How Much Detail is Enough?

Your Reader Isn’t Watching!
You’re Not Listening!

  1. The most common advice I offer to your classmates for rewriting their Visual Analysis posts is to add more detail.
  2. The most common advice I offer after that is to concentrate on the Rhetoric half of the Visual/Rhetoric assignment.
  3. Posts should provide enough detail so that the reader not only visualizes the basics of the setting and the action but can also understand how the details impose interpretations on the viewers.
  4. Posts should include what you, the author, believe to be the interpretation the editor of the video wants to impose on us.

Help me find some videos, please?

CLICK THIS LINK

Here you can scroll through hundreds of Ad Council videos.
Be careful. You want one that runs 30 seconds!

The Visual and the Analysis are Inseparable

As you describe the visuals in depth, use your rhetorical skills to encourage an interpretation in the minds of your readers. They are putty in your hands since they depend on you for both your report on the images—their speed and sequence, the mood they cast—and your analysis of what the images mean.

Spend a short paragraph after the time-stamped material to draw any overall conclusions you can after considering the impact of the entire 30-second spot. You may discuss its particular effectiveness or its shortcomings as visual argument.

You may also (following your visual analysis) report on any dialog or soundtrack elements that influence your reactions to the argument when you combine the audio with the video.

WARMUP

How Much is Enough Detail for
the First Second? 0:00-0:01

0:00—0:01
When the video begins, we see three former presidents on screen standing outdoors in cold weather. They’re all facing forward, bareheaded, and dressed in suits, ties, and black overcoats, with their hands in their pockets. The two Democrats, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, are positioned left and right on the screen; George W Bush is in the center, standing a few feet behind the others. Oddly, they all have their hands in their pockets, perhaps because of the cold.

The outdoor setting is very dramatic and theatrical. There is no roof to the structure, which resembles an open-air theatre or church under a bright blue sky full of white clouds. White stone benches without backs are set in rows like church pews. At the front of the church/theater is a raised altar/stage backed by a cove topped with a half-dome. Stone pillars reminiscent of the Capitol and the White House extend both left and right from the altar, and between the pillars are hung American flags, so the backdrop sends messages of government, theater, and faith.

Both Bush and Obama are wearing what we assume are American flag lapel pins. Clinton probably is too, but his black scarf obscures it if he is. Outdoor gatherings of former presidents are rare and historic. They don’t happen by accident, so this was probably shot during the January presidential inauguration, which all three are known to have attended. If that’s true, then it’s no accident they’re standing at least 6 feet apart and were filmed outdoors; they’re practicing responsible social distancing.

Presidents of the two major parties indicate bi-partisanship. Whatever they have to tell us transcends differences between Republicans and Democrats. Still, there has to be some political content to the message. 3 presidents!

The image is compelling and demands at least temporary attention. It’s artfully staged, so it’s well-planned and choreographed. Whatever your affiliation, you’ll give this video at least a few seconds of your time.

Obama is half-smiling and seems comfortable looking into the camera. Clinton is not exactly making eye contact with us and looks, if anything, tired. We’re watching without sound, but we can tell from his lips and his swaying on his feet that Bush is making some remarks directly to us.

(Oddly, someone walks by in the background between Clinton and Bush, stealing focus from the primary scene, so apparently the director was not given absolute authority to clear the space. She may also have wished for another “take” that would not include the passerby, but it’s not easy to keep three presidents on the set for long.)

He probably should have stood more still during his opening remarks. When Bush sways, he looks a little goofy and undermines what, we imagine, will be a serious message.

0:01—0:02 (Etc.)

An Example from Last Semester
(Feedback to Student Draft)

This exchange went on quite a while before I ever looked at the video. Notice how hard it is for a reader who hasn’t seen the images to gather what he’s looking at from descriptions alone.

Reader Reaction to the First Second of Video

Professor’s notes are italicized in BlockQuotes like this one.
Judging from the opening screenshot, I’m not familiar with this video.
I’ll respond to what you tell me and decide only later how well you prepared me for the argument I will view after I’ve made this set of Replies.

