Issues, Codes and Conventions Assignment 1

TASK A: Produce an illustrated Powerpoint presentation on codes and conventions of factual programming showing how these codes and conventions inform or determine audience responses.

Your presentation should include 5 modes of documentaries

Your presentation should also include an analysis of convention of a news program.

               

               

TASK B:

Comparison Between News and Documentary Productions

A documentary is a term to describe a non fiction movie that that in some way ‘documents’ or captures reality. Documentations are often made to reveal an unusual, interesting or unknown angle – documentary makers are often motivated to make their films because mainstream media is not covering a particular story or viewpoint. It is a genre of production that uses video and film, photography and real people and real events which when edited together creates a particular story, viewpoint, message or experience.

A film documentary is a movie that attempts to document reality. Even though the scenes are carefully chosen and arranged through editing after filming, they are not scripted and the people in the movie are not typically actors. Sometimes, a documentary film may rely on voice-over narration to describe what is happening in the footage; in other films the images speak for themselves without commentary. In general, documentary films focus on real life and include footage of events as they happened for example a movie about World War II might feature actors portraying soldiers, real or fictional, in the war recreating certain battles or events. In contrast to this, a documentary film about World War II might partially feature real footage of actual fighting, with commentary from experts and veteran who were in the war to back up the evidence of footage being shown. Documentary films have remained fairly low on the radar for the most part but the popularity of some of these films illustrates that some audiences want to watch a movie with a serious message.

A television documentary could either be in in the format of a series or a TV film. A documentary television series would be made up from as little as 3, 60-minute episodes documenting on anything from nature to business to fashion. A TV series with journey through and explore on a specific subject and feature just as much as a film would, but most likely broken down into different sections, for example the BBC Two documentary series ‘Oh You Pretty Things’ was broken down into 3 episodes, documenting how music effected fashion then and now. Each episode was broken down into what year it was (60s-90s) and featured, real footage, real music and interview with all different kinds of people who had knowledge on the certain era’s. A TV film is similar to just a regular film, they tend to not be as long, similarly to the episodes, usually up to an hour and explore the topic into to great detail. 

The sole purposes of a documentary will vary from film to film. Many documentary filmmakers attempt to change or improve society by influencing an audience views on a argument. Their goal behind creating a documentary is to bring light onto a certain cause or injustice for example the Supersize Me was created to make people realize how they eat and how they live, and instead of suing McDonalds, people would realize they need to pay more attention to how they eat. For other documentaries, the goal is to simply enlighten or delight the audience in someway; these are called human-interest stories. This kind of documentary would usually go under the mode of an observational film, one that is not to judge but simply to show and allow the audience to make their own judgement. Other documentaries may attempt to uncover a hidden truth or mystery whilst some may simply be made to educate on a profile of someone famous.

A documentary can affect an audience in various different ways and once again in will depend on the type of film it is and what it is about. A documentary brings the viewer into a world that they otherwise might have no knowledge on. Either they open our eyes to tragedies, bring light to revelations or explore topics in a great deal. They cast a new light on subjects or uncover evidence but I think one thing to remember is a lot of documentaries are made to show what just one person may want us to, causing massive controversy. A audience could be offended by what they see, or perhaps have a eye opening revelation and it all depends on how the topic is given to us and what evidence is proven throughout. An audience might come away from watching a documentary with a whole other light on a subject they may of previously thought different about – which means that the documentaries perhaps has been reached. Other documentaries may just be made to put light on a topic people previously did not know about, for example a documentary which is dedicated to someone famous, this will give people a chance to find out much more on someone they have looked up to. Documentaries are very much about identifying and expanding on a subject which has either not been recognised enough or the filmmaker want something more done about the topic at hand.

There are a number of different things that we can usually expect to see in a documentary that signify that it is a film that has been made to inform and document. The most likely things that we can expect to come across in a documentary is interviews. The interviews tend to be used to give a personal account of what has happened, either they are an expert on the subject or they were an eye-witness to something which would give further proof to back up facts or shock the viewer from their experiences. For example in many 9/11 documentaries, will include someone who was in the attacks, and had a first hand experience with dealing with the situation this often shocks the viewer a, d what we can hear from them can be quite unexpected, this can also make the viewer more intrigued into watching more of the documentary.

