Evaluation, Question 4

This is my evaluation with the 4 questions being headed at the start of each post and I do apologise for the images having to be at the bottom but them go in numerical order from top to bottom but this was the only way I could get the images onto the blog as I exhausted all other possible solutions

4. How did you use new media technologies in the construction and research, planning and evaluation stages?

New media technology proved to be a great help when creating this project all the way from start to finish, it wouldn’t have been possible if it wasn’t for the media technology. The actual documentary itself required new technology to what I had previously got to know throughout last year such as a PMD660 (see Figure 8) used to record the voiceover by Toby Marshall. I found piece of equipment very simple to use at it simply required batteries to use and a microphone which was just plugged in by an XLR cable, the PMD660 didn’t cause us any problems during our process. There was however, new elements of new media technology that I had previously not encountered which caused us some difficulty; our website (see Figure 9). The website, which was implemented in order to give the public a greater insight into our documentary, contains our radio trailer and newspaper article as well as links to our group and individual blogs. The problem we encountered with the website is that of putting links onto the website and creating a background for the website. There was a limited selection of ways you could set out the website due to restrictions being placed upon it because it is only a free domain, these preset template were not to our liking however so we ended up wasting time looking for different way in which to get around this before finally giving up and settling on one of the preset templates. Another piece of new hardware that we had to learn to use was the clip tie microphone (see Figure 10) which was used in all our interviews by being placed under the subjects top and clipped to the neck area of their clothing in order the get a crisper, clearer sound than using the shotgun microphone that was go used to last year. We did not experience any problems with the clip tie microphone until it came to interviewing WPC Lawrence and her microphone didn’t work so although I recorded using the built in microphone of the Sony DVCAM PD170 which we used last year we still needed to re-film in which the microphone worked well. In addition, there was the piece of new media technology that we encountered this year as opposed to last which was the audio uploading software SoundCloud (see Figure 11) on the internet. This software was used to upload our radio trailers onto so they could be link with our website and give the audience a chance to hear them. Finally, a new, somewhat annoying piece of software became indispensible when editing my newspaper article; GIMP (see Figure 12). Although I found this annoying and hard to use throughout I also saw it as an invaluable tool when it came to editing as without paying for programs such as Photoshop there is no other way to edit the images to the specifications I desire. In conclusion, I believe I used new media technology very well throughout and even if I did find some elements hard I tried and succeeded to overcome them.

Evaluation, Question 3

This is my evaluation with the 4 questions being headed at the start of each post and I do apologise for the images having to be at the bottom but them go in numerical order from top to bottom but this was the only way I could get the images onto the blog as I exhausted all other possible solutions

3. What have you learned from your audience feedback?

Our post documentary audience feedback can be found on YouTube at the following URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQA_J2oYoDI
From our audience feedback we learnt essentially how to construct our interview and what to include and exclude. We used a questionnaire with our audience to get a feel for what they thought was necessary within an interview before we started filming. This feedback which can be found on our group blog essentially explained to us what our target audience saw to be necessary components of a documentary about the public drinking ban. Our pre-documentary questionnaire which was aimed mostly at new drinkers (ages 18-21) essentially told us that we needed to have interviews, cutaways, and informing voiceover and facts and figures in order to make it appealing to them, this was heavily taken into consideration when creating the documentary. An overwhelming majority also told us that it was better to include someone who had knowledge of the topic and deals with the issue on a daily basis in an interview than it was to have someone who in influential in society which again, was taken into consideration when organising interviews which led us to interview people such as a WPC and the person who helped organise the London Tube Party. After taking the pre-documentary results into consideration and creating our documentary we asked our audience for feedback on the documentary, so we sat them in a room in a somewhat structured interview and asked them questions (see URL above and Figure 7). This gave us a great insight into how our target audience viewed our documentary. For the most part we learnt that people liked our documentary, however, there were some elements that could be improved. These elements included the use of cutaways, a member who was questioned stated that he felt that there should been a better use of cutaways as he felt that some of them didn’t necessarily directly relate to the topic and another audience member noted that he felt that some of the interviewees had said somewhat irrelevant subject matter. There was fortunately praise aimed towards our documentary as well as constructive criticism. One good point that was raised by the female audience member was that she felt that the graphics were “really really good” and “kept her interested”. Another positive point that was raised was also that we had a good quality of speakers which we hoped to achieve after taking what our pre-documentary questionnaire told us as the specific speakers that the audience member pointed out were mostly non influential people within society but those which has a deep knowledge of the subject of the drink on different levels such as the barman and the drinks connoisseur. The questions raised can also be seen on our group blog consist of:
1. What aspects of the documentary did you think worked well?
2. What do you think could be done to improve the documentary?
3. What codes and conventions, if any, did you notice within the documentary?
4. Did you find the documentary was biased or non biased in any way?
5. Was you able to get a clear idea of both sides of the argument?
6. Do you think the documentary was informative?
All these questions prompted mostly positive feedback however, as previously noted there were the inevitable negative elements such as some of the cutaways and some of the interviewees answer but also the voiceover as one audience member pointed out that although the documentary was formal “it didn’t dominate that documentary” as it came across that “it didn’t blend in as his voice was a bit low and he sounded a bit nervous”. All this feedback both positive and negative would be taken on board were we to re-create this documentary or create a new one fresh and we would attempt to have a clearer, bolder voiceover, have more concise speakers and more precise cutaways where every single cutaway fits within the context of the documentary.

Evaluation, Question 2

This is my evaluation with the 4 questions being headed at the start of each post and I do apologise for the images having to be at the bottom but them go in numerical order from top to bottom but this was the only way I could get the images onto the blog as I exhausted all other possible solutions

2. How effective is the combination of your main product and ancillary task?

I believe that our main product and the ancillary tasks have a close relationship in which the ancillary tasks which consist of the radio trailer and a newspaper article in the form of a poster share the common goal of enticing the audience into noticing the documentary and in turn getting them to watch the main product. These tasks allowed me use a different medium of communication to get in contact with the different audiences including that of our target audience which was both males and females of the age of 12 upwards. This may seem a broad spectrum but as explained on our blog our research showed us those children as young as 12 from both sexes were drinking in both public places and in private. The different mediums we used consisted of the visual form in terms of the poster which was created with a view to be being put into a newspaper to advertise the documentary, this was an interesting task as I found it interesting learning what essentially makes a good and bad poster as through my drafts I experienced both of these. The verbal element that I implemented in my ancillary task would be the radio trailer I created which was a very engaging activity as I have never created a radio trailer before and every element was something new to me. The radio trailer as a whole caused me problems from the outset in terms of how to set it out but I based it on a simple but effective template; introduce the documentary with time, date, and channel, play a exert from the documentary and then repeat documentary title, time, date and channel. As most people are quick to blame politicians for matters of this sort such as the public drinking ban I was quick to point out via my radio trailer that perhaps everything isn’t they’re fault and they shouldn’t be blamed it the ban is deemed as a failure so I decided to use an clip from paramedic Kim Wheatley’s interview in which he explains that he believes that “A ban is only as good as the policing of it” which I believed to be a powerful statement and apt enough to be put into the ancillary task. For the voiceover in my radio trailer I naturally used the same person who performed the voiceover for the main product to aid with continuity, Toby Marshall. I also chose Mr Marshall as he has what might be deemed by some to have the accent of the masses, meaning that he doesn’t have what could be perceived as an upper-class accent which would make him somewhat disjointed from main audience as it is stereotypically the lower/middle classes from the E, D and perhaps C2 social demographic sections of society that would participate in public drinking. By repeating the time, date and channel as well as the name of documentary within my trailer it anchors the elements within the audience member so as they have a greater chance of remembering and therefore watching the documentary. I would like to think that my poster is unique not because of its format as I have already stated that it has a generic format but in its content and in its efforts to help the main product succeed. When doing my poster I originally was rather lax in my approach as wasn’t entirely sure how I wanted to set it out so I simply took some photographs of a friend from different angles with the title over the top and the website in the corner (see Figure 4). Not surprisingly, this was a very poor first draft of my poster which neither enticed nor kept the attention of the audience. I then metaphorically went back to the drawing board and came up with an idea in which I would get someone to pose on a park bench (being in the public area) with beer cans littered around them, this then posed a problem as none of my friends said they wouldn’t be willing to be deal with the social stigma that the photo might bring so I decided to take it upon myself to get my grade to step in and be in front of the camera instead of behind it. I then chose to edit this image using the free photo editing software “GIMP” by de-saturating it, giving it a greyscale effect (see Figure 5) and then in colour to add emphasis I added a no drinking in public sign on to the leg of bench I was laying on (see Figure 6). The combination of these 2 ancillary tasks with my main product therefore creates a somewhat co-dependent relationship between the 2 in that they both need each to be seen otherwise the main product will not be seen without the advertising and the advertising would not make sense without the main product, this then creates a very effective combination.

