“The video essay is often described as a form of new media, but the basic principles are as old as rhetoric: the author makes an assertion, then presents evidence to back up his claim. Of course it was always possible for film critics to do this in print, and they’ve been doing it for over 100 years, following more or less the same template that one would use while writing about any art form: state your thesis or opinion, then back it with examples. In college, I was assured that in its heart, all written criticism was essentially the same – that in terms of rhetorical construction, book reviews, music reviews, dance reviews and film reviews were cut from the same cloth, but tailored to suit the specific properties of the medium being described, with greater emphasis given to form or content depending on the author’s goals and the reader’s presumed interest.”
“Of all the many developments in the short history of film criticism and scholarship, the video essay has the greatest potential to challenge the now historically located text-based dominance of the appraisal and interpretation of film and its contextual cultures…”
“Importantly, the [new] media stylo does not replace traditional scholarship. This is a new practice beyond traditional scholarship. So how does critical media differ from traditional scholarship and what advantages does it offer? First, as you will see with the works in this issue, critical media demonstrates a shift in rhetorical mode. The traditional essay is argumentative-thesis, evidence, conclusion. Traditional scholarship aspires to exhaustion, to be the definitive, end-all-be-all, last word on a particular subject. The media stylo, by contrast, suggests possibilities-it is not the end of scholarly inquiry; it is the beginning. It explores and experiments and is designed just as much to inspire as to convince…”
Matt Zoller Seitz (various venues) A writer and director by trade, Zoller Seitz is nonetheless probably best known as a prominent American cultural critic. He’s made over 1000 hours of video essays and is generally recognized as a founder of the video essay movement in high-brow periodicals. A recognized expert on Wes Anderson, Zoller Seitz is also notable because he often mixes other cinematic media (especially television) into his analysis, as in the above example, which doubles as an experiment in the absence of voiceover.
Various contributors, Press Play Co-founded by Matt Zoller Seitz and Ken Cancelosi, Press Play (published by Indiewire)is one of the oldest high-brow venues for video essays about television, cinema, and other aspects of popular culture.
Various contributors, Keyframe(A Fandor online publication)
Fandor’s video essay department publishes work from many editors (what many video essayists call themselves) on and in a range of topics and styles. Check it out to get an idea of all that things a video essay can do!
Various contributors, Moving Image Source A high-brow publication for video essays.
Tony Zhou, Every Frame a Painting The master of video essays on filmic form, Tony’s arguments are clean, simple, and well-evidenced. Look to Tony as an example of aggressive and precise editing and arrangement. He’s also an excellent sound editor–pay attention to his choices and try out some of his sound-mixing techniques in your essay.
Adam Johnston, Your Movie Sucks (YMS) Although an excellent example of epideictic film rhetoric, this channel is a great example of what not to do in this assignment (write a movie review, gush about how good/bad you think a movie is, focus on motifs or narrative content instead of film form as the center of your argument). What you can learn from Adam is a lot about style. Adam’s delivery, pacing, and editing all work together to promote a mildly-disinterested-and-therefore-credible ethos through a near-monotone, which I’ll affectionately dub the “Daria” narratorial ethos.
Adam Westbrook, delve.tv Adam Westbrook is part of an emerging group of professional video essayists and delve.tv is his version of a visual podcast. Using the video essay form, Adam has developed a professional public intellectual ethos for himself through skillful overlay of explanation/interpretation and concept. Check out Westbrook’s work as a really good example of presenting and representing visual concepts crucial to an argument. He’s a master at making an argument in the form of storytelling, and he uses the video essay as a vehicle for that enterprise.
:: kogonada (various venues) If you found yourself wondering what the auteur video essay might look like, :: kogonada is it. I like to call this “expressionist” video essay style. Kogonada is the ultimate minimalist when it comes to voiceover/text over–its message impossibly and almost excessively efficient. Half of the videos in his library are simple, expertly-executed supercuts, highlighting how heavily video essays rely on the “supercut” technique to make an argument. Crafting an essay in this style really limits your audience and may not be a very good fit for the constraints of assignment (very “cutting edge,” as we talked about it in class), but you will probably draw inspiration from ::kogonada’s distinct, recognizable style, as well as an idea of what a video essay can do at the outer limits of its form.
