The expository mode (voice of god) - This mode has no presenter only a voice-over which is usually a white british voice over or a deep american voice in this case Morgan Freeman.
This documentary depicts the yearly journey of the emperor penguins of Antarctica. Everything taking place in this documentary is real, everything here is factual this reinforces's the realism. This is the natural cycle so there nothing you could really get wrong. Furthermore at 1:44 there are contrasting scenes such as you cute fluffy baby penguins, then suddenly you see dead baby penguins, this generates emotion from the audience as they understand and not all the baby penguins can survive. The audience become attached because the audience finds this penguins cute therefore it is such a shock to have a contrasting image.
There isn't much dramatisation unless it is presented in the narration. There was a lot of dramatic music to set the mood and conveys emotion that, combined with the use of Long shots e.g. at 0:50 - 0:55. On top of that there were some scenes have amusing parts e.g. at 0:27 , to keep the viewer interested. This is the same the use of special effects, such as slow-mo at 0:17 - 0:20.
There are filler shots drag out the story. There is a mix of Establishing shot with music at 0:23 - 0:29, sometimes there is scenery with some penguins/some without Voice over. However the entire documentary feels like a story when it shouldn't be, these penguins are give Anthropomorphic features when they shouldn't because they are not humans.
There is apparently an 'underwater camera' which may not be possible due to expenses. Therefore this footage may have been done in another area e.g. Zoo. Meaning the shots being shown are not continuous and the audience are not seeing the same penguins. Furthermore there are hints of CGI effects at 1:06 (this part is quickly cut in this example however the audience gets a brief glimpse of the seal teeth which have a CGI effect) and manipulated photos suggesting they have create some shots/images to make the footage seemingly continuous.
The observational mode (also known as window on the world) - The documentary filmmaker is mainly observing the subject's daily life and documenting them with an discreet camera.
Geri
 |
| Link to the video here |
During this documentary we see Geri's family and friends at at 24:55 - 25:05 reinstating the realness of the documentary. There are various Interviews with people related to media e.g. at 13:45, ITV reporter talking about Geri or even family members at 24:15. You see everyone or everyone relevant. The camerawoman either doesn't talk makes very little comments excluding questions. She doesn't want to get involved since all she's supposed to do is mainly follow Geri around. Nearly everything is caught on camera with little editing e.g. meetings, talking with fans, conversations on the phone.
I wouldn't consider there to be much dramatisation because the camerawoman is just putting the camera aside and letting Geri talk. At the very start of the documentary there is a voiceover, talking about background information combined with relevant filler shots.The way the story is narrated is almost like a journal but Geri isn't making the documentary. She has no control over the editing even if she thinks she does. There is archive footage and music related to past spice girls experience at 0:45 - 1:00 giving the audience more information about the situation. The audience follows Geri day by day with the occasionally timeskip e.g. Day 1, Day 2, day 3 the 2 months later.
Challenging questions asked, this makes Geri respond with various emotion e.g. you see her getting defensive at 6:28 - 6:45 or her uncertainty at 21:25 - 21:40. This reinforces the realism because you can tell that her answer hasn't been scripted. We see Geri in her natural environment however is that really true. Since when ever there is a camera placed in front of someone they would tend to act or put on a front.
The participatory mode (also know as Interactive mode) - This places emphasis on the interaction between filmmaker and the subject.
In this documentary Micheal Moore explains why the Columbine massacre occurred and why the United States' violent crime rate is substantially higher than other nations. The the documentary maker is trying to show how bad it is when people own guns and what problems they cause.
Throughout the documentary there are Interviews with someone related to the topic e.g. at 22:55 - 23:30, policeman, concerned citizens, James nickles. To give off the realist effect questions are heard during interviews, even with companies questions at 24:00 - 25:30. This is because the documentary wants to maintain a professional standard. Furthermore the location matches the job/status of the person at hand or they have a neutral background each scene at 10:25. The documentary maker goes to the scene of the incidents involved with guns e.g at 1:23:20 or gets real life footage/incidents e.g Columbine shooting at 32:00 - 35:00.
There is a lot of of dramatisation this is present through the way the subject is narrated e.g. rhetorical questions or at 50:55 - 51:05 where there facts over montage of graphic footage yet the music is juxtapose. This documentary doesn't beat around the bush it uses archive footage that relates to the topic and at the very start there is an establishing shot of relevant location. Which leads straight to the topic.
Some of the audience found this documentary very informative but some viewers found the documentary purposefully ignored factors in order to prove a point. However there is a lot of subjectivity and bias, this will affect the objectivity on the subject. Meaning Micheal Moore could exaggerate and make things worse than they appear to be.
The reflexive mode (awarenss of the process)
This documentary is about the investigation of the deaths of the two icons (Biggie and Tupac), which some people claim were orchestrated by Suge Knight, head of Death Row Records. The documentary maker is digging up this investigation by talking to ex-cops and bodyguards trying to see if Suge Knight was behind Tupac's murder which lead to the murder of Biggie.
Throughout the documentary Real photos, real sound (0:18 - 1:00) even the archive footage used is real at 52:30. Locations are suitable for interviewee, such as at 7:10 -7:25 this interviewee is in a natural environment. There were establishing shot with relevant info; facts about background info and the current situation e.g. biggie home at 13:29 - 13:40, past etc. You hear the questions during interviews showing the realness of the documentary, this backup by the audience actually seeing the documentary maker at 26:09. There are Interviews of people that knew Biggie/Tupac or someone that knows about the situation e.g. family at 10:25 - 10:45 or friends at 15:35 - 15:40. They consist of close ups or mid shots. When personal questions are ask the camera zooms in on the face, trying to capture the interviewee's emotion e.g. at 25:00 - 25:30.
We already know that that Biggie an Tupac are dad therefore there is nothing there to shock us, there is no dramatisation. The story isn't building up to anything. The way this documentary is narrated, the audience gets to see the documentary being put together e.g. when the cameraman isn't supposed to film or being rejected to film at 32:44 - 32:57.The music is fitting because actual songs made by Tupac or Biggie are being used to represent them or they is just natural sound. For example the sound from security footage at 52:30 police files or natural sound.
A lot of evidence was used from the actual case, there were interviews with people who were closely related to the situation or somehow involved with the incident. Nothing shocking was shown so the audience then nearly everything, it was just a matter of finding out who did it. Therefore the documentary maker couldn't lie because this is a real case.
The Performative mode - The filmmaker is an active participant in the documentary. By using their subjective attitude or personal engagement they are trying to evoke a reaction from the audience on a particular subject.
Catfish
Catfish is about a young man called Nev an w follow his romantic relationship with a woman he met on Faceook for 8 months. At first the documentary maker was showing a 'child' that had become an internet sensation because of 'her' painting but he begins to form a relationship with this child's sister. As the relationship progresses things don't appear as they seem. Overall from this experience he is trying to warn the audience that not everyone appears as they are.
To give the documentary a more realist feel the camera is hand held and the furthermore the presenter is seen often. There are conversations that seem on the spur of the moment e.g. at the moment when Nev speak to Abby. Yet they never caught on camera because the cameraman can can't be everywhere at every second. This contradicts the apparently 24 hour recording. Leading the audience to question the objectivity because the audience would should seen everything taken place but this documentary seems heavily edited only showing parts the documentary editors want the audience to see.
There is dramatisation because the use of archive images and footage, this gives the audience background information of the person at hand. At 0:27 - 0:53 the music started off lighthearted however at 1:35 - 1:50 as more of the truth becomes more revealed the music fades away all together or becomes more sinister This creates a build up and suspense by leaving the audience wanting to know what happens but they only find out till the very end.
The story is narrated by using a montage of images that provide information about the specific topic at hand e.g at 1:03 - 1:11. There are emails, Google maps and Internet clips/images (from YouTube) to show what is happening.
First hand the audience were generally shocked by the entire thing because of how far this 'relationship' escalated. However the some of audience may question if this whole thing was staged. Everything is perfectly recorded and flows together. How can thy plan something like that and have no pats that don't flow together? How comes they just conveniently have to filming when this all took place.
No comments:
Post a Comment