0:00 – The shot opens in an underwater setting with a professional diver equipped with scuba tanks and flippers in the middle.

—in the middle of the screen?

The entire shot is very dark, apart from a small oval of light that surrounds the diver, and this light stars from the top of the shot and almost reaches the bottom. About 30% of the left and right sides of the shot respectively are pitch black, and the visible oval is still a dark and dull shade of blue.

—Ohhhh! The oval is vertical (like a keyhole) not horizontal (like an eye).
—You could probably explain that the diver is oriented horizontally, or facing UP or LEFT on the screen and then the oval would almost automatically form around the body in our minds. It may not matter, ultimately, but I appreciate your willingness to be specific. What matters is often unclear until the end.
—What I would like to know, if it’s clear, is whether, since we’re underwater, is whether we see the diver’s front or back. We’d be unlikely to see much of the tanks if we have a front view.

The camera is positioned slightly below the diver, and the diver is facing away from us at a 45 degree angle. The diver is also in a face-down position.

—Thank you. This interaction should confirm that I’m responding AS I READ instead of looking ahead.
—So, we’re below the diver and behind the diver but not directly behind?
—Is this, therefore, a POV shot? Are we supposed to imagine that we’re diving WITH the diver, a bit behind and following or accompanying the diver? Do you get that sense?
—Or are we a fish? A shark?

The diver is close enough to the camera so that we can tell where their hands are, but still far enough so that we cannot count their fingers.

—You’re using non-gender pronouns because the diver’s gender is unknowable from our angle? or because you don’t want to misgender the diver?
—I do like how you measure distance: finger-countably close?

A rock structure is visible in the left portion of the oval of light, and appears to expand beyond the boundaries of what’s visible.

—Still orienting here. I guess we’re not so far below the other diver that we’re looking UP at him/her. Otherwise, the rocks would be floating. So, we’re looking at a diver, with light above? from the sun? not from an underwater source of light? and from an angle that gives us a forward view of the diver, an upward view of the sunlight, and a downward view of rocks on the bottom of whatever body of water we’re in.

While the surface of the water is not visible, the small about of light that we do have means that we are in pretty deep water.

—Feel my confusion.

The diver breathes and bubbles shoot up out of the scuba gear.

—You’re doing great. This is super hard. I’m feeling my way. Like somebody tossed me overboard and I’m figuring out which way is up so I don’t drown. Maybe THAT’S the feeling of the opening shot!

 🙂

The most prevalent aspect of this shot is the oval of light that surrounds the diver.

—I agree. Its source is mysterious.

It seems to be light coming from the surface, but the surface itself is not visible in this shot, so there is a possibility that this is an unnatural light placed by the director.

—Oh, Milly. I hope this is really important. The time we’ve spent on it will seem a monumental waste of a single second otherwise!

 🙂

Either way, the dark blue shade of the water means that we are deep in the ocean, which is what’s important.

—Ocean! I won’t argue. It’s the impression you got, so it’s the impression the filmmaker has to take responsibility for.

This means that the diver is alone, which is backed up by the empty feeling we get from the diver being pretty far from the camera.

—Well . . . THAT doesn’t mean the diver is alone. The ocean, I mean. But that distance is crucial. Thank you for that. If we’re far enough from the lone diver to see that he/she is unaccompanied, you’re right.
—It doesn’t explain OUR presence yet. We might BE a companion. Is there any way to feel that out?

0:00-0:02 – The first shot pans slightly to the left before cutting to a different angle of the diver.

—That’s pretty meaningless.

The camera doesn’t pan on a straight path, it sways and moves as if the person holding it is also swimming.


