Brutally Honest Self-Assessment

Well, shit.

The project's well done for the most part. I think the video's pretty entertaining and informative. It's just that, when I think about the project I feel that gaping hole that tells me I did something horribly wrong, something I'm prone to. It's funny because I usually don't lack in quality but I rather just do something completely wrong and not have the sense to ask about it.

The video may be weak in regards to the narration, particularly in my voice's articulation. This type of analysis is a lot easier to speak in your head as you're walking on campus or in the shower, etc. I'm pretty sure everyone hates the sound of their own voice, and that's tough to accept when working on a project. And also my sources are pretty lame. That's probably what I mean with the whole "I did something stupidly wrong" part. Hope it's not too bad.

As for the good... I think it has some good production value considering it cost zero dollars to make. A good friend of mine was gracious enough to lend me his Final Cut Pro software and helped me record with his high-end microphone, and I couldn't thank him enough for that. I also think the script is decently well done. I've gotten a lot of compliments on it but we'll wait and see if that means anything.

I managed my time really well in regards to my research and actually putting the project together (recording, editing, basically everything you see). I just struggled mightily in getting all the side coursework done without procrastinating (you can tell by the time this was posted), which was something I vowed not to do this semester. I hope that isn't offensive.

Oh, and that friend of mine wouldn't let me borrow his software if I didn't include an ultra cheesy missile explodey effect, so just know that it's not my fault.

Local Revision: Variety

One of the keys to the video essay was structuring the sentences in an entertaining yet coherent way, one that meshed well with the visuals and the information given.

I found my sentences to be effective in establishing the journalistic mood, while still retaining a good relation with the audience with the use of emphatic diction. Towards the end of the essay, some of my sentences seemed to run on or contain redundancies, and I made sure to remove them before recording. Rules For Writers helped with this as I was able to replace openings and run-on sentences with things that made more sense and made the project generally more interesting as a whole.

The different sections of the essay were marked with quick fades to black, and I thought I did an effective job at making each segment stand on its own from an informative standpoint. I use some pretty high-end vocabulary here, which doesn't really evoke any problems aside from the occasional ineligible slur of dialogue that I have to rerecord.

Local Revision: Pronoun Usage

After listing every pronoun used in my script, I've actually found something peculiar about my writing and use of pronouns in general.

I didn't use a terribly huge amount of pronouns in my essay; however, I noticed that most of the pronouns I used referred to the same subject, that of the film The Interview, and it bugged the crap out of me. In order to improve upon the overuse of a pronoun, I restructured some of my sentences to eliminate them/use more effective ones, while still retaining the fluidity of the script.

As for speaking with the audience, I only make use of that once in a cute little outro segment, basically so the video wouldn't end in an awkwardly abrupt state. While I wanted to engage the viewer in the material, I wanted to stay focused and keep the video in a journalistic perspective, especially because this controversy doesn't directly affect 99% of anyone who would watch it.

My Pronouns

Here are the pronouns used in my script.

it (The Interview)
it (The Interview)
one (controversy)
this (The Interview)
who (NK government)
this (controversy)
it (controversy)
its (controversy)
this (script)
his (Kim Jong-Il)
who (reporters)
him (KJI)
this (trailer)
whose (NK government)
it (Sony)
his (Kim Jong-Un)
whom (Guardians of Peace)
their (Sony films)
who (NK government)
their (GOP)
it (Sony)
he (president)
it (The Interview)
it (The Interview)
they (Sony)
it's (The Interview)
it (The Interview)
it (The Interview)

Local Revision: Passive and Active Voice

Here are the verbs sorted by active/passive voice.

Active (Specific)
revolved
assassinating
threatened
retaliate
unfolded
understand
rewind
sprung
joked
ordered
assassinate
featured
center
journey
interview
recruited
take
landed
escalated
condemned
complained
wrote
announced
censored
removing
cutting
melts
leaked
launched
attempt
denied
threatened
screen
canceling
announced
voiced
opting
screen
releasing
grossing
recovered
concluded
pay
watch
leading
lived

Active (General)
taking
say
go
saw
led
mean
being
changed
turned
asking
hit
find
called
took
led
saying
ended
missing
took
sits
means


Passive
slated
released
directed
intended
put
finalized
completed
released
received
cancelled
considered
leak
canceled
give
scrubbed
affected
demoted
replaced

I am surprised at how specific the actions in my essay were laid out. My use of passive voice worked in the context of the script, and I couldn't find any instances where active voice would improve the grammatical quality of the sentence. At the same time, I think I should try to be more consistent with my use of active voice and try to be more vivid in the use of my verbs.

