.

1. AndreasMina
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODik6r6z7YY Swedishroads
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnZbxDcgmUA LicenceTokill
Final Theory Task
My documentary is a representation of young drivers on our roads today. I have written the
script showing how the young drivers differ from older experienced drivers and given them
a negative representation. This representation is presented by comparing their performance
against older drivers and explaining their faults and their driving ability. Looking at various
websites with facts, figures and percentages, most young drivers were negatively
represented by the statistics as bad drivers.
This presentation is to show the audience how young drivers tend to be portrayed in a
negative way and how they suffer with the cost of insurance and peoples attitude towards
their driving.
The context of my work is a viewpoint of young drivers on our roads today and how they
present themselves and also the individual presenting the documentary who also is a
learner driver.
The time relates to the type of young drivers in today’s society, the individual is the learner
driver as the host and the different age groups are noted for their opinions. This was to
show how they think and how it relates to the information given at the beginning of the
video.
With the ethical and language side of representation, I did not include any content that
showed anger or any offensive representations, as the argument is concluded at the end.
The documentary also presents good young drivers are not being treated fairly when it
comes insurance and the opinions of older drivers as it is shown even though they are more
aware of speed limits compared to the older generation. This balances out the argument so
that young drivers are not completely represented as careless.
There is no bad language used in the documentary, but there are forceful words used to
describe young drivers. The video describes young drivers as over confident, oblivious, risk
takers and show offs. This wording is used to highlight the typical young driver actions
behind a steering wheel.
Like the shows “The mighty Redcar”, “Benefits street” and “Skint” they all go under the
same category of poverty porn, but they all have different representations of the category.
Redcar portrays the locals trying to be successful, Benefits street shows what the locals are
doing in general and Skint shows some of the locals fall into the life of crime. This shows
how the same genre can have different aims. This all relates to my documentary as I have

2. AndreasMina
had the option to defend the young drivers, but I instead I have decided to go with the facts
and show they have the opportunity to improve their driving skills.
My documentary can be classed as objective. As it show both sides to the subject. It covers
what the young drivers do wrong and what they do better than elder drivers. It also covers a
third argument, which is how they can prove themselves as good drivers by having a
telemetric systemfitted to the car (black box). At the same time it does show the drivers in
a more negative way more negative way than positive, as there are more details on the
video showing them to be bad.
As with the Redcar documentary for example, we have no knowledge of what has been
edited out of the documentary to change the context of the situation, as some of the stories
could have been cut to change what’s going on. With my documentary, only one section of a
quote had been cut in one of the interviewee’s statement as it was irrelevant to the topic.
The interviewee talked about the gender difference in insurance, which would have been
unnecessary, fill up time and its removal didn’t change the context of the quote.
The documentary informs the audience that young drivers insurance is high due to the facts
being presented and also provides driving information and statistics showing this to be true.
Evidence has been presented in the video to show the documentary’s reliability and
authenticity for the truth.
The Amy Winehouse documentary showed it to be factual by showing real life footage,
images and includes interviews from her loved ones and friends. There always tends to be a
bias in this form documentary. This documentary showed how she was the victim in her
death as others contributed to her demise.
With shows like Benefits street, it only focuses on their daily lives, with no conclusion to
their situation. With my documentary, an opinion is given and also there is a conclusion to
the subject.
The documentary licence to kill portrayed young drivers in a negative way, by interviewing
drivers that caused major crashes. This documentary’s intention seemed to be to scare the
audience rather than inform them, as they start to describe distressing circumstances. In my
opinion, the makers of this documentary had taken a pessimistic view of the subject, so I
decided to take on the same topic as licence to kill, but talk about the issues in a more
positive way. I didn’t talk about real life stories or go into too much detail about the car
crash rate, as I believe that it may have caused the audience to stop tuning into the
depressing information. I do still think the licence to kill documentary is good, but they have
a different way of explaining the topic unlike mine. Their show is made in the same era as
mine, as its published in 2013, meaning that it would be based of similar types of drivers.
The presenter is a car crash victim, so that will create an individual bias against the subject,

