The main theme of Journeys with George was clearly expressed by Amy. The documentary discussed the political campaign of George W.H. Bush in the race between him and Al Gore and the media's relationship with Bush. The pacing was fine and I could understand what she was saying perfectly. I liked how her tone was easy-going and conversational. Also, I was impressed by Amy's ability to discuss the movie without having a speech written, word for word, right in front of her. She was very well spoken and brought up many good points in a very logical manner. Amy seemed very informed—she had obviously been very attentive while watching the film and analyzed it well. She was confident in explaining the film's weakness or fault—namely that it could be too light-hearted at times and did not go into enough of the political details. I was interested to learn about the media's relationship with candidates. It surprised me to learn that reporters followed Bush around, sticking to him every step of the campaign trail. I suppose before I had assumed that it would be mostly reporters that were locals to whatever area Bush was currently visiting who would report on him at that location. Another interesting fact is that many of the candidates who went out to rallies to support Bush didn't really know about a lot of his parties. I found this surprising because I would have assumed that if someone doesn't know a lot about the candidates for any election, at least they wouldn't get very involved in it. I was surprised to learn that the documentary was produced by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter. So Amy did detect a bit of a liberal bias in the documentary, but it seemed understandable. Overall, the film did sound entertaining and interesting. I thought the little amusing antidotes would liven up the story, especially because the documentary doesn't really seem to focus on a single event that happened—it just follows Bush around on his campaign. I can see how the light-heartedness is a weakness in this documentary, though. If the documentary was more serious and focused on perhaps more on the event of Bush winning the election and how that came to be, the documentary would have been more informative and, perhaps, interesting. I know, personally, that, although the funny stories would be entertaining, I would not really be interested in watching the movie because I'm not sure how much I would learn about the election itself. On the other hand, the film would provide insight into how the media acquires its information on candidates and the role of the media in a presidential election, which is a strength. I was interested to find out about Bush’s DUI scandal, and I did wish the documentary had explained it more fully and shown how it perhaps impacted his campaign. I was also interested to learn that the campaign provided some of the supporters of Bush with signs to hold up and made them look like they were hand-painted. Overall, the presentation was well written and went into enough detail to give me a good picture of the basics of the documentary.
I thought that Amy explained the theme of the documentary really well. I liked how not only did she describe what the documentary was about, but she also explained what some of the specific details where. I appreciated her explaining what the press corp. actually is and does, because I sort of had an idea of what it was, but not exactly what they did, and I found that her going into detail about what a member of the press corp. does on a day to day basis very helpful. I understood the plot of the documentary to be a sort of behind the scenes look at the campaign trail and a sort of day in the life of a journalist film. She talked about how it basically follows a journalist from the press corp. and details their interaction with Presidential candidate George W. Bush. The film follows the entire election process up until the inauguration. I thought her pacing was really good. I think that she spaced out her topics very well. The volume was really good. Amy seemed very well prepared. She only seemed to glance at some notes a few times, and really seemed informed enough and understood the documentary well enough that she could just talk about and not need a script. The weakness I learned from what Amy said was that there was a slight bias shown in the film because the director was Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Although, Amy said that there wasn’t too much bias, and that the documentary overall painted George W. Bush in a fairly positive or at least neutral light, which surprised me given that the director comes from such a liberal family. Another weakness that Amy mentioned was that at times it was too light-hearted, and it didn’t focus as much on the issues and what was really happening with the campaign and the facts of what was going on in the political climate. They also didn’t really seem to follow up on things and say what the reaction to something was, or what happened afterward. I had no idea that the journalists and press ride around together and stay at the same places. I thought that was super interesting because it seems like they would form a real camaraderie with each other because of being together so often. I didn’t know that the candidate has such a calculated schedule and that what a candidate says is so scripted and that they are really not supposed to deviate much from the speech that they have. I really like how Amy recommended to people interested in journalism and the behind the scenes of what really goes on with the press corp., or as she put it “George Bush aficionados.” I also really liked that she did mention however that if you were looking for something very factual and about the politics that this wasn’t really the film for you, and I really thought it was helpful that she made that distinction. Before I watched her podcast about the film, I definitely thought to myself as a die-hard liberal, I will NOT be watching this film detailing what I still think of as a stolen election. However, after hearing her talk about the different anecdotes that you see and how the view really gets to see a more personal side of George W. Bush, I think I might now be interested in seeing that, and broadening my view of him as a person, and not just him as a politician and president. So, kudos to Amy for her changing my mind with her really good podcast review!