Evaluation, Question 1

This is my evaluation with the 4 questions being headed at the start of each post and I do apologise for the images having to be at the bottom but them go in numerical order from top to bottom but this was the only way I could get the images onto the blog as I exhausted all other possible solutions

1.In what ways does your media product use, develop or challenge forms and conventions of real media products?

When making my media product; the documentary “The Public Drinking”, I discovered one of the most important elements was to use the element seen in most documentaries, impartialness. I found it increasingly necessary to incorporate this convention element into my documentary as, not only was it supposed to be created with the ethics of the British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) but it is important when showing an argument to give both sides an equal say and to not try and influence the audiences opinion. I believe one of the key conventions that we utilised well was the somewhat obvious convention of interviews. I believe our interviews were well constructed with good questions put to the interviewees in order to give the audience an accurate view of both sides of the argument of whether the drinking ban is right or wrong. Some of our interviews were also framed well, in particular the interview with Justice Of The Peace (JP) Dennis Smith (see Figure 1) in which you can clearly see that there is a sufficient enough amount of head space so that the subject doesn’t look to large and imposing on the screen but not too much which would make him seem distant from the screen and the audience. Another convention which I think we incorporated well into the documentary was the use of graphics on the screen to inform the audience of what is going on. In Figure 1 you can see that we used graphics to inform the audience of who is speaking at the time and their job or why they are relevant to our documentary (see Figure 2). A third convention that I believe we used and developed was the use of the voiceover. It is the purpose of a voiceover to further the story onwards from what the interviewees and cutaways are saying and to inform the audience of what is going on and general information on the subject. I believe we implemented this convention well although there were some points within the documentary where the voiceover seemed jittery and somewhat unsure about what they were saying however we were unable to redo the voiceover due to other commitments the speaker had made. The final convention that I believe we applied to our documentary would be the cutaways. This particular convention is used within all documentaries so as the audience don’t get bored and are just seeing people sit there answering questions. Our cutaways are used to relate to the subject of the drinking ban and I believe that we used this convention to our advantage as in our post audience review where we asked audience member what they thought they noted that the cutaways was one of the elements they most enjoyed as they was “relevant to the topic” and they kept the audience engaged (see Figure 3).

Third Poster Draft

This is my third poster for my documentary on the public drinking ban. The elements that have been included since the first draft include the date of release (March the 16th 2010) and I also have added a no drinking image in colour to juxtapose the grayscaled image and to add some irony to the overall image. In addition to this I have also slightly moved the HCTV logo and website address.

Second Draft of Poster

This is my second draft of my poster, I decided to completely change the image as I felt my first image was sufficient to get myself a good grade. There are, however, still changes that need to be made and I will upload the final image soon.

