The video we created for the River Tees Rediscovered team was created for the purpose of advertising the local charity organisation and, hopefully, generating a public interest in working with them. When the video was shown to the client after completion, they told us that they believed it fit the purposes very well, and that it was a well designed and well made video fit for its original intentions, that it was fit for purpose and presented a wide array of technical qualities. They informed us that the video was a viable and positive representation of the organisation with an uplifting tune that they personally believed would convince people to participate in the charity, and the technical qualities were up to a professional standard to represent them perfectly.
In terms of our personal production skills, I think that our generation of ideas was quick, efficient and fit the brief perfectly. Our workflow went quickly so that we could get to work as soon as we were aware of the dates, and the only failures in time management came from the organisations project managers being inconsistent with responding to emails, which largely just came down to a general busy atmosphere amongst the volunteers and workers. All the filming was competent and completed to a professional technical standard, with a constant movement across the whole video and an atmosphere the represented the entire purpose of the project well, while also showing off the capabilities of the creators in the class, who all worked with effective teamwork skills and competence to create a representative final piece.
Fortunately, no legal constraints other than making it fit for advertising were put on the piece, meaning that, as long as the footage was ours and the music was royalty free, we were more or less free to create whatever we wanted as there was no necessary branding or message needing to be put across other than encouragement to check out the organisation. Financing was fine, as this was classed as work experience on our college course, and we had the equipment ready, meaning that all that needed to be considered was personal transportation, meaning there were very few regulatory or financial issues that had to be considered. The only other constraints would be ethics, which also didn't particularly effect this piece in particular.
The project was overseen by one of the members of the class, who helped organise who did what, when it would be done and where to send people on certain dates, with the help of other people. At this stage I personally created a calendar for October and November to help keep a track of when and where people would need to be filming in an easy to oversee way, and people would simply communicate what they would be doing for it to be noted down. We would usually meet clients on the day of filming as we discussed a lot of the information via emails and facebook. We agreed on the timescales with them, noted them down on our calendar, then got ready to go. The only difficulties at this stage came from the project managers with the organisation sometimes being slow to respond, and we might consider being more persistent in the future as an improvement.
Today we had the clients in class to give us feedback. They especially noted that they enjoyed the music and the way it faded in and out during the part where it cuts to a brief interview with a worker, that the small timelapse and the introductory transition that I created were done to a professional standard and quality, as well as the fact that they said they weren't too fond of the small part where it cuts to a door briefly, giving us adequate feedback to reconsider and re-edit any necessary or important footage. They also made a note of the pacing being good, the fact they have a new logo that needs changing and that they struggled with reading the information and facts that appeared on screen, which is all excellent feedback that will help with creation of future edits, and with future projects. We discussed this between ourselves and also noticed a few jumpy frames and shaky shots that need reconsidering, and we began work immediately on changing this around. We personally believe this video is suitable for both our and their industry, but the feedback will help make it even better.
Wednesday 7 December 2016
Monday 5 December 2016
Work Experience: Documentation of Work - Headshots, Road to Rome, Little Sprouts, River Tees Rediscovered
Road to Rome:
Editing:
Contact Details:
Placement Name: The South Martins - Road to Rome Music Video Production
Address: Stockton Riverside College - Harvard Ave, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6FB
Type of Business: Band
Supervisor/Mentor: Andy Johnson
Daily Contacts: Andy Johnson
What it Offers Customers: Music
Summary of Job: Helped with editing on the final music video, including the creation of a promo for the final product.
Health and Safety: First Aid Kits and Fire Extinguishers around the college. Sat down for most of the job, few safety considerations.
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 2 Hours (in editing)
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Matty Dickens, Taylor Henderson, Rhys Collins
Date: September 20th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 15:00
Little Sprouts:
Contact Details:
Placement Name: Little Sprouts
Address: 49 Hartington Road, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18
Type of Business: Non-Profit Organisation, CIC
Supervisor/Mentor: Debbie Fixter
Daily Contacts: Debbie Fixter
What it Offers Customers: Shelter, Food Services, Education, Care
Summary of Job: Filming a taster for sending to ITV to encourage donations to the organisation, I worked in helping with directing some of the crew in filming the interviews with charity workers and people being helped by the organisation.
Health and Safety: First Aid Kits and Fire Extinguishers around the building, notably in the reception area, where the fire escapes lead to. Staff on hand to ensure no danger came to any of the film crew/equipment.
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Chloe Handley, Rhys Collins
Date: September 22nd, 2016
Time:
River Tees Rediscovered:
Bat Boxes:
Contact Details:
Placement Name: River Tees Rediscovered
Address: Preston Park, Stockton-on-Tees TS18 3RH
Type of Business: Landscape Partnership, Tourism
Supervisor/Mentor: River Tees Rediscovered Workers, Preston Park Employees
Daily Contacts: Christine, Jenny
What it Offers Customers: A Chance to Explore the Tees, Creative Productions, Family Activities, Guided Walks, Tourism Chances, Exploration of Local Landmarks
Summary of Job: Director of a filming shoot of Bat Box construction with families.
Health and Safety: First Aid Kits and Fire Extinguishers around the building, staff on hand to ensure no danger came to any of the film crew/equipment. Security Cameras around the building.
Production Diary:
Day 1:
On the 25th of October we made our way down to Preston Park (approximately 1 hour bus journey away) and arrived early to film establishing shots of the park and museum. We captured some footage and went for a quick breakfast meal, before returning to the park. After this, we realised that no park or museum employees had arrived, and Danniella, the production manager, checked the dates sent to her by email, where she realised that the dates had been mixed up and the actual Bat Boxes were being filmed on the 26th. We continued to acquire stock footage for the remainder of the day, with myself working as a director to help Adam find locations to shoot.
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Adam McLean, Rhys Collins
Date: 25th October, 2016
Time: 08:00 - 11:00
Day 2:
On the 26th of October, we made our way down to get ready to film at 10am instead of 8am, where we arrived half an hour early and filmed a few more exterior shots in the different weather conditions. We approached the door and were greeted by Preston Park employees, who took us down to where the Bat Box creation was taking place, we set up and film for about 2 and a half hours as families came in, making sure to have them sign consent before we filmed them.
Hours Completed: 3.5 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Matthew Taylor, Adam McLean, Rhys Collins
Date: 26th October, 2016
Time: 09:30 - 13:00
Planning & Editing:
Placement Name: River Tees Rediscovered
Address: Stockton Riverside College - Harvard Ave, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6FB
Type of Business: Landscape Partnership, Tourism
Supervisor/Mentor: Mark Johnson,
Daily Contacts: River Tees Rediscovered Workers
What it Offers Customers: A Chance to Explore the Tees, Creative Productions, Family Activities, Guided Walks, Tourism Chances, Exploration of Local Landmarks
Summary of Job: Planning for the Bat Box filming, Editing the Footage
Health and Safety: First Aid Kits and Fire Extinguishers around the building, staff on hand to ensure no danger came to any of the film crew/equipment. Security Cameras around the building.
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: October 5th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: October 12th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: October 19th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: October 26th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 2nd, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 9th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 16th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 23rd, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 30th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: December 7th , 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Editing:
Contact Details:
Placement Name: The South Martins - Road to Rome Music Video Production
Address: Stockton Riverside College - Harvard Ave, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6FB
Type of Business: Band
Supervisor/Mentor: Andy Johnson
Daily Contacts: Andy Johnson
What it Offers Customers: Music
Summary of Job: Helped with editing on the final music video, including the creation of a promo for the final product.
Health and Safety: First Aid Kits and Fire Extinguishers around the college. Sat down for most of the job, few safety considerations.
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 2 Hours (in editing)
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Matty Dickens, Taylor Henderson, Rhys Collins
Date: September 20th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 15:00
Little Sprouts:
Contact Details:
Placement Name: Little Sprouts
Address: 49 Hartington Road, Stockton-on-Tees, TS18
Type of Business: Non-Profit Organisation, CIC
Supervisor/Mentor: Debbie Fixter
Daily Contacts: Debbie Fixter
What it Offers Customers: Shelter, Food Services, Education, Care
Summary of Job: Filming a taster for sending to ITV to encourage donations to the organisation, I worked in helping with directing some of the crew in filming the interviews with charity workers and people being helped by the organisation.
Health and Safety: First Aid Kits and Fire Extinguishers around the building, notably in the reception area, where the fire escapes lead to. Staff on hand to ensure no danger came to any of the film crew/equipment.
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Chloe Handley, Rhys Collins
Date: September 22nd, 2016
Time:
River Tees Rediscovered:
Bat Boxes:
Contact Details:
Placement Name: River Tees Rediscovered
Address: Preston Park, Stockton-on-Tees TS18 3RH
Type of Business: Landscape Partnership, Tourism
Supervisor/Mentor: River Tees Rediscovered Workers, Preston Park Employees
Daily Contacts: Christine, Jenny
What it Offers Customers: A Chance to Explore the Tees, Creative Productions, Family Activities, Guided Walks, Tourism Chances, Exploration of Local Landmarks
Summary of Job: Director of a filming shoot of Bat Box construction with families.
