0:00-0:01 The video begins with a medieval-themed scene in an enclosed area. A knight, dressed in full armor, is seen riding a horse. The environment around the knight consists of rusted metal poles, trees, a massive mountain, and slopes of orange-brownish earth, suggesting competition is about to take place.
0:01-0:02 Another knight, also in full armor, rides a horse in an enclosed area with a brick wall in the background. The horse is wearing a chanfron, which indicates that the two knights are jousting against each other in a competition.
0:02-0:03 The second knight draws his sword while still on his horse, indicating that the two knights are in the middle of a fight.
0:03-0:07 The knight lifts his sword, and his horse digs his hoof into the ground, creating a trench in the dirt, which shows that the horse is ready to charge.
0:07-0:12 The two knights stare at each other, and one of them pulls out his phone to message someone named Princess, creating a lighthearted moment.
0:12-0:18 The two knights charge at each other, one with a sword and the other with a phone, creating a visual metaphor implying that the rider with the phone in his hand will lose as he is distracted and unable to fight.
0:18-0:23 The scene transitions to a black screen with white writing spelling out “Don’t Text and Ride,” which later changes to “Don’t Text and Drive.” This aims to draw a parallel between the video and the real-life issue of texting while driving.
0:23-0:30 In the final scene, the black screen with white writing changes to “It’s Joust Not Worth It,” which serves as the title of the video. This message aims to promote safe driving and discourage texting while driving by suggesting that the risks of texting while driving are not worth the potential consequences, just as the risks of jousting with a phone are not worth losing the competition. The use of a medieval theme and the visual metaphor of jousting with a phone are creative ways to convey this important message in an engaging and memorable way.
You didn’t request Feedback Please, PhilsFan, but your post has been at the top of the blog for a few hours, so I’m going to make an observation here that you and anyone else scrolling by might find important.
For the first 7 seconds of your video analysis, we have no idea whether we’re observing actual knights preparing for combat, present-day actors in a realistic drama trying to convince us that we’re watching actual knights, two people on horseback wearing helmets but otherwise not intending to fool anyone into thinking they’re knights, animated characters in a cartoon, etc., . . . .
You mention full armor but not the fact that we see the “knight” from about the lower rib cage up. The “rusted metal” fence posts and rails should tell us right away we’re not in the 13th-16th century AND that the creators of the video are not pretending that we are. We’re “told” that this is a contemporary video. You tell us he/she’s on horseback, but not that we can see only one ear of what might be a horse.
Thank you for the word “chanfron.” I’ve never heard it before! I don’t know about the brick wall, but I do observe that you neglected to mention the wires and utility poles in the background, another indication that this is NOT medieval Europe.
Considering we can’t see their faces at all, and that they must be viewing whatever they can see through narrow horizontal slits in their helmets, it’s unclear how you know that knight number two is staring at his “opponent.” In fact, considering how tightly the shots are cropped and edited, and the similarities of their shiny silver-steel armor, can we really say this is two knights, not just one knight shot from different angles, or at different times? I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m asking how/why we draw that conclusion.
If you had requested Feedback, my response would have been called-for, PhilsFan. I’m not suggesting there’s ANYTHING inaccurate about your draft so far. But I am suggesting that SO MUCH information/detail/tone/color/rhetoric/suggestion/argument is contained in every frame that you’ll find it hard to exhaust the store of data you try to transmit to your readers.
Why do the filmmakers want us to know SO SOON that we’re looking at a contemporary scene? Does that choice have rhetorical value? Does it pay off? Should they have made that choice? Or should they have tried to fool us at least for a few seconds into thinking we were looking at a bit of historical footage or a bit of footage that INTENDED to mimic the 13th century?
Does that help you understand the depth of the assignment?