Codes and conventions are assets, or ingredients, by which are a genre of film is defined; what most, if not all of these conventions in place, a product may not sit well with a specific genre and force it's way to a sub genre instead. Narrator "a person who gives an account or tells the story of events,experiences, etc. a person who adds spoken commentary to a film, television program,slide show, etc." - Narrators are a common feature within Documentaries, and can be seen or portrayed in a variety of ways, for a variety of reasons. Voice of God For example, A Voice of God Narrator (Voice Actor) is someone who guides a film or documentary through the use of only their voice. They do not feature within the film, and they are not referenced to within the film, they are simply their as a story teller, or to provide information relative to the narrative. An example of a voice of God Narrator is Morgan Freeman in the documentary TV Series "Through the Worm Hole.
A second form of Narrator comes in the form of an Active or Passive narrator, and these are heard and seen, rather than just heard like a voice of God Narrator. An active or passive narrator are far more involved in the workings of the documentaries than a voice of god would be. They are seen to be interviewing people in their film, and tend to act as a personality within all of the information, and can provide an entertainment factor or a means of explanation to what might be complicated to some. Similarly to a voice of god narrator, a bad Narrator personality, who makes a serious documentary more about themselves, can in fact ruin a what was great documentary. An example of this comes in the form of Derren Brown. Some Narrators can be known to cast both the role of a Voice of God, or the Active narrator within their work. A prime example of this is Sir David Attenborough. Sir David Attenborough, a very well known Nature Documenter of whom is probably the best at what he does. Attenborough's documentary style is far far different from that of Micheal Moore and Louis Theroux as his subject of documentary is much different. Attenborough does not act as a personality within is documentaries, rather he acts as a knowledge bank used to inform the audience as to they are seeing, and what is going on relative to the subject. He has been to seen to fulfil a number of roles, whether it be the voice of God, or The active narrator we are used to seeing. These forms of narration are essential to a documentary as they act as a guide to the Subject we are seeing, and provides the link between information we might not otherwise understand. Looking in to documentaries, it is very easy to see that no two are really ever the same. Whether this be due to the information portrayed, the objective and incentive, or more importantly the narrator (If there is one). Narrators play a pinnacle role in the production and portrayal of documentaries, this is because no two narrators will use the same strategy of obtaining and highlighting information. Two very direct comparisons to this can be seen in the form of Michael Moore, and Louis Theroux. Both stylise in superb and specific ways, and through watching a documentary from both sides it is easy to see how their work differs. Micheal Moore Michael Moore is an American documentary film maker, screen writer, author and journalist. He has a large portfolio of composed documentaries, and he has also made a very large name for himself in the media. With his works of Bowling for Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11, it is very easy to gain an insight in to his methods and strategies of creating very informative, and often controversial documentaries. He usually encompasses as many aspects of an event possible, and will look at every single possible cause or outcome in order to come to a conclusion, or to expose a cause. His documentaries are often filled with interviews, facts, and archive footage in order to really portray just what is going on, and what he is trying to find. His interviews tend to be built on leading questions, and intimidating people in order to gain information. Going in to an interview we see how he sets up a base question, in order to gauge how closed off or open a person may be about the subject, working off this he will set up leading question which build up and cause the interviewee to subconsciously expose feelings or information that normally someone would not give up to a stranger. His documentaries are often very hard hitting, and are centralised around huge scale events which were never truly fully revealed, and often have speculation around them. Louis Theroux Louis Theroux is a British Documentary Film maker of whom tends to focus on making immersive documentaries based around cultures and trends of which not everyone may have heard of, or be used to. For example he has made documentary series including "Weird Weekends" and "When Louis Met..." Through watching these documentary series you can clearly see that Louis has a more relaxed outlook on the filming and content, and he does not aim to intimidate or force people in to answering questions. He instead tries immersing himself in the culture or group in order to gain their trust, it is often seen that he belittles himself, or acts rather idealistic. He will play on the fact he knows nothing, when in retrospect he actually has a very strong knowledge of where he is, what he is doing there and who he will be encountering. This false face coaxes interviewee's to lower their guard and show Louis their real personality. If Michael Moore were to interview people that Louis does, however in his own tactical manner, it would surely be a different story. As a final conclusion it is clear Louis likes to play on humour, and will go along with whatever happens in events, he will not force an answer out of someone. Archive Footage "Stock footage, and similarly, archive footage, library pictures and file footage is film or video footage that can be used in other films. Stock footage is beneficial to filmmakers as it saves shooting new material. A single piece of stock footage is called a "stock shot" or a "library shot"." Archive footage is another key component to the world of Documentaries, and is seen in most, but not all films. Archive footage can be pretty much anything, as long as it is not shot with the intention of being placed in to a film. For example, filming an event like 9/11 due to the fact it is such a horrific event. This can then be used in a 9/11 documentary for the purpose of being archive footage. This is essential for subjects based around events which cannot be re-created, such as 9/11 or Natural Disasters.