The trailer above is from the 1997 film Kurt and Courtney, a film made of document the mystery of Kurt Cobains death. We can evidently see from the trailer that the this documentary features multiple different interviews these include interview from Kurt Cabins auntie, Courtney Love's estranged father, a LA Private Investigator and friends and lovers of the two. The interviews give a broader image on the story, and a more intimate and believable approach  to the story of his death, they are also used to authenticate the views expressed - as a viewer you start to feel more touched by the documentary as a whole.

 The voice-over in a documentary is commentary by the filmmaker, which is most likely to of been added during film production, the voiceover create a different perspective and can make the story easier to understand – it also is there to solidify the facts being told, if we can hear it being told in an authoritive voice and what we can trust, we can believe it.

Once again we can usually almost always expect to real footage of events, or if the film is a reconstruction, a typical scene that would see if it was the real footage.  The raw footage is used in documentaries to give realism, documentarians will often go to great lengths to convince us that footage is real, as for the audience it convinces us a lot more that what we are being told is the truth, if we can see it, we can believe it. 

In a lot of documentaries, you may that the filmmaker has used text/titles to label certain things throughout the film. The words on screen will often be used to anchor images, accompany clips or photos with dates or label the name of someone or something. These tend to be believed unquestioningly and are a quick way of conveying information

The Channel 5 documentary, Britains Worst Crimesfollows some of the most devastating crimes that have ever happened in the United Kingdom and goes deeper into the event and the people who were affected. In this program it re accounts the crime of the two girls and Mother who were brutally attacked and murdered in Kent. Like any other documentary it includes interviews with the people that had some significance in the crime, including those who were family, as well as this it includes archive footage and stills of the families and the people effected - showing the two girls and Mother growing up until the there death - this makes the documentary so personal and the audience will feel touched by how close you become to the family before the trad edgy. A reconstruction of what would of happened was also given, including text on the screen that shows us what happened at which time revolving around the crime. Tom Roberts, the narrator gives a real intimate account of the crime and makes the documentary affect the viewer, as it does become so personal to the people in the program.

Almost always you’ll be able to hear sound throughout a documentary, this can include music, or sound effects. Each have a given effect on what we are seeing. The sound could also be used to bridge between scenes so that the documentary flows through easier.

Finally the mise en scene and props. The mise en scene is basically everything you see in the screen. The most recognizable attributes being the setting and the people, it includes costumes, make-up, props and all other natural and artificial details that characterize the spaces filmed.

As we all know, news is made to inform people of recent events, or ‘’previously unknown information’’. The intention of news in our society is to inform as well as connect people together. In this day and age it is important that we are kept well aware of what is occurring in the local area, around the UK and even globally. The fastest and most convenient way to access the latest information is through the news – The Global Audience Estimate released that the World News reached up to 256 million viewers per week. People always have a constant desire to stay informed with what is happening around the world and the news is just the simplest way to get across this information to bring people together. 

In a News programme we can usually expect to see the same thing, and these things allow us to recognize that we are watching the news. It will vary from what news programme you are watching but you can always expect to see,  one or two presenters, if it is one presenter it can be either male or female and with two presenters it is most likely both. In this case, the male TV presenter can be seen wearing a suit, the suit gives of a professional, respectable and smart look to the anchor. The look makes the anchor come off as trustworthy and reliable therefore we know that we can depend on what he is saying. The anchor also presents himself in a good manner, with clean hair, shaven. He sits up straight, and has a proper presence about him. We can expect to see the same thing from a female presenter, dressed smartly, neat hair, light make up, and no chunky jewellery.  We would expect to see them reading the news and perhaps conducting interviews if in correspondence to the story.

