I. Josh Omoletski, Maximilian Probstel, and Lauren Velasquez (Section 3) II. Our objective is to showcase the differences in thinking between Filipinos and Filipino Americans, thereby providing an example of how the methodology of thinking varies between Eastern culture and Western culture. We wanted to show that this difference is due not only to the way of thinking within each culture, but also the difference in how information is distributed throughout each culture with what the media decides to report on and how it reports. This video is targeted towards all Americans as it is trying to prove that Western culture is attempting to "diagnose" President Duterte's drug problem for him when in reality, the culture of the Philippines is nothing like American culture and we should not attempt to solve other countries' problems for them unless they ask for it. III. This video is a work in progress as it falls over the 5-minute mark. IV. We would like specific feedback on what scenes should be deleted for the sake of time as well as if the message we are trying to state is clear enough in the video. Also, if we should add subtitles for the two interviews or not.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
3B Pre-Screening: Filipinos vs. Filipino Americans on President Duterte's Drug War
I. Josh Omoletski, Maximilian Probstel, and Lauren Velasquez (Section 3) II. Our objective is to showcase the differences in thinking between Filipinos and Filipino Americans, thereby providing an example of how the methodology of thinking varies between Eastern culture and Western culture. We wanted to show that this difference is due not only to the way of thinking within each culture, but also the difference in how information is distributed throughout each culture with what the media decides to report on and how it reports. This video is targeted towards all Americans as it is trying to prove that Western culture is attempting to "diagnose" President Duterte's drug problem for him when in reality, the culture of the Philippines is nothing like American culture and we should not attempt to solve other countries' problems for them unless they ask for it. III. This video is a work in progress as it falls over the 5-minute mark. IV. We would like specific feedback on what scenes should be deleted for the sake of time as well as if the message we are trying to state is clear enough in the video. Also, if we should add subtitles for the two interviews or not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Joanne Agus
ReplyDeleteGroup 1C
Great SAPSA draft! I think that the topic is really interesting and can be developed further to its fullest potential. Other strengths of this video includes the deep and raw footages, and the interview from an Asian American professor. I also think that the introduction really set the mood for the audience into seeing this video as an important issue that shouldn't be taken light heartedly. Furthermore, things that this group can improve on includes having a narrator to guide the viewers in a more organized way of how what is going on in the video. I also think that the student interview can be shortened, and its audio can also be enhanced, if not given a subtitle. In terms of the objectives, I see that this group tries to compare how the different media covers this issue, but I have a hard time seeing the difference between the two. Maybe adding a clip of the news covered in the US, and a perspective of non-American Filipino student would help the viewers compare and contrast the differences. This also goes on to the idea of possibly doing brief interviews with some the Filipino American students on how much do they know of this issue, and comparing on how this affects their lives. I think that by doing so, this video will have a bigger impact on the audience, which I'm assuming are other Filipino Americans too.
Anna Yang
ReplyDeleteGroup 2B
Some strengths is that they provided documentary scenes that included the president and his opinion on his impact with the drug war. You are able to see the different perspectives of his justification versus peoples’ opinion. I recommend that they include a warning for the graphic image they display. Also, I think it would be nice to transition better from the images of the fatalities caused by the president’s doing to perspectives from the Filipino-Americans by having a voiceover or something to briefly cover why interviewing Filipino-Americans about this issue matter. Another issue I found was one of the guy’s voices is altered a bit so it’s hard to hear. In terms of their objective, I think the message they are covering is something important to learn about. I like that they are raising awareness of the issue going on with a corrupt leader who uses tactics that are against human rights in the Philippines. After hearing about the gruesome and brutal attacks on drug raids that the president approves us surprised me. However, they wrote in the objective is to let westerners know about the different culture in the Philippines and how they handle it should stay their way. After watching the video, I believe the message was not super clear and be clarified better.
Rachel Wong
ReplyDeleteGroup 2B
The video had good footage and the raw footage was especially impactful. The usage of these videos and the interviews shows clearly the message of the video, which is the differences between Filipino and Filipino-American thinking. The stark footage of the gruesome body parts and the Filipino president were especially effective in conveying the message. It was also helpful having the footage when the interviewees referred to the Filipino president. However, the video could be improved by adding a narrator during the parts in between clips and maybe background music could be added if necessary. The background noise for the clip of the student interview was a little distracting and it was a little difficult to hear, so maybe subtitles would be helpful. Also the transitions from the new clips to the news clips were a little abrupt, and maybe should be transitioned easier better using video clips. The length of the video could be shortened by reducing the length of some of the interviews and cutting out the "um's" in the interviews. Also, I think the beginning of the video gives good and necessary background but I think music or a narrator could be added to make the intro more interesting.
Hoang Phuong Vy Nguyen
ReplyDeleteGroup 2B
There are strengths and weaknesses to this pre-screening. As for strengths: first of all, the chosen topic is very interesting. Personally, I have not seen many media coverage that discusses how Filipinos and Filipino Americans react to President Duterte's response to the drug problem in the Philippines. Therefore, I am eager and curious to learn more from this video. Second of all, I thought it was very clever of the group to interview both a student and a scholar who has knowledge in the area as this provides credibility to their video. Their editing overall was really good as well. I specifically enjoyed their introduction; it really set the mood for the rest of the video. The objective was a little difficult to grasp at first but as it is a work in progress, I strongly believe that the group is on the right track. As for weaknesses: the transition from the borrowed content to the first interview was a little abrupt. Perhaps, the group can ease the transition by adding transitional effects. This group can also cut back on time/ save time by: removing the credits at the end since this took up at least a full minute. Instead, this group can include the credits in the description box (a lot of Youtubers do this). They can also further synthesize the interviews and the borrowed content by removing the “um uh" so that they have at least 30-45 seconds left to conclude and re-state their intro/ objective. This way, in case the objective might have not been clear throughout the video, this will act as a safenet and help the audience understand the purpose of this video. Also, the first scene had too much writing and very little time for the audience to follow through. Perhaps, add more time, shorten the paragraph or do a voiceover would be better. Lastly, I thought interviews were clear and does not need subtitles but it is always better to have subtitles.