Introduction
Many times there have been documentaries that have caused outrage
and uproar, amongst viewers since the earliest documentary. They’re many ways a
documentary can cause a lot of controversy, firstly I feel the most popular one
is Bias and Representation, these are huge because accurately representing a
certain group of people is huge, especially if the documentary is going to be
shown all over the world, the other huge issue is Bias, I feel this is big
because again, if the documentary is controversial or deals with a taboo
subject(s) It can shed bad light on an organisation or a group of people if the
documentary deals with them subjects. Another issue is privacy, if you’re
dealing with a topic that could be controversial the privacy of people or
organisations are important, some organisations will have a lot of privacy and
may not want to share information with the film-makers depending on if it puts
pressure on them OR portrays them in a bad way. Documentary Accuracy is very
important for many reasons, the first reason is if the documentary isn't accurate or gives inaccurate information not only is it illegal but could also
cause outrage if the information isn't right. A documentary has to have balance,
with both sides having an argument for their cause, if there is no balance, the
documentary would be bias and unfair.
They're many problems that live shows and documentaries could
face, depending on what kind of documentary it is. Firstly many documentaries
are controversial and could stir up trouble with the channel it's on or the
production team. A one sided documentary could cause problems for the
production team because they may portray a certain group of people in a bad
light, I looked at an example of a Documentary called 'Immigration Street' that
portrayed eastern Europeans and Immigrants that's have come to Britain for a
better life. This Documentary was controversial because it portrayed many of
the Immigrants as not working and getting money for free from the government,
because this documentary was so controversial it was only 1 Episode long
instead of 6, because it was criticised so much, many people feel Channel 4
aren't as credible any more and will trust them less when coming to them with
certain projects, it would also hurt the production team because it may ruin their
credibility and trust with other channels when looking for certain jobs in the
industry. Only problems you may face in the industry are ideas such as bias
stories or one sides documentaries, these could be a problem because they may
only show one side of the story and again, may portray a certain group of
people or something in a bad way which could result in controversial views or
even the program plugged from the channel.
Blackfish
This documentary shows how Whales are being treated in these resorts, this is such a huge thing because for years Whales have been in captivity for years and the director of Blackfish Gabriela Cowperthwaite wanted to make a documentary that expressed her feelings and many others towards SeaWorld and how they treat the animals and this is why the documentary was made. I feel some of the techniques they have used like the stock footage really helps the argument and the opinion that the director is trying to send across to the audience, i feel it works because it back up her argument even further but also allows the audience to choose for themselves and to express there opinions and argue there point for it also. Adding to this i think the use of the interviews ands the stock footage help to portray SeaWorld in a bad light and helps to make a one sided argument which makes SeaWorld to be portrayed in a bad light. I feel the camera angles and techniques they have used really help to show the directors argument such as the camera angles that show the Whales close up almost humanising them and showing them in the same light as the workers who work with the whales.
One of the most famous examples of a controversial documentary is Blackfish this contains a lot of themes and topics based around animal cruelty in resorts like SeaWorld a lot of the themes in this revolve around this and how SeaWorld capture them and how they treat them, all of the Documentary revolves around the Orca Whales and no other animals in the SeaWorld resorts.This was very controversial because some say it only showed one side of the story and didn't give enough air time to SeaWorld representatives, adding to this the stock footage and found footage spanning over 4 decades meant that there was a lot of footage to suggest the torture of the Orca Whales which furthermore suggests the corruption of Sea World. This certain documentary was very controversial because it highlighted many things that were wrong with this Industry and brought up many interested points. Once SeaWorld was a much loved resort for families but after BlackFish, the documentary sparked controversy, protests and campaign against SeaWorld, due to this controversy involved and with the help of this documentary the Orca Whale homes in SeaWorld are close to being banned, with some already closing them down and releasing them. The controversy could have harmed the program makers with SeaWorld taking legal action to try and get this documentary banned/taken down, also it could have affected them in a positive way with future employers looking at their past work and seeing BlackFish, they may be more tempted to hire them because they will go the extra mile and are willing to be controversial when creating projects. I feel the creators of this Documentary can only have positive benefits when looking at how it would affect them, but SeaWorld may try and take action against them.
