term 1 theory tasks (all theory)

1. Spaced Analysis
• The camera use in this episode is very successful due to many aspects. For example throughout many scenes
the cameramen use hand-held cameras, rather than cameras planted on a stand/tripod. This is an effective
use because it makes the scene feel more real, as if the viewer was actually there, because of the partly
shaky movements. Hand held camera shots were mainly used when the characters in the scene were moving
(walking/running), which again makes the scene feel more real to the viewer, as the camera view shows the
angles that the viewer would see if they were actually there. A lot of the time the camera doesn’t portray
perfect quality, which on one hand is a flaw in the show, however on the other hand it gives the show an
old-fashioned look, which works because this show wasn’t made to look very modern.
• The editing in this episode makes it look very professional as it is done precisely and makes it very effective
because it creates humour, which is the main priority of this show, as the genre is comedy. An example of
the editing techniques is the transition change from one scene to another in a different location, the
transition was a side swipe, which made the scenes flow smoothly, instead of a sharp unedited change to a
different location. Another example of the successful editing is when the characters were discussing a plan.
The quick change of images shows the events including the characters taking place, with one of the
characters voice in the background explaining and discussing the events that are going to take place. It then
cuts the other character in the scene’s event plan, which involves sketches (along with the sound effects of a
pencil sketching on paper), and again in the background is the characters voice explaining the planned
events. In one scene of this episode the characters pretend fought with pretend guns (their fingers),
however the sound of the gun firing was real which was very effective, creating humour.

2. Conflict Image

3. Conflict Analysis
In this movie scene two soldiers are fighting on the battle field, and as you can see one is dominating the other and the audience is made to feel a certain way through the use of
different aspects in the scene, such as colour, costume, props, lighting and setting/location.
For example both soldiers are wearing dark-coloured clothing/armour and dark colours such as black and grey and these colours have many connotations, such as power, elegance,
death and evil, which are all being portrayed here. Power is shown through the dominance the soldier on the left (soldier 1) has over the soldier on the right (soldier 2), as soldier 1 is
positioned above soldier 2, whilst attacking him with a sword. Elegance is shown through the leap soldier 1 has taken to reach the position he is in, as you can see the angle of his
body showing he is off the ground. Death is clearly shown through the attack of the sword through soldier 2’s body. Finally evil is shown in the violence the soldier’s are committing,
as obviously violence isn’t a good thing.
Costume is also used to portray certain meaning, for example soldier 1 has a lot of armour showing he is safe and ready for battle, as he is well prepared, whereas soldier 2 isn’t
wearing much armour, apart from a shield, meaning he doesn’t look well prepared and ready for battle, which proves to be the ineffective choice as you can see with the sword
penetrating soldier 2’s body. Showing you should be well prepared and ready otherwise the consequences won’t be good. Because soldier 2 isn’t wearing any armour, it appears that
he is the most powerful as he doesn’t need armour to protect him and soldier 1 has taken all the necessary safety precautions with clothing/armour meaning he isn’t as confident in
battle, however this image is shown to contrast with the original view on how the characters are portrayed as soldier 1 is dominating soldier 2, even though soldier 1 is shown as the
weaker soldier.
Another aspect that is used to create meaning is props. The main prop in this scene is the sword, used to kill soldier 2. this prop is used to show power and dominance, which is clear
for the audience to see as the sword is penetrating soldier 2 along with soldier 1 towering over soldier 2, which also shows power and dominance. The other prop in this image is the
shield, which is used for protection, however is shown to be ineffective, showing the uselessness of it, creating wonder to why soldier 2 didn’t use his prop (shield) to protect himself,
allowing the audience to create their own view, for example soldier 1 outsmarting soldier 2, as he didn’t think he would need to use his shield and that he is quicker as well, as maybe
he didn’t have time to use his shield to protect himself.
Lighting isn’t really used in this scene to create meaning, as lighting is usually used to show the audience either who/what to focus on or who/what is a positive item/being and what
is negative, for example if a character is brightened more than another character it is usually showing that this character is a good character and they should be focused on more,
creating more mystery around the bad character as you don’t focus on them as much, however as this is a fighting scene the lighting is used equally for both characters and due to the
location being outside there can’t be good quality lighting over the two characters to make them stand out against the background location.
Finally the setting/location of the scene is used to create meaning for the audience. For example the setting is on a battlefield, which is shown previously in the scene before this
image, and to the audience they know what a battlefield looks like and what it is used for (battle), so they know to expect a battle. A battlefield also has many connotations, such as
violence, fighting, death and power, which I explained earlier how these connotations are portrayed.