—But THIS is very important. Thank you for this. It establishes that WE ARE, in fact, along for the dive. Crucial information. I hope the filmmaker intended it.
—So far, we’re looking mostly at HOW.
—If you want to make rhetorical remarks here, tell us WHY the camera makes hand-held motions. Is it to ESTABLISH that we’re in the water with the diver?
—A diver observed by a stationary camera (or the eye of a crab on the sea floor) might truly be alone.
—Does it make us sense the same PERIL as the diver? The same WONDER?
—If it turns out we’re NOT supposed to consider this diver accompanied, PLEASE criticize the filmmaker for sloppiness. The camera work should ADVANCE not THWART the storyline. Even a second of thinking the diver was not alone frustrates our understanding. A few seconds of not knowing and we’re halfway through the 30-second spot ARGUING with the video instead of being persuaded by it.

The diver is still taking the same breath that he was taking at the end of the first shot.

—So, he’s a he-diver.
—Is this new information?
—My first semester as a composition professor I asked my students to decide whether to describe the dog we could see only from a distance as male or female. I didn’t want to call it “it.” They said we were too far to know. I said—can you guess?—if you want to declare the gender of a distant dog, choose male. You can’t be sure a distant dog is female, but at the right angle, you can identify a male from far away.
—Maybe not the same for divers in wet suits.

 🙂

The camera is now slightly above and slightly closer to the diver, but the diver is still facing in a similar direction and is in the same face-down position as the first shot.

—To be clear, WE’VE moved closer to the surface of the water, or the diver (once again genderless, I note) had dived a bit?
—And does this move reinforce our feeling that we too are diving?

The oval of visible light is now gone, and the entire shot is composed of that shade of blue.

—Pretty.
—That’s because we’re ABOVE the diver looking DOWN, and the light came from above the surface of the water?

To the right of the diver, there is a structure that is blocking some of the shot.

—I like this.
—That we don’t know is fine for a second or so.
—I do wonder, and maybe this is WAY TOO SPECIFIC, but do we associate the “structure” with the earlier “rock structure” from a few nanoseconds ago?
—ALSO, I am a massive pain in the ass, but decide for yourself whether “right of” or “left of” matter at all to the description.
—”Ahead of the diver” might be enough.

It is completely black and it is unclear what it is exactly.

—Got it.

To the left of this, there is another structure that is unidentifiable.

Again, PIA, “next to it” could satisfy if we’ve dispensed with “left” and “right.”

What is known about these structures is that they are not part of the rock formation that has been shown before.

—Thank you. And I hope that you answering the question I asked earlier was a good illustration of EXACTLY HOW and WHEN we INTERPRET what we’re looking at, always wanting to put everything into context IMMEDIATELY.
—Yesterday I was rude to a student who said she didn’t know whether the Asian man in the first frame of the Thai Life Insurance commercial was in the city of the country.
—The truth is, we DO KNOW.
—We might later find out WE WERE WRONG.
—But that doesn’t mean we didn’t know. We weren’t in doubt. We were just wrong.

Their unnatural shape means that they are most likely human made, so this is remnants of some kind of shipwreck.

—That’s a MASSIVE CONCLUSION from a glimpse, WHICH I LOVE.
—It demonstrates what I’ve been saying.
—We figure out WHERE WE ARE and WHO’S THERE WITH US almost immediately, then seek confirmation only if needed.
—We DON’T EVEN ENTERTAIN OBJECTIONS to our stereotypes and reflex reactions unless new information contradicts the setup.
—We WILLINGLY COLLABORATE in the conclusions the filmmaker wants us to draw AS LONG AS THE DIRECTOR MAINTAINS CONTROL of the images.
—Pardon me, just talking to myself now. Realizing exactly how applicable this lesson is to writers.

This is another establishing shot that is meant to evoke an emotion for the viewer.

—The shaky cam being the first?
—That shot established the diver wasn’t alone, for me.
—That means WE’RE on the dive too, right?

The shaky camera and the dark and empty space that the diver is occupying evokes an emotion of fear, or at least discomfort.

—So the reason we’re fearful now is that WE’RE at risk, right?
—Until we knew we were in the water, we might have been afraid for THE DIVER!
—If that subtle shift of perspective from “I’m watching someone dive,” to “I’m along for a dive” makes the reader feel MORE PERSONALLY INVESTED in the danger that’s lurking, then . . . talk about an emotional impact boost!