Blackfish
This documentary shows how Whales are being treated in these resorts, this is such a huge thing because for years Whales have been in captivity for years and the director of Blackfish Gabriela Cowperthwaite wanted to make a documentary that expressed her feelings and many others towards SeaWorld and how they treat the animals and this is why the documentary was made. I feel some of the techniques they have used like the stock footage really helps the argument and the opinion that the director is trying to send across to the audience, i feel it works because it back up her argument even further but also allows the audience to choose for themselves and to express there opinions and argue there point for it also. Adding to this i think the use of the interviews ands the stock footage help to portray SeaWorld in a bad light and helps to make a one sided argument which makes SeaWorld to be portrayed in a bad light. I feel the camera angles and techniques they have used really help to show the directors argument such as the camera angles that show the Whales close up almost humanising them and showing them in the same light as the workers who work with the whales.
One of the most famous examples of a controversial documentary is Blackfish this contains a lot of themes and topics based around animal cruelty in resorts like SeaWorld a lot of the themes in this revolve around this and how SeaWorld capture them and how they treat them, all of the Documentary revolves around the Orca Whales and no other animals in the SeaWorld resorts.This was very controversial because some say it only showed one side of the story and didn't give enough air time to SeaWorld representatives, adding to this the stock footage and found footage spanning over 4 decades meant that there was a lot of footage to suggest the torture of the Orca Whales which furthermore suggests the corruption of Sea World. This certain documentary was very controversial because it highlighted many things that were wrong with this Industry and brought up many interested points. Once SeaWorld was a much loved resort for families but after BlackFish, the documentary sparked controversy, protests and campaign against SeaWorld, due to this controversy involved and with the help of this documentary the Orca Whale homes in SeaWorld are close to being banned, with some already closing them down and releasing them. The controversy could have harmed the program makers with SeaWorld taking legal action to try and get this documentary banned/taken down, also it could have affected them in a positive way with future employers looking at their past work and seeing BlackFish, they may be more tempted to hire them because they will go the extra mile and are willing to be controversial when creating projects. I feel the creators of this Documentary can only have positive benefits when looking at how it would affect them, but SeaWorld may try and take action against them.
They're many specific examples where there point is put across in this documentary, such as the use of old stock footage from Sea World that shows the closed and small pools that the whales have to live in, i feel they used this old stock footage because it puts out a message to the audience of how terribly the whales are being treated in these enclosures, i also think they used this old footage to prove there point even further, this footage works great because it is old footage, it is clear proof that this kind of treatment of the Orca Whales has been going on a lot longer than this Documentary has been in production. The use of old footage , such as the people working with the Orca Whales and then something ad happening to the workers, it conveys both sides of the story, and almost lets the audience pick a side when watching this documentary, and allows you to do that throughout, by showing the old footage of the workers because attacked by the Orca's it helps convey the message to the audience that whales should not be locked in small pools because they can turn aggressive and angry. The use of medium shot interviews with past workers there, really helps to tell the audience a story about there time at SeaWorld, and because they longer work there, they can give there honest opinion on how whales are being treated in there enclosures. This is what the documentary was made for, to start an argument based upon the treatment of the whales and with these kinds of examples, i feel that they have made the argument for and against and makes the audience decide.
This link shows proof and impact that the
blackfish documentary had by SeaWorld 'phasing out' of all Orca Whale shows. This link shows how Blackfish helped to stop Orca Whale shows, by Blackfish showing how Whales are being treated it made a huge impact of the revenue SeaWorld made as well as the popularity of the SeaWorlds all over America, this documentary stopped people from going to the shows and helped them realise that this is animal abuse and is very wrong, i feel this documentary will have a lot of impact in the future, and SeaWorld have already started to stop Orca Shows because of all the backlash from people around the world, my opinion is that it has had a huge impact on SeaWorld and more for the business side of SeaWorld rather than the workers.
Furthermore, this documentary had a huge impact on the general audience due to protests being started all over America and the world to stop Orca Whales shows in all of the SeaWorld resorts so i feel it has a huge impact on SeaWorld in general.