Lewis Bond, Channel Criswell Narrating in brogue-y Northern English, Bond takes his time, releasing a very carefully-edited, high-production video essay once every couple of months. He’s a decent editor, but I feel his essays tend to run long, and I feel rushed by his narration at times. Bond also makes a useful distinction between video essays and analysis/reviews on his channel–and while most of his analysis/reviews focus on film content (what you don’t want to imitate), his video essays stay pretty focused on film technique (what you do). Hearing the same author consciously engage in two different modes of analysis might help you better understand the distinction between the two, as well.
Jack Nugent, Now You See It Nugent’s brisk, formal analysis is both insightful and accessible–a good example of what it takes to secure a significant following in the highly-competitive Youtube marketplace. [That’s my way of slyly calling him commercial.] Nugent is especially good at pairing his narration with his images. Concentrate and reflect upon his simple pairings as you watch–how does Nugent help you process both sets of information at the pacing he sets?
Evan Puschak, The Nerdwriter
Nerdwriter is a great example the diversity of topics a video essay can be used to craft an argument about. Every week, Puschak publishes an episode on science, art, and culture. Look at all the different things Puschak considers visual rhetoric and think about how he’s using the video essay form to make honed, precisely-executed arguments about popular culture.
Dennis Hartwig and John P. Hess, FilmmakerIQ Hartwig and Hess use video essays to explain filmmaking technique to aspiring filmmakers. I’ve included the channel here as another example of what not to do in your argument, although perhaps some of the technical explanations that Hartwig and Hess have produced might help you as secondary sources. Your target audience (someone familiar on basic film theory trying to better understand film form) is likely to find the highly technical, prescriptive arguments on FilmIQ boring or alienating. Don’t focus on technical production in your essay (how the film accomplishes a particular visual technique using a camera); rather, focus on how the audience interprets the end result in the film itself; in other words, focus on choices the audience can notice and interpret–how is the audience interpreting the product of production? How often is the audience thinking about/noticing production in that process?
Kevin B. Lee (various venues) A good example of the older, high-brow generation of video essayists, Kevin’s collection of work hosted on his Vimeo channel offers slow, deliberate, lecture-inspired readings of film techniques and form. Note the distinct stylistic difference between Kevin’s pacing and someone like Zhou or Lewis. How does delivery affect reception?
Use your free UTBox account to upload and manage your files. Make sure you’ve got some sort of system for tracking and assembling everything into your video editing software. UTBox has a 2 terabyte limit (much higher than Google Drive) and is an excellent file management resource for all sorts of academic work.
Adobe Premiere saves versions with links to your video files, so it’s imperative that you keep your video files folder in the same place on every machine you open it up on. That’s why I keep all my video files in a big folder on box that I drop on the desktop of any machine I’m working on before I open my premiere files. The Adobe Premiere project walkthrough has more details on this.
Where to find video and how to capture it
About fair use. Make sure your composition complies with the Fair Use doctrine and familiarize yourself with the four criteria.
The best place to capture images is always from a high-resolution DVD or video file. The first place you should go to get the film is the library– see instructions for searching here.
To import the video and audio from your DVD or video file into your video editing software (like Premiere), you will first need to use a software to convert it to an .mkv. See instructions on how to do that here.
Camtasia tutorials. Camtasia is a program that allows you to capture anything that’s going on on your screen. This is a critical tool for this assignment as you decide what kind of interface you want to present to your reader in your video essay. Camtasia also allows you to capture any high-quality video playing on your desktop without licensing restrictions.
You can also use Clip Converter to capture images and sound from pre-existing YouTube videos, and it may be a little faster and easier than Camtasia. I suggest converting things into .mkv before putting them into your video editor, regardless of where you get the material from.
1. How does a moving camera bring about ethical questions between artist, subject, and observer?
2. Why is only image and noise necessary to conceive a film and not print, speech, or music?
3. What are the different types of codes used in films, and how do they interplay in order to create a deeper understanding of a scene?
