Beatles "Physical-History Tour"

[sphinooccipital]

Hi All,

So this is a rather off-the-beaten-path educational video I made some time ago, but I wanted your thoughts on it. It's simply the entire psychiatric mental status exam as illustrated in Beatles lyrics and pictures:



It's sort of presented as a fun study guide for students, but I also wanted to make it engaging and understandable for the general viewer as well. So, whether you have a background in any of the behavioral sciences or not, I'd love to hear what you think!

I'm particularly interested in what isn't clear, what moves too fast or too slow, if you think any of the pictures don't work, etc.

Thank you!

[Midnight Blue]

I didn't watch the whole thing as I got to a point where I thought you needed to totally re visit this video. The timing of the titles are very confusing some being very fast and some being ok. I would have a look at the time line to see for your self example. AT 0:16 "Is the patient pleasant, cooperative, engaged in the interview?" is much faster than other. There is a tendency near the beginning of the video of all the titles to be to quick to be able to read them.

There is a basic level of confusion for the general viewer as he/she is coming across some technical words for the first time which mean they have to concentrate more on the words than normal to get an understanding. Added to this the pictures are not being appreciated as to much attention has to be put on the words especially as they are being shown to quickly.

I know when you have been editing a piece you can become so familiar with it that it becomes hard to judge how long to leave the titles on the screen. So I would recommend looking at this with new eyes and totally slowing down the pace of it, if you want the general viewer to appreciate it.

In a nut shell it's too much information to shown tooquickly.

[Zero]

I was drawn into this by the 'Beatles' headline and I fully agree with MB . . . Far too quick with the titles, especially for something so specific and intensely detailed.
I'd be surprised if even the most enthusiastic academic/student got beyond the 2 min mark. Far too long!
Being honest, I've never, ever seen so many breaches of copyright in one video.

[vidmanners]

I agree with zero, Copyright loomed large in my mind and the title sequece seems like a bootlegged Beatles film (not that I ever watched them), then there is Beatles music.
My download plays vids, but this kept stopping, while waiting for "loading", so I wonder if this is HD - yet much of the contents is re-run of available stuff.

Not keen on tricky titles - writing the same text in a different size add nothing (except confusing me) and yet I was uneasy about the whole purpose. If you are examining some underlying aspects of performers, I think it would be better to "compare and contrast" so you can link other performers. If you are a qualified phychaitrist then you should introduce the programme, explaining what you hope to prove and then use short clips to prove/disprove yr argument . . . but I have to say I was confused from the start..... Sorry.



I understand in the US there is a "fair use" defense, but you need to assure yr audience this footage is legit, presuming you have written permissions.

[TimStannard]

I stuck out the first two minutes and then fortunately things slowed down considerable - certainly enough to take it in.
But to be frank I was rather disappointed. Many of the links between the captions and the content of the song seemed tenuous to say the least - and not really in an amusing way.

I think this is an excellent idea - I'd imagine you could do this with any artist with a largeish body of work - but, apart from some fantastic reminders of what a wide variety of works the Beatles gave (sold to) us, I thought it failed to hit home.