Local Revision: Tense Usage

Here are the verbs, organized by tense.

Present
is
assassinating
taking
mean
being
are
asking
removing
cutting
melts
canceling
saying
opting
releasing
grossing
missing
being
sits
means
can
having
leading

Past
was x12
slated
would
have
been
released
wasn't
resolved
directed
intended
did
threatened
saw
did
sprung
joked
ordered
featured
changed
put
turned
finalized
recruited
landed
completed
released
received
escalated
condemned
complained
wrote
cancelled
announced
censored
were
leaked
launched
denied
called
took
threatened
led
announced
cancelled
would
voiced
had
made
scrubbed
ended
affected
took
haven't
recovered
demoted
replaced
concluded
had
lived
left

Future
be x3
say
go
retaliate
understand
rewind
assassinate
center
interview
journey
take
hit
leak
attempt
find
screen
give
screen
pay
watch
do
will
happen

The past tense is most prominent in my draft. My use of these tenses allows the viewer to effectively relive the controversy and explore it from multiple perspectives. The changes in tense flow well, and I refrained from misusing them in any way. The present tense is advantageous to my essay as it engages the viewer more than a past-tense recalling of the events.

My Verbs

Here are my verbs, you crazy man.

is

was

slated

would

have

been

released

wasn't

revolved

assassinating

directed

was

intended

be

taking

say

did

go

threatened

retaliate

saw

unfolded

led

did

mean

understand

rewind

sprung

joked

being

ordered

assassinate

featured

changed

was

put

turned

be

was

finalized

center

journey

interview

recruited
are

take

landed

was

completed

was

released

was

received

escalated

condemned

complained

wrote

asking

cancelled

announced

censored

removing

cutting

melts

were

considered

were

hit

leak

leaked

launched

attempt

find

denied

called

took

threatened

screen

led

canceling

announced

cancelled

would

give

voiced

saying

had

made

was

scrubbed

wasn't

opting

screen

ended

releasing

grossing

was

was

affected

missing

took

haven't

recovered

being

demoted

replaced

concluded

was

sits

means

can

pay

watch

could

do

will

be

having

had

happen

leading

lived

left

was/wasn't/were/will: 14

be/been/being: 6

have/having/had/haven't: 5

cancelled: 3

release/released/releasing: 3

announced: 2

assassinate: 2

leak: 2

led: 2

Local Revision: Wordiness

The tail section of my video is fairly wordy, so here's an attempt to remedy that.

Here's the original version:

The backlash of this decision was heavy for Sony, many Americans furious that the company would give in to the terrorists’ demands. -- Major figures in film voiced their thoughts on the matter, -- with even the President saying that he believed Sony had made a mistake in pulling the release. -- But even though it was officially scrubbed, the cancellation wasn’t the end for The Interview, with -- select theaters opting to wilfully screen the film, and Sony ended up releasing it for paid streaming online via sites like YouTube and iTunes, grossing $40 million in sales. -- So really, in the end, Sony was the only stakeholder who was negatively affected by the controversy, missing out on major box office numbers. -- The company took a major hit with the hacking, and they haven’t fully recovered since, -- with much of the high-ranking American staff being demoted and replaced by figures from the parent company in Japan. -- The FBI concluded that North Korea was most likely responsible for the Sony hack, in retaliation for the insulting film. -- As for the film itself, it’s.... fine. -- It currently sits at 51% on the Rotten Tomatoes meter. Which pretty much means, “You can pay money to watch this movie, or you could not do that, your life will literally not be any different having done either of those things.” -- The fact that this movie had so much happen leading up to it, it’s debatable as to whether the film lived up to the massive pile of controversy that it left behind.

Here's the revised version:

Sony was heavily criticized for this decision as many saw it as giving in to the demands of terrorists. This didn't spell the end for The Interview however, as it was successfully released for streaming on multiple media outlets. In the end, Sony was heavily damaged by the hacking (the FBI confirmed it was from North Korea) but most other stakeholders were left without a scratch. The film itself received a mixed reception from audiences, and has been available for viewing ever since.

Although the revision is more concise, I feel that the fine details listed in the original script visualize the controversy in a better light than just the quick facts. The longer paragraph also makes it  easier to follow the narrator's voice.

Project 1 - Completed

Enjoy!

http://youtu.be/OXHV96qgzjQ

The Setting

The Interview unleashed a controversy that was heard around the world, most specifically between North Korea and Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Known infamously as the "hermit country," North Korea is a highly introverted state that very little information comes out of. From the footage and testimonies that are available, the country is viewed as a totalitarian state with major government control held over its people, who receive little care and necessary resources. Flashy propaganda shines on the walls of its buildings to this day, spreading anti-Western philosophies. There are numerous military officials posted in every corner of the state, envisioning the iron fist of the government. The Interview directly criticizes the deceiving way of life in North Korea, showing the oppression of the state's citizens.

