6Define the codes and conventions of the Documentary genre. You must demonstrate your understanding surrounding the issues of factual programming for television by comparing and contrasting 3-5 different documentaries Documentaries were first introduced in 1895, when a camera was created that took 50 shots of unedited footage. Since then the world of documentaries has changed and grown to a large extent, coving subjects from racism to nature. All over the world people are using documentaries to educate themselves on an array of subjects because they cover such a vast majority of topics. These factual films have been able to shape our world, from ‘Supersize me’ ridding McDonalds of their supersize option, to ‘Titicut Follies’ outing the outrageous treatment of mental institute patients and closing down inefficient mental hospital. Documentaries have made a huge impact on the world and have managed to inform the world on topics never before discussed. ‘You wont regret that tattoo’ is a mixture of a biographical documentary and expository documentary, since it offers little to no intervention from the creator of the documentary, but gives complete control to the participant when it comes to the content; the participants being left to themselves and allowed to tell their stories about a subject that the director has a strong opinion on. This type of genre really fits for this documentary because it doesn’t give the sense that the director is trying to force opinions onto the viewers, but instead gives the audience the chance to hear normal, everyday people’s opinions and views; even though the director is indirectly putting their opinion on you with the help of interviewing people with the same opinion as the director. Having this personal documentary is also a great way to help these people, who are clearly older, to try and dismiss the ideology that tattoos will age with you and become unsightly. The documentary is visually pleasing, due to the array of different shot types. The kind of shot types are usually head shots, which gives the feeling that you’re directly talking to you since it’s such a close shot. This is a good technique, since this kind of documentary wants to connect to the audience so that he topic of the documentary really makes an impact on them. That, along with the different cuts between people and their tattoos, really helps engage the viewer and also makes them feel more involved. There’s also a lack of background music whilst the participant is talking, which is not actually recognisable until you watch it again. This helps the audience focus on the words being said, as well as the meaning of their words. They don’t want to distract the viewers with unnecessary music, since the people talking have a point to get across. However, although this documentary doesn’t directly portray the director’s opinion on the topic, you still feel as if it’s bias since they haven’t included the opposite opinion in their video. It tries to paint a better picture of the topic by only including the side that is for tattoos, since otherwise it would defeat the purpose of them making a documentary. They try to make the participants come across as either vulnerable, thick skinned or independent; something that will create sympathy for them, and hopefully making the audience question their opinions on the situation. This technique is almost manipulating people, where as if there was a more balanced argument then there’s a bigger chance that there’s be a bigger range of opinions. If the documentary was to be shown from another perspective, such as ‘anti-tattoos’ then there’s a chance the audience would have a different outlook on them,
since they’d be influenced by the negative opinions on them. It shows how easy it is to manipulate someone’s opinions without directly doing so. ‘Bowling for Columbine’ has the same kind of feel as ‘you wont regret this tattoo’ did, since you can feel as if the director is making his opinion on the situation clear. This expository documentary speaks directly to the audience, trying to expose how gun control in America is ruining their country. There’s a mixture of opinions in this documentary, such as Charlton Heston, who believes that all citizens of America have the right to use guns as their source of safety. In one specific scene we’re able to hear the opinion of Marilyn Manson, and even Michael Moore himself, when both of them are sitting behind stage of Manson’s concert. They discuss their views on guy control, Manson answering questions with the help of Moore’s guidance. Although during this scene they switch between pro-gun people and antigun people, the ones against gun control are usually given better exposure. This is because they way it’s been edited and filmed, since he gives Marilyn Manson a chance to speak his views to Moor in a one-to-one environment, where as we see those who are against him, the religious right, speaking to crowds from podiums. This doesn’t give them a chance to connect to the audience directly, since they are in a totally different environment compared to Manson. He’s given the chance to connect to the audience and to get his points across, also whilst being well spoken and also having questions fed to him which almost mould his answers. However, the documentary has a useful purpose behind it, since the aim of it is to inform people about how America’s lack of gun control is putting their people in danger. By using a globally known story like the columbine school massacre, Moore’s able to express his concern for gun control whilst having valid evidence to back up his point. He manages to use his documentary to benefit people and even give closure to those effected by this controversial topic. He manages to have the bullets used in the school shooting banned, which is a just one step closer to what his main aim is; having more control of guns in America. The main problem in this documentary is that he’s bias throughout the whole piece, which means that it’s hard to agree when he’s making people out to be the bad guys with the use of footage manipulation and talking down to people against his own view. One example of when Michael Moore does this is in the bank, where they offer a gun with each account made. When being asked simple questions such as ‘have you ever admitted into a mental institution’ he makes jokes and also comes across as sarcastic, which manipulates the scene to make it look like the woman asking the questions is stupid. Yet, we knew that she legally has to ask these questions, even if the questions sound pointless. This just emphasizes the earlier point of pro-gun people having bad exposure in this documentary. ‘Through the gift shop’ is a totally different type of documentary, since it’s not trying to expose anything controversial, but is trying to inform people of the street artist world. This observational documentary watches a man filming the lives of world known street artists, following his experiences with the street art business throughout the whole process. It shows a mixture of events that go on when dealing with this form of art, showing just how dangerous the process of making art really can be when their canvas is the city.
This documentary flips between talking head and home footage which dates decades back, showing how the street art industry blew up so successfully and how this one man, Thierry Guetta, manages to keep a front row seat throughout this whole journey. There is one scene in this documentary where Banksy, a famous street artist, talks about a publicity stunt him and Thierry managed to pull in Disney land with the topic of Guantanamo bay. When talking about this they manage to flip between interviews and footage from the actual event, which really helps the audience experience the tension of the situation first hand. The only con to this documentary is that it’s bias to the topic and manages to manipulate the footage to make it out as if their opinion on street art is the right opinion. The way this is done is by showing famous street artists and their artwork, apart from including the more disliked side which is rushed graffiti. They don’t manage to talk about how this form of art can damage property and make things look untidy, instead they manipulate their footage to make it out as if what they’re doing isn’t illegal but is instead ‘public art’. They manage to do this with the use of voice over as well, since when they show footage of police approaching them they talk about how they believed they were in the right, instead of talking about the illegal side of the situation and how the police were doing their job. Although what most of them are doing is trying to contribute to controversial situations, they disregard the law. This is a problem in the documentary because it’s unintentionally supporting crime, however small, since they talk good of street art and how it can help people. They purposely ignore how it can effect other people, which is why they’ve edited the footage together this way. ‘Cropsey’ is unlike any of the other documentaries, since it’s based on a New York wives’ tale that linked perfectly to a serial killer from Staten island. This expository documentary takes us through a journey of how police managed to catch possible serial killer Andre Rand and how the case fit perfectly to an old myth about an escapee mental patient who kidnapped children. Throughout the whole documentary the directors involve themselves as much as possible, since this tale was a huge art in their lives; possibly manipulating their opinion on the situation. Throughout the whole documentary they reference back to older footage from when the whole ordeal happened, as well as to help them explain points. What this does is help us understand how people reacted to this situation and handled it back then, which really helps us see how even during a short period of time the justice system has changed. What this also manages to do is make this a more bias piece, since they reference back to people involved with the case, who believe that Rand was the killer. They do, however, use footage from when willowbrook state school was exposed to help the viewers understand how it was for Andre Rand when growing up, and how this shaped his future. Because of this mental health background, they suggest that he was discriminated against at the time of prosecution. This documentary also manages to use the viewers fear against them, using naivety to their strength. The way they do this is by including footage from old abandoned mental asylums and disturbing scenes from mental asylums from the past to bring out fear in people, urging them to watch on. There is one scene in the documentary when the two directors go to the mental asylum supposedly haunted by ‘Cropsey’. The way this is filmed creates a kind of adrenalin rush, since they want to create fear in the audience. They’ve found demonic and satanic symbols,
so what they want from the audience is the assumption that whoever did this is still in the building. This almost feels like a staged part, like a horror film, which means they’ve manipulated footage and made the documentary less dependable for factual evidence and opinions. However, this is also a clever way of keeping the audience interested, since the whole documentary is very melancholy, so by adding this scene of excitement it engages the audience and helps them invest in the documentary even more than before. One last documentary that shows bias, just like Cropsey, is ‘Biggie and Tupac’. This rockumentary directed by Nick Broomfield follows the events leading up to and after the deaths of two rap icons, Biggie smalls and Tupac Shakur. This controversial and unanswered case is presented in a way where people’s opinions have been stated as facts, as well as footage being manipulated in a way where we can see Broomfield being bias against Tupac, trying to show biggie smalls in a better light. There is one scene where we can see this happening, which is when he uses older footage of the two rappers talking. There is an obvious contrast in location, as well as attitude when looking at the interactions. Biggie smalls can be seen relaxing in a quiet area in some kind of park, which is a totally different environment next to Tupac when he has been mobbed by people on the way to a car, shouting obscene language and spitting into the crowd. Although the actual actions of Tupac in this footage helps back up Broomfield’s point of Tupac being outrageous, it also shows how bias the documentary is since Tupac has also had the one to one kind of interviews previously that would have been in the same manner as the biggie interview shown. That piece of footage has been chosen to try and bring the audience on board with Broomfield’s opinion of Tupac, since the reason behind the two’s death is still unknown and people have the urge for an answer behind these things so by doing something like this is helps people gather a clearer opinion on the situation; this time the opinion being the one of Broomfield’s. His lack of empirical facts also dubs this piece bias, since throughout the whole documentary there are only speculations. There are no real facts behind the whole ordeal, hence the reason it’s a controversial topic. Documentaries are built upon facts, where as this one is more of a game of guess who, meaning any kind of opinion made from this situation is bias since it’s being based off of what they previously knew of the two rappers. Conspiracy theories build the ideas for this documentary, since the facts behind the situation are still a mystery and the only way to make out anything from this is to assume. Once example of this is the Suge Knight conspiracy theory, in which it’s believed that he staged the two murders to look like a drive by. Many people in the documentary voiced this opinion, such as Rafael Perez, who claimed that suge wanted to get rid of them due to money. These, however, are not 100%factual which means that it has automatically become a bias piece. Accuracy needs to be the main thing about a documentary, which Broomfield has not been able to do because of the lack of facts. These different styles of documentaries cover a vast range of topics, using unethical actions such as visiting prisons and grieving families to try and gather the best content for their documentaries. I think the main issue with documentaries is that they will never be completely factual, since the footage they have is set up or from one side of a story with many different views. There’s no chance of getting the full truth behind these because they
are unintentionally staged for the viewer’s purpose. Controversial topics that shouldn’t be touched upon are opened by people who are most of the time not ready to deal with such a big topic and manage to make a mess of it, which we see with nick Broomfield’s attempt on documenting the biggie and Tupac murder. Documentaries attempt to spread facts upon a specific topic but never manage to do so to their full potential.