The Bridge:
This documentary was very controversial at the time, and probably still is today, they're many reasons why this documentary was controversial and definitely still is. Firstly the biggest reason why it was questionable is the film maker actually filmed people committing suicide, which morally is definitely wrong, adding to this, the film-maker lied to the San Francisco council and actually said he's filming a documentary about the scenery and the history of the bridge and didn't tell them there true intentions, firstly, there is many things wrong with this, the first clear problem is privacy, the people who committed suicide from the bridge did not give there consent to film them, let alone film them commit suicide. The second problem wrong with this the documentary is privacy and access, if the film-maker had told the truth about what there real motives was, they wouldn't have got the access to film the suicides but they lied and that could be actually illegal and the production team could actually be took to court. I think the biggest issue with this documentary is Privacy, making a documentary about suicides with actually deaths can be very disturbing for any viewer and the families of the people that died. the production team didn't even tell the families that they had footage of the family member committing suicide. This documentary got a decent review from IMDB but the jury is still out on whether this was an acceptable and morally right thing to create? Although it is controversial it raises ideas and thought about more should be done to stop people committing suicide and possibly challenging authority to do more to stop people jumping of the bridge. My opinion about this documentary is that some clips are very questionable and could be morally wrong, also suicide is very private to the person, and i feel that your breaking that privacy barrier by filming them doing such a personal thing. If it's a well made documentary is another matter and could still be well made even with all these controversial points made. Adding to this, some thought by showing this documentary, it's almost glamorising suicides and because it is very taboo subject, creating a documentary about will more than likely get negative reviews and could only have negative connotations. It could have affected the film makers because there credibility could have go down dramatically, especially when invading peoples private lives and filming people committing suicide which without doubt would be seen as morally wrong and down right disrespectful. Adding to this, it would affect them because people would see this on there CV/ Show reel and possibly decide against hiring them because they would know how they work and that they could be controversial and that could be bad for the studio/production company.
Some of the techniques they have used such as the close up of the victims during the suicide scenes, these help to connect with the victims because the close ups show what they're doing very closely such as them climbing over the top of the bridge, the camera techniques helps to show the audience the characters /victims involved a little bit more but also help to convey the documentaries message.
I feel the intention is to shock the audience, but also to be controversial, to show the audience something they have never seen before in there lives and nothing that has ever been shown on television which is so realistic and gritty for it's time, adding to this, i feel that because all it set out to do was to be controversial and talked about in the media, so i feel it's intention was to do nothing else, maybe show the grittiness of real life, but it certainly doesn't make people more aware about suicide or not people from committing suicide, my opinion is that it almost glorifies suicide in the way that it doesn't help stop committing suicide or make people more aware about mental health that could lead to possible suicide.
The themes around this documentary are quite strong, such as suicide and obviously death, these are difficult themes to work with when making a documentary, so i feel by filming the way they did (filming live deaths) they didn't go about the documentary the right way and should have actually go about filming the documentary in a better more morally correct way rathert than just filming deaths, i think the themes that are in the documentary are very taboo so when this documentary was made (2004) it was already controversial because suicide and depression were topics not only taboo but not spoken about at all, this documentary doesn't help people to come out at all about there mental health.
They're many examples with this documentary also, i feel that there is one scene that they show throughout which is the epitome of what they're trying to show, which is the showing of human beings committing suicide from the top of Golden Gate Bridge, they show this because it helps to audience t believe there documentary and makes it no longer fiction and it starts to become factual, this is important because it starts to convey there message very strongly, also, the use of close up zoom in's of the people, it shows the audience the seriousness of the documentary, by showing these, as well as letting the audience make a connection with the victims. I think these close up's further prove the documentaries point that there a lot deaths on this bridge, i feel, there message throughout is to just be controversial and to be talked about in the news, a lot like Blackfish is that it was very controversial and stirred up a lot of trouble for the people involved in the documentary. I think the use of the suicides, shows what this bridge is used for most of the time, and gives a gritty and realistic viewing of what happens in the real world. I feel the suicides perfectly show what this documentary is clearly about, and this is why it was so controversial, The use of the wide shots showing the bridge and then the close ups of the people, shows the size of the bridge when compared to the person which i think can have an effect on the viewer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoLgk9BnG4M
The example i have chosen
The image shows the film makers filmography before and after 'The Bridge', as you can see he hasn't done a lot, i feel this is strong proof studio's may struggle to hire him and trust him with projects because of his morals and his controversial storytelling.
Furthermore, this documentary had a huge impact on the general audience due to protests being started all over America and the world to stop Orca Whales shows in all of the SeaWorld resorts so i feel it has a huge impact on SeaWorld in general.