First Poster Draft

This is my first draft of the poster I would use to promote my documentary about the public drinking ban.

Documentary Analysis – Ross Kemp: Return to Afghanistan

For my second documentary analysis I will be analysing the different elements of a documentary which include the mise-en-scene, editing, cinematography and sound, although as well as these elements I will be looking at certain elements that are specific to documentary and interview making such as the rule of thirds and the eye level shots.

The documentary I have chosen to analyse is the first part of the second series of the sequel series “Ross Kemp: Return to Afghanistan” directed by Anuar Arroyo. This documentary, according to Bill Nichols “Introduction to Documentary”, is in a participatory mode meaning that the presenter (Ross Kemp) actively participates with the subjects of the documentary (The British Army) by asking the subjects questions and sharing in their experiences. In this mode the documentary maker is clearly visible to the audience, be it by the blue journalist vest and helmet Ross Kemp is made to wear (see figure 1, left) or by other means such as it is obvious by who is asking the questions. Other examples of documentaries which are shot in participatory mode include “Louis Theroux: Most Hated Family in America”, directed by Geoffrey O'Connor and “Fahrenheit 9/11”, directed by Michael Moore. The most likely reason the Ministry of Defence (MOD) have allowed a popular television personality to report from Afghanistan is probably as it allows the general public to see him getting close to the soldiers to protect him as he in unarmed which then makes the public see the privates as more of heroes than they normally would and in turn respect and support them in their cause which, admittedly, is a very clever ploy by the MOD to create support.

I am going to analyse the cinematography next, this is essentially all about the different type of shots and camera movement etc. there is a mid shot used of Major Nick Caulder as he is preparing to move his troop showing in a ready state holding his rifle with his bayonet attached whilst still obeying the rule of thirds for the framing of the image. In figure 2 (left) I have split a cutaway from the show to demonstrate the rule of thirds by being able to see the eye line across the top horizontal and with the subjects head moving slightly across the right hand side of the screen, it can however go towards the left hand side if the director so wishes. The shot is possibly to show the audience that the soldiers are a smart, intuitive, and strong and prepared for action. Cutaways are also an integral part of any documentary, one of the cutaways used within this particular part of the documentary consists of a young Private resting during a brief respite between the hottest hours of the Afghan day (see figure 3, left). This perhaps connotes to the audience that although there is a strong heart within the army, they do have a softer side that needs resting, this perhaps projected in order to get an element of sympathy from the audience in an attempt to get them support the war effort more if at all.

Mise-en-Scene refers to that which is in front of the camera which includes the element of lighting, props and clothing. In the first part of Ross Kemp documentary all these are obviously included many times. The lighting in this documentary consist of all natural light for 2 main reasons, firstly, because it would be heavily impractical to carry the equipment with all the moving they have to do and secondly, because it would clearly show their position to the enemy. Regardless of these reasons I believe that they would have chosen natural light if the situation wasn’t as it is because it allows for a more natural look on the subject and location. The props used within this documentary aren’t used upon request of the producers but simply the equipment that is standard army equipment such as their rifles and radios (see figure 4, left) etc. The clothing that the participants are wearing within Ross Kemp: Return to Afghanistan is that of an army’s standard issue desert camouflage uniform whilst Ross Kemp himself is wearing a blue layer over the top of his helmet and vest (see figure 1) in order to show he is an unarmed journalist who cannot be harmed under the Geneva Convention.

Editing is one of the main components of post production which is essentially just the collecting and collating of the images that were captured to film into an order that tells the story as well as implementing the use of graphics such as credits or the location with time and date. These are present in Ross Kemp: Return to Afghanistan, in figure 5 (see left) you can clearly see the edited graphics (circled) which allows the audience to keep up to date with what day, what operation and the date of when the documentary was filmed, this keeps the documentary coherent and able to be understood by the audience who would find it difficult to follow should it be in a non-chronological order. Another example of editing is the title sequence of the documentary in which the images are juxtaposed in a fast cut manner in order to create a sense of action and give the audience a hint of what they are going to watch, this, of course, ends with the title of the documentary being shown (see figure 6, left). The slight sepia tone added to the piece gives it a worn, old feeling which could connote to the audience a beleaguered, worn-out feeling which would contradict the main aim of the documentary which is to show the soldiers thoughts and feelings and create support for the war effort.

The final element to analysis is the sound of the piece. Sound is obviously an integral element of any film making piece but possibly none more so than in a documentary where different parts need explaining to the audience so they can follow the story easily. The most obvious element within the sound is the narrative voiceover performed by Ross Kemp in the post production and layered over the top. This voiceover tells the audience the information that is missing from the actual visuals on the screen and the interviews that are cast. The interviews themselves create sound as the participants in the documentary are giving their answers which creates the diegetic sound (sound within the film world) where elements such as the voiceover are of a non-diegetic nature (from outside the film world). Another example of non-diegetic sound would be as the text seen in figure 5 in appearing in a type writer form there is the sound of a type writer being played over the top to give the audience a sense that is a more military style with a report being typed up. On the other hand, another example of diegetic sound is when a missile is fired from one of the “Javelin” missile launchers towards Taliban insurgents (highlighted in figure 7, above), the audience hear the screech of the missile through the air and the sound of the explosion when it knocks out the enemy position (circled in figure 8, left). There is not one main soundtrack which is used on the Ross Kemp documentary, instead, it is a collection of short bursts of sounds such as music which is put on to create a sense of tension and drama in order to grip the audience to the action, this technique is used during the action from which figure 4 was screenshot where the Taliban are preparing an attack on our soldiers and they are preparing their defence and retreat.

In conclusion, the hybridization of the main four elements of film making; cinematography, mise-en-scene, editing and sound as well elements specific to documentary film making such shooting it in a participatory mode allow for a well made, well structured, BAFTA award winning series such as Ross Kemp: Return to Afghanistan which, in my opinion, can be analysed but not criticised.

Links To Group Blogs and Website

I'm putting links on here to the other members of my groups blogs as well as the group website, they are as follows:

Sean's Blog

Jack's Blog

The Group's Blog

and The Group's Website

Documentary Analysis (Panorama, “Save our Steel”)

For my first documentary analysis I will be analysing the different elements of a documentary which include the mise-en-scene, editing, cinematography and sound, although as well as these elements I will be looking at certain elements that are specific to documentary and interview making such as the rule of thirds and the eye level shots.

The documentary I have chosen to analysis is the first 5 minutes of an episode from the BBC Panorama series entitled “Save our Steel” and the first element I have chosen to focus on is the cinematography. The way the different shots are put together is crucial as it shows how the documentary blends in with each other through the shots and sound. The way the shots are laid against each other is essential for the audience to follow a clear narrative and understand what is going on. There was a long shot of Jeremy Vine, the presenter, walking across a bridge cut before a long shot across Port Talbot, the town the opening scenes are based in, then into a close up showing his feet going down dome steps then a medium long shot of him walking down the high street. All these shots are put together to give the audience an impression of him walking towards a meeting point to meet the locals in perhaps a central point of the town. The use of cutaways is also vital in the filming of any documentary and must relate to the subject topic in order to make sense of the programme. In this opening scene there are a number of cutaways that are an effective addition to the point that the documentary is trying to make, for example, when Jeremy Vine is on his way to talk to the locals about their factory dependent closure there is a medium long shot of him walking past Job Centre Plus (see figure 1) implying to the audience that the local worker may soon end up here if nothing is done about their cause. These cutaways portray the town as a relatively poor and “in trouble” community and with the presenter walking through in a smart, tailored suit in may connote an element of a saviour to the town. Cutaways as a whole are an essential element to any documentary in order to make the narrative flow seamlessly throughout the piece and to not overload the audience with information and with an average length of between 2 and 6 seconds help link the different scenes together.

