This document analyzes screenshots from a documentary. It summarizes the purpose and conventions used for each shot. Shot 1 introduces an expert in her field with a caption to inform viewers. Shot 2 similarly features an expert situated in front of imagery of his field. Shot 3 uses color to depict unfamiliar statistics and mirrors them with a long shot. Later shots establish characters' behaviors and environments through lighting and mise-en-scene elements. Vox pops interview subjects in close-up with dark lighting to show their lack of knowledge. Cutaways with voiceover illustrate the passage of time. The shots aim to enlighten viewers, use experts to seem credible, and represent reality, though some set ups prioritize the desired narrative.

1. Analysis of screen shots from
documentary

2. • To conform to the conventions of an investigative documentary we had a medium
shot of Ms Lewis in a bright setting to show that she is in her specialist area of
knowledge. This conforms to documentary conventions as we are trying to
enlighten our audience. By having an expert we are also trying to make our
documentary more informative and realistic. The caption is conventional in a
documentary as it it informs the audience as to who is talking in shot. We added
the microscope in the left hand corner of the screen to highlight her profession.

3. • Picture 5 is a shot of one of our interviewee’s in our documentary. To conform to the
conventions of an investigative documentary we had a medium shot of Dr. McAuley. By him
sitting in front of a board at an angle, which has an image of a brain to show his
profession, we give the impression that he is in his area of expertise. This conforms to
documentary conventions as we are trying to enlighten our audience. Also, by having an
expert it makes us more believable. The lighting of the shot is quite warm which highlights
enlightenment however, colder light would have conformed to the theme of scientific
reason (similar to Ms Lewis) and after looking back, this may have been a better choice.
• The caption is conventional in a documentary as it it informs the audience as to who is
talking in shot. We added the brain in the left hand corner of the screen to again, to
highlight his profession, but to also make it seem more fun and daring as it is quite comical.
It almost subverts the seriousness of the scientific element but adds a bold element to the
screen.

4. • Shot 3 is one of our statistics in our documentary. We changed the
colour of the shot to show a difference in types of shots. This colored
glow shows how alien the information is to the viewer as they are
unaware of this type of statistic. A long shot of the two people on their
phones conforms to the conventions of documentary as it mirrors what
is said in the statistic. It also emphasizes what we are trying to get across
to the audience. This conforms to expository documentary conventions
as we have the voiceover running over this shot again to exaggerate
what he is saying and illustrate what is being talked about.

5. At the end of the documentary we have a close up shot of Ali talking to the camera. This is the
beginning of the next stage of our documentary narrative as he begins to take all the information
he has discovered and see if it affects himself. By having warm lighting it creates a homely feel, as
this is the current setting. The mis-en-scene supports this as he is clearly in his bedroom, his own
environment with things the way he likes them. This shows that we are telling the truth in our
film and not showing the audience what we want them to see. The shaky camera work conforms
to the participatory documentary conventions because often, when the documentary maker
wants the viewer to feel that they are apart of the film, it is more realistic. It is also more
authentic, as it not staged. Dziga Vertov would call this ‘life as it is’ (life filmed surreptititiosly)
meaning we are filming how he is there and then.

6. 985dr
These establishing shots help to contribute to the narrative of the
documentary as it allows us to get an insight into Kyreece’s behaviour. These
shots are not very truthful to the audience as we set up the mis-en-scene to
help make Kyreece’s ‘addiction’ seem bigger than it really is(placing the
laptop in front of the tv, Kyreece is on a mobile). This raises ethical issues of
representing reality, as we have set up this shot so it shows what we want it
to show. By again, having the lighting to be quite warm (similar to Ali’s close
up shot), it creates a homely feel and environment. Also, by having the light
from all the different technologies more dominant than that of the room
light, it shows how they are more in focus and appeals to the eye. This
conforms to a expository documentary as during these shots we have a
voiceover, or “voice of God” per say, to illustrate what is happening for the
audience.

7. During our documentary we do a series of vox pops of the public to find out
what dopamine is. By having close up shots of the interviewee’s it conforms
to expository documentary as they always have documentary interviews. The
dark lighting shows how the interviewee have no clear idea as to what
Dopmaine is and therefore mirrors their ideas. The mis-en-scene conforms to
the ethics of representing reality as it is clearly a busy street with cars, buses
and people talking in the background. Again, this keeps the authenticity of
the vox pops. There were ethical issues with the vox pops as we had to get
consent from the people in order to film or else it would have been against
their will.

8. By using cutaways they help to tell the narrative of the documentary.
A voiceover has been played on top to show the passing of time and
illustrate what is going on. The bright lighting shows that the
voiceover is enlightening the audience as it is explaining what is going
to happen next. The long shots of the people and the buses again
show a representation of realism.