The diver could be diving in a bright tropical environment with coral reefs and exotic fish, but he is in a dark, empty environment where some structures cannot be identified.

—Genius remark.
—This happens in “the city” not “the country.”
—The evocation of a particular environment is crucial.
—The diver is “he” again.
—What did we see?

Feelings of uneasiness begin to creep in.

—Not to mention feelings of creepiness when your professor keeps needing to identify gender from a distance.

 🙂

I’m going to stop here, MillyCain.
I’m trying to respond to 10 Feedback Requests today, and I’m not notching them very fast. You’re good for now, right?

(I might go look at the first second of video now.)

Archives Example 1
(Feedback to Student Draft)

Watch the video below, then read a first draft of a Visual Analysis together with commentary from your professor asking for MORE!

0:01

The back of a little boy can be seen looking at a fence or even opening it. The boy is probably a young elementary student because of the book bag on his back. On the left of the frame, there is part of a white house. Could it be a school?

Professor Reaction: 01. So far so good, except: positive impression or negative impression? The barely perceptible environment seems comfortable or dangerous? The boy is well-dressed or raggedy? Clean or unkempt? The setting is urban, suburban, rural? Street lights? Utility poles? Passing cars? I do not mean to say that you can draw firm conclusions on these matters, but in a 30-second spot, the directors are EXTREMELY careful to load only the appropriate emotional impressions into every frame. So, take your best guess.

Overall note for the next 29 seconds. I may or may not make suggestions like those I have just made. From here out, the job of generating those questions is yours. If I help once or twice, I do not mean to indicate that if I say nothing, there is nothing more to say. In other words, when in doubt, do more than I say.

0:02

The boy walked into the building. He seems to close the door comfortably because he body does not shift backwards to shut the door.

Professor Reaction: 02. You did not mention the gate at all. Does it look like a gate outside a school? Did he have to unlock it? Unlatch it? Was it designed to keep him out? You’re trying to decide if the white building is a school or a house. Did the gate help?

See what I mean? Analyze your reactions to everything. All the elements are claims in an argument. We don’t know what we’re being persuaded of yet, but the rhetoric of every frame is persuasive of something.

03. What’s with that weird body turn on entering? Is he greeting someone to his left through the passageway?

04. What about the handprints and all the markers and pens on the counter? The kitchen looks like a home, but there’s all that stuff that echoes school. Did you notice it’s 3:35 by the kitchen clock? Gotta be a clue. [No more of these. Work out the rest of them yourself. You might need to creep along a frame at a time to be sure you’re seeing all that your eyes see in real time but that your brain barely registers.]

0:05

The boy puts his book bag on the floor in what it seems like the kitchen. The kitchen looks rather empty but clean. His body languages tells us that he’s pretty comfortable because he heads straight for the fridge like it was a routine. The drawing on the refrigerator probably belongs to the young boy.

Professor Reaction: 05. Nice work. I like the “routine” comment.

0:07

When the boy opens the refrigerator, there is little food the fridge. There are a couple of sauces and something in two containers.

Professor Reaction: 07. Say more about the containers.

0:09

We can see the boy through the crack of the open fridge. He is looking down like he’s trying to find food; however, he does not look surprised. It seems like the lack of food or his routine is nothing new to him.

Professor Reaction: 09. Nice.

0:11

We can now see the whole entire fridge and it’s basically empty. The boy is looking up to see if there is any food on the top shelf of the fridge. There is a drawing on the refrigerator, but there is no male figure in it. Does he not have a father?

Professor Reaction: 11. A bit about the fridge, please. Is this a neglectful home? Are we looking at poverty here? Good catch on the family drawing; just brilliant.

12. Relevance of the hearts in the refrigerator artwork? The blue-bordered certificate? Relevance of his having to climb on a chair to reach the upper cabinets? Does someone tall want to deny him easy access?

