Aaron Burr, Part 2 was a perfect mix of humor and dramatic effect that resulted in an entertaining eight minutes. With about half of the film in a 1700's setting and the other half in modern day, it almost made it easier or more enjoyable to watch. When watching anything related to history, most find the experience boring but adding in a contemporary flare, a "historical" makes it seem less awful. The first hand perspective (which may not be completely accurate but altered for comedic effect) gives the audience a way to connect with the story and making it more interesting than a secondary character or narration. While this was a comedy, I only saw hints of it towards the end while in modern day New York. I see Burr walking around the city as a representation of how he sees that his bad reputation will live on for hundreds of years or how he will be forgotten about, when he really just wants his legacy to be a positive one. I enjoyed this mainly because I am a history buff, but I can see how others would not pick up on the humor due to the specificity the filmmaker is presenting.
I really enjoyed the modern spin on this historical event. I also liked the way this was shot. The images were very pleasing, and flowed together nicely. Tying images of modern day is unexpected, but really kept it interesting, and I like the way the story was told, as if we were getting a first person account. I think I would like to see more historical events and themes presented in this way.
This might be my favorite one by far. I'm not really big into history unless it is explained in a way that I can relate and Dana O'Keefe does that by modernizing the events that happened in the 1700s between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Barr. This reenactment was shot in a way that made you feel like you were actually in this film. The storyline easily flowed because O'Keefe reenacts history but she does a great job using still images as flashbacks. The narrator was a big help to because he plays the role of a soldier and he tells the story through his eyes. All in all, this film was shot well and it was very easy to follow.
Although this short film initially gave me terrifying flashbacks to the struggling AP US History student I once was, I enjoyed the concept of this film quite a bit. I liked the juxtaposition of historic figures in a present day America. It gave the illusion that this is a skirmish that transcends centuries. Whether this was intentional or not, I thought it was developed enough to work. It addressed the reality that Alexander Hamilton is addressed as an American hero, while Aaron Burr was simply known as the man who put the greatness of another to an end. The brightest part of this short film, in my opinion, is that it played with that odd realization that history books are not entirely full of truth, and timelines taken as truth are simply the current interpretation. It is almost impossible to arrive at a genuine conclusion of events. My only critique is the writing. I thought that there could have been more cleverness that would arise out of Aaron Burr having the chance to talk to the world population of the 21st century, but yet the writing was very minimalist and uninspired.
I really enjoyed the humor in this short. The way they mixed in modern elements, such as cell phones and text messages, and didn't even acknowledge how out of place these things were with the historical figures was great. I also actually did learn a little bit about Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr (i think). I looked it up and Aaron Burr did apparently really want to kill Hamilton, and was quoted saying that "had [my] vision not been impaired by the morning mist, [I] would have shot Hamilton in the heart" on the same day. So Dana O'Keefe probably altered Burr's perspective for the sake of narration, but I have no problem with that.
I thought it was an interesting historic narrative, with humor and good shots. O'Keefe was smart to use a first person narrator, and all in all it was very entertaining.
Aaron Burr, Part 2 by Dana O'keefe is an interesting way to present a different look at history. It's narrative form is descriptive and advantageous to its point. The mirroring of modern times with the use of the 9mm handgun, the text messaging, and modern settings, shows that the story is universal and could still be happening today in similar manners.
Aaron Burr, Part 2 was simple but contained a lot of style which kept it interesting. The first person narration helps to portray another side of the story told in history books. It is an interesting concept to think of how the founding fathers would view our modern world and it was a nice visual to see the two time periods mirror each other. The music choices fit in well with the style and tone of the film. History can be a boring subject for many, but this felt like a unique way to open people's minds to different interpretations of historical events.
Aaron Burr, Part 2 was a perfect mix of humor and dramatic effect that resulted in an entertaining eight minutes. With about half of the film in a 1700's setting and the other half in modern day, it almost made it easier or more enjoyable to watch. When watching anything related to history, most find the experience boring but adding in a contemporary flare, a "historical" makes it seem less awful. The first hand perspective (which may not be completely accurate but altered for comedic effect) gives the audience a way to connect with the story and making it more interesting than a secondary character or narration. While this was a comedy, I only saw hints of it towards the end while in modern day New York. I see Burr walking around the city as a representation of how he sees that his bad reputation will live on for hundreds of years or how he will be forgotten about, when he really just wants his legacy to be a positive one. I enjoyed this mainly because I am a history buff, but I can see how others would not pick up on the humor due to the specificity the filmmaker is presenting.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the modern spin on this historical event. I also liked the way this was shot. The images were very pleasing, and flowed together nicely. Tying images of modern day is unexpected, but really kept it interesting, and I like the way the story was told, as if we were getting a first person account. I think I would like to see more historical events and themes presented in this way.
ReplyDeleteThis might be my favorite one by far. I'm not really big into history unless it is explained in a way that I can relate and Dana O'Keefe does that by modernizing the events that happened in the 1700s between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Barr. This reenactment was shot in a way that made you feel like you were actually in this film. The storyline easily flowed because O'Keefe reenacts history but she does a great job using still images as flashbacks. The narrator was a big help to because he plays the role of a soldier and he tells the story through his eyes. All in all, this film was shot well and it was very easy to follow.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this short film initially gave me terrifying flashbacks to the struggling AP US History student I once was, I enjoyed the concept of this film quite a bit. I liked the juxtaposition of historic figures in a present day America. It gave the illusion that this is a skirmish that transcends centuries. Whether this was intentional or not, I thought it was developed enough to work. It addressed the reality that Alexander Hamilton is addressed as an American hero, while Aaron Burr was simply known as the man who put the greatness of another to an end. The brightest part of this short film, in my opinion, is that it played with that odd realization that history books are not entirely full of truth, and timelines taken as truth are simply the current interpretation. It is almost impossible to arrive at a genuine conclusion of events. My only critique is the writing. I thought that there could have been more cleverness that would arise out of Aaron Burr having the chance to talk to the world population of the 21st century, but yet the writing was very minimalist and uninspired.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the humor in this short. The way they mixed in modern elements, such as cell phones and text messages, and didn't even acknowledge how out of place these things were with the historical figures was great. I also actually did learn a little bit about Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr (i think). I looked it up and Aaron Burr did apparently really want to kill Hamilton, and was quoted saying that "had [my] vision not been impaired by the morning mist, [I] would have shot Hamilton in the heart" on the same day. So Dana O'Keefe probably altered Burr's perspective for the sake of narration, but I have no problem with that.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was an interesting historic narrative, with humor and good shots. O'Keefe was smart to use a first person narrator, and all in all it was very entertaining.
ReplyDeleteAaron Burr, Part 2 by Dana O'keefe is an interesting way to present a different look at history. It's narrative form is descriptive and advantageous to its point. The mirroring of modern times with the use of the 9mm handgun, the text messaging, and modern settings, shows that the story is universal and could still be happening today in similar manners.
ReplyDeleteAaron Burr, Part 2 was simple but contained a lot of style which kept it interesting. The first person narration helps to portray another side of the story told in history books. It is an interesting concept to think of how the founding fathers would view our modern world and it was a nice visual to see the two time periods mirror each other. The music choices fit in well with the style and tone of the film. History can be a boring subject for many, but this felt like a unique way to open people's minds to different interpretations of historical events.
ReplyDelete