The Bridge:
This documentary was very controversial at the time, and probably still is today, they're many reasons why this documentary was controversial and definitely still is. Firstly the biggest reason why it was questionable is the film maker actually filmed people committing suicide, which morally is definitely wrong, adding to this, the film-maker lied to the San Francisco council and actually said he's filming a documentary about the scenery and the history of the bridge and didn't tell them there true intentions, firstly, there is many things wrong with this, the first clear problem is privacy, the people who committed suicide from the bridge did not give there consent to film them, let alone film them commit suicide. The second problem wrong with this the documentary is privacy and access, if the film-maker had told the truth about what there real motives was, they wouldn't have got the access to film the suicides but they lied and that could be actually illegal and the production team could actually be took to court. I think the biggest issue with this documentary is Privacy, making a documentary about suicides with actually deaths can be very disturbing for any viewer and the families of the people that died. the production team didn't even tell the families that they had footage of the family member committing suicide. This documentary got a decent review from IMDB but the jury is still out on whether this was an acceptable and morally right thing to create? Although it is controversial it raises ideas and thought about more should be done to stop people committing suicide and possibly challenging authority to do more to stop people jumping of the bridge. My opinion about this documentary is that some clips are very questionable and could be morally wrong, also suicide is very private to the person, and i feel that your breaking that privacy barrier by filming them doing such a personal thing. If it's a well made documentary is another matter and could still be well made even with all these controversial points made. Adding to this, some thought by showing this documentary, it's almost glamorising suicides and because it is very taboo subject, creating a documentary about will more than likely get negative reviews and could only have negative connotations. It could have affected the film makers because there credibility could have go down dramatically, especially when invading peoples private lives and filming people committing suicide which without doubt would be seen as morally wrong and down right disrespectful. Adding to this, it would affect them because people would see this on there CV/ Show reel and possibly decide against hiring them because they would know how they work and that they could be controversial and that could be bad for the studio/production company.
Some of the techniques they have used such as the close up of the victims during the suicide scenes, these help to connect with the victims because the close ups show what they're doing very closely such as them climbing over the top of the bridge, the camera techniques helps to show the audience the characters /victims involved a little bit more but also help to convey the documentaries message.
I feel the intention is to shock the audience, but also to be controversial, to show the audience something they have never seen before in there lives and nothing that has ever been shown on television which is so realistic and gritty for it's time, adding to this, i feel that because all it set out to do was to be controversial and talked about in the media, so i feel it's intention was to do nothing else, maybe show the grittiness of real life, but it certainly doesn't make people more aware about suicide or not people from committing suicide, my opinion is that it almost glorifies suicide in the way that it doesn't help stop committing suicide or make people more aware about mental health that could lead to possible suicide.
The themes around this documentary are quite strong, such as suicide and obviously death, these are difficult themes to work with when making a documentary, so i feel by filming the way they did (filming live deaths) they didn't go about the documentary the right way and should have actually go about filming the documentary in a better more morally correct way rathert than just filming deaths, i think the themes that are in the documentary are very taboo so when this documentary was made (2004) it was already controversial because suicide and depression were topics not only taboo but not spoken about at all, this documentary doesn't help people to come out at all about there mental health.
They're many examples with this documentary also, i feel that there is one scene that they show throughout which is the epitome of what they're trying to show, which is the showing of human beings committing suicide from the top of Golden Gate Bridge, they show this because it helps to audience t believe there documentary and makes it no longer fiction and it starts to become factual, this is important because it starts to convey there message very strongly, also, the use of close up zoom in's of the people, it shows the audience the seriousness of the documentary, by showing these, as well as letting the audience make a connection with the victims. I think these close up's further prove the documentaries point that there a lot deaths on this bridge, i feel, there message throughout is to just be controversial and to be talked about in the news, a lot like Blackfish is that it was very controversial and stirred up a lot of trouble for the people involved in the documentary. I think the use of the suicides, shows what this bridge is used for most of the time, and gives a gritty and realistic viewing of what happens in the real world. I feel the suicides perfectly show what this documentary is clearly about, and this is why it was so controversial, The use of the wide shots showing the bridge and then the close ups of the people, shows the size of the bridge when compared to the person which i think can have an effect on the viewer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoLgk9BnG4M
The example i have chosen
The image shows the film makers filmography before and after 'The Bridge', as you can see he hasn't done a lot, i feel this is strong proof studio's may struggle to hire him and trust him with projects because of his morals and his controversial storytelling.
