“Demonstrate that you understand issues about factual programmes for television, as well as the codes and conventions used.” Introduction
In this unit, I have been watching and researching documentaries, providing me with some understanding of how they work. Documentaries are television, radio programs and films, that provide a factual report on chosen subjects. In this essay, I will be putting my knowledge into practice as well as newly discovered information as well.
History of documentaries
The history of documentaries started in the US and France with short newsreels, records of current events, instructional pictures, or travelogue. These were without any staging, narrative or visionary story-telling. Though documentaries began when the first films were invented by The Lumière brothers in 1895. They created a camera that could only hold 50 feet of film stock and their films- called ‘Actualities’, were short unedited clips capturing the life around them. Auguste and Louis Lumière staged the world’s first public screening on December 28th, in the basement lounge of the Grand Cafe on the Boulevard des Capucines in Paris. This was followed by Felix-Louis Regnault, in the same year, filming a Senegalese woman during Paris Exposition - Ethnographique de l’Afrique Occidentale. Which was the start of the use of the camera for ethnographic 9People’s cultures and their customs) research footage. Many years later we saw various European experimental filmmakers begin to work in styles that embody avant-garde cinéma tic filming and editing techniques. Creating quasi-documentary works, known otherwise as visual
poems. These included multiple ‘city films’, such as Walther Ruttmann’s Berlin: A Symphony of a Great Cit. 1927. Yet, a few years later in 1922, Robert Flaherty filmed ‘Nanook Of The North’, which is generally known as the first feature length documentary. Which is an ethnographic look at the bleak life of Canadian Inuit Eskimos living in the Arctic but this included some staged parts for antiquated customs. The film shows many of the conventions of ethnographic filmmaking and later documentaries. Including: the use of third-person narration, a focus on an indigenous person as the film hero and subjective tone. During the mid 1930’s, the United States Government embarked on an ambition campaign for public relations, to keep the American people informed about the ‘New Deal’ and the necessary of it program. Which resulted in heralding a new direction for American Documentary filmmaking. This was in terms of technical sophistication and cinema tic style. This coincided with German film maker Leni Riefenstahl’s film – ‘Triumph of the will’. In which he was commissioned by Adolph Hitler to film the annual Nazi party rally of 1934. This is a landmark in both use of film as an astounding powerful propaganda medium and documentary technique. In 1950-60’s, a new generation of young film makers in the US and Europe attempted to redefine the nature of documentary film. Using newly developed, light weight, hand held cameras with synchronised sound. In 1951, CBS television made the first regular news magazine series – ‘See it now’. Which established a standard for investigative reporting by undertaking large issues of the da, for example, racial interrogation. Hosted by Edward R. Murrow. In 1953, National Educational Television was founded, later to be called the Public Broadcasting Service.
While in 1955, Armstrong Circle Theatre created a program that is generally considered, the first continuing sixty minuet series. Using the form that is now known as ‘docdrama’, broadcasted on American television. In 1958, The National Film Board of Canada begun production of ‘The Candid Eye’. This consisted of 13 half-hour films, many demonstrating the new ideas of what has come to be called, Cinéma Vérité, or Direct Cinéma. In 1965, Sony introduces the first consumer ½ inch video tape. While Philips introduces, the compact cassette for consumer audio recording and playback on small portable machines. In 1968 the Public Broadcast Service was established. Continuing to the late 60’s, 70’s and later decades, there were shifts in the narrative approach of many documentaries. With third and first person narrative. In 1973, PBS serried an American family, which is what we later know to be called ‘reality tv’. In 1999, the Blair Witch Project, which is a faux vérité documentary, gains over $100 million in US alone.
the
Lastly, in 200l, many television programmes utilized some of the techniques of cinema vérité, hitting the network and cable airways, called ‘reality tv’. These included MTV’s: Real world and the Osbornes, Big Brother and the bachelor and the bachelorette, plus many others.
