What interview techniques did the interviewer use, considering communication skills and question types?
Krishnan used informal and formal language, as if he was talking to an everyday person (casual language as well). He was quite intrusive when it came to questions, as he could see Richard Ayoade was getting annoyed with the interview situation. The communication between Richard and Krishnan was difficultly achieved, as Krishnan found it hard to get any answers out of Richard, due to his lack of interest in the interview. Krishnan sounded a little bit agitated as he was not getting any information out of Richard, often ending with him repeating himself.
Was the interviewer successful in extracting information from the interviewee, if so how was this achieved?
No, because at the end of the interview there was still no information from Richard collected, which defies the purpose of an interview. Although in this case I don't feel this was the interviewer's problem, more the interviewee, as he was reluctant to answer any questions, which is confusing as
the interview was basically banter between two men.
What was done by the interviewer to incorporate structure into the interview?
Krishnan began by introducing Richard Ayoade, but from then on there was not an apparent structure, as Richard was reluctant to answer any of the answers asked by Krishnan, so there was no structure, just conversation between both parties.
What would you have done differently to make the interview successful?
I would have firstly talked to the interviewee before hand so I knew where I stood with the interview, so I could make my interviewee feel more comfortable. I would also let Richard finish what he was saying throughout the interview as he felt as though he had to talk over Krishnan because he wasn't being heard.
List general and specific interview skills needed to conduct a successful interview in different situations
With a difficult interviewee, I feel that if the interviewer was to keep calm and collective, it would make the situation easier, as the interviewer would not show themselves up or act unprofessional.
For an emotional interviewee, the interviewer would need to act with empathy and have sensitivity toward the subject as they can see that it is effecting who they are interviewing. As well as this,
comforting the interviewee without patronising them is important, as they want to feel as though they can talk and still feel comfortable with the interviewer despite their emotional state.
With a interviewee reluctant to talk, I feel it would be important for the interviewer to carry on with the actions they are taking to get information from the interviewee, as well as sustaining a professional interview.
Monday, 23 February 2015
Thursday, 12 February 2015
Evaluation of ADR: Sound Production - TASK 10
Similar to our previous unit within
sound production, we were asked to create two more ADRs of our choice from
moving image, either television or film. From this I decided to take on two
familiar pieces of entertainment. The first was a scene from the 2004 film Mean
Girls, which showed four friends having a split screen conversation on the
phone in which they were putting each other on hold to gossip about the friend
on the other line. I felt this scene had a diverse array of elements to
recreate throughout, such as sound effects (beeping of phones being used
throughout conversation), music in the background and most importantly, spoken
word – dialogue. The other ADR I created was from the new television show
Gotham, which again had the content I needed to recreate in order to meet the
criteria for this unit such as sound effects (ambiance, clattering of
tables/chairs in background), music to create mood/atmosphere and again spoken
word dialogue. This scene focused on the death of one of the main characters in
the show, Oswald Cobblepot, who the Detectives Montoya and Alan were
questioning Fish Mooney about.
The first thing I did was try and find
the scripts for the two scenes I was creating ADR for. When looking
I couldn't find the script for Gotham, so instead I listened and
transcribed the dialogue onto word and printed out 3 copies so each of the
voice actors had the words in-front of them, which I felt was important to do
considering the dialogue was quite in-depth and confusing in parts. For Mean
Girls, it was a little more straightforward as the script was available to
print online, which again helped within the recording process as we had the
dialogue in front of us. It also helped each members of the cast learn the
lines more rather than just watching the clip to learn them. After this, I
began to record Gotham and Mean Girls. The Mean Girls recording took quite a
lot longer than the Gotham one, as Gotham took 15 minutes and Mean Girls took
an hour. I feel this was due to the content, as there were a lot of different
parts to record and in some cases we had to re-record because the lines were
messed up. Once this was done, I set up Garage Band and imported the videos so
I could start creating my ADRs.
I began to manipulate the dialogue that
I had recorded with my cast within Garage Band. The cast consisted of Theresa
and Wallice (who voiced Detective Montoya and Alan) and me, who voiced
Fish Mooney. The character which I did the dialogue for had a very smouldering voice,
almost seductive and a bit evil. I wanted this to come across with my
role, which I feel even though having a massively different voice to
the character, I pulled off quite well. Theresa and Wallice also did very well
at being Detectives Montoya and Alan, although their parts were easier (as
their voices were as every day folk, not much acting involved or emphasis on
words) but never the less they did very well. In some instances, the words were
spoken to fast or too slow - which was a huge issue, as I wanted the recordings
to sync exactly to the video. Similar to the dialogue in Gotham, me and my cast
(Me as Regina George, Theresa as Karen, Noran as Gretchen and Cloud as Cady)
had to vocally act and put a lot of emphasis into the spoken word side of
things, which I felt was quite difficult as the characters were speaking in
quite an unusual pace and got confusing throughout the recording.
To create the illusion of the ADRs being
the original dialogue for both scenes, I began to move the sound clips around,
snipping them in certain places (such as unwanted distortion of sound bites
heard at the start and beginning of the clips) by holding cmd, T and then
selecting the place I wanted to cut, then removing the unwanted sound. This
helped my project's quality, as there were no sound bites that would look unfit
for the scene and again created the illusion that this was the original sound
recording. Another thing I did which I feel improved the quality of the
finished production was the technique I used to sync the sound with the video.
As the original video had sound along with it, I had the option whether to
listen to it or not (by clicking small speaker icon, I could turn mute on &
off on this track). Although I did not keep the original sound within it, I
occasionally kept the track off mute, as by doing this, the track was able to
show me the levels of sound and where they were at their climax. This helped me
as I was able to move the new sound I had recorded in the exact place,
replicating the levels (clicking and dragging back & forth) so they matched
the original but in a new track beneath it. I feel this technique helped me a
lot, as it was hard for me to sync the dialogue perfectly but this gave me the
upper-hand as I could visually see the sound rather than just hearing the audio
along with the mouthing of the words.
