Evaluation of my presentation:
22/25
"I am the best. i deserve the best and that's why i gave myself the highest grade in the whole grading IB rubric," said the pompous Kim in an alternate timeline. Truth be told, I had a lot of experience from previous art of video commentaries and I was disheartened that I only did marginally better this year. There were major issues that i docked myself points for including:
1) being unprepared for the commentary. I had finished my outline and had a pretty strong understanding considering I spent a lot of times on the blog posts. I feel as if i didn't have the paper with me I'd do rather poorly but I had hoped that i wouldn't need to keep looking constantly at the paper. Sometime's I'd lose focus and stutter when transitioning from topic to topic
2) There were issues with my surroundings and me being completely distracted by these "digetic" noises. There were birds deciding to critique me halfway in the presentation. Also cars and people would pass and I'd do my best to suppress the noises with louder analysis. Plus I had Mr. Ryan Marquez presenting a couple feet and you would hear his voice in my oral. As well I would constantly be comparing myself to him which made me worry over the presentation and mess up.
3) My cover of the narrative in the oral. I had talked about every single area within the outline but 2 minutes into the end I recalled that i didn't actually cover the topic. I included little facts and tidbits about narrative but I didn't analyze the significance of the story in relevance to the general audience. Which really sucked because I felt like i really knew what to talk about.
Concluding my review I feel I had focused very much on all the influences and cinematography but struggled to relate it back to the historical signifigance. I feel I did rather well and with a little more time to practice I would've graded myself a bit more leniently.
3) My cover of the narrative in the oral. I had talked about every single area within the outline but 2 minutes into the end I recalled that i didn't actually cover the topic. I included little facts and tidbits about narrative but I didn't analyze the significance of the story in relevance to the general audience. Which really sucked because I felt like i really knew what to talk about.
Concluding my review I feel I had focused very much on all the influences and cinematography but struggled to relate it back to the historical signifigance. I feel I did rather well and with a little more time to practice I would've graded myself a bit more leniently.
Your commentary was really good. You had a lot of details about backgrounds of characters and what could be references to other works. It was very insightful about the history of the film and how the extract connected to the whole plot of the movie. You looked at a lot of the director's and members' decisions for the movie and how it really helped the film. It was a very detailed presentation and your voice was clear, fast and rarely stumbled. GOOD JOB.
ReplyDelete22/25
Don't be so hard on yourself! You did great! You provide an excellent background on Hitchcock and the time the film was made. You clearly identify the extract and focus on Hitchock's stylistic choices communicated in Marion Crane's characterization. Nice reference to the femme fatale theme. The audience is being tricked to think that the film will be entirely about her deception and in a way would have been predictable. Excellent description of Noir-esque design. Good film language used in the description of cinematography, editing, and sound design! I like your reference to the "beacon" of light that is the Bates motel. Nice description of the use of the Macguffin as well. Excellent finale that touches on the film's legacy.
ReplyDelete