I have watched this film in another class last semester and it is definitely one of my favorite short films I have ever seen. I love history lessons in general, but shown in the context of present day images, showing the parking lot where Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton, this film is something else. Especially after the discussion of editing this week in class, this film has fantastic editing. The juxtaposition of some of the shots elicits a whole variety of emotions, and they are only strengthened by the narrator going on in the background. The film plays off great source material, depicting the life story of one of history's most infamous characters. Dana O'Keefe was able to look at this entire situation from a point of view that not many others have looked from, and perfectly showed it with the visuals in Aaron Burr, Part 2. Despite being shot in present-day locations, the costumes looked perfect, and even provided an appropriate stark contrast to the present-day locations. With closer inspection, it is clear that this film was produced with a smaller budget, but O'Keefe is able to use every shot to its greatest potential, despite not having money to create elaborate action scenes. This film is the perfect short film to show as an example of using editing and writing to create something beautiful from something not-so-substantial.
"Aaron Burr, Part 2" is an insightful and refreshing take on an old American legend. Using only one main piece of archival material (the painting "The Death of General Montgomery in the Attack on Quebec" by John Trumbull), O'Keefe creates the other side to the Burr-Hamilton feud by using Revolutionary-era clothing and props transported into the modern world. This adds an interesting modern take on a low-budget film. The dated props relate the characters to history, but the modern scenery relates Burr to the viewer. The first-person narration by Burr flips between reflecting on events in the Revolution and what is currently in New York. Using first-person narration allows the viewer to relate to Burr on a personal level, making him more believable. In the "historical" scenes, O'Keefe uses editing to simulate fighting at night by adding black frames and flashing light. The montage of Burr practicing dueling, the English flag, and the original Revolutionary flag "Join or Die" with a snake is particularly powerful in blurring the lines in history, and breaking down the viewer prejudices against Burr. Overall, O'Keefe made "Aaron Burr, Part 2" into a respectable narrative/documentary, by using modern editing and situations.
Long before the rabid Hamilton musical fandom of yesteryear, there was "Aaron Burr." Using a mix of staged "revolution era" footage, archival footage, and scenes of modern New York, the short weaves a fantastic story of the other side of history.
The film uses the modern footage as juxtaposition to the accurately staged footage in order to portray the timelessly infamous figure, Burr. It also explains the other side to history in that Burr was not necessarily a villain, and Hamilton was not necessarily a hero.
One critique would be the lack of effective special effects for the gun play, and the poor quality text frames. In 2011 there were both much better fonts available, and fantastic gun smoke and flare overlays.
I’m not quite sure how to begin talking about Dana O’Keefe’s film “Aaron Burr, Part 2”. It was such an incredible collage of images, history, and narration that was both innovative and technically savvy. While this film is far from perfect, it asks a lot interesting questions about history and our relationship with it.
Before I even hit play, I felt confused. “Why was this film Part 2?” “Am I missing something?” So I enter this film intrigued, but worried that I had missing some crucial bit of information. O’Keefe’s violent and jarring opening reinforced this feeling that this film was going to be very different from anything I had seen before. As Burr narrates (over a phone?) the struggles of his life and of history in general, we are treated to some incredible slo-mo shots of some period piece set pieces. Really, really cool! However, when he moves on to describe the battle in which he saves the general, I was initially very upset with the rather poor quality of the shaky cam and picture quality. As the film progressed, I learned that this was an important stylistic choice. He was putting these more modern, “documentary” film techniques into dialogue with old, historically based recreations (which tend to feel more polished and “certain”). Speaking of certainty, Burr’s narration attempts to unravel many of my preconceived motions of historical fact. I’m not quite sure to believe what he is saying. Is any of it true? Where is his authority? It creates an interesting tone regardless, again highlighting the film’s central discussion of legends vs fact.
As the film goes on, there are more and more stylistic choices to appreciate, including: the strobe light montage of the forrest battle, the archival footage of modern times, and the texting between the two nemesis (rather than letter writing). All of these choices reveal O’Keefe’s attempts to remove the stigma of the past from her story, and to ground it in the present time. This jumping back and forth between the past and present keeps us guessing and gives the film another layer of complexity.
O’Keefe keeps cutting back to the duel, and for good reason. While it is narratively important in the sense that it was defining moment in Burr’s story, it also acts as a metaphor for the film’s message of distrust towards traditional history conceptions. The duel acts as a clear example as how wild speculation and vilification tainted the truth of an event (if Burr’s narration is to be trusted).
