Senna
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/2883299_orig.jpg)
'Senna' is a 2010 British documentary that focuses on the life and the tragic death of F1 racing driver, Aryton Senna. It is directed by Asif Kapadia. It is considered that 'Senna' is a film rather than a documentary because of the way that it is constructed.
The film is entirely constructed by archive footage from races championships that Senna had been apart of; as well as home videos that had been provided by his family. The way that these clips are edited together is effect in a way because as the film progresses, you feel as if you are connecting with Senna. Also, the clips aren't just put into the film but they are edited chronological so you get to see his career play out. Not only does this create an element of connections but also makes it very emotional when watching his tragic death at the end.
A very clever technique called 'four shadowing' is used in this documentary. This is when the outcome of the film is known before the outcome actually happens. Throughout the whole of this film we know Senna fate yet it is presented to us right at the end. This create suspense and tension throughout the whole production because we are waiting for the death.
The way that the music is edited throughout the documentary creates a mixed variety of emotions when combined with certain scenes. For example, during the scenes when racers got hurt or whenever Senna loses, the music is sad and slightly depressing creating the emotions that what the drivers would have felt. On the other hand, whenever the scenes are happy and filled with joy, so is the music. This is really effective because it gives the audience a real feel for the mood and atmosphere of the scene.
There are interviews during this documentary but they are done completely differently to other documentaries that I have covered. Instead the interviews are just voiceovers on top of the film. The interviews are edited over the top in a way that when what they have to say is relevant the interview comes in and there is a subtitle with the name of the person and who they were to Senna or job title in the F1 world.
In conclusion Senna is a very effective documentary for showing and presenting as well as creating emotions throughout the film.
The film is entirely constructed by archive footage from races championships that Senna had been apart of; as well as home videos that had been provided by his family. The way that these clips are edited together is effect in a way because as the film progresses, you feel as if you are connecting with Senna. Also, the clips aren't just put into the film but they are edited chronological so you get to see his career play out. Not only does this create an element of connections but also makes it very emotional when watching his tragic death at the end.
A very clever technique called 'four shadowing' is used in this documentary. This is when the outcome of the film is known before the outcome actually happens. Throughout the whole of this film we know Senna fate yet it is presented to us right at the end. This create suspense and tension throughout the whole production because we are waiting for the death.
The way that the music is edited throughout the documentary creates a mixed variety of emotions when combined with certain scenes. For example, during the scenes when racers got hurt or whenever Senna loses, the music is sad and slightly depressing creating the emotions that what the drivers would have felt. On the other hand, whenever the scenes are happy and filled with joy, so is the music. This is really effective because it gives the audience a real feel for the mood and atmosphere of the scene.
There are interviews during this documentary but they are done completely differently to other documentaries that I have covered. Instead the interviews are just voiceovers on top of the film. The interviews are edited over the top in a way that when what they have to say is relevant the interview comes in and there is a subtitle with the name of the person and who they were to Senna or job title in the F1 world.
In conclusion Senna is a very effective documentary for showing and presenting as well as creating emotions throughout the film.
Silenced
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/7177020_orig.jpg)
"Three National Security whistle blowers fight to reveal the darkest corners of America's war on terror, challenging a government that is increasingly determined to maintain secrecy".
The main aspect of Silenced is that it uses a lot of interviews. These are mainly with the two whistle blowers but also with the woman who provides them with legal advice. In terms of the interviews they are all conducted in different ways. Most are done in a sit down manner but there are some where the cameras are following the men during the times they are in court or doing their daily tasks.
Furthermore on the cameras, some are handheld and it is shown by the way the frame moves when on a subject. Other shots are done with a tripod and those are mainly the list down interviews.
There is also archive footage and pictures which shows the whistle blowers life when they were younger and their early days working in the CIA and NSA. With the pictures they move on the screen so it still gives the sense that its a film not an image.
There isn't an active presenter or a narrator. There is text that helps the audience to understand what is going on and where and when the filming is taking place. There is also reconstructions of incidents that happened with these whistle blowers in their careers.
In terms of comparing this documentary to the others I have seen is that it is interesting and constructed well but compared to the others such as Bowling for Columbine; it has more conventions that when put together make it a more interesting film. However, within this documentary the creative use of actuality is minimal as it it 100% based of the facts of these former US agency men.
The main aspect of Silenced is that it uses a lot of interviews. These are mainly with the two whistle blowers but also with the woman who provides them with legal advice. In terms of the interviews they are all conducted in different ways. Most are done in a sit down manner but there are some where the cameras are following the men during the times they are in court or doing their daily tasks.
Furthermore on the cameras, some are handheld and it is shown by the way the frame moves when on a subject. Other shots are done with a tripod and those are mainly the list down interviews.
There is also archive footage and pictures which shows the whistle blowers life when they were younger and their early days working in the CIA and NSA. With the pictures they move on the screen so it still gives the sense that its a film not an image.
There isn't an active presenter or a narrator. There is text that helps the audience to understand what is going on and where and when the filming is taking place. There is also reconstructions of incidents that happened with these whistle blowers in their careers.
In terms of comparing this documentary to the others I have seen is that it is interesting and constructed well but compared to the others such as Bowling for Columbine; it has more conventions that when put together make it a more interesting film. However, within this documentary the creative use of actuality is minimal as it it 100% based of the facts of these former US agency men.
Catfish
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/7135639_orig.jpg)
"When Nev Shulman, a New York photographer, receives a Facebook request from a child named Abby, he cannot guess the unusual odyssey on which he will soon embark. Abby sends Nev an unusually skilled painting based on one of his photos. Intrigued, he begins online relationships with the rest of Abby's family, including her older sister, Megan. Though troubling inconsistencies soon emerge, Nev continues his online flirtation with Megan, resulting in a road trip to meet her in person".
One of the main aspects of Catfish is that it is filmed with handle cameras because they are filming on the go. It was also filmed by amateur film makers so it isn't at a mega production standard.
Another aspect is that there is an active presenter. Yaniv 'Nev' Schulman is the main character in this film but also acts as a presenter because he explains what they are doing each time their is a new scene.
One of the main controversial arguments about this documentary is that it isn't 100% real. When creating this film they must have know before they started filming that something was off about the family to which they were talking too. Otherwise why would they have filmed Nev and the interaction? This is a fragment of actuality. They knew that the story was true but they filmed it in such a way to make it seem as if it all happened in that order.
Comparing this documentary to the others we have looked at, it doesn't have as many codes and conventions as them. I think this is because it was filmed such as way to make it seem 100% real. However, it does have a narrative structure:
1. Equilibrium (State of Balance)
We meet nev, and all the family through Facebook.
2. Disruption of equilibrium
The songs aren't theirs.
3. Recognition
The art gallery and the letters still being in the letter box.
4. Attempt to resolve
Driving up and meeting the family in person
5. Equilibrium restored
They went back to NYC and resumed their jobs whilst the family went on with their lives.
One of the main aspects of Catfish is that it is filmed with handle cameras because they are filming on the go. It was also filmed by amateur film makers so it isn't at a mega production standard.
Another aspect is that there is an active presenter. Yaniv 'Nev' Schulman is the main character in this film but also acts as a presenter because he explains what they are doing each time their is a new scene.
One of the main controversial arguments about this documentary is that it isn't 100% real. When creating this film they must have know before they started filming that something was off about the family to which they were talking too. Otherwise why would they have filmed Nev and the interaction? This is a fragment of actuality. They knew that the story was true but they filmed it in such a way to make it seem as if it all happened in that order.
Comparing this documentary to the others we have looked at, it doesn't have as many codes and conventions as them. I think this is because it was filmed such as way to make it seem 100% real. However, it does have a narrative structure:
1. Equilibrium (State of Balance)
We meet nev, and all the family through Facebook.
2. Disruption of equilibrium
The songs aren't theirs.
3. Recognition
The art gallery and the letters still being in the letter box.
4. Attempt to resolve
Driving up and meeting the family in person
5. Equilibrium restored
They went back to NYC and resumed their jobs whilst the family went on with their lives.
RESTREPO
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/7896412_orig.jpg)
"RESTREPO is a feature-length documentary that chronicles the deployment of a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan's Korengal Valley. The movie focuses on a remote 15-man outpost, "Restrepo," named after a platoon medic who was killed in action. It was considered one of the most dangerous postings in the U.S. military. This is an entirely experiential film: the cameras never leave the valley; there are no interviews with generals or diplomats".
Again, like most documentaries there are interviews. However, in this film the interviews are conducted after they have returned from war and they are talking about their experiences. Theses interviews give an insight as to what the soldiers were feeling at the time when they were posted in the Korengal Valley. During these interviews when a sensitive topic comes up the camera closes in on their faces to capture their emotions. As well as this, the camera is left on their faces to see their emotions after they have finished talking.
There is no active presenter in this documentary. The narration of the film is conducted through on screen text and interviews much like Black Fish. I personally believed that this makes the film flow whereas if someone was telling us what each part was about it would seem as if it was stop, starting all the time.