Assignment 2:
discuss the conventions, how has it been
constructed and how has it been constructed
class of 92 ( observational drama)
Class Of 92
Firstly, i feel this documentary comes under one documentary mode and that's Drama. The reason i feel this is because if you look at the trailer for this, it clearly follows some codes and conventions from Drama Documentaries such as the Mise En Scene, they use a back drop that relates to the subjects which is very common for this type of documentary, as well as the sound, the sound used is sometimes a narrator, the age and gender of the narrator usually reflects the target audience, so for this documentary it would be 30+ Male. Adding to this the sound used would set the scene and it could heighten the emotion of the audience such as music, if music is used in this documentary it may change or heighten the emotion of the audience. The narration may have questions cut out so it is just the answers, this is common for this mode because it means the audience don't have to spend time hearing each question and can hear the answers straight away, the answers are conducted so you almost know what the interviewer said anyway. The Narrator will normally introduce the topic and will also conclude the narrative at the end of the documentary.
The editing involved in this type of mode are very common in this documentary such as montages, these are so common because montages help to show the audience a lot of action in a small amount of time, because this documentary is showing goals and a lot of action in a small amount of time, they use montages to fit all of that information in. Adding to this they show montages to show multiple examples of archive footage or sometimes use them to give the audience a teaser of what the documentary is about. Furthermore they will use a simple editing cut to not distract the audience from the subject matter and tend not to use effects or complex cuts as much and are kept to a minimum.
These types of documentaries tend to use archive footage because it tends to always be relevant to the subject matter, so in this case, this documentary will show archive footage of goals or old football matches and may be shortened down into a montage, they may show archive footage because it could be relevant to what the narrator is talking about at that certain time.
Graphics are huge in this mode of documentary, the first thing that is important are the titles, the titles tend to be unique to that certain programme so they stand out when compared to other documentaries. During interviews the interviewee and there relevance and title tends to be and important graphic so the audience know who it is and why they're being interviewed. Adding to this, subtitles can be very important whether they're for other countries or if subtitles are needed if you're interviewing somebody with a strong accent.
Obviously the most important part of a documentary is Camera work, interviews tend to be framed to the left or to the right because of the rule of thirds, handheld cameras used for archive or actuality footage for more reaction for the audience. In drama documentaries a variety of shot types are used to keep the audience entertained and so the documentary isn't boring and it keeps sustaining the audience's interest, if they use still image they tend to pan or zoom across on them.
March of the penguins Expository documentary
Many animals based documentaries tend to be observational because the audience is observing the subjects (the animals), this i quite different and is actually an Expository Documentary, This type of documentary will create an argument for or against and allows the audience to think for themselves when conducting the argument. i feel it is a Expository Documentary because it follows the typical conventions of one such as...
Narration- The narration for a documentary with this mode is almost a 'voice of god' and tend to address the audience when narrating over the documentary. It is almost a voice of god because the commentator/narrator is never seen but heard all of the time, narration is so important in this documentary because the narration tells the audience the story of what is going on in the video, without the narration there would be no point in filming the documentary. Adding to this the narrator normally has a very distinctive voice or tends to be an expert in the field, these two traits are very important because the distinctive voice will keep the audience interested and the expert will be able to tell the audience the important and useful information about the animal(s)
The images they use also tend to link in with the narration, because when the narrator is speaking, images that relate to the certain narration tend to appear, so the audience not only hears what's going on but see what's going on also.
Editing- The editing used tends to be for continuity to link the images that support the argument with the narration, this is also very important because it helps the audience understand what is happening a little bit more but tends to help the audience and guide them with images or videos through the narration. When editing a mix of footage, interviews, images and possible archive footage is put together, sometimes into a montage to support the argument, i feel this is an important convention because it allows the audience to be persuaded by the narrators argument a little bit more and can tell a story to the audience. Adding to this the mix of footage would keep the audience interested and would make them keep watching.
Other conventions used:
Persuasive techniques: This is a huge conventions that they always use in Expository Documentaries because it helps there argument, it also helps the narrator persuade to the audience that there argument is true, these documentaries are rhetorical and definitely try to persuade the viewer to think for or against there argument. The narrator other than persuading the audience, he/she will give factual information to back up there argument, facts are important in any documentary, but a documentary such as this will always have factual information in it because of the content and the nature of the documentary.
Camerawork- The camera work in this type of documentary will tend to be similar to a movie with many medium shots and scenery shots and establishing shots, they will use this to show where the documentary is taking place but to also show the subjects in this documentary, in this documentary (march of the penguins) they show medium shots because they want to audience to look at the subjects and they show establishing shots to show the audience the subjects habitat, i feel these shots are important because this documentary doesn't follow the generic conventions of a documentary by using these shots and tends to be very different.