On a technical level, there are a few things that I really didn’t care for. There were several over exposed shots that looked pretty bad and the visual effects (the muzzle flashes) were lacking. Like I mentioned earlier, there were a lot of technical choices that I didn’t like until I realized that O’Keefe was jumping around in time and using any source material that she wanted to tell her story. Once I bought in to that idea, I noticed these problems much less.
Dana O’Keefe’s fascinating look of the “true” life of Aaron Burr is both interesting on a historical level, but also on a level that looks at how we interact with history and how we make assumptions and beliefs based on what we hear from others. While I’m not totally convinced on many of the claims Burr makes during the film, I sympathize with his struggle and was thoroughly entertained during this film.
“Aaron Burr, Part 2” was an interesting look at Aaron Burr from his own perspective. I was a little confused about why its part 2. I guess its referring to the American legend as part 1? I’m not sure. This film contains many interesting storytelling elements that drew me into the narrative. The revolutionary recreations, the archival documents, the recreation of the duel with muskets and modern pistols, and somewhat distorted narration comprised this short, blending together into a potpourri of interesting techniques. I liked the creativity of the strobe light inspired montage of Burr protecting the general, but it was a little distracting. Overall I thought it was a fresh look on one of America’s oldest legends with an interesting modern twist.
"Aaron Burr, Part 2" is a video that makes history a lot more exciting and mysterious. In middle and high school when teachers taught history the information would go into one ear and out the other. I didn't pay attention to what was said, that's why it's new to hear about the life of Aaron Burr. Not being well informed about the U.S history I didn't know anything about Aaron Burr. This short film encouraged me to find out more about who Aaron Burr was. Dana O'Keefe did a good job making history into a lively and interesting film. This film made history come to life by displaying it as if it was modern day. O'keefe uses modern day language, music, and technology to appeal to the younger generation and use a different twist on history.
"Aaron Burr, Part 2" was a short film on the historical duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Even after watching the short film, it still seems like there is skepticism on how it truly went down. Dana O'Keefe put a unique twist to this story when she incorporated modern day life styles to the historic story. For example, I found it pretty humorous how when Aaron and Alexander were talking about their confrontations with each other, it showed them texting on IPhones. It was unique twists like that which made me really enjoy this piece. Normally, learning about historical events like that is not boring, but is hard to stay fully engaged in the story. However, Dana O'Keefe made it interesting and made it very easy to follow along and stay attentive. This unique historical short film was definitely unlike any other that I have seen. I wish more historic pieces were like this one.
I thoroughly enjoyed "Aaron Burr, Part Two." I thought it was a witty look at history that kept the viewers engaged. The juxtaposition of images told a good story and I liked the editing. I paid more attention to the shots and thought they worked well and the variety of them kept it interesting. Most people already know the basics of the Burr/Hamilton story, but this short gave more information in a surprisingly comical way. The modern twists, such as texts between the two and the duel in the parking lot, gave it an edge which I enjoyed and kept it fresh. Overall, I thought it was an interesting take on a narrative and I would enjoy watching more of O'Keefe's work.
"Aaron Burr Part Two" is a film about the infamous duel between Burr/Hamilton and gives an interesting look at Burrs thoughts and how the actor portrays him as a "victim of history". I paid attention to the edits and how the shots were cut, mixing in shots of modern day NY then shots of Burr marching and going back to the duel was a nice touch. I like how they did the duel in the parking lot that was a nice and somewhat fun way of showing the duel. I enjoyed the film and how the director told the story.
I have watched it several times. It seems interesting and the editing of this movie is great.The movies has used an unusual way to describe the duel between Burr and Hamilton. Some cuts of the movie show has showed the New York and the the modern society. Compare to other story telling movie, this movie if go through from the Burrs's perceptive and which makes us understand better. I like how the give some shots to the old pictures than switch to burr's face. You can feel how upset does the burr felt. The movie has also did a good job on restore the duel scenes. Overall, this movie has refresh the ideas of narrative storytelling. People can also make those kind of movie interesting.
"Aaron Burr, Part 2" by Dana O'Keefe was a brilliant film. Yes, the story was great, but what was amazing was the cinematography and audio in the film. The camera angels that were used, such as the close-ups, almost low angle close-ups, and the long shots were amazing too. When there was a long shot the framing and composition were put together so well. You get to see the full environment which the characters are within for the long shots. In addition, the close-ups showed so much detail and expression on the faces of the characters, they were just as good. The picture was so crisp and clear too that you feel like you are in the film. With that being said, the audio mixing was amazing and kept you wanting to keep watching the film. Also, the music at the beginning of the film captured my attention immediately. This film was created so well, it was amazing.