4. Why are the “limitations that the frame imposes” and the “composition of the image within the frame” so important in the perception of scenes?
5. In your opinion, determine three codes that are the most important to static film frames from (aspect ratio, open/closed forms, frame/geographic/depth planes, depth perception, proximity and proportion, intrinsic properties of color, form, line etc….)
I personally believe that the language of film is both universal in some aspects but also culturally contingent in others. For example, there are established rules and norms in the language of film that everyone understands. Everyone, regardless of culture, understands that a film montage represents the quick passage of time. It’s also understood that in a reverse shot reverse sequence the two subjects that are in frame are looking at each other without having to show the both of them in the same frame. There are various film techniques that have been established that create the language of film and it allows for a universal viewing and understanding. However, when it comes to what the language of film represents and the interpretation of film it becomes more culturally contingent. Just how we discussed in class
film draws more on the signifier rather than the signified. The signifier varies greatly from culture to culture depending on the sign. For example, in America the female body is heavily sexualized and so when a nude female body is portrayed/signified in films the audience arrives at a sexual connotation. In Europe however the female body is seen more in an artistic fashion and there’s not such a heavy emphasis on sexuality, so European audiences tend to not be so fazed by the portrayal of nude females in film. This differentiation in signifier connotations across cultures is what causes many films to become censored in an attempt to better please the respective cultural norms. Culture affects the reading of film and images because all cultures have various and differing meanings for film, icons, and images. The signifier changes from culture to culture.
I do not agree with Monaco, I believe that film in itself is a language. In its basic form film is used to communicate. Film expresses meaning, it expresses ideas and thoughts. Whether it’s a simple fictional tale or a hard pressing documentary, film has meaning and it communicates messages, just like writing. Perhaps during the early days of film could it have been argued as not being a language, but film is much more advanced and complicated now that in its own respective way it is definitely a language. Maybe it is not a language when approached in the ways of conventional rhetorical analysis but film differs immensely from what has come before it. Images have meaning and they’re considered a language, film is simply a collection of fast moving images, therefore film should also be considered a language.
Just like the reading said, film is easy to understand, and that is precisely why it’s so difficult to explain. When we watch a film we know exactly what we’re seeing on screen. To some degree it’s very literal what we see. The reason why film is hard to explain isn’t because were explaining what we see, were attempting to explain what we feel, how we feel, and why exactly film makes us feel the emotions we feel. That’s always been the hardest part to explain about film. It invokes emotion that is extremely difficult to pinpoint and explain.
A filmmaker’s choice affects our connotative abilities because filmmakers choose what they want us to see and they guide our eyes. They present everything right in front of us and they leave it to us to interpret what they’re presenting. Filmmaker’s have more control over the signified and they leave the rest up to audience for interpretation.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is possibly the best study of the constructed ethos in opposition to the situated ethos that exists in the public political realm. Due to a significant political career spanning decades, the public figure of HRC can function as an artifact of visual rhetoric, and is interesting in that she is a study of the political Other that exists within the establishment. Recently, during her run for the presidency and before as the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has taken a more hands-on approach to her public image and has used her administrative sway, the inertia of her career, and her relationship to the media to empower her invented ethos as a powerful political figure.
The idea of the Other as a psychoanalytic and critical concept is directly applicable to Hillary’s situated ethos: up until perhaps the past decade, much of her political existence has been defined in relation to other individuals. Unless my understanding of the concept is flawed, which it may very well be, given feminist critical theory the Other’s existence is defined by the Subject. In the case of Bill Clinton as the President of the United States, he was the Subject and HRC the Other. Granted, HRC exercised her agency as the First Lady in order to attempt healthcare reform, but as the Parry-Giles essay notes, “the White House associated the First Lady more with children’s issues,” which is an example of an institution directing the figure of the non-Subject to what it feels is best: in this case, the “good mother” (377). She was looked up to in relation to “images of feminism, power, and fear” at the time, and yet she was not in complete control of her own image. This rose to a boiling point during the Lewinsky scandal, as her reaction to her husband’s infidelity was watched closely, and she became the figure of the “supportive wife” (378). Again, HRC is not the focus of the media, and her presence is defined by her husband’s actions and the actions of the institution he represents.