Health and Safety: First Aid Kits and Fire Extinguishers around the building, staff on hand to ensure no danger came to any of the film crew/equipment. Security Cameras around the building.
Production Diary:
Day 1:
On the 25th of October we made our way down to Preston Park (approximately 1 hour bus journey away) and arrived early to film establishing shots of the park and museum. We captured some footage and went for a quick breakfast meal, before returning to the park. After this, we realised that no park or museum employees had arrived, and Danniella, the production manager, checked the dates sent to her by email, where she realised that the dates had been mixed up and the actual Bat Boxes were being filmed on the 26th. We continued to acquire stock footage for the remainder of the day, with myself working as a director to help Adam find locations to shoot.
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Adam McLean, Rhys Collins
Date: 25th October, 2016
Time: 08:00 - 11:00
Day 2:
On the 26th of October, we made our way down to get ready to film at 10am instead of 8am, where we arrived half an hour early and filmed a few more exterior shots in the different weather conditions. We approached the door and were greeted by Preston Park employees, who took us down to where the Bat Box creation was taking place, we set up and film for about 2 and a half hours as families came in, making sure to have them sign consent before we filmed them.
Hours Completed: 3.5 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Matthew Taylor, Adam McLean, Rhys Collins
Date: 26th October, 2016
Time: 09:30 - 13:00
Planning & Editing:
Placement Name: River Tees Rediscovered
Address: Stockton Riverside College - Harvard Ave, Thornaby, Stockton-on-Tees, TS17 6FB
Type of Business: Landscape Partnership, Tourism
Supervisor/Mentor: Mark Johnson,
Daily Contacts: River Tees Rediscovered Workers
What it Offers Customers: A Chance to Explore the Tees, Creative Productions, Family Activities, Guided Walks, Tourism Chances, Exploration of Local Landmarks
Summary of Job: Planning for the Bat Box filming, Editing the Footage
Health and Safety: First Aid Kits and Fire Extinguishers around the building, staff on hand to ensure no danger came to any of the film crew/equipment. Security Cameras around the building.
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: October 5th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: October 12th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: October 19th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: October 26th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 2nd, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 9th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 16th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 23rd, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: November 30th, 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Production Diary:
Hours Completed: 3 Hours
Photo Evidence:
Finished Products:
Crew: Danniella Cooper, Jess Bramfitt, Matty Dickens, Kane Smith, Taylor Henderson, Matthew Taylor, Chloe Handley, Adam McLean, Jordan Reed, Ben Siddle, Rhys Collins
Date: December 7th , 2016
Time: 13:00 - 16:00
Monday 28 November 2016
Unit 27: Factual Film Programme Production Techniques for Television - Filming Day 1: 25/11/16
Friday 25th November 2016:
Our first day of filming for our Spiritualist Documentary about Mediums that work above the local Greggs, known as Gifted & Blessed. Upon our arrival we met with Angeline and Ian. We split up into two groups, with Matty and Kane being the inside team, preparing cutaways on the proper Sony Camera, whilst I took Taylor outside to film establishing shots on the DSLR Camera, with which to open the film and show off the location to make the film begin with a nice intro, with Gifted and Blessed at the centre. Once this was done, we met up and chatted to Angeline about the potential of getting interviews with herself and Ian.
Ian was in a meeting with a customer, so we formally declared a Greggs break. When we retirned, Ian had prepared himself for a 20 minute interview, Kane on the static Sony camera (set up by Matty and Taylor) as well as doing the interviews, Matty using the DSLR to film from other angles in a more moving and behind-the-scenes style. Taylor took photos for our in-college film business (@ufilms_), and I sat there to overlook everything, make sure it was okay, as well as watching Matty's footage. A woman named Debbie was filmed because she contributed to a discussion, but she did not want to be on camera. After this, another medium named Bernie arrived for our second interview, and I took the role of business photographer, while Matty took the static camera and Taylor took the DSLR. Kane's voice asked questions again for consistency. We then did a very short interview with Angeline, but the room was small so no photos were taken.
Once we were finished with this, we packed up and left, ready to copy footage and begin our editing.
Our first day of filming for our Spiritualist Documentary about Mediums that work above the local Greggs, known as Gifted & Blessed. Upon our arrival we met with Angeline and Ian. We split up into two groups, with Matty and Kane being the inside team, preparing cutaways on the proper Sony Camera, whilst I took Taylor outside to film establishing shots on the DSLR Camera, with which to open the film and show off the location to make the film begin with a nice intro, with Gifted and Blessed at the centre. Once this was done, we met up and chatted to Angeline about the potential of getting interviews with herself and Ian.
Ian was in a meeting with a customer, so we formally declared a Greggs break. When we retirned, Ian had prepared himself for a 20 minute interview, Kane on the static Sony camera (set up by Matty and Taylor) as well as doing the interviews, Matty using the DSLR to film from other angles in a more moving and behind-the-scenes style. Taylor took photos for our in-college film business (@ufilms_), and I sat there to overlook everything, make sure it was okay, as well as watching Matty's footage. A woman named Debbie was filmed because she contributed to a discussion, but she did not want to be on camera. After this, another medium named Bernie arrived for our second interview, and I took the role of business photographer, while Matty took the static camera and Taylor took the DSLR. Kane's voice asked questions again for consistency. We then did a very short interview with Angeline, but the room was small so no photos were taken.
Once we were finished with this, we packed up and left, ready to copy footage and begin our editing.
Monday 21 November 2016
Unit 6: Critical Approaches to Creative Media Products - Task 2: How Media Producers Create Products - News Coverage
News Coverage of the US 2016 General Election
2016 has been a very dramatic year in many ways, but none so much as the political scene. While the UK had a lot of debate at the start of the year, the news coverage globally was nothing compared to that of the Presidential Election in the United States, which, for over half the year, featured long and constant debates from the numbers of candidates that put their name forward. However, the real news started once it came down to the last two candidates - Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
In terms of coverage, we'll start off with one of the United States biggest news channels, CNN. Specifically, the day before the election, it is worth noting how much they had been consistently talking about Hillary's emails, as opposed to talking direct opinions regarding the debate or trying to discuss anything about the opponent. Leading up to the final week, they provided coverage of debates and discussions, as all news channels did, but interestingly it is difficult to find much news regarding any opinions about the candidates on this website, and it comes across as them trying to remain neutral as if to not alter the opinions of the American public.
Compare CNN's coverage to that of the largest UK news station, BBC, and you can see political opinions being discussed from as early as February 2016. What is most interesting about this is the way the opinions seem to form, with this news story from February referring to how Americans are 'angry', and later news reports discussing American political paranoia, represented by one of Donald Trump's many unusual looking photos. Paired with these other two stories is one discussing the American hatred for Hillary, which goes into interesting depth to explain why Americans seem to have this dislike for Hillary and why a lot of people wouldn't vote for her because of who she is - no article like this exists for Donald Trump, or, if it does, it is buried somewhere and much harder to find, which shows an interesting viewpoint of how the BBC will argue at length to explain why Americans would hate Hillary Clinton, but offer no explanation for the hatred of Donald Trump, almost as if they see it as something that is natural or obvious. Historically, the UK has generally been a more left-wing country than the US, and it stands that the lack of discussion about Trump almost seems to be a method of persuading the British public to remain with a more left-wing opinion of politics and not be persuaded to support Trump and other equivalents within the UK.
With just the two largest news companies you can see a huge difference in the representation of the debate, as CNN would talk more generally and generically, looking at facts and figures, being a very quantitative analysis of footage, statistics and even debates, showing the general opinions of answers to questions, and while it almost comes across as if they were more on Hillary Clinton's side, it also comes across as that the statistics were just on Clinton's side, and it seems interesting that CNN almost manages to make itself look neutral in the debate despite its large influences. The BBC on the other hand barely tries to hide its hatred of Trump, and while it doesn't show Hillary as being the best candidate, it's much easier to find information about the election, and a lot of it is more supportive of the Democrats in general.
A lot of these differences come down to audiences. As mentioned previously, the UK is, in general and historically, a much more left-wing country, having had 13 years of Labour government from 1997 to 2010, and with even the most popular right-wing party in the UK, the Conservatives, being, usually, more left-wing and open than the Americans republican party, and the only UK party coming close to the same values as the Republicans, or, in particular, the Trump Administration, being UKIP, who struggled to get any votes in the 2015 election, with the Labour and SNP parties got the majority of votes in total, being the two most left-wing candidates available to the country. What this shows is how the US audience is generally much more right-wing, and this is almost as if there is some sort of stigma left over from US history, back before, for example, John Kennedy. This is represented in statistics, where it can be seen that the majority of whites and males in the US voted for Trump, as well as him securing the vote of the older people, showing that age, race and gender can be easily influenced to vote for somebody. While CNN might have remained somewhat more neutral than British news sites, many people will focus on their preferred local news that may have more "extreme" views, as can be seen in Britain with people who are more likely to vote Conservative often reading The Sun and The Daily Mail, which represent much more Conservative values, and it can be assumed that many Trump voters would only read Trump's approaches on news, or right-wing news such as Chicago Tribune, the New York Post, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the Dallas Morning News, and the Wall Street Journal, which all represent much more Republican values, and have been shown to represent a larger majority of Trump voters than Hillary voters, showing that reading a small bubble of specialised news designed for your opinions will give you a more close minded view, which seems to show that, if we were to assume the white, older males read, for example, the Dallas Morning News, which is deep-rooted in a largely Republican state, it would represent Donald Trump as a better person than Hillary Clinton for his values, making people of this particular group more likely to uphold his values.
Out of all the stories on this site, the one that stands out the most is "Got election stress? Breathe, work out, unplug ... and vote", which discusses, in particular, not being stressed about the election and the debates. It seems fairly neutral and innocent, but in the subtext of the news it seems to subtly suggest voting Trump. They make a note to mention making America "happy again", which is a parody of Trump's famous slogan, and it seems that in doing this they want to put that subtle Trump out there, and they continue to make a statement about how it's important to vote above all else, which, while not outright saying "Go vote Trump", is definitely hinting at this idea, which is similar to British Conservative newspapers.
While this small newspaper might support Trump quietly, the other less so quiet Trump supporting news source in the US is another one of their three largest news sources - Fox News. Unlike CNN, who hid their election news under a bunch of nonsense to make the world seem a bit better, Fox puts politics at the front and foremost of their site, and they are often mocked for how much they seem to be biased. One news report on their website shows Celebrity reactions to the election, published on November 8th, the day of the vote, which showed, fully, that all celebrities who mentioned a dislike for Trump as being "outrageous", and refuses at any point to mention any celebrities who supported Trump, such as Kanye West and Katie Hopkins (a British citizen who can't vote anyway), as if they were trying to avoid bringing up any potential targets of controversy, but happily spreading it about Hillary's supporters as they see fit. They even mention J.K. Rowling, a British author's, opinions, as if it is some crazy opinion in the UK to think Trump is wrong, which, as BBC showed, is a fairly popular opinion in Britain. Fox seems to represent above all else that they are a Republican news source, but never outright saying it, and it is interesting just how different the site is compared to the more neutral-seeming CNN. A quick look at Fox makes it seem very right-wing, where as a quick look at CNN would make it impossible to determine an opinion, though Americans who are able to watch and access CNN easier may have different opinions, it definitely comes across as more news and less propaganda.
What is interesting, is the statistics of people who view CNN and Fox. Fox (and the other big US station, MSNBC) have a very old, white, male audience. CNN have an audience of most of the other demographics in the states, with Hispanics, African-American, Asian and, crucially, young and female audiences all preferring CNN's approach to neutral news, which shows that when it comes to age, gender and race all prefer the more neutral and left-wing news, which represents the democratic separation between the two political parties of America in that all these different people prefer CNN's news. The other thing of note is demographics, where, weirdly, the upper class all prefer Republicans, the middle class all prefer Democrats, and the lower class have an almost 50/50 split of preferences, which is also reflected in British politics, suggesting that these statistics are almost worldwide. America was divided before this election, and is divided after, with more and more people seeing the Republican voters as being racist, and Democrats being viewed as terrorist-sympathisers, it's safe to say the country is somehow more split than the post-Brexit UK, and the world is unsettled, with many different social and economic groups being more split up. The richer are happy Trump is in power, the poorer are less than happy about it; the better employed are happy, the lesser employed are not. Politics cause a rift and media coverage can either make it better or worse, and in this case it feels like they make it worse. Despite this, there's one crucial news source that hasn't been discussed that is, for a lot of younger people, more important than CNN, the BBC and Dallas Morning News. The internet.
One of the worlds largest and most trusted news sources is the website Reddit, a forum website for any person to discuss any thing. Many parts of reddit are dedicated to different topics, ranging from video games, art, cute animals and news. r/news and r/worldnews are two of the largest places for getting a general opinion on politics, and any person's views can be seen in the open. If you were to look at the post from the 9th November, there is a clear view given by people that they didn't support Trump or Hillary, but voted Hillary. Many different viable news sources represented in a single place and with comments from the public to talk about it. Many people show a dislike for Mike Pence, many show their love for Bernie Sanders, and most importantly, they debate the news, rather than give a final, de facto opinion on politics. The internet is a great source of news, and while other place, such as r/TheDonald would represent some extremely biased opinions, you can see that, as a whole, the variety of opinions could lead a website like reddit to become the new news, while Fox news struggles to stay relevant in recent years.
Index:
CNN:
Sunday 20 November 2016
Unit 6: Critical Approaches to Creative Media Products - Task 1: How Media Producers define Audiences
Throughout all businesses it is important for somebody to know who it is that wants to buy their product. In particular, many media companies will need to know who it is that wants to go watch their film, their TV show and buy any related products. The media is important to these people, but the people who benefit most from knowing their audience are politicians - You need to know who you want to vote for you if you want them to vote for you. Recently, as you may be aware, there was an election for the next American president, and it was won by the Republican Candidate Donald Trump, who, above all else that can be said about him, knows his audience very well. No doubt that he had plenty of people put hours and hours of research into finding this out, and some of the methods of doing this will be stated below:
Quantitative Audience Research:
Quantitative Research is a very particular and specific type of, usually, statistical research. If, for example, the amount of people attending a Donald Trump rally were 70% white, or 60% male, they'd know that these types of people are their audience. They wouldn't necessarily spend most of their time and money targeting Mexican women because the figures shown don't make these people seem like a priority audience to Trump. They'll get numbers off of people to see what approval is, they'll get specific panels to give their representations, and they'll base their figures off of statistics, facts and numbers - quantities. For example, the numbers on Trump's campaign would represent that he got 60 million votes as opposed to Hillary's 61, but he got 290 electoral votes as opposed to Hillary's 232. Out of this, 58% of white Americans voted Trump, and 53% of men. Numbers represent facts on what to focus on, but they don't show everything.
Qualitative Audience Research:
The other thing people need to know about audience is the quality of people participating in their product or, in this case, political campaign. Things that are harder to represent by numbers, such as opinions. While you can represent a group of peoples race on numbers, you can't represent whether or not they agree with Trump's statements as well. For this, as opposed to writing down representative numbers, you would need to collect focus groups (asking people for their opinions on certain problems and their attitudes to what is represented), questionnaires that represent what they believe and face-to-face interviews where they talk to people. It's about opinions rather than fact, which is just as important to a politician or advertiser. In Trump's case, it's crucial to know why somebody wants to build a Mexican border wall, why they might be against Obamacare and what their thoughts are on making American great again, and Qualitative Research helps in this.
Audience Classifications:
The other things people need to understand for a product are how audiences are classed. Importantly, demographics would show social status of somebody based on their job and roles in society, how somebody might contribute, such as a doctor being a more valuable target consumer of a product than a stay at home middle aged dad, as the Trump administration, as all politicians, would care more about the doctor in most situations. Getting the doctors on side would be more important, and you need to know what the stereotype of this audience would desire to hear. In England, doctors would love to hear a politician say they're going to save the NHS, but in America they might be more excited by hearing about the abolishing of Obamacare. They need to consider all markets, and someone like Trump would be better able to appreciate socio-economic information (job and income, and even information like states and neighbourhoods), psychographics (thoughts and opinions) and mainstream, niche or alternative views on a specific factor.
These are the types of things that people need to appreciate to target an audience, but it's crucial for someone like Trump to appreciate these facts, as it, evidently, can help sell the product against a lesser advertiser-capable opponent.
Quantitative Audience Research:
Quantitative Research is a very particular and specific type of, usually, statistical research. If, for example, the amount of people attending a Donald Trump rally were 70% white, or 60% male, they'd know that these types of people are their audience. They wouldn't necessarily spend most of their time and money targeting Mexican women because the figures shown don't make these people seem like a priority audience to Trump. They'll get numbers off of people to see what approval is, they'll get specific panels to give their representations, and they'll base their figures off of statistics, facts and numbers - quantities. For example, the numbers on Trump's campaign would represent that he got 60 million votes as opposed to Hillary's 61, but he got 290 electoral votes as opposed to Hillary's 232. Out of this, 58% of white Americans voted Trump, and 53% of men. Numbers represent facts on what to focus on, but they don't show everything.
Qualitative Audience Research:
The other thing people need to know about audience is the quality of people participating in their product or, in this case, political campaign. Things that are harder to represent by numbers, such as opinions. While you can represent a group of peoples race on numbers, you can't represent whether or not they agree with Trump's statements as well. For this, as opposed to writing down representative numbers, you would need to collect focus groups (asking people for their opinions on certain problems and their attitudes to what is represented), questionnaires that represent what they believe and face-to-face interviews where they talk to people. It's about opinions rather than fact, which is just as important to a politician or advertiser. In Trump's case, it's crucial to know why somebody wants to build a Mexican border wall, why they might be against Obamacare and what their thoughts are on making American great again, and Qualitative Research helps in this.
