1. Spaced
Analysis
Spaced (S2 ep5 GONE)
Spaced is a British sitcom TV show. It first aired on the 24th of September 1999, on Channel 4, and compromised of seven episodes. The show was created,
written by, and starring Simon Pegg and Jessica Stevenson, and it is directed by Edgar Wright. The series is about two newly acquainted friends, Tim Bisley
and Daisy Steiner, who have just decided to move in together, even though they have only just met. Both Tim and Daisy are in their twenties and are
Londoners. The series mostly consists of the awkward and strange adventures of Tim and Daisy as they live out their life, deciding on what they want to do
with their lives. Also, finding out new unproductive ways to kill time.
Whilst watching the episode of Spaced, I noticed that the beginning of the episode starts with the climax of that episode. I also noticed throughout the
episode there were many flashbacks as well as time skipping forward. I think that this gives the show a unique perspective as it allows the person watching
to see the possible outcome of the situation before it has even happened, especially in the case of the episode starting with the episode’s climax. I also think
that these techniques add to the comedy side of things, making the show funnier. It is the same with the use of the cameras. The cameras always seem to be
pointing at the person talking and then as soon as someone else starts to talk the camera points at them. However, this is a basic technique that is used in
film and TV all the time. Throughout the episode there are also films and shows referenced such as a scene from Jurassic Park. This furthermore adds to the
comedic aspect as they are referencing things that we know and making fun of them in a way.
3. Conflict Analysis
John 'The Hangman' Ruth (Kurt Russell) is in power during this scene, as he is the one holding the gun to Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) as well as
he is portrayed more powerfully in this scene as he is in a certain stance that makes him look ready to use the gun, if Marquis Warren makes a move; This is
even more evident as the scene shows that John Ruth also has another gun on his belt. This links in with the stance and backs up the point of him looking
more powerful in the scene.
Both characters appear to be in conflict during this scene. The scene suggests this by the obvious gun pointing, and the way both characters are looking at
each other. Both characters are staring straight at each other, which gives off the vibe that they are both in conflict. The way they are both standing also backs
the point up, of them both being in conflict as, John Ruth is in a stance where he is ready to take action, and Marquis Warren is standing quite dominantly
even though he isn't the one with the power in this scene. This could furthermore suggest that he is use to the power. Also, implying that he is also in fact use
to not being in power, and is use to being in situations like this. The scene shows this by the fact that he is not cowering, or he does not have his hands up.
This could be the reason why John Ruth is in that stance as he needs to show more power, as Marquis Warren appears not to be bothered by the slightest.
During this scene, it appears that John Ruth feels threatened, I can tell this by the way he stands, the gun that he is pointing at Marquis Warren, and the
scene in which it is taking place. From the scene, it appears that they are in a open area in the woods, like a road running through the snowy woodland. That
suggests that he could feels evermore threatened as the scene where this is taking place is sketchy, especially to come across someone. Which is also
another point that it appears that they have both just came across each other, backing the point up that John Ruth feels threatened.
The fact that during the scene it appears to be snowy and that both characters have snow on them, emphasises the point that they both could feel
threatened as they both appear to be out of their comfort zones. Not just because of the openness of the woodland but because of the fact that it appears to
be cold. The clothing of John Ruth (The one on the left) suggests that he is someone of importance and is wealthy. The scene suggests this by the fact that he
has pocket watch, and it appears that he is wearing some form of suit. Also, his fur coat and fur hat backs up the point even further as they are seen to be
wealthy items, as in that time period when the movie is set to be, animal pelts and furs were very expensive items, as they were hard to acquire.
The Hateful Eight screenshot analysis
4. Amy Analysis
Amy (2015 documentary film on Amy Winehouse)
I think that Blake had a big impact on Amy's life, as he was the one that introduced her into taking crack cocaine, which ended up having a negative impact on
her career and life to the very end, when she died from alcohol intoxication. Also the fact that when Amy wanted to get better and try and stop this addiction
by going to rehab, Blake encouraged her back into drugs, and Amy listened as she was infatuated, in love with him, like she mentions in some of the clips in the
documentary. However, I also think that she is partly to blame as she is a grown women, an adult and she can make decisions for herself. Also she was into
drugs before meeting Blake, cannabis, and she was drinking before meeting Blake as well. So even though the documentary tries to portray that Blake was a big
factor of Amy's death, I think she was very much to blame as well. Additionally though I think that Blake was one of the main, and big reasons why she died.