Furthermore Expository Documentaries tend to not follow the typical conventions of a documentary and use different conventions that different modes wouldn't use. This type of documentary will speak to the viewer when actually creating an argument for them to decide for themselves.
News show Conventions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0cwnWdiXk4
This news show will follow many typical conventions, the first obvious convention is News Show Reporters, this is a huge conventions that every news show follows, this is a very helpful convention because almost like a TV presenter they inform the audience of what is on the show(in this case NEWS) this is a very typical convention because every news show follows it, this convention is very popular because they help the audience to understand the news as they're explaining it and overall help the show stay together almost like the glue. The news reporters on every show tedn to be smartly dressed and in very formal clothes, the reason they are portrayed this way is because the studio want the audience to trust them and formal wear/business wear is a persuasive technique in which they do that. One News Show that doesn't follow this convention is NewsRound on Children's channel CBBC, although owned by the BBC, it isn't the same as BBC News, they have portrayed the News Reporter in a very different way (casual clothes, more out-going, friendly) is because the studio wants the younger audience to trust that certain News Reporter, when comparing the two, both Reporters are doing the same thing but just for different target audience's.
The second convention is actuality footage, you will see this convention is a lot of news programs, especially big news shows such as BBC or ITV News, you tend to only show actuality footage from the biggest news stories, i feel they only show the bigger news stories with actuality footage because the big stories will appeal to a mass audience, they wouldn't spend a lot of money to get actual footage from a smaller news story and they tend to only get actuality footage from a global news story. This is a typical convention of a news show because most of them do it and you will not find many News Shows that do not use actuality footage, adding to this, a huge reason why they use them is to keep the audience interested and to keep them on the edge and keep watching, the actuality footage may force them to keep watching to find out the end of the report. The footage shown could be quite graphic depending on the time that the news report is on, E.G- 6pm they cannot show graphic scenes or violence, but a news show on at 10pm could show graphic scenes or violence because it is on after the watershed, so i feel the News Shows have to be careful with what they're talking about at certain times because of regulations etc.
Modes Of Address:
This links in with how the presenter is portrayed, a mode of address is how something is reported or delivered, in this case BBC is more formal and appeals to a middle aged audience, rather than Channel 5 News that uses more slang words and has a more upbeat nature that appeals to a younger audience that may not want to watch BBC because of the seriousness and formality of it.
Interviews-
This is a very common convention and will be in ALL news shows, the reason why this is in all news shows is because the interviews could be live witnesses or experts in a certain field. Interviews help keep the news show not boring and allows the news show to get out of the studio and allows the audience to have different scenery and setting. I feel this is such a typical convention because it allows the audience to be taken somewhere else, keeps the show fresh and can help the audience connect to the news story a little bit more through interviews.
Report Structure and Camerawork:
An example of Report Structure is the Main Story in the studio, then to an on location reporter(field reporter) then an interview(possibly an eyewitness, then back to the studio, i feel the structure is lay out this way because there is balance between the studio and outside the studio, they may spend a lot of time outside the studio so again, it gives the audience a breath of fresh air and allows them to witness different scenery or a different location rather than just a studio for 30 minutes.
This is most important part of a news show in my opinion for many reasons, the first reason why i feel it is very important is every news show is based on structure, without structure the show would be a mess and wouldn't be enjoyable to watch or listen to because again, there would be no structure. Reports are normally done using the same techniques every time, They use medium shots to address the scenery and the subject, they do this because a medium shot shows both and looks very formal in a news report, a medium shot works because it is the most common shot, it also works so well because since the start of news reports the camera shot they tend to use the most is medium shots and the audience are used to that specific shot. The graphics used tend to be the name of the news presenters or the interviewee, they use these graphics to show the audience who a certain person is so the audience can follow along with the news presenters and so all the audience are up to date when following along with the news, the title graphics tend to be very specific to the certain channel E.G- BBC news has a very different style to ITV news because they have a different style with BBC being the more formal channel.
Overall i feel News Shows are very different when compared to documentaries but can also be very similar in terms of some of the shots they use and some typical conventions, I feel that both can reach for different target audiences by using different techniques and different conventions, a big convention that could be used on both News Shows and Documentaries is persuasive techniques, in a news interview the interviewee could be trying to persuade there audience about there views, much like a documentary where they could be doing the same.
