My Life After Charles Manson

“Drug-crazed”. I’m pretty sure one of my professors from convergence would’ve skinned me alive if I would’ve used that in a script.

Easily, the most important aspect of this story is character and the story behind that character. The story begins with who she is. Why we should even listen to this women, which is very important, before she explains her life. I could hear some audio editing jumps. I like how she looked into the camera as if she was…explaining her actions to the viewer and knew very well that we felt little for her. I felt sorry for her, but then I remembered exactly what she did and it’s kind of hard. It’s conflicting because even now, the Tate murder was brutal even to a Millennial like me who watched Game of Thrones and a bunch of horror movies for fun. Though I could see how she could get sucked into the madness of Mason. I remember being nineteen so I could relate to her. So the documentary did a wonderful job about that. It made me feel sorry for her. I mean, no I don’t think she should get out of prison, but should I judge her harshly?

Now that’s a different question.

The Umbrella Man

Jump cut! Jump cut! Jump cut! I know I’m guilty of this, but it was the first thing I noticed when I started watching this documentary. And they had some cool b-roll so I don’t know why the editor of this movie felt the need for a jump cut, but maybe they ran into the same problem I did? I doubt it since they’re the New York Times so… Oh geeze, don’t tell me that was the style they were going for.

Right, story. History documentary are always fun to me. I think the editor could’ve shortened this documentary. I HATE conspiracy theories so when I saw The Umbrella Man title and JFK, I was a bit worried. The story doesn’t really get started until about two minutes in where the narrator describes the day JFK was murdered and how out of everyone in Dallas, there was a guy standing in the crowds with a black umbrella. It’s a simple, short story that’s one of history’s little random bits that are kind of cool and fascinating. I liked the resolution of the story and how it kind of made me chuckle even though this was a dark part of American History. So I liked it.

N.S.A. Spying: Why Does It Matter?

Who knew you could make a six minute documentary that could make me feel so uncomfortable? The music is brilliant and it gives the documentary the sense of paranoia and urgency. The documentary explains a problem like N.S.A spying in nine minutes and it hits me in the gut. I wouldn’t say they were any characters. The structure is let’s point out the problem, why it’s a problem, how it works, and why we need to stop it. I loved this documentary. I loved it. I wasn’t bored. I was kind of nervous and kind of curious how they got such good audio since I couldn’t see a wireless mic. The b-roll couldn’t have been easy to find considering the subject. It was kind of one of those broad topics that needed to be explained, but you have to do it in a certain way or you’re in trouble by losing the viewer quickly.

Did I mention I liked the music? The music really works for me. It makes me uncomfortable. As does the idea of someone spying on me and looking through what I look on the internet for. Ah geeze, I can see it now, officers carrying me away because I’m trying to understand how a bomb works. No, officer! I swear! I’m a journalist and I was just-


So if you hear I’m in jail, we all know why.

A Courtroom Sketch Artist – A Micro-Doc

The first thing I noticed about the documentary was the music and the title, “A Courtroom Sketch Artist”. It made me think of that episode of “Criminal Minds” and I was expecting the artist to be kind of…screwy? I thought I would fall in love with the character, but I ended up being more curious about the guy’s profession and the history of courtroom sketch artists especially when the main character goes on about it. Out of all the professions to move forward and keep up with the times, it’s not surprising that the court system likes the old fashion sketches instead of photography.

I think the documentary gets a bit lost in the history instead of the person’s story, but maybe they wanted to focus on the history instead of the artist. At least it keeps a focus. I like how the story can stick to one aspect. Documentaries can easily go on and on about certain aspects of a subject and get lost. So I did appreciate that.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.