Ever since the conclusion of Bill’s presidency, HRC seized her agency and commanded her image far more and has moved from the figure of the Other into the Subject. As a Senator, Secretary of State, and presidential candidate, she has more often appeared visually divorced from her husband in media, usually with a stellar smile on her face (this depends on the network/site of course). While she is still a controversial person in power, as evidenced by the Whitewater, Benghazi, and her most recent email scandals, she nevertheless maintains a level of security in her image, which is proven by her popularity as a Democratic presidential candidate. Without having a popular public image, she wouldn’t have a chance.
HRC remains the example of visual rhetoric that we have studied to possess the most depth. Considering that the majority (last I checked) of the students in the class have chosen to write on her for their discussion posts, I feel that her figure is an excellent springboard into further discussion of rhetoric, primarily with regard to the study of ethos.
Depiction is a canon of visual rhetoric that is widely manipulated by the media. In the Giles excerpt of Mediating Hillary Rodham Clinton, Giles explains how the media uses images and clips to persuade the audience to perceive HRC in a certain way depending on what they are trying to achieve and the argument they are trying to make. In the article, Giles gives examples of HRC being depicted in a negative light by news organizations such as MSNBC and CNN. Examples include the CNN image of HRC at the Whitewater investigation and shows HRC laughing as if she isn’t taking the investigation seriously, even though the Whitewater investigation hearing was closed to the public. Visual recontextualization of images and clips are commonly used in political ad campaigns to inaccurately depict an opposing candidate. Another example would be the use of sequencing to show angry protesters picketing against Hillary, yet those protesters could have been filmed anywhere and at another time. HRC is one among almost all of the highly covered politicians and celebrity figures being manipulated by the media. It can even be inferred that this commonality is more of an issue among women. The media uses stereotypes and micro aggression to hone in on female popular figures waiting for them to make a “wrong move” and hype an event that wouldn’t be as popular if a man was the subject involved.
This leads to the problems with modern journalism where Giles covers contextualization and agenda setting in the media. When objective journalism is bypassed by a more favorable narrowcasting type of journalism that is one sided and looking to persuade a set audience ethical problems may arise. When journalists are agenda setting and they lose transparency and therefore credibility. To fulfill a one angled story, using images that may not be in the right context to depict a subject in a certain manner whether that be positive or negative can be considered unethical due the removal of objectivity and an unbiased viewpoint. Visual rhetoric plays a large role to support the media’s predetermined outlook and agenda when an organisation is covering an event or figure. To clarify, examples of narrowcasting or one sided journalism would be shows like the O’Reilly factor or the Rachel Maddow show that caters to a specific political audience. These shows use an arrange of visual manipulations to satisfy their consumers. Manipulations include image sequencing, camera angels, misinterpretation, and taking images, films, and audio snippets out of context.
The main problem with visual manipulation is the chance at a false public representation of a figure like HRC. In reality, politicians don’t have as much control over their public identity as we credit them to. They are mostly in the hands of the major news organizations with the largest amount of viewers. It’s important to realize this and give more attention to news organizations that are being the most objective as possible by staying within an ethical bounds. Knowing the association between the canons of visual rhetoric and how the media manipulates them is key to recognizing the bias in today’s media outlets.
For decades now, Hilary Rodham Clinton has received extensive media attention for a number of different reasons. This media coverage has shifted from what was once rooted in admiration and support to what is now rooted in intimidation and distrust. Aside from the media coverage she attracted after Bill’s impeachment from office, I would argue that Hilary has been largely responsible for putting herself under the looking glass of the media in the political sphere. Hilary has always had her own political agenda that she has stood by and over time it has accumulated more and more attention from the general public. Though she withdrew from the race in 2008, media sources continued to keep an eye on her from a distance. Now, eight years later, coverage of Hilary Clinton is something one cannot avoid when flipping through news stations. With the 2016 Presidential elections creeping near, Hilary’s media image in the eyes of the public is in a very critical and shaky state that requires specialized attention on behalf of Team Hilary.
