conorwrightfactualresearch-blog

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

The Queen of Versailles

David Siegel has built an empire of timeshares. He controls the markets until karma sets in. The housing crisis rears its ugly head in 2007 and with it David Siegel is ruined. He complains of the bankers who tricked him into taking cheap money. Which is very similar to how he made money from timeshares; identical really. The irony slips past him. The rest of the film charts the Siegel’s having to resort to living like ‘normal’ people. Yet they cannot, as their house workers depart one after the other nothing gets done. The waste from Jackie’s dog builds up and pets die. Jackie even struggles just to curb her shopping habits. She moves to Walmart yet this solves nothing. They now need a convoy of SUVs just to return their shopping home. The directors of this film use a fly on the wall style. Is this the best way to represent reality in a documentary?

Karina Longworth comments in her review of the film for LA Weekly, ‘They're high-end hoarders -- and, one suspects, so deep inside their sickness that they can't see it, which almost gives Greenfield's all-seeing fly-on-the-wall approach an air of exploitation’.(http://www.laweekly.com/arts/sundance-film-festival-2012-queen-of-versailles-review-2370054) John-Paul Pierrot writes in his review for Flickfeast, ‘Combining talking heads with a fly-on-the-wall style, The Queen of Versailles is a modern fable of excess spiralling out of control made all the more meaningful with the context of global recession. If you have ever ventured in to the murky, undergrowth of trashy television and found yourself watching MTV’s My Super Sweet Sixteen you will have an idea of how cringe-worthy it is’.(http://flickfeast.co.uk/feature/queen-versailles-2012/) A review in Newsday says, ‘Shot from 2007-10, the doc offers a fly-on-the-wall look at the family of 10, plus their countless maids and white dogs, and their incomprehensibly privileged existence.’ and ‘On one level, Greenfield's portrait of the Siegels has the same appeal as a National Geographic feature or a Travel Channel program -- it's an exploration of a world that's totally unfamiliar to most of us’.(http://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/movie-review-the-queen-of-versailles-3-5-stars-1.3848602)

Some could complain that this film overly long, and it is. The cameras were just set up to capture footage and nothing more. They would have accumulated hours upon hours of intriguing footage. However intriguing and meaningful are different words. I feel that there is a good amount of the footage that the director just could not part with. Small moments that intrigued but ultimately held no meaning. This was a fly on the wall documentary. The director was there simply to observe and at times interview. She never swayed them in any direction or controlled what they said. Many of the interviewees have no filter and much slipped through the cracks. This is one method of creating a documentary, just collect a bunch of footage and hopes it all ties together somehow. It is a look inside a world that so many yearn and dream of. Films that try to make a point or a difference in the world hold much more importance that this documentary. That’s not to say that the method of collection is not effective but the delivery is faulty. This film is ultimately a sort of reality show but perhaps more realistic. 

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

Supersize Me

Some doctors advise you only eat McDonalds once a week, some even say you shouldn’t eat it at all. Morgan Spurlock ate it three times a day for a month... and he almost died. He gained 11kg and it took him 14 months to return to his previous weight. He not only gained weight he also struggled to function as before. Since he wanted to show the day by day struggle he went through they adopted a notable visual style to get the information across.

 A slideshare analysis of the film writes, ‘Throughout the film Spurlock updates how he is feeling on a video diary.(https://www.slideshare.net/joblessbeach6696/super-size-me-a-look-at-the-techniques-used-in-the-film-to-provoke-a-dialogue-about-fast-food-and-ultimately-obesity) Dennis Littrell writes in a review on IMDb, ‘Spurlock of course is a performer as well as a film maker. His directorial style owes something to that of Michael Moore, and his playful on-camera muggings remind me of Ian Wright of PBS's Globe Trekker series’.(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/reviews)

When making a film, every decision matters. One of the most important decision to make is how will you tell your story, how will it be shot and how it will it be edited? Morgan Spurlock in making his film that charts his personal experience of eating nothing but McDonalds for a month decided to use a video dairy as it is his personal story. This way he is talking directly into the camera and corresponding with the audience, filling them in on what’s going on with him. He also includes interviews with health professionals and his girlfriend features in the video diary frequently. By doing a video diary a camera is rolling almost always capturing the good and the bad. This way it captures such moments as him throwing up out of the car window. However is could all be a subterfuge. He could simply play it up for the camera on occasion in order to get his point across. Though with all of the health changes that he goes through I doubt this to be true. 

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

Capturing the Friedmans

In 1987 Arnold Friedman was arrested following the interception of a magazine containing child pornography. Investigators arrived at his house and searched it in order to locate any more. The found a collection of it that he kept hidden in the basement behind a piano. They then learnt that he also taught computer classes to kids. This caused them to suspect that he may also be guilty of child molestation. Further evidence and testimonies proved this while also drawing his son Jesse into the matter. Eventually they both went to prison after pleading guilty. Arnold committed suicide and Jesse was eventually released. Though this film does present many accounts of the truth, the filmmakers neglect to elaborate further upon this.

Adam Smith writes in his review of the film for Empire Magazine, ’But at a deeper level it's an object lesson in the occasional elusiveness of truth. It leaves you not knowing what to think. And that's the point. Jarecki's film brilliantly illustrates the fallibility of memory, the slippery nature of "facts" and even people's invention of events that may never have taken place.’ He further elaborates ‘A policewoman describes the piles of pornography that supposedly littered the Friedman's home, while on the screen we see the original police snapshots of the raid itself, in which the home is distinctly porn-free apart from a small stash of magazines hidden behind a piano in the basement. One of the alleged victims describes a grotesque episode of group abuse in the basement, before contradicting himself in the same interview and revealing that he hadn't had the memory at all until he was subjected to hypnosis. Other alleged victims come tantalisingly close to admitting that - under extraordinary pressure from inept police - they made the whole thing up (in one of the film's occasional grimly funny moments, one of the parents points out that the whole community had always been incredibly competitive, leading to bizarre "if your son was abused five times, mine was abused six" kinds of boasting).’(http://www.empireonline.com/movies/capturing-friedmans/review/) Roger Ebert opens his review of the film with ‘After the Sundance screenings of "Capturing the Friedmans," its director, Andrew Jarecki, was asked point-blank if he thought Arnold Friedman was guilty of child molestation. He said he didn't know. Neither does the viewer of this film. It seems clear that Friedman is guilty in some ways and innocent in others, but the truth may never be known--may not, indeed, be known to Friedman himself, who lives within such a bizarre personality that truth seems to change for him from moment to moment.’ Later on he states, ‘ But about the multiple molestation charges there is some doubt, and it seems unlikely that Jesse was involved in any crimes.’ He then also says, ‘ As Jarecki's film shows the Friedmans and the law authorities who investigated their case, a strange parallel develops: We can't believe either side. Arnold seems incapable of leveling with his family, his lawyers or the law. And the law seems mesmerized by the specter of child abuse to such an extent that witnesses and victims are coached, led and cajoled into their testimony; some victims tell us nothing happened, others provide confused and contradictory testimony, and the parents seem sometimes almost too eager to believe their children were abused. By the end of the film, there is little we can hang onto, except for our conviction that the Friedmans are a deeply wounded family, that Arnold seems capable of the crimes he is charged with, and that the police seem capable of framing him.’ along with ‘ Our confusion about the facts is increased, not relieved, by another extraordinary fact: All during the history of the Friedmans, and even during the period of legal investigations, charges and court trials, the family was videotaped by another son, David.’ He concludes with ‘The film is as an instructive lesson about the elusiveness of facts, especially in a legal context. Sometimes guilt and innocence are discovered in court, but sometimes, we gather, only truths about the law are demonstrated.’(http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/capturing-the-friedmans-2003) Peter Bradshaw writes for the Guardian, ‘Capturing the Friedmans does not take sides; it does not present itself as a case for the defence. It shows that Friedman was a lifelong child-porn addict with paedophile tendencies, while also indicating that the assault convictions were as unsafe as they could possibly be. But neither does it indulge in any insidious relativist stuff about the objective truth not actually existing at all. It's just that within families, witnesses to the truth are so compromised, and have such a vested interest in looking the other way, that the truth is all but impossible to get at.’(https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,4267,1188372,00.html)

The truth is a fickle matter. Everyone is biased. What we see is often not what we remember. You can know a person for years but spend a few months without seeing their face and it changes. Then when you meet them again you are surprised by what you see. Very little in life is fact, a film isn’t just good or bad, it means someone different to each person who watches it. When trying to make a documentary about a debated subject it can be difficult deciding what direction you will take. In deciding you go on a hunt for the truth if it is not immediately evident. This can lead you down a rabbit hole and thus result in the film never being made as you search endlessly. The filmmakers involved here where accused of not following their beliefs. It became well known that Andrew Jarecki held a strong belief that the Friedmans were innocent yet for whatever reason decided not to pursue this belief. Much criticism from outside critics followed. I would disagree with his belief as I feel that the Friedmans were guilty of this heinous crime. Jarecki decided not to follow the rabbit hole and instead distanced himself from the matter. He perhaps could have attempted to make some sort of stance through this film but instead he presented a largely unbiased piece of film. 