 

The anchor is not the only person we see on the news. Certain news stories, if not most will include reporters/correspondents who have knowledge on specific subject,  these would be live from the scene this could be from war zones, live events, sporting matches or many more. Again some news stories will include interviews, therefore interviewee's would be on set being questioned by the presenter. And not only has this but the news of course included the sports presenter and weather lady/man.

When a story has been given a brief description from the presenter and has more information to be given the story will be given its own report usually with a different presenter who has researched into the subject. In this we can see the same structure, beginning with an establishing shot of a significant location that will usually link to the news story being told, then most likely the reporter ill be shown giving a brief but informative speech on what the report is about. Often cutaways of filler shots that will be played whilst the reporters is doing a voice over which includes facts - Which will appear on the screen in graphics. The report will then include voxpops - these are so that the audience will think they have some relation to the story. As well as this, after many more filler shots, the report will usually include some sort of human interest of someone who is affected by the story. Then one again there will be more graphics including these could include more facts or a graphs or images. Nearing the end of the report the presenter will conclude the story and the camera will most like sign off by a camera rise.

Finally in a news programme, a TV screen which shows images and graphics like key points and statistics whilst the anchor is reading them out. This is an easy way to provide information that either may not fit into the script or will point out the key points of the story.

It is narrator/voiceover in a documentary would be in the form of the presenter in a news program, they are both used in these kind of programs to be an informative and trustworthy figure that as a viewer can believe in what they’re saying and be given more information from. Another thing similar to this is the presentation, in a news program whilst a story is being told, we can usually expect to see images and footage that are in relation to the story, once again in a documentary the whole film or program will be have footage or images of the subject what differs between these is the fact that the whole of the documentary will mostly be taken up by this footage, compared to the news where it will only be up to about 3 minutes worth – this is the same for use of text and titles on the screen, where clear that documentaries go in to a lot more depth on one particular subject, and news programs go into multiple different stories, despite this they are both made with the same end goal in mind, to inform the viewer. I think the most obvious thing that differentiates the two is how they present themselves. For example, the documentaries will use a lot more and probably more detailed titles compared to what a news programme does. However, I think that one thing that is similar between this two programmes is the use of interviews, in both of these interviews are used to relate the subject or story to the viewer, they are used to gather more information, give proof of eye witnesses or to give a technicality of viewer relations.  

Codes and Conventions of a News Programme

Studio News Setting - 

Codes and conventions you would expect to see in a news setting:

What They Do? 
Firstly the News Presenter and what do they do? Of course we would expect to see them reading the news and perhaps conducting interviews if in correspondence to the story. However beforehand going  on air live to the nation, the presenter would follow through with a few things to become prepared, this could include reading through the script or making changes to the script, every presenter will read and speak out in a different way, the anchor will change the script to what fits him or her best so that when live they are prepared and can read out the news comfortably, despite this, they may even have to prepare the script themselves and some may prefer this. Furthermore, the anchor would usually introduce themselves to guests so that they are prepared for the interview live, this is so that they could gather more information beforehand finally, they would work with the crew so they can equip and arrange before going live so that there are no problems.

Visual Codes
As you can see from the image screen capture above the presenters is usually dressed in a particular way that we all are familiar off. For example we can expect to see the presenter dressed formally in a suit, this makes them look proffesional and well conservative. A female presenter would usually not have heavy make up and as male presenter should look neat being clean shaven and have combed over hair. This will give off that the presenter is trustworthy and we can have belief on what they are telling us.

Skills
To be a presenter you would have had to have skills that you have acquired over time, for example the fact you are reading a script that can't be stopped when you want means you will have to acquire the skills of being a fast thinker -  being able to think the ball and with technology not always being reliable, you need to be able to quickly feed information if your script stops working.You should be confident and have a clear voice so that people can understand what you are saying and finally you should stay focused.

Professional Attributes 
Working as a news presenter you are essentially working as a journalist as well. You will need to certain attributes that will help your understanding of your work easier. For example, editorial knowledge, you may be required to create your own news sections on a particular story and for this you will need to know how to edit and put together footage and graphics. You are presenting the news to a nation and you will have to know and understand the legal and ethical side of journalism, if you make a mistake there would be consequences. Mastering multitasking is something that will be needed and helpful to you. You will have a producers instructions via an earpiece, scanning new information from computers and listen to reporters on the team - handling this will help you not make mistakes.