I then began to find room ambiance sound
FX for the Gotham scene. I decided not to use ambiance within the Mean Girls
scene, as it was quite basic layer wise and I did not feel the need to add in
any ambiance FX or atmospheric sounds, as in the original I can only hear three
sound elements such as; FX of the phone buttons, music and spoken word. I feel
if I were to add ambiance within the Mean Girls ADR, it would have been pointless
and would not be heard when listening to it back, as the background music and
dialogue would have overpowered it more than say the Gotham one, as the sound
level of the ambiance was higher in the Gotham scene. In the original sound for
Gotham, in the background we hear distant clattering and talking, in which I
felt was important to keep within my version as it creates special awareness
for the audience and creates the scene through sound as well as picture. On
YouTube, I sourced a sound effect, which was not copyrighted and was free to
use without concern. This sound effect mimicked that of the original, and felt
that this combined with the other layers of sound would create a convincing
scene. As this was the base of my project on Garage Band, I began to build upon
it, as then I knew what direction I wanted to go with my ADR.
When editing my Mean Girls ADR, as the
scene did not audibly have any signs of ambiance or atmosphere, I decided to
concentrate more on the music in the background, which would add a reflective
mood onto the scene. To do this, I used Google to find songs which were
released the same time of the movie (as I felt this would have a relevant
connection to the scene in this case) and found a song by the Ting Ting’s
called That’s Not My Name. I used this song due to the upbeat tones used within
it, which I felt would work well with the contents of dialogue. I used an
instrumental version of this song, so the sound of the scene was not
overpowering along with the other layers I was to add in later. The impact this
had within the scene was that rather than having only the dialogue, we had
depth within the ADR and it sounded more natural that if
it hadn't been used. Looking at the original Gotham scene,
I realized there was subtle background music used,
which actually impacted the scene much more when listening to the
music and dialogue together. I decided to use
YouTube once again to find a piece of music which would resemble my
scene audibly, as I wanted to reflect the serious mood that the scene was
giving off to the audience. I found a soundtrack when researching for serious
toned sounds, and even though it was my first I decided that it was perfect for
the clip, so I made a new sound track on Garage Band and dragged the newly
downloaded song into my project. The only difference I made to this sound
clip was snipping the beginning of the track off by using a familiar method
(cmd + T) and deleting it as it was dead sound and made the beginning of
the ADR sound odd when listening to it in full.
Once I had re-recorded the dialogue I
needed, had reviewed the ADR and made sure it was in sync, the final editing
decision I made was to add in sound FX to emphasis and highlight an
important part of the scene. This was the part when Fish Mooney revealed
Cobblepot's death by bluntly saying 'He's dead' and the detectives turn to one
another in shock. I decided to add in a sound effect within this part as in the
original there was one, which I felt worked really well, but wanted to do
another in a different tone as I felt that I could improve on the original. I
created this sound effect by drawing in notes with a cello (as this instrument
is associated with serious mannered situations and I felt reflected the
on-going situation. I drew in around 6 different tones, one on top of each
other, to create a depth-y and rich sounding effect, such as the infamous 'dun
dun dun', often associated with revelation of story line or
character. When it came to adding SFX for Mean Girls, it was pretty
straight forward as the only sounds I needed to recreate was the beeping when
the girls pushed the buttons to change caller. To recreate this, I decided to
put a sound recorder up against my phone whilst pressing the buttons, so that
the recorder captured the beeps, which I needed for the scene. The first time I
did this, it didn't turn out too well but when using a different
sound recorder, which was able to collect a high level of sound, I had
quite a good outcome. With this, I imported the sound clip into Garage Band and
snipped the bits I didn't want out, moving it around to fit in the
place of the original sound.
When showing this back to class mates,
they were impressed with how I was able to create the scene atmospherically,
without making it look fake and still being as effective as the original. Once
I knew that my peers were impressed, I decided to mix down the project and was
finished with my Gotham and Mean Girls ADRs. If I were able to re-do these
again, I feel I would have given myself and my voice actors a bit more time to
rehearse the scenes, as this would have avoided any re-recording of particular
dialogue that was not up to scratch while also maybe having more convincing
voices for the characters, especially when looking to the Mean Girls ADR, as
this was a big issue within the production. Other than these improvements, I
don't think I would change anything about how the project went or what quality
the production was. This is due to me feeling that I did very well within this
particular ADR, as I feel the goals I set for quality were met in all areas
(music, spoken word and sound FX). When comparing it to the original sound, I
myself can see a little difference in quality - as the original was obviously
done professionally, but I feel I recreated the scenes quite well and in terms
of what was better, I would say the original. This is only due to the fact that
they had the equipment and actual actors voicing the characters which synced
perfectly, whereas mine was not, but I am proud with what I have achieved
within this particular part of the unit. I kept the original idea in mind
rather than creating a completely different one (using similar sound
effects + music) as I felt this was the best way to convince my audience
that what they were hearing was the original sound. I feel if I was to have
gone in a different direction with the scenes, such as if I were to put a
comical spin on the Gotham scene, it would have been risky as I feel the visual
content would not match a long with anything other than what was intended
originally. I feel I could have gone a different direction for the Mean Girls
seen though, as the comedy within it could have been exaggerated a little bit
more, but other than this I am happy with the outcome of both of the ADRs I
have created.
Wednesday, 11 February 2015
Evaluation of interview
When looking at the footage I have collected, I have noticed that out of the three people who I interviewed, they all have pretty much have the same view on the subject matter as they all answered the questions in a similar way. They all more or less had positive responses to the questions rather than negative, such as saying how they disagree with what goes on within society when looking at the plus-size category. What I did not see throughout the interviewing is anyone going against the questions I was asking, or giving a different opinion as to what the rest did, which would've been more controversial and unusual to see rather than having people with the same answers. Saying this, if I had answers such as this I would feel quite offended - say if someone agreed with the treatment of overweight people in society, as a person overweight, I would feel as though I would have to bite my tongue slightly in order to carry out the interview properly. I interviewed three people, of different gender and races, which showed me whether colour or age was evidently different, it didn't make a difference to someone's opinion. It also made it fair, rather than asking 3 people of the same race, age or gender, as they may give different answers to one another.
Through carrying out the interview, I learned more about the opinions of my fellow class mates whilst also coming to a conclusion that not everyone has the same views about the issue I am talking about. I have also become aware through the vox-pops that I should broaden my horizons when it comes to the people I ask, as although this selection of people were on my side during the interview, I would like to ask more people to see if their views differed to make things more interesting. I also achieved experience to interview people in a professional like scenario, as I was in-control of the questions and frame/camera shot throughout the interview, which gave me an insight to how it feels to interview someone.
I feel my vox-pops were quite effective, they were open questions which lead to long, detailed answers which gave me an insight to the thoughts of people about this particular subject matter.
If I were to improve my interviews, I would probably give my interviewee less time to answer, as I felt their answers at some points were too drawn out and I should have cut in so I had the opportunity to ask connective questions which would progress the interview more, rather than cutting to a completely different question and losing track of what the interviewee had just told me. I would also probably prepare myself more, so I came across more serious about the matter & prepare my interviewee's with what they're going to talk about, rather than throwing them into the deep end not knowing what the questions are going to be about. Saying this, I feel overall I was able to conduct a good interview and with some minor touches, I feel I would create an even better interview experience for myself and the person I am interviewing.
Through carrying out the interview, I learned more about the opinions of my fellow class mates whilst also coming to a conclusion that not everyone has the same views about the issue I am talking about. I have also become aware through the vox-pops that I should broaden my horizons when it comes to the people I ask, as although this selection of people were on my side during the interview, I would like to ask more people to see if their views differed to make things more interesting. I also achieved experience to interview people in a professional like scenario, as I was in-control of the questions and frame/camera shot throughout the interview, which gave me an insight to how it feels to interview someone.
I feel my vox-pops were quite effective, they were open questions which lead to long, detailed answers which gave me an insight to the thoughts of people about this particular subject matter.
If I were to improve my interviews, I would probably give my interviewee less time to answer, as I felt their answers at some points were too drawn out and I should have cut in so I had the opportunity to ask connective questions which would progress the interview more, rather than cutting to a completely different question and losing track of what the interviewee had just told me. I would also probably prepare myself more, so I came across more serious about the matter & prepare my interviewee's with what they're going to talk about, rather than throwing them into the deep end not knowing what the questions are going to be about. Saying this, I feel overall I was able to conduct a good interview and with some minor touches, I feel I would create an even better interview experience for myself and the person I am interviewing.
Monday, 9 February 2015
Interview questionnaire - doc
1.) What is your personal opinion on plus-size women and how they're viewed within society?
2.) Do you feel that people of all sizes should be able to live and be apart of everyday culture as long as they are taking care of their health in the meantime?
3.) Do you know anything about the prejudice against plus sized women? Do you agree with it? If so, why?
4.) Do you think we as a society are worried that overweight people are becoming the 'norm', by doing so rejecting plus-size completely?
5.) What are your views on those who promote women of average size (size 10-12) as plus-size (size 16+)?
6.) Are there any assumptions that you have about people who are overweight? Any immediate judgements you have?
7.) How do you believe this will effect the current generation? Do you feel women will be pushed to being what society tells them?
8.) Do you think weight is often confused with health?
2.) Do you feel that people of all sizes should be able to live and be apart of everyday culture as long as they are taking care of their health in the meantime?
3.) Do you know anything about the prejudice against plus sized women? Do you agree with it? If so, why?
4.) Do you think we as a society are worried that overweight people are becoming the 'norm', by doing so rejecting plus-size completely?
5.) What are your views on those who promote women of average size (size 10-12) as plus-size (size 16+)?
6.) Are there any assumptions that you have about people who are overweight? Any immediate judgements you have?
7.) How do you believe this will effect the current generation? Do you feel women will be pushed to being what society tells them?
8.) Do you think weight is often confused with health?
Monday, 2 February 2015
Graham Norton: Interview Techniques
Graham Norton: Seth Macfarlane interview BBC ONE, Series 15 - MAY 2014
The style in which Graham Norton presents his show is light-hearted, as the interviews with the guests combined with the characteristics of the interviewer have been done solely to entertain and make the audience laugh without any serious matters coming into hand. Graham Norton is a shown in which not only one guest is interviewed, but rather 3-4 (in this case 4) at the same time, which attracts me to this particular style of interviewing, as it is an un-conventional style of which is different to many other of the shows which have interview based content.
The main objectives of this interview is to entertain and investigate, which both have the audience in mind. Entertain, due to the humour being the core of this show. Graham uses innuendos, which is especially funny when interviewing a comical genius (Seth Macfarlane of Family Guy). Investigative, due to the questioning nature of Graham Norton - asking questions linked to relevant conversation within the chat show. Interviews within this show are crucially important, especially since there is more than one guest being interviewed. Interviewing carries on the conversation between interviewer and interviewee within this show, helps the plan of what happens within the show flow as naturally as possible, without any awkward moments being apparent and makes both the subjects feel comfortable with one another.
I feel the main purpose of this interview is to let the audience feel as though they're involved with the conversations between Graham Norton and the guests, letting them know more about them whilst being entertained, covering any important new events in the celebrities life. This could be things such as new films, book or even music. Within this particular show, we see Graham interviewing Seth Macfarlane, talking about the current roles he has starred in and his most famous, Family Guy, where he voices more than 2 of the characters. Whilst a picture of the Family Guy characters sits behind Graham, he asks Seth about what gave him the ideas to make the characters sound the way they do. This gives Seth the ammunition to do the voices of Stewie and Peter Griffin, as this was a relevant topic of conversation and I could tell he was excited to do. This is done by Graham Norton building rapport with Seth, making him feel comfortable to do the voices within the show. By doing this, the audience, interviewer and interviewee all benefit as they get what they want out of the interview; being entertained, creating a successful interview and showcasing the actor's talent.
Within the interview, none of the questions Graham asks as particularly closed, as rather than asking question after question, he has a conversation with the guest so they feel comfortable with answering any possible questions Graham may ask. For instance, the questions asked are more open, as the answer Graham wants is one which will enrich the conversation further so he can ask another. The way in which this works is with Graham asking Seth or one of the other guests a closed answer question, then with the reply he goes onto the open question which is both longer for him to ask and for Seth to answer. This is a clever technique by Graham Norton, as by ordering the questions by type, he receives a longer and more detailed answer to the important questions his asks.
Firstly, Graham Norton welcomes him guests to the stage by shaking their hand firmly and sitting them down on the couch opposing to him. This 'initial' meeting makes the interviewee feel comfortable, letting them know that they are going to be comfortable with him throughout the interview and shows that he is a friendly person, again building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The communication skills which the Graham Norton use are important to creating the correct atmosphere, as he presents himself as humorous (not serious/mean or controversial). His body language says a lot about the type of person he is, as he turns to each guest to show he is actively listening and is interested in what they are saying, as well as exaggerating his hand gestures to show that he is excited about the topic which is being talked about. He also approaches the celebrities as if they are everyday people - which even though he is a celebrity in his own right, I feel he would still feel intimidated by sitting with so many famous people. This shows his confidence within the interview, which in turn makes the guests feel comfortable with him. I also feel as though Graham has a clear sense of a humour and voice projection; where even when he speaks over the guests, they aren't offended as he entertains them as much as the audience.
Overall, I feel that as an interviewer, Graham Norton is incredibly good at listening, asking the right questions at the right time and building rapport when it comes to the relationship between both him and the guest. His personality gives him an edge, as in some cases we are presented with interviewers who only ask question, without caring whether or not they are liked, but rather getting on with the job at hand. Graham also obviously knows quite a bit about the main guest (Seth Macfarlane) as he related back to information he had collected - whether through ear, text card, telly prompter or through personal knowledge, he is very convincing and knowledgeable when interviewing.
The style in which Graham Norton presents his show is light-hearted, as the interviews with the guests combined with the characteristics of the interviewer have been done solely to entertain and make the audience laugh without any serious matters coming into hand. Graham Norton is a shown in which not only one guest is interviewed, but rather 3-4 (in this case 4) at the same time, which attracts me to this particular style of interviewing, as it is an un-conventional style of which is different to many other of the shows which have interview based content.
The main objectives of this interview is to entertain and investigate, which both have the audience in mind. Entertain, due to the humour being the core of this show. Graham uses innuendos, which is especially funny when interviewing a comical genius (Seth Macfarlane of Family Guy). Investigative, due to the questioning nature of Graham Norton - asking questions linked to relevant conversation within the chat show. Interviews within this show are crucially important, especially since there is more than one guest being interviewed. Interviewing carries on the conversation between interviewer and interviewee within this show, helps the plan of what happens within the show flow as naturally as possible, without any awkward moments being apparent and makes both the subjects feel comfortable with one another.
I feel the main purpose of this interview is to let the audience feel as though they're involved with the conversations between Graham Norton and the guests, letting them know more about them whilst being entertained, covering any important new events in the celebrities life. This could be things such as new films, book or even music. Within this particular show, we see Graham interviewing Seth Macfarlane, talking about the current roles he has starred in and his most famous, Family Guy, where he voices more than 2 of the characters. Whilst a picture of the Family Guy characters sits behind Graham, he asks Seth about what gave him the ideas to make the characters sound the way they do. This gives Seth the ammunition to do the voices of Stewie and Peter Griffin, as this was a relevant topic of conversation and I could tell he was excited to do. This is done by Graham Norton building rapport with Seth, making him feel comfortable to do the voices within the show. By doing this, the audience, interviewer and interviewee all benefit as they get what they want out of the interview; being entertained, creating a successful interview and showcasing the actor's talent.
Within the interview, none of the questions Graham asks as particularly closed, as rather than asking question after question, he has a conversation with the guest so they feel comfortable with answering any possible questions Graham may ask. For instance, the questions asked are more open, as the answer Graham wants is one which will enrich the conversation further so he can ask another. The way in which this works is with Graham asking Seth or one of the other guests a closed answer question, then with the reply he goes onto the open question which is both longer for him to ask and for Seth to answer. This is a clever technique by Graham Norton, as by ordering the questions by type, he receives a longer and more detailed answer to the important questions his asks.
Firstly, Graham Norton welcomes him guests to the stage by shaking their hand firmly and sitting them down on the couch opposing to him. This 'initial' meeting makes the interviewee feel comfortable, letting them know that they are going to be comfortable with him throughout the interview and shows that he is a friendly person, again building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The communication skills which the Graham Norton use are important to creating the correct atmosphere, as he presents himself as humorous (not serious/mean or controversial). His body language says a lot about the type of person he is, as he turns to each guest to show he is actively listening and is interested in what they are saying, as well as exaggerating his hand gestures to show that he is excited about the topic which is being talked about. He also approaches the celebrities as if they are everyday people - which even though he is a celebrity in his own right, I feel he would still feel intimidated by sitting with so many famous people. This shows his confidence within the interview, which in turn makes the guests feel comfortable with him. I also feel as though Graham has a clear sense of a humour and voice projection; where even when he speaks over the guests, they aren't offended as he entertains them as much as the audience.
Overall, I feel that as an interviewer, Graham Norton is incredibly good at listening, asking the right questions at the right time and building rapport when it comes to the relationship between both him and the guest. His personality gives him an edge, as in some cases we are presented with interviewers who only ask question, without caring whether or not they are liked, but rather getting on with the job at hand. Graham also obviously knows quite a bit about the main guest (Seth Macfarlane) as he related back to information he had collected - whether through ear, text card, telly prompter or through personal knowledge, he is very convincing and knowledgeable when interviewing.
Wednesday, 28 January 2015
The Cruel Cut: Social Issue Documentary - Analysis
This hard hitting documentary focuses on the use of FGM on young women in the world, which is seen as a cultural benefit for a woman if marrying a man, as she is seen as pure and more acceptable in the society within her culture. Leila Hussein who presents the show and was also a victim of FGM, confronts the taboo subject by showing the public what really happens to the young girls who go through this. With the shocking images we see and reasons which people think to do so, she goes on a quest to make this known to the world - ensuring that no other girl has to suffer this again. Although this documentary actually effected me emotionally, as a young woman, I feel the documentary lacked clarity. The first half concentrated on feeding information to people, letting them know what happens to the young girls so that they do not misunderstand. The second half of the documentary focused more on the government side of things - where the documentary took a downfall, as she contacted the MP Theresa May and was ignored when approaching her with this issue. Even with Hussein turning up to the office, she is turned away, where then practically the documentary ends with no resolution. Of course, I feel there is no resolution without demand - as a staggering 100,000 petition signatures would be needed for this issue to be brought into the House of Commons. I feel that this documentary has a very good use - to inform people about FGM and the effects we have seen it has had on the women throughout the documentary, but despite this I felt that the documentary lacked hope for the FGM victims and the possible future victims. The lack of persistence that Leila showed was quite off putting, as she basically ended the documentary with telling us to sign the petition.
As The Cruel Cut documentary focuses on a very sensitive subject that effects many women, this is typical of a expository documentary. Documentaries of this type usually focus on a particular subject that effects more than one person, which we delve into and find more information about, whilst also learning of the effect on individuals through interviews which victims of in this case, FGM. One of the biggest conventions used in this documentary the way in which we are fed information - which is through the victims expressing themselves and telling their stories. I feel this has a major effect on the documentary as a whole, as we see just a sample of the women who go through this terrible surgery and how much it effects their life, which made everyone in the room quite emotional when watching - especially when one of the victims expressed that the mutilation had stopped her from being able to have children, which as a woman I would feel extremely angry and sad about. Another convention is actually using a victim of FGM to present the documentary. This gives the audience and the people she talks to throughout the documentary, such as the young men who were clueless about FGM and formed their opinions based on incorrect information they had been told by family members, as she was able to show them what FGM entailed and how much it would effect a woman, especially if that woman was to be their future wife or their child, which shed a light to the young men and also the audience watching the documentary, due to her showing what is done to the vagina during FGM by using play-doh and using large scissors to show what pieces of the female genitals are removed during this process.
When looking at the techniques used to maintain the audiences attention, I noticed the part when she went into the public and asked people to sign a form against her personal beliefs in-particular. I feel she did this to show us how many people are ignorant about FGM, especially when informing them about it in a light-hearted fashion in which she did, as they signed it straight away with only one person rejecting her plead to keep FGM going. Although I felt this showed us how many people do not know the full extent to which FGM goes, I find it hard to understand how she could do it with such ease when she herself was a victim of FGM and it finds it difficult to talk about - whether she feels this would help shine a light on the situation within cultures, I feel it would be difficult for anyone to lie to people about their true feelings about something so serious which effects her life in such a major way. Saying this, it was a good way of enticing the audience to carry on with the documentary as it showed a contrast in opinion as she was going against something she believed in strongly for the sake of a documentary, which I feel pulled the audience in once again. Another technique to engage the audience with the documentary was the way in which she involved politics to show the movement of FGM and she was doing to make people release what a massive importance it was that people knew what was happening illegally within the UK. She did this by contacting the female MP Theresa May, who failed to reply to Leila, which then led us into the petition stage of the documentary - in which Leila involved the audience in and said that we as an audience could make an audience by signing the petition needing 100,00 signatures. The effect this would have on keeping the audience interested is that by including the audience, or giving them hope to believe that they as a person can make a change to FGM.
The purpose of this documentary as it focuses on a social issues - FGM, is to inform and make a change to what females go through such as her self and what can be done to stop it. The change it is campaigning is for the government to lock down on illegal acts of FGM, as although illegal within the UK, it is still a huge issue and young girls are taken out of the country just for this reason. I feel the other reason for this documentary is for the issue to be more known within the public, as although I knew what FGM was, I did not know it was as big of a issue as it was and how much damage it can have to a young girl and a woman's future. This documentary was very good at feeding important about how and what is done, who it is done to and why. I feel that a lot of the people within the UK are ignorant towards an issue such as this, as it is seen as a 'cultural' or 'religous' act, although known of the religious books say anything about FGM or mention that it makes a girl more pure if done. I feel that the public are too scared to say it is wrong, even if they think it as saying something about a religion is usually a bad thing and can start a lot of unwanted trouble. Leila Hussein has been able to inform both her own culture, such as the young Somalian boys about FGM - who originally had nothing against FGM into turning them against it whilst also informing the audience about it at the same time.
The target audience for this documentary I feel would be both men and women, from the ages of 16 and up. This is due to the importance of this documentary to both sexes, as I feel men and women should both know what FGM is especially those who know what it is and whose families believe is a good thing for the women in their families. I also feel that age wise, because of the nature of the documentary and the understanding of a younger audience, I feel 16 would be the right age to talk about this with a male or female as that is the age they generally become sexually active or know a lot more about the female anatomy than of a younger person. The graphic nature of what happens is also very difficult to talk about, especially if the audience are immature - so it would be good to have an audience who have a good understanding without taking FGM as a joke. The target audience would live mostly in the UK, I say this because I feel that FGM is more known in other places in the world such as South Asia (as this is where it happens predominately) and even though it is illegal within the UK, it still happens and people do not know about it - especially when children are taken abroad especially for it to be done, which people should be aware of and look out for any signs of abuse such as this. Their interests would not come to an importance when looking into this documentary, other than having an interest in politics and/or being a feminist (women's rights movements etc.) - who can be male or female, as this is an abuse against women and some of the audience may feel strongly towards social issues such as this. The language of the audience will be English as the documentary is mostly in English, with some parts in Somalian with subtitles and the majority of the people within the documentary speaking in English.
