words. You could tell she did not need to read from a script or look at note cards; she spoke from her mind. She noted all of the necessary facts, dates, and issues presented in the film. One specific fact she presented was that she learned that hippies are not one in the same. They have different causes and different responses. She stated the Haight-Ashbury hippies were more in favor of an ideal society whereas the Berkley students were more realistic and wanted a change in the government and in the people’s perception of the government. Megan also pointed out how the film touched on many important events and issues of the time period. She stated that it discussed civil rights, freedom of speech, the Blank Panther Party, the Vietnam War, and women’s rights. Another interesting argument Megan offered was how this video was extremely biased. She backed up her opinion saying this weakness was due to the fact that only far left liberals were interviewed. There were no interviews with the school’s administration or with any government officials. Specifically, she suggests that the director should have conducted an interview with Ronald Reagan, who was governor at the time. He also played a main role in the film in that he sent the National Guard to the Berkley campus during one of the protests. She named the documentary’s bias as its only weaknesses. Megan said one the strengths of the film was how she “learned a lot” which is the goal of any documentary. Megan also commended the interviews given during the movie. I think the film sounded extremely interesting. Megan noted the film was “informative and engaging,” words that persuade me to want to watch this documentary. I would definitely watch it on my own time. Another noteworthy item was how calm and conversational Megan was. It was as if we were casually talking about the film over coffee. Additionally, Megan gave her review a personal twist by noting her favorite part of the documentary which was when Jack Weinberg stayed in a police car for 32 hours while students spoke at a microphone on top of the vehicle. Overall, it was a very informative review and it made me want to watch the documentary.
The main theme of the film was made very clear. The documentary, Berkley in the 60s, was about the political activism in the 1960s on the University of California Berkley campus. The film went over the protests and opinions of the students at the campus and the various trials that they faced from the Californian government and the school itself. The film also went over the different groups of people that were involved with the students and their quest to create political change. The pacing was well done. I could always follow what Megan was saying and her ideas were clear. The volume was also good. Megan seemed very prepared and I felt that she watched and understood the whole movie. She seemed very informed. She often cited specific people in the interviews from the movie and specific examples that made it clear apparent that she was attentive to the movie and people’s plot involvement. She didn’t seem like she was reading from a script and the tone and flow seemed natural which is good. One fact that she presented was that, at the time, political speech especially liberal ones were limited during the 60’s. The college protesters often had their protests disrupted by the police or the university. The protestors were often arrested and had nausea gas thrown over them. Also, she mentioned that police brutality was prevalent during this time and the documentary showed a lot of footage of it. A second fact she gave was the fact that the civil rights protestors took an area of the land on campus and called it the “People’s Park”. They planted trees and grass in this area and lived communally on it. They used this as an example of how things would be if the protestors could run the country. Then, governor at the time, Ronald Reagan said that this was public property and that they would use force to seize it. The protestors did not leave so the government did seize “the people’s park” and bull dozed the area and put up a fence around it. The film sounded very interesting to me. I was unaware of the concentration of “hippies”, civil rights protests and other political voices during this time and this area. Firsthand accounts are always interesting and insightful and there were many of those in the movie. I thought that the stories from the protestors and their unique means of getting their opinions across were interesting also. Weaknesses seem only that the movie had only one side of the story, however since the goal of the movie was to give the view from the protestors that isn’t too bad. Although I am more fond of objective information. I thought Megan did a very good job and that also she looked very nice in her presentation.
Megan explained the main theme of the documentary, Berkley in the 60s, very clearly. I understood the focus of the film to be on the countercultural actions of the Berkley students, whether they concerned civil rights or their freedom of speech rights. However, Megan did not answer how the theme related to our AP Government class, although, it is self-explanatory that we have covered our First Amendment rights and civil liberties given in the Bill of Rights. The pacing of Megan’s review was steady and even. She followed the order of the film and answered all of the required questions in chronological order, making it easy to follow. Overall, her summary of the film was logical and satisfactory. The volume was easy to hear, not too loud or too soft, and she seemed well prepared. Megan appeared to be very informed and confident. She did not stutter or pause and articulated her words. You could tell she did not need to read from a script or look at note cards; she spoke from her mind. She noted all of the necessary facts, dates, and issues presented in the film. One specific fact she presented was that she learned that hippies are not one in the same. They have different causes and different responses. She stated the Haight-Ashbury hippies were more in favor of an ideal society whereas the Berkley students were more realistic and wanted a change in the government and in the people’s perception of the government. Megan also pointed out how the film touched on many important events and issues of the time period. She stated that it discussed civil rights, freedom of speech, the Blank Panther Party, the Vietnam War, and women’s rights. Another interesting argument Megan offered was how this video was extremely biased. She backed up her opinion saying this weakness was due to the fact that only far left liberals were interviewed. There were no interviews with the school’s administration or with any government officials. Specifically, she suggests that the director should have conducted an interview with Ronald Reagan, who was governor at the time. He also played a main role in the film in that he sent the National Guard to the Berkley campus during one of the protests. She named the documentary’s bias as its only weaknesses. Megan said one the strengths of the film was how she “learned a lot” which is the goal of any documentary. Megan also commended the interviews given during the movie. I think the film sounded extremely interesting. Megan noted the film was “informative and engaging,” words that persuade me to want to watch this documentary. I would definitely watch it on my own time. Another noteworthy item was how calm and conversational Megan was. It was as if we were casually talking about the film over coffee. Additionally, Megan gave her review a personal twist by noting her favorite part of the documentary which was when Jack Weinberg stayed in a police car for 32 hours while students spoke at a microphone on top of the vehicle. Overall, it was a very informative review and it made me want to watch the documentary.
ReplyDeleteThe main theme of the film was made very clear. The documentary, Berkley in the 60s, was about the political activism in the 1960s on the University of California Berkley campus. The film went over the protests and opinions of the students at the campus and the various trials that they faced from the Californian government and the school itself. The film also went over the different groups of people that were involved with the students and their quest to create political change. The pacing was well done. I could always follow what Megan was saying and her ideas were clear. The volume was also good. Megan seemed very prepared and I felt that she watched and understood the whole movie. She seemed very informed. She often cited specific people in the interviews from the movie and specific examples that made it clear apparent that she was attentive to the movie and people’s plot involvement. She didn’t seem like she was reading from a script and the tone and flow seemed natural which is good. One fact that she presented was that, at the time, political speech especially liberal ones were limited during the 60’s. The college protesters often had their protests disrupted by the police or the university. The protestors were often arrested and had nausea gas thrown over them. Also, she mentioned that police brutality was prevalent during this time and the documentary showed a lot of footage of it. A second fact she gave was the fact that the civil rights protestors took an area of the land on campus and called it the “People’s Park”. They planted trees and grass in this area and lived communally on it. They used this as an example of how things would be if the protestors could run the country. Then, governor at the time, Ronald Reagan said that this was public property and that they would use force to seize it. The protestors did not leave so the government did seize “the people’s park” and bull dozed the area and put up a fence around it. The film sounded very interesting to me. I was unaware of the concentration of “hippies”, civil rights protests and other political voices during this time and this area. Firsthand accounts are always interesting and insightful and there were many of those in the movie. I thought that the stories from the protestors and their unique means of getting their opinions across were interesting also. Weaknesses seem only that the movie had only one side of the story, however since the goal of the movie was to give the view from the protestors that isn’t too bad. Although I am more fond of objective information. I thought Megan did a very good job and that also she looked very nice in her presentation.
ReplyDelete