Audience Classifications:
The other things people need to understand for a product are how audiences are classed. Importantly, demographics would show social status of somebody based on their job and roles in society, how somebody might contribute, such as a doctor being a more valuable target consumer of a product than a stay at home middle aged dad, as the Trump administration, as all politicians, would care more about the doctor in most situations. Getting the doctors on side would be more important, and you need to know what the stereotype of this audience would desire to hear. In England, doctors would love to hear a politician say they're going to save the NHS, but in America they might be more excited by hearing about the abolishing of Obamacare. They need to consider all markets, and someone like Trump would be better able to appreciate socio-economic information (job and income, and even information like states and neighbourhoods), psychographics (thoughts and opinions) and mainstream, niche or alternative views on a specific factor.
These are the types of things that people need to appreciate to target an audience, but it's crucial for someone like Trump to appreciate these facts, as it, evidently, can help sell the product against a lesser advertiser-capable opponent.
Tuesday 18 October 2016
Interview Techniques - Notes
Question Types
Closed Questions: Answered with either a single word or a short phrase.
ie: "How old are you?", "Where do you live?", "Are you happy?"
Typically a 'yes or no' answer.
Facts, easy to answer, quick questions that keep control with the questioner.
Useful for opening questions. Doesn't reveal too much.
Testing understanding.
Sets up a desired positive or negative frame of mind.
Seeking yes to a big question.
Helps shorten an open question. "Isn't it?", "Don't you?", "Can't they?"
First word of a question sets up the closed question: do, would, are, will, if
Open Questions: Likely to receive a long answer. Deliberately seek longer answers.
Ask the respondent to think and reflect.
Opinionated feelings that hand control of the conversation to the respondent.
Actively listen to the answer.
Useful to follow a closed question. Develop conversation.
Find out wants, needs and thoughts.
Help realise extent of problems and worth.
Closed Questions: Answered with either a single word or a short phrase.
ie: "How old are you?", "Where do you live?", "Are you happy?"
Typically a 'yes or no' answer.
Facts, easy to answer, quick questions that keep control with the questioner.
Useful for opening questions. Doesn't reveal too much.
Testing understanding.
Sets up a desired positive or negative frame of mind.
Seeking yes to a big question.
Helps shorten an open question. "Isn't it?", "Don't you?", "Can't they?"
First word of a question sets up the closed question: do, would, are, will, if
Open Questions: Likely to receive a long answer. Deliberately seek longer answers.
Ask the respondent to think and reflect.
Opinionated feelings that hand control of the conversation to the respondent.
Actively listen to the answer.
Useful to follow a closed question. Develop conversation.
Find out wants, needs and thoughts.
Help realise extent of problems and worth.
Monday 17 October 2016
Unit 27: Factual Film Programme Production Techniques for Television - Task 1
When looking at factual film as a subject, there are different themes and key issues that are related to the idea as a whole. In the making of our own documentaries for our college work, it is imperative to learn these points about documentaries to help aid the creation of my own. The most important points are as follows:
These factors alter the form and overall outlook of the documentary. For example, bias can turn a film on, for example, looking behind the scenes at SeaWorld, into a "SeaWorld Exposed" documentary. It doesn't make it necessarily worse, but it changes to outcome and themes present in the documentary.
Throughout this subject, I've looked extensively at the documentary filmmaker Louis Theroux, who tends to provide a very accurate, unbiased representation of his subjects while still expressing his opinion. Other documentaries we've specifically watched are Lift (2001) and Catfish (2010), but I'll also mention other documentaries where possible, such as how these facts may or may not be related to, for example, a nature documentary, or to the previously mentioned Blackfish documentary about SeaWorld.
The subject of factual film is a very extensive subject and themes are an incredibly vital part of it, as they help in the discussion, creation and planning of a film. Many documentaries will likely relate to others to try and get a feel on what is and isn't a good documentary.
Accuracy and Balance
The first key point in documentary would be how accurate and balanced a discussion regarding a subject might be. One of the best filmmakers to see for an accurate portrayal of subject is Louis Theroux, who is known for doing what he can to explore and investigate. The one that most stands out to me in terms of accuracy would probably be his documentary regarding prostitution in America from 2003, where he spends several months living in a brothel to get a feel on what the lifestyle is like. It shows how important it can be for a filmmaker to spend time and care on their subject of choice to fully understand how and why someone or something is the way it is; If I was to make a film on, for example, people who are dependant on drugs, it would be important to spend time with people who have been in this situation, rather than asking people unrelated to the subject, which could include people even as prestigiously viewed as police officers, who wouldn't understand the subject as well as the people using drugs. My intention for a factual film is to create a film on mediums and spiritualists, so the best sources would be to speak with and discuss the subject to mediums and spiritualists, and anyone who frequents these businesses.
In terms of balance, it is a very similar subject, where any perspective from the filmmaker has to be backed up by the opposite opinion. For example, you couldn't, ethically, create a film on racism and only ask, for example, Asian people, about the subject, but if you were to ask many people of different races, including people who seem to share and appropriate these racist opinions, it would be a much more balanced showing of the subject, and therefore would be a more ethically "correct" documentary, which covers all sides of an argument. If you have a two sided debate, you have to show both sides of the debate, trying to get a similar amount of information from each side to support or disprove the argument of the other, even if you selectively choose negatively portraying footage, the best way to manage the topic would be to give similar screen time to both to give an argument that isn't one sided and represent the topic with more accuracy and balance.
My documentary in particular is about mediums and spiritualists, and accuracy and balance, fortunately, will be a less prominent feature in this subject. A lot of the topic is to do with psychological portrayals and therefore even the most unusual and strange of people will help relate back to the themes and styles of the documentary, and the sides of the argument are people who believe in speaking to ghosts, and people who don't, providing a quick and easy way of interviewing both sides of this belief.
Impartiality
In documentary, it can be tempting to make a film about a certain subject. If, for example, you were politically following the left-wing parties, and you were to make a film about the current 2016 American election, you'd be more likely to show negative footage of Donald Trump than you would be to show negative footage of Hilary Clinton. What this means is that you aren't tackling the subject with an intent to show the sides of an argument as "good" and "bad". This relates back to Balance in a lot of ways, as you need to give an equal side of the arguments with accurate representations without portraying one side too negatively, remaining impartial and unrelated to the subject where possible. It would be wrong to show a pristine looking Clinton supporter wearing a sharp suit and tie in a nice office, and a Trump follower with no teeth in a muddy field, it would definitely represent the Clinton follower as a more appealing person and encouraging people to be biased towards this opinion, where a documentary is supposed to remain impartial to the argument, representing everyone as equally viable opinions, even if they differ from the filmmakers. Once again, Louis Theroux is a very good measure of how to represent this correctly, for example, in his documentary about a super-max prison in California from 2008, he didn't focus solely on interviewing wardens, and he didn't focus on interviewing prisoners. He liked to switch between talking to both sides of the bars, and portrayed them exactly how they portrayed themselves; the guards and wardens appeared calm, collected and controlling, as if they were above the inmates - who appeared to be a lot less organised, but almost as if they were themselves in control, some were dependent on prison, and others were eager to leave, while some were truly miserable to be there, but the important thing was that the documentary didn't portray any of these feelings as right or wrong, it just showed how life was in the prison and why it would affect someone, making it a very interesting watch rather than politically encouraging people to rage against the machine.
In regards to mediums, it would be morally wrong to burst through the doors and proudly proclaim "Spiritualism is a scam." as it would not be remaining impartial and absent from the subject, it is actively involving yourself in the debate and sparking a discussion that should instead be encouraged through questions you see as necessary. I couldn't portray the mediums as being weird, insane or wrong, but if they actively and proudly proclaim and portray themselves in this manner then it would be acceptable to show them like this. A documentary is about showing a subject, not manipulating it, and remaining impartial to the subject allows this to happen, so I won't involve myself in the beliefs of the mediums if it isn't in a questioning format.
Objectivity and Subjectivity
Similarly to the thoughts on Impartiality is the way in which one might involve themselves in the documentary. While remaining out of the side-taking on a documentary and showing an equal, accurate and balanced portrayal of all sides of a belief or argument is important, sometimes that doesn't make for an interesting story, and above all else it can be vital to film that you show something to keep people interested. There are two ways of managing this and remaining impartial to the events of the film, and that is through acting through either Objectivity or Subjectivity.
Objectivity is the simpler of the two methods, which has been implied heavily throughout this blog post so far, that you should, instead of taking a side in the debate, sit back and let people portray themselves, ask them questions related to the subject that aren't personal and watch things unfold. The other method, Subjectivity, is vastly different, and almost contradictory to the idea of impartiality, but can still be applicable; to be subjective is the act of involving yourself with an ideal portrayed in the documentary, portraying that as your opinion, but not necessarily the right opinion. In this state of subjectivity, it is actively acceptable and expected to state at some point "This is my opinion on the matter, what does this mean to you?". I hate to refer to him again, but it's unavoidable to mention Louis Theroux bringing up his Jewish descendance to an American Nazi group in 2003, but another example of actively involving yourself and your opinion in a film would be the documentary "Catfish" from 2010, where one of the creators, Nev Schulman, is the entire subject of the film, a film that follows him and his journey to find the truth about a family that contacted him through his art and later lead into a relationship with the older daughter of the family, and whether this fortunate turning of events is factual at all. The documentary is very much about Nev and the family as a subject, not focusing on online relationships as a whole and instead being entirely about this personal matter, showing an extreme case of subjectivity in the plot of the documentary. While not all subjective films may be in this manner, many of them will involve the makers opinion on the subject, discussing it with both sides of the argument and assessing what their opinions on a person were, but not necessarily saying, for example, "This opinion differs to mine, and is thusly an incorrect opinion." Even a subjective film must remain impartial to the subject - nobody is right, not even you, but you can openly discuss your belief if you feel it would benefit the film.
I, for one, intend to state my disbelief in spiritualism and that I can't help but feel there is a fraudulent nature behind to leech of and ruin the stability and progression of grief. Despite this strong opinion, I won't tell them actively that they're all scammers, instead stating that I can't shake the feeling that a lot of spiritualists are fraudulent, and ask what their opinion on this scamming nature is, whether they genuinely believe in mediums and what they think of the stages of grief. I wouldn't dig into them and make them change their mind, but I'd show the question and the answer without tampering with what is said, instead accurately portraying exactly what it is.
Opinion
In my opinion, opinion is much about portraying an opinion on the subject. This heavily relates back to subjectivity and impartiality. If someone is being objective in their film, they couldn't say what they think about it, as then the audience is inclined to think "The documentary man thinks Trump is evil, he must be smart, I'm inclined to agree with him.", instead, to remain objective, someone should simply record other peoples opinions, portraying a balanced and impartial argument, without injecting their opinion. Everyone has an opinion, and documentaries are able to change or enhance opinions, which is why they shouldn't portray an opinion exclusively over another, even if that is the opinion the documentary is about or the opinion of the filmmaker, as the film needs to stay objective or subjective to the topic, not bringing in any opinions to change the subject and how the documentary pans out to change it from being about the topic to being about the opinions of the creator. Opinion can be brought into a documentary subjectively without any problems, but a person needs to respect that a person is watching a documentary to be informed about a topic, not about the creators opinion, and while it is fine to mention an opinion, it is important to remember to make your documentary about the subject.
In my documentary I think my opinion will definitely be mentioned as relevancy to the subjective portrayal of spiritualism, but I won't be forcing it as a key part of the documentary, making it a secondary factor that is instead included to make the film portray the subject in some ways to see what they'd say to people who don't believe in what they say. It will be used, as it should, to enhance the story and continue the documentary as opposed to force the opinion as the only part of the documentary.
Bias
A factual film that is subjective may, conclusively, show bias to the subject. When a subject is twisted in a way that it becomes solely about one point of view, the original message and topic of the documentary can get twisted when a film introduces heavy bias from the maker. To bring it back to the Trump/Clinton analogy, someone who loves Trump couldn't make a documentary balanced if they spoke more about Clinton's negatives, as they would heavily show bias towards these people. An interesting documentary to think about bias would be 2001's "Lift" by Marc Isaacs, which is about a man sat in a lift. What makes it interesting in terms of bias is how on the surface it would appear there is no bias to the subject - he doesn't know these people, he's just having a grand old jape in a lift with some strangers, but where the bias comes into it is in the way it is edited together, it is obvious that he shows the same people over and over, he doesn't want to show the first meeting of every person, because some of them didn't have any interesting stories. He shows bias towards the interesting people and selectively edits them to be the focus of the film. The film is largely objective to any subjects portrayed, with the creator rarely involving himself, yet there is still an element of subtle bias present, and that's how a documentary should be regarding many of these points, especially in regard to bias and opinion - it isn't bad to use them to get your own message across, but don't blur or confuse the original message with your thoughts.
Representation
This one is self explanatory - How you represent a topic. Do you show something as good, bad, both or neither? To bring back my favourite topic of discussion, do you show Trump as a good guy, a bad guy, a bit of both or as a completely neutral, unintersting figure? As you may imagine, the fourth option is the probably the least usable material for a documentary, you don't want to bore people, you want to inform, educate and possibly entertain. Any of the first three options are good, with showing both good and bad being a more objective stance, where showing his likeness as either good or bad is more subjective. It's the choice of the filmmaker on what the subject of the documentary is, but he needs to bear in mind that his opinion will confuse the documentaries thematic choices, and choose not what is best for his intentions, but for the film. He needs to represent someone fairly to give the best impression of himself and the subject, even if a fair representation is negative, and remember that people represent themselves fairly better than anyone else can. Remain out of the subject, and interject only when a prompt is needed to make the documentary better, and show as equal good and bad as needed, don't be biased or opinionated to the subject unless it brings a story along, remain as impartial as necessary to tackle it how you need and show the subject accurately. Represent it, don't try to twist it, and the documentary will end up fine.
For the mediums, I like to think their personalities will define them perfectly, no twisting or changing necessary. They will represent themselves and only need prompts to help bring the subjective tones to the forefront. They are the topic, not me, and as long as I and they know that, the story can be brought to the forefront to carry the film along.
Privacy
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, is not to witch hunt the subject. Every person is a person, and a documentary about people represents people, not targets. Once again, Louis Theroux's 2003 Nazi documentary is a prime example of respecting privacy in a documentary. Sure, he went inside the houses of several nazis, but what he didn't do is say "Mr Naziman lives at 42 Wallaby Way, Tennessee"; he avoids saying surnames, he avoids addresses and he avoids naming and shaming the different people. He doesn't agree with their opinions, their political views and he certainly doesn't think Hitler was an alright guy, but these people are people, and just because they think this doesn't make them deserving of being a target of hate and ridicule, it makes them deserving of being studied and explored. Documentaries are about that - study, not about hate. Keep peoples details private to avoid turning a study into a hunt, people should be interested in a subject, no matter how shocking, but they shouldn't seek the people in it for who they are.
I'll definitely show the venue and state the names of people in the documentary I intend to make, but I would never say "Sasha Ghostwoman lives near the Town Centre". If you respect someones privacy, it may not change your documentary too much, but it'll improve it vastly.
Conclusion
To finish this long, rambling, repetitive post about documentaries I should contain a simple way of explaining things without forcing you to read everything else. Which in summation could be said:
Show the subject as it is, not how you want it to be.
Show the subject, not you.
Don't muddle the facts with your opinion.
Show the subject fairly and equally on both sides, no matter your thoughts.
Don't be biased.
People are people, respect their privacy.
And that is some simple techniques to make a documentary out of a docusedementary (because without these it's not going anywhere).
- Accuracy & Balance
- Impartiality
- Objectivity and Subjectivity
- Opinion
- Bias
- Representation
- Privacy
These factors alter the form and overall outlook of the documentary. For example, bias can turn a film on, for example, looking behind the scenes at SeaWorld, into a "SeaWorld Exposed" documentary. It doesn't make it necessarily worse, but it changes to outcome and themes present in the documentary.
Throughout this subject, I've looked extensively at the documentary filmmaker Louis Theroux, who tends to provide a very accurate, unbiased representation of his subjects while still expressing his opinion. Other documentaries we've specifically watched are Lift (2001) and Catfish (2010), but I'll also mention other documentaries where possible, such as how these facts may or may not be related to, for example, a nature documentary, or to the previously mentioned Blackfish documentary about SeaWorld.
The subject of factual film is a very extensive subject and themes are an incredibly vital part of it, as they help in the discussion, creation and planning of a film. Many documentaries will likely relate to others to try and get a feel on what is and isn't a good documentary.
Accuracy and Balance
The first key point in documentary would be how accurate and balanced a discussion regarding a subject might be. One of the best filmmakers to see for an accurate portrayal of subject is Louis Theroux, who is known for doing what he can to explore and investigate. The one that most stands out to me in terms of accuracy would probably be his documentary regarding prostitution in America from 2003, where he spends several months living in a brothel to get a feel on what the lifestyle is like. It shows how important it can be for a filmmaker to spend time and care on their subject of choice to fully understand how and why someone or something is the way it is; If I was to make a film on, for example, people who are dependant on drugs, it would be important to spend time with people who have been in this situation, rather than asking people unrelated to the subject, which could include people even as prestigiously viewed as police officers, who wouldn't understand the subject as well as the people using drugs. My intention for a factual film is to create a film on mediums and spiritualists, so the best sources would be to speak with and discuss the subject to mediums and spiritualists, and anyone who frequents these businesses.
In terms of balance, it is a very similar subject, where any perspective from the filmmaker has to be backed up by the opposite opinion. For example, you couldn't, ethically, create a film on racism and only ask, for example, Asian people, about the subject, but if you were to ask many people of different races, including people who seem to share and appropriate these racist opinions, it would be a much more balanced showing of the subject, and therefore would be a more ethically "correct" documentary, which covers all sides of an argument. If you have a two sided debate, you have to show both sides of the debate, trying to get a similar amount of information from each side to support or disprove the argument of the other, even if you selectively choose negatively portraying footage, the best way to manage the topic would be to give similar screen time to both to give an argument that isn't one sided and represent the topic with more accuracy and balance.
My documentary in particular is about mediums and spiritualists, and accuracy and balance, fortunately, will be a less prominent feature in this subject. A lot of the topic is to do with psychological portrayals and therefore even the most unusual and strange of people will help relate back to the themes and styles of the documentary, and the sides of the argument are people who believe in speaking to ghosts, and people who don't, providing a quick and easy way of interviewing both sides of this belief.
Impartiality
In documentary, it can be tempting to make a film about a certain subject. If, for example, you were politically following the left-wing parties, and you were to make a film about the current 2016 American election, you'd be more likely to show negative footage of Donald Trump than you would be to show negative footage of Hilary Clinton. What this means is that you aren't tackling the subject with an intent to show the sides of an argument as "good" and "bad". This relates back to Balance in a lot of ways, as you need to give an equal side of the arguments with accurate representations without portraying one side too negatively, remaining impartial and unrelated to the subject where possible. It would be wrong to show a pristine looking Clinton supporter wearing a sharp suit and tie in a nice office, and a Trump follower with no teeth in a muddy field, it would definitely represent the Clinton follower as a more appealing person and encouraging people to be biased towards this opinion, where a documentary is supposed to remain impartial to the argument, representing everyone as equally viable opinions, even if they differ from the filmmakers. Once again, Louis Theroux is a very good measure of how to represent this correctly, for example, in his documentary about a super-max prison in California from 2008, he didn't focus solely on interviewing wardens, and he didn't focus on interviewing prisoners. He liked to switch between talking to both sides of the bars, and portrayed them exactly how they portrayed themselves; the guards and wardens appeared calm, collected and controlling, as if they were above the inmates - who appeared to be a lot less organised, but almost as if they were themselves in control, some were dependent on prison, and others were eager to leave, while some were truly miserable to be there, but the important thing was that the documentary didn't portray any of these feelings as right or wrong, it just showed how life was in the prison and why it would affect someone, making it a very interesting watch rather than politically encouraging people to rage against the machine.
In regards to mediums, it would be morally wrong to burst through the doors and proudly proclaim "Spiritualism is a scam." as it would not be remaining impartial and absent from the subject, it is actively involving yourself in the debate and sparking a discussion that should instead be encouraged through questions you see as necessary. I couldn't portray the mediums as being weird, insane or wrong, but if they actively and proudly proclaim and portray themselves in this manner then it would be acceptable to show them like this. A documentary is about showing a subject, not manipulating it, and remaining impartial to the subject allows this to happen, so I won't involve myself in the beliefs of the mediums if it isn't in a questioning format.
Objectivity and Subjectivity
Similarly to the thoughts on Impartiality is the way in which one might involve themselves in the documentary. While remaining out of the side-taking on a documentary and showing an equal, accurate and balanced portrayal of all sides of a belief or argument is important, sometimes that doesn't make for an interesting story, and above all else it can be vital to film that you show something to keep people interested. There are two ways of managing this and remaining impartial to the events of the film, and that is through acting through either Objectivity or Subjectivity.
Objectivity is the simpler of the two methods, which has been implied heavily throughout this blog post so far, that you should, instead of taking a side in the debate, sit back and let people portray themselves, ask them questions related to the subject that aren't personal and watch things unfold. The other method, Subjectivity, is vastly different, and almost contradictory to the idea of impartiality, but can still be applicable; to be subjective is the act of involving yourself with an ideal portrayed in the documentary, portraying that as your opinion, but not necessarily the right opinion. In this state of subjectivity, it is actively acceptable and expected to state at some point "This is my opinion on the matter, what does this mean to you?". I hate to refer to him again, but it's unavoidable to mention Louis Theroux bringing up his Jewish descendance to an American Nazi group in 2003, but another example of actively involving yourself and your opinion in a film would be the documentary "Catfish" from 2010, where one of the creators, Nev Schulman, is the entire subject of the film, a film that follows him and his journey to find the truth about a family that contacted him through his art and later lead into a relationship with the older daughter of the family, and whether this fortunate turning of events is factual at all. The documentary is very much about Nev and the family as a subject, not focusing on online relationships as a whole and instead being entirely about this personal matter, showing an extreme case of subjectivity in the plot of the documentary. While not all subjective films may be in this manner, many of them will involve the makers opinion on the subject, discussing it with both sides of the argument and assessing what their opinions on a person were, but not necessarily saying, for example, "This opinion differs to mine, and is thusly an incorrect opinion." Even a subjective film must remain impartial to the subject - nobody is right, not even you, but you can openly discuss your belief if you feel it would benefit the film.
I, for one, intend to state my disbelief in spiritualism and that I can't help but feel there is a fraudulent nature behind to leech of and ruin the stability and progression of grief. Despite this strong opinion, I won't tell them actively that they're all scammers, instead stating that I can't shake the feeling that a lot of spiritualists are fraudulent, and ask what their opinion on this scamming nature is, whether they genuinely believe in mediums and what they think of the stages of grief. I wouldn't dig into them and make them change their mind, but I'd show the question and the answer without tampering with what is said, instead accurately portraying exactly what it is.
Opinion
In my opinion, opinion is much about portraying an opinion on the subject. This heavily relates back to subjectivity and impartiality. If someone is being objective in their film, they couldn't say what they think about it, as then the audience is inclined to think "The documentary man thinks Trump is evil, he must be smart, I'm inclined to agree with him.", instead, to remain objective, someone should simply record other peoples opinions, portraying a balanced and impartial argument, without injecting their opinion. Everyone has an opinion, and documentaries are able to change or enhance opinions, which is why they shouldn't portray an opinion exclusively over another, even if that is the opinion the documentary is about or the opinion of the filmmaker, as the film needs to stay objective or subjective to the topic, not bringing in any opinions to change the subject and how the documentary pans out to change it from being about the topic to being about the opinions of the creator. Opinion can be brought into a documentary subjectively without any problems, but a person needs to respect that a person is watching a documentary to be informed about a topic, not about the creators opinion, and while it is fine to mention an opinion, it is important to remember to make your documentary about the subject.
In my documentary I think my opinion will definitely be mentioned as relevancy to the subjective portrayal of spiritualism, but I won't be forcing it as a key part of the documentary, making it a secondary factor that is instead included to make the film portray the subject in some ways to see what they'd say to people who don't believe in what they say. It will be used, as it should, to enhance the story and continue the documentary as opposed to force the opinion as the only part of the documentary.
Bias
A factual film that is subjective may, conclusively, show bias to the subject. When a subject is twisted in a way that it becomes solely about one point of view, the original message and topic of the documentary can get twisted when a film introduces heavy bias from the maker. To bring it back to the Trump/Clinton analogy, someone who loves Trump couldn't make a documentary balanced if they spoke more about Clinton's negatives, as they would heavily show bias towards these people. An interesting documentary to think about bias would be 2001's "Lift" by Marc Isaacs, which is about a man sat in a lift. What makes it interesting in terms of bias is how on the surface it would appear there is no bias to the subject - he doesn't know these people, he's just having a grand old jape in a lift with some strangers, but where the bias comes into it is in the way it is edited together, it is obvious that he shows the same people over and over, he doesn't want to show the first meeting of every person, because some of them didn't have any interesting stories. He shows bias towards the interesting people and selectively edits them to be the focus of the film. The film is largely objective to any subjects portrayed, with the creator rarely involving himself, yet there is still an element of subtle bias present, and that's how a documentary should be regarding many of these points, especially in regard to bias and opinion - it isn't bad to use them to get your own message across, but don't blur or confuse the original message with your thoughts.
Representation
This one is self explanatory - How you represent a topic. Do you show something as good, bad, both or neither? To bring back my favourite topic of discussion, do you show Trump as a good guy, a bad guy, a bit of both or as a completely neutral, unintersting figure? As you may imagine, the fourth option is the probably the least usable material for a documentary, you don't want to bore people, you want to inform, educate and possibly entertain. Any of the first three options are good, with showing both good and bad being a more objective stance, where showing his likeness as either good or bad is more subjective. It's the choice of the filmmaker on what the subject of the documentary is, but he needs to bear in mind that his opinion will confuse the documentaries thematic choices, and choose not what is best for his intentions, but for the film. He needs to represent someone fairly to give the best impression of himself and the subject, even if a fair representation is negative, and remember that people represent themselves fairly better than anyone else can. Remain out of the subject, and interject only when a prompt is needed to make the documentary better, and show as equal good and bad as needed, don't be biased or opinionated to the subject unless it brings a story along, remain as impartial as necessary to tackle it how you need and show the subject accurately. Represent it, don't try to twist it, and the documentary will end up fine.
For the mediums, I like to think their personalities will define them perfectly, no twisting or changing necessary. They will represent themselves and only need prompts to help bring the subjective tones to the forefront. They are the topic, not me, and as long as I and they know that, the story can be brought to the forefront to carry the film along.
Privacy
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, is not to witch hunt the subject. Every person is a person, and a documentary about people represents people, not targets. Once again, Louis Theroux's 2003 Nazi documentary is a prime example of respecting privacy in a documentary. Sure, he went inside the houses of several nazis, but what he didn't do is say "Mr Naziman lives at 42 Wallaby Way, Tennessee"; he avoids saying surnames, he avoids addresses and he avoids naming and shaming the different people. He doesn't agree with their opinions, their political views and he certainly doesn't think Hitler was an alright guy, but these people are people, and just because they think this doesn't make them deserving of being a target of hate and ridicule, it makes them deserving of being studied and explored. Documentaries are about that - study, not about hate. Keep peoples details private to avoid turning a study into a hunt, people should be interested in a subject, no matter how shocking, but they shouldn't seek the people in it for who they are.
I'll definitely show the venue and state the names of people in the documentary I intend to make, but I would never say "Sasha Ghostwoman lives near the Town Centre". If you respect someones privacy, it may not change your documentary too much, but it'll improve it vastly.
Conclusion
To finish this long, rambling, repetitive post about documentaries I should contain a simple way of explaining things without forcing you to read everything else. Which in summation could be said:
Show the subject as it is, not how you want it to be.
Show the subject, not you.
Don't muddle the facts with your opinion.
Show the subject fairly and equally on both sides, no matter your thoughts.
Don't be biased.
People are people, respect their privacy.
And that is some simple techniques to make a documentary out of a docusedementary (because without these it's not going anywhere).
Thursday 6 October 2016
Critical Approaches to Political Campaigning: The Difference between US and UK Politics
In the media, US politics are handled very differently to UK politics. In class we researched it and found some important facts about it. One of the main important things found out is that UK elections are a lot shorter and much more concise, lasting only a little over a month, where Americans can make their election last up to almost two years.
UK elections are, supposedly, cheaper and a much less personal experience. For example, the US will typically make their elections about the two leaders, i.e. Trump and Clinton, where the UK will make it more about the parties, i.e. Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem, UKIP, etc.
US politicians are often advertised overly, with commercials showing up all over TV, while the UK has allotted time slots for a political advert, typically during a peak hour and on a news channel, as well as often being much shorter and concise.
All of this said, the US had developed the political debate idea originally, and the UK adapted the idea into their own, which shows that, clearly, both the UK and US have good systems in place, but they handle politics differently, with the UK making it about politics more-so than the US, who make it a very personal experience.
This video explains a lot of the differences best.
UK elections are, supposedly, cheaper and a much less personal experience. For example, the US will typically make their elections about the two leaders, i.e. Trump and Clinton, where the UK will make it more about the parties, i.e. Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem, UKIP, etc.
US politicians are often advertised overly, with commercials showing up all over TV, while the UK has allotted time slots for a political advert, typically during a peak hour and on a news channel, as well as often being much shorter and concise.
All of this said, the US had developed the political debate idea originally, and the UK adapted the idea into their own, which shows that, clearly, both the UK and US have good systems in place, but they handle politics differently, with the UK making it about politics more-so than the US, who make it a very personal experience.
This video explains a lot of the differences best.
Monday 26 September 2016
The Factual Film Idea
This is more of a personal blog post designed for my teacher at college specifically to read. If you're not her, then it's probably best you don't read on, because there's not really going to be any funny goofs and gaffs to be had here.
Basically, I presented you the idea that I'd like to work on the documentary about the ghost mystic lady person, and that, as someone who really isn't willing to believe this stuff, would love to see if she could shed some light on just how it works and if I can believe it's real, and I am definitely interested in finding that out, but there's more to it than that that I wasn't comfortable sharing with the class, really. Obviously, the better place for it is therefore on the internet.
One of my best friends was working in his father's factory during the summer (family trade and all that, you know how it is) and was hit on the head by a loose electric panel from the roof (to my knowledge, but I have not asked too much about it at risk of seeming insensitive), which has had him in hospital since mid-July. It's really sucked for me and his twin sister, and my other good friends have found out recently, too. The whole situation has been terrible, and the fact he's been unable to communicate has been really hard on their family and has made it really hard to be there. A lot of my time has been spent trying to make things less, for lack of a better word, shit, with his sister (also one of my best friends) and the last few months of summer were really awful for everyone.
What I really want to know, above whether or not this woman believes she can talk to ghosts, is whether there's any way she can "contact" my friend, so I can just feel less awful about the whole situation and how powerless I feel. All I really want is just anything to make things feel less awful and miserable for everyone, because I just don't really know what else to do.
Sorry this wasn't a hilarious, interesting idea or anything, but it's something that really means a lot to me and I want to do to make things seem a bit better for a little while.
Basically, I presented you the idea that I'd like to work on the documentary about the ghost mystic lady person, and that, as someone who really isn't willing to believe this stuff, would love to see if she could shed some light on just how it works and if I can believe it's real, and I am definitely interested in finding that out, but there's more to it than that that I wasn't comfortable sharing with the class, really. Obviously, the better place for it is therefore on the internet.
One of my best friends was working in his father's factory during the summer (family trade and all that, you know how it is) and was hit on the head by a loose electric panel from the roof (to my knowledge, but I have not asked too much about it at risk of seeming insensitive), which has had him in hospital since mid-July. It's really sucked for me and his twin sister, and my other good friends have found out recently, too. The whole situation has been terrible, and the fact he's been unable to communicate has been really hard on their family and has made it really hard to be there. A lot of my time has been spent trying to make things less, for lack of a better word, shit, with his sister (also one of my best friends) and the last few months of summer were really awful for everyone.
What I really want to know, above whether or not this woman believes she can talk to ghosts, is whether there's any way she can "contact" my friend, so I can just feel less awful about the whole situation and how powerless I feel. All I really want is just anything to make things feel less awful and miserable for everyone, because I just don't really know what else to do.
Sorry this wasn't a hilarious, interesting idea or anything, but it's something that really means a lot to me and I want to do to make things seem a bit better for a little while.
Wednesday 21 September 2016
Unit 62: Digital Production for Interactive Media - Digital Video Technlogies
We were asked to make short videos using a website to explain technologies used in digital videos.
It might not work.
https://website.mysimpleshow.com/#/myVideo/y3YKm
It might not work.
https://website.mysimpleshow.com/#/myVideo/y3YKm
Sunday 18 September 2016
Factual Film: Catfish (Spoilers in 5th and 6th Paragraph)
Catfish is a 2010 90 minute documentary by directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman. It features the two following their friend and colleague, Yaniv (Nev) Schulman (Ariel's brother) regarding his relationship with somebody he met online.
After his photograph was featured in a newspaper and shared online, a girl from another state contacts budding New York photographer Yaniv Schulman regarding their interest in art, which forms relationships with the family. Things seem too good to be true, and Yaniv is interested in finding out why they refuse to meet with him.
Catfish, in general, is going to have you interested in what seems like a film plot, which makes it all the more interesting to see it progress as factual footage. A lot of films recently copy documentation styles using "found footage" as a new found horror cliche, and the style looks like it's truly copied from films like this, that do show footage by people who aren't industry professionals actually trying to solve their own mystery. You become interested in the same problems Nev has in trying to piece together the puzzle, and, without providing spoilers for how it ends (which is something you wouldn't expect in a documentary) you almost feel sympathetic rather than angry towards how things end up turning out, as if you can almost relate despite feeling like she did some generally harmful, leaving you with this mixture of emotions that documentaries don't tend to leave you with, and would be much better found in a drama of some sort. While it's not going to give you this massive burst of knowledge like Louis Theroux or the previously mentioned Lift, and it's not going to give you this plot to think about for weeks that shows like BoJack Horseman and Breaking Bad leave you with, it's going to leave you feeling like you've experienced a journey with a real person, which is something unique to this film.
The film was fairly objective, not providing any particular opinions about anything, more interested in telling a story, making it an interactive and/or reflective documentary that is more interested in telling a story and getting the information out there than trying to conduct research or observe things, because it is a real person's story rather than a factual film to give opinions.
At the start of the film, Nev states that his brother should "Set it up, organise a time with me, put together some materials, emails" if he wants to document the story. Oddly enough, (spoilers) this is what it turns out had been being done to him all along by the woman on the other end, organising a series of elaborate hoaxes with which to trick Nev into making the woman feel more confident and happy. It is a quote that, if you think about, shows that Nev really did believe the conversations were genuine at that point in filming, that was likely shown to reflect on how the events later evolved from there to show that Nev had been given what he asked for all along, and how his opinions changed as his suspicions grew.