Sony Pictures is the American motion picture subsidiary of Sony, one of the most recognizable electronics brand in the world. While the electronics portion of their business is primarily handled by the Japanese, Sony Pictures is entirely operated by an American staff. Its headquarters is located in Culver City, California, near the rolling hills of entertainment-capital Los Angeles. Sony Pictures distributes a number of its films through Columbia pictures, of which sprung The Interview. Columbia, who had been around since the beginning of cinema, was obtained by Sony in 1989, and the company has seen its biggest success during this time. Columbia produces a very high amount of films each year, and as a result the workplace is known to be bustling.

My Sources

These sources helped me tremendously in finding the appropriate information, quotes, and subtext in the controversy.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/seth-rogen-interview-north-korea-controversy-cover-story-20141217

Where: Rolling Stone, pop culture magazine, high credibility.
Who: Josh Eells, contributing editor for multiple publications, high credibility.
When: 17 December 2014, day of film's cancellation and day after terror threats against cinemas.
What: Interview with Seth Rogen on the buildup and consequences of the controversy. Provides me with quotes and insight on the film;s development.

http://variety.com/2015/film/news/seth-rogen-censoring-north-korea-in-the-interview-seemed-wrong-1201424038/

Where: Variety, film/television magazine, very high credibility.
Who: Sheli Weinstein, freelance writer at Variety. High credibility.
When: 4 February 2015, after film's digital release and controversy had died down.
What: Provides details on the crew's approach to censorship.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10914088/North-Korea-slams-US-film-The-Interview-about-Kim-Jong-un.html

Where: The Daily Telegraph, under the online designation The Telegraph, British newspaper. High credibility.
Who: Julian Ryall, Japan correspondent for The Daily Telegraph, media production. High credibility.
When: 20 June 2014, nine days after the trailer's release.
What: Provides the first response by North Korea regarding the film.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/25/north-korea-merciless-response-us-kim-jong-un-film

Where: The Guardian, British newspaper. High credibility.
Who: Justin McCurry, Japan/Korea correspondent for The Guardian and Observer. High credibility.
When: 25 June 2014, two weeks after trailer's release.
What: Details the first series of official threats made by North Korea.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/north-korea-watcher-watches-interview

Where: The New Yorker, news/culture magazine. High credibility.
Who: Barbara Demick, journalist and watcher of North Korea. High credibility.
When: 2 January 2015, a week after film's digital release.
What: Evaluates the film's credibility from a valid source.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/18/sony-hack-the-interview-timeline

Where: The Guardian.
Who: Catherine Shoard, The Guardian, film editor. High credibility.
When: 18 December 2014 updated through 31 December 2014, on the day of the film's cancellation.
What: Places the controversy's events in an organized timeline.

http://blogs.theprovince.com/2013/10/12/seth-rogen-and-evan-goldberg-come-home-to-shoot-b-c-for-korea-in-the-interview/

Where: The Province, Canadian news outlet. Good credibility.
Who: Glen Schaefer, feature writer, The Province. Good credibility.
When: 12 October 2013, principal photography begins.
What: Provides information on the beginning of production.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2014/12/19/sony-the-interview-hackers-gop/20635449/

Where: USA Today, new publication. Good credibility.
Who: Elizabeth Weise, Kevin Johnson, Andrea Mandell, staff writers, USA Today. Good credibility.
When: 19 December 2014, day after film's cancellation.
What: Details on President Obama's statement regarding the matter.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-altering-kim-jong-assassination-725092

Where: The Hollywood Reporter, film new publication. High credibility.
Who: Tatiana Siegel, senior film writer, THR. High credibility.
When: 13 August 2014, after threats and before film's cancellation
What: Provides details on the potential censorship of the film.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/dec/16/employees-sue-failure-guard-personal-data-leaked-hackers

Where: The Guardian.
Who: Dominic Rushe, editor, The Guardian, US business. High credibility.
When: 17 December 2014, day of GOP major threats.
What: Analysis of the major threats that led to the ultimate cancellation.

Stakeholder #2

The second stakeholder is Sony Pictures Entertainment, who distributed the film, and the individual figures (Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg) who spoke for the movie on their behalf.

Sony is a multinational corporation that is engaged with electronics, music, financial services, and motion pictures. Sony Pictures is one of the most prolific distributors of film, responsible for producing such franchises as Spider-Man, 007, and Ghostbusters. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, lifelong friends and film partners since the 90s, are major contributors to comedic film over the past decade and partnered directly with Sony for production of The Interview.