Icons of documentaries
There are various people who pioneered the way for documentaries. Two of which have significantly raised their popularity. They are Nick Broomfield and Michael Moore. Starting off with Nick Broomfield. He is an English documentary film maker born in 1948, who is known for his distinctive style of documentaries. Where he only films with a small crew of himself and one or two camera men. His first documentary in 1971, was called ‘Who cares?’ and was made using a wind up
colex camera that he borrowed from his University as a student. Back then his filming style was conventional cinema vérité, meaning there was juxtaposition of observed scenes, with small use of text or voice over. His first on-screen appearance was a documentary called ‘Drive me crazy’ in 1988; which was his 11th documentary. He had several arguments regarding the budget and nature of the film. However, he decided that he would only make the documentary if he could somewhat conduct an experiment. This would be filming the making of the film and its process. Including: arguments, failed interviews, and the dead ends. Which is known as a reflective type of documentary. He also did a variety of investigation type documentaries. An example would be ‘Biggie and Tupac. Biggie smalls (Notorious B.I.G.) and Tupac were both well known for American rappers which were both shot and died in 1996.This occurred with six months of each other. Nick Broomfield made it as an investigation of the death of the two rappers. This documentary is like his ‘Kurt & Courtney’ one, looking at how it is possible that Courtney allowed for Kurt Cobain’s death. Another influence film-maker in the documentary industry is Michael Moore. This American film-maker was born in Michigan in 1954. One of his documentaries – ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ in 2004, is one of or possibly the biggest earning documentary ever. With his first in 1989 ‘Roger & me’, opening the documentary form in many ways. Which included the introduction of humour and entertainment, instead of the usage of omniscient and didactic tones, like much of previous documentaries. He introduced the idea that documentaries can be enjoyable to watch and the narrative could be playful. Moore created a scale of adventure to documentaries. Like his ‘The Art of killing’ as well as ‘Stories we tell’’. These documentaries circle ad enhance reality, while toying with it, but this would not have been possible without Moore testing the norm od documenting. Concluding in him redefining the understanding of the truth.
My opinion on importance Accuracy – It is important to have an accurate documentary because it is aimed towards education and it is a fact based medium. Therefor, if the facts are not correct and the information provided is inaccurate, then you would be miss leading the viewer. And the quality will not be sufficient as well as the risk of committing purgatory/ fraudulent information. Trust – If the viewer does not trust your documentary, you will not create a profound relationship between the viewer and your documentary. It’s important because it could affect the impact on the public, while reducing it’s popularity. And in some cases, deterring the viewer form watching your documentary. Balance –The importance of balance lies between the film makers approach, which must be with an open mind. If this is not executed successfully, then it could leave viewers majorly disagreeing with your documentary; as the viewers, would have a variety of opinions. Which could cause the audience to argue against your documentary, putting it in a bad light. Keeping balance Treats the viewers with respect, gaining popularity as it will draw them in. Impartiality- I think it is impartiality is important because it shows your viewers that you weigh opinions up fairly, rather than letting your personal view impact how you see aspects in your documentary – which could ruin it. This prevents the documentary from being bias and created a bigger audience, as there is a range of opinions. This can also prevent disturbances like: racism, sexism or homophobia, and many others. Objectivity of factual TV – Objectivity is important because it stops you from using prejudges in your documentary. For a documentary to triumph, you need to look at everything logically without letting your personal feeling get involved. And this would also be making your documentary more factual and accurate.
Example documentaries BBC Spaghetti Tree 1957 After watching BBC’s spaghetti tree, I analysed it, looking at all possible issues, I found that it is not accurate [1]. On the other hand, it wasn’t meant to be as it is a April fool’s joke. This may be why it is one sided, only showing the ‘spaghetti tress’ in a good light, not balancing the views – good and bad. The documentary seems to be trusting with the ‘posh’ and intellectual voice
narrating in such detail, and viewers may find this reliable so they will feel assured in this documentary. I think some viewers would have failed to see the funny side, loosing trust with the BBC, as documentaries are meant to be serious factual programs. Although, it being a spoof, I do think it stayed impartial. This is because firstly, they wouldn’t necessarily include a personal opinion on something that isn’t real. Also, because it is focusing on the characters’ view in the documentary – i.e. the people who are served this ‘home grown’ spaghetti. Additionally, this is the same for its objectivity. The voiceover and the documentary in general, don’t seem to use judgement because it is fake, showing no prejudices. The issues would be that this documentary is very convincing and shows realism in a joked upon way; frustrating and confusing some viewers. Although, the representation of the fake aspects in the documentary are delivered, without portraying bias views to the viewer. Furthermore, this could have created an ideology of ‘spaghetti trees’, disrupting and embarrassing viewers, when they find that it is all a scam. And the privacy in the documentary is profound as all the individuals in it are playing a part as an actor rather than using personal experience. This links to access, they wouldn’t need to gain much access to make a fictional documentary, they are all playing a part in a script. Kurt and Courtney This 1hr and 30 minuets documentary, seemed to just say how good Kurt is at the start, not giving an alternative opinion [2]. Portraying the narrator’s opinion throughout, blinded by his own opinion that Kurt is a ‘Brilliant artist’. With his personal view greatly impacting how he saw a variety of aspects in the documentary – decreasing the trust. This documentary seemed like it didn’t have a balance of opinions, as he constantly shows only positivity towards Nirvana and Kurt Cobain. Continuing to say how he is ‘Fucking brilliant’ through other people as well. Though, by the end the narrator tries to equalise the opinions on one aspect, being the theories or the facts towards Kurt’s suicide. However, this was still through personal belief, rather than looking at both sides from an impartial view. As he got many opinions that provided evidence to the suicide. Like Kurt’s Aunt – ‘He left me with the impression that he had possibly tried suicide before’. Who is the person that knew Kurt the most.
