The main theme was explained clearly but she did not go really in depth as to what the devastation was to the city. I understood the main theme to be that Hurricane Katrina caused major destruction to the city of New Orleans and that the government response to the crisis was slow considering the damage and how many lives were being affected by the hurricane. The catastrophic damage and the aftermath also seemed to be prominent in the documentary. The pacing was easy to follow and I could digest all of the information being given. The volume was also satisfactory. She did seem prepared and at times it looked like she was peeking at some notes but mostly giving a summary and analysis from what she learned from the documentary. She did seem informed it did not look like she was reading from a script only quickly glancing at her notes when she needed them. For the most part it seemed to me like she was recalling all of the facts and topics discussed in the documentary by memory which was impressive. She also seemed very confident and knowledgeable. Only occasionally did she trip over her words or repeat things but did it take away from her point while she was speaking. Mainly she sounded to me to be very eloquent and well versed in her knowledge of the documentary. Eleanor mentioned at more than one point in her review that the government response to this crisis was not as responsive as it needed to be with such a grave matter like this. She said that the government was in Sri Lanka very quickly after the tsunami. And that other countries came to aid New Orleans with more speed than the national government. Furthermore, she discussed that there was a lot of debate over whether this was a federal or state government issue and how that played a role in governments response “or lack thereof” with Katrina. A particularly disturbing point Eleanor makes is that FEMA two years prior had tested what would happen to the city if a category five hurricane struck the city. Hurricane Katrina was a category five and FEMA saw what damage could have been done with the simulation they created. However, when the real hurricane actually did arrive the director of FEMA said they had no idea that this kind of destruction was possible. Like Eleanor I agree that it does not seem logical that the director could have no idea what kind of damage could have been done with the test they ran. She also states that the structural city and the levees played a major part in how extensive the damage was. While the damage would have been bad regardless of the layout of the city and the poorly constructed levees it could have been less if these things were changed to be more efficient. The film did sound intriguing and informative. The weaknesses that were portrayed by Eleanor was the bias in the fact that many news stations were mainly showing the poor black city that was heavily damaged even though there was a poor white city that was similarly damaged. Another weakness and source of bias came from the fact that the director was very critical of the government’s response time to the crisis even though they did not react very quickly. Eleanor also points out that there was little background information which left for some confusion. Strengths that the documentary seemed to have were the amount that was learned and how it pointed out that our government was unreasonably slow in this matter even if there was some bias behind it. I never knew about the test that FEMA ran and how the levees and barges were such a big factor in the flooding of the city. Also I picked up that the flooding and winds were a huge factor in the damage. The foundation of city also seemed to play a leading role in the destruction of the city. Venezulea and Canada came to our aid which was something that I had not known. There was not anything particularly stylish about the presentation but it was noteworthy to me that most of what she was saying was not scripted or overly rehearsed.
The main theme of the documentary was explained clearly, but Eleanor could have gone into the devastation of the city a little bit more thoroughly. She explained that New Orleans was devastated by the class 5 hurricane Katrina, and that the government’s response to the disaster was less than ideal, taking a long time, especially considering the destruction and how many human lives were in danger. However, Eleanor did not go into any details beyond those two points in regard to the main theme. The pacing of the review was perfect. I could understand everything she was saying, and her tone made it easy for me to follow her. I thought her tone was also very conversational, making it easy to listen to her. She seemed very prepared. She had clearly thought out what she was going to say beforehand, and I only saw her glance at notes a couple of times, but it in no way seemed as though she were reading from a script. Her volume was also great. She seemed very confident in her review and very well versed in the material. One of Eleanor’s main points was that the government response to the crisis was very slow. She mentioned that other governments and relief services were in New Orleans much faster than the United States government. For example, Eleanor said that the Canadian mounted police were in New Orleans days after the hurricane struck, and that the government of Venezuela provided a lot of aid to the city of New Orleans following the hurricane. She also cited the absence of the United States navy, especially considering the fact that New Orleans is a port city, to be very strange. Another of Eleanor’s points was that the government agencies were not able to work together effectively. The mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana were of different political parties but were hesitant to work together following the disaster because they were afraid that it would look strange to accept help from someone of a different political party, which Eleanor pointed out, and I agree, is ridiculous. She also pointed out conflict between the state and federal governments concerning “jurisdiction” and who was allowed or supposed to provide aid and relief for certain aspects of the city’s recovery. I think that I definitely would like to see this documentary. I remember when hurricane Katrina hit, and I remember it being all that was on the news for weeks, just like 9/11. So I think it would be really interesting to see this documentary and learn a little bit more about such a big part of our country’s history. Eleanor cited one of the film’s greatest weaknesses as being its lack of background information. She said that the film jumped right into showing footage of the hurricane after very little background information about how exactly the city flooded and what could have been done to prevent that. She also stated that in the media’s portrayal of the hurricane, much attention was given to only one neighborhood, a mainly poor, black one, even though it was not the only neighborhood that was badly affected. One piece of information that Eleanor presented was that 80 percent of New Orleans was under water as a result of hurricane Katrina. This shocked me. I had no idea that it was that much of the city. The fact that Canada and Venezuela came to New Orleans’ aid was also an interesting fact that I did not know. The most impressive part of the review to me was the fact that she seemed to know what she was saying, and did not have a need for a script, but did not seem overly rehearsed or like she was “performing”. However, one thing that was a bit distracting was the camera. This is certainly not a criticism of Eleanor, as if that was the only camera she had to use or the only camera that worked, then she had to use it. But the audio and video were not synced, which was a bit distracting at times.