I have watched this film in another class last semester and it is definitely one of my favorite short films I have ever seen. I love history lessons in general, but shown in the context of present day images, showing the parking lot where Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton, this film is something else. Especially after the discussion of editing this week in class, this film has fantastic editing. The juxtaposition of some of the shots elicits a whole variety of emotions, and they are only strengthened by the narrator going on in the background. The film plays off great source material, depicting the life story of one of history's most infamous characters. Dana O'Keefe was able to look at this entire situation from a point of view that not many others have looked from, and perfectly showed it with the visuals in Aaron Burr, Part 2. Despite being shot in present-day locations, the costumes looked perfect, and even provided an appropriate stark contrast to the present-day locations. With closer inspection, it is clear that this film was produced with a smaller budget, but O'Keefe is able to use every shot to its greatest potential, despite not having money to create elaborate action scenes. This film is the perfect short film to show as an example of using editing and writing to create something beautiful from something not-so-substantial.
ReplyDelete"Aaron Burr, Part 2" is an insightful and refreshing take on an old American legend.
ReplyDeleteUsing only one main piece of archival material (the painting "The Death of General Montgomery in the Attack on Quebec" by John Trumbull), O'Keefe creates the other side to the Burr-Hamilton feud by using Revolutionary-era clothing and props transported into the modern world. This adds an interesting modern take on a low-budget film. The dated props relate the characters to history, but the modern scenery relates Burr to the viewer.
The first-person narration by Burr flips between reflecting on events in the Revolution and what is currently in New York. Using first-person narration allows the viewer to relate to Burr on a personal level, making him more believable.
In the "historical" scenes, O'Keefe uses editing to simulate fighting at night by adding black frames and flashing light. The montage of Burr practicing dueling, the English flag, and the original Revolutionary flag "Join or Die" with a snake is particularly powerful in blurring the lines in history, and breaking down the viewer prejudices against Burr.
Overall, O'Keefe made "Aaron Burr, Part 2" into a respectable narrative/documentary, by using modern editing and situations.
Long before the rabid Hamilton musical fandom of yesteryear, there was "Aaron Burr." Using a mix of staged "revolution era" footage, archival footage, and scenes of modern New York, the short weaves a fantastic story of the other side of history.
ReplyDeleteThe film uses the modern footage as juxtaposition to the accurately staged footage in order to portray the timelessly infamous figure, Burr. It also explains the other side to history in that Burr was not necessarily a villain, and Hamilton was not necessarily a hero.
One critique would be the lack of effective special effects for the gun play, and the poor quality text frames. In 2011 there were both much better fonts available, and fantastic gun smoke and flare overlays.
I’m not quite sure how to begin talking about Dana O’Keefe’s film “Aaron Burr, Part 2”. It was such an incredible collage of images, history, and narration that was both innovative and technically savvy. While this film is far from perfect, it asks a lot interesting questions about history and our relationship with it.
ReplyDeleteBefore I even hit play, I felt confused. “Why was this film Part 2?” “Am I missing something?” So I enter this film intrigued, but worried that I had missing some crucial bit of information. O’Keefe’s violent and jarring opening reinforced this feeling that this film was going to be very different from anything I had seen before. As Burr narrates (over a phone?) the struggles of his life and of history in general, we are treated to some incredible slo-mo shots of some period piece set pieces. Really, really cool! However, when he moves on to describe the battle in which he saves the general, I was initially very upset with the rather poor quality of the shaky cam and picture quality. As the film progressed, I learned that this was an important stylistic choice. He was putting these more modern, “documentary” film techniques into dialogue with old, historically based recreations (which tend to feel more polished and “certain”). Speaking of certainty, Burr’s narration attempts to unravel many of my preconceived motions of historical fact. I’m not quite sure to believe what he is saying. Is any of it true? Where is his authority? It creates an interesting tone regardless, again highlighting the film’s central discussion of legends vs fact.
As the film goes on, there are more and more stylistic choices to appreciate, including: the strobe light montage of the forrest battle, the archival footage of modern times, and the texting between the two nemesis (rather than letter writing). All of these choices reveal O’Keefe’s attempts to remove the stigma of the past from her story, and to ground it in the present time. This jumping back and forth between the past and present keeps us guessing and gives the film another layer of complexity.
O’Keefe keeps cutting back to the duel, and for good reason. While it is narratively important in the sense that it was defining moment in Burr’s story, it also acts as a metaphor for the film’s message of distrust towards traditional history conceptions. The duel acts as a clear example as how wild speculation and vilification tainted the truth of an event (if Burr’s narration is to be trusted).
On a technical level, there are a few things that I really didn’t care for. There were several over exposed shots that looked pretty bad and the visual effects (the muzzle flashes) were lacking. Like I mentioned earlier, there were a lot of technical choices that I didn’t like until I realized that O’Keefe was jumping around in time and using any source material that she wanted to tell her story. Once I bought in to that idea, I noticed these problems much less.
Dana O’Keefe’s fascinating look of the “true” life of Aaron Burr is both interesting on a historical level, but also on a level that looks at how we interact with history and how we make assumptions and beliefs based on what we hear from others. While I’m not totally convinced on many of the claims Burr makes during the film, I sympathize with his struggle and was thoroughly entertained during this film.
“Aaron Burr, Part 2” was an interesting look at Aaron Burr from his own perspective. I was a little confused about why its part 2. I guess its referring to the American legend as part 1? I’m not sure. This film contains many interesting storytelling elements that drew me into the narrative. The revolutionary recreations, the archival documents, the recreation of the duel with muskets and modern pistols, and somewhat distorted narration comprised this short, blending together into a potpourri of interesting techniques. I liked the creativity of the strobe light inspired montage of Burr protecting the general, but it was a little distracting. Overall I thought it was a fresh look on one of America’s oldest legends with an interesting modern twist.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Aaron Burr, Part 2" is a video that makes history a lot more exciting and mysterious. In middle and high school when teachers taught history the information would go into one ear and out the other. I didn't pay attention to what was said, that's why it's new to hear about the life of Aaron Burr. Not being well informed about the U.S history I didn't know anything about Aaron Burr. This short film encouraged me to find out more about who Aaron Burr was. Dana O'Keefe did a good job making history into a lively and interesting film. This film made history come to life by displaying it as if it was modern day. O'keefe uses modern day language, music, and technology to appeal to the younger generation and use a different twist on history.
ReplyDelete"Aaron Burr, Part 2" was a short film on the historical duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Even after watching the short film, it still seems like there is skepticism on how it truly went down. Dana O'Keefe put a unique twist to this story when she incorporated modern day life styles to the historic story. For example, I found it pretty humorous how when Aaron and Alexander were talking about their confrontations with each other, it showed them texting on IPhones. It was unique twists like that which made me really enjoy this piece. Normally, learning about historical events like that is not boring, but is hard to stay fully engaged in the story. However, Dana O'Keefe made it interesting and made it very easy to follow along and stay attentive. This unique historical short film was definitely unlike any other that I have seen. I wish more historic pieces were like this one.
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoyed "Aaron Burr, Part Two." I thought it was a witty look at history that kept the viewers engaged. The juxtaposition of images told a good story and I liked the editing. I paid more attention to the shots and thought they worked well and the variety of them kept it interesting. Most people already know the basics of the Burr/Hamilton story, but this short gave more information in a surprisingly comical way. The modern twists, such as texts between the two and the duel in the parking lot, gave it an edge which I enjoyed and kept it fresh. Overall, I thought it was an interesting take on a narrative and I would enjoy watching more of O'Keefe's work.
ReplyDelete"Aaron Burr Part Two" is a film about the infamous duel between Burr/Hamilton and gives an interesting look at Burrs thoughts and how the actor portrays him as a "victim of history". I paid attention to the edits and how the shots were cut, mixing in shots of modern day NY then shots of Burr marching and going back to the duel was a nice touch. I like how they did the duel in the parking lot that was a nice and somewhat fun way of showing the duel. I enjoyed the film and how the director told the story.
ReplyDeleteI have watched it several times. It seems interesting and the editing of this movie is great.The movies has used an unusual way to describe the duel between Burr and Hamilton. Some cuts of the movie show has showed the New York and the the modern society. Compare to other story telling movie, this movie if go through from the Burrs's perceptive and which makes us understand better. I like how the give some shots to the old pictures than switch to burr's face. You can feel how upset does the burr felt. The movie has also did a good job on restore the duel scenes. Overall, this movie has refresh the ideas of narrative storytelling. People can also make those kind of movie interesting.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Aaron Burr, Part 2" by Dana O'Keefe was a brilliant film. Yes, the story was great, but what was amazing was the cinematography and audio in the film. The camera angels that were used, such as the close-ups, almost low angle close-ups, and the long shots were amazing too. When there was a long shot the framing and composition were put together so well. You get to see the full environment which the characters are within for the long shots. In addition, the close-ups showed so much detail and expression on the faces of the characters, they were just as good. The picture was so crisp and clear too that you feel like you are in the film. With that being said, the audio mixing was amazing and kept you wanting to keep watching the film. Also, the music at the beginning of the film captured my attention immediately. This film was created so well, it was amazing.
ReplyDelete