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

The Bridge

The Golden Gate Bridge is one of the most popular suicide sites in the world; roughly 1500 deaths in all. Over the year of the filming of this documentary 23 deaths were captured. Come the conclusion of their 365 days of filming, they had captured close to 10000 hours of footage. The team behind the documentary incited much controversy once they released the documentary. They had not made their intentions clear when they requested permission of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. In the director Eric Steel’s permit application he said they intended ‘to capture the powerful, spectacular intersection of monument and nature that takes place every day at the Golden Gate Bridge’. He always intended to capture the suicides on the Golden Gate Bridge, and this is just one reason why the film received so much backlash upon release. Many even questioned if this documentary should ever have been made.

Patrick Peter writes of the film in his review for Empire Magazine, ‘a disconcerting air of voyeurism pervades Eric Steel’s documentary, which at times trespasses into snuff territory with its unflinching capture of suicidal plunges off the Golden Gate Bridge,’ alongside ‘the remainder smacks of exploitative sensationalism rather than the plea for action that the makers claim, with the cynical fabrication of suspense around one agonizing individual especially distasteful’.(http://www.empireonline.com/movies/bridge-2/review/) Conversely Roger Ebert writes,  ‘The Bridge is neither a well-intentioned humanitarian project, nor a voyeuristic snuff film. It succeeds because it is honest about exhibiting undeniable elements of both. It's a profoundly affecting work of art that peers into an abyss that most of us are terrified to face -- not just the waters of the bay, but the human mind -- and reflects on the unanswerable question: What makes someone take that leap into the void?’ He also writes,  ‘And because these jumpers chose such an open and public way to end their lives, I have no ethical problem with what the cameras observe; amateur photographers often catch the same sights inadvertently’.(http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-bridge-2006) On the films IMDb page in the trivia section it states, ‘Steel interviewed relatives of the suicide victims, not informing them that he had footage of their loved ones' deaths. Later, he claimed that "the family members now, at this point, have seen the film, and are glad that they participated in it."(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0799954/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv)

The filmmakers involved in the making of the bridge did not toe the line. They broke many of the rules that people will follow when making a documentary. They lied about their true intentions but you can understand their reasons. They did not wish to cause more suicides by letting these people know that their final moments would be immortalised in film. They also claimed that any time they saw someone who was considering jumping that they phoned the rescue service as they did not necessarily want people to jump. It wasn’t this film is everything. At the end of the day they are still human beings and they didn’t wish this people dead. This is also a very touchy topic which is proven by the amount of hatred they garnered thanks to the film. But is it something that needed to be shown? Did people need to know about it and be aware of it? By creating this film did they save any lives? According to statistics in the following year after the film was released suicides from the bridge increased including a guy who it was discovered had watched the trailer for the film repeatedly. The film is what you make of it. Either the filmmakers where doing a service or a disservice. I do feel that they had the right intentions and they did want to save lives but ultimately I don’t think they did. Perhaps they went about it the wrong way. There was an article written on the same subject and yet it received no criticism. They even based this documentary on that article, only deciding to make the film after reading it. What difference does an article and a film hold. Is The Bridge only wrong because they actually filmed the deaths of these people rather than write about them. Our society today is so quick to offend and accuse, it’s easy hiding behind words on a computer screen. These filmmakers went out and tried to make a difference by creating this film. They actually tried to do something which counts more than anything.

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

Grizzly Man

Timothy Treadwell was somewhat of a bear enthusiast. This led to him living with bears in Katmai National Park for 13 summers. He did this largely in opposition to the park authorities who didn’t feel he was doing much good there. Many hold the opinion that he was in fact not quite right in the head. They could well be right. His ‘disillusions’ about the bears being his friends is what led to him not completing more than 13 summers. His time on this rock ended abruptly when he was eaten by one of these bears along with his girlfriend of the time Amie Huguenard. Werner Herzog heard the story, the same as many across the world. This resulted in him approaching Jewel Palovak looking for her permission to make this film. She also held all of the footage that Treadwell had filmed over the last 6 summers he had spent with the bears. This footage even included a recording of Treadwell’s death at the hands of a bear. Werner Herzog decided not to use this recording or any images of the scene of the two’s death. He had access to this and likely could have used it if he wished yet decided not to. Why?

