0.00-0.06: This video begins with a diver in the dark, deep parts of the sea. It seems as though the diver is exploring based on his apparel of scuba diver equipment. It starts with him in the dead middle of the screen, swimming towards the right of the screen, and as different camera angles happen, he becomes to appear closer and closer to the camera. As he gets near the camera there is a light shining on the diver, from the ground up.
0.07-0.11: The shot of the camera brings the scuba diver back into the center of the screen as he begins to rotate to his right. With turning right and towards the camera, for a split second the viewer is blinded by the diver’s deep sea flashlight. As the light disappear, you see a shark’s face, while the shark is swimming at the diver with it’s jaws wide open and the camera cuts back to the diver’s face, which is filled with fear.
0.12-0.16: The next second there is a plot twist. “Think that is scary?” appears on the screen. The scene cuts to a person watching this happen as a video on his phone while behind the wheel. As the camera angle pans out, we learn a man was driving through a neighborhood while watching this video instead of the road. Because he was so distracted by his phone, he is not only about to blow a stop sign, but also hit a pedestrian crossing the road that entered from the right side of the screen. The driver slams on the breaks and the car comes to a halting stop. The camera cuts to an angle that is from the corner of the street where the woman began crossing the road. It looks like the car stopped approximately a foot short of the woman’s left leg as she was turning towards the car in shock.
0.17-0.22: The driver now realizes he is about to drill the woman crossing the road so slams on his brakes. We first see the woman, who was terrified, then the camera cuts to the man’s face who was heavily breathing and in shock about what he almost just did. The next second, the screen turns black and in big bold white lettering, appears the phrase “The real danger is distracted driving.”
0.23-0.26: The writing disappears, but screen remains black. The camera movement begins to dolly out as the viewers see the dark screen is a turned off phone in the driver’s cup holder. We then see a calm, collected, and focused driver paying attention to the road with both hands on the wheel. The video is coming full circle at this moment. The video acts a metaphor, which is don’t be the shark. Like the diver, the pedestrian was minding her own business, traveling along with her day as a car almost hits her. The shark was about to eat the swimmer before the camera cut.
0.27-0.30: As the man is driving, bold, white lettering appears again. It states, “Eyes forward. Don’t drive distracted.” The man is driving smoothly with a grin on his face as the video comes to an end.
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
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.)
______________________________________________________________
I hope that indicates the level of detailed observation that qualifies as good work for this assignment, JetsFan. I have faith you can measure up.
It’s complete, but very sketchy, JetsFan. Again I will direct you to the far more detailed work of MillyCain, who studied this same video, or BabyYoda, whose revisions to this assignment were very thorough. This passes, but it doesn’t begin to help the reader truly visualize the scene or feel the impact of the visual Arguments.
Provisionally graded. Revisions are strenuously encouraged (even required for short arguments in your Portfolio), and Regrades are always available following significant improvements.
Marginally better. The “don’t be the shark” metaphor observation is clever. I thought the driver was the diver, about to be involved in something very devastating because his attention was not where it should be—on the shark. Either way . . .
Regraded. Have you produced a Causal Rewrite yet? Not just a Causal Draft, but the two of them so we have one to use for feedback and revisions?
I’ve just noticed you posted a Rebuttal/Rewrite set, but they’re not categorized correctly, so I’ve been missing the Rewrite. Fix that, please, so that grading can proceed before we meet on MON DEC 11.
This post regraded.