From Ellen’s clear and concise explanation, I deducted the theme of the documentary The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till to be centered on the evils of racism and the unfairness of the time period of Jim Crow laws. The pacing and volume of Ellen’s review vlog was more than satisfactory on both accounts. Ellen not only seemed informed and confident, but she came off as extremely professional as well. She was organized with her note cards which she only briefly glanced at for reference rather than reading straight from them. She was also very well prepared, creating her own set with a curtain background so as not to distract the viewer with random objects usually present in household rooms. She was very factual and informative, giving every name, date, and event necessary. Ellen presented two important arguments. The first argument concerned the social injustice of the matter. She specifically pointed out how unfair and fatal Till’s consequence was for simply whistling at a woman. Nothing, especially an action as harmless as Till’s, is worthy of being tied with barbed wire to a cotton gin and thrown in a river. Ellen also noted the injustice of the trial itself. She said the jury was only in “debate” for one hour, to pretend they were having a fair trial, and found Bryant and Milam not guilty of kidnapping and murdering Till. Not only that, but preceding the trial, the town had placed cans around the streets for donations towards the defense, which meant that the jury would most likely be biased. Ellen gives the issue closure by saying that the two accused men later confessed in an article in Look magazine and that the case was reopened in 2004 in which Bryant and Milam were found guilty. The film did sound interesting, although it is clearly not for the lighthearted viewer. She preps any potential watcher of the graphicness by describing the Till’s dead body as being mutilated beyond recognition. After being tortured, Till was only identified by the ring his mother gave him. Ellen’s opinionated flaw of not revealing any forensic evidence was very insightful. Ellen also kept a positive note saying this did not distract from the film. Rather, the film focused on the emotions of those who were affected by the murder and the aftermath of the trial. Specifically, Ellen notes how strong Emmett’s mother was throughout the whole process; she insisted on seeing her son and having an open casket funeral. Ellen also made a valid point saying it is difficult to consider this film to have a bias since there was a clear and definite outcome of the case. Ellen commended the documentary saying it possessed creditable representations of actual events rather than just providing interviews. She stated that it used powerful clips and images such as a video of the trial and an interview with Emmett’s uncle conducted at the time of the trial. I think the most noteworthy concept that Ellen stated is the effect of this documentary. Ultimately, it reopened the case and brought the story of Emmett Louis Till back to the public’s mind to be forever remembered.
Ellen explained the main theme of The Untold story of Emmett Lewis Till thoroughly and clearly. As I understood it, Untold Story is a documentary about the murder of Emmett Lewis Till, a 14-year-old African American boy who visited Mississippi from Chicago during the summer of 1955. After whistling at a white woman, Till was brutally mutilated and killed by Bryant, the white woman’s husband, and Milam. Untold Story includes recent interviews with friends and family, as well as footage taken of Till’s funeral and the trial of Till’s murderers. The film addresses the evils of racism and gives a viewer insight into the unjust effects of state-sponsored segregation. Ellen’s pacing was neither too fast nor too slow. Her speech was well organized, with good transitions, so I knew when she was moving on to a new topic and I never felt lost. Ellen had good lighting, and she did an excellent job setting up the scene with a striped curtain, and her volume was loud enough. Ellen seemed quite prepared—it was clear that she had practiced her video many times and had put genuine thought into what she had written about the video. In addition, her tone was conversational; it did not seem as though she was only sticking to a script. Ellen seemed both informed and confident. She did not have any long pauses; she always seemed to know what she was going to say next. Her tone and posture were strong, which portrayed her confidence in this project. Ellen did not really connect the events of the film with what we learned in AP Government class; rather, she only focused on aspects of the film’s plot and presentation. Ellen explained that Mamie Till, Emmett Lewis Till’s mother, insisted on an open casket at the funeral. Mrs. Till wanted the world to see what had happened to Emmett, so people could understand the evil that is allowed in Mississippi. The mutilated body at the funeral was shocking—Emmett’s ears and teeth were removed, and there was a bullet hole straight through the side of his head. Back in Mississippi, the townspeople collected money for the defense of the two murderers, Bryant and Milam. The local sentiment seemed to be that everyone knew the white men had murdered Emmett, but they wanted them to get off anyway. They were found not guilty. The film definitely sounded interesting. I am interested in race relations relations, so a film about a lynching seems very depressing, but a worthwhile watch. According to Ellen, the the storyline was captivating, and it was an informative film that is useful to remind people to never forget the evils of racism and how important civil rights is. Ellen said one flaw was that the film did not focus on forensic evidence or other evidence for the murder trial, and rather focused on the emotional aspects of the lynching. Ellen said the only film focused on the point of view of Till and his allies, but she said the film was not biased because of all of the evidence that the two white men had committed the murder. Ellen stated that no one would walk away from the film feeling like the white men’s voices had not been heard. After watching Ellen’s review, I might want to watch this documentary someday, but perhaps not very soon, because it seems quite depressing. The most interesting part of this documentary is that it made a difference: because of the documentary, the trial was reopened in 2004, and the two murderers were finally found guilty.
