Theory Task for term 1

1. Spaced Analysis
There are multiple different factors that contribute to how successful and funny Spaced is, firstly the sound and foley. Throughout the episode there were
sounds effects added in, mainly for comedic purposes, to give movements more meaning and to explain the story. For example, during both pretend gun fights
there are sound effects for whatever they are pretending to do, e.g. a machine gun or pistol etc. Not only does it help the viewer to understand what they are
doing and what is happening on screen, but it makes it funnier as it’s the juxtaposition of a gun fight with loud bangs and gun shots which is serious, joined with
the fact that it is fake and these adults are having a pretend gun fight, using their hands as guns. It makes the scene funny as it is something kids would do
however these adults are using it to solve their issues. The sound therefore makes it more dramatic and real as it makes it sounds like a real fight. Another way in
which sound is used effectively in this episode is when moving between camera shots or scenes. For example, when they are discussing what to do that night
there are swiping sounds between the shots to signify the scene changing or to convey that they are thinking or talking fast. This works really well as you almost
feel like you can see in their head and you feel as the viewer like you are that person thinking fast and deciding things. It’s often possible to use too many sound
effects and then it becomes too cheesy and bad however I feel as though in Spaced there is just the correct amount to make it funny without it being too over
the top.
Another factor which stood out to me about this episode was that the camera movements were very quick and that the length of some of the shots was quite
long. I think that the blurred fast movements of the camera when trying to follow a person or the repercussion of their action was really successful as often you
would just cut to another shot but by keeping the same take and moving the camera to follow it made it seem as if you were there with them. I think that his
technique is really clever as it makes it seem much more real as if you have just turned your head yourself to look at what’s happening. I also think that it gives it
a more authenticity as you can see that everything is happening at the same time and that it isn’t completely fake and as staged as it could be. In addition to
this, the longer lengths of some of the shots/takes have the same impact as instead of switching between angles and shots they just move the camera to see the
expression or speech of the receiving person. Again, this makes it feel like you are there with them which almost more relaxed and less serious which I think fits
in with the personalities and mood of the program. I also think it makes it seem more real and more like a film of real people’s lives rather than a staged set up tv
show which picks each angle out perfectly.
Despite its many good features, the longevity of this show however maybe slightly shorter than it could have been. This is because of the many jokes and
references to adverts or people that were around in the 1990’s which is when this was made and is set. You could say that this is because in the past 20 years or
so since it ended, there is a whole new generation of their target audience that wasn’t even alive in the 90’s and therefore they may not understand the
references meaning that the show isn’t as funny as it was 20 years ago. Unlike shows like Friends which is, despite because made around the same time Spaced,
still very popular with the new generation you may say that Spaced’s longevity is quite short and therefore not as good as it could have been if the jokes and
humour used could be transferred into the modern-day world. However, seen as the show was made for the late teens/early twenties market it’s audience may
now have changed and it may appeal to people in their 40’s who can look back on the 90’s and enjoy the nostalgia of their youth. So possibly in that way the
longevity is good as for the next 50 plus years or so there will always be people who remember and enjoy the 1990’s and therefore will enjoy the show and look
back happily on its old jokes.

2. Conflict Image

3. Conflict Analysis
This is a still from We’re the Millers where the main character is having an altercation with a drug dealers body guard. Firstly, you can
clearly tell that the man on the right is more dominant and angrier as he is wearing all dark clothing and has dark jewellery and dark hair.
Generally darker colours suggest that someone is angry or mad and they are perceived as bad over lighter colours which usually suggest
goodness and peace. In contrast to him the man on the left is wearing cream trousers and has lighter hair showing that he is most likely
more submissive and more scared than the other man. Despite the fact that the man on the left is wearing a dark blue top you can clearly
tell that because of his body language that he isn’t in charge of the situation as he is looking up scared towards the other man and has
both hands in front of him almost protecting himself. Additionally, even though he has a big spanner in his hand he is clearly protecting
himself rather than being the one who is in charge as the other man looks a lot stronger and muscly and is looming over the smaller man
which shows dominance as he is bigger which generally means stronger. The man on the right’s body language shows him to be confident
and like he is moving towards the man on the left with his hands and arms open whereas the smaller guy looks to be going backwards
since of his feet is behind the other like he is moving away and is intimidated. The clothes that the man on the right is wearing also looks
scarier as he has leather on which shows his biceps which may be scary and unorthodox whereas the guy on the left is wearing a much
more conservative and plain polo shirt showing that he may be weaker and therefore not in charge of the fight. You may also notice that
the lighting is different over both men as in the top left-hand corner, the lighting is bright and that signifies goodness whereas in the top
right-hand corner the lighting isn’t bright as he has the backdrop of the RV white is black and could therefore be inferred as eviller. The
setting and location don’t really play a part in this as it just happened to be where they were at that time in the story however it is neither
of their territory and therefore gives them almost fair ground in terms of setting. I also think that the camera angle shows that the man on
the right is more powerful than the man on the left as it is directly to the side in the middle of both of the men so that you can clearly see
the height and weight different of both the men which helps the audience to understand who is winning the fight. Finally, the man on the
rights face seems to have scaring around the eye which makes it seem like he has been in fights before whereas the man on the left looks
scared and has a pain clean-shaven face of a man who rarely fights people showing who would be more likely to be the dominant one in
this situation.

