Pre-video Assignment, Lubbehusen

Jake Lubbehusen

November 1, 2017

JOUR203

Professor Jacobsen

Pre-Video Assignment

Good Example

This masterful video by Colin Archdeacon of the New York Times takes an in-depth look at the darker side of the maple syrup industry in Quebec. The video features extremely informative interviews and provides the viewer with an abundance of important information surrounding the topic. Close up camera shots of the syrup-making in action are so detailed that you can almost taste the fresh and sweet maple syrup. These mouth-watering shots of the bubbling syrup made my mouth water. One of my favorite shots is of a syrup farmer riding his four wheeler through the woods. The camera is strategically placed in front and behind the farmers’ head to make it seem as if the viewers are on the four wheeler riding through the woods themselves. Facts scattered in-between interviews add important context and allow the audience to gain a better sense of the controversy surrounding the maple syrup industry. The closing shot is a beautiful close-up of one of the maple syrup farmers walking through the wet grass. The picture and sound quality are so high in this shot that water droplets can be seen and the farmers’ boots crunching the grass can be heard vividly.

Bad Example

This video was presumably made by students at the University of Missouri and focused on those paying out-of-state tuition to attend the university. The project was plain, poor quality and jumped around to different topics too often. It periodically featured a black screen with different questions and information, followed by responses from University of Missouri students. Not only were the camera angles uninspiring, but the quality of the video and sound were very low. In my opinion, the extremely repetitive soundtrack takes away from the content and because the content itself is weak, the project fails to accomplish what it has set out to do. Featuring the interviewees back to back makes it difficult to remember the details in what each person says. When the person comes back to answer a follow-up question, the viewer cannot remember that person’s stance on an issue. After the students are asked if they know where their tuition goes, a very brief shot of one interviewee looking puzzled is featured. The problem with this is that the shot is so brief that the viewer does not have time to comprehend the student’s response. This video is a perfect illustration of the type of project one should avoid and is an example of a very low quality video.