3. AndreasMina
as she will say what’s wrong with young drivers based on experience. This makes the
documentary seemmore personal, and more truthful to the information.
Licence to kill and my documentary have some similarities in hosting as she is a crash victim
explaining her situation and I am a learner driver explaining my situation with high
insurance.
Another documentary which has a similar topic to mine is How Sweden Nailed Road Safety.
This covers how Sweden has improved its road safety from over the years. This
documentary has backed up its information with facts and figures. This gives the audience a
better idea of what’s being improved. My documentary also backs its facts up with figures
as this makes it seem more reliable and better sourced information to the audience.
The documentary has a bias for Sweden’s improved road system. It talks about switching to
the right hand side of the road had improved the road system and not mention any negative
facts or that they had a failed in a public
referendum to switch to the right hand
side of the road.
For the style of my Documentary, I had
watched some documentaries to see
what their presenting style was and
noticed that some had talked about their
topics, but didn’t go into so much detail. I found certain documentaries to be more
interesting as I never got bored with hearing the same subject in the topic, as a new fact
suddenly came along. I took that style of presenting into my documentary as I said one fact
and then gave a small explanation then moved on. This style worked as it fitted so much
information in such a small time.
For context, I had researched into websites that showed facts and figures, so I can show an
example of the subject in the topic. I also researched into the driving abilities of young
drivers. This allowed me to show explain the topic rather than describe it.
I’m going to compare my work to the Swedish road change mini
documentary, as I believe there are certain similarities and
differences with the two and they both include creative
animations that relate to their individual topics.
The Swedish Documentary showed a graph which appears on a
road, but I show keywords that appear from a road sign. This is
a creative way to show the information and also keeps the
audience intrigued with the documentaries, as they are seeing

4. AndreasMina
something creative. The documentaries also show examples of what is being talked about.
The Swedish video provides animations and past clips to show examples of their
information, whereas I show it through images and also animations. This provides a better
image to the audience of the example being explained. It also makes the audience want to
continue watching the video to see what other examples will be presented.
The Swedish documentary uses black and white and colour graphics to fit the 60s theme,
whilst my documentary uses colour which is more eye catching to watch, amusing and
brings the video to the present time.
There is also only a commentary audio for the Swedish video with no presenter, whilst I
have produced a mix of both commentary and presenting. The presenter in my
documentary is there so that the host can say his point of view on the topic and to introduce
the next segment. The Swedish documentary doesn’t really need a presenter as their
intention is more on presenting the statistics and showing us past infomation. They do not
need to show a presenter talking to the camera, as it is irrelevant to the theme.
The structure of the two documentaries tell their topics in separate ways. The Swedish
documentary states a positive note saying how Sweden now has an improved safety record
when it comes to their drivers, compared with the high car crash rates in the 60s. It then
states how the issue had improved by making drivers drive on the right hand side of the
road which made a positive difference to Sweden road safety record. My video starts with
the point that insurance is high for young drivers, to which it explains why that’s the case. It
ends with an opinionated conclusion stating that the black box isn’t rewarding young drivers
for good driving.
Both videos have different structures as the conclusion for the Swedish Video is given at the
start of the documentary, which talks through the process of how it got to the conclusion.
My documentary has its conclusion at the end of the video as you need to watch the whole
documentary to see what the outcome will be with regards to young drivers.
The representation of the two subjects are shown in separate ways with similar outcomes.
The Swedish documentary shows clips of police cars diverting traffic to the other side of the
road. That clip could have deleted shots of drivers getting angry or crashing into each other.
This Video portrays Sweden’s new project to be a perfect success by showing cars diverting
without any issue. My Video doesn’t hide any footag but shows young drivers to be
dangerous on the road. I show their crash rates and their typical behaviour on the road. This
representation of young drivers shows the audience why their insurance is typically high.