4. Amy Analysis
Addiction to crack cocaine and Blake
List the techniques used by the director to show Winehouse’s battle with drug addiction and why they may have been used.
Frankenbiting – This may have been used to change the meaning of what some people may have said to make it more subjective. Because most of the dialogue wasn’t
linked the its footage (it was all played over archival footage) we can’t know for sure whether or not that was done and so we don’t know if what everyone sad was
true or not. It could have made Amy seem better or wore or made the drug addiction more serious or less serious than it actually was.
Talking Heads – There was one or two bits of interview footage where you actually saw the person taking into the camera, I think they will have been shown to give
strength and trustworthiness to the clip to show that it is real, it is what this person is saying and that they aren’t making it up, it did happen. This will hopefully
reassure the audience of the point the director is trying to make.
Archival Footage – Most of the footage used in the sequence was archival, this is to show us what was happening in the time that they were talking about (as it
happened in the past not whilst they were filming) and so it gave validation to the things the voice over people were saying which again helped the audience to really
see what Amy was going through in her life at that point.
Still Images – There were also a lot of still images for the same reason as above, to show a visual representation to what the voice over was talking about. It helped
you to see what she was doing and how good/bad things were really going at that point. I think that it will have helped the audience to be empathetic to Amy as she
often looked terrible and very ill.
Voice Over Narration - This is how almost the whole story was conveyed as they used lots of old colleagues, family and friends interviews to tell the story of Amy. The
fact that they knew her gave it validation and additionally that all of their stories matched up to make the same point made it more realistic for the audience as they
all had the same story which meant it was most likely to be real.
What do you feel is the overall effect of this sequence?
I think that the overall effect that this sequence has on the audience is that it makes them feel sorry for her. I think the raw footage of what her home life was like
when she was on drugs makes people feel sad for her. This is because normally when famous people take drugs people generally see it as their fault as they have so
much money and are so lucky that people have a harder time being empathetic towards them, as they can’t really see what their life is like behind the cameras.
Whereas this documentary shows you exactly what was going on in her life and it makes you feel for her, as you can understand why she feels sad or empty and
possibly why she has started taking drugs. You can also see how smitten she is with Blake and how her manipulates her and controls her and how she lets him because
she is already struggling anyway. Another way in which it makes people feel bad is by showing the disgusting environment she is living in as it is dirty and there is drug
paraphernalia everywhere. You may also think that in that environment it must be even harder to stop using or to get back on track and therefore feel even worse for
Amy. I think that throughout the whole sequence you are shown as much bad footage of Blake as possible. I’m sure he was bad however its clear that’s how they
wanted to present him anyway as even if they recorded lots of moments of him being nice they didn’t show them so that it made him look like a very bad person for
taking advantage of her.

5. Factual Analysis
Can a documentary be objective? Why do you believe this?
Yes I do think that a documentary can be objective as it just depends upon how unbiased and removed the documentary makers are from the situation they’re
filming. I think that it is easy for them to not be objective as if they have any personal opinions on the subject it can sway the way they conduct themselves or the
questions they ask. Additionally if they are making the documentary for a certain purpose it can change how objective they actually are, as they may need to
make the meaning different than it actually is. For example they may do this by using the frankenbiting technique, which means cutting out parts of the
audio/dialogue to convey a different meaning. However in the end, even if documentaries aren’t often objective, it doesn’t mean that they cant be as long as they
portray the facts and truth that they find without editing them so that the viewers can make up their own mind.
How far should we accept what we watch/read? Why?
I think that we should accept watch we watch and read to some extent but try to apply some common sense to it. For example if it is something on the TV which
has been commissioned and produced by professional people in the industry then it is more likely to be fact. Obviously they may convey it differently depending
on how liberal or not the company is however overall they are more likely to have a team of researchers and fact checkers working for them and therefore it is
more likely to be true and less likely to be fake news. However in contrast if it is something you see on social media or online in the news then you should
definitely be wary of accepting what you read or see. That is because people spread fake news, which they have just made up for click bait, just to get likes. This
therefore means that you should not accept anything you read online as fact as anyone can just make it up and post it without anyone having to check if its right
of not; unlike the TV where facts are much more precise. The difference with the TV is that people take bits of facts and mould it to fit their personal opinions,
therefore it is technically true, however isn’t the full story. Therefore no matter where you see something you should always check if it is true or not because
forming an opinion.
How can we make sure what a documentary presents as fact, is true?
I think the only real way is to Google the facts to see if they are true or not, or try to find more TV shows or documentaries about the subject to see how their
facts go in comparison. Another good way is to read the interviews of the people who were in the documentary after it has been released, to see if they are happy
with the way they and the people around them were portrayed. If they have big valid reasons then maybe the documentary wasn’t as realistic and truthful as it
could have been. However you have to take note that they may just be unhappy with how the came across because they are generally bad people which bad
views for example the Westboro Baptist Church. Also researching the reasons why the documentary was made can help to tell you how bias a documentary is as
you can see why they might have kept or cut certain parts of it out.

