Together, we will decide on 5 criteria for assessing your Kino-Pravdas, using the three things below. Here is a link to a sample grading rubric

1) In the comments section of this post is the initial freewrite after watching Vertov’s film.

2) In the comments section of this post is where you identified the most important idea in Vertov’s writing.

3) And here is the initial assignment:

Assignment #8: “Kino-Pravda” Film Essay (7-9 minutes)

Thinking back to Dziga Vertov’s practice of kino-pravda or “Film Truth,” your final film project is to make a documentary film essay that synthesizes all of your research and thinking about how your chosen artwork functions in the community, making an argument about the significance of this art. Your film essay might include such things as: a discussion of the history of work, its cultural significance, a technical description of how it works or how it was made, an aesthetic description of its qualities, a cultural description of how it is perceived. You should incorporate your early footage from the “Observational Documentary” and the “Community Interview,” but also add about 5 minutes of contextual and argumentative information described above.

Audience: The Queens College community


Quick draft of 4 Assessment Criteria Scale

1) Video contains a clear argument/thesis that is “true but arguable” (Harvey) —— Video contains an argument that is not clear and is not necessarily true but arguable.

2) Video analyzes evidence (visuals or text) in order to help support the main idea or a sub-claim —– Video does not analyze evidence, or provides evidence that doesn’t support main idea, or doesn’t provide sufficient evidence

3) Video’s structure shows an orderly/logical manner, including effective use of transitions and stitching (Harvey’s “progressive order”)  —– Video seems like random ideas, its structure is not apparent, structure “out of order”

4) Video demonstrates a motive that is intellectually stimulating/captivating, that makes people think —– video is “overedited” or just about visual stimulation, using visual effects for their own sake

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


26 Responses to “Assessing Kino-Pravdas”

  1.   Carlene Faith Says:

    5 criteria for assessing Kino Pravda Film Essays

    1. Argument, Evidence and Analyzing
    a. Video contains a clear argument that is true but arguable. —-Video contains an argument that is not clear and is not necessarily true but arguable.
    b. Video backs up its argument with clear concise information that supports the authors claim. —-Video does not use clear and concise information that supports the authors claim.
    c. Video takes the evidence and analyzes it so that it contributes better to their argument. —-Video does not analyze the evidence so it does not contribute towards the argument as well.
    2. Visually Stimulating but not over edited
    a. Video contains just the right amount of editing, and does not use too much to the point where the ideas of the film are lost.—- Video contains far too much editing and the idea of the film is completely lost.
    b. Video is visually stimulating but still makes sense to form a truth.—- Video is too visually stimulating and the truth is lost.

  2.   Brad Bujan Says:

    The message of the film is apparent.
    The shots follow each other logically.
    Scripting scenes to have a clear understanding of were the film is heading and the direction each shot takes.
    Special effects and lots of editing doesn’t make a film good.
    Gets to the point of his film and doesn’t add extra bits of fluff.

  3.   John Malach Says:

    1. Does it show off the community impact of the piece of art?

    2. Does it give historical background of why it is there how it got there and who funded the project?

    3. Does it have community opinions on the piece?

    4. Does it show off the art piece properly either from all sides or if it is interactive does it show people using it?

    5.Does it have structure or is it just random ideas thrown together?

  4.   Jenny Lu Says:

    5 criteria for assessing Kino-Pravdas:
    1. There must be a thesis or central theme that the work of film is trying to convey.
    2. There needs to be evidence to support that claim.
    3. There needs to be analysis of the evidence.
    4. The transition and the structure of the film must be put together in an orderly manner so that the viewers can understand what is going on and doesn’t become lost or confused.
    4. There should be minimal tempering of the camera or cinematography to try and convey “film truth”.

  5.   Russell Weinberg Says:

    1) asseses the art topic at hand and provides a clear understanding of what it is
    2)utilizes pieces of the past films we have done both the interviews on campus and our observational documentary footage
    3)Gives an arguement about the importance of the artwork in the community, and why it is even important to begin with
    4)uses evidence to support your argument, from research, from past filming experiences and from other sources that helped you with the film.