Who Else?
The anchor is not the only person we see on the news. Certain news stories, if not most will include reporters these would be live from the scene this could be from war zones, live events, sporting matches or many more. Again some news stories will include interviews, therefore interviewee's would be on set being questioned by the presenter. And not only this but the news of course includes the sports presenter and weather lady/man.


Report Structure
Almost every news report will follow the same sort of structure. Beginning with an establishing shot of a significant location that will usually link to the news story being told, then most likely the reporter ill be shown giving a brief but informative speech on what the report is about. Often cutaways of filler shots that will be played whilst the reporters is doing a voice over which includes facts - whixh will appear on the screen in graphics. The report will then include voxpops - these are so that the audience will think they have some relation to the story. As well as this, after many more filler shots, the report will usually include some sort of human interest of someone who is affected by the story. Then one again there will be more graphics including these could include more facts or a graphs or images. Nearing the end of the report the presenter will conclude the story and the camera will most like sign off by a camera rise.

Contributors 

Certain news reports will include different things or people that will contribute to the story and give more of an insight on it, these could be:-

• Experts - the experts will give more knowledge into the story being told, for the audience this also give credibility so we know that we can trust and believe in the story. 
• Witnesses - the witnesses will of usually been there to see the something to do with the story. For the audience this gives us something to believe in.
• ...The witnesses will also give  varied opimion and reach out to the viewers. 

Mise-en-scene

The mise en scene is the arrangement of scenery and props (basically everything we see in the TV screen) this could include set, location, studio, colour, costume, lighting, sound, positioning, props, furniture and actors. 

Documentary Codes and Conventions - Case Study

Catfish

Catfish is a 2010 American performative documentary directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Shulman, involving a young man, Nev, being filmed by his brother and friend, co-directors Ariel and Henry, as he builds a romantic relationship with a young woman on the social networking website Facebook. The film was a critical and commercial success, even inspiring an MTV reality TV series, Catfish: The TV Show.

Which type of documentary mode is Catfish, give examples as to how you know this? 

I would consider Catfish to be two different documentary modes, this being Participatory and Perfomative. Firstly my reasoning behind Participatory is because throughout the whole documentary we can see the direct engagement between the filmmakers and the subjects. The two filmmakers, Henry Joost and Ariel Shulman play a large part in most of the documentary, including the fact that they continually ask question to the main man, Nev, for example asking him about the text messages between the two subjects. They are often seen within the documentary as well, playing a part and adding commentary from behind the camera. The reasoning behind why I would call this a performativite documentary is because the documentary has a large part in emphasizing the emotional and social impact on the audience. Throughout the documentary we have a close relation to the main subject Nev and nothing is hidden from the audience this brings a large emotional impact to the viewer as we could feel some relation to what he is going through. Nearing the end of the documentary the film also compares how the events of the documentary to our lives and how 'catfishing' could be something we go through on a day to day basis.

Explain your understanding of the films title 'Catfish'. What roles did Yaniv and Anglea play in each others lives?

