The main theme of the documentary was explained very well. I would say Sarah spent at least two thirds of her vlog summarizing the movie. From her summary I understood the main theme of the documentary to be how the pentagon papers came to be public. The film covers Daniel Ellsberg's time in Vietnam, to his discovery of the pentagon papers, his realization that four presidents had been lying to the public, his decision to leak the papers, and the controversy over the legality of his actions. I thought that the broadcast was paced rather well. She had good enunciation, and although she stumbled a few times it did not detract from the review. The volume was satisfactory; it did not seem like Sarah was shouting or screaming into the microphone. Sarah seemed prepared. I would guess that she had a script in front of her because she never paused or said um to collect her thoughts. Sarah seemed very informed and confident. When she stated an opinion it did not seem like she was questioning herself. She was able to confidently provide the viewer with background on the documentary’s topic . One important fact that Sarah explained is that without the pentagon papers the Watergate scandal may have never happened. Because of Daniel Ellsburg’s action of betraying the government and leaking secrets, President Nixon decided he wanted to prevent anything like that from ever happening again. So, to avoid further insubordination in his administration Nixon started his plumbing unit. Therefore, if Ellsburg hadn’t been a meddler, the Watergate scandal may have never happened, which is kind of crazy to think about. Another interesting thing I learned from Sarah’s documentary review was that congress voted to cut off funding for the war after The Pentagon Papers were released. I think this truly showed the power of the press in making sure that the government remains credible, responsible for its actions, and open about its dealings. The film sounded very interesting and I plan on watching it once I get the chance. One strength was that the documentarians actually interviewed Daniel Ellsburg. I think this adds to the credibility of the film, and I think it would be interesting to hear his point of view. The film also sounded very comprehensive in its coverage of the entire debacle of The Pentagon Papers in covering it every step of the way. I think one of its weaknesses, as Sarah noted, was that the documentarians did not get the point of view of someone who did not agree with what Ellsburg did. Overall, by watching Sarah’s review vlog I got a lot of clarification on exactly what happened with the pentagon papers, and learned that a unique documentary about the affair was produced and available to the public. Stylistically, I only wish that Sarah had not placed the camera so close to her face (don’t get me wrong Sarah, I think you have a very lovely face). Other than that I have no complaints. Job well done Sarah!
First I would like to start off by saying that the documentary seems very interesting, getting an insight on a once much hidden problem within the American Government! As regards to the first question we were assigned for our review I believe that your video is a bit misleading…the first question is to talk about the main thrust of the video, I wasn’t sure if you were saying that the main thrust of the documentary was the pentagon papers itself? Or the war? Or even Daniel Ellsberg? Yet you explained the theme of the movie extremely well..its clear you have a good understanding of the movie. As regards to the second part of the question where it asks about the video reflecting material covered in class I did not see that… You did however give a GREAT overview of the movie and what happened throughout the film which was beneficial but not exactly what was asked to my understanding (I could be wrong(: ). From what I heard the main theme seemed to revolve around both Daniel Ellsberg and the pentagon papers themselves, where you got an overview and understanding of Mr. Ellsberg and his doing with the papers and how the papers lead to later problems including the water gate scandal; which I thought was very interesting…if this ordeal never happened maybe we would look at President Nixon as a better President?! Very interesting…Generally I thought your pace and volume was perfect…I was able to hear you well and you spoke clearly allowing for a nice flowing video review! Stumbling over a few words like “Vietnam”…yet I found to be okay and was only at the beginning of the video…you got a pace and flow making it okay in the end (plus I would have done the same thing, it seemed like a tongue twister). You seemed very prepared for what you were talking about. The broadcaster (Sara) was very well informed and it was clear that she knew what was going on in her document. She came forward with background information as well as her own personal thoughts on the Tuncan attack…I too was informed in school that these attacks were real and find it “crazy” that essentially we American students in American Government were lied to!! (Shaking my head). You were informed on every aspect of the video from the war, to the papers, to the people, to Watergate! Very impressive and good! Helped so that there were no open gaps left for questioning when it came to the review and the movie. The film itself seemed very interesting, like you got some secret government information! I’m willing to watch it. The strengths of the film seemed to be presented as it gave great information including info you may know and some you do not. From what Sara said the weakness was that it skipped around making it hard to follow sometimes especially when it came to Ellsberg himself. Two important things that Sara touched on included the fact that Nixon one his presidency because he told the American people that he wanted to end the war when in reality he wanted to escalate the fighting!! Once Nixon won Ellsberg looked into the studies and realized that the past four presidents had been lying about the war in Vietnam. Leading to her second important fact of Nixon’s plumbing movement out of fear of insubordination…the idea towards the end of the film was that if there were no release of pentagon papers there would have been no plumbing movement and no water gate scandal! It seemed like the film would be/is interesting because you got an insight in to Ellsberg’s life; although it appeared that the documentary skipped around a lot implementing trouble for the viewer to follow and take in because you were getting information about his family at one point and then the war in another! Overall the film seems interesting and Sara gave great information on what the film was about, her thoughts and new knowledge.