Interviews "a meeting of people face to face, especially for consultation or inquisition." Interviews are another common ingredient of the Documentary world, and are featured in near enough 100% of documentaries. They can be held formally, or informally to create a different atmosphere, and allow the viewer to hear and see someone who knows about the subject, or is involved. Everyone knows what an interview is, however the information being portrayed, or the camera work of the interview can alter how it is perceived. These are what make a documentary so versatile, as they can end up going any way possible and creating the unique factor. Bill Grundy Interview: (1977) This interview feature interviewer, Bill Grundy, and Interviewee's, the Sex Pistols. This interview is a prime example of that which fails to achieve any real purpose, and does not document anything from the Sex Pistols. The interview starts out very amateur, with the focus being on Grundy however we cannot hear him as well as the Pistols are making noise. This shows us just how unable Grundy is to control the interviewees right from the get go. As the interview progress's Grundy fails to ask any real questions of value, and he gets caught up in petty conversation between the band members. He the makes an innuendo towards a girl who says she had always wanted to meet him, and the band begin to start swearing at him. To finish it off grundy basically asks them to let loose and throw as many profanities out as they can. This interview lacks structure, fails to obtain any real observations or information, and paints both Grundy and the Pistols in a bad light. However, this is exactly what the band wanted to achieve. Princess Diana Interview: (1995) In this interview, we see Diana, as well as the editorial manipulating events to create false personas. The interview features Diana being asked specific, leading questions to which she had clearly already planned answers to, in order to make her look the most innocent as possible. She is placed in such a way to always look the most innocent is possible, in order to manipulate the situation. She very rarely looks towards the interviewer, and is always putting on puppy eyes to create this false persona, when in retrospect this interview has the intent of attacking the royal family, and taking them down with her. There is a long silence prior to the interview to make her appear even more vulnerable, and this is followed by a high to low camera angle shot, which again implies she is inferior. This interview is very manipulative, and this is easily seen.
Another interview we can look at is that of Rowan Atkinson from Parkinson. This is a prime example of a informal, very casual interview which works well, it is put in place simply to learn about the back ground of Rowan Atkinson and how he became such a well known face. Parkinson is not out to interrogate Atkinson, it is a case of Atkinson being free to talk about what and how he feels, and Parkinson will ask questions relative to the information given by Atkinson. This is a great example of an interview working well, and when it goes right it is easy to see. It does not take a down hill turn such as Grundy's interview, and it is not a formal manipulative interview like Panorama's with Princess Diana. It generally tends to focus on either Atkinson talking, or Parkinson asking. There is nothing going on between the lines, it is merely a way for the viewer to learn about someone famous. Interviews like this are very common nowadays what with the media surround the world of celebrities through fold. Camera Shots/Work
"the process by which cameras are used to film a motion picture or television broadcasts" The way camera work is used in documentaries forms the basis of their creation, without the perfect camera usage the documentary falls at the first hurdle. Using an example to illustrate my point, Restrepo uses camera work in a very unique way to develop a sense of realism, and this shows just how essential camera work is. Restrepo is based around such a surreal subject that to derive from it would cause the documentary to seem fake or remove the sense of realism. The camera work is un-edited and right from the start we see the shaky camera work. This creates the huge sense of realism, and shows that what is happening is real and remains un-edited.