  6.   IJ Says:

    1. Should contain a thesis that is true but arguable including the main idea
    2. Thesis should be supported by sufficient evidence
    3. Evidence Should have proper analysis
    4. Should make an argument about artwork

  7.   Beatrice Pana Says:

    1. Should be clear and have a recurring theme or motive.
    2. Theme or motive should be discussed at the beginning of the film and reinforced at the end.
    3. Each shot should have a claim, an analysis of that claim, and evidence that supports the claim.
    4. The film should have structure, each shot is a new idea.
    5. The reader or viewer should be able to understand the work as a whole and catch onto small details.

  8.   Kevin Prunty Says:

    1) Does the video have a motive behind it?
    2) Does the video have enough information in your video to back up your motive?
    3) Will the viewer be able to understand the point of the video? Is it clear?
    4) Does the video have some type of organization to it?

  9.   Matthew Kruczowy Says:

    5 Most important criteria to Kino Pravdas

    -Clearly shows what piece of art the student is analyzing
    -Student analyzes the problem and his/her idea to solve it
    -Shows knowledge of the topic.
    -Student is persuasive with his/her argument
    -A clear structure to the film (intro, body, closing)

  10.   Mathias Kranacher Says:

    1. Film essay is clear and coherent; with an introduction, body and conclusion
    2. The idea is presented early on in the film essay
    3. Does not overuse visuals but makes it entertaining for the view
    4. Uses evidence (visuals or text) to help support main idea
    5. Text: any spelling/grammar used is correct

  11.   Sinyee Cindy Leung Says:

    The film essay should show clearly about the information (history, name, etc.) of the art piece.
    The film essay should remain focus on the thesis- the art piece.
    The film essay should explain filmmaker’s ideas/points clearly, use evidences and analysis them.

  12.   Adrian Lesaru Says:

    1. The objective of the film is clear
    2. appropriate camera angles
    3. Visual captivating
    4. Clear argument for art

  13.   Sinyee Cindy Leung Says:

    Between shots, there should be stitching.

  14.   Stephanie Shiwram Says:

    1)Theme; every film should have a theme or main idea
    2)Argument should be made clear.
    3) Analysis of evidence should support your claims.
    4)Clips run smoothly with every few edits. No over simulating effects.
    5) Structure

  15.   Russell Weinberg Says:

    i mean i personally helped the individual whos video i assessed i helped them do, so i knew about the camera angles and all that stuff, and about the topic matter that was being discussed. now that i had seen it fully put together i reLIzed it went very smoothly and the arguements and facts poped out at you, without them getting lost in boring drivel as many of these educational films tend to do. the fac ts were all laid out clearly by the speaker, and the videos use of camera angles and transitions helped improve it, while at the same time not losing it somewhere between here and there
    it was good that pictures were used too not only of the artist to show us what he looked like, but of his other works to give us an idea of what this man did other than the art project on our campus.

  16.   John Malach Says:

    With the video I watched i knew to give it a 5 for clear argument because right away I knew why I was watching this video and what it was going to be about. It was clearly stated by the film maker and it was also something that I could argue against if I needed to. I gave it a 5 on the ability to analyze evidence as well because he gave significant background to his art piece that backed up the argument and were interesting facts as well. The order of the film also made sense by how it starts with very general information about the piece and as the video progresses it gets more and more specific as in a progressive order. The motive of the film was also seen throughout and was interesting and made me think without any fancy effects or cuts.

  17.   Mathias Kranacher Says:

    I wanted to look at Russell’s Kino Pravda first because I was with him the day he filmed most of it. I just wanted to see his Seth Rogen impression. Since I had the desire to watch his before anyone else’s, I knew that his should be entertaining, which it was. So for visually stimulating/captivating I gave him a 5. His work was very coherent. It flowed perfectly. His intro started off with him saying that the art work is important to the community and he back up this statement by using clips from his Community Interview. So for analyzes evidence and structure must have an orderly manner I (think) I gave him a 5.

  18.   Kevin Prunty Says:

    While doing the assessment for the Kino Pravda I was trying to follow the guidelines we had just made in class to see if the video I was watching was able to meet these standards. As I was going through the standards I felt that most of them were met and I was able to give each standard a 3 or a 4 (5 being the highest). I think that these guidelines are a great way to assess the videos we made.