The reason being if he had not pressured her into doing more drugs after she went to rehab and maybe even got better himself, then Amy probably wouldn't
have died. However, she did die from alcohol intoxication, which the documentary mentioned she supplemented for drugs. I also think that Amy's dad was to
blame as he was always wanting Amy to make more music, do another album which it seemed like just for his own benefit, the money as he was a part of her
business. From the documentary it seemed that Amy looked up to her dad a lot, as he wasn't there for her as a child so now she had him she wanted to be
close with him. However, the documentary portrayed him as a bit of an attention seeker and greedy person, as when Amy was in a bad state and went to have
a break from everything, the paparazzi, the music industry, etc. Amy's dad brought a camera crew to the island, when she clearly didn't want any limelight at
that moment in time, as she just wanted privacy and to have a break from the whole business in general.
I feel as if the pressure of her being a famous artist was also another reason of her death as she used drugs and alcohol to escape that. On top of that her dad
making her go to concerts and performing her old songs that she didn't want to perform no more as they reminded her of old times with Blake. Also the
paparazzi being another reason as everywhere she went there were paparazzi swarming her with cameras and shouting questions over the top of one another.
I also think that the fact that everyone did everything for her, and she had no independence didn't help her out much. From watching the documentary I think
that it is truthful as the clips and scenes gathered for the documentary are all from different sources. However, it could easily contain frankenbiting, as the
interviews were small in length and could have been a lot longer. It would have been easy for them to do, but from watching it I believe the documentary is
truthful and honest.
5. Factual
Analysis
In each of the documentaries the area and the people in it are represented differently. The people in 'Benefits Street' are represented badly. They are
almost shown like animals as it isn't really showing their daily life like it should be, and it is actually just showing them surviving, which emphasises my
point on making them look like animals. Benefits Street represents that people on benefits are lazy and that they are all like that. It has portrayed
people on benefits badly and has only really represented a few different cases on why people are on benefits. The main being, which is because they
cannot find a job, and that there are not many job opportunities around them. When there are other reasons why people are on benefits such as
disability. Whereas, in 'The Mighty Redcar' documentary everyone is represented as being hardworking and actively looking for work. It represents the
working class a lot better than the other two documentaries Skint and Benefits Street.
I think that the aim of each of these programmes is too show other classes other than just the working class what it's like to be poor or on benefits, and
how they go about their daily life. I think that poverty porn is also a big factor of it as well as the programmes are there to make the people watching it
feel good that they have certain things that the people in the programmes don't. Even though the aims of the programmes were to make people
understand what it's like being poor, or on benefits, and not having good job opportunities around them, I think that it has done the opposite especially
in Benefits Street's case. I think that the Mighty Redcar is the only programme out of the three to actually do what the aim of it was, which was to show
that there are not many opportunities in Redcar for the younger generation but they are full of hope and are actively trying to follow their goals and
dreams. I think that all of the programmes are biased towards people of different classes and people of different financial situations, to watch this so
that they can release how lucky they are. Its poverty porn for people in better situations in terms of finance. Therefore, I think that the three
programmes are biased towards people in better financial situations an example why I think this is when the programme has TV breaks, the adverts in
the breaks are very focused around people more financially stable. The adverts consist of seeing people happy, products being shown, lots of adverts to
do with seeing families happy in their nice houses. That is one of the reasons why I think that these programmes are for people who are more financially
stable.
6. Factual Analysis
I think that a documentary can be objective as the person who is making the documentary could be biased on the topic or situation in which he or she is
documenting. They then could make the documentary very biased by only adding footage and interviews that they deem to be correct. Another reason why I
believe that a documentary can be biased is because the people who are making the documentary can easily portray people in a bad or good light by just cutting
sections out. They could also have easily used the technique 'frankenbiting', to change what the interviewees were saying to make them look bad or good, by
taking out 'sound-bites' to remove and add words into the interview to make it sound very different to what it originally was. Also, most documentaries have to be
to a certain standard before they get published, and the footage could easily be edited to this set standard that the director wants. However, the documentary
could have archival content, which is footage that is sourced from another source. This would mean that the footage is likely to be valid, as it has come from
another source other than your own. But, that footage could also be biased and objective towards something, and that source could have easily edited the
footage to their liking. Another reason why I believe that a documentary can be objective is for the director's personal gain, as if he makes the documentary more
interesting by editing footage it can attract more attention. Which leads to the director getting more attention and income from people watching the
documentary.