This documentary is hard to tell if its accurate, mainly because of the amount of opinions over weighing the facts. However, it is partly trusting as he seems to go in depth into the fight between conspiracy and truth. The access in this documentary seemed very efficient, as they get a lot of views, from various sources – like family member or close relations, the nanny being a example. Ranging from his starting out career to his tragic end. But, they have stated that it was hard at times because of the restriction and control the government put on this story, reducing their funds. Which could explain why they had to be risky on some privacy aspects. At times in the documentary there seemed to be no regards to privacy, especially by the end, when breaching the wrong apartment. He seemed to break many privacy aspects of Kurt and Courtney’s life, which even today, Courtney might want hidden. Though, they have some rights in their documentary to show it. This documentary seems to be quite observational, yet, is interfered with and twisted to show Kurt in a mainly positive light, while putting Courtney in a negative one. This means the documentary is bias in some aspects; they do not show both sides fairy. And this documentary is based upon realism, as he is talking about the tragic story of Kurt Cobain. Although, his ideology, shows a considerable amount of his beliefs’, only hinting at others. Therefore, he doesn’t seem to be objectively seeing the whole truth and just what he wants to see. Granting all of this, we do see aspects where the narrators claim is slightly backed up. For example, a man stated that Cortney love offered him ’50 grand to whack Kurt Cobain’, showing that it might not have been suicide like the narrator believed at some parts. On the other hand, he wasn’t a very reliable or sufficient source. Which the narrator continues to show the side of Kurt , by the end, showing no hints to support Courtney, as they invade her personal space at her rehearsing studio; breaching her privacy. This documentary is like Spaghetti Tree as they both include one narrator; however, the differences dominate the similarities. These are the fact ‘Kurt and Courtney’ is based on real life, whereas ‘spaghetti tree’ is an April fool’s joke.
And ‘Kurt and Courtney’ is of a serious light, but ‘Spaghetti Tree’ is of humorous nature, and in black and white.
Modes of documentaries Personal-Personal documentaries regularly feature the maker addressing the camera directly, often sharing their views with the viewer. They tend to be shot on a film or video camera as well. These type of documentaries, typically portray a life from beginning to end, often covering subjects like ancestors. Some codes and conventions of personal documentaries are: The use of text/titles Sound Actuality footage An example of a personal documentary would be, BBC’s Billy Connolly Portrait of a lifetime; celebrating his75th birthday [3]. This includes Billy Connolly directly talking to the camera about his remarkable life and 50-year career as a musician, stand-up comedian, Hollywood star and national treasure. At the start, you see old film material of the younger Billy, which then switches to him now; providing a sort of comparison between the two, - this continues throughout. There are various clips of ‘old’ and ‘new’ Glasgow, providing substance, showing him sharing his views for the duration of the documentary. It ends with the finished portraits of Billy Connolly and his emotional response. Expository- The purpose of expository documentaries is to educate and inform the viewers about a subject; while speaking directly to the audience. In which, normally camera and crew are hidden from the viewer. This would include an expert/actor narrative, that is tightly scripted. And can include screen material original and archive footage. They are often historical, biographical or talk about a certain event. With pictures, footage or interviews exclusive to the documentary. The main codes and conventions of expository documentaries are as followed: Facts Rhetorical questions Voiceover The use of text/title
interview An example of the expository documentary mode would be, ‘America’s most wanted’, which includes information, statistics and interviews backing up the topic [4]. In this documentary, it begins introducing the topic with a presenter, outside a court house, where an establishing shot was used. There are many interviews throughout, one of which is with the local police department, with a relevant voiceover on top – supporting the topic. They also use secondary images, a montage being at the start, which displays the focal point of the documentary. Additionally, they have used footage of surveillance, providing the documentary with factual evidence. Mockumentary- Mockumentaries are made to look and feel like a real documentary but
in fact, they’re a parody of the forms and conventions of documentary, often creating humorous effect. A big difference between mockumentaries and documentaries is that, instead of real-life coverage of real-life events, they commonly consist of a fictional storyline, portrayed by actors. The purpose of them is to entertain or often share a message with their audience. The conventions are: Prestige voice over ‘Real’ footage Interviews No-diegetic sound
An example would be ‘The majestic plastic bag’, this is about California’s plastic bag pollution situation [5]. Hammering home on California’s citizens. This includes a narration by Jeremy Irons, using his enthusiastic voice creates a real documentary feel. In the mockumentary, it is funnily recreating nature documentaries; using similar shots, angles and monologue – changing slightly for context. This tells the story of what happens to a plastic bag, its challenges and where it goes to (Pacific Ocean). The mockumentary ends with text over a video, asking for your help.
Observational- A observational documentary is where the film maker is a neutral observer as though they are from the outside looking in. The film maker tends to be out shot to ensure they cannot influence what is happening. They not rehearsed or staged, which can result in poor shaky looking footage. Conventions used are: Text/captions Voiceover Synchronous sound An example would be Planet Earth II [6]. This is a 1hr wildlife documentary presented by David Attenborough, in which he visited animals in their habitats across the globe. The whole documentary (Disregarding the outro) exclusively consists of animals and nature with David Attenborough’s voice over on top. In Planet Earth II, there are various camera shots, these include: close-up, long shot, extreme close up & mid shot. It also takes advantage of camera effects, using ultra and normal slow-motion – to fully exhibit the detail among the footage. This observation documentary includes an abundance of animals with David Attenborough explaining them all. It ends with a zooming out picture of the Shard, fading to black. Drama documentary-A drama documentary is a television film based on real life events. And they are dramatized re-enactments. While a drama documentary is biased on historical events, it picks out an assortment of the factual content, keeping its foremost important element – a dramatic story. Though, it does not have to be entirely factual. Essentially, a dramatic drama is a fictional story that uses actual historical events as its context. Its conventions include: Narrativisation Text Dramatization Music An example would be this BBC documentary called – Medieval Apocalypse: The Black death [7]. This is reacting The Black Plague, which killed between 30-45% of the population in Britain between 1348-50. This includes dramatic music throughout and a striking narration, with actors speaking directly to the
