0.00-0.06: The video opens with a mesmerizing underwater tableau, immersing us in the profound depths of the ocean. A scuba diver, clad in a complete ensemble, including a meticulously detailed oxygen tank, is positioned horizontally, facing away at a precise 45-degree angle. The play of shadows and a mysterious oval of light, vertically framing the diver, suggests a profound, almost cinematic depth. The darkness, broken only by this subtle luminescence, hints at an exploration of emotional depth as hydrogen bubbles rise—a visual metaphor for heightened oxygen consumption, perhaps alluding to intense emotions like fear or trauma. The viewer becomes an active participant as the camera, initially stationed below the diver, simulates swimming motions, enhancing the immersive quality of the scene.
0.07-0.11: As the diver, still in a prone position, directs a torch forward, the anticipation builds. Suddenly, a predatory shark, with jaws agape, lunges forth in a split-second transition. The abruptness of this shift intensifies the immediate threat, with the shaky camera movements amplifying the viewer’s sense of discomfort and fear. The use of chiaroscuro, accentuated by the dark blue surroundings, adds a cinematic touch, heightening the emotional impact.
0.12-0.17: A narrative twist unfolds ingeniously as a subtitle provocatively questions, “Think that is scary?” The scene metamorphoses into a car interior, revealing a man engrossed in the shark scene on his phone while driving. This transition deftly links the underwater peril to the hazards of distracted driving. The tension crescendos as the man, absorbed in the video, redirects his gaze just in time to witness a woman about to cross the road, emphasizing the critical need for the driver’s attention. The dichotomy between the underwater realm and the real-world road scene heightens the rhetorical impact, driving home the tangible consequences of distracted driving.
0.17-0.20: The dramatic climax unfolds with the car executing an emergency stop, narrowly averting a collision. The visibly terrified woman crossing the road serves as a poignant reminder of the potential human cost. The camera then pivots to the shaken driver, capturing heavy breathing and palpable shock. This sequence employs visual storytelling to vividly portray the potential outcomes of distracted driving, effectively eliciting an emotional response from the viewer.
0.20-0.22: A somber black screen emerges, providing a stark backdrop for a powerful message: “The real danger is distracted driving.” The use of darkness introduces a visual pause, allowing the weight of the statement to resonate. This succinct proclamation reinforces the gravity of the issue, accentuating the video’s central theme and effectively utilizing the power of negative space.
0.22-0.30: The narrative pivots to a detailed close-up of the phone in a car mount, the lens slowly zooming out. The driver, now focused and undistracted, wears a genuine smile—a visual metaphor signaling relaxation and control. A subtitle encapsulates the lesson learned: “Eyes forward. Don’t drive distracted.” This conclusive sequence imparts a clear and impactful message, urging viewers to prioritize safety on the road. The transition from chaos to calm, coupled with the explicit message, serves as a compelling call to action, resonating with the ethos of responsible driving.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
Maxx, I notice two of your classmates have also selected this video.
While I haven’t watched it yet, and don’t intend to for awhile, I have responded at great length to MillyCain’s analysis of the first two seconds.
I have the advantage of NOT KNOWING what’s on screen when I read these posts about videos I haven’t seen. What I DO KNOW is whether the descriptions help me fully visualize and internalize what’s being described.
I’m going to copy that exchange with you below. Decide for yourself whether your descriptions would hold up to the level of scrutiny I aim at the author.
The “blockquote” sections are cut-and-pasted from MillyCain’s description.
The —Remarks are mine.
_____________________________________________________________________
—One segment at a time.
—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.
—in the middle of the screen?
—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.
—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?
—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?
—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.
—Feel my confusion.
—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! 🙂
—I agree. Its source is mysterious.
—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! 🙂
—Ocean! I won’t argue. It’s the impression you got, so it’s the impression the filmmaker has to take responsibility for.
—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?
—That’s pretty meaningless.
—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.
—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. 🙂
—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?
—Pretty.
—That’s because we’re ABOVE the diver looking DOWN, and the light came from above the surface of the water?
—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.
—Got it.
—Again, PIA, “next to it” could satisfy if we’ve dispensed with “left” and “right.”
—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.
—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.
—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?
—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!
—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?
—Not to mention feelings of creepiness when your professor keeps needing to identify gender from a distance. 🙂
—I’m going to stop here, MillyCain.
—You’re good for now, right?
—(I might go look at the first second of video now.)
Hi professor, I appreciate you taking the time to grade my assignment. I would like to have a feedback based on my writings because I want to make revision on this as I don’t have the desired grade for this draft. If you could kindly give me a feedback based on my own writing it will help me out to make revisions.
No, sir, not this time. I need you to first learn from the feedback I have offered to MillyCain on this very video, or to BabyYoda on their Visual Rewrite. The crucial advice to tease out every detail of what you’re seeing that might influence the way a viewer interprets the argument being made should be enough to radically improve your first draft. I will not hesitate to do a close reading of your own work when you’ve brought it up to speed. Your first draft does not BEGIN to shed enough insight into any time segment.
Hi Professor, I have made some changes in my draft, kindly take some time to give me a feedback and reconsider my initial grade. Thank You Professor.
Hi Professor, Can you kindly recheck my visual rewrite paper and consider changing the grade in accordance to the changes made in the paper.
That’s some fancy BS, Maxx! 🙂
Regraded.
If you seek another improvement to this post, you are invited to add an “AFTER WATCHING WITH THE SOUND ON” section following your 00:22-00:30 section.
—In that new section, you describe whether the background music, or the voiceover, or just the ambient noises (a squeal of tires, a shriek from the diver? A similar sound from the pedestrian?) contribute to the interpretation you had already placed on the video.
—Did it enhance the video? How?
—Did it perhaps contradict the apparent meaning of the video? How?
—Overall, were the filmmakers successful in delivering a message?