From my understanding the name Catfish came from when Nev was visit from inactivity. In oring Angela. Her husband Vince tells Nev and the filmmakers about a problem when live cod were shipped to Asia from North America, and the flesh ended up gross and mushy from inactivity. In order to keep the cod active, according to Vince's story, the fisherman started putting catfish in with the cod to the at their tails and keep them active. Vince implies that Angela is like those Catfish because her life would be "dull and boring if we have someone nipping at out fins'. I would describe Yaniv and Angela's relationship plainly almost as a rollercoaster. We witnessed there relationship going through its high's when they first began talking over the internet, then through its deceptions when Nev began to become suspicious of Angela's identity although also in a turn of events there bond seems to get strong again at the end of the programme  For Nev I think Angela's role in his life was something that he found exciting, we had to consider how Nev felt, meaning that he had finally interacted with someone that he liked and connected with therefore for him it became moving. I feel this is something that most of us can relate to which is why we become so responsive to his emotions meaning that when he met the real Angela we felt angry in the same way he did. I think Nev went through different emotions near the end of the film but didn't know quite where to stand with Angela and how to act around her, because part of him to could only of though of the fact this woman was misleading him but on the other hand he and us as the audience felt sorry for her as we begin to unravel her real life. On the contrary, I feel that Angela, although has a different side of the story, does have the same first emotions to Nev, of the attachment and warmth that he brang to her. At the end of the documentary it was plain to see that Angela was scared and afraid of showing her emotions nonetheless when she began to see how Nev was just the same person to who she was talking to and didn't want to push her away, she opened up. At the credits of the film we're also told that Angela and Yaniv are still friends and often to stay in contact.

In what ways is Catfish similar to or different from other documentaries you have seen?

In one way or another Catfish is similar to most documentaries, meaning how it goes through a series of events that make the storyline intriguing and something that we want to continue watching, we find out about a story and goes through its high and lows and see thing that cling us on for example the revealing of who Angela was or the intense moments when we find out about who really sings the songs she sent. Yet compared to the documentary modes I think this is something quite unique, the documentary goes a lot further in depth and personal to Nev and I think this is what made the documentary so popular and relatable. Most documentaries I have previously seen are filmed in a 'professional' manner whereas catfish looks quite amateur and spontaneous.

The has been some debate over the authenticity of the events in Catfish. How does that affect the way you feel about the film? Do you think the film intentionally blurs the line between documentary and drama?

The debate over the films authenticity was surfacing even before the film was released. Questions about whether Catfish was 'real' were asked to the filmmakers in multiple interviews.  In an interview with MTV, Henry Joost and Ariel Shulman were asked how they felt about the controversy and the people claiming it is fake to which they responded - 'It is a documentary in that it's something that actually happened and we filmed it and none of it is staged or fake' & 'I think what people are reacting to a lot is, the filmed is edited. We can't put out a 250 hour movie, so were making decisions and streamlining the narrative and presenting what we feel is the clearest representation of what happened, but its real' Despite this even after the film was realeased on September 17th 2010, there was still a large controversy towards it. After I had watched the filmand even before I knew about the debate I knew I felt what I should toward it, the reaction of shock and disbelief to that somebody could of done that sort of thing as Angela did appalled me. Later on after finding out about the discussion of its legitimacy it, did doubt how I first felt about the film, I questioned as to why the story would of been made up and why the would of lied about something that could potentially be so serious. It surprised me that the way it was played of was so realistic that I although I didn't want to believe it was fake, I couldn't help but think so. Once you hear that it is fake you seem to just pass of how you feel about the film when you first saw it and now look at it as just another fiction film. With the presentation and way that the film is filmed it is quite evidently a documentary. I can clearly signify multiple codes and conventions that are within it for example we know that despite the fact it has accused of being fake as far as we know all the footage is real, there are elements such as the use of text and titles, such as when the location is showing up etc, the labels tend to be believed unquestioningly and are a quick way of conveying information. I think that the documentary has just about reached the balance of documentary/drama, it is quite climatic but doesn't bring out to much to make us believe that is a fiction drama.

How is the making of the documentary as much a part of the film as the main storyline?

Like Joost said in the interview with MTV, the making of the documentary is what makes it effective and what gives it the clearest representation of what happened. The making of the documentary can build the main story line, so that us as the audience can be brought through the same journey as Nev was, but in a briefer way.

Lesson 4 - Codes and Conventions of Factual Programming For Televisiom

What are codes and conventions?

Codes- Codes are systems of signs, which create meaning. Codes can be divided into two categories - technical and symbolic. Technical codes are all the ways in which equipment is used to tell the story in a media text, for example the camera work in a film. Symbolic codes show what is beneath the surface of what we see. For example, a characters actions show you how the character is feeling. What they are wearing give a sense of authority.