4. Amy Analysis
1. Most of the time the footage used by Kapadia looks quite reliable as the videos don’t look recreated, however they are actuality content, as the producer had
the recording in the studio filmed the whole time. However not all the footage captured was used, as it would have been too long to put in the documentary,
therefore the producer could have used specific footage to manipulate the opinion and view of the viewer on Amy Winehouse and her manager. For example
not showing how Amy was acting/feeling in the studio but only showing her singing, so we don’t know if Amy was agitated or unsettled at the time. Kapadia
also used Amy’s voice over as a narrative to describe her thoughts and feelings behind making the song Back to Black, where she talked about her close
relationship with Blake and her feelings about the situation of the breakup. This appears to be very reliable and unlikely to be a false representation of Amy’s
recording and her attitude, as it was actually her speaking, meaning it’s very unlikely for her to lie or give false statements. and there were no signs of the
editing technique ‘Franken-biting’ being used as she spoke quickly and emotionally, leaving no time or space for the producer to cut certain parts of her
sentence. In the video clip the producer only shows plays one sentence from Amy, likely to make the sequence more interesting instead of large amounts of
narrative, however Kapadia could has missed out information which changes the tone/feelings of Amy’s thoughts. This would be done to make the audience
feel sorry for Amy, instead of making the audience more neutral towards how they think Amy was feeling and the reasons behind the song.
2. This sequence partly shows how the breakup between Amy Winehouse and Blake Fielding effected Amy and her health. This sequence shows Amy trying to
express herself and her feelings. However not very well, due to fact Amy was shown to be mentally efficient and in a fairly good mood. Even the producer of
the song Mark Ronson said “I just caught her at that magic moment, she was just ready to get it going that’s why I couldn’t understand why everyone was
saying about this ‘procrastinating, troubled artist’”. This means she wasn’t acting/behaving as she was for most of the documentary after the breakup. Which
likely displays the wrong impression to the audience of how Amy handled the breakup, however this could also represent how Amy actually handled the
breakup and the alcoholism in another sequence was portrayed falsely, although this opinion is very unlikely.
3. The rest of the documentary portrays Amy to be mentally unstable and quite depressed with evidence from her and her psychologist, meaning this is not an
opinion but is fact. The sequence Recording the song Back to Black shows Amy to be in a fairly good mood, even though the reason to her being there is
upsetting for her (the breakup). The sequence only shows Amy to be mildly upset due to her heartbreak, however the rest of the documentary shows Amy to
have taken the breakup very badly, causing her to become an alcoholic, and take drugs. If people watched this sequence on its own her mental health and
well-being wouldn’t look as bad as if they watched the full documentary and knew all the information. Therefore people who watched the whole documentary
or knew a lot more about her life would see this sequence to be wrongly displayed, causing misjudgement and possible attempt of manipulation.

5. Factual Analysis
1. I believe that a documentary can be objective because if the production was created by a neutral party to the topic of the
documentary then there is no point in the neutral party being more biased in favour or not to the topic. However
documentaries can be long and very time-consuming to make, therefore most people wouldn’t spend this time on something
they are not interested in, as if you are interested in something this mean you will have an opinion on it, therefore you are
much more likely to be impartial or not. Also depending on the topic, some producers favour a certain opinion on something or
someone to appeal more to the audience. For example a documentary on a frowned-upon person would be more approved if
they were shown in a bad way, as people would agree with these biased opinions.
2. The trust we have in a production, I think, should be based on how well known the source is. For example a BBC documentary
will be much more reliable, as they have more money due to popularity, therefore they can afford for more researchers to find
facts about the topic of the documentary. However the documentary was made by amateurs then they may not have the same
resources to find the correct information to make it factual. Finally I think that documentaries with archival content, such as
home videos, CCTV or news footage makes the documentary much more reliable and easy to believe, compared to actuality
content, such as reconstructed content, as this type of content could likely be factually incorrect, whereas archival content
can’t be because it’s the original video/image. So overall the main factors are the producers and the type of content they use,
determine how far we can trust the documentary.
3. To make sure what a documentary presents as fact is true the viewer could conduct external research on the selected topic and
if one fact is incorrect then it is likely that there are other factual mistakes in the documentary, making the production very
unreliable. Sometimes the caption on videos in the productions includes the source of the content (where they found the
information/footage) and the viewer could follow this and see if it leads to the correct source and proving to be factually
correct.