Class Of 92
Firstly, i feel this documentary comes under one documentary mode and that's Drama. The reason i feel this is because if you look at the trailer for this, it clearly follows some codes and conventions from Drama Documentaries such as the Mise En Scene, they use a back drop that relates to the subjects which is very common for this type of documentary, as well as the sound, the sound used is sometimes a narrator, the age and gender of the narrator usually reflects the target audience, so for this documentary it would be 30+ Male. Adding to this the sound used would set the scene and it could heighten the emotion of the audience such as music, if music is used in this documentary it may change or heighten the emotion of the audience. The narration may have questions cut out so it is just the answers, this is common for this mode because it means the audience don't have to spend time hearing each question and can hear the answers straight away, the answers are conducted so you almost know what the interviewer said anyway. The Narrator will normally introduce the topic and will also conclude the narrative at the end of the documentary.
The editing involved in this type of mode are very common in this documentary such as montages, these are so common because montages help to show the audience a lot of action in a small amount of time, because this documentary is showing goals and a lot of action in a small amount of time, they use montages to fit all of that information in. Adding to this they show montages to show multiple examples of archive footage or sometimes use them to give the audience a teaser of what the documentary is about. Furthermore they will use a simple editing cut to not distract the audience from the subject matter and tend not to use effects or complex cuts as much and are kept to a minimum.
These types of documentaries tend to use archive footage because it tends to always be relevant to the subject matter, so in this case, this documentary will show archive footage of goals or old football matches and may be shortened down into a montage, they may show archive footage because it could be relevant to what the narrator is talking about at that certain time.
Graphics are huge in this mode of documentary, the first thing that is important are the titles, the titles tend to be unique to that certain programme so they stand out when compared to other documentaries. During interviews the interviewee and there relevance and title tends to be and important graphic so the audience know who it is and why they're being interviewed. Adding to this, subtitles can be very important whether they're for other countries or if subtitles are needed if you're interviewing somebody with a strong accent.
Obviously the most important part of a documentary is Camera work, interviews tend to be framed to the left or to the right because of the rule of thirds, handheld cameras used for archive or actuality footage for more reaction for the audience. In drama documentaries a variety of shot types are used to keep the audience entertained and so the documentary isn't boring and it keeps sustaining the audience's interest, if they use still image they tend to pan or zoom across on them.
March of the penguins Expository documentary
Many animals based documentaries tend to be observational because the audience is observing the subjects (the animals), this i quite different and is actually an Expository Documentary, This type of documentary will create an argument for or against and allows the audience to think for themselves when conducting the argument. i feel it is a Expository Documentary because it follows the typical conventions of one such as...
Narration- The narration for a documentary with this mode is almost a 'voice of god' and tend to address the audience when narrating over the documentary. It is almost a voice of god because the commentator/narrator is never seen but heard all of the time, narration is so important in this documentary because the narration tells the audience the story of what is going on in the video, without the narration there would be no point in filming the documentary. Adding to this the narrator normally has a very distinctive voice or tends to be an expert in the field, these two traits are very important because the distinctive voice will keep the audience interested and the expert will be able to tell the audience the important and useful information about the animal(s)
The images they use also tend to link in with the narration, because when the narrator is speaking, images that relate to the certain narration tend to appear, so the audience not only hears what's going on but see what's going on also.
Editing- The editing used tends to be for continuity to link the images that support the argument with the narration, this is also very important because it helps the audience understand what is happening a little bit more but tends to help the audience and guide them with images or videos through the narration. When editing a mix of footage, interviews, images and possible archive footage is put together, sometimes into a montage to support the argument, i feel this is an important convention because it allows the audience to be persuaded by the narrators argument a little bit more and can tell a story to the audience. Adding to this the mix of footage would keep the audience interested and would make them keep watching.
Other conventions used:
Persuasive techniques: This is a huge conventions that they always use in Expository Documentaries because it helps there argument, it also helps the narrator persuade to the audience that there argument is true, these documentaries are rhetorical and definitely try to persuade the viewer to think for or against there argument. The narrator other than persuading the audience, he/she will give factual information to back up there argument, facts are important in any documentary, but a documentary such as this will always have factual information in it because of the content and the nature of the documentary.
Camerawork- The camera work in this type of documentary will tend to be similar to a movie with many medium shots and scenery shots and establishing shots, they will use this to show where the documentary is taking place but to also show the subjects in this documentary, in this documentary (march of the penguins) they show medium shots because they want to audience to look at the subjects and they show establishing shots to show the audience the subjects habitat, i feel these shots are important because this documentary doesn't follow the generic conventions of a documentary by using these shots and tends to be very different.