Conventions - conventions are the generally accepted ways of doing something. There are general conventions in any medium, such as the use of interviewee quotes in a print article, but conventions are also genre specific. Codes and conventions are used together in media products - it is not enough to discuss a technical code used such as camera work, without saying it is conventionally used in genre.

Task - 

Codes and Conventions for documentaries -  'Oh you Pretty Things - The Story of Music and Fashion' BBC4

A BBC series exploring the relationship between British rock and pop music and fashion. The series begins in the 1960's with the Small Faces, Cilla Black, the Beatles and the Stones.

Voice over - the voice over for Oh you Pretty Things carries on throughout the whole programme. Each episode is 60 minutes long and is narrated by Lauren Laverne.

The description reads 'Lauren Laverne narrates a series'

real Footage of Events - old and new  footage of all events that had happened in the 60s and within this era, all footage is fiction in this particular documentary

Footage from the 60's of ques outside Biba clothing shop

David Bowie performance

Archive Footage - the documentary includes footage of 60s music videos, old 1960s TV show footage such as Top of the Pops and films and old photos of popular bands and clothing of the era

Archive footage of an old Top of the Pops from the 1960's, the presenter is introducing The Small Faces, a band who influenced much of the fashion senses for men in the era.

Technicality of realism - 'natural' sound and lighting, interviews and footage have no extra film or sound effects

I could tell the footage was natural with no technical lighting added, the film looks quite dull throughout some interviews as it uses lighting from the interviewee's place of being filmed, this adds an effect of being closer to the subject instead of a 'set up' interview

Interviews - throughout the whole documentary, short snippets of multiple different interviews

Interview with Suzi Quatro

Sound - 60s music is added in the background of the whole documentary, the music changes upon which 1960's artist is being shown in the footage - this gives a feel of 60s music and makes us as the audience feel as though we're back in that era. Another example of the change of sound was when a '60's medival TV show was being shown, a 'medival' like music was being played in the background..

Camera angles etc - the camera wasnt in what set place throughout, whilst interviews were being shown I could see how the camera was being held by a cameraman so that they could get footage of the interviewee moving around and showcasing pieces relevant to the show.

An interview with Cilla Black, as you can tell with the above screen caps show how the camera angle changes throughout some footage 

Codes and Conventions of News Broadcasting - BBC News at One 

Smartly Dressed Presenter/Appearance - the male TV presenter can be seen wearing a suit, the suit gives of a professional, respectable and smart look to the anchor. The look makes the anchor come of as trustworthy and reliable therefore we know that we can depend on what he is saying. The anchor also presents himself in a good manner, with clean hair, shaven. He sits up straight, and has a proper presence about him.

Presenters - this particular news programme had 1 main anchor, a football presenter and a weather lady

Footage - the latest and current events with appropriate footage is shown whilst being explained by the presenter. For example the 'Securing a Better Future' talk with George Osbourne.

Different Camera Angles - there are four separate cameras for the programme, the angle changes depending on what is happening, e.g if an interview is happening then the angle will switch to the camera of a wide shot of the news desk

Camera on Tripod - each camera is on a tripod so the filming is stable and not shaking over the place, this looks professional and sharp

Graphics - a TV screen which shows images and graphics like key points and statistics whilst the anchor is reading them out.

reporters - reporters will be on location to the relevant news story

Live - we know that the programme is live firstly because the presenter says 'Good afternoon and welcome to the BBC News at One' and because the news being shown is current.

Lighting - the studio lighting in bright and clear, making the presenter look more awake and the broadcast vivid.

Interviews - different interviews are shown with relevance to the  news story
 being told at that point in time.

Lesson 3 Fahrenheit 9/11

Fahrenheit 9/11: Documentary or Propaganda?

Brief introductory...