camera. There are also lots of artwork pictures from The Black Plague era and landscape videos of the places names (Europe). The film makers have used filters to darken the footage, adding a dramatic ambience as well as acting when needed. This dramatic documentary ends in a fairly positive light; compared to how its starts, using music to help portray this. Fly-on-the-wall- Fly on the wall documentaries are an extension of the observational mode. As subjects go about their daily business, fly-on-the-wall aims to blend into the background. In a way, the objective is to give an unmediated access to the world to the audience. Conjointly, filming could continue over a considerable period, for example six months. The conventions for fly-on-the-wall are: Text/captions Voice over Realism Actuality footage An example would be Jeremy Corbin: The outsider [8]. This documentary is following the 66-year-old, Jeremy Corbin as the Britch Labour Party leader. Who after 33 years, went from a back-bench member of the parliament to one of the most important politicians in Britain. In this documentary, they are finding out if Corbin can deliver the promises he has made. At the start of the documentary we saw footage of the younger Jeremy Corbin, then it switched to him now; after a title page, to compare the two. All the footage shows the camera man being a ‘back seat passenger’ to this experience, in doing so, Jeremy Corbin is portrayed to not notice the camera, like it is blending in. Though, you can see the VICE NEWS reprehensive as he is asking Corbin various questions. There are many close up shots of Jeremy as well as background shots of London. With the documentary capturing Labour followers and general members of the public- creating a balance of opinions
and a sense of realism. Throughout all of this we get to follow Corbin as if we are living through his campaign. This documentary ends with Jeremy Corbin explaining how he is going to continue his development of the labour party. Interactive/reflective- This mode is where the filmmaker’s presence is fully acknowledged. It shows the constructive nature of the documentary, which tends to show a reconstruction of the truth – ‘a’ truth, not ‘the’ truth. The audience are made aware of the process throughout the documentary as well as, the editing, sound and recordings. In comparison with fly-on-the-wall, the filmmaker is both author and character in their film. Repeatedly appearing in shot and interacting with other people in the television program or film. The conventions used are: Actuality footage Voiceover Realism An example of a reflective documentary, would be Nick Broomfield’s – Bring Me Crazy [9]. Although this is just a trailer, you get the general feel for the film. This clearly shows Broomfield in front of the camera, with his one man crew; making it more personal. Most of this documentary is about making the film, rather than actual content. Where Nick Broomfield is documenting the making of a musical, with unmasking of egos and budgets. There are lots of perspectives in this film, shown in Nick Broomfield’s filming, being his view point, to the tantrums of the show stars – capturing the full emotion in the documentary. Poetic/Avant garde-A poetic documentary uses subjective, artist expression. Revolving around a topic, which is personal to the people involved – which is usually the interviewees and the presenter. Emphasizing some aspects of the person’s life, presenting these through; music, camera shots, angels and the editing. And music is a key to developing the tine and mood of the story. All aspects commonly being artistic in the way it is executed. The conventions would be: Interviews
Narrativisation Sound An
example of an Avant garde documentary would be 1922’s Baraka, directed by Ron Fricke [10]. This documentary enables the interpretation; about what’s happening, up to the audience themselves, by using no commentary. Providing, diegetic and non-diegetic sounds, plus different camera shots – setting the mood of the documentary. Exploring themes through a compilation, using dramatic images of nature, religious rituals, oppressive city life and war. Being a ‘journey of rediscovery and reconnecting’ – in the words of Ron Fricke.
Most effective modes
The modes that are most effective would firstly be, personal. This is because it may make the viewer feel involved in the documentary, as they are personally addressed. Engrossing them into the documentary, while using actuality footage. Another mode that would be most effective is observational. The audience may feel as though they are looking in on the documentary, like they are experiencing everything, at the same time as the ‘filmer’. As well as this the fact that synchronous sound is used, makes the scenes in the documentary more compelling. And this is shown to be effective with its rising popularity, majorly brought on by David Attenborough. Also, Drama Documentaries would add to the list of most effective. Using the fact, it is based on real life, shocking the viewers, gripping them to it. Unlike other modes like observational, who are just showing you the events as they are rather than using dramatization to portray them. And fly-on-the-wall documentaries would be included in the most effective documentaries. Mainly because it makes the audience seem like they are the ‘invisible’ camera crew, using realism, as they watch the events unravel before them. This would create a sense of personal understanding to the viewer, on the documentary’s chosen person or subject.
Legal and ethical
Documentaries are almost entirely based on research. So, it is important for the facts and figures to be correct. Every documentary has a research team, that considers what experts they could contact for the documentary. If the facts are not correct, the film maker would be giving out misleading and incorrect information, which could lead to OFCOM interfering.