6. Factual Analysis
What do you think the aim of each of these programs is?
Since ‘Benefit Street’ and ‘Skint’ are the same kind of reality TV documentary I will compare them as one against ‘The Mighty Redcar’. I
think that the aim of shows like Skint is to make you, the viewer, feel better about your life and to give you pleasure that you aren’t that
person who is struggling for everything unlike the people in the show. The aim is for people to watch it to feel better about themselves as
the majority of people aren’t as poor as the ones in these shows. Where as in The Mighty Redcar, despite taking about how it is poor, it’s
aim is to show you how people are getting out of that as is more positive rather than negative like Skint. The people in Skint and others
alike are portrayed very badly, now obviously what is shown did happen however a lot of other stuff most likely happened too which wasn’t
as bad as what we get to see in the short episode on tv. Additionally, when they edit it they can use the Frankenbiting technique to change
the meaning of what people have said, so despite them technically saying the words, they meant something different and that can
negatively affect the person depending on what aim the director has. However, despite a lot of the people in Skint and Benefit Street being
portrayed badly in the Mighty Redcar people were portrayed very well as the aim of the program was more uplifting and so they most likely
decided not to show many of the parts that could have easily made it more like Skint.
Are these programs biased?
Yes, I do believe that these programs are biased as each one has a specific aim they want to achieve. They can easily change the meaning
of the shows by cutting out parts that they don’t think will make it look as bad as they want it too. Additionally, despite being a
‘documentary’ and technically unscripted, some things wouldn’t happen if they TV crew weren’t there. For example, the people being
filmed may play up or do certain things differently because of their presence. These bits of footage, once manipulated may also alter the
way it is conveyed to us on the TV and therefore won’t end up being as factual and more biased than the viewers are told it actually is.
However you may argue that since they don’t have a specific script and the events that happen are based on the lives of the people being
filmed, that it isn’t biased as they are just filming what happens and cutting it down from hours of footage into a shorter more interesting
piece.

7. Final Task
I think that when creating my documentary I tried to work towards keeping and meeting the expectations and conventions of factual
documentaries. I did this by only using true facts, real still images and new footage that I had filmed for the documentary itself. When planning
and editing my film I decided to use many of the usual techniques involved with documentaries, mainly having the interviews portrayed as
‘talking heads’ rather than a walking interview whilst going somewhere or as just dialogue and no visual. I used the talking heads for both
interviews with the sisters as I felt that it fitted the film better and since it was only to be 5 minutes in duration, I didn’t want to waste any of
that with pointless pleasantries of when we met with them and rather just focus on the questions that they answered for me instead. This
technique is used in the similar documentary ‘Light of Love’, and since this has the same vibe as mine, being polite and trying to find out
information about people rather than projecting a bias opinion onto their answers in a quest to prove something, I thought that it would be
suitable. I also used a voice over to give context and to explain what the film was about, and then also to conclude it at the end. Louis Theroux’s
documentaries include this technique all the time when speaking about something that isn’t necessarily on film yet is needed to give the
viewers a more rounded explanation of what is happening on their screen. Representation is obviously a major factor to consider when creating
a factual piece and I tried very hard to take it as seriously as possible and to make sure that I didn’t offend or insult anybody or their views.
Obviously since I was creating a piece on religion I had to make sure that I didn’t say anything that would be inappropriate or unprofessional.
Additionally I felt that there was no need for personal opinions to even be discussed on my part as I was filming an unbiased view on the sisters
lives not an investigative piece. Because this is how I decided to go about it I made sure that I used the right terminology and that I didn’t do
anything purposely offensive. For example I didn’t exclaim, ‘for god’s sake’ or anything similar which I may do in the real world as I understand
that to them it may be offensive. I also made se that the terms for nuns/sisters and their convent were correct which is why I used sister when
speaking about those which I interviewed as technically they aren’t nuns and that is a different type of religious person. I don’t think however
that the target audience of this has affected the way I made this documentary as it was more about content and the real views of the
interviewees rather than what I was wanting to make for a specific person/audience. Stylistically I think I stuck to the traditional ways of
conveying this subject matter in a documentary. Mainly using the slow motions shots to promote emotion and show off the content and having
a lot of still images throughout to break up the interviews. Additionally have very beautiful related music is quite common in slow religious
documentaries as it fits in with the theme of the doc itself, it also helps the transitions between photographs and interviews. I also used a lot of
transitions, notably fade to black as I felt that this made the film run smoother and the was less jumpiness between shots or scenes. Altogether
I think that I stuck to a very similar path in terms of the technical features of factual films and that it, overall, worked very well in creating a
professional piece of art which portrays some real information from accredited people.