By Leila Hussein's failure to get in touch with Theresa May, for whatever reason - lack of interest in matter etc. Leila basically tells the audience that the only thing that can be done is for the public to sign a petition to get the subject of FGM into the House of Commons, which makes me as an audience member feel as it is actually up to myself to shine a light on FGM and make it known to the MP's and the British Public. When watching documentaries such as this, the audience feel as though there is some hope to solving the issue, which Leila has clearly stated as the case and due to her own failure, makes us feel as though maybe we could do better/ or help Leila out. This is a way in which the audience have been targeted, as it is almost a 'feel good factor' as if the audience have already made a difference by watching the documentary in the first place.
As The Cruel Cut documentary focuses on a very sensitive subject that effects many women, this is typical of a expository documentary. Documentaries of this type usually focus on a particular subject that effects more than one person, which we delve into and find more information about, whilst also learning of the effect on individuals through interviews which victims of in this case, FGM. One of the biggest conventions used in this documentary the way in which we are fed information - which is through the victims expressing themselves and telling their stories. I feel this has a major effect on the documentary as a whole, as we see just a sample of the women who go through this terrible surgery and how much it effects their life, which made everyone in the room quite emotional when watching - especially when one of the victims expressed that the mutilation had stopped her from being able to have children, which as a woman I would feel extremely angry and sad about. Another convention is actually using a victim of FGM to present the documentary. This gives the audience and the people she talks to throughout the documentary, such as the young men who were clueless about FGM and formed their opinions based on incorrect information they had been told by family members, as she was able to show them what FGM entailed and how much it would effect a woman, especially if that woman was to be their future wife or their child, which shed a light to the young men and also the audience watching the documentary, due to her showing what is done to the vagina during FGM by using play-doh and using large scissors to show what pieces of the female genitals are removed during this process.
When looking at the techniques used to maintain the audiences attention, I noticed the part when she went into the public and asked people to sign a form against her personal beliefs in-particular. I feel she did this to show us how many people are ignorant about FGM, especially when informing them about it in a light-hearted fashion in which she did, as they signed it straight away with only one person rejecting her plead to keep FGM going. Although I felt this showed us how many people do not know the full extent to which FGM goes, I find it hard to understand how she could do it with such ease when she herself was a victim of FGM and it finds it difficult to talk about - whether she feels this would help shine a light on the situation within cultures, I feel it would be difficult for anyone to lie to people about their true feelings about something so serious which effects her life in such a major way. Saying this, it was a good way of enticing the audience to carry on with the documentary as it showed a contrast in opinion as she was going against something she believed in strongly for the sake of a documentary, which I feel pulled the audience in once again. Another technique to engage the audience with the documentary was the way in which she involved politics to show the movement of FGM and she was doing to make people release what a massive importance it was that people knew what was happening illegally within the UK. She did this by contacting the female MP Theresa May, who failed to reply to Leila, which then led us into the petition stage of the documentary - in which Leila involved the audience in and said that we as an audience could make an audience by signing the petition needing 100,00 signatures. The effect this would have on keeping the audience interested is that by including the audience, or giving them hope to believe that they as a person can make a change to FGM.
The purpose of this documentary as it focuses on a social issues - FGM, is to inform and make a change to what females go through such as her self and what can be done to stop it. The change it is campaigning is for the government to lock down on illegal acts of FGM, as although illegal within the UK, it is still a huge issue and young girls are taken out of the country just for this reason. I feel the other reason for this documentary is for the issue to be more known within the public, as although I knew what FGM was, I did not know it was as big of a issue as it was and how much damage it can have to a young girl and a woman's future. This documentary was very good at feeding important about how and what is done, who it is done to and why. I feel that a lot of the people within the UK are ignorant towards an issue such as this, as it is seen as a 'cultural' or 'religous' act, although known of the religious books say anything about FGM or mention that it makes a girl more pure if done. I feel that the public are too scared to say it is wrong, even if they think it as saying something about a religion is usually a bad thing and can start a lot of unwanted trouble. Leila Hussein has been able to inform both her own culture, such as the young Somalian boys about FGM - who originally had nothing against FGM into turning them against it whilst also informing the audience about it at the same time.
The target audience for this documentary I feel would be both men and women, from the ages of 16 and up. This is due to the importance of this documentary to both sexes, as I feel men and women should both know what FGM is especially those who know what it is and whose families believe is a good thing for the women in their families. I also feel that age wise, because of the nature of the documentary and the understanding of a younger audience, I feel 16 would be the right age to talk about this with a male or female as that is the age they generally become sexually active or know a lot more about the female anatomy than of a younger person. The graphic nature of what happens is also very difficult to talk about, especially if the audience are immature - so it would be good to have an audience who have a good understanding without taking FGM as a joke. The target audience would live mostly in the UK, I say this because I feel that FGM is more known in other places in the world such as South Asia (as this is where it happens predominately) and even though it is illegal within the UK, it still happens and people do not know about it - especially when children are taken abroad especially for it to be done, which people should be aware of and look out for any signs of abuse such as this. Their interests would not come to an importance when looking into this documentary, other than having an interest in politics and/or being a feminist (women's rights movements etc.) - who can be male or female, as this is an abuse against women and some of the audience may feel strongly towards social issues such as this. The language of the audience will be English as the documentary is mostly in English, with some parts in Somalian with subtitles and the majority of the people within the documentary speaking in English.
By Leila Hussein's failure to get in touch with Theresa May, for whatever reason - lack of interest in matter etc. Leila basically tells the audience that the only thing that can be done is for the public to sign a petition to get the subject of FGM into the House of Commons, which makes me as an audience member feel as it is actually up to myself to shine a light on FGM and make it known to the MP's and the British Public. When watching documentaries such as this, the audience feel as though there is some hope to solving the issue, which Leila has clearly stated as the case and due to her own failure, makes us feel as though maybe we could do better/ or help Leila out. This is a way in which the audience have been targeted, as it is almost a 'feel good factor' as if the audience have already made a difference by watching the documentary in the first place.