Sarah didn’t actually explain an overall theme in black and white, but I take from listening to her explain her film that the theme had something to do with government lies. The theme probably had something to do with not trusting the government with everything they say and that the government is corrupt, but Im not real sure, because it was never clearly stated. Sarah’s pacing was very good, very little hesitations or pauses, but her eyes did seem to randomly wander to the side at times which was interesting. I could hear her well and she seemed very prepared. At times it seemed as if she wasn’t reading off of anything, but at the same time she wasn’t just going off the top of her head. She seemed very informed and confident. She gave a great background on the subject of the Pentagon Papers and what they exactly were. She also didn’t seem like she was lost in this subject as she stated that she had learned about this topic before and how this film changed her outlook on what she had learned because it possibly was a lie from the government. She didn’t seem rushed or confused on any subject that she was talking about and stayed calm the whole video. I however would have liked if the camera was not so close to her face, but I do understand that everyone has different kinds of cameras. One fact that she brought up showing that the government was corrupt was when Ellsberg was on his way back from his visit to Vietnam, a reporter asked how it was going and how he felt about the war. Ellsberg said that he thought that the Vietcong couldn’t be beat and that as soon as we leave Vietnam it will go back to how it was, but the reporter, because Johnson wanted to get more public support for the war, lied to the American public and said that they were doing well and all was good. Another fact that was brought up, that I especially thought was interesting, was that Ellsberg decided to release the Pentagon Papers after he went to a peace conference and met a man there that was going to go to jail for a peaceful protest and realized that if he could be willing to go to jail for what he believed in then Ellsberg could find the strength to release the Pentagon Papers. I always just thought that he just wanted to release them fro the public, instead he had to be helped to it and he first went to Congress but they did nothing, so he went to the New York Times. The film sounded very informational and slightly interesting. Not exactly my cup of tea, but I do love being able to support my anarchy theory with government corruption stories. It sounded like that its biases towards the nonsupport side was a weakness since Sarah said she would have liked to hear an opinion from someone saying that what the government was doing was right, and that its strength was that Ellsberg himself was able to tell his story himself, not from any history, which made it more authentic. Sarah did a great job and really knew what she was doing, and I could tell she enjoyed this film.
The main theme of the documentary was explained very well. I would say Sarah spent at least two thirds of her vlog summarizing the movie. From her summary I understood the main theme of the documentary to be how the pentagon papers came to be public. The film covers Daniel Ellsberg's time in Vietnam, to his discovery of the pentagon papers, his realization that four presidents had been lying to the public, his decision to leak the papers, and the controversy over the legality of his actions. I thought that the broadcast was paced rather well. She had good enunciation, and although she stumbled a few times it did not detract from the review. The volume was satisfactory; it did not seem like Sarah was shouting or screaming into the microphone. Sarah seemed prepared. I would guess that she had a script in front of her because she never paused or said um to collect her thoughts. Sarah seemed very informed and confident. When she stated an opinion it did not seem like she was questioning herself. She was able to confidently provide the viewer with background on the documentary’s topic . One important fact that Sarah explained is that without the pentagon papers the Watergate scandal may have never happened. Because of Daniel Ellsburg’s action of betraying the government and leaking secrets, President Nixon decided he wanted to prevent anything like that from ever happening again. So, to avoid further insubordination in his administration Nixon started his plumbing unit. Therefore, if Ellsburg hadn’t been a meddler, the Watergate scandal may have never happened, which is kind of crazy to think about. Another interesting thing I learned from Sarah’s documentary review was that congress voted to cut off funding for the war after The Pentagon Papers were released. I think this truly showed the power of the press in making sure that the government remains credible, responsible for its actions, and open about its dealings. The film sounded very interesting and I plan on watching it once I get the chance. One strength was that the documentarians actually interviewed Daniel Ellsburg. I think this adds to the credibility of the film, and I think it would be interesting to hear his point of view. The film also sounded very comprehensive in its coverage of the entire debacle of The Pentagon Papers in covering it every step of the way. I think one of its weaknesses, as Sarah noted, was that the documentarians did not get the point of view of someone who did not agree with what Ellsburg did. Overall, by watching Sarah’s review vlog I got a lot of clarification on exactly what happened with the pentagon papers, and learned that a unique documentary about the affair was produced and available to the public. Stylistically, I only wish that Sarah had not placed the camera so close to her face (don’t get me wrong Sarah, I think you have a very lovely face). Other than that I have no complaints. Job well done Sarah!