Sound is an integral part of any piece of film making but there is an added element in the voiceover that adds that extra dimension to documentary making. This documentary, as with many others, opens with the voiceover technique being used by the presenter (Jeremy Vine). Using the voiceover on top of the cutaways allows the audience to not become bored and to be able to follow the story of what is being said. The non-diegetic sound is also a very important element in documentaries as it allows the audience to engage more with the piece and not feel as if they are just listening to some pre-recorded sound, an example of this is when the people taking part in the documentary are on the train and it is obvious to the audience they are struggling to be heard over the noise of the train as it’s so loud. The soundtrack is also a key part of the non-diegetic sound, an example of the sound being used effectively is at the very beginning when there is the establishing shots of the town of Port Talbot (see figure 2) with Adele’s “Hometown Glory” playing which will connote to the audience that this documentary is being made so as people can feel empathetic with the population and make them want to help their cause. The diegetic sound is an obvious need for any not only documentary pieces but any film
making and in particular in this piece the speech is the element of sound most important for the obvious reason that the audience can hear what is going on and follow the story.

The 5 minute opening sequence from the “Save Our Steel” episode of Panorama has many, many different elements of mise-en-scene within it including lighting, props and character positioning. The lighting of the documentary seems to be mostly a mix of natural light during cutaways as they are mostly either helicopter shots or on a train in an area where the natural light is good. The lighting is very important when it comes to any to documentary making as without it the interviews would be dim and it would seem less interesting to the audience and they would disengage with the piece. A good example of props being used is when the female in the (see figure 3), Belinda, is being interviewed at her place of work and to possibly highlight her line of work they have her using a dishcloth and a bottle of cleaning fluid to clean the table in her local community centre which connotes to the audience that she is of the poor, working class which therefore adds to the feelings of the aforementioned empathy. Another important element of the mise-en-scene in documentary film making is character positioning; in figure 3 you can clearly see that the presenter has been placed on the more dominant right side and the interviewees on the more passive left. This tells the audience who the authoritarian figure is within the scene; it also again helps connote the situation that the people of Port Talbot are in, a disadvantageous, difficult and complicated one.

The editing of this sequence from the BBC is of an extremely high standard as would be expected from such a prolific corporation. The juxtaposition of the shots such as the cutaways to the interviews helps the piece flow with great ease and the titles of the people are put up a clear, concise manner. The titles of the members of the public taking part on the documentary are also of a clear, concise nature (se figure 4) and allow the audience to very clearly see the person credentials. The blue tinge that is put over the screen is possibly to highlight the use of the text graphics, which are put out in a type-writer fashion, one letter after the other as opposed to some documentaries that just show them and then get rid of them; panorama appears to “type” them in and then to quickly take them down and cut to a cutaway. These are probably used to give a more professional look to the documentary and as it is a BBC documentary it needs to do so.

In conclusion, using a mixture of all 4 of the main elements of film making; editing, cinematography, mise-en-scene and sound the audience is able to enjoy and be informed by a well made, clear, informative documentary which utilises these 4 elements to the highest quality.

Welcome To My Blog

Welcome to my A2 Media Studies Blog. I am the director for our group creating a documentary on the subject of The Public Drinking Ban and Is It Right?

My Role

My role within this group is to be the director for the documentary. I chose this role as I developed the skills for it last year and feel I can only build on them and make them better and with my already budding talent for the subject I feel it can only turn out well. This involves organising interviews for the group and generally making sure that everyone is clear and sure what they are doing and lend a helping hand if needs-be.  I will also be updating my blog with all my activities weekly and keeping you posted on how we are doing and I am very confident that my group and I will finish this task on time and to a very high standard.