Fahrenheit 9/11 is a 2004 documentary film by American filmmaker and director and political commentator Michael Moore. The film takes a critical look at the presidency of George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and its coverage in the news media. The film is the highest grossing documentary of all time. In the film, Moore contends that American corporate media were "cheerleaders" for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and did not provide an accurate or objective analysis of the rationale for the war or the resultingcasualties there. The film generated intense controversy, including disputes over its accuracy. The film debuted at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival in the documentary film category and received a 20 minute standing ovation, among the longest standing ovations in the festival's history. The film was also awarded the Palme d'Or, the festival's highest award.

-www.wickipedia.com

Who is Michael Moore and what other documentaries has he been associated with?...

Michael Moore is a documentary filmmaker, satirist, author, social critic and political activist.  He is the director and producer of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Roger & Me,  which are two of the most highest grossing american documentaries. Many of his other documentaries reached in the top ten highest documentaries and won academy award. Most of his written and cinematic work criticise globalisation, large corporations, assault weapon ownership, U.S Presidents Bill Clinton and george W. Bush, the Irag War, the American health care system and capitalism. Moore's association with documentaries within the directing and producing aspect include Roger & Me 1989, Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint 1992, Canadian Bacon 1995, The Big One 1997, Bowling for Columbine 2002, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko 2007 and Capitalism: A Love Story 2009.

-biography.com

-wickipedia.org 

1    Fahrenheit 9/11

      What is the opening statement? How does this suggest how much influence the government has.

   
      The opening statement of the film trailer is as follows 'You can make people do anything if they're afraid' a line said my Congressman Jim McDermott. I believe that this line is used to war of people. The documentary is trying to show the U.S Government in a bad light, and this line suggests to us that the government believe that they have the power to be able to do anything, whether they are abusing laws or not. 

       

      What information is given about the U.S. Government and the Bin Laden family in the opening segment.
     
      Within the first 20 seconds of the trailer for the documentary we are packed with, footage, information and documents about the U.S Government and there relation to Osama Bin Laden. The trailer first shows us that planes all over America have been grounded due to the 9/11 attacks however  under George W. Bush' wish (we know this because documents highlight Bush's name), Osama Bin Laden and his family are to be flown in a private plane this kind of gives us a hint towards thinking that 9/11 was done on purpose? Already we see how the documentary is insinuating corruption...is there something more behind the 9/11 attacks? 

      What is implied about President Bush in the opening segment (first 25 seconds)? Describe how the film implies this?
      
      In the first 25 seconds it is implied that under George W. Bush's orders, Osama Bin Laden and his family are to be privately flown to America despite ALL American airlines being grounded. As the viewer this makes us question Bush's power against the US, and makes us want answers on why he would fly Bin Laden and his family out so soon.  This also implies that Bush is with the enemy and not against.
  
      What impression is given about the war in Iraq? What evidence shows you who is driving this war and the reasons why?
     
      We see a lot of evidence against the US Government and there relation to the Iraq wars. Immediately evidence is shown against the US Government and business owners have influence on the war, we see many many politicians talking about how the oil in Iraq is so valuable, which they must have.  Quoted from one man whom says 'whatever it costs,we must have it' therefore Americans are being pushed out there to fight for them who in the end don't really care until they get there money. We also see one man being interviewed who says, and I quote 'it's good for business, bad for people'... damming words but  yet just more evidence of how the U.S Government only care for the money they take at the end of the day. 

      What kind of music is chosen to back this opening segment of the trailer (until the words “bad for the people”)? And what does it communicate to you? How is this a contradiction to what is being said?

6.     
           In the opening half of the trailer, we seem to hear music that in a way, doesn't quite match to what we are being shown on the screen. The music plays for something that should be a lot happier, perhaps fairytale like and jolly which contradicts everything we witness e.g Osama, grounded flights, war. Until the words 'bad for people' where the trailer starts to play more 'hard hitting' and powerful music also similar to the music you would perhaps see in an action/crime film. The music tries to portray a good image toward the U.S Government however what we're hearing from the people within in the trailer this is the complete opposite, at times when we here Bush make a practical joke or a politician spill out the truth about the Patriot Act, it all seems like a joke to them and us. 

      What information is given about the Patriot Act?
   