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
Case Study: Kony 2012
In 2012, a groundbreaking documentary surrounding the issue in Uganda was released, the purpose being to let the issue be known to the millions of people in the world that Joseph Kony, a leader in Africa, was kidnapping children to use as soldier and forcing them to kill. Jason Russel, a young activist made this known to the world through his controversial documentary about the issue in Africa. He talked about his involvement with a victim of Kony, Jacob, who he had known for almost 10 years. Jacob talked about what he went through, whilst Jacob described in detail the horror of what Joseph Kony was bestowing upon many children like himself, including his brother who was murdered. Jason explained that the issue was simple, that the problem was with the person leading this, Joseph Kony, and if he was arrested that everything would be better for the children in Uganda.
The documentary begins with Jason introducing himself, talking about his family and what he does for a living.We are shown scenes of his wife giving birth to his son Gavin, and how children as young as he is now are being used as soldiers in Africa and couldn't imagine anything like this happen to his child, so why should it happen to another's child? We are then introduced to Jacob, a victim of the child soldiers in Africa, who sadly lost his brother due to the acts ordered by leader Joseph Kony - the centre of the disasters. Jason began to explain what the resolution to this was, by arresting Joseph and restoring the childhoods of the children... But there was one problem, Joseph Kony could not be found. Jason was even contacted by Obama himself, agreeing that what these children suffer is terrible and that he would do what he could to stop it. The documentary ends with Jason explaining what we can do to help to raise awareness of Joseph Kony so he can be found and arrested, which would be done by sticking up posters everywhere around the world so that he is turned into a celebrity and everyone knows about him and what he does.
As the documentary focuses on a social issue that effects children in Africa, the documentary can be classed as a current affairs type of documentary. This is due to the informative content, such as explaining the situation which is going on in Africa, showing us examples of the victims (Jacob) and telling us that we, the world, can help the cause. As well as this, throughout the documentary, Jason Russel puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of our help, as I feel his failures to persuade the government to do something about Joseph Kony had knocked his confidence and began to rely on the public for help. He did this by creating this documentary, who no one knew would become as successful yet controversial as it did in 2012. The effect these types of documentaries have on an audience is that they are made to inspire and awaken the inner activist within the audience. Even if say the audience had never heard of the issue talked about within the documentary, a large portion of the audience would feel as though it would be up to them to make a change - as the presenter or person documenting usually plays on the audience's emotions, especially if the documentary's subject is something sensitive about e.g. children, like in the Kony 2012 documentary.
The way in which the audience's attention is attained throughout the documentary is through content which include emotional scenes, which manipulates the audience into watching to see if there is a resolution or if they can do anything to help. As well as this, Jason uses his own child, Gavin, to example the children who are taken, as he shows the birth of his child and what effect it has on him. The impact this has on the audience is that they see the connection between a child such as Gavin and a child in Africa, showing that this child did not choose to be born into a life such as the one they live and how Gavin is lucky compared to the child soldiers because unlike Gavin, they had no choice as to how they lead their life. We also see actual footage of the conditions in Africa from archive footage, which anchors the situation for the audience showing how serious what happens really is. A victim, who Jason had befriended 10 years prior to the documentary had also been interviewed in this documentary. This examples how much of an effect what happens has on an actual victim and helps the audience understand what happens to the children as the audience are told by someone who has actually experienced it.
The target audience for Kony 2012 I feel is anyone from 13+ (male and female) as the content is not gender specific, the content does not single out a particular person/age of person to watch or help the cause. I also feel this age due to the use of the internet to create the hype about this documentary, which children from the ages of 13 begin to use and would see, as well as people older than this. The interests of this mass audience would be pretty much anything - as there are so many possible audience members with specific interests. One of the main for maybe the older audience members could be an interest in politics, human rights and activism. This documentary would be of interest to them as each of them elements are evident within it. I would say the audience would live worldwide, as again it is not directed at any specific audience and directs to the entire world rather than a specific location. This is with exception of being able to speak English as the documentary is in English with English subtitles.
The way in which Jason Russel made the audience feel strongly about this issue is through his constant emphasis on how the world can help, by putting up posters of Joseph Kony - turning him in to a type of 'celebrity' so the government can realise how much effect he is having on the world as well as being able to find him and arrest him. As well as this, Jason and his organisation created Kony packs which included wrist bands, posters and badges which would spread the word about Joseph Kony so it created even more activism. He also used social media as the major platform for getting the word out - such as facebook, twitter etc. as they are the most famous social media websites which are used by millions upon millions of people in the world, which he realised and saw the opportunity for his documentary to become extremely famous in a short time frame.
My response to this documentary is that although I feel I understand Jason Russel's idea and what he made the documentary for, as it is a very serious issue, I feel a bit played due to the fact that he didn't include vital information about what was happening with the subject in matter. For instance, it turns out the government were actually sending money and supporting Joseph Kony - which I'm sure Jason Russel knew, and that although this does happen in Uganda, that he stressed it to the point where it looked to be a larger spread issue than it actually is. For these reasons, as well as the fact that I didn't really understand where Jason was going with the entire documentary - as a lot of the time he tended to go off subject, bringing his family into matter and reflecting more of a person view on the documentary rather than giving us more information about Joseph Kony, especially the information which was not mentioned within the documentary.