The main theme of Journeys with George was clearly expressed by Amy. The documentary discussed the political campaign of George W.H. Bush in the race between him and Al Gore and the media's relationship with Bush.
ReplyDeleteThe pacing was fine and I could understand what she was saying perfectly. I liked how her tone was easy-going and conversational. Also, I was impressed by Amy's ability to discuss the movie without having a speech written, word for word, right in front of her. She was very well spoken and brought up many good points in a very logical manner. Amy seemed very informed—she had obviously been very attentive while watching the film and analyzed it well. She was confident in explaining the film's weakness or fault—namely that it could be too light-hearted at times and did not go into enough of the political details.
I was interested to learn about the media's relationship with candidates. It surprised me to learn that reporters followed Bush around, sticking to him every step of the campaign trail. I suppose before I had assumed that it would be mostly reporters that were locals to whatever area Bush was currently visiting who would report on him at that location. Another interesting fact is that many of the candidates who went out to rallies to support Bush didn't really know about a lot of his parties. I found this surprising because I would have assumed that if someone doesn't know a lot about the candidates for any election, at least they wouldn't get very involved in it. I was surprised to learn that the documentary was produced by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter. So Amy did detect a bit of a liberal bias in the documentary, but it seemed understandable.
Overall, the film did sound entertaining and interesting. I thought the little amusing antidotes would liven up the story, especially because the documentary doesn't really seem to focus on a single event that happened—it just follows Bush around on his campaign. I can see how the light-heartedness is a weakness in this documentary, though. If the documentary was more serious and focused on perhaps more on the event of Bush winning the election and how that came to be, the documentary would have been more informative and, perhaps, interesting. I know, personally, that, although the funny stories would be entertaining, I would not really be interested in watching the movie because I'm not sure how much I would learn about the election itself. On the other hand, the film would provide insight into how the media acquires its information on candidates and the role of the media in a presidential election, which is a strength.
I was interested to find out about Bush’s DUI scandal, and I did wish the documentary had explained it more fully and shown how it perhaps impacted his campaign. I was also interested to learn that the campaign provided some of the supporters of Bush with signs to hold up and made them look like they were hand-painted. Overall, the presentation was well written and went into enough detail to give me a good picture of the basics of the documentary.
I thought that Amy explained the theme of the documentary really well. I liked how not only did she describe what the documentary was about, but she also explained what some of the specific details where. I appreciated her explaining what the press corp. actually is and does, because I sort of had an idea of what it was, but not exactly what they did, and I found that her going into detail about what a member of the press corp. does on a day to day basis very helpful. I understood the plot of the documentary to be a sort of behind the scenes look at the campaign trail and a sort of day in the life of a journalist film. She talked about how it basically follows a journalist from the press corp. and details their interaction with Presidential candidate George W. Bush. The film follows the entire election process up until the inauguration.
ReplyDeleteI thought her pacing was really good. I think that she spaced out her topics very well. The volume was really good. Amy seemed very well prepared. She only seemed to glance at some notes a few times, and really seemed informed enough and understood the documentary well enough that she could just talk about and not need a script.
The weakness I learned from what Amy said was that there was a slight bias shown in the film because the director was Alexandra Pelosi, the daughter of Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Although, Amy said that there wasn’t too much bias, and that the documentary overall painted George W. Bush in a fairly positive or at least neutral light, which surprised me given that the director comes from such a liberal family. Another weakness that Amy mentioned was that at times it was too light-hearted, and it didn’t focus as much on the issues and what was really happening with the campaign and the facts of what was going on in the political climate. They also didn’t really seem to follow up on things and say what the reaction to something was, or what happened afterward.
I had no idea that the journalists and press ride around together and stay at the same places. I thought that was super interesting because it seems like they would form a real camaraderie with each other because of being together so often. I didn’t know that the candidate has such a calculated schedule and that what a candidate says is so scripted and that they are really not supposed to deviate much from the speech that they have.
I really like how Amy recommended to people interested in journalism and the behind the scenes of what really goes on with the press corp., or as she put it “George Bush aficionados.” I also really liked that she did mention however that if you were looking for something very factual and about the politics that this wasn’t really the film for you, and I really thought it was helpful that she made that distinction. Before I watched her podcast about the film, I definitely thought to myself as a die-hard liberal, I will NOT be watching this film detailing what I still think of as a stolen election. However, after hearing her talk about the different anecdotes that you see and how the view really gets to see a more personal side of George W. Bush, I think I might now be interested in seeing that, and broadening my view of him as a person, and not just him as a politician and president. So, kudos to Amy for her changing my mind with her really good podcast review!