Once the Interview controversy hit its major strides, Sony stayed vocal about its dedication to the film's release, while directors Rogen and Goldberg commented on the particular North Korean figures who were lambasting the film, pointing out Kim Jong-Un's past of "killing his girlfriend and feeding his uncle to the dogs," acts justifying of criticism.

Rogen's view of the film contrasts with North Korea's view as one that stands for freedom and anti-censorship, as shown in a celebratory tweet upon the film's digital release. Comparing the leader to Hitler, Rogen saw the film as a counter to the fear that people harbor over dictatorships.

Angela George "Seth Rogen 2013" 7 March 2013 via Wikimedia Commons. Creative Commons Attribution License

Stakeholder #1

The first and most divisive stakeholder in the Interview controversy is the North Korean government, whom the film is directly criticizing.

North Korea is notorious as the world's most introverted institution. Very little information on the country's culture and social stability are officially released, however it is universally accepted that the state is under a totalitarian regime, riddled with anti-Western propaganda and godlike worship of the supreme leader, Kim Jong-Un. The country has repeatedly proclaimed itself to be enemies of the United States, and have been acting aggressively in recent years, causing concern amidst the UN.

Upon release of the trailer for The Interview, North Korea made harsh remarks that coincided with the country's bigoted view of American capitalism, stating that "there is a special irony in this storyline as it shows the desperation of the US government and American society." They went further with outlandish claims, such as how the US targets its own leaders such as Kennedy, and that Obama should "be careful in case the US military wants to kill him as well." The American public obviously disagreed with these views, citing how the rampant anti-US propaganda in North Korea invalidates such claims.

Things eventually escalated when the country issues threats of retaliation against the US for releasing such a film. They called the film's marketing and release "a most wanton act of terror and act of war," which directly counters western claims of the film as an editorial, an opinion piece.

P388388 "Kim Jong-Un Photorealistic-Sketch" 9 January 2015 via Wikimedia Commons. Creative Commons Attribution License

The Big Event

The Interview was notoriously mired with controversy, but the outrage didn't arrive until much later than the film's inception. The single event that caused the biggest ripples was, in reality, the release of the film's trailer in June 2014.

The idea for The Interview first sprung up in the early 2000s, when directors Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg joked about the urban legend of reporters being ordered to assassinate a major dictator. The script was rewritten numerous times until it was decided that North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-Un was the best target. Principal photography lasted until December 2013, still without major coverage about the film's sensitive nature.

This all changed, however, as the trailer was released on June 11, 2014. The public had never before seen the antics of James Franco and Seth Rogen in the satirical romp, and the trailer showed plenty of ridicule and infidelity for North Korea's beloved leader (joking about how he has manipulated his people into thinking he doesn't urinate or defecate). The North Korean government, who at first responded with vocal criticism, quickly took to threats of retaliation against the United States if the film saw a wide release.

Because Sony had not yet released footage of their new movie, The Interview's potential for controversy stayed largely unnoticed during the film's development. The trailer allowed both American and North Korean audiences to see and hear the film's plot on mass media outlets such as YouTube and Twitter. The visual and auditory stimulation that the trailer provided made the controversy much more widespread and open for criticism.

And as we all know, controversy... tastes like chicken.

Analysis of My Rhetorical Situation

My project's rhetorical situation is fairly black and white since it is about a specific subject in the specific field of film. This controversy was heavily covered by the media, and as a result it is easy to decipher the intended audience of the subject and the purpose of my analytical project.

1. My project is intended for film enthusiasts who are active on social media and keep up with current events. These are the type who keep up with Variety and The Guardian, those who frequent Twitter and stay in the know on the current developments of pop culture. Hollywood's liberal tendencies likely extend to this audience, the majority of whom reside on either coast rather than the rural areas of the midwest. These liberal consumers love to voice their opinions, and value the integrity of their entertainment; anything perceived as censorship or prejudice is met with harsh protest. They are probably less concerned with the patriotic aspects of this subject, rather focusing on the film itself.

2. As my audience is knowledgeable about film and pop culture in general, I've made a conscious effort not to talk down on their understanding of the business. I want to be thorough and informative in my analysis and speak with a college level of vocabulary, using film terms without stopping to explain them. It is important to explain the political sensitivity of the controversy and how it relates to the normal customs of warfare, and how radical this situation was in comparison to other similarly sensitive matters throughout history.

3. I followed the controversy extensively as it was happening, and the fairly recent memories combined with refreshed research make me ideal for relaying the information. More importantly, my passion for film gives me great analytical footing.