Furthermore Expository Documentaries tend to not follow the typical conventions of a documentary and use different conventions that different modes wouldn't use. This type of documentary will speak to the viewer when actually creating an argument for them to decide for themselves.
News show Conventions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0cwnWdiXk4
This news show will follow many typical conventions, the first obvious convention is News Show Reporters, this is a huge conventions that every news show follows, this is a very helpful convention because almost like a TV presenter they inform the audience of what is on the show(in this case NEWS) this is a very typical convention because every news show follows it, this convention is very popular because they help the audience to understand the news as they're explaining it and overall help the show stay together almost like the glue. The news reporters on every show tedn to be smartly dressed and in very formal clothes, the reason they are portrayed this way is because the studio want the audience to trust them and formal wear/business wear is a persuasive technique in which they do that. One News Show that doesn't follow this convention is NewsRound on Children's channel CBBC, although owned by the BBC, it isn't the same as BBC News, they have portrayed the News Reporter in a very different way (casual clothes, more out-going, friendly) is because the studio wants the younger audience to trust that certain News Reporter, when comparing the two, both Reporters are doing the same thing but just for different target audience's.
The second convention is actuality footage, you will see this convention is a lot of news programs, especially big news shows such as BBC or ITV News, you tend to only show actuality footage from the biggest news stories, i feel they only show the bigger news stories with actuality footage because the big stories will appeal to a mass audience, they wouldn't spend a lot of money to get actual footage from a smaller news story and they tend to only get actuality footage from a global news story. This is a typical convention of a news show because most of them do it and you will not find many News Shows that do not use actuality footage, adding to this, a huge reason why they use them is to keep the audience interested and to keep them on the edge and keep watching, the actuality footage may force them to keep watching to find out the end of the report. The footage shown could be quite graphic depending on the time that the news report is on, E.G- 6pm they cannot show graphic scenes or violence, but a news show on at 10pm could show graphic scenes or violence because it is on after the watershed, so i feel the News Shows have to be careful with what they're talking about at certain times because of regulations etc.
Modes Of Address:
This links in with how the presenter is portrayed, a mode of address is how something is reported or delivered, in this case BBC is more formal and appeals to a middle aged audience, rather than Channel 5 News that uses more slang words and has a more upbeat nature that appeals to a younger audience that may not want to watch BBC because of the seriousness and formality of it.
Interviews-
This is a very common convention and will be in ALL news shows, the reason why this is in all news shows is because the interviews could be live witnesses or experts in a certain field. Interviews help keep the news show not boring and allows the news show to get out of the studio and allows the audience to have different scenery and setting. I feel this is such a typical convention because it allows the audience to be taken somewhere else, keeps the show fresh and can help the audience connect to the news story a little bit more through interviews.
Report Structure and Camerawork:
An example of Report Structure is the Main Story in the studio, then to an on location reporter(field reporter) then an interview(possibly an eyewitness, then back to the studio, i feel the structure is lay out this way because there is balance between the studio and outside the studio, they may spend a lot of time outside the studio so again, it gives the audience a breath of fresh air and allows them to witness different scenery or a different location rather than just a studio for 30 minutes.
This is most important part of a news show in my opinion for many reasons, the first reason why i feel it is very important is every news show is based on structure, without structure the show would be a mess and wouldn't be enjoyable to watch or listen to because again, there would be no structure. Reports are normally done using the same techniques every time, They use medium shots to address the scenery and the subject, they do this because a medium shot shows both and looks very formal in a news report, a medium shot works because it is the most common shot, it also works so well because since the start of news reports the camera shot they tend to use the most is medium shots and the audience are used to that specific shot. The graphics used tend to be the name of the news presenters or the interviewee, they use these graphics to show the audience who a certain person is so the audience can follow along with the news presenters and so all the audience are up to date when following along with the news, the title graphics tend to be very specific to the certain channel E.G- BBC news has a very different style to ITV news because they have a different style with BBC being the more formal channel.
Overall i feel News Shows are very different when compared to documentaries but can also be very similar in terms of some of the shots they use and some typical conventions, I feel that both can reach for different target audiences by using different techniques and different conventions, a big convention that could be used on both News Shows and Documentaries is persuasive techniques, in a news interview the interviewee could be trying to persuade there audience about there views, much like a documentary where they could be doing the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment