Comparison of News Magazines, Documentaries and TV Docs – Entry #3

For this blog I have chosen to watch Hoop Dreams and an episode of 16:9 that aired at the end of its 4rd season. Hoop Dreams was obviously about two teens who played basketball and its affect on their lives. The episode of 16:9 was titled Line of Duty, they interviewed a Canadian soldier that has come back from serving time in the war and they also had the chance to interview ex-members of a terrorist group that is based here in Canada.

Although they are two completely different topics, both have shown the effectiveness of editing, lighting and story structure. The one thing i want to concentrate on for this blog is focal length and framing.
Hoopdreams used effective focal lengths and framing at precise moments to have the viewer actually feel what the interviewee feels. Likewise with 16:9.
I knew the effects/usage of these simple camera movements but considering that I watched episodes of something that I don’t usually watch, I caught myself getting more interested and asking for more simply because of how the interviews were shot. An extreme close up can exaggerate the seriousness of the topic/feeling of the interviewee. This is especially true with sarcasm. When something “out of this world” is said, the viewer can perceive it differently if you use an extreme close up rather than a medium shot. You can create a sense of humour to something that shouldn’t be humours and “lighten the mood”. This can ultimately belittle the seriousness of the topic at hand as well.

I have always been a fan of documentaries because I can simply choose the topic. I must admit that because of this blog assignment, i’ve been more appreciative of news stories and every aspect of them. The research done, the questions asked, the camera tricks used and the ability to inform the viewer in a shorter time span than that of a documentary. It’s entertaining. I would say that I would rather watch news stories than read them, but I can’t. I must keep in mind that these news stories are bias and the information given is coming from a certain “side”. I won’t say that the information given is incorrect, I would say that ALL the information was probably not given… And in my personal opinion, this holds true for ANY STORY.

Comparison of News Magazines, Documentaries and TV Docs – Entry #2

For this blog entry i have chosen to watch 60 Minutes, Bowling for Comlumbine and a National Geographic tv doc on the Milky Way.
I was originally going to compare the differences and similarities of these 3 different shows but as i was watching, it hit me. I realized the strategic use of editing and how powerful it can make a simple sentence. I understood very clearly when Chris T. emphasized the use of sound bytes but what i have learned on my own is the way sentences can be broken up and pieced together can make for a very touching story. This realization came to me as i was watching 60 Minutes.

Its probably been done since forever and i do it myself as well. A sentence can be broken apart and be mixed with a different picture/sound bite, interrupted by the interviewer or simply just stop. This is done to create suspense, humour, inspiration or, God forbid, fill in time to meet criteria. This specific strategy caught my attention in all the shows but more when i saw it being done in 60 Minutes. I laughed and felt a bit of anger while watching. If the viewer can feel an emotion, i believe the story has done its job.

On the other hand, this strategy can totally skew the truth and exaggerate unintended facts. I say this with full confidence because not everyone is truthful. Not all journalist think “the truth” is a great story. And lets face it, it’s not. Whatever has been said can easily be cut and placed in a way that the speaker did not intend. Whether you like it or not and although this isn’t honest and truthful, its done sometimes and it is dreadfully effective.

Saying this, All viewers should keep in mind that reliable information should be searched for in other places and NOT JUST THE TELEVISION SCREEN. Even though its on the news or a documentary, there is still a bias in the information being presented. Viewers should question and do research before any sides are taken and conclusions made.

The next time your watching an interview thats cut here and there. Ask yourself, Is this really the way this interview happened? If you laugh, cry, feel angry or become apathetic, you are experiencing the effectiveness of editing.
I think that the only REAL interview anyone can believe immediately is one that is done in ONE SHOT with no cuts.

…but of course that’s rarely done because its not “nice looking”…

Comparison of News Magazines, Documentaries and TV Docs – Entry #1

For my first entry, I will be comparing and discussing the light used in The Fifth Estate, Born into Brothels and National Geographic’s: Ancient Aliens interview scenes.

I can’t really compare the content of each as The Fifth Estate episode I selected was about the last days of Bin Laden

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/binladen/

Born into Brothels is about the youth in India who are born and raised into the Brothel system and the attempt to take a select few OUT of the situation. I streamed this through

Letmewatchthis.com

Lastly, National Geographic’s: Ancient Aliens is about our origin and the theory of intelligent life visiting us long before we think. All episodes can be streamed live through

justin.tv

There is no particular reason as to why I chose these certain videos to watch but after viewing, I personally gained insight as to how certain networks/producers gain or keep their viewers. These documentaries have the ability to entertain and educate the viewer at the same time, so each must have its own style or must have the ability to keep your attention on the topic at hand.

Each have interview style segments but the simple use of lighting, I find, is what differentiates the 3. I found that The Fifth Estate uses 3-point lighting to cast MORE of a shadow on the face to actually create more of a mysterious, thrilling watch. Taking the topic into consideration, This strategic use of lighting kept me watching because it exaggerated the seriousness of the topic, and no, i’m not saying it wasn’t serious to begin with, but it created an unusual type of relationship between the viewer and the interviewees. I haven’t watched other episodes but I already like their style and I will surely be watching more.

Born into Brothels interviews revolved more around a group of children. Maybe 1 or 2 lights were used and I’m not sure if that was done purposely but it sure made in impact on me as a viewer. It made it more “real”. These kids don’t know anything else but the world they live in. The lack of light puts the viewer in these kids position, or close to.

Lastly, in National Geographic’s: Ancient Aliens, I find that the 3-point lighting is switched from being the same to complete opposite(when the mood requires it to change) way of that found in The Fifth Estate episode I watched. The interviewees face is completely lit up as if the theories they’re explaining are in fact, factual. Giving us, the viewer, reassurance that it may be true? Or their faces may be darker if the fact may be “twisted”, or “unpredictable”. This strategy with the lighting paired with the words coming out of their mouths makes for great entertainment! I wonder if what they’re saying is true??