The respected reviewer Roger Ebert writes of Herzog’s decision in his review of the film. ‘His decision not to play the audio in his film is a wise one, not only out of respect to the survivors of the victims, but because to watch him listening to it is, oddly, more effective than actually hearing it’.(http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/grizzly-man-2005) Here is another quote from Dan Jolin writing for Empire Magazine. ‘Via Herzog’s sensitively edited use of Treadwell’s self-filmed adventures and observations, the man is revealed as a truly bizarre cove’.( http://www.empireonline.com/movies/grizzly-man/review/)Another quote is from Peter Bradshaw writing for the Guardian. ‘in a masterstroke of restraint, Herzog does not let us hear this sound, and sorrowfully advises Treadwell's former girlfriend, Jewel, to burn the tape’.(https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2006/feb/03/1)

Werner Herzog's reaction to the tape is a very human one. It deeply disturbs him and he does not wish that upon Jewel. Throughout the film Herzog makes it clear that despite the fact that he and Treadwell are very different people with different views on life and nature. Treadwell saw it as warm and caring. This was influenced by his worldview, he was a forever optimist. He also never really felt at home with humans and their society. He felt that he belonged with the bears and that they needed protecting from the evils of man. Herzog’s view of nature is a polar opposite; he sees it as dark and unforgiving. An example comes in looking into a bear’s eyes. Treadwell sees emotion and recognition there. Herzog sees empty eyes with no true feeling of comradery to Treadwell. Herzog sees Treadwell as a fool in his attempts, and his feeling that Treadwell was doing more damage than good for the bears, was corresponded upon by the staff protecting the park. Herzog held some respect for Treadwell despite this, but still saw that his presence among the bears made them familiar with humans. By familiarizing them with humans he made it more likely that they would approach hopeful poachers and be killed. It was not only respect for Treadwell, that led to Herzog’s decision not to use the materials he had but also human decency. He did this out of respect for not only the dead but also their families. I believe that his decision was the right one due to this despite the fact that immediately after watching the documentary I googled the audio tape and the photos. After seeing the supposed real materials I can doubly understand why he didn’t include them as they are quite disturbing.

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

Touching The Void

Joe Simpson and Simon Yates. Names that not everyone will recognize, however their story deserved a wide audience. Touching the Void gave them this opportunity. In 1985 the two friends ventured to Peru in order to ascend the West Face of the Siula Grande which had previously gone unclimbed. This was their first rodeo, they were experienced mountaineers. This venture was not to go like all of the others unfortunately. They reached the summit, the so-called easy journey. On the way back down Joe suffered a fall that resulted in a broken leg. This would ultimately mean certain death to the climbers at the time. Simon decided that he could not abandon his friend and so they used a sort of pulley system to lower Joe down the mountain. The rope got stuck and Simon was forced to cut it. Joe fell a great distance and Simon presumed that this meant his death and so returned to base camp battered and broken. Joe survived the fall and pulled himself to survival before then crawling for days eventually returning to base camp reunited with Simon. At the time they recorded no footage and so, when the filmmakers decided to make a film based around this miraculous journey, they used reconstructed footage of the events that had unfolded. 

Ed Halliwell writes for Empire, ‘blending interviews with the survivors into his well-crafted reconstruction, and the result is as much an exploration of ethics and psychology as it is of uncommon human endurance’.(http://www.empireonline.com/movies/touching-void/review/) Roger Ebert in his review on his website says, ‘The movie was shot on location in Peru and also in the Alps, and the climbing sequences are always completely convincing; the use of actors in those scenes is not a distraction because their faces are so bearded, frost-bitten and snow-caked that we can hardly recognize them’.( http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/touching-the-void-2004)Peter Bradshaw in his review for the Guardian also writes, ‘it switches between a gasp-inducingly atmospheric reconstruction, with actors playing the climbers as their younger selves, and interviews with the present-day Yates and Simpson’ along with, ‘When one man finds himself plummeting into a vast crevasse, with its huge white ceiling and icy stalactites, it's like looking at a Ballardian rococo cathedral from another world, defying imagination and belief. Yet Macdonald's film, with the factual solidity of documentary and the imaginative daring of drama, somehow puts you in there with him’.(https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_Film_of_the_week/0,4267,1104804,00.html)

