Title of the documentary: Sucked into the tunnels beneath Las Vegas.
Produced: Adam Burke.
Presented: NPR'S day to day, USA, 2010
Length: 8.32
Briefly describe the documentary: The documentary is talking about the homeless people that live in Las Vegas, undergrounds, underneath the casinos and luxurious places. Also how it is easy to spend a whole weekend in Las Vegas without spotting a sign of this phenomena or crisis.
Was the documentary interesting? Why or why not? The documentary was really very interesting. As the narrator chose a very interesting topic that many people don’t know about, or for me I didn’t know.
He also narrated the story in a very interesting way. He said it like a story, were he explained everything from what he sees, what time is it, how does it feel, smell, nature of people and the place it self. Also talking about the art gallery is very interesting because it makes you feel like you are there and how this place is special.
How was the sound quality? The use of Nat sound?
The sound quality was very good, clear and coherent, and the sounds he used are very good as the sound of water they pass through and the sounds of insects makes you feel like you are there, as for example the sound of water increases when they say they are walking and decreases when they stop or slow down.
Quality of the narrator’s voice?
The narrator sound was good and very clear and his presentation was good. Also his writing made the story more interesting as he added a lot of descriptions and he made the audience feel like they were there.
Was the documentary too long? Too short?
The documentary length was fine. If it were longer I would have lost concentration and if it were shorter I wouldn’t understand all the aspects and lives of the people down there.
Does the documentary begin and end strongly? Why or why not?
I think he should have started by interviewing one of the people living in those tunnels right after his introduction, so it makes the people get a feeling of who lives there and not just an observers view as the book writer.
And the ending should have been with a strong phase or question or may be an invitation to go experience the place for our selves.
Other observations/suggestions?
I think it would have been better to add more pictures of the tunnel and not just one and the rest is of him.
Also he could have started after his introduction and description of the place, which he did perfectly, with an interview or at least a description of one of the people there and later on he could have interviewed the book author.