From Ellen’s clear and concise explanation, I deducted the theme of the documentary The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till to be centered on the evils of racism and the unfairness of the time period of Jim Crow laws. The pacing and volume of Ellen’s review vlog was more than satisfactory on both accounts. Ellen not only seemed informed and confident, but she came off as extremely professional as well. She was organized with her note cards which she only briefly glanced at for reference rather than reading straight from them. She was also very well prepared, creating her own set with a curtain background so as not to distract the viewer with random objects usually present in household rooms. She was very factual and informative, giving every name, date, and event necessary. Ellen presented two important arguments. The first argument concerned the social injustice of the matter. She specifically pointed out how unfair and fatal Till’s consequence was for simply whistling at a woman. Nothing, especially an action as harmless as Till’s, is worthy of being tied with barbed wire to a cotton gin and thrown in a river. Ellen also noted the injustice of the trial itself. She said the jury was only in “debate” for one hour, to pretend they were having a fair trial, and found Bryant and Milam not guilty of kidnapping and murdering Till. Not only that, but preceding the trial, the town had placed cans around the streets for donations towards the defense, which meant that the jury would most likely be biased. Ellen gives the issue closure by saying that the two accused men later confessed in an article in Look magazine and that the case was reopened in 2004 in which Bryant and Milam were found guilty. The film did sound interesting, although it is clearly not for the lighthearted viewer. She preps any potential watcher of the graphicness by describing the Till’s dead body as being mutilated beyond recognition. After being tortured, Till was only identified by the ring his mother gave him. Ellen’s opinionated flaw of not revealing any forensic evidence was very insightful. Ellen also kept a positive note saying this did not distract from the film. Rather, the film focused on the emotions of those who were affected by the murder and the aftermath of the trial. Specifically, Ellen notes how strong Emmett’s mother was throughout the whole process; she insisted on seeing her son and having an open casket funeral. Ellen also made a valid point saying it is difficult to consider this film to have a bias since there was a clear and definite outcome of the case. Ellen commended the documentary saying it possessed creditable representations of actual events rather than just providing interviews. She stated that it used powerful clips and images such as a video of the trial and an interview with Emmett’s uncle conducted at the time of the trial. I think the most noteworthy concept that Ellen stated is the effect of this documentary. Ultimately, it reopened the case and brought the story of Emmett Louis Till back to the public’s mind to be forever remembered.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEllen explained the main theme of The Untold story of Emmett Lewis Till thoroughly and clearly. As I understood it, Untold Story is a documentary about the murder of Emmett Lewis Till, a 14-year-old African American boy who visited Mississippi from Chicago during the summer of 1955. After whistling at a white woman, Till was brutally mutilated and killed by Bryant, the white woman’s husband, and Milam. Untold Story includes recent interviews with friends and family, as well as footage taken of Till’s funeral and the trial of Till’s murderers. The film addresses the evils of racism and gives a viewer insight into the unjust effects of state-sponsored segregation.
ReplyDeleteEllen’s pacing was neither too fast nor too slow. Her speech was well organized, with good transitions, so I knew when she was moving on to a new topic and I never felt lost. Ellen had good lighting, and she did an excellent job setting up the scene with a striped curtain, and her volume was loud enough. Ellen seemed quite prepared—it was clear that she had practiced her video many times and had put genuine thought into what she had written about the video. In addition, her tone was conversational; it did not seem as though she was only sticking to a script.
Ellen seemed both informed and confident. She did not have any long pauses; she always seemed to know what she was going to say next. Her tone and posture were strong, which portrayed her confidence in this project. Ellen did not really connect the events of the film with what we learned in AP Government class; rather, she only focused on aspects of the film’s plot and presentation.
Ellen explained that Mamie Till, Emmett Lewis Till’s mother, insisted on an open casket at the funeral. Mrs. Till wanted the world to see what had happened to Emmett, so people could understand the evil that is allowed in Mississippi. The mutilated body at the funeral was shocking—Emmett’s ears and teeth were removed, and there was a bullet hole straight through the side of his head. Back in Mississippi, the townspeople collected money for the defense of the two murderers, Bryant and Milam. The local sentiment seemed to be that everyone knew the white men had murdered Emmett, but they wanted them to get off anyway. They were found not guilty.
The film definitely sounded interesting. I am interested in race relations relations, so a film about a lynching seems very depressing, but a worthwhile watch. According to Ellen, the the storyline was captivating, and it was an informative film that is useful to remind people to never forget the evils of racism and how important civil rights is. Ellen said one flaw was that the film did not focus on forensic evidence or other evidence for the murder trial, and rather focused on the emotional aspects of the lynching. Ellen said the only film focused on the point of view of Till and his allies, but she said the film was not biased because of all of the evidence that the two white men had committed the murder. Ellen stated that no one would walk away from the film feeling like the white men’s voices had not been heard.
After watching Ellen’s review, I might want to watch this documentary someday, but perhaps not very soon, because it seems quite depressing. The most interesting part of this documentary is that it made a difference: because of the documentary, the trial was reopened in 2004, and the two murderers were finally found guilty.