3. Conventions
• This footage uses many techniques in order to promote the conventions and
narrative of a documentary. A documentary is a type of film story that contains
factual information or reflects/recreates moments in time for the viewer to
understand (e.g. documentary on the World Wars) . Usually with an subject or
topic to focus on which is normally presented in a form of a question (but not
always such as a wildlife documentary on birds may just tell you information about
them). In terms of this documentary we can see straight away from the title that it
is about homosexuality. We are then presented with a montage of real footage of
old and present day footage which really projects the comparison between how
homosexuality is treated now compared to 1900’s (riots, police arresting men for
being gay as well as present day which presents homosexuals as being happy). We
have also recognised that documentaries follow 6 standard structures (expository,
observational, participatory, reflexive, performative, poetic). We believe that this
documentary is reflective, the fact that it is based on real life moments and gives
opinions on what homosexuals thought of this moment in time rather than actual
facts, which we believe it is probably due to the topic of homosexuality is an very
opinion based subject, it focuses more on whether people agree with this life style
rather then simply displaying facts about it.
4. Mise-en-scene
• Mise-en-scene is generally quite discrete in documentaries compared to fictional
films, but it is still a powerful tool that is used to promote conventions. In the
extract the use of lighting was used to create a contrast between the different
years with it showing usually dark and dull lighting to represent the way
homosexuals was treated in the 1900’s compared to modern day where it is
colourful, warm/bright lighting showing homosexual families smiling and are
generally more happy. These shots within montages really convey the comparison
between how homosexuals lived then compared to now, and the colour of the
lighting really amplifies this with the use of warm colours to indicate the happy
and peacefulness and the dark and morbid colours to show depression and
sadness. Mise-en-scene is also done with settings during an interview. When they
interview a person to talk about homosexuality quite often they will be located in
a place that conveys their job title or status, such as interviewing doctors in
hospitals, talking to writers in a library. This is also complimented by costume and
props (e.g. lab coats, books etc.) to create a visual stimuli for the viewer so they
have an in detailed understanding of who the person is so even if a name with job
title didn’t appear in front of them, they could still have some understanding of
who is talking.
5. Sound
• There are a number of sound techniques used in this documentary.
Firstly the use of voiceovers is used to talk about relevant
information on the documentary while still being about to watch
the corresponding images which helps the viewer understand the
information in greater detail. Additionally They also use bridging
techniques with both non-diegetic and diegetic sounds. Its
dominantly used when they will be showing an extract of a certain
topic e.g. what homosexuality was like in 1900’s and a voice will
begin to talk about their experience, then the next shot will be of
the person talking in a interview situation. This is done to have a
similar effect of the voiceover, its to help build the imagination of
the viewer so they have a greater understanding of what
homosexual life used to be like/still is.
6. Editing
• There is a use of montages throughout the entire
documentary. This editing technique is generally used
to represent the passing of time which has been done
in ‘How We Got Gay’. But unlike most montages there
is quite often a non-continuity to the time flow and
quite often switches from present day to 1900’s in a
randomised order. We believe the director has done
this to reflect the different life styles in these two
generations and represents how homosexuals are
treated now compared to before. The Non-continuity
also has a effect on the viewer as it disrupts the flow
of the extract which makes the montage more
noticeable.
7. Camerawork
• The first technique to identify would be the use of two shot. This
was primarily used to present the modern day homosexual life.
They composition of putting a homosexual couple in the centre of a
shot signifies that in modern day they are presented as equal
compared to shots of 1900’s where they were put to the side of a
shot or not together in a shot at all, they were quite often isolated
shots of the homosexual. This technique again reflects how
homosexuality was treated in different generations and implies that
it is more respected and accepted now than it was back then.
Additionally, the use of close up shots is quite often used when
showing extracts of interviewing or of the host speaking, we believe
the director has used this shot to focus on what the individual is
saying and to identify facial features more easily when talking about
a sensitive topic.
8. Stereotypes/representation
• The use of stereotypes or representation of sexuality doesn’t follow
the typical conventions. Instead of presenting homosexuals as
stereotypically weak, defenceless and often sharing feminine traits, its
actually presented in a more realistic format. Homosexuality is
presented differently depending on the generation, if they are talking
about 1900’s the sexual orientation is shown to be frowned upon, that
it was often treated as a disease and many people didn’t agree or even
hated people that where gay; this representation isn’t a stereotype
created by the documentary, it’s a true reflection of homosexual life at
that time. In terms of present day its presented as homosexuals being
a happy family and modern society accepting the sexual orientation,
now although this may not be true for every homosexual in modern
day society as homophobia still exists, the documentary focuses on the
comparison between the two generations so we feel that because of
this the representation of modern day homosexuality is more glorified
and doesn’t present its true representation.