The issues Film makers would have to face a variety of emerging issues in the making of a documentary. This would include: Accuracy- The problem with accuracy occurs when there are constant mistakes and the wrong information is provided. Your audience will eventually loose trust in the documentary, which could be abolished altogether, along with their interest. Accuracy is more important than speed, as the audience would be far more inclined to watch the documentary with a factual story that takes longer to gather their information needed. Creating a film that is accurate rather than quick with the misuse of information. To ensure accuracy is at top quality, the documentary team should: gather material using first hand sources wherever possible as well as checking and double checking the information. Balance-Balance can become a problem when only one side is shown and a certain opinion is being glorified to the viewer. As it makes them; without knowing all the facts from both sides, believe what there are being told. This can discourage viewers from watching your documentary, as they could feel that personal judgement came into the research process forcing the documentary to become bias and unfair. Impartiality- The problem with impartiality occurs when an opinion and judgment is persistently brought into the documentary. This would displease the viewers, leading them to think other information is unfair, biased and based around personal judgement. OFCOM could also get involved, if the documentary is based around personal judgement and beliefs, as it isn’t fact. The creators need to ensure there is an existence of a range of views that is appropriately reflected. Objectivity-The issue with objectivity is when the presenter or reporter, doesn’t show fair views from both sides of an argument – providing the thought that they are objectifying a view, appearing biast. This can make the viewer think that the facts ere looked at with personal judgement. There also is a problem with how quickly a personal view is put across, as it could disrupt the documentary, providing more opinion over fact. It should be put across as quickly and accurately as possible. Subjectivity- Subjectivity can especially be an issue in factual tv programming, as it can prevent the facts from being used, resulting in the documentary being
slightly bias towards personal views. Yet, presenters could use it to support their manipulation towards an audience, to back-up their opinion. It is vital that any usage of personal opinions, includes the mentioning that it is your own, as this will prevent the idea that the documentary is bias towards personal beliefs. Representation- Representation can become an issue when stereotypes come into play during documentaries – leading to some information being wrong. This can be quite offensive, leading to problems with the people included in these stereotypes. This shouldn’t be used as unfair judgement and wrong information is not what is aimed for in a documentary. Contract with the viewer- Issues arise when the contract with the viewer is broken, as if a company states that their documentary is factual, but it includes much of opinions instead, this would breach the said contract. Leading to mistrust from the viewers. Opinion- Opinion is an issue when the producer uses certain opinions, rather than views from a wide variety of people, with different life styles. As the views, would not be widespread and different, not creating a balance while showing opinions. Which, when it comes to arguments, the documentary could show too many opinions agreeing or disagreeing, showing a unfairness to the documentary. Bias- In factual TV the problems are that it can be easy for the documentary to become bias, creating no room for another argument. Whereas, it is important that the producer looks at alternate views, opinions and facts, while equally focusing on both concepts. And problems occur when documentaries do not stick to correct information, making statements that support one side of the argument. Access- Access is an issue when permission is not granted, resulting in lawsuits being filed as well as an unfinished documentary. Privacy- Issues occur in privacy aspects as there is a clash between the public and the media’s rights. As the media has the right to a freedom of expression, while everyone has a right to be free from the public attention. This can cause problems with journalist, as they are often keen to get the best story possible, thus, they would invade someone’s privacy.
Other issues- Other issues involved in documentaries would be the display of harm and violence. These include: live out-put; where problems should be dealt with promptly and sensitively, strong language; which should be sign posted and justified with the editor and violence; in which a balance between the accuracy and dangers of distress should be used. Also, intimidation and humiliation, nudity, sex; while being justified with the editor, should be treated with sensitivity, the use of alcohol, illegal drugs and smoking. As well as suicide/suicide attempts/ self-harm or eating disorders; which should be used with great sensitivity. (A bad example of a Netflix series that deals with suicide badly is 13 reasons why. Where it shows the character’s suicide in detail and is now being blamed for 2 teens suicides. Although that wasn’t a documentary, it shows the effects a program can have on someone, meaning that the issues would be similar in all types of programmes.) Other issues would be, imitative behaviour; where the danger lies with children as they are easily influenced by what they see, hear and read, tragic events; which may require rescheduling on the TV, religion and hypnotism/exorcism/the paranormal. It is important for the viewer to trust the accuracy, balance, impartiality and objectivity of factual TV, as they are key elements to keeping the documentary truthful in its nature. Also, they are meant to be portraying information, there for, the viewer needs to trust the documentary to believe its information used. And for a documentary to gain popularity it needs to maintain the audiences trust. Additionally, a film maker’s opinion should be a minority compared to the factual elements of the documentary. It should not come through to a degree that it over weighs the facts, making it bias. Which leads on to the following question, is it OK for factual TV programmes to be bias? The short answer is no. Purely because a documentary is based on facts, so by being bias, it misleads the viewer, and leads them to miss trust the documentary.
LINKS: [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVo_wkxH9dU [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgqaz4oELzc [3] – Cannot link this video as it is part of BBC iPlayer. [4] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMCVH3wdU2w [5] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLgh9h2ePYw [6] – Cannot link this video as it is part of BBC iPlayer.
[7] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffaoF0xkUTo [8] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94ptAcbfKP0 [9] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwA4Il578FQ [10] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btds6k0XlEQ [11] -