0 Comments
Wikileaks: Secrets and Lies is a very controversial and anti-government documentary which is was made to expose the events going on in the world which are usually kept hidden from public eyes. After the shut down and liquidation of Wikileaks, this documentary aims to bring information to the eyes of those who had never before heard or seen any Wikileaks posts of exposure. This film has a strong usage of interviews, archive footage and real life footage, whilst also featuring a Voice of God narrator which links the interviews to the narrative and so on so forth.
Interviews Interviews are cast in this film using experts on the situation, and those of whom hold interest or are involved with the website Wikileaks. We are shown so much information based around government activity simply through the use of interviews. It gives us an outsider perspective on what is seen to be a controversial epidemic happening right under our noses. Interviews can be used in a variety of ways, and in this film particularly they are used to put across mass amounts of knowledge and information that more than most people would not normally have. This is a direct opposite to that of something such as Restrepo, which uses interviews to portray raw emotion, and create a realistic connection between interviewee and the viewer. Voice of God Narration This film features a intermittent voice of god figure, who is used to help link interviews to narration. This is used because the interviews are not gripping per say, and they are not the full focus of the film, and therefore they can't carry the narrative structure alone, and so in this sense a voice of god narrator is employed to help move things forward and display the narrative behind the film. The voice actor is not always involved and is not speaking every 5 seconds, however he is involved when changing the subject of the matter, or introducing and event or situation which would the correspond with an interview. Archive Footage Being a documentary which is based around past events and a need to create a sense of realism, this film heavily relies on the usage of archive footage. As an example we are shown footage of drone strikes on innocent people which were approved by the US military. Seeing this footage first hand, and hearing the approval over radio really engages the audience, and allows them to cast their judgement based on they are seeing. Archive footage is very strong when it is used to portray horrific incidents, or to create a relation between what is going on and the viewer. In the documentary "100 Days" you follow a band known as Architects on their almost world tour. This documentary differs greatly from more of your typical conventional documentaries as it is not out to expose a controversial subject, it is in fact following the adventure of 4 friends in their tour as a band. It highlights the good moments and the bad moments, and what life on the road is like. This film does however use your typical codes and conventions throughout, and they are crucial to directing the narrative. A key point to mention about this documentaries conventions is the way it is edited. There is a lot of focus on colour editing, camera editing and all sorts. This is done in a particular way to play on the "rollercoaster narrative" that we see the band experience. The use of sound and music is also a key to this documentary, being one based around the premise of band life, it creates a very subtle atmosphere which allows you to experience the bands currents emotion. I feel this is very effective.
