Dragon Fly

Our project Dragonfly was based on forced perspective. Dragon Fly is a song by Nick Batterham. Luci Schroder made a music video for it that humorously plays with forced perspective. The video can be found here. There are a lot of movements in this video that Luci Schroder creates. Some of the movements included a llama being stroked in the front room, pushing a woman into the sea, touching the big wheel. I think that my two favourite movements are when he is pushing the guy into the house through the wheel and when he is touching the mans abs. The way in which Luci plays with the forced perspective is interesting because it gets you laughing at all these things yet none of them are real. Although forced perspective is rarely used nowadays I think it would be nice to see films use it again. 

My two favourite shots from The Dragon Fly music video. 

Forced perspective is a technique that employs optical illusion to make an object appear further away, closer, larger or smaller than it actually is. It can be used in photography, film making and architecture. The way in which my group used it was through film making. An example of how it can be done is in a scene in an action/adventure movie in which dinosaurs are threatening the heroes. By placing a miniature model of a dinosaur close to the camera, the dinosaur may look monstrously tall to the viewer, even though it is just closer to the camera. It's a really clever way that film makers do it because it works so incredibly well. The most common movies that these are used in were the B-movies from the 1950s&60s, the reason for this is because they had a very limited amount of money and therefore used forced perspective a lot. Two very common films that used forced perspective are Attack of the 50 foot woman (1958) and One Million Years BC (1966). 

I think that forced perspective works well for low budget films, the reason I think this is because they don't have the money for the technology that is used to create forced perspective. I think that the reason why many films use this technique is because it is an easy way to trick the audience into thinking that something is bigger than it actually is. I think that forced perspective can add a lot to a film, I think it can particularly add to the ones that don't use a lot of effects due to the cost of money. However this costs nothing to do and it looks really good if done properly therefore it is a clever technique to use. 

We worked in a group of four, my colleagues were Scott Friday, Sam Shaw and Olivia Searle. We were given five different shots that we had to done. We managed to get one each of the shots.

The first shot we got was inside of the bombed out church, this was the architecture shot, the way in which we got the shot was by Sam standing quite close to the camera with just his hand in shot. Scott is then a good few feet behind him stood up on the wall so it looked as though he was standing on Sam's hand. This shot was relatively easy to shoot because the idea worked really well, although the only problem with this shot was that the lightening wasn't particularly brilliant due the amount of darkness that that there was in the church. 

The second shot that we did was of people being still, this was probably the most fun of all of the shots; myself, Olivia and Sam were all lying down on the ground on our fronts holding onto a bollard each. The shot was fun to film because it was something a little bit different. I think that this shot turned out really well because we pulled it off by making it look as though we were failing in mid air. 

The third shot was using using cans of Red Bull, the way in which we did this was by standing on chairs and making it look as though we were dancing inside the cans and then we would jump out of the cans to make it look as though we were falling. For this shot the cans of Red Bull were right in front of the camera with us being really far back. This shot worked well because we were able to use a big space which meant that we could fit each of the cans in the shot. 

The third and fourth shot were very a like in the fourth shot we used four different skittles and focused on the skittles. The way in which we used the skittles was to make it look as though we were standing on top of the skittles. Then one person would jump off the skittle and onto the floor and hide to make each of the skittles look like stepping stones. Similar to the third this shot only worked well because we were in a large space. However this shot turned out a lot better than expected. 

Finally the 5th shot we had was of Sam's wallet which we stood up and made it look as though Olivia was lying underneath it. This shot was definitely the hardest to shoot, this is because it was so low on the ground and therefore the tripod wouldn't get anywhere near it. Therefore getting the correct angle was really hard, especially as it was incredibly windy which meant that the wallet kept falling down. 

Three of our shots. 

When it came to the editing part it was relatively easy. We had the shots from all the groups. I decided what I would do for my edit was to use at least one shot that each of the groups did and for the better ones used two or three, this way I would get a variety of shots from all different groups. I was going to keep the colour the same but I decided for this one to do it in black and white, the reason for this was because as it was a lot of different shots to do it in black and white to make it look professional. I also cross dissolved each of the shots because I thought that this would make the video flow a lot better. 

The two editing techniques I used. 

My final edit. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective - 26th February 2014

Noddy Shot

In this production this was our first production we have done on a Wednesday. The production was pretty simple. The idea behind it was that we had three shots. The first shot was a close up of the interviewer to the side while looking at the interviewee, whilst asking a question. The second shot was of a close up of the interviewee looking from the opposite side which is at the interviewer, which is whilst giving a long answer to aforementioned question. The final and third shot was the 'Noddy shot' a shot of the interviewer nodding agreeably.

The effect that the Noddy shot has is that it is so that the audience doesn't just see the interviewee but also had the reaction of the of interviewer. Under normal circumstances the interviewer would film the noddy shot after the interviewee had left, this is so that the editor can cut between the two in the interview.

In this I worked with my colleagues; Sam Shaw, Olivia Searle and Katie Patrick. In this myself and Katie were working the camera, while Olivia was the interviewer and Sam being the interviewee.

The interview only took about 10 minutes to film because Sam already had the question that he was going to answer and we knew the way in which we were going to set it up. The most complex thing about this production was definitely the editing. I think that this was because I had to keep cutting between the third and second shot to get the effect.

Along with the edit I did an uncut version and in this uncut version I just stuck all three pieces of footage into adobe, this is to compare the two videos too see how different they were before and after. There is quite a bit difference and it shows just how important editing at the right time is. On the version that I edited I also included the 'Sky News' opening titles this to make it look as though it was from an actual news broadcast. I think that this worked well because it made it look more real.

Although this was a really simple project that didn't take too much time, I think that it worked really well and it was interesting to find out how editors cut interviews to keep the audience interested. This is because some interviewee's can talk for a very long period of time and it can start to get incredibly boring.

This is my video of the edited version 

This is my uncut version 

This is the News

In this project we had to work in groups of 2-4. In this project I worked with my collagues; Jade Popham, Katie Patrick and Olivia Searle. The instructions that we were following were really strict and we had an order in which we had to follow them. Along with this we had the 7W's which we had to follow for this production to make sure that everything went perfectly. 

In the morning we watched a clip of 'How to present the News.' In this clip it showed how news reporters present the news. He was doing is as though he was the BBC, although it was based on all of them; BBC, ITV and SKY because each of them have the exact same concept although they are three completely different channels. The clip we watched was highly amusing because Charlie Brooker showed sarcastically how everything happened to make it look slightly more dramatic than it should actually be. 

Our News story was 'An epidemic disease that would make people fall asleep if they catch it.' Our idea was that it would mainly be children and teenagers that caught this disease. The concept behind it was quite simple. We decided to go to Plymouth Hoe to film it as everyone was around college filming theirs. We walked up to the Hoe and decided to follow the plan that we had.

The establishing shot was of the surrounding areas, with Olivia being the reporter, I was the sound engineer Katie being the camera person and Jade being the floor manager. As we had worked together loads of times before we knew how each other worked. We recorded all of our footage in just over an hour, myself and Jade were also the ones who were in the vox pops. The vox pops were fun to film because we were questioning ourself over are actual question. 

Although it was incredibly windy we thought that wouldn't affect us too much because we had a sound recorder and a mic we managed to get behind some trees in an attempt to cut out all of the noise, however I wasn't convinced that it would work properly. Which turns out to be correct...

When we got back to the class we put all of our footage into adobe premier pro like usual, however when we got back, the wind had completely cancelled out all of our sound, I was really disappointed in the way it turned out because I was really excited about this project, yet the wind had stopped us from getting any sound. At this point it was 3.30 and we still had to edit, therefore we decided to leave it, unfortunately I don't have the video because it was pointless without the sound. I am really disappointed and rather upset with the way in which it came out. This is the first time that our work has been affected by the weather and it certainly won't happen again. I think this time we learnt that we made a mistake by filming in the wind and we won't be filming in heavy winds anytime soon again.

The Everyday Object

The Memory Stick is a removable flash memory card format, launched by Sony in October 1998. A memory stick comes in many different forms; Memory Stick, Memory Stick Select, Memory Stick Duo, Memory Stick PRO, Memory Stick PRO Duo, Memory Stick PRO-HG Duo, Memory Stick Micro (M2) and a Memory Stick PRO-HG Duo HXMemory Stick XC. The idea of a memory stick is that it is something which all files can be put onto and then removed and put into any computer. 

The look of a typical memory stick. 

The reason why I chose my topic to be a memory stick is because it is something that I use everyday, in college it is very important that we look after all of our own work and keep it safe, therefore memory sticks are very important. I think that memory sticks are quite hard to make look interesting because since all they are used for is organisation. 

Synopsis 

In my documentary what I plan on doing is treating the memory stick as though it’s the most important thing in the world. To filmmakers a memory stick is incredibly important because it is a way of putting all your work into one place. The way in which I intend to make this interesting is by trying to make it funny and make it look as though the memory stick is the hero. The way in which I will do this is by frankly looking for the work on the computer and not being able to find it, I then realise that I saved it onto my memory stick and I have it all with me. 

Production 

The idea for this was easy enough to come up with, however the filming was really difficult. The reason why was because I did it on my own for the first time and trying to be in it as well as film and make sure everything look right it was a lot harder than I had planned. I think that it turned out well in the end considering it was only me. However I do think this was the most problems I have ever had during one project. 

The way in which we were told to structure our documentary. 

For the planning I drew up quite a detailed storyboard, the reason for this was so that I had something to follow when I was filming, Along with the storyboard, I wrote up a basic script, the reason why was so that I have some idea of what to say when documenting. I think that it is always important to have a some sort of planning behind you because you can look back and follow what the plan had originally said. 

Proof of my editing sequence. 

When it came to the editing it took me a little over two hours because I had to get all the clips and sounds together in order for it too work. The soundtrack that I put behind it was 'Story of My Life' the reason for this was because I felt like the song was fitting for the documentary. I did all of the editing at home however it didn't save but I managed to do it again at college and it worked. 


I think if I were to do this project again, then I wouldn't do it on my own. I also think I just had a lot of bad luck on the particular day and I think that maybe I shouldn't work by myself for a very long time again. I think for this one, two people were needed in order for it to be a complete success.

This is my final video. 

Critiquing someone else's work

The work that I decided to critique was Jade Popham and Katie Patrick's. I really like their work because I felt like it was really fun and a great simple idea. The everyday object that they used was an 'Aglet', an aglet is the part on the end of the shoelace. I thought the bits where they asked people what they thought an aglet was, was really usual. It's kind of funny because people had no clue what it was although people use them everyday. I thought it was a very clever everyday object because this is something that everyone uses yet nobody realises it. This is the irony of it because when asked about it we wouldn't have a clue yet everybody owns a pair of laces therefore everyone owns an aglet. 

The way in which they showed people's shoes and broke up the shots was really good because it gave the documentary a more of a fun feel than it would have been if it was just talking about the object in a normal short documentary. I think Jade does really well in capturing the audience and keeping them interested in the way in which she speaks. This is important especially when the documentary is so short. 

However I think that the best thing about this documentary is the way in which it is edited. The editing techniques in this are really simple yet are so effective. I think that the way it switches between Jade talking to the camera about an Aglet, people being asked a question about 'What an Aglet is?' and the way in which loads of people show their laced up shoes. 

The one thing that I think could be improved on is that they could use people showing their shoes more often and put a voice over on. I think that this could have worked better than Jade directly talking to the camera every time. However I think that in a documentary it is important to talk to the camera, I also think it is necessary that there's a voice over as this is something that is seen in every documentary. I think overall it is very good and there is a lot of hard work that has gone into it. 

9.30 Review - The Work Of Richard Hunter

Richard Hunter is a freelance filmmaker from London. He likes to make micro documentaries about normal, everyday people. His documentaries are exciting and fun to watch. He tells his documentaries about those unsung heroes that would never normally get noticed on a normal documentary.

All of the documentaries have a very similar concept although the people they are interviewing are completely different. In each of the documentaries the starting is the same with it opening with the person taking about their object/subject.Their name then comes up on the screen. The music is next to kick in and it's quite loud and overpowering while they object is filmed and the surrounding area. The beat is intense and nobody speaks while it is playing. The music then fades so that the audience can hardly hear it when Hunter goes back to filming the interviewee. This is important in his documentaries as it is all about the person, which is why it is about unknown people.

Each of them have their own passion. 

The Toy Maker is about an old man who has had a passion for toys for a very long time, his passion is just making the toys. This shows that the man still young at heart. It is important to him that he gets to keep making these toys because of him it is an adaptation of the real world. In this documentary he is staring at the camera for a couple of seconds too long and laughing at his own joke this makes the documentary funny and lighthearted.

This in comparison to Casper Brooker - South-Bank who is young and has a passion for this place because it feels like a home to him. In both of these the people had completely different taste, yet watching it we feel the exact same emotion each time. However this documentary seems a little bit more serious with him being serious about wanting to go to this place all the time even when his friends didn't like it.

The Toy Maker and Casper Brooker both explain their 

passions in similar ways, despite how different they may be.

There are a lot of positive and negative of Richard Hunter's 'Micro Docs.' The positives of them are that they are short therefore impossible to get boring because of the length of them. This is important because not everybody is going to watch a 10 minute documentary of someone they know absolutely nothing about. The length of these documentaries is also clever because it gives them enough time to switch from the conversation to the object and have enough knowledge of the object after watching the documentary. The cons of this documentary is that by watching two minutes of it, it leaves the audience wanting more, they want to find out more about these people. It is important to the audience that they find out all they can about these people and by only knowing two minutes of these peoples lives it isn't enough.

Each of the documentaries feel incredibly personal. Each of them have their own twist, although they are all very similar this is because the people in them make for it to be more interesting. The audience as a whole wants to find out more about these people. An example of just normal these people are in the Bowie documentary - Bowie the Teddy Bear stuffer  the guy is just a big Bowie fan, who actually just wears a wig instead of his bald head when wanting to be like him, he also works in Build a Bear.

In real life he looks nothing like Bowie. 

Although we know absolutely nothing about these people apart from what we have been told. The reason is because the people in the documentary make us interested about them, in the two minutes that we have already watched we have already learnt so much about this person but however not enough. This is a very clever skill that is used by Richard Hunter who plays the audience into thinking we know more than we actually do about the person and the situation. The reason for doing this is because for the two minutes people aren't going to get bored. The audience can also relate to this person because they see someone talking about a love & passion that they have which makes the audience think about something that they have a passion for and therefore can relate to what they are saying and the similar circumstances.

The way that each of these are shot is very important. A lot of the time the back focus is blurred, this is so that our focus is on the individual. This was what Richard Hunter is very clever at, making sure the audience isn't distracted away from what the subject matter is. Each of them have rather blank backgrounds which compliments the main focus really well. This shows the importance of the people. If this were a documentary about someone famous then the same setup would be used where the only focus is on the person. However in normal circumstances of a longer documentary of an everyday person then there wouldn't be as much focus for so long on the person as it would come across as boring.

Documentary - Give Them Enough Rope

In this project of 'Give Them Enough Rope' the brief was 'Standing your ground as filmmakers when interviewing someone who challenges the beliefs of your film/subject matter.

In college we watched the video of Charlton Heston interviewing Michael Moore. This interview was intense. In this interview Heston didn't give Michael Moore anytime to talk or explain his answers in detail because he kept interrupting Moore while he was trying to explain. When Heston first goes to talk, he doesn't tell the truth about who he is therefore he is able to get inside and have an interview the way he does this is by getting on the side of the interviewee before the interview has ever started. In this interview Heston makes out Moore to be even worse than he is, the reason for this is because he doesn't want people to sympathise with Moore, just to make sure that people know that Moore is in the wrong. This is because if Moore says something wrong then Heston will jump onto it and integrate as to why he thinks it. In this interview it is obvious that the filmmaker holds the power this is because of the way he is asking the questions and how they are being answered.

However it isn't completely in the power of the filmmaker, this is because the interview is in the home of the interviewee therefore he can't be under that much pressure because he is in his home comfort. If it were in an unknown room to him then it would be completely in the power of the filmmaker. Finally in the last part of this interview, Heston plays the guilt trip, the way in which he does this is playing the guilt trip of showing a picture of the little girl who was killed whoever Moore doesn't emphasise at all therefore showing him in a bad light.

Do you think Science?

In this video space physicists are questioned whether 'Do you think Science can understand everything?' In this video the space physicists are very confused in what to answer. They are stuck on what to answer and contemplate on what they are going to say for a few seconds before they even say anything. the reason for this is because Science is what they believe in and by questioning it, it shows that they don't actually know everything about their subject although they'd liked to. Although after a while quite a few of them say no, only one of them says it straight away because this shows just how little people know about Science. Each of them respond by saying 'woah that's a good question' & 'that's a very guarded question.' The reason for this is because they are stuck for an answer.

There attitude toward this question is very guarded and they close off, they also start answering questions like 'What is art?' and 'What is everything?' This just shows how much the question has puzzled them. This was an attempt to find a meaning behind the question, however what they do find out is the people's own opinion of faith and the limitations of science. The reason for this is because it is such an open question and their are a lot of answers to it.

Our Project

In our project I worked with my colleagues; Jade Popham, Katie Patrick & Olivia Searle. The question that we asked people was

'What would you do if you were given a book a book of your life from beginning to end?'

We had little to know planning as we didn't have long to film it but I think that it worked out well with the amount of time that we had. Although we did have to get people to sign a consent to show that they were fine with being in the video. We started it by hiring a Canon 600D, a tripod and a Canon Mic. It was important that we had a Canon mic, the reason for this was because voices were being used while filming therefore they needed to clear.

Our consent form

Our question did get a little confusing because people didn't fully understand the concept of the question. Some of them didn't realise that we meant from the start of their lives to the end. Therefore the interview had to repeat the question a couple of times until they understood, this didn't work as well because it was meant to show their initial reaction which we didn't always capture when we were asking them a few times. Although this wasn't the case with all of them as a lot of them understood the concept of the question.

Our film

This was a lot of fun to film as by going around and finding out people's opinions of it was interesting. Although people weren't a willing to answer the question are we thought they would be, I think this is because there were a lot of us going around and asking questions. The people that we did ask were stuck on what to say as it isn't exactly a question that you would get asked everyday. A few people that they wouldn't read it because they wouldn't want to know how they died or what was going to happen in the future. Although some of them said that they would hope that if was interesting so that they could make more from it. In total we asked 14 different people, these people ranged from students, to lectures and just people walking around the college. I think that it was important that we asked a different range of people.

When it came to the edit, it was pretty difficult. The reason for this was because I wanted to make sure that I split each of the question in half so we go them stuttering at the start because they were;t sure what to answer and to get another clip of them answering what they thought. I think that this worked out really well and i'm proud of the outcome. The song that I used for it was a backing track from 'The 1975'. The reason for using a backing track was so that it wasn't too loud or distracting from the voices.

I think that in the end the project was a great success, although there are things that could have been changed, such as the way we worded the question to make it easier for people to understand. However I do still stand by our question because I think that it was a very good one and something interesting that people aren't going to answer everyday.

What is a Documentary?

There is no absolute definition of documentary, they come in lots of different forms. There are 6 examples of documentaries; poetic, expository, observational, participatory, reflective and performative.

There is not one definition as to different people documentaries mean different things.

Documentary defines not subject or style, but approach... Documentary approach to the cinema differs from that of story film not in its disregard for craftsmanship but in the purpose to which that craftsmanship is put. -Paul Rotha, Cinema Quarterly, 2.2

I think this quote is the closest to what I think defines a documentary. I think that this is because it is the way the director takes the documentary. It could be the exact same subject with the same views however one could be more believable that the other because of the direction of the approach. The important thing in documentary is that it must come from a neutral view because else it could be seen as bias and one sided. I believe a documentary to be a selection of events that are put in order to tell a story about the real world. I think that in a documentary it is important that the director still has a creative sense even though it isn't actually as creative because it's portraying real life events.

'Documentary is the creative treatment of actuality' -John Grierson Cinema Quartely 2.1 

This quote is important in the definition of documentary. It is the treatment of our existence on earth. Is a documentary just meant to show our existence? Although not all documentaries are the truth of excising on earth. Some documentaries are played out to make them seem much more interesting. It is important to directors of documentaries that they get a balance between the reality and the creative mind of playing the audience into believing something that isn't entirely true.  In many documentaries directors will have someone to disagree with the subject, the reason for this is so that to make it interesting they have someone who will challenge and disagree with the subject matter.

“A type of film marked by its interpretative handling of realistic subjects and backgrounds. Sometimes the term is applied widely to include films that appear more realistic than conventional commercial pictures; at other times, so narrowly that only films with a narration track and a background of real life are so categorised.” - Edmund F. Penney, Facts on File Film and Broadcast Terms

Campaigning documentaries 

A campaigning documentary is the same as a participating documentary. The reason for this is because the documentary talks to the audience and gets an opinion out of the audience. In the documentary 'Chasing Ice' Jeff Orlowski, the director allows the viewers to witness the pace at which the polar ice caps are melting by following the photographer hero James Balog as he documents the terrifying transformation.

Chasing Ice isn't necessary seen as a campaigning documentary this is because filmmakers try not to campaign to their audience in the modern day culture. This is because filmmakers have been finding it hard since educational and public documentaries have developed a bad reputation. 

“I don't consider Chasing Ice a campaigning documentary,” he says “Do we want the film to have impact?  Yes.  Do we want it to show people what's going on? Yes.  But the goal of the film itself isn't to campaign or be propaganda. That's completely missing the point.” - Jeff Orlowski Director of Chasing Ice 

The concept behind this documentary is to inform people of what is going on. The reason why they are so wary is because critics view it as propaganda as they believe that documentaries should be objective and worthy to entertain and the idea that films with serious issues have fallen out of favour. However campaign documentaries aren't entirely negative, they are incredibly popular among failed politicians. An example of this is Mitt Romney, who lost the presidential debate to Obama. As long as the politician doesn't come across as an idiot the public will take a liking to them. This was gain them a lot of positive press and support from the public audience.

Therefore while filmmakers aren't fans of campaign documentaries it's an entirely different world for politicians who need the support.

Historical documentaries 

Unlike campaigning documentaries, historical documentaries are still incredibly popular. Historical documentaries are the only way that you are able to look back at the past. While they are informative they are popular with an entire audience of all ages. Historical documentaries have been so successful due to the amount of research that is put into them. Along with the director, historians also work on these ideas so that the audience gets a true picture of what has happened.

However not all historical documentaries go into complete detail, this is because these documentaries can be seen as dangerous and frightening to the audience. This is where the approach to the documentary is incredibly important. The director has to do it in a way that captures the audience so that they are interested however not so much that it will scar them of the past. 

Documentaries particularly historical documentaries have a much lower budget to big Hollywood blockbusters this is what makes them appealing to a filmmaker. Although they have a low budget, this doesn't mean that they aren't successful with many 9/11 documentaries being highly profitable. The reason for this is because it is classed as modern history and as it's only happened recently people are more interested. The fact that the majority of these people watching the documentaries knew where they were when it happened shows the impact of the event and consequently this shows just how successful the documentary will become.

Objective documentaries 

There is always the big topic of discussion whether documentaries are objective or not. The truth of the matter is that no documentary is going to be 100% objective. It is a documentary of the truth to some extent however due to the amount of changes that need to go into the final edit means that some parts are missing or it's a little off the truth. This is because filmmakers could have 10 hours worth of footage and they have to narrow it down to 90 minutes. Therefore of course somethings are going to get missed out, however a lot of filmmakers try their hardest to keep the most important information in so that it is the reality of the subject.

The big argument is whether it is necessary to keep in both sides of the argument to make it objective. It is important to show a neutral perspective in the documentary because this shows that no sides are being taken and it's a fair representation of both of the sides in the argument. It doesn't matter whether a filmmaker has a view, it shouldn't be shown in the documentary. However there is a lot of filmmakers who make sure that the audience know that it is one sided and get them on their sides. This can happen a lot of interviews this is to make the other person look worse than they are, therefore filmmakers have the advantage.

There is a lot of questions that filmmakers have to ask themselves; What will the subject be? What footage will go and get deleted? Who will prove/disprove of it? What will be the order of shots? Who will be in the shot? All of these questions are what directors have to go through when they are deciding how to edit their documentary, therefore it's very hard for it always to be objective. Therefore filmmakers are able to changing little things in order for their documentary to be a success.

Personal documentary 

Personal documentaries is story about your life. In personal documentaries the person it is aimed at is interviewed and asked questions about their life, family and memories. Also in a personal documentaries people such as family, friends and work colleagues are asked what they think them and their life. It is important to have other people because the point in a personal documentary is visiting the memories. 

A professional interview captures your memories, so they ‘keep on living, and keep on giving’.

In a personal documentary there is a lot of old photos and home videos. A personal documentary on television is usually for someone who's died or someone who has an extraordinary career.  A personal documentary can sometimes be hard to film this is because not everybody is comfortable on camera yet the point in it is that everybody that is close to the personal gets to speak their feelings about them. 

Mockumentary

A mockumentary is a fictional film that is in the style of a documentary and pretends to be a documentary. A mock documentary. A mockumentary is a mock of a documentary on a current affair or issue that is currently happening. A mockumentary can either be comedic or dramatic. The most common type of mockumentaries is a comedic one. Mockumentaries are usually used for historical events using a 'B roll' shot that is discussing past events or following people as they go through past events. 

The three best mockumentaries are Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, Bruno and Best In Show. Mockumentaries are liked by the audience because they able to tell the events without it being as serious as a documentary. 

How 'Real' Is Documentary?

A documentary is never going to be 100% real, there is a lot of elements that directors have to take into consideration when it comes to documentaries. Therefore there are just some shots that are going to be impossible to film in the wild. An example of this is on 'Frozen Planet' when there is a shot of a mother Panda and her cubs which was actually taken in the zoo and not out in the wild. However it is important that the directors make the audience aware that this scene wasn't taken in the wild. The way in which they could do is by putting a disclaimer at the bottom. 

This shot would have been impossible

 to have taken in the wild. 

The Life of John Grierson

John Grierson was born on 26th April Deanston, Scotland and died 19th February 1972 in England. 

John Grierson was a very famous and well known Scottish documentary maker, producer and director he was often known as the father of British and Canadian documentaries. He was the most important figure in the development of modern Canadian film. Grierson founded the National Film Board of Canada. He was the type of person that was a witty, determined theorist and visionary and he had practical skills and idealism necessary to imagine a form of non fiction documentary that would create a movement to the world to see. 

He was the first person to use the term documentary and the way he describe it was 'the creative term of actuality.' His theory of documentary film was developed in the UK against the backdrop of World War One and the economic and political period leading up to World War Two. Grierson viewed documentary as a method for communication and information between the government and people. 

“I have no great interest in films as such. Now and again, shapes, masses, and movements so disport themselves that I have a brief hope that something of the virtue of great painting may one day come into cinema.... I look on cinema as a pulpit, and use it as a pro­pagandist.... Cinema is to be conceived as a medium, like writing, capable of many forms and many functions. A professional propagandist may well be interested in it. It gives generous access to the public. It is capable of direct description, simple analysis, and commanding conclusion, and may, by its tempo’d and imagistic powers, be made easily persuasive.

Many people criticized him for his views of actuality as naive. Even if his views were naive he managed to shape a generation of filmmakers in Canada and the rest of the world.  In 1929 he directed 'Drifters' which was the only film that he directed, it become so successful due to his camera and editing techniques, those who were influenced by Soviet films of 1920s. Following the success of his film the British government formed a documentary unit. During the period of 1931-37 Grierson produced a number of classics such as Len Lye's abstract, Alberto Cavalcanti's marvelous Pett and Pott (1934) and animated Rainbow Dance. (1936) He also produced production done by Paul Rotha and Norman McLaren. 

In 1938 the Canadian government told Grierson to report to the government of film activities. He produced a report on June 23rd 1938. He was recommending the establishment of a national film board operating under an appointed film commissioner to advise the government. In December 1938 drafted the National Film Association which passed it's final reading on March 16th 1939. The National Film Board won a lot of awards and after five years the National Film Board produced 500 films and it grew to become one of the worlds largest film studios. He left the National Film Board in 1945. Over the time of he being the commissioner he consciously nurtured the talent of future film producers and directors such as James Beveridge, Sydney Newman, Guy Glover, Tom Daly, Raymond Spottis­woode, Stuart Legg and Norman McLaren.

At the end of his career, Grierson returned to Canada to teach film at McGill University from 1969 to 1971, making many new converts to the cause of social documentary.

http://tiff.net/canadianfilmencyclopedia/content/bios/john-grierson  - 6th Feburary 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mockumentary  - 6th Feburary 2014

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=mockumentary.htm  - 6th Feburary 2014

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mockumentary  - 6th Feburary 2014

http://www.personaldocumentaries.co.uk/what/  - 6th Feburary 2014

http://moviecitynews.com/2009/04/whats-the-truth-about-objectivity-in-documentaries/  - 6th Feburary 2014

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/02/political_documentaries_lionize_candidates_it_worked_for_mitt_romney_rick.html  - 6th Feburary 2014

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/campaigning-documentaries-might-have-fallen-out-of-fashion-but-movies-can-still-change-the-world-8413231.html  - 6th Feburary 2014

http://documentaryarchive.com/documentary_history.html  - 6th Feburary 2014

http://www.documentarysite.com/2010/10/definitions-of-documentary/ - 6th Feburary 2014

http://thefilmbuff.com/6-forms-of-the-documentary-form - 6th Feburary 2014

Documentary - Life of a College Student

Our new topic for this term is Documentaries. In my opinion a documentary is a film, television programme or radio programme that provides a factual report on a particular subject. In this case myself and my colleague Olivia Searle decided to do ours on a college student. In this case I was the student and we filmed my morning from getting off of the bus to arriving in the classroom.

In the brief all we were told was, 'What a documentary of a factual programme is to you?' We also were told that we had to plan, film and edit all in one day. Considering myself nor Olivia had ever filmed a documentary before this was quite a challenge. It was important for us that we did something a bit different. I came up with the idea of a college student because I thought it was a simple idea that could easily be developed. It wasn't necessary that we had a plan however we typed up a quick plan so it was something that we could go back to later on. 

The brief shot list myself and Olivia came up with. 

We got out our equipment. Our first two shots were filmed outside. This was quite difficult because it was raining outside. However we managed to get the shots and in my opinion I think that they came out really well considering how bad the weather was. Next up we filmed walking through reception and into the college, these shots were definitely the hardest because there was so many people and it was such a hard task trying to make sure that people weren't in the way of the shot. It was important that all of our shots were clear. The rest of the filming was upstairs and by our room therefore there wasn't many people so it was easy to get the rest of our filming done. 

After we had finished filming we decided to edit. Our edit had to be 2 minutes long exactly. This was by far the most difficult part because it was so hard to get the timing and to include everything. In my edit I decided to speed up all of my clips to 120, the reason for this was because they were originally on 100 which I felt was too slow and if they were on this for the film it wouldn't have made it boring but also too long. There were also three clips that I sped up to 200. These were walking through the reception and walking up both sets of stairs. I think that the affect it gave was really nice therefore I was happy with the outcome of it. 

Like all documentaries it is important to have a voiceover. I wrote up the voiceover and then myself and Olivia recorded it on the zoom recorder. The voiceover was just telling everyone about what was happening in each of the shots. The quality of the sound came out really well because we were able to put a mic over it to block out any outside noise. After we had recorded it all we had to do was match it to our edit, which was pretty simple as it was only voices.

The typed up version of our voiceover. 

The song that I decided to put in the background was The Intro by The XX the reason for using this was because it had no voices as it was just a backing track. I like this because it wasn't too heavy and when turned down it fitted really well with the edit. 

My edit 

If I'm honest although we did the filming and editing to the best of our abilities. I don't think it turned out as well as I hoped it would. I think that the reason for it not being as good is because we are used to having a couple of days to do a project and in this case we only had one day to do the whole lot. We weren't able to do much planning therefore I think that if we were going to do it again more consideration needs to go into the planning as I think it is the most important thing and the reasoning behind a success or failure.