6. Factual Analysis
1. In the Redcar documentary people are represented to have more options for work, for example one young man was offered an apprenticeship, as he needed to find work
and was struggling a bit with money, as he said, as you don’t see a lot of their living arrangements in the documentary, so you don’t know how bad he and his mum are
struggling with money.
2. Unlike the Redcar documentary, in Benefits Street I believe that people are made to look in harsh poverty, for example, dirty living conditions, no jobs opportunities (despite
trying at the job centre). Some examples of the bad living conditions includes some of the children using bags of clothes as pillows, and messy rooms with dirt in the corners,
showing neglect of the room. Some of the people are shown to be friendly as one person said “the whole street is like a big family”, however other people aren’t shown to
be very loving, as they swear at their children when struggling to control them, whilst they’re being mischievous. People on the street are shown to be smoking and drinking
alcohol, being a bad influence on the children on the street that speak to them.
3. Finally, in Skint, similar to Redcar, people are shown to have a bit more money/wealth compared to the people in Benefits Street. People in Skint are shown to have a good
use gas, electric, food and even marijuana, which people in Benefits Street didn’t seem to have enough money for those perfectly working luxuries. Similar to Redcar but
unlike Benefits Street, the people are shown to be less-loving and less-friendly, with several clips of people arguing and not getting along at all, however this could be cut to
show only the arguments.
4. I think the aim of all three programmes are very similar, to show the poverty that these people live in, purely for the entertainment of the viewer, which is typically middle
class to upper class people watching it on TV. This use of under-privileged living as a form of entertainment is frequently known as ‘poverty-porn’. If not for entertainment,
these programmes are sometimes created to show how unlucky some people are and how privileged the viewer is compared to the people on the shows, making the viewer
feel sympathy for the people.
5. I think that The Mighty Redcar documentary can be seen as biased because the narrator does a lot of recapping and describing in the documentary, for example stating how
one of the people in the documentary lives (their living conditions) and their income, without being showed most of what has been descried. This is seen as biased and
unreliable because you don’t know if the producer has made it look worse than it is for entertainment purposes for the viewers of the documentary. However the people in
the documentary describe what it’s like to live their lives in small parts of the documentary and they live their permanently so they are reliable for describing the conditions
of the place etc.
6. Benefits Street can be seen as impartial and non-biased due to the use of archival content, instead of actuality content, which is a lot more reliable as it’s filmed in the
moment instead of recreated to fit the show’s requirements. Although as there are many cuts throughout the shows clips, meaning the ‘franken-biting’ could be being used
here and also the producers only choosing the worst parts of the houses/street to film, for example the dirty rooms and lack of essentials, such as pillows.
7. Skint seems to show a lot of people being aggressive to each other, for example the arguing and there doesn’t seem to be a lot of friendliness or love. However this is hard to
believe that there is only hatred in the families and between all the people, therefore I think that the producers have used ‘franken-biting’ to cut out the positive clips and
include mainly negative clips, for entertainment purposes.

7. Final Task Text
• Just like all media, the information, images and overall display of my fanzine is constructed. For example some photos I took myself, others I used from the internet, but
heavily edited them using Photoshop, giving them my own design, therefore almost all of my work is actuality content as I made it for the production. The usual reason of
creating a fanzine is to create something around a liked topic (when you are a fan of it), which is how I created my fanzine, therefore it would have been unlikely to talk
negatively about my topic, although the information isn’t all praise, it does make my fanzine very biased, trying to sway the audience to like the chosen topic. I talked
about the faults and negative aspects of the topic, however did not provide a lot of evidence for this in the text or with images, as my aim wasn’t to portray the topic
negatively. The representation of the topic I chose was influenced quite a lot due to my own belief and positive opinion on the topic and also due to the target audience,
because my fanzine has been created around the video game franchise Far Cry and it’s most likely that the people who will read it will be fans of the game Far Cry, as it’s
in the title of the fanzine, therefore if I talked negatively about the game a lot then the audience will tend to disagree with these views and their opinion on my
production would change negatively, therefore creating a production to fit their expectations would work a lot better for me (the producer) and them (the audience).
• I explored the context with factually correct information as I proof checked it more than once with reliable sources, such as the video game’s producing company’s
website. In comparison to the Edge the factual production with the topic of video games (similar to mine) we both explore the context, however in different ways, for
example I state who made the game, when they made it and other facts around the game in a style where I get to the point quickly, whereas the producers of Edge talked
about the Legend of Zelda in a more informal way, yet they use more sophisticated vocabulary, for example they discuss the context in the flow of their description, such
as “…component of Nintendo’s first open-world game…”, this could be confusing to some people if they were just looking for the information, however if they wanted a
more interesting read, then this style may be more effective. I didn’t however, use advanced vocabulary, due to the fact my audience (teenagers) are proven to prefer
informal language in magazines/fanzines rather than formal.
• In my fanzine I use one page per sub-topic, whereas Edge uses one page for information and one pages for images. In Edge there is a lot more information and detail
about the game compared to my fanzine, however I have included similar information related to my topic as Edge has to theirs, for example the producers, the game’s
design, mechanics, appearance and their audiences opinion but Edge included a lot more detail and description about their game. The layout of the information page in
Edge is different to mine, as it is set in columns making it easier for the audience to read, however I don’t have enough information on my page to have a column layout,
although on my interview page I did use columns as there is a lot more text, compared to my information pages, therefore both mine and the professional productions
are similar when we have the same amount of text to work with. The images used Edges page are standard with no editing applied to them as they are taken straight
from the game, however mine look better due to the editing I applied on Photoshop, although it doesn’t portray exact content from the game, which Edge’s does. There
are no borders or outlines to the images on Edge’s page, making them looking randomly placed, whereas mine have borders with meaning, for example a taped polaroid
picture on the first game of the franchise, because it is quite old. Although mine looks better as a whole when looking at it for information on the game it isn’t that
helpful due to the heavy editing, although most people reading my fanzine will already know the basics of the game, therefore won’t be confused or misinformed. Also
due to the style of writing and how it is displayed, the text and overall layout of the information page in Edge looks quite old fashioned, and the majority of people who
play video games are of a young generation therefore wouldn’t be attracted to or enticed by old fashioned designs, however most of my pages aren’t designed this way,
meaning its possible for more people of the target audience would be interested by this design.

8. Final Task Images