If the documentary had been planned, they arranged all these dates and emails, then the aesthetic of the documentary would have changed, and some of the scenes that have this sense of intensity to them, such as (spoilers) approaching the farm or the house for the first time, or when he approaches Angela, would essentially lose that feeling of authenticity and journey that the film provides, making it look more as if it was just a setup or a general announcement to people, which would lose the charm and interest of the film for me. It provides an insight at a different kind of documentary that the world could really appreciate more of, in my opinion.
Catfish has been part of the start of my second year of college, in which we will be making factual documentary films with probable inspiration from the film.
After his photograph was featured in a newspaper and shared online, a girl from another state contacts budding New York photographer Yaniv Schulman regarding their interest in art, which forms relationships with the family. Things seem too good to be true, and Yaniv is interested in finding out why they refuse to meet with him.
Catfish, in general, is going to have you interested in what seems like a film plot, which makes it all the more interesting to see it progress as factual footage. A lot of films recently copy documentation styles using "found footage" as a new found horror cliche, and the style looks like it's truly copied from films like this, that do show footage by people who aren't industry professionals actually trying to solve their own mystery. You become interested in the same problems Nev has in trying to piece together the puzzle, and, without providing spoilers for how it ends (which is something you wouldn't expect in a documentary) you almost feel sympathetic rather than angry towards how things end up turning out, as if you can almost relate despite feeling like she did some generally harmful, leaving you with this mixture of emotions that documentaries don't tend to leave you with, and would be much better found in a drama of some sort. While it's not going to give you this massive burst of knowledge like Louis Theroux or the previously mentioned Lift, and it's not going to give you this plot to think about for weeks that shows like BoJack Horseman and Breaking Bad leave you with, it's going to leave you feeling like you've experienced a journey with a real person, which is something unique to this film.
The film was fairly objective, not providing any particular opinions about anything, more interested in telling a story, making it an interactive and/or reflective documentary that is more interested in telling a story and getting the information out there than trying to conduct research or observe things, because it is a real person's story rather than a factual film to give opinions.
At the start of the film, Nev states that his brother should "Set it up, organise a time with me, put together some materials, emails" if he wants to document the story. Oddly enough, (spoilers) this is what it turns out had been being done to him all along by the woman on the other end, organising a series of elaborate hoaxes with which to trick Nev into making the woman feel more confident and happy. It is a quote that, if you think about, shows that Nev really did believe the conversations were genuine at that point in filming, that was likely shown to reflect on how the events later evolved from there to show that Nev had been given what he asked for all along, and how his opinions changed as his suspicions grew.
If the documentary had been planned, they arranged all these dates and emails, then the aesthetic of the documentary would have changed, and some of the scenes that have this sense of intensity to them, such as (spoilers) approaching the farm or the house for the first time, or when he approaches Angela, would essentially lose that feeling of authenticity and journey that the film provides, making it look more as if it was just a setup or a general announcement to people, which would lose the charm and interest of the film for me. It provides an insight at a different kind of documentary that the world could really appreciate more of, in my opinion.
Catfish has been part of the start of my second year of college, in which we will be making factual documentary films with probable inspiration from the film.
Tuesday 13 September 2016
Factual Film: Lift - Beginning of Year 2
Lift is a 2001 25 minute documentary by director Marc Isaacs. It features him sat in a lift (elevator) in a London flat block where he begins talking to residents of the building.
There is no plot and there is no real intention to the film, besides simply showing the residents of the block in a situation that everyone is familiar, yet uncomfortable with, showing them in the most simple form, answering basic universal questions and explaining their lives.
As it progresses, Marc and the audience learn more about the residents. They learn about the Indian man who shows up with different foods (and possibly doesn't know what a banana is), the Jewish woman that feels lonely, the schizophrenic man and the man trying to pull, as well as some other short scenes with other residents that almost help you learn about the building. It might not feel like you've learned anything, but it does make you start to consider the lives of those around you with more interest. You begin to think about them and their lives that you'd never know because you're simply never going to talk to them about it, and it makes you wonder who and what they are. Maybe today you walked past a murderer, or the next hit Hollywood director. The film almost makes you realise that you'll never know this, and it makes you understand humans more than it makes you particularly learn anything, presenting itself as one of the most unique documentaries possible.
I think the documentary was a mostly objective, performative film. It evokes and implies emotion with little to no interaction and/or bias. Marc interrupts very little to the average lift goers routine other than to occasionally ask them how their day went, or what they dreamed of, and he never particularly presents his opinions, stating any facts or figures and instead opting to observe behaviour.
I think the fact that Marc was present in the film with a large camera, taking up almost a third of the available pace, it encourages people to almost start feeling uncomfortable about his presence, which both encourages and forces the story at different points. The lonely, old lady uses the camera to express herself, while other people such as a religious Irish woman are simply represented by the camera, but could have behaved as they did whether or not it was there.
I also believe that, had the film explored people outside of their lift lifestyles that the film would have lost a large portion of its appeal. The film builds up to its nothingness in this seemingly natural way because we are always in the lift and we, unlike Marc, can't opt to leave it at any point, we have to be there and experience the people who enter. If any planning, set up or following of the people had been used it would have removed the confines of the lift, removed the natural flow of people talking to 'the man in the lift' and removed the constant stream of nothingness that kept the film interesting.
Lift has been part of the start of my second year of college, in which we will be making factual documentary films with probable inspiration from the film.
There is no plot and there is no real intention to the film, besides simply showing the residents of the block in a situation that everyone is familiar, yet uncomfortable with, showing them in the most simple form, answering basic universal questions and explaining their lives.
As it progresses, Marc and the audience learn more about the residents. They learn about the Indian man who shows up with different foods (and possibly doesn't know what a banana is), the Jewish woman that feels lonely, the schizophrenic man and the man trying to pull, as well as some other short scenes with other residents that almost help you learn about the building. It might not feel like you've learned anything, but it does make you start to consider the lives of those around you with more interest. You begin to think about them and their lives that you'd never know because you're simply never going to talk to them about it, and it makes you wonder who and what they are. Maybe today you walked past a murderer, or the next hit Hollywood director. The film almost makes you realise that you'll never know this, and it makes you understand humans more than it makes you particularly learn anything, presenting itself as one of the most unique documentaries possible.
I think the documentary was a mostly objective, performative film. It evokes and implies emotion with little to no interaction and/or bias. Marc interrupts very little to the average lift goers routine other than to occasionally ask them how their day went, or what they dreamed of, and he never particularly presents his opinions, stating any facts or figures and instead opting to observe behaviour.
I think the fact that Marc was present in the film with a large camera, taking up almost a third of the available pace, it encourages people to almost start feeling uncomfortable about his presence, which both encourages and forces the story at different points. The lonely, old lady uses the camera to express herself, while other people such as a religious Irish woman are simply represented by the camera, but could have behaved as they did whether or not it was there.
I also believe that, had the film explored people outside of their lift lifestyles that the film would have lost a large portion of its appeal. The film builds up to its nothingness in this seemingly natural way because we are always in the lift and we, unlike Marc, can't opt to leave it at any point, we have to be there and experience the people who enter. If any planning, set up or following of the people had been used it would have removed the confines of the lift, removed the natural flow of people talking to 'the man in the lift' and removed the constant stream of nothingness that kept the film interesting.
Lift has been part of the start of my second year of college, in which we will be making factual documentary films with probable inspiration from the film.
Sunday 12 June 2016
Unit 8 : Understanding the Television and Film Industries - Job Heirarchy Flowchart
Upper Management:
Producer
Direction Department Production Officer Script Department
Film Director Executive Producer ScreenwriterFirst Assistant Director Co-Producer Script Editor
Second Assistant Director Line Producer Development Executive
Third Assistant Director/Floor Manager Production Co-Ordinator
Assistant Floor Manager Production Assistant
Runner/Floor Runner Production Manager
Serus Producer
Direction Leads to:
Casting Editing
Casting Director Post-Production SupervisorCasting Assistant Assistant Editor
Titles Designer
Production Leads to:
Accounting Location Health and Safety
Executive Accountant Location Manager Health and Safety AdvisorProduction Accountant Unit Manager Unit Nurse
Assistant Accountant Assistant Location Manager Paramedics
Cashier
Accounts Trainee
Script and Editing Lead to:
Camera
Director of PhotographyCamera Operator
Script Supervisor
Grip
Steadicam Operator
Assistant Camera Operator
Camera Trainee
Camera Leads to:
Lighting Sound
Director of Photography Sound RecordistGaffer Boom Operator
Best Boy Sound Assistant/Trainee
Lighting Technician
Lighting Trainee
Health and Safety Leads to:
Construction
Head of ConstructionConstruction Manager
Assistant Construction Manager
Plasterer
Sculptor
Painter
Carpenter
Trainees
Construction Leads to:
Art
Art DirectorStandby Art Director
Supervising Art Director
Assistant Art Director
Production Buyer
Decorater
Drapes Master
Art Department Assistant
Art and Casting Lead to:
Hair and Make-Up
Chief Make-Up ArtistChief Hairdresser
Prosthetics Artist
Make-Up Artist
Hairdresser
Make-Up & Hair Assistant
Trainee
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)