A)
The corruption behind the businesses within the government.
The trailer starts out by flashing tons of common house hold name business brands across the screen, and the people when speaking refer to defective/sneaky CEO’s as ‘bad apples’.
The opening sequence of the trailer is important because it establishes that we are talking about the entire business section. The scenes where the talk and elude to ‘bad apples’ highlights the over all story. The machine at the end refers to the dehumanizing aspect of the modern work force to the eyes of a CEO, as the works are just part of some system.
B)
I watched a documentary about the up bringing of the 3 major brands in 3D printing technology. It contained 3 major sections, where the started, issues they ran into, then their successes.
The first section really displayed how companies start out, a common goal between a group of people getting funding from their own wallets, or though start ups. The second displayed challenges when it came to laws, regulations, and manufacturing issues. The last chunk was just about the current state of the companies and the face whom were or are still behind them.
The documentary was more narrative as it showed the up bringing of the companies.
The imagery was definitely shown in a proper manor, it followed a story that needed to be told, and the people whom were interviewed even provided context for the film.
C)
The lighting throughout the documentary was very saturated on the positive sides and darker on the more negative aspects. When talking about the dictator ship of the boss, its easy to see why the screen had a lot more black and a few tints of red.
The editing was very constructive. Most scenes over 10 seconds were either interviews or a video/event that was necessary to explain for context.
The documentary was a pretty straight forward documentary that the directors wanted to show.
D)
The documentary really displayed as many perspectives as it could as it jumped from company to company, employee to CEO, to friends and family, it really wanted to show what each side had to say.
I would use the term prosecutor but more toward informative terms. The director was showing the true colors of everyone involved. They tended to throw more shade at the negatives than they highlights the positives, but to be fair there were more negatives over all, for both sides.
I believe that the methods that were displayed were proper. This was evident as every side got to give their fair share, both sides also had business to restrict what they could or couldn’t say to protect the images of the people they wanted. It was more of like a security blanket for the film directors by using everyone involved.
Comments