0:13 The boy gets to the shelf above the counter and he opens it. When the boy opens the cabinet, he finds spices. There are some canned food but not that many. The shelf has some open spots where food might used to be.

13. Deliberately almost nothing is recognizable, right? Relish probably. Salad dressing? So why is the SMEAT label turned our way? (Could it possibly mean “It’s Meat”?) Found it.

‘Smeat

smeat675-8

0:15

The boy can be seen looking up on the shelf. He looks like he’s thinking about something. The boy looks rather sad and disappointed that he couldn’t find what he was looking for.

Professor Reaction: 15. I agree the boy is probably sad. Would we say the same thing about his expression if we saw it in a different context? Or does its placement here at this moment convince us to read disappointment into his face?

0:18

The boy looks like he’s walking away from the kitchen. On the way out he spares a glance at the refrigerator one last time.

Professor Reaction: 18. Significance of his walking into view from the far side of the sink? Where did his bookbag go? It was on the floor. Picture of a smiling moose? WTH?

0:21

The scene changes to a woman. On the side of the screen there is a logo that says “Feeding America.”

Professor Reaction: 21. Do you not know this woman? The use of an onscreen celebrity spokesperson is a significant bit of visual rhetoric you can’t ignore. You don’t mention that she’s talking. Does she appear to have a happy message to share? Something crucial? Does she seem hopeful? Determined? Is she asking for money? You should be able to judge much from the visual alone.

0:28-31 (end)

The logo Feeding America is now centered in the video implying its importance.

AFTER WATCHING WITH AUDIO TURNED ON: While listening to the video with audio, it made a big difference. Yes I could imply that the video was about a boy who was looking for something to eat (like a snack) when there was no audio. However, when I listened to it with audio it made a greater impact. A young boy goes home wanting to eat, but there is no food in his household. In the end, the lady told us a statistic about how 1 in 5 families struggle with hunger in America.  If there wasn’t any audio throughout the clip, I would not know it was about hunger until the very end when it says “Feeding America.”

Example 2

Try to watch JUST FIRST TWO SECONDS of the following video and then the commentary below.

0:00

Dog lying on some sort of table. Looks injured. In the background is a faded bloody bandage over one of the legs. It could be animal abuse or some type of accident.

Professor Reaction: The dull sheen of the table indicates it is steel or perhaps another industrial surface.

It is clean, suggesting the dog is indoors.

The light overhead and the soft shadow the dog casts on the tabletop indicate further that the scene is an interior, as does the “fixture-type” lighting in the background.

The bloody bandage is not surgical gauze; rather, it looks like a knotted dish towel with a frayed edge, so most likely it was applied in a home by a homeowner, not by a veterinarian.

This suggests that the dog has not yet received medical attention.

Perhaps a recent wound or surgery has opened and the dog’s owner tried to stem the flow?

Or maybe the dog received a new injury at or near home and an owner used a temporary bandage to help it until professional help could be found?

0:01

Professor Reaction: The camera slowly moves in on the dog’s face and eyes, which blink and then open wide.

Whatever else may be going on in the video, we are being asked to carefully consider and attend to this suffering animal.

Almost as if we were bringing our own faces closer to his, we move in to comfort him.

His eyes roll up a bit to indicate that he is aware of our closeness, signalling further that he is conscious and alert enough to take note of his surroundings.

He is a character in a drama, not a prop.

Example 3

The first second of video.

 Professor’s Model Analysis

0:01. The ad starts very abruptly in the middle of a scene. What’s more, in the first second, the camera is zooming quickly back so that we have to adjust immediately to a barrage of information. The suggestion the filmmakers are making is that the footage was captured by an amateur camera operator, either for home video or maybe a low-budget documentary. Either way, we are given the impression that the footage is “real,” not staged by a director with hired actors.

The image quality too is low. It’s color photography, but the color is so washed-out we get the further impression of a low-budget production. It’s almost black-and-white.