The overall feel of film is very heavy as it touches topics that are considered to be heart breaking and touch upon very dark themes within the war. I think that Restrepo is a very moving documentary because it doesn't just talk about a persons life in the service but it educates people on what they really do and really go through when being deployed. It also touches upon the emotions and actions of people when they lose on of their own. When watching this documentary it is like you are with them serving and feeling all the emotions that they are going through.
Comparing this to other documentaries is has the same ideas of filmmaking of Black Fish in the way the interviews are conducted but is also similar to Moore's and Theroux's documentaries in the style of how they get involved into what they are researching.
Again, like most documentaries there are interviews. However, in this film the interviews are conducted after they have returned from war and they are talking about their experiences. Theses interviews give an insight as to what the soldiers were feeling at the time when they were posted in the Korengal Valley. During these interviews when a sensitive topic comes up the camera closes in on their faces to capture their emotions. As well as this, the camera is left on their faces to see their emotions after they have finished talking.
There is no active presenter in this documentary. The narration of the film is conducted through on screen text and interviews much like Black Fish. I personally believed that this makes the film flow whereas if someone was telling us what each part was about it would seem as if it was stop, starting all the time.
The overall feel of film is very heavy as it touches topics that are considered to be heart breaking and touch upon very dark themes within the war. I think that Restrepo is a very moving documentary because it doesn't just talk about a persons life in the service but it educates people on what they really do and really go through when being deployed. It also touches upon the emotions and actions of people when they lose on of their own. When watching this documentary it is like you are with them serving and feeling all the emotions that they are going through.
Comparing this to other documentaries is has the same ideas of filmmaking of Black Fish in the way the interviews are conducted but is also similar to Moore's and Theroux's documentaries in the style of how they get involved into what they are researching.
Blackfish
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/8127440_orig.jpg)
"Blackfish tells the story of Tilikum, a performing killer whale that killed several people while in captivity. Along the way, director-producer Gabriela Cowperthwaite compiles shocking footage and emotional interviews to explore the creature’s extraordinary nature, the species’ cruel treatment in captivity, the lives and losses of the trainers and the pressures brought to bear by the multi-billion dollar sea-park industry".
Throughout the whole documentary there isn't a narrator. The narrative structure is guided by people doing interviews. However, you don't hear the questions. The only time you hear the director is when she confirms one of the questions she is asking to one of the interviewees. With this style of documentary it flows from one section to another making it an easy viewing style that quite a lot of documentaries are now choosing to do.
As well as interviews there is also a few pieces of archive footage. Most of the footage is either shot by members of the public or from SeaWorld itself. With the archive footage used in this documentary is gives the audience understanding about how long the problems of SeaWorld have gone on making people want to aid the Orca's lives.
Comparing Black Fish to other documentaries such as Michael Moore's, Bowling of Columbine it has a very different feel. Both are about such a controversial topic but are presented in completely different ways. Black Fish doesn't have a narrator but is guided through interviews and people talking about their experiences whilst the other has an active presenter and he leads people into what he wants them to say whilst getting actively involved in what he is researching. Another aspect that is different is the style and way they are both filmed. Throughout Black Fish there is a fixed camera on the interviewees whilst in Bowling for Columbine there is handheld camera that are focused on Moore and his subjects.
Throughout the whole documentary there isn't a narrator. The narrative structure is guided by people doing interviews. However, you don't hear the questions. The only time you hear the director is when she confirms one of the questions she is asking to one of the interviewees. With this style of documentary it flows from one section to another making it an easy viewing style that quite a lot of documentaries are now choosing to do.
As well as interviews there is also a few pieces of archive footage. Most of the footage is either shot by members of the public or from SeaWorld itself. With the archive footage used in this documentary is gives the audience understanding about how long the problems of SeaWorld have gone on making people want to aid the Orca's lives.
Comparing Black Fish to other documentaries such as Michael Moore's, Bowling of Columbine it has a very different feel. Both are about such a controversial topic but are presented in completely different ways. Black Fish doesn't have a narrator but is guided through interviews and people talking about their experiences whilst the other has an active presenter and he leads people into what he wants them to say whilst getting actively involved in what he is researching. Another aspect that is different is the style and way they are both filmed. Throughout Black Fish there is a fixed camera on the interviewees whilst in Bowling for Columbine there is handheld camera that are focused on Moore and his subjects.
Nanook of the North
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/4563999.jpg?143)
Nanook of the North was the first documentary to be ever be made and shown to the world. It follows the lives of Eskimos as they hunt, build and create a life for themselves in the arctic. Throughout film it is narrated by text screens and originally had no soundtrack but was later release with a classical song that matches the overall topic and feel of the documentary.