ReplyDeleteFirst I would like to start off by saying that the documentary seems very interesting, getting an insight on a once much hidden problem within the American Government! As regards to the first question we were assigned for our review I believe that your video is a bit misleading…the first question is to talk about the main thrust of the video, I wasn’t sure if you were saying that the main thrust of the documentary was the pentagon papers itself? Or the war? Or even Daniel Ellsberg? Yet you explained the theme of the movie extremely well..its clear you have a good understanding of the movie. As regards to the second part of the question where it asks about the video reflecting material covered in class I did not see that… You did however give a GREAT overview of the movie and what happened throughout the film which was beneficial but not exactly what was asked to my understanding (I could be wrong(: ). From what I heard the main theme seemed to revolve around both Daniel Ellsberg and the pentagon papers themselves, where you got an overview and understanding of Mr. Ellsberg and his doing with the papers and how the papers lead to later problems including the water gate scandal; which I thought was very interesting…if this ordeal never happened maybe we would look at President Nixon as a better President?! Very interesting…Generally I thought your pace and volume was perfect…I was able to hear you well and you spoke clearly allowing for a nice flowing video review! Stumbling over a few words like “Vietnam”…yet I found to be okay and was only at the beginning of the video…you got a pace and flow making it okay in the end (plus I would have done the same thing, it seemed like a tongue twister). You seemed very prepared for what you were talking about. The broadcaster (Sara) was very well informed and it was clear that she knew what was going on in her document. She came forward with background information as well as her own personal thoughts on the Tuncan attack…I too was informed in school that these attacks were real and find it “crazy” that essentially we American students in American Government were lied to!! (Shaking my head). You were informed on every aspect of the video from the war, to the papers, to the people, to Watergate! Very impressive and good! Helped so that there were no open gaps left for questioning when it came to the review and the movie. The film itself seemed very interesting, like you got some secret government information! I’m willing to watch it. The strengths of the film seemed to be presented as it gave great information including info you may know and some you do not. From what Sara said the weakness was that it skipped around making it hard to follow sometimes especially when it came to Ellsberg himself. Two important things that Sara touched on included the fact that Nixon one his presidency because he told the American people that he wanted to end the war when in reality he wanted to escalate the fighting!! Once Nixon won Ellsberg looked into the studies and realized that the past four presidents had been lying about the war in Vietnam. Leading to her second important fact of Nixon’s plumbing movement out of fear of insubordination…the idea towards the end of the film was that if there were no release of pentagon papers there would have been no plumbing movement and no water gate scandal! It seemed like the film would be/is interesting because you got an insight in to Ellsberg’s life; although it appeared that the documentary skipped around a lot implementing trouble for the viewer to follow and take in because you were getting information about his family at one point and then the war in another! Overall the film seems interesting and Sara gave great information on what the film was about, her thoughts and new knowledge.
ReplyDeleteSarah didn’t actually explain an overall theme in black and white, but I take from listening to her explain her film that the theme had something to do with government lies. The theme probably had something to do with not trusting the government with everything they say and that the government is corrupt, but Im not real sure, because it was never clearly stated. Sarah’s pacing was very good, very little hesitations or pauses, but her eyes did seem to randomly wander to the side at times which was interesting. I could hear her well and she seemed very prepared. At times it seemed as if she wasn’t reading off of anything, but at the same time she wasn’t just going off the top of her head. She seemed very informed and confident. She gave a great background on the subject of the Pentagon Papers and what they exactly were. She also didn’t seem like she was lost in this subject as she stated that she had learned about this topic before and how this film changed her outlook on what she had learned because it possibly was a lie from the government. She didn’t seem rushed or confused on any subject that she was talking about and stayed calm the whole video. I however would have liked if the camera was not so close to her face, but I do understand that everyone has different kinds of cameras. One fact that she brought up showing that the government was corrupt was when Ellsberg was on his way back from his visit to Vietnam, a reporter asked how it was going and how he felt about the war. Ellsberg said that he thought that the Vietcong couldn’t be beat and that as soon as we leave Vietnam it will go back to how it was, but the reporter, because Johnson wanted to get more public support for the war, lied to the American public and said that they were doing well and all was good. Another fact that was brought up, that I especially thought was interesting, was that Ellsberg decided to release the Pentagon Papers after he went to a peace conference and met a man there that was going to go to jail for a peaceful protest and realized that if he could be willing to go to jail for what he believed in then Ellsberg could find the strength to release the Pentagon Papers. I always just thought that he just wanted to release them fro the public, instead he had to be helped to it and he first went to Congress but they did nothing, so he went to the New York Times. The film sounded very informational and slightly interesting. Not exactly my cup of tea, but I do love being able to support my anarchy theory with government corruption stories. It sounded like that its biases towards the nonsupport side was a weakness since Sarah said she would have liked to hear an opinion from someone saying that what the government was doing was right, and that its strength was that Ellsberg himself was able to tell his story himself, not from any history, which made it more authentic. Sarah did a great job and really knew what she was doing, and I could tell she enjoyed this film.
ReplyDelete