‘Seeing is believing’ or so they say. Actually seeing something is much more effective than just hearing about it. Why do you think we have so many atheists nowadays. If God had done some sort of miracle and someone with a video camera had captured there would be little question. This is why I believe that using dramatic reconstruction in a documentary is a valid technique. Sure we could just listen to Joe and Simon talk for 90 minutes but it would be frankly boring. If you are shown videos of these events occurring you begin to understand and truly comprehend what they went through. The reconstruction is effective in this manner. Some even called for the actor Brendan Mackay who played Joe to be nominated for an Oscar for his performance. In terms of faking it, I don’t they did. If they had had archive footage from their climb they would have used that sure but what difference does archive footage and reconstruction hold apart from a few actors. What they perform is identical to the story that Joe and Simon tell. This film was robbed of an Oscar nomination as so many others have said due in large to the use of reconstruction. Film evolves just like everything else. As we are able to do more things that were previously impossible why shouldn’t we.

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

The Imposter

Nicholas Barclay disappeared in 1994. In 1997 he was found and flown home to his family. In this time he had gained a French accent and now had brown eyes compared to blue when he disappeared. His family thought nothing of it and took him in. An investigator grew suspicious and by 1998 they had discovered his true identity to be Frederic Bourdin upon subjecting him to a fingerprint and DNA test. At the time no-one saw anything wrong and so the cameras had not begun rolling. When the filmmakers went to make the film they had no footage that they could use with the interviews. Since they could not make an entertaining film using just interviews and maybe some photos. Therefore they had to reconstruct the footage using actors. 

Guy Lodge of Empire writes, ‘using extensive, sleekly filmed re-enactments of the events alongside the talking heads of Bourdin, the Barclays and assorted incredulous investigators, The Imposter brazenly invites protest from documentary purists, but manipulation of the truth is rather the point here’.( http://www.empireonline.com/movies/imposter-2/review/)The director of the film Bart Layton said in an interview, ‘I know that 'reconstruction' is a pretty dirty word in TV, let alone in feature documentaries – but I felt with this narrative, I could make virtue of the conflicting accounts, by visualizing them in a style as bold and unusual as the story itself’. In an article for filmslate Jasmina Nevada writes, ‘Using a different meaning of portraying the story in this genre, Layton sought not to reconstruct events but vividly create sequences that would incorporate dreams, visions, reality, atmosphere and circumstances’.(http://www.filmslatemagazine.com/the-imposter-intriguing-film-from-bart-layton-plays-at-south-by-southwest/)

I see absolutely no problem with reconstruction being used in documentaries. It is a valid and effective way of portraying the events that occurred. The need for reconstructed footage arises because not everyone is holding a camera at the important junctures of their life. There was no footage of any of events that had happened in this film. The filmmakers could have decided to simply have interviews and newspaper articles and documents of the matter. However visually that wouldn’t be the most interesting. Film is a visual medium with the capability of showing moving pictures and so why have a film filled with stills when you have a method of including the events through video. There is absolutely no facade at work here. They have simply recreated the events as told by the participants with actors. I feel that what they have created is highly effective and makes the film that much better. When this film was released I heard about it and watched it. It is uncommon for a documentary to receive such traction in the media. The story at play here was special but I doubt the film would have done as well without the reconstruction. 

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

Catfish

Catfish explores the personal life of filmmaker Nev Schulman, most specifically the relationship between him and a woman he meets on Facebook. As the film progresses it is revealed that the woman herself does not actually exist as Nev knows her. There is a woman called Megan Pierce however Nev has never actually talked to her. He has been corresponding with her mother who has crafted an elaborate web of fake profiles which she utilizes in pulling Nev into her deception. The film was released to much acclaim while equally attracting criticism and skepticism. ‘Was any of it real?’ people asked. The filmmakers shouted yes, yet still many didn’t believe them. It didn’t seem logical that in this age that three grown men could be so gullible and not do a background check blowing the whole charade. 