It was later believed that the filmmaker of Nanook of the North actually changed what was real in order to captivate his audience. This consisted of things like, asking them to hunt a certain way when they didn't do it like that any more. He also couldn't get a camera inside the igloo so he asked the Eskimo's to take the roof off so he could film in. This is what is called a 'creative treatment of reality'. This is when the audience is seen one side of the argument and not another. This then leads on to the audience not believing in what is shown or them believing something that could be entirely false.
It was later believed that the filmmaker of Nanook of the North actually changed what was real in order to captivate his audience. This consisted of things like, asking them to hunt a certain way when they didn't do it like that any more. He also couldn't get a camera inside the igloo so he asked the Eskimo's to take the roof off so he could film in. This is what is called a 'creative treatment of reality'. This is when the audience is seen one side of the argument and not another. This then leads on to the audience not believing in what is shown or them believing something that could be entirely false.
Pumping Iron
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/474464_orig.jpg)
Pumping Iron is a documentary based around the celebrity Arnold Schwarzenegger who started his career as a body builder. This film follows him as he competes in his last Mr.Universe competition before retiring. This film also shines light on several other body builders who are up and coming for the next Mr.Universe.
The main conventions that was used during this whole film was interviews and cut-aways. The producers used many interviews to get the body builders stories across to the audience. However, no questions were directly asked in the film. It would seem was if they were edited out. Still the aim of what the interviewer was asking was still presented well for the audience to see.
Cut-aways are also used quite frequently. The main use of these were when someone was talking to the interviewer or music was being played whilst the body builders were in the gym or practicing poses for the competition.
Also in Pumping Iron, some archive footage is used when talking about Schwarzenegger's history and childhood. Most of these were pictures. When they were used they would move across the screen so that they still felt a part of the film that was shot.
The main conventions that was used during this whole film was interviews and cut-aways. The producers used many interviews to get the body builders stories across to the audience. However, no questions were directly asked in the film. It would seem was if they were edited out. Still the aim of what the interviewer was asking was still presented well for the audience to see.
Cut-aways are also used quite frequently. The main use of these were when someone was talking to the interviewer or music was being played whilst the body builders were in the gym or practicing poses for the competition.
Also in Pumping Iron, some archive footage is used when talking about Schwarzenegger's history and childhood. Most of these were pictures. When they were used they would move across the screen so that they still felt a part of the film that was shot.
Louis Theroux - Weird Weekends
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/3926874.jpg?294)
Louis Theroux is a very popular British documentary presenter and has many different documentary series. One of the episodes of Weird Weekends Theroux follows the lives of people who believe that there are UFO's in the world. He follows them with their daily routines to see if there really is life in the sky.
One of the main conventions of this documentary is interviews. Theroux is constantly asking them questions about their past experiences and how they are planning to capture this. With some of the interviews he is in shot with the interviewee but for others there is cut aways to other shots.
Also, throughout Theroux narrates what is going on and who he is talking to. This helps the audience to understand what is going on int the scene.
One method that makes Theroux's documentaries different is that he gets involved with what ever he is trying to find out about. For example in this Weird Weekend episode he joins in with trying to find the extraterrestrials that people are believed to exist. Not only does this show that he is unbiased towards the topic but also that he is interested in what he is researching; unlike the producer for Kurt and Courtney who seemed to not be interested and I believe the audience could hear that in their voice.
Finally, another convention used in Theroux Weird Weekends was that the camera was hand held. This showed the audience that what was filmed was not staged and was true. Therefore backing up what Theroux had found during his time of filming.
Looking at both Louis Theroux and Michael Moore I can see a definite difference between these two and how they go around making their documentaries. Moore is quite biased and is good at making someone tell him what he wants to hear. Whilst Theroux gets involved and goes into the interviewee's comfort zone in order to get their sides of the stories.
One of the main conventions of this documentary is interviews. Theroux is constantly asking them questions about their past experiences and how they are planning to capture this. With some of the interviews he is in shot with the interviewee but for others there is cut aways to other shots.
Also, throughout Theroux narrates what is going on and who he is talking to. This helps the audience to understand what is going on int the scene.
One method that makes Theroux's documentaries different is that he gets involved with what ever he is trying to find out about. For example in this Weird Weekend episode he joins in with trying to find the extraterrestrials that people are believed to exist. Not only does this show that he is unbiased towards the topic but also that he is interested in what he is researching; unlike the producer for Kurt and Courtney who seemed to not be interested and I believe the audience could hear that in their voice.