Interviews Throughout this film, and right from the get go we see interviews being cast between the band members and other people involved with the band. In this film a strong focus is put on to the interviews as they show up almost every few minutes of the film. The film utilises interviews to guide and direct the narrative, and show us how the band feel across their 100 day tour. This works well as it shows the emotion and body language of the band, and how it is taking it's toll on them. Narrative In terms of a narrative this documentary follows a very subtle one, it is not about a highly regarded subject such as war or animal cruelty, rather more of a story line. It doesn't hold a single high point or low point, rather many across the whole film and it proves to create quite a homely, immersive feel as we get to know the band members, and what they go through. Archive Footage / Real Life Shots This documentary thrives on the use of real life shots and archive footage. Being a band who have been playing for around 12 years now, they have built up a large bank of archive footage from shows, tours and various adventures. This creates quite a refreshing change when put a long side the footage of their current tours when compared to how they played before hand. Again this creates the strong sense of realism as we feel a connection to the band members, and this again is helped through the use of interviews. Blackfish is a documentary set on the premise of exposing Seaworld and other whaling companies actions, and how certain events took place in these companies with false legislation, and misguided truths. We are taken on a narrative through the goods of seaworld to begin with, we see how children find the attractions amazing and the fact it gives so many people a chance to see such majestic creatures of which would not normally be seen by a majority. We see interviews with trainers and how they had found themselves working in the company, whether it be by accident or through childhood dreams. It came across as a privilege to work with the amazing creatures, however the documentary then takes us on the wider spectrum of negatives. This is the primary purpose of this documentary, Exposure. We see how trainers were at constant risk, and many were injured during their work. this is due to next to no safety measures in place to save a trainer if a orca went rogue. We saw archive footage of how trainers were dragged in to the pools and then taken to the bottom of the pen, and brought to the top again over and over. This itself is harrowing enough, and we are then shown the whale's perspective of life. Miniscule tanks, next to no stimulation outside of showing hours and poor living conditions. Footage is shown of whales attacking each other out of sheer boredom and whales being separated from their parents or young simply for income purposes. In a strong way, this film captures emotion in a completely new way, and not only do we feel for the whales, it completely destroys everything you have ever heard about seaworld.
This film features more than many interviews in and throughout, with trainers, guests at the park and specialists in marine biology. These interviews keep up with the narrative and are essential to this documentaries structure, it allows us to connect with the trainers, and feel how they had a bond with each whale, and yet they had to deal with seeing them live in such miserable conditions. We see archive footage here and there of whale attacks and whale capturing, again more harrowing footage which shocks the surreal reality in to the audience. This film connects with animal lovers on such a strong level that it is hard to simply shrug off the facts and follies surrounding the subject. There is no clear narrator in the documentary, and it is all simply lead around the interviews and archive footage as the emotions turn from good, to shocking. This is a strong way to portray a subject as you can often find a narrator who is far too active to be annoying or pestering. This causes nothing to derive from the subject, and everything we see seems all to real. Interviews This film utilises interviews in a very particular way, which is crucial to developing the narrative. The film gives interviews with experts in the field based on their experience with Seaworld from start to finish. The film starts out very positive, and features interviews with experts about how they loved the idea when they started. Following the narrative we see how the experts quickly found out just how dark and harrowing the work of a Seaworld whale trainer was. These interviews capture raw emotion, and show us just how it made them feel. Narrator or Voice of God Again referring back to the interviews, this film does not feature a on screen or even off screen narrator who tells us the tales of sea world, rather the interviews are used as partial narrators. Based on what is being portrayed, the interviewee will change and become a psuedo narrator while they tell their story. This is a very effective strategy when making documentaries as it does not derive from the subject with an annoying on-screen narrator. It sticks to it's roots, and only uses people who know what is going on in Seaworld. Archive Footage This film thrives off the use of archive footage to portray it's strong message, and we clearly see this throughout watching the documentary. Because this film is trying to put across such a strong message, the only way to create the sense of realism was to use hard hitting archive footage which would show just how horrific such water parks are/were. Using footage of trainers being killed, or near enough tortured by the whales, and the whales being held captive or tortured themselves, the viewer is set in shock by the events that happen, and you begin to face the reality how sea life water parks aren't so amazing after all. Catfish is a documentary we have studied in class, and has a certain sense around it which causes you to question its actuality. The premise of this film see's a mysterious person contacting a young man, and him and his friends documenting what comes next. It is full of strange twists and turns, however oddly, even before watching you know what is going to play out, which again leads to question this films actuality.
