Film

Comments

Some immediately obvious distinctions:
- Part One is broken up and relatively choppy, jumping from subject to subject. Just when I get interested in something, it changes. Part Two is much more fluid and coherent, so that by the end I've been interested in the same thing for 4+ minutes.
- The conversation between Ashley and Lauryn is far more appealing and entertaining (especially in a modern reality TV, documentary way) than watching Reggie B. tell Lauryn things, interesting as they are, or listening to Lauryn describe what some dude at the Racial Reconciliation Conference told her. I feel like I'm there on the street or in the car with Ashley and Lauryn, not so much with anything in Part One.
- The pictures/video are better in Part Two, and they depict places that many people have heard of but likely never will go, so people who like the video probably are more inclined to recommend it to their friends.
- The music in Part Two helps too.

Overall the difference in number of views must be tied to how much viewers recommend it, because the "cover image" on Part Two isn't inherently attractive. But once people watch it's good stuff. I say more conversations in MTC videos, fewer deer-in-the-headlights interviews. The conversations are more revealing and more interesting. In fact, I think you could take any two MTC participants, past or present, put them at a picnic table, turn the camera on, and eventually you'd wind up with a lot of cool footage having something to do with teaching in Mississippi.
Good points. Thank you sir.

As to why so many interviews are of the "talking head" variety, it comes down to editing (and time). Ashley and Lauryn's conversation was interesting, but it's also edited down from about two hours to less than two minutes. Interviews can be edited much quicker, say 20 minutes to four...

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in