       The large section on the Patriot Act is showing us overall that the U.S Government really don't take this whole act seriously. How politics and what matters is taken for a joke by the most powerful people in the world. The bill, which we are told was printed in the middle of the night was apparently not even read however we're being told that it will give 'police almost unlimited power' showing us just how much the new laws can and perhaps will be abused. 

7.     
      What is communicated about President Bush in this last segment? How does the trailer communicate that?

      In the last segment of the trailer George W. Bush is really shown within a bad light, and rightly so. The trailer does make him look bad however all in a honest way, the documentary shows only what Bush has said himself therefore giving no lies. For example in the very last moments of the trailer Bush is seen seriously talking about the people at war and how they are doing anything they can to try and help, however moments later, Bush says 'now watch this drive' in relation to him playing golf. Just one example of how Bush plays being a Government as a way to show off and being at the highest authourity.  Another thing said by George W Bush was 'some people call you the elite, I call you my base' basically saying that his position depends on the rich business people and vice versa,  the only reason this was said was so that George could keep his 'rich' people behind him, which kept him goverment for so long. Although all of this, the documentary was heavily criticized and this was because it heavily criticized the government, it was also said the the documentary was blamed for propaganda, people questioned whether the film trying to brainwash people into thinking that the Government was so bad. 

Summarise using the examples that you have seen so far how documentaries can be used to persuade an audience. Are these types of documentaries subjective or objective?

It is highly debated whether many documentaries have been made in order to persuade the audience into thinking a certain way or backing a unpopular argument. This can be shown in the Michael Moore documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. The film is solely based on the US Government's [George W. Bush at the time] bad reputation during and after the 9/11 attacks. The documentary primarily shows the government and politicians in a bad light. Because the film focuses only on this, the viewer is fixated into that one thing at the time of watching therefore only seeing the bad side of things and forgetting the good. Because the documentary is so powerful with its motives, as the viewer you seem to be unwillingly pushed into one opinion, good or bad. Similarly, we can see the through the Channel 4 documentary Benefit Street. The programme which follows the lives of a number of families on James Turner St,  Birmingham, a street which is said to possibly have the most people living on Benefits in Britain, sparked much debate not only about its contents such as drug taking and shoplifting but on how the cast of the show were tricked and lied to throughout the making of the programme. The whole documentary focuses on the families of the street, all from different backgrounds, all with different stories but somehow ended up on the same st in Birmingham, each subject equally shocking the audience using powerful interviews and 'truthful' footage of interviews that took place in the homes of the families. At the time of watching the programme the viewers all seemed to have the same concluding opinion however it was not until after the first series finished that many news reports and interviews surfaced each saying one thing or other about how the cast were tricked and lied during filming and interviewing. One article taken from Birmingham Mail reports that the cast claim they were told they were taking part in a series about 'neighborly togetherness and community spirit' however the show paints a different picture, making the residents look like anti social benefits scroungers and irresponsible parents etc. And it's not only this that tricks us into thinking badly about people on Benefits, the show only shows a tiny percentage of the population however cleverly manages convince us into believing this is what the whole of the population of people on benefits are like, which is false. 

These types of documentaries are called subjective, the purpose of a subjective documentary is to show an opinion, story or agenda, in one light, it must be based on fact however it is now necessary to give a voice to counter opinions, give proof of surrounding stories or any other wider approaches. Documentary makers can make subjective documentaries using different sorts of techniques one example would be the interviewing, As the producer, they can ask anything they wish within reason, they are able to gather all information they need to make the documentary they want to show to people. In editing and creating of the film, the maker can alter, change and cut out what people say in the interview to make it sound how they as the producer want however not what the interviewee wanted this can be used in a good wav or bad way depending on the film being created. Another example is what we see, in Benefit Street we are shows James Turner St with mess around the roads and gangs hanging around at night, this may not be how it is always but as the viewer we see it how it is and this gives us more of a reason to back up the opinion we are made to feel. 

-www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t12829
-www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/benefits-street-tv-show-lied-647032