Analyzing Vice documentaries

Interview with a Cannibal

This vice documentary talks about a man called, Issei Sagawa, who murdered an innocent woman and for three days ate her flesh. The issue is addressed with an interview with Sagawa, where he is the main role talking to the camera, with no presenter or interviewer asking the questions. There are times when he looks directly at the camera, ie at 1:23, which makes the audience feel as if he is speaking to them individually, this can make it more engaging for them.The camera work and editing techniques are used very well to add graphics to portray what he done as he describes this over the picture shown, for example at 5:20. This opens up more information to the viewer. The music we hear at 5:16 starts to build up while he voice overs the graphics. This is good because it goes with what we're seeing and if the music had stayed at the same level throughout it wouldn't be as intensive. This build up ends with a series of images of the body parts at 5:25 and continuously builds up more and more as it goes through more pictures. This again makes the viewers feel disgusted at the crime, because the music is almost leading them to the dramatic end which makes it more engaging for them. Furthermore there is a picture of him shown at a young age at the point 0:16, this is with a voice over of him describing himself as being a 'not normal' person at that age. Also, the picture isn't just presented to us normally it is actually zoomed in first then out again to show us that he wasn't in fact normal.

Then there are pictures of him growing up and the voice over explains to us why he can't figure out what and who he is, saying that he doesn't even know this. He slowly explains to us how he had an urge to kill and this is how he thinks, this is followed by a picture of the girl that he murdered.The reaction an audience might give is they may feel sympathetic towards the girl, which isn't helpful now but this is how people usually feel when presented a shocking story like this one. At 2:01,there is footage from a news report of a French broadcaster reporting on what Sagawa did which completely changes the mood to something quite serious that the viewers will reflect upon. This is because when we first see him as he is sitting down and talking, it seems like a normal conversation, however once there is a news report about the issue we know that the way we think of him now is much worse. Whilst he speaks there are subtitles which are in English, this benefits us as the audience because we then know what is going on in the footage, which makes it easier for us to understand. Throughout the documentary we're kept engaged because of the way everything is set up, and the effects of the graphics, music and pictures which keeps us interested in the story. This way of telling a story in a documentary has been the best way of keeping your audience engaged and I have certainly been engaged. 

Bride Kidnapping in Kyrgyzstan

This documentary talks about the way men in rural Kyrgyzstan still marry their women the old-fashioned way, which is by abducting them off the street and forcing them to be their wife. Throughout the documentary we see a presenter who interviews the men that are going to kidnap the girl and follows them around in order to see why and how they execute the whole thing.We see at 16:32, the presenter is looking directly at the camera and talking. Which is good because the audience are being directly addressed , this is a technique often used in films where  characters may look and talk to the camera. 

The way the camera is held is demonstrated well from 12:26 to all the way through the car journey, where it is very jerky and unstable which reflects the events taking place, this makes the viewers feel uncomfortable. We see that from the men are preparing for the kidnapping at 12:16, that the pace of the music is rapid in order to help build up tension which makes viewers feel nervous and wanting to keep watching, this is a natural feeling as we are interested to know things when there is a build up to them first. The clip starts with a Kyrygzstan tradition of playing polo with a dead goat... this opens up an intro into what the country is like and to be familiar of their ways as it goes into more of the clip. The ending of the documentary is of the family wedding pictures being taken and the presenter shaking hands and congratulating the groom. We are given subtitles in English to help on what's going on more. In terms of the lighting, it stays to natural throughout, because as this is a real issue it is important to try and reflect this through the conventions as much as possible so that you don't mislead your audience into thinking this is not true and all a lie. In 3:04 there is a 'bride kidnapping expert' called Russel Kleinbach who is being interviewed by the presenter, this is a useful tool or source for exploring the topic well, this is because it makes the documentary have balance so that we're getting two sides of the story and not just the point of view of the presenter or people doing the kidnapping/involved with the topic. This gives the audience more knowledge on the topic from someone like an experts point of view. 

At 3:36 there is another interview but this time with a couple who are labelled the 'kidnapper' who is Madiev Tynchtyk who has kidnapped his now wife. She is Ormonva Elmira and is the 'kidnapee' they both talk about their experience of the tradition and what they think of it, there are close-ups