I personally think that we should not believe everything we see and read today, as a lot of content in our age is fake, from news to facts and quotes. This is
because people have the power of the internet and editing programs at their finger tips. It means that they can easily change manipulate and change content like
manipulating an image using Adobe Photoshop. Also because of the internet fake news can be passed around very easily with social networking site such as
Facebook, where things can be shared to thousands of other people all over the world. One reason why I believe people shouldn't believe everything they read, in
the news' case is because the news can easily manipulate and change content to their liking to support groups that pay them to write good things about them and
promote them, such as political parties. Also, the news is more likely to change a story to make it sound more interesting so that you are more likely to read it. The
news is more likely to try and sway people's opinions on certain matters, by changing a story or adding fake news.
It is hard to make sure what a documentary presents as a fact, is true as we were not there. However, we could easily do research on the matter to find out more
from other sources and the people involved in the documentary. This would help us find out if the documentary is valid or not, that is if the sources where we
locate the information from is also valid. One way in which we could find out if it's true is looking at the director’s other work and seeing if that is truthful. Another
way to find out if a fact presented is truthful or not is too find out if the documentary footage was gathered by one source or lots of different sources, as if it is
gathered by lots of different sources it is more likely to be valid. Whereas if its gathered by one source the footage is much more likely to be edited and changed
for the viewer to depict it in a certain way to the directors liking.
7. When I was creating my fanzine’s content I made it bias and positive towards the topic that the fanzine was on, which in this case was urban legends, creepy
pastas, horror stories, and folktale creatures. Usually fanzines are not negative and are more postive as they usually are aimed at fanbases. Therefore, creating a
negative fanzine would be unusual, and wouldn’t make much sense. I would say that a fanzine could influence someones opinion on a certain matter for example
a fanzine about punk rock could influence their readers political choices, as punk usually tends to be about anarchy, which could influence someones opionions
on a certain matter. A fanzine’s content could be biased like a newspaper’s content could. Usually a fanzine would be biased on what they are about, as fanzines
are usually for fanbases therefore, should be positive towards them. It would be unusual for a fanzine to be negative towards a certain topic. I would say that a
fanzine could be very influential as usually fans buy the fanzines about the topic they like therefore, the reader is more likely to be easily influenced as its about a
topic that they like.I think that a fanzine could easily be objective and most fanzines are mostly objective as they would be very biased and positive to what the
fanzine is about as they are usually fanbases that create them. So they are more likely to say good things about the topic they are covering as they are fans on
that topic. An example is that a rock music fanzine is most likely to be very positive towards that genre of music, and not negative, as they are most likely fans of
that genre as they are creating a fanzine on it. However, they could be negative towards certain songs, bands, or albums in the fanzine. This could influence the
reader into thinking the same, because if the fanzine has a bad opinion on it, then the reader will be influenced by that opinion in some way when listening to
that song, band, or album. This could negatively effect them from listening to that band. This could be for any type of fanzine from gaming to political. I think the
big reason on why fanzines can be influential is because the people who are buying the fanzines and reading them are fans of the fanzines topic therefore more
likely to agree on the opinion. In my fanzine I have an interview, which is about topics related to my fanzine. In terms of interviews in magazine, fanzines, and
other sorts of media, they can easily be biased or made to look or sound a certain way. Just like with interviews in documentaries, ‘Frakenbiting’ can be used. The
person making the fanzine can easily chnage words and sentences around when adding it to the fanzine to make it sound a certain way. This is not always bad
though, as words and sentences could be changed to make it read better, and for the interviewee to sound more professional. However, it can also be easily made
to sound bad, and as for the people reading it they can be influenced by the interview and think of that person in a negative way becuase of how they are
portrayed in the interview. Overall with fanzines I think that they are very one-sided and biased towards the topic that the fanzine is about. But, I think the reason
for this is because the people creating the fanzines are mostly fans of the topic and are more likely to talk about it in a good light rather than a bad, since they are
fans.
When comparing my fanzine to other similar products and other fanzines, I have found that my fanzine has a very similar layout on each page to other products.
The way I have chose to layout my information is very similar if not identical to a lot of other similar products like a magazine on horror. The horror magazine also
uses lots of similar colours to my fanzine, such as black, white, and red. The reason I chose them colours was because they are the colours that are used to
represent the horror genre in most cases. Going back to the layout of my fanzine, it is very similar to other fanzines the picture and text locations. Also how far
they are located from one another and how much space is left for the title.
Final Task
