Film analysis of the documentary on Eyes on the prize part 2: Fighting back
1. Name of film:
2. Main point of the film:
3. What is the point of view of the film? Was it overly favorable or critical of a particular group or individual?
4. What inferences were made in the film? Were there parts of the film that filmmakers must have made up because they couldn't have known this from the available evidence?
5. What Techniques are used in the film to persuade the audience to the filmmakers point of view? Note music, camera angle, character portrayal, etc.
6. What evidence is included to support the point of view put forth in the film? What is the source of that evidence? How strong is it?
7. What relevant information do I know? Does it contradict or support the story presented in the film?
8. Overall, how strong are the historical arguments in this film? Is it historically accurate?