We are behind the counter of a diner. We can tell this from the “marble” countertop before us and the ketchup bottles and napkin holders on the shelf below it. Attached to the countertop is a familiar menu-holder empty of menus. Even closer to the camera (which suggests the footage was taken from the kitchen, through the service window) is a red-top bottle of Angustora bitters. Another can be seen on the counter where customers could access it, alongside the ketchup bottle and the sugar server. The only common use for bitters is as a cocktail flavor. The implication is that this is a diner where drinks are served; therefore, we have at least the implication that some diners might be drinking.

Facing us at the counter are two young boys (one black, one white) dressed in similar sport jerseys. They are probably teammates. Next to the white boy is a crew-cut man in his 30s with longish sideburns. If he were heavier, he would resemble Kevin James from “King of Queens.” The implication is that he is a robust, perhaps a bit rough-edged, working-class guy here with his team, perhaps their coach, maybe father to one of the kids. He wears a lanyard around his neck; perhaps a whistle hangs from it, and a warmup jacket: coachwear.

On the counter between him and the white boy is a fielder’s glove. They are a baseball team. The kid is not a catcher.

Behind the three at the counter, a man and a woman occupy opposite sides of a booth. They are engaged in conversation. The man resembles Joe Pesci from “Goodfellas,” advancing the impression that we’re in a working-class diner. The bowling pin behind him, part of the decor of the place, further confirms this. The lone framed artwork decorating the space is a black-and-white photo of an urban street scene. Coffee cups are stacked upside-down in the service area behind the woman, whose hand motion before her face indicates she is the one doing the talking.

They have been served. The man is pointing at something large on the white boy’s plate. In fact, he points at it repeatedly and says something about it to the boy. Most likely he is picking up the tab. Maybe he doesn’t want that big dish wasted.

From a filmmaker’s point of view, the composition of the figures is very important. The characters are arranged in a line. Black boy at counter, Man in Booth facing woman in booth, White Boy at counter, Woman in Booth facing man in booth, Coach gesturing with his hand toward White Boy’s plate. His active hand gesture draws our attention. When he stops moving, the woman starts moving her hand in the very same space, keeping our attention on that spot, but shifting our focus to the conversation she’s having with the Man in the Booth. In one second, we have information about two different conversations. Both are clearly important.

End of the first second.

Example 4

An in-depth analysis of the first two seconds of a visual argument:

Professor’s Analysis

0:00–0:02 It is nighttime in a deep pine woods. A late-model pickup truck, shiny and well-maintained, is pulling a good-looking boat along a paved road. We can tell the road is asphalt by the obvious and telltale crack patterns in the road surface. On the other hand, the far side of the road, is so covered with pine needles that if we didn’t know better, we’d think the truck was about to travel down an uncleared dirt path.

The condition of the truck and boat indicate the prosperity of the driver. The vehicle is being operated at a reasonable speed for the conditions. We have no reason to think the driver is being irresponsible. On the other hand, a very noticeable spray of sparks is coming from somewhere under the rear wheels of the truck. It origin is out of view, but the sparks are being thrown in the direction of the boat. The effect is dramatic, like a 4th of July sparkler behind the truck. Something is clearly wrong. The light given off is enough to illuminate the underside of the bow of the boat. This could be seen by the driver if he’s looking.

We notice that the driver’s window is open. The driver’s arm is resting on the windowsill. He turns (we guess he’s male by the billed khaki cap he’s wearing) in the direction of the sparks, twice in quick succession. It’s possible he’s heard a sound (we’re not listening so we don’t know), or that he’s noticed the glow under the boat in his rearview mirror. Following his second look back, he removes his hand from the steering wheel and, we conclude, puts the truck in park. He has pulled to a stop.

The place looks very remote. We’ve seen no evidence of other vehicles in the “setup” to this scene. If he’s having a serious mechanical problem, he might be here awhile waiting for help. On the other hand, the sparks stopped as soon as the truck stopped moving. So maybe the trouble is related to forward motion. Problems like these have doomed countless movie characters to mayhem at the hands of psychotic inbred cannibals. He should be a little worried.