Media sources tend to hone in on individuals that play an integral part in society. Because Hilary is a well-known politician, she automatically attracts more media attention than other average celebrities or public figures. This includes positive and negative attention. Because of the controversiality of Hilary and her character, I believe that the media feeds the fire a lot of the time. This includes using photographs of Hilary that appear more harsh or stern and taking them out of the context in which they were taken and then placing them in the context that they need to make an argument. This isn’t to say that the media is necessarily being purposefully dishonest with the public but it is definitely misrepresentative of Hilary’s image at times.Without even intentionally meaning to, different media sources impose their own biases onto the issues or people they are covering, resulting in a somewhat skewed take on the actual truth of the matter. Now, one could claim that this is simply unfair. The media is supposed to provide us with a constant, credible source of unbiased information that we can use to create and solidify our opinions on certain things, right? Wrong. The media would cease to be the media without a steady viewer-base and consistent, positive ratings. If these two things fail or lose their strength, the media source will burn out and sink. Because of this, the media tends to perpetually stir the pot. This keeps things interesting and controversial and helps to attract and keep a solid viewer base informed and entertained.
In all, I don’t believe that Hilary has ultimate control over her public image. The media will inevitably warp her demeanor to fit the story that they need it to fit, just as they do with every well-known face in the public sphere. I think that the best way Hilary could go about managing her public image to the best of her ability is by remaining open and honest with the public. She is under great scrutiny now and it will only intensify as the election nears. What the public wants to see is someone they feel as though they can trust and depend on. Lately, Hilary’s public image that is generated by the media has been challenging that. She and her PR team need to make conscious efforts to publicly present her in the best, most genuine way they see fit in order to keep Hilary from destroying Hilary.
Hillary Clinton does not have control over her public image, only the image she shares with those close enough to truly know her. Clinton’s public image is exactly that, public, and once in the hands of the public and those hired to engineer it positively or negatively, her image will never be entirely her own. Even something as simple as her name is manipulated. In the nineties, Hillary was known as Hillary Rodham Clinton, these days as a president candidate Clinton known as just Hillary Clinton. However, Shawn J. Parry-Giles, the author of the article, Meditating Hillary Rodham Clinton, identifies her even as HRC due to this ambiguity. He recognizes that the reason the public has such a strong opinion on her public image is because of “‘her refusal to be silenced’” (Parry-Giles 375). Hillary’s vocal attitude keeps her thoughts current in the public eye, although this can be problematic for her. Clinton, like any person, changes her beliefs and opinions as she absorbs new information and grows as a professional, however, whilst this was naturally happening Clinton has been in the public eye. The complication with this, is that by changing her ideals, the public assumes she is a different person along with these ideals or even a person who is unstable in their point of view. This can reflect poorly on her public image. However since, Hillary Clinton is now a presidential candidate once again, she has a task force team of professionals who are meant to curate her image in a positive light. Now, it may seem that this is a reflection of Hillary’s real beliefs and personality, but more likely, the image that her associates display of her is the one that will gain her the most votes. This push and pull of perspectives on who Hillary Clinton really is can be conflicting. One day the public sees her as a traditional wife who believes marriage is only sacred between a man and woman, the next she is the victim of a cheating scandal caused by her husband, and then the next day she appears to be an independent working mother who supports gay marriage and is running for president. Even further, Hillary Clinton’s image depends on who is absorbing it. For example, a feminist may view Hillary Clinton as a great role model when she runs for president, while a patriarchal person may view this as out of line or improper for a “lady.” Despite these very contrasting identities, the reality is Hillary Clinton is a human who has had many perspectives and even identities overtime. Yet, society likes to place icons, like Hillary Clinton, in boxes, or typecasts, in order to understand their unique significance. So even though Clinton is a complex human like the rest of us, due to her status, she will always struggle to have control of the image placed upon her. Her image may not be her own, but this may allow her a amount of privacy and security in herself, because she does not have her true vulnerable self in the public eye but rather an image constructed by multiple unique sources.