The main theme was explained clearly but she did not go really in depth as to what the devastation was to the city. I understood the main theme to be that Hurricane Katrina caused major destruction to the city of New Orleans and that the government response to the crisis was slow considering the damage and how many lives were being affected by the hurricane. The catastrophic damage and the aftermath also seemed to be prominent in the documentary. The pacing was easy to follow and I could digest all of the information being given. The volume was also satisfactory. She did seem prepared and at times it looked like she was peeking at some notes but mostly giving a summary and analysis from what she learned from the documentary. She did seem informed it did not look like she was reading from a script only quickly glancing at her notes when she needed them. For the most part it seemed to me like she was recalling all of the facts and topics discussed in the documentary by memory which was impressive. She also seemed very confident and knowledgeable. Only occasionally did she trip over her words or repeat things but did it take away from her point while she was speaking. Mainly she sounded to me to be very eloquent and well versed in her knowledge of the documentary. Eleanor mentioned at more than one point in her review that the government response to this crisis was not as responsive as it needed to be with such a grave matter like this. She said that the government was in Sri Lanka very quickly after the tsunami. And that other countries came to aid New Orleans with more speed than the national government. Furthermore, she discussed that there was a lot of debate over whether this was a federal or state government issue and how that played a role in governments response “or lack thereof” with Katrina. A particularly disturbing point Eleanor makes is that FEMA two years prior had tested what would happen to the city if a category five hurricane struck the city. Hurricane Katrina was a category five and FEMA saw what damage could have been done with the simulation they created. However, when the real hurricane actually did arrive the director of FEMA said they had no idea that this kind of destruction was possible. Like Eleanor I agree that it does not seem logical that the director could have no idea what kind of damage could have been done with the test they ran. She also states that the structural city and the levees played a major part in how extensive the damage was. While the damage would have been bad regardless of the layout of the city and the poorly constructed levees it could have been less if these things were changed to be more efficient. The film did sound intriguing and informative. The weaknesses that were portrayed by Eleanor was the bias in the fact that many news stations were mainly showing the poor black city that was heavily damaged even though there was a poor white city that was similarly damaged. Another weakness and source of bias came from the fact that the director was very critical of the government’s response time to the crisis even though they did not react very quickly. Eleanor also points out that there was little background information which left for some confusion. Strengths that the documentary seemed to have were the amount that was learned and how it pointed out that our government was unreasonably slow in this matter even if there was some bias behind it. I never knew about the test that FEMA ran and how the levees and barges were such a big factor in the flooding of the city. Also I picked up that the flooding and winds were a huge factor in the damage. The foundation of city also seemed to play a leading role in the destruction of the city. Venezulea and Canada came to our aid which was something that I had not known. There was not anything particularly stylish about the presentation but it was noteworthy to me that most of what she was saying was not scripted or overly rehearsed.
ReplyDeleteThe main theme of the documentary was explained clearly, but Eleanor could have gone into the devastation of the city a little bit more thoroughly. She explained that New Orleans was devastated by the class 5 hurricane Katrina, and that the government’s response to the disaster was less than ideal, taking a long time, especially considering the destruction and how many human lives were in danger. However, Eleanor did not go into any details beyond those two points in regard to the main theme.
ReplyDeleteThe pacing of the review was perfect. I could understand everything she was saying, and her tone made it easy for me to follow her. I thought her tone was also very conversational, making it easy to listen to her. She seemed very prepared. She had clearly thought out what she was going to say beforehand, and I only saw her glance at notes a couple of times, but it in no way seemed as though she were reading from a script. Her volume was also great. She seemed very confident in her review and very well versed in the material.
One of Eleanor’s main points was that the government response to the crisis was very slow. She mentioned that other governments and relief services were in New Orleans much faster than the United States government. For example, Eleanor said that the Canadian mounted police were in New Orleans days after the hurricane struck, and that the government of Venezuela provided a lot of aid to the city of New Orleans following the hurricane. She also cited the absence of the United States navy, especially considering the fact that New Orleans is a port city, to be very strange. Another of Eleanor’s points was that the government agencies were not able to work together effectively. The mayor of New Orleans and the governor of Louisiana were of different political parties but were hesitant to work together following the disaster because they were afraid that it would look strange to accept help from someone of a different political party, which Eleanor pointed out, and I agree, is ridiculous. She also pointed out conflict between the state and federal governments concerning “jurisdiction” and who was allowed or supposed to provide aid and relief for certain aspects of the city’s recovery.
I think that I definitely would like to see this documentary. I remember when hurricane Katrina hit, and I remember it being all that was on the news for weeks, just like 9/11. So I think it would be really interesting to see this documentary and learn a little bit more about such a big part of our country’s history. Eleanor cited one of the film’s greatest weaknesses as being its lack of background information. She said that the film jumped right into showing footage of the hurricane after very little background information about how exactly the city flooded and what could have been done to prevent that. She also stated that in the media’s portrayal of the hurricane, much attention was given to only one neighborhood, a mainly poor, black one, even though it was not the only neighborhood that was badly affected.
One piece of information that Eleanor presented was that 80 percent of New Orleans was under water as a result of hurricane Katrina. This shocked me. I had no idea that it was that much of the city. The fact that Canada and Venezuela came to New Orleans’ aid was also an interesting fact that I did not know. The most impressive part of the review to me was the fact that she seemed to know what she was saying, and did not have a need for a script, but did not seem overly rehearsed or like she was “performing”. However, one thing that was a bit distracting was the camera. This is certainly not a criticism of Eleanor, as if that was the only camera she had to use or the only camera that worked, then she had to use it. But the audio and video were not synced, which was a bit distracting at times.