Finally, another convention used in Theroux Weird Weekends was that the camera was hand held. This showed the audience that what was filmed was not staged and was true. Therefore backing up what Theroux had found during his time of filming.
Looking at both Louis Theroux and Michael Moore I can see a definite difference between these two and how they go around making their documentaries. Moore is quite biased and is good at making someone tell him what he wants to hear. Whilst Theroux gets involved and goes into the interviewee's comfort zone in order to get their sides of the stories.
Kurt and Courtney
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/3272751_orig.jpg)
The documentary by Nick Broomfield focuses on the death of Kurt Cobain and the allegations of Courtney Love who was suspected of being involved.
I believe that Kurt and Courtney is not a very strong documentary because of several reasons. Firstly, the narrator doesn't sound as if they are interested in the topic themselves. In order to produce a good documentary I think a general interest must be had. Secondly, throughout the documentary some of the scenes have no relevance to the overall topic of the film. For example, the interviewer was talking with his aunt about Kurt's early music but because they weren't allowed to play the music, another persons music was played instead. I think that instead of doing this as its not appropriate they could have just cut this whole section.
Finally, Broomfield made this documentary without any access to the two people who star in this film. Therefore, this will effect the outcome of the documentary because the audience won't be able to hear the different sides of the story about Kurt Cobain's death.
Personally, I believe that the documentary Kurt and Courtney isn't the best example for a documentary based of the three ideas above. Overall all the shots and scenes have no relevance to the tittle or topic of the film.
However, the main convention used it achieve footage. This is mainly other interviews conducted by other interviewers and home footage.
I believe that Kurt and Courtney is not a very strong documentary because of several reasons. Firstly, the narrator doesn't sound as if they are interested in the topic themselves. In order to produce a good documentary I think a general interest must be had. Secondly, throughout the documentary some of the scenes have no relevance to the overall topic of the film. For example, the interviewer was talking with his aunt about Kurt's early music but because they weren't allowed to play the music, another persons music was played instead. I think that instead of doing this as its not appropriate they could have just cut this whole section.
Finally, Broomfield made this documentary without any access to the two people who star in this film. Therefore, this will effect the outcome of the documentary because the audience won't be able to hear the different sides of the story about Kurt Cobain's death.
Personally, I believe that the documentary Kurt and Courtney isn't the best example for a documentary based of the three ideas above. Overall all the shots and scenes have no relevance to the tittle or topic of the film.
However, the main convention used it achieve footage. This is mainly other interviews conducted by other interviewers and home footage.
Bowling for Columbine
![Picture](/uploads/3/8/7/9/38797531/7118446.jpg?266)
Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine is a powerful documentary based around the school massacre that happened at Columbine High School on April 20th 1999. Not only does it focus around this shooting but also others that have happened in America. Additionally, Moore looks into some of the reasons why the two boys went on this massacre.
Within this documentary there are many forms of conventions that not only make it a documentary but also make it seem interesting to the viewers. One of the conventions that is primarily used is interviews. Interviews are used for many reasons, the main one being for listening to other peoples idea's and opinion's. Moore interviews serval people throughout the film seeing what people have to say not only about the Columbine shooting but about guns and the laws that surround it. An example of an interview that took place was the one between Moore and the Michigan Militia. Moore asks them why they need to protect themselves? Why do they practice so often? And what kinds of weapons they own/use?
Another convention used would be the use of archive footage. The archive footage continues throughout the film. However, I believe that the most powerful footage is that clip at the beginning. The clip at the start was from the National Rifle Association. Even though that the clip ties in with the theme of the overall documentary, it sides with having guns. Which some people may think is the opposite of what the point of the documentary means.
Within this documentary there are many forms of conventions that not only make it a documentary but also make it seem interesting to the viewers. One of the conventions that is primarily used is interviews. Interviews are used for many reasons, the main one being for listening to other peoples idea's and opinion's. Moore interviews serval people throughout the film seeing what people have to say not only about the Columbine shooting but about guns and the laws that surround it. An example of an interview that took place was the one between Moore and the Michigan Militia. Moore asks them why they need to protect themselves? Why do they practice so often? And what kinds of weapons they own/use?
Another convention used would be the use of archive footage. The archive footage continues throughout the film. However, I believe that the most powerful footage is that clip at the beginning. The clip at the start was from the National Rifle Association. Even though that the clip ties in with the theme of the overall documentary, it sides with having guns. Which some people may think is the opposite of what the point of the documentary means.