This film has much suspicion surrounding it as it is very hard to believe, and seems to be one huge lie itself. Most scenes seem planned out, and it features many cliché moments which again cause the audience to feel that what is going on can't possibly be real. This misleading actuality causes this film to be very controversial, and whether or not it's validity as a documentary stands. The documentary features many common codes and conventions from normal documentaries, such as interviews, a structured narrative and an active narrator in the form of Nev. Although a full documentary, it comes across as an amatuer attempt at a hoax, simply as a means of producing what seemed as a good idea, simply without the reality. Although it is not fully valid, it is still rather interesting and fun to watch in a non serious sense. Taking this film on in a serious level is almost impossible due to the fact it is so easy to read, and at times it's cringe levels. Personally, I feel that when compared to most other documentary this film seems more than an amatuer attempt at most, and although the narrative is structured it is difficult to keep up an interest in due to the fact it is hugely predictable. The audience does not "connect" per say with the guys in the film, especially when compared to other documentaries which use the basis of reality to form their film, such as Restrepo and even Pumping Iron. Interviews Like most documentaries, interviews are a common convention, and catfish does not stray from this idea. Throughout the film numerous interviews are conducted, however not in a typical way. We see footage where characters are questioned, which is essentially an interview, however the way it is staged and performed does not make them hold that interview feel. As a specific example Nev is interviewed about he feels regarding what is going on, and this is prior to them finding the reality of Megan not existing. The interview features him telling the camera to go away, and other assets which again cause us to feel that the interview and questions are in fact staged. Narrator / Voice of God This film does not feature a Voice of God narrator, rather it utilises Nev as an active narrator in the film. Throughout the film Nev features as the main 'character' of the documentary, and he is the one telling us the premise, and what is going on. He is constantly in frames when updating us on the narrative and what they plan to do next. This coincides with the way interviews are cast throughout the film, Nev is constantly interviewed as a way of narrating the story and creating tension Narrative Structure This documentary creates a hugely immense, immersive narrative which draws the audience in constantly throughout the documentary. Using Nev as the active narrator / main character we are able to follow the narrative closely as it arcs across the length of the film. At the cost of an extremely interesting plot and narrative, we are somewhat let to question the actuality of the documentary, which does cause problems in terms of believability. FREE TO PLAY is a feature-length documentary that follows three professional gamers from around the world as they compete for a million dollar prize in the first Dota 2 International Tournament. In recent years, E Sports has surged in popularity to become one of the most widely-practiced forms of competitive sport today. A million dollar tournament changed the landscape of the gaming world and for those elite players at the top of their craft, nothing would ever be the same again. Produced by Valve, the film documents the challenges and sacrifices required of players to compete at the highest level. Free To Play is Valve created documentary which is based around the world of ESports.
This documentary is fully focused around giving a very first insight into the world of gaming, and competitive gaming to those who might have never heard of such a concept. The film follows three people in particular, those being Clinton "Fear" Loomis (Team EG), Danil "Dendi" Ishutin (Team Na'Vi), and HyHy (Team Scythe) as they all compete to win The International. This is the basis of the documentary and forms a tri-pronged narrative as we follow each team member. We learn their backgrounds, lives before and during the world of gaming, and how it has changed their lives. We see how sacrifices are made in their home life in order to risk coming home with $1,000,000 in cash prize as the winner of the tournament. What might appear silly, and over-hyped to being with, the viewer learns just how serious and surreal the world of gaming can be. We see interviews in and throughout which let us learn about how the world of esports offers so much, however it requires a person to give twofold. This film holds many codes and conventions, featuring archive footage, structured interviews, a clear narrative and many variations of camera usage and sound usage. There are no fake or staged elements within this documentary as it was fully documented as the tournament went under way. This documentary shows a light on to the hidden world behind gaming, which most people would mock, or simply ignore as it seen as "childish" or "pointless". This is one of my favourite documentaries, and I love the premise it is based upon. Interviews In terms of interviews, this documentary is riddled with them. Throughout the entire film we see interviews set up where we do not see an interviewer, on the interviewee. Questions are asked and then the response is filmed. This is one of the two common ways an interview will be set up, and this documentary is a prime example of how they are conducted. It