Throughout the documentary many things are discussed which derive from the topic pf make-up, for instance Connie goes to a centre where people are learning how to become beauticians. She discusses with an expert who is an evolutionary psychologist (Dr Lance Workman), that women only wear make-up to impress men. He tells her that when girls go out and where make-up they're doing so in order to show men that they're fertile and this apparently makes men want to talk to them, as he is an expert in that field he can offer us some factual information which will help us understand the topic. If the film maker had just interviewed anyone, it wouldn't be necessarily true because a normal person wouldn't have accurate facts, they would simply answer based on their personal opinion which of course means that the audience are not getting the correct information.
Another way we were shown accuracy with facts, is through data collecting. For this we saw a professor at Bangor University, who along with students carried out a large study to find out how much make-up men and women found to be attractive. This is an effective way of showing your audience an accurate take to the topic, because a study is like primary research which is the best way showing facts.
This is beneficial because it makes the issue raised more valid, and reliable to a viewer. The director may benefit because when talking about the issue with facts there is no counter argument and so no one can object to what they have said making their argument strong.
Again, the film maker interviews Dr Yan Wu, a lady who is researching the relationship between the beauty industry and the media. This is a good source because using by her findings to form our own opinions, it doesn't feel like we're just regurgitating other peoples opinions and that facts are allowing us to determine or assure ourselves of what is right.
Therefore although Connie is giving us her view and opinion, we are assured by the facts we get from the various interviews she carries out.
Balance is where you show both sides of an argument, weighing up both sides and making sure that you are not being one-sided at all. This helps your audience understand the topic from both angles and make their own decisions or give their own opinions. The benefit of this is that you get to see two sides of a story, so it is less bias and this is in most cases the fairest way of delivering an issue. The example I will use is from the TV show 'Questions Time' which shows a clear balance in the way it addresses the issues discussed in each episode.
Impartiality is similar to bias where the filmmaker doesn't take sides on an issue and remains on the fence. A good example of a documentary which shows us how a filmmaker can stay on the fence is the show 'The Big Question' where the topic is about Islam and British Values. Throughout the programme we see impartiality where the presenter is asking various people on what they think about the issue of a British version of Islam. Muslim activists and theologians, social academic activists and campaigners, who all are asked questions on the issue and answer them so the audience get a varied spread out range of opinions. This is good because then they get to make their minds up on the issue and make their own decisions without the influence of the presenter had he not been impartial.
Throughout the show we see the presenter asking different people questions to different people, as he asks each person what they think of the topic he moves on to someone else who counter argues that person. This is why it is an impartial show, and when each person gets to voice their opinion, it makes the presenter sit on the fence with the topic. Viewers watching this will not be influenced by the presenter because he is simply questioning the audience, and therefore when everyone gives their argument it allows the audience to make their own decisions.
Objectivity means that the filmmaker is looking in from the outside, this is where they are not part of the conflict or issue. This is often seen in documentaries as a way of letting the audience understand the highlighted issue for themselves, so that they can make their minds up about it.
This documentary called 'Young, British and Angry' is about a filmmaker trying to find out why the multicultural is diminishing. Throughout the documentary he remains objective to the issue as he follows the EDL and the protests that take place. I know he is being objective through his mode of addressing the different members of EDL, he talks about what he has found out about the EDL which was that they're not a racist group. We also don't see him getting involved with the protest, which implies that he is just looking the from outside, this tells us that he may be a peaceful person. This also allows the audience to see what is happening through the wider subjects, which are the EDL.
Also, this documentary is called 'Young, British and Angry' we see elements which show us that the majority are white however, we also see a black male and an asian man which tells us that this isn't just about British people and other races are involved too. Does this mean that the representation of white people is unfair and the title is misleading?
The representation of the people shown in this documentary is very violent and aggressive, the majority of the participants in the protest were shouting racist comments, swearing and one person made monkey noises to a black man. This contradicts what they say however, as we here them saying they're not racist at all. They have ambassadors and stewards who are there to make sure that the protest isn't causing trouble and instead peacefully protesting, although this represents them as organised, considerate people, through the violence we see it is a completely different to what they say they're going to do.
Opinion in a documentary is important because it helps the filmmaker show the audience their take on an issue which is to their benefit. This cannot be backed with facts because it is their personal view of the issue. However, and opinion doesn't always mean that the documentary will be good and cover the topic well. This is also a reinforcement of their interest in the particular topic. This is a documentary about the king of pop Michael Jackson , more particularly talking about his face. Right from the beginning we are given the impression that the filmmaker is quite judgmental in his opinion of Michael's face, this is shown where at 3:37 there is an interview with a psychologist and face expert called Eileen Bradbury, where she talks about Michael's face being an example to the world of how not to play with your natural face. This is an opinion which obviously goes against the singers belief and judges what he saw as being a good thing to be a big mistake. In the second clip of the documentary, we here about the allegations that were made against Michael Jackson claiming he molested a young child. At the point 6:58 the director for Michael's song 'Black or White' gives us his opinion on the allegations, saying he completely disagrees with them and thinks they were made to ruin Michael's name and career. This is obviously a strong bias opinion and the audience are questioning whether it is all true or false, seeing that his director for 'Black or White' has worked alongside him and therefore knows about his personality and mind frame. This makes the topic debatable and questionable by the audience.
Bias is where the filmmaker is prejudice to the issue and keeps to one side. This can be because the filmmaker doesn't feel there is another argument to pose, this however can cause problems because being bias can sometimes lead you into false judgement's and statements which could offend people. The example that I will use is the documentary called 'Super Size Me', this is a documentary from the USA which talks about how unhealthy fast food and takeaways can be. Throughout the documentary we're given facts through statistics which makes up the whole show. Thus the documentary is bias as they only focus on how bad the fast food is for someones health, leaving the other side which is whether this food type can actually have some benefits to your health. The filmmaker may have wanted to be bias in order to make people aware of how fatty fast food could be instead of discussing alternative suggestions or when it is perhaps acceptable to eat too. To begin, a bias opinion is first given at the point 0:54 right at the beginning of the documentary where we see a group of young children signing a song about chicken and how much American's like food. This immediately portrays to the audience the message that the filmmaker wanted to start off with it also creates a representation of American's being overweight by eating the 'Kentucky fried chicken and pizza hut' , the audience are captured by this and it can also be seen as a fat shaming song towards fat people. Another thing which shows the filmmakers bias opinion is the facts and statistics which follow on, these inform us about many things relating to the filmmakers
Representation- The way individuals or groups of people are represented in documentaries relies on the way they are portrayed by the filmmaker. This could be done through showing pictures of them, or any document that belongs to them in some way. This documentary called ' London Gang Culture' talks about the gang life and the nature of gang life in England, the people represented here were the black minority groups of London who are involved with gang culture.
Throughout the documentary there are many things which make us understand why the representation of the black people featured is what it is, and how the audience may interpret this. Firstly, the first black person we're introduced to is the victim of a gun crime, Marcus Cox for which he got shot. We're told that he was a ''prominent member of a London gang'' and he has had a long run of criminal history, which started when he was only 11 years of age, which automatically makes our impression of him very bad and his representation is shown to be a not so good one. The way black people are represented is also shown through evidence from a crime scene, by photos. The film maker then says that there is an elite squad called 'TRIDENT' that are created to deal with just black on black crime, and the black community. This shows us that clearly black peoples (criminals) activities are monitored well and a close eye is kept on them, another thing which proves their representation is the statistics given to us, '70% of London's shootings are between members of the black community'. This statistic will shock the audience as it is really high and way above the half way point, which tells them that black people are clearly an impact on London and some may say even a problem.
When talking to a detective inspector in Trident, he talks about what his work will involve in respect to the murder of Marcus Cox, saying that the victim is a 'typical trident victim' which again tells the audience that this organisation has dealt with a number of black gunman or victims who
Another way someone could be represented is through the clothes they wear or how they present themselves. When showing a black person we hear the film maker talk about guns showing us pictures of guns they carry, and to the left is a picture we're shown of two boys playing around with a gun, this instantly makes us think of black people as reckless careless people who don't care about life. 
However, the picture below is of a lady called Decima who is a Trident independent advisor, she is shown talking and advising the young black children in an anti-gun conference organised to help young children who may be tempted by drugs, money and guns. She is a black person, but is represented in a different light, where she is trying to give the young children the best advice so that they don't become reckless, careless people or end up dead as a result of a crime. The impression the audience get of her is a peaceful, liberal women who does care about the lives of others and is doing something about it. This then tells us that although so far we have been fed with negativity about black people in London, there are actually others who are positive. Access
The filmmaker must get permission to access for filming a person or place, before going ahead and filming anything. For this they require written permission that they can go head, almost a confirmation, this is similar to release forms. Everything that is documented essentially needs to have granted access, some example include the documentary 'One Born Every Minute' where a camera crew films inside a maternity ward, with pregnant women are giving birth.This is important because you're accessing someone's private life and so they have the right to give permission of whether or not they want to be filmed.
Privacy
Privacy is when the media interferes with a person/companies personal life, they may do this through showing personal pictures of them or past
Someone's privacy is not always revealed for the wrong reasons however, as shown in the documentary below called 'When Kate Met William' I have watched this documentary yesterday and they say on various points that the paparazzi were invading the lives of the royal family, especially on occasions such as when William was born , when Princess Diana split up with her partner and when she died and when Kate and William first got to know each other in St.Andrews University. It was also mentioned that Princess Diana was the most photographed women in the world.
Contract with the viewer
A contract with the viewer is when the filmmaker has to show content that includes ; honesty, engagement and accuracy. If this is not performed then the viewer can sue the media company who have basically lied to them with myths that are untrue.
No comments:
Post a Comment