Overall, I feel although this documentary was intended for good purposes, and obviously was very effective when it came to the audience (due to the amount of coverage it had, appearing even on the news) and Jason coming into this with good intentions, I feel it's rather strange the way in which he approached the documentary, as he focused more on what we can do, rather than the situation in hand - which led me to question why the documentary wasn't released any sooner, as Jason had been working and helping in Uganda for many, many years. I also feel that the documentary was quite deceiving, due to the amount of unclear information within the documentary which could easily be misunderstood by many people, and as this documentary went world-wide, there was a massive surge to help, showing how much people wanted to help. I feel if this documentary shone more of a true light on the situation, made by someone who knew the exact information, that it would have been less criticized when it came to light that most of the information was exaggerated. Saying this, I do back up my point when saying Kony 2012 was a very effective documentary and can see why there was a lot of hysteria when it was released, as it gave people hope and made many believe it began with them to help the children in Uganda.
The documentary begins with Jason introducing himself, talking about his family and what he does for a living.We are shown scenes of his wife giving birth to his son Gavin, and how children as young as he is now are being used as soldiers in Africa and couldn't imagine anything like this happen to his child, so why should it happen to another's child? We are then introduced to Jacob, a victim of the child soldiers in Africa, who sadly lost his brother due to the acts ordered by leader Joseph Kony - the centre of the disasters. Jason began to explain what the resolution to this was, by arresting Joseph and restoring the childhoods of the children... But there was one problem, Joseph Kony could not be found. Jason was even contacted by Obama himself, agreeing that what these children suffer is terrible and that he would do what he could to stop it. The documentary ends with Jason explaining what we can do to help to raise awareness of Joseph Kony so he can be found and arrested, which would be done by sticking up posters everywhere around the world so that he is turned into a celebrity and everyone knows about him and what he does.
As the documentary focuses on a social issue that effects children in Africa, the documentary can be classed as a current affairs type of documentary. This is due to the informative content, such as explaining the situation which is going on in Africa, showing us examples of the victims (Jacob) and telling us that we, the world, can help the cause. As well as this, throughout the documentary, Jason Russel puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of our help, as I feel his failures to persuade the government to do something about Joseph Kony had knocked his confidence and began to rely on the public for help. He did this by creating this documentary, who no one knew would become as successful yet controversial as it did in 2012. The effect these types of documentaries have on an audience is that they are made to inspire and awaken the inner activist within the audience. Even if say the audience had never heard of the issue talked about within the documentary, a large portion of the audience would feel as though it would be up to them to make a change - as the presenter or person documenting usually plays on the audience's emotions, especially if the documentary's subject is something sensitive about e.g. children, like in the Kony 2012 documentary.
The way in which the audience's attention is attained throughout the documentary is through content which include emotional scenes, which manipulates the audience into watching to see if there is a resolution or if they can do anything to help. As well as this, Jason uses his own child, Gavin, to example the children who are taken, as he shows the birth of his child and what effect it has on him. The impact this has on the audience is that they see the connection between a child such as Gavin and a child in Africa, showing that this child did not choose to be born into a life such as the one they live and how Gavin is lucky compared to the child soldiers because unlike Gavin, they had no choice as to how they lead their life. We also see actual footage of the conditions in Africa from archive footage, which anchors the situation for the audience showing how serious what happens really is. A victim, who Jason had befriended 10 years prior to the documentary had also been interviewed in this documentary. This examples how much of an effect what happens has on an actual victim and helps the audience understand what happens to the children as the audience are told by someone who has actually experienced it.
The target audience for Kony 2012 I feel is anyone from 13+ (male and female) as the content is not gender specific, the content does not single out a particular person/age of person to watch or help the cause. I also feel this age due to the use of the internet to create the hype about this documentary, which children from the ages of 13 begin to use and would see, as well as people older than this. The interests of this mass audience would be pretty much anything - as there are so many possible audience members with specific interests. One of the main for maybe the older audience members could be an interest in politics, human rights and activism. This documentary would be of interest to them as each of them elements are evident within it. I would say the audience would live worldwide, as again it is not directed at any specific audience and directs to the entire world rather than a specific location. This is with exception of being able to speak English as the documentary is in English with English subtitles.
The way in which Jason Russel made the audience feel strongly about this issue is through his constant emphasis on how the world can help, by putting up posters of Joseph Kony - turning him in to a type of 'celebrity' so the government can realise how much effect he is having on the world as well as being able to find him and arrest him. As well as this, Jason and his organisation created Kony packs which included wrist bands, posters and badges which would spread the word about Joseph Kony so it created even more activism. He also used social media as the major platform for getting the word out - such as facebook, twitter etc. as they are the most famous social media websites which are used by millions upon millions of people in the world, which he realised and saw the opportunity for his documentary to become extremely famous in a short time frame.
My response to this documentary is that although I feel I understand Jason Russel's idea and what he made the documentary for, as it is a very serious issue, I feel a bit played due to the fact that he didn't include vital information about what was happening with the subject in matter. For instance, it turns out the government were actually sending money and supporting Joseph Kony - which I'm sure Jason Russel knew, and that although this does happen in Uganda, that he stressed it to the point where it looked to be a larger spread issue than it actually is. For these reasons, as well as the fact that I didn't really understand where Jason was going with the entire documentary - as a lot of the time he tended to go off subject, bringing his family into matter and reflecting more of a person view on the documentary rather than giving us more information about Joseph Kony, especially the information which was not mentioned within the documentary.
Overall, I feel although this documentary was intended for good purposes, and obviously was very effective when it came to the audience (due to the amount of coverage it had, appearing even on the news) and Jason coming into this with good intentions, I feel it's rather strange the way in which he approached the documentary, as he focused more on what we can do, rather than the situation in hand - which led me to question why the documentary wasn't released any sooner, as Jason had been working and helping in Uganda for many, many years. I also feel that the documentary was quite deceiving, due to the amount of unclear information within the documentary which could easily be misunderstood by many people, and as this documentary went world-wide, there was a massive surge to help, showing how much people wanted to help. I feel if this documentary shone more of a true light on the situation, made by someone who knew the exact information, that it would have been less criticized when it came to light that most of the information was exaggerated. Saying this, I do back up my point when saying Kony 2012 was a very effective documentary and can see why there was a lot of hysteria when it was released, as it gave people hope and made many believe it began with them to help the children in Uganda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)