September 2020

“Op-Doc Analysis–So Far”

bcbaski1

A few important things that I have learned about analysis in this unit are that it is more in depth than I believed. I have learned that when analyzing, one does not just describe the obvious details on the surface, but he or she must explain the director’s choices, why he chose them, what they mean, and put everything together. I have learned to ask myself about rhetorical appeals and focus on how those can completely change a film. I have also learned to not have a opinion but to look at the topic objectively.

I have learned that crying is actually good for one’s health and can actually boost one’s immune system. Japanese culture has been known for seeing not crying as a virtue and the op-doc that I chose talks about changing that. Crying is seen as a weakness in adults, but this op-doc shows a teacher who is trying to change that by getting people of all ages to cry in his tears lessons.

The only area that I would say that I am struggling in is probably critical thinking. Sometimes I ask myself the obvious questions instead of the deeper more important ones

“Calorie Detective Response”

bcbaski1

In Casey Neistat’s opinion documentary, he reveals some interesting finds about the amount of calories people are actually consuming. Although the New York City health code requires chain restaurants to display the amount of calories in each item on the menu, Neistat wonders if those numbers are genuine. He performs an experiment with certified food scientists to uncover the truth behind these numbers and wants to show his audience the true accuracy of the calories that he or she is consuming. He does this because there may be people who do not know how much they are actually eating or drinking, and this can be concerning for people who are trying to lose weight or become healthier. In this documentary, Neistat’s audience are the people who are counting calories for health reasons. We know this because he himself is doing this in the documentary and is going out of his way to show this audience the extra calories consumed that are equivalent to foods like the unhealthy Big Mac burger. He appeals to the audience in a variety of ways. He is logical. He does this by providing his audience with assurance by working alongside qualified food scientists who are experts at what they do. He is ethical. He does this by showing honest results throughout the documentary and showing himself buying the actual foods used in the experiments. Lastly, he also appeals to the audience’s emotion through humor and honesty. Light, fun music plays throughout the documentary, creative drawings that incorporate junk foods are used in the introduction, and his light-hearted personality brightens the mood of the film. Even fun blooper clips were spread throughout the documentary. If serious music was playing, and no creative effects were added, the film would have come off as more depressing and dark. This could have made his audience feel bad or insecure about what they were eating, but he took the opposite approach. Neistat’s opinion documentary was the complete opposite of Berends’ “Toys of War.” Whereas Neistat’s film was light-hearted and full of humor, Berends’ film consisted of an upsetting emotional appeal. He uses melancholy music which makes the film sad to watch. He wants his audience to understand the pain of the children and families in the Yida Refugee Camp and Nuba Mountains. There is no humor whatsoever in this film and for good reason. He wants his audience to sympathize with the refugees and feel their pain. He even films himself hiding under caves with the Nuba villagers as they are bombed by airplanes. Another difference is that he uses interviews in his film. These interviews show the children’s point of view and allow the audience to make a connection with them. Both documentaries are amazing and show great examples of logos, pathos, and ethos. Although very different, they both established their purpose.

“Project #1 Unit Reflection.”

bcbaski1

I feel that my writing skills have improved in a few ways. When I was writing, I noticed that I was using my critical thinking skills more thoroughly. I was not just writing, but I was asking myself questions about what I was writing and the reason behind why I was typing the things in my paper. I also feel that my ability to analyze opinions and facts improved.

A few areas of weakness in my writing did stick out to me. I realized I have some trouble forming a conclusion after feeling that I have written everything I know already. This also goes in hand with my next weakness which is that I would get major writer’s block and have no clue what to write half way into my paper. I sometimes felt a sense of repetition also.

The most stressful part of my paper was trying to string it all together. I put a lot of pressure on myself which tends to make me spend too much time on each paragraph. Once I spend too much time on a paragraph, I begin to overthink about everything I have written and doubt my ability to write well. To put it simply, I over thought about each and every little word which made it hard for me to put it all together as one cohesive paper. I attempted to overcome this by taking short breaks. I would get up and walk around or work on my other homework. I have no clue if I was successful. I honestly believe nothing will ever fix my habit of overthinking. It has always been my biggest weakness in life as well. COVID-19 and online school really heightens this weakness too.

I want to remember how to use my critical thinking skills well. I feel that these not only come in handy in writing but also life. I truly believe this skill allows me to really think about what I am writing and why I am writing it. This skill will help me write an objective, honest paper.