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.
Tuesday 18 October 2016
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)