Roger Ebert in his review of the film addressed the issue as he began, ‘Or possibly the whole thing is a hoax’ before quickly dismissing that assumption, ‘indeed everyone in the film is exactly as the film portrays them’. Throughout his review he does still question the subject, ‘The facts in the film are slippery’ and again, ‘I doubted that detail’.(http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/catfish-2010) Simon Crook in his review of the film for Empire Magazine also questions the films authenticity. ‘Is this movie about the power of lies a great big porky pie itself? How, for instance, could a smart, urban 24-year-old not smell something fishy for eight months?’(http://www.empireonline.com/movies/catfish/review/) Peter Bradshaw in his review of the film also elaborated on the film’s reality. ‘I don't think Catfish is a fake: the hidden story is all too plausible. But I do get the sense that Nev and the directors suspected or maybe even discovered the exact truth far earlier than they are letting on here.’(https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/dec/16/catfish-review) In an interview on The Wrap the creators addressed the issue. ‘The phenomenon of people thinking that the film is not real was so unexpected for us. The movie was made by a small circle of about six people, and the screenings we had prior to Sundance were with friends and family, where everybody knew the story.  So it never occurred to us that in a time when fake documentaries are so popular that perhaps this would be seen as that’. The executive producer Andrew Jarecki also defended the film in an interview with Village Voice. ‘You have to realize that they started out without any suspicions that things were different than they seemed’. ‘So to say ‘They should have done this, they should have done that', well, yeah, with hindsight, I guess you might have done things differently. And, obviously, a documentary chooses its moments, and chooses when to reveal information’.(http://www.villagevoice.com/film/doc-or-not-catfish-is-stranger-than-fiction-6428453) Since making the film the creators have developed a TV series that explores the exact same situations as the film. The producer Andrew Jarecki was also involved in the documentary Capturing the Friedmans as well as the documentary series The Jinx. The two directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman have moved further into scripted territory, working as co-directors on the films Paranormal Activity 3 and 4 as well as Viral and Nerve. Another of the producer’s Marc Smerling has also worked on Jarecki’s projects. Nev Schulman has since only been involved with the Catfish TV Series as its host and producer.

The story of catfish was so relevant and interesting when it was first released. It is still relevant today. It even spawned the creation of a new word. ‘Catfish’ which means to lure someone into a relationship by adopting a fictional online persona. Catfish is a documentary centred around this idea, since the dawn of social media, people have used it as a new means of deceiving people. There are many strange people out there who use it to find potential victims. They pretend to be their friend until eventually they meet, and the person on the other side is not who they appear to be. It is often used by paedophiles looking to trap young children. I do think that the basis of catfish is true. I believe that most of it happened. Nev was approached by a girl named Abby who sent him some artwork she had created, this girl actually being Angela. He then began what he thought was a real relationship with Megan. What I do think that happened differently to the film was when they discovered the truth. I feel like they had previously verified if this was true or not. When they discovered it wasn’t they didn’t let on and continued to let Angela believe she had the upper hand. They did this due to the fact that it was an interesting story and they perhaps felt that people needed to be aware of these dangers.

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

Bowling for Columbine

Bowling for Columbine was released in 2002. It was created by Michael Moore and explores in detail the issue of gun control in the US. It is largely in response to the 1999 columbine massacre which gives the film it's name. It focuses on this incident and explores the background of the incident and those involved. He then widens his scope and looks at violence in America as a whole. It gained much recognition at the time and made Michael Moore a Worldwide star and household name. It went on to win the academy award for best documentary that year and is now often considered to be one of the greatest documentaries ever made. The question has been raised over Michael Moore’s intentions with the film and whether he manipulated the facts in his favour.

This is a quote from Roger Ebert in his review of the film, ‘Bowling for Columbine thinks we have way too many guns, don't need them, and are shooting each other at an unreasonable rate. Moore cannot single out a villain to blame for this fact, because it seems to emerge from a national desire to be armed’.(http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bowling-for-columbine-2002) In Peter Bradshaw’s review of the film for The Guardian he makes reference to Michael Moore not being objective numerous times.’ Bafflingly, this heavy-handed sarcasm might equally be deployed by the right-wing firearms apologists whom Moore clearly loathes ‘. ‘Moore incidentally neglects to give the murder-rate as a percentage of the population’.(https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2002/nov/15/artsfeatures4) A blogger writes ‘In the film, it is obvious that Moore doesn’t attempt to be neutral. He aggressively posts his arguments by giving subjective evidences. Moreover, he is not only interviewing his correspondents but he is also intriguing them with unexpected and disturