“Define 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 35 different documentaries”. Documentaries are movies that capture reality, they are often produced to reveal factual information about different topics from an unusual or unknown angle. Documentary filmmakers are motivated to create a documentary as they feel a particular story or viewpoint is not being covered by the media in the correct way. This is portrayed through the use of images, archive footage, statistics, interviews and artefacts. Documentaries have any different sub genres, to convey different views and emotions to their audiences about certain pieces of information while watching the documentary for example expository, observational, personal, interactive’. Documentary such as ‘Amy’, ‘Bowling for Columbine’ and ‘Supersize me’ all have different codes and conventions to make them a successful movie. Amy documentary by Asif Kapadia was an expository and personal documentary as the focus was on telling the story of Amy’s life journey; it speaks directly to the viewer to get across different point of views. The target audience for this documentary is anyone who likes Amy Winehouse, but it suitable to the older generation due to the content in the documentary. It was very emotionally attaching and was different to the previously watched documentaries are different techniques were used, the feature that made this documentary stand out was the fact there was no presenter present at any time, it was solely constructed of on camera interviews, audio from interviews and archive footage from video cameras, mobile phones and TV shows. There is no narration, however Amy’s lyrics tell the story, and they appear onscreen in a handwritten font. This is to emphasise the fact that these words are what Amy wrote and were what she was feeling at the time. Throughout the whole thing you feel that Amy was telling her story as if she was still alive. Asif has a very clever way of editing the clips together to tell to story of her life. From the start the audience are hooked as it opens with a clip of Amy when she was just a teenager, I believe he included footage of Amy as a child at the start as it was the beginning of her story and from that moment we see how her life spiralled out of control. Us as an audience feel very emotionally attached to her story as we can hear her voice and the voice of her loved ones, images and videos are shown of her throughout different stages of her life, before she was even famous, this triggers emotion as we subconsciously know that she’s not with us anymore due to her tragic death. It adds to the story as it leaves the burning question in our minds ‘what is simply just ‘fame’ that resulted in her death or was it the other factors the documentary is suggesting. The other factors are Blake Fielder- Civil, who introduces her to heroin and as said by Amy in the documentary taught her that “life is short”. At the time of Amy’s death, the press blamed Blake for her death but this documentary shows all the possible sides to get death and uncovers ideas people never even thought about. Throughout the documentary it is insinuated that Amy’s dad Mitch played a part in her dead, as he keeps making her do performs when she needed to go to rehab. One of Amy’s song goes by the title ‘rehab’ and it is played in the documentary the lyrics are ‘I ain’t got the time and if my daddy thinks I’m fine’ the documentary plays on this and paints Mitch in a negative light which had many ethical issues due to the fact the information given wasn’t true and has affected the life of Amy’s mum and dad after Mitch quotes: ‘It was a disgrace, they are trying to portray me in the worst possible light’. I believe the directors personal opinion comes across slightly however it’s nothing in comparison to other film makers for example Louis Theroux, as his opinions are voiced whereas in this case it’s just through the way the clips are edited yet this cannot be proven as it’s not his own words. The documentary isn’t biased however; all the information given is from different people’s views therefore there is no facts behind them it’s all opinion. Amy’s dad was only portrayed negatively due to the sources like Amy’s songs and the opinions of other people hence there was no accuracy to the information presented. Bowling for Columbine is an interactive documentary as the filmmaker is engaging with the audience with past events, they use witnesses and experts to give more information of the event that’s taken place along with archive footage. Like we see in the documentary the content is based primarily on interviews, to get specific information, therefore the filmmaker puts the interviewee on the spot so their initial reaction is filmed. At the beginning of the documentary the filmmaker Michael Moore comes across very confident, he knows exactly what his doing and his going to take us on a journey. He starts by investigating some of the gun laws in America, and visits a bank that advertises that if you open an account with them you will receive a free gun, where he makes the comment ‘don’t you think it’s a little dangerous to hang guns up in a bank’. His initial sarcastic tone introduces him in a humours light, he makes sarcastic comments on how easy it is for American’s to own a gun, from this moment we form a relationship with him and begin to trust what he is saying. Michael is the main person on screen through the documentary and holds the documentary together as he interviews everyone and investigates for himself what really happened on the day of bowling for columbine. While interviewing each person Michael gives his heartfelt opinion of certain matter relating to gun violence. He does this to get his point across in a strong manner and get to the bottom of why the United States has such a high rate of gun related crimes than any other nation. Michael’s own opinion comes across in the documentary, sometimes coming across as bias due to the fact his questions are straight to the point, and shock the interviewees making them hesitate in answering however receiving the most truthful answers. This is shown in the documentary when he confronts Heston with
a photo of a child who got killed by a gun. Heston walks out of the interview as he doesn’t know how to react, the camera crew then follow Heston out of the room and show him in a weak light, he turns around and looks directly in camera somewhat seeing the errors of his actions. Even though Michael controls the questioning and gives everyone a chance to tell their side to the story, he edited the clips to how he wants certain people to be reflected. For example, his interview with Marilyn Manson is totally different to Heston’s interview, in my opinion the relationship between was very friendly, although Moore wanted to find out information he didn’t pressure Manson. It was a very calm and enclosed environment and it feel very personal however it also was like Manson was speaking to the nation through Moore. The interview challenges Manson’s stereotype and changes our view on the situation. He tries to stay away from stereotypical views however I believe this is hard for him to portray as Michael himself, is from Michigan, American. He sees guns is a negative light from the start due to the fact he hears about daily gun violence, therefore, audiences that live in countries were guns are illegal find it very hard to emphasise with what he is talking about as we don’t understand why guns are even aloud, whereas a person like Michael has accepted the fact that guns are legal and is very sarcastic about the situation. Through the documentary the mood of the day of bowling for columbine is constantly set and referred too, the documentary starts with ‘It was a typical morning in America’ it instantly sets the scene and paints as imagine in our head, as the day of the shooting was just a normal day and it bring back the shock factor of the day, the target audience of this documentary is the general population, especially those who are moderate and do not have strong views towards gun ownership. Archive footage and voiceovers are shown throughout. For example, when he visited the school to speak to one of the teachers that witnessed the shooting, he played back a recording from the massacre; this gives the audience as insight to what it was actually like on that day. It gets us thinking as until this moment it’s like the audience were is disbelief and this powerful scene makes it a reality. Like the Amy documentary Michael hits at ideas without actually stating them and shows them different views of the situation for example, while a school teacher is reminiscing about the tragedy, the background music plays Charlton Heston saying “I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands” this quote implies that his pro-gun rallies are one of the causes for gun violence, and that gun violence was influenced by him therefore paints him in a negative light. His doesn’t actually state this therefore he puts the viewers in the position to determine their own point of view and come to their own conclusion. This documentary purpose in different to others for example the Amy documentary as Michael is trying to achieve a goal he is not only getting to the bottom of why American’s use guns but he wasn’t to help ban guns in America which is exactly what happens at the end of the documentary. His documentary is also fly on the wall, as the camera follows his around and films waiting for the action to take place I believe this adds to the documentary as we see what is actually doing to prevent gun crimes and we see how hard it is for something to be done about it. We feel like we are genuinely on the journey with Michael and due to his persistent questioning it helps to crack down on the freedoms of gun ownership aiming to pretend massacres like the one in Columbine and the end result was there bullets were no longer to be sold. Furthermore, Super Sized me by independent filmmaker Morgan Spurlock is a personal and observational as the camera man follow the person around to observe the events that happen in Morgan’s life, they follow him through his day, everything you see and hear exactly happened, therefore the audience can determined their opinion on the scene. Morgan is the authority in this documentary; he acts as the ‘voice of god’ in the form of voiceovers, in order to interpret the material we are watching. We expected to trust the narration; it also acts as an anchor for the visuals. The narration is the exposition, the argument behind the documentary provides the structure of the film/ Morgan Spurlock divides his documentary into sections, and each one addresses a different factor for his argument. This film also contains captions to show information, titles, number of days and shows facts and statistics throughout. Morgan’s point of view is apparent from the start, it is simplified for all audiences to understand, as the target audience for this documentary is so wide, in my opinion it is more for parents, thought that are conscious about their health or want to get more details on the effect fast food is having on the others around them possibly their children. Morgan makes it clear that even though his diet is tested with McDonalds, it is not the only fast food company that creates the problem of obesity in America. I believe that Morgan isn’t biased due to the fact most of the opinions that are voiced are backed up with evidence. He is simply trying to prove a point and statistics show that more than 80% of meals are now eaten out of the house and Morgan wants to get to the bottom of why this is and why America has the highest rate of obesity. However, in my opinion the film really emphasises the problem McDonalds has on obesity and not any other fast food industry. Morgan blames the health problem more on this than the responsibility of the general public, if people are eating McDonalds are not exercising and getting other nutrition this is going to lead to serious health risks go matter what you eat. Throughout the documentary Morgan uses animation, for example when they are showing the types of health risks to obesity. I believe Morgan used animation to grab the audience attention as it gives the audience a break from the intense feeling from say watching the interview with the doctors. It becomes simpler for the audience to understand. The images are cartoons and could be seen in a humours light, in my opinion they have done this to get the point across that these health risks are far from funny and due to the way fast food is advertised to makes s believe that it is, therefore people need to start taking obesity more seriously. Cartoons are not present in the other documentaries due to the fact both ‘Amy’
and ‘Bowling for Columbine are documentaries on past events and around the topic of death, therefore they use archive footage and are more serious due to the nature of the topic. Morgan Spurlock uses many different types of interviews, I believe he does this for effect depending on the effect and relevant it has to argument that he is trying to get across. He used shots of him and his medical personal speaking about how the fast food is affecting his health, this is a very causal chat however we feel there with Morgan, like we are going through this experience with them. He also uses talking head interviews when interviewing the Surgeons, this is done so we are more focused on what that one person is saying, we also believe the information being given, as we can see their body language and expressions, it adds accuracy to the film. They also do this when interviewing employees of McDonalds and other industries, i believe this creates a certain mood within the documentary as we get the interviewees initial response, and we see how they try to avoid certain questions that are being asked which leaves the audience the impression that McDonalds know what they’re doing is in the wrong, and like the preview spoken about documentaries Morgan is not stating that McDonalds are hiding something but the way it is filmed and edited together makes us think there is. He also used fly on the wall, as he interviews the general public on the street, for example when he meets a man who eats a Big Mac every day without fail, by producing these types of interviews it shows real people’s life’s and there’s nothing over exposed about it, it’s raw footage that everyone can relate too. To conclude, Michael Moore and Asif Kapadia have a similar style of film-making due to the fact they both want to build a strong relationship with their audiences to do this they need to gain there trust, both of the documentaries show irrelevant footage for example; clips of people refusing to be interviewed, this shows that they are are hiding anything from the audience, they both show archive footage and talk the audience a lot with what’s being shown event though this is done in different days, Michael uses fly on the wall and is shown throughout the whole documentaries whereas Asif doesn’t appear on camera at all however the way he has edited the clips together tells the story and reveals the information he finds out from interviews. They are both not biased filmmakers along with Morgan Spurlock however both filmmakers get their point of view across and hint at different ideas throughout for the audience to determined their own opinion of the topic. Michael Moore is more forceful in trying to get certain ideas across whereas the others do it naturally. They all the use sound to help it flow and support the views portrayed in the documentary along with images, archive footage and interviews, this is so we get to see that the information is true and we believe what the filmmakers are saying.