offers that instant access to an answer or knowledge, whilst gives the information straight away, the content is slightly cut and we do not see the emotion or body language. This can be compared to Restrepo, where interviews are left open slightly at the beginning or the end, and we see the raw emotion of each person. Narrator / Voice of God In terms of narration in this film, interviews and archive footage is used over the course of the whole documentary to direct the narrative. We do not see any specific narrator, there is no single voice of god, however it is chopped and changed between differing people based on where or what the topic is. This is again seen another documentary, which is Blackfish. There is no specific narrator in that film either, rather experts are cut to in order to explain the situation, and direct the narrative. Narrative This film again features a very strong narrative, however it is not as linear as other films may do, which can be seen in something like Catfish. This documentary has so many branches and ties off in to sub stories all while keeping to a the main plot. Documentaries are interchangeable in terms of how they draw their narrative arc, and can create a singular, linear line which is followed closely, or a create sub plots which will chop and change throughout the film itself, and F2P is a great example of this. indepth, close up view that you conceive what is happening in a whole new way. There is no fake, or staged element seen at all throughout the film, and every moment of the footage portrays real emotion which silences you until the film is over. It features all real camera footage, which has received no fancy editing or changes. The film features shaky camera control, often out of place shots where the camera is looking at the ground and other elements. These conventions featured throughout cause the film to hold a strict line of realism, almost as if we too are experiencing what they are from behind the screen. The film features numerous interviews with soldiers talking about who they are, what they were doing out in the field, and keeping up a narrative as they progressed. There are many interviews featured throughout the film which portray such raw emotion and realism that you often forget you are watching a documentary. At many points throughout we see soldiers talking about those who have died in the field, and each interview holds segments at the start and end of the interview, which contains simple silence and a close up of facial expression. In doing this, the mental and emotional state of the soldier is encapsulated in a brief 4 - 5 seconds. Restrepo holds extreme realism, and features many codes and conventions we might see within other documentaries of a different subject. This is what makes this film great, in the fact it is so raw and effective that you relate to the events and emotions the soldiers are affected by. This causes the documentary to feel all too real, and really connects with the audience.
Interviews If there was a film which used interviews in the most gripping possible to portray such realistic emotions, this film would be that. This documentary holds up so much emotion and realism simply through the use of interviews. They are cast in a black room, with simply a interviewee, we do not even hear the voice of an interviewer. This is done in such a way to make sure that the entire focus is on the subject, and not on someone else or something else. The viewer becomes so focused on the story being portrayed that it becomes some what real, there is such a strong connection between the viewer and the men in the documentary, and this is mostly done through interviews. Voice of God / Narrator Again, much like the other documentaries stated, this one does not put such a focus on to an active or even passive narrator. This is done because once again it would subtract from the subject we are learning about. When using a narrator it is very easy for the documentary to become all about them, so in films like Restrepo where the subject is so surreal, the last thing you want to do is subtract from the realism. Archive Footage Restrepo uses archive footage in a way unique to itself, and it uses segments to create a stir of emotions within the audience. For example, Restrepo is known to have died and we see interviews with each of the men about their connection to him. Following this we see archive footage from when he was with each person, and this is used to create that sense of reality that he was alive in these clips, and is no longer living. This creates such a powerful sense of emotion that it is hard for the audience to not feel somewhat sorrowful for the loss. This is the true power of archive footage.
Archive Footage
Pumping begins with archive footage right off the bat, as we see examples of old style body builders being featured posing. This then leads on to show footage of Arnold posing, and how superior his body building is when compared to that of those 30 - 40 years before hand. The footage is used as a highlight, simply to show just how serious the competitions are now taken, and how much it has progressed over the years. Narrator / Voice of God This film does not feature an active narrator or a Voice of god, rather Arnold is used as a Pseudo narrator, as well as some other body builders taking on this role throughout the course of the film. This again keeps the focus on the subject, as the impartial narrator is fully involved within body building, and so it is meant to be about his life as is, and not some other narrator who is enquiring about the sport with no knowledge himself. |
Archives |