0:00 This video shows a diver swimming in the ocean. He is there by himself and is deep in the ocean. The background in the ocean is very dark and there are no sea creatures in the frame at all yet. Although there are rocks in the background. It looks like the diver is trying to explore something in there.
0:01 Not much change in this scene but it looks like there are bubbles coming out of the divers breathing device so this means that he is most likely breathing underwater through his breathing device. It is also likely that he is floating up to the surface of the water
0:02-0:03 Now the diver is shown at a different angle. It is shown that there is junk in the background. This could be garbage in the ocean or the wreckage of a ship. It is also seen that there is dark debris that is in a vertical direction.
0:04-0:05 The diver is seen up close with his face and his body. He is looking up in the camera’s direction and looking forward in his direction. He could most likely be looking at something that is very unusual or he could be getting ready to breathe again because there are no bubbles coming out of his breathing device.
0:06 Afterward the camera has changed angles. He is holding a flashlight and is swimming towards something. I see his legs at an angle two which means he could be kicking his legs. It is also likely that he going faster to look at something
0:07-0:08 Not much change zooms in a little closer to the diver and there are more bubbles coming out. This could mean he is breathing more heavily and the water pressure is big.
0:09 Change in scene there is a shark that is facing forward in the frame. The shark probably sees the diver and is going to swim after it. It does not however have its mouth open yet so the shark is probably far away towards the diver.
0:10 The shark opens his mouth and is trying to eat the diver. The diver gets startled and tries to swim away as fast as he can. The diver got startled by the shark and is trying to get away but the shark is coming by really fast.
0:11 Turns out someone is watching something on their phone. It has a caption on the phone saying “Think that’s scary.” It was most likely a movie that the person was watching on their phone. It does not have a clear view of where the person is though.
0:12 Now the camera zooms out and it turns out the person watching the video was in their car and on the driver’s side. However it may not be that this person is driving their car though and they could start to get ready to drive or they are already at their destination.
0:13 Turns out that the man is driving. He is a young man and is looking at his phone and is having a surprised look on his face. He is not looking at the road at all though and the car is moving at a pretty big pace. The scene could possibly be distracting
0:14 He just put down his phone and is approaching a stop sign, a crosswalk and a lady is crossing the street. It looks like he did not have enough time to slow down his car and it’s possible that he could hit that lady because he was not paying attention while he was driving his car.
0:15 The man sees the lady and is pressing on his brakes really hard. The man gasps and the lady looks really scared thinking that he is going to run her over. The car comes to a really big stop but he might not be able to stop his car on time though because he was not looking up.
0:16 The man almost hit the lady and the lady has her hands right in front of his car even though that will not stop the car. But she is trying to do this in order to protect herself from getting hurt in her mental mind.
0:17 The lady is relieved that she did not get hurt or run over by the car. She is panting due to all of the anxiety, stress and just the fact that this happened so fast in one time.
0:18- 0:19 The man has a guilty look on his face knowing that he could have accidentally injured that lady because he was distracted while driving. It seems like he has so much going on in his mind because he is thinking about how this could have been prevented.
0:20-0:21-0:22 The screen turns black and puts letters on the video saying, “The real danger is distracted driving.” This looks like an ad that is trying to tell people not to be distracted while driving your car.
0:23-0:25 Now the black screen zooms out with the man’s phone in a holder. This is because it will show people where their cell phone should be when they’re driving and not be distracted. This ad is encouraging people to put their cell phones away and focus on the road.
0:26 The man is now looking up at the road in front of him and not being distracted by anything in his car. This is to show people what to do when you are driving on the road.
0:27-0:30- The frame is still the same but now it is saying, “Eyes forward don’t drive distracted.”
Counterintuitive Fall 2024 
Here’s what I want you to focus on. Am I sharing enough details when I have to describe them, and do I have enough description on the last few frames?
More details is almost always a good idea, RebelPilot.
When Milly Cain asked me a similar question, I provided some of my own observations about the video.
This is what we discussed about JUST THE FIRST TWO SECONDS.
I SAID:
—in the middle of the screen?
I SAID:
—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.
I SAID:
—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?
I SAID:
—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?
I SAID:
—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.
I SAID:
—Feel my confusion.
I SAID:
—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 SAID:
—I agree. Its source is mysterious.
I SAID:
—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! 🙂
I SAID:
—Ocean! I won’t argue. It’s the impression you got, so it’s the impression the filmmaker has to take responsibility for.
I SAID:
—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?
I SAID:
—That’s pretty meaningless.
I SAID:
—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.
I SAID:
—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. 🙂
I SAID:
—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?
I SAID:
—Pretty.
—That’s because we’re ABOVE the diver looking DOWN, and the light came from above the surface of the water?
I SAID:
—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.
I SAID:
—Got it.
I SAID:
—Again, PIA, “next to it” could satisfy if we’ve dispensed with “left” and “right.”
I SAID:
—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.
I SAID:
—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.
I SAID:
—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?
I SAID:
—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!
I SAID:
—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?
I SAID:
—Not to mention feelings of creepiness when your professor keeps needing to identify gender from a distance. 🙂
Does that help you understand how much detail is good, RP?
Does it also illustrate that it’s not enough to say we know something. We need to communicate to our readers (WHO DO NOT GET TO VIEW THE VIDEO) HOW we know what we know. In other words, what do we SEE that helps us draw our conclusions about what the filmmaker MEANT to communicate?
I’ve never watched this video, but since you asked me about the “last few frames,” I’ll take a look at that now and see if I can help.
I SAY:
—I agree.
—These “ads” from the Ad Council are referred to as Public Service Announcements (PSAs). They don’t exactly promote a product. Usually they promote a social behavior, in this case, paying attention to the road instead of to the phone.
—I have gathered from MillyCain that the bulk of the PSA involves a driver, presumably the young man who shows up around Second 23, being distracted by a video of a shark attack while he should have been watching a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
—So you should explain how the screen message communicates the REAL danger, distinguished from the fictional danger of the shark in the movie.
I SAY:
—That makes sense.
—The zoom starts in close on the phone, right?
—Our attention is drawn to it, just like everybody’s attention when their phone is nearby.
—But as it zooms out, we can see that the camera is FACING US, not the driver, so he would see the back of the phone if he looked at it.
—Also, we can tell the phone is not just silenced but turned OFF, right?
—That way, it won’t buzz, and the driver won’t hear low-volume aquatic horror movie sounds.
I SAY:
—I assume this is the same man we saw earlier in the video, who was distracted by the movie.
—Be sure you let your readers know the video has concentrated on just one person in one situation.
—He’s meant to represent all of us though, right? How well do the filmmakers help us associate or empathize with him?
You can do three things beyond the basics to improve your work on a Rewrite, RebelPilot.
1. Be sure you emphasize WHY the filmmakers made their decisions. Why did they choose this driver, this car, this phone, this movie he’s watching, the person in the crosswalk, the weather, everything. None of it was accidental.
2. AFTER you’ve carefully communicated what you can WITHOUT SOUND, consider going back to view the video WITH SOUND and explain in a separate paragraph whether the soundtrack (the music if there is any, the voiceovers if there are any, the sound effects, etc.) CONTRIBUTES to the argument the PSA is making, or whether it DETRACTS FROM or CONTRADICTS that message, and how, and why.
3. And finally, if you’re willing, ASSESS the overall effectiveness of the PSA. Did the filmmakers successfully communicate their message? If not, why not?