  19.   Matthew Kruczowy Says:

    -When assessing the Kino pravdas i found that i would grade the best if i watched the full movie, then went back and thought about it. I broke down the 4 important criteria we came up with into shorter bits so i could really pin point what criteria was met. I found most of the kino pravdas to be very generic. Not many were too different from each other. This is good in the sense that everyone had the same idea as to what they wanted to do. This could also be not so good because it could just mean all of our kino pravdas were just average and none stuck out too much. I decided to grade myself a lot harder then my classmates because I knew what I was thinking at the moment i was making them and I know i could’ve done a better job.

  20.   Carlene Faith Says:

    I think that the criteria was very difficult to grade upon. Although a lot of things in the video I watched stood out to me, those things were not in the criteria we were looking at. I found that the video I watched had strengths in giving a lot of information! Although the video did that the analyzing was a little off so it was tough to grade it on one or the other since both were in the same category, I gave it a five just because there was so much work put into finding information about it, even though the analyzing wasn’t perfect. It was also rough grading number four because even though the beginning of the film I watched hurt my eyes with the flashy over editing, the rest was visually and intellectually stimulating so the tough task was giving that a grade, I found that to be a three since it was somewhere in between. I think number 5 should be something about utilizing other videos because that was clearly part of the assignment and missing in my video, it’s something I would want to grade.

  21.   Adrian Lesaru Says:

    When analyzing one of my peers Kino pravdas I knew how to judge each criteria by watching the video and then deciding how well the video used each criteria and how often, also if it was understandable or not. For example when deciding on if the video had a good argument I watched the video with no prior knowledge of the art or purpose of the video so as I watched it I payed attention to what they were trying to say about the art and what the purpose of the video was. If I didnt understand it then I would have given it a 1, if I understood then I would see how well I was able to understand it and if the argument was able to sway me or not

  22.   IJ Says:

    The first thing I looked for was if the structure was logical and not just additive. The video I watched seemed to be edited randomly. There was plenty of evidence including background about the artist and the artwork but not much analysis.

  23.   Jenny Lu Says:

    Assessing my own video was more challenging compared to assessing a peer’s. Simply because you knew what you did in your video and what you deserve to get. I felt that it was a bit easier to assess a peer’s work because you’re less biased and therefore your ratings for their work are more honest. I don’t really enjoy grading peoples work because I’m never sure what to give them. The person I choose to assess I personally really enjoyed their video and I wished that I would make mine like theirs in some perspective, and if I had another opportunity to make another video I would try to use hers as a template.

  24.   Beatrice Pana Says:

    While assessing my own Kino-Pravda essay, as well as a peer’s Kino-Pravda essay, I followed criteria based on a scale of one to five. For the first criteria, I asked myself questions such as: “Can this video be arguable?”, “Is the thesis clear?”, “Is the thesis recurring throughout the whole video?”. For the second criteria, I thought about what evidence the video shows and if it analyzes it or if the person gives their point of view of it, while, considering the possible counter arguments. For the third criteria, I asked myself: “Does the video make sense as a whole or does it look like random clips just shoved together?” And lastly, for the fourth criteria, I asked myself, “Does this video make me reflect or doubt my opinion on the issue?”

  25.   Sinyee Cindy Leung Says:

    1) I would first watch the whole clip and then see whether the filmmaker is trying to argue something instead of just introducing the art piece.
    2) Mostly, I think the main idea of the video is to introduce the information or background of the art piece. Then the filmmaker should show how the art piece fit/ demonstrate the ideas that its creator mentioned about.
    3) If the filmmaker arranges the order of shots correctly or progressively, the audience will not be confused.
    4) Watch the whole clip and see if I was thinking about the ideas or something else of the art piece.

  26.   Stephanie Shiwram Says:

    The kino-pravdas were interesting they had simple edits. The first video covered all 5 criteria. The film was humorous yet informative and gave a clear idea what the video was about. I gave that video mostly 5’s (the scale being from 1-5). I helped film most of it and i wanted to know the final result. Knowing he was taking a different approach with his film i was really interested. The video was visually stimulating because he was humorous and didn’t try to hard. He made sure he made his point in his video and gave interesting information like how the structure was suppose to resemble that of a body. his edits were simple and not overdone, in fact most of the mistakes were left in the video and made it even more interesting.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar