2. Where does my review make links to my documentary?
‘The music industry is shown as being very unpredictable as it is based
around the interests of the audiences’
This statement is based on connotations drawn from my documentary. It is not
objective and is used to relay the message of the documentary to my older,
educated audience that will be reading the review.
‘This offers an even deeper and often unheard opinion on a very niche
and local music scene’
This again is based purely on connotations from my production but was put in to
interest my older, educated audience members as it suggests that they may be
able to learn something new from watching the production.
‘Although the documentary focuses around the music scene in Leicester,
it does not exclude those who are not from Leicester and if anything
welcomes people in’
This relays connotations from the documentary to my secondary audience,
giving them more of an incentive to watch the production as well as reading the
review.
3. Where does my review stand alone as objective?
‘Soundcheck sparks all sorts of emotions within the audience due to its
conflicting narratives’
This is an objective point made by the way the reviewer interpreted the narrative
of the documentary. It gives a more in-depth opinion as it is a personal one and
can be agreed on or challenged by my secondary audience as I have read them
as being a active audience.
‘An attachment to each band is formed from the beginning, making the
experience a personal one’
This suggests that the documentary can be fairly intimate and therefore allows
for different interpretations based on personal experience with it. This would
again appeal to my active secondary audience.
4. In review
As a whole, I feel that my review could have been more objective. My
secondary audience are looking for interesting and challenging
narratives, which I believe my production is, but I don’t believe the
review fully explains that. I was too focused on explaining the narrative
in the review when really I should have critiqued it more which could
have created controversy and sparked interest in my secondary
audience. I could have balanced out explaining the narrative and giving
objective response to the production to cover both aspects in more
detail. I believe I gave too much away about the narrative, meaning that
it would take away from the production if my audience were to watch it
after reading the review and I feel I wasn’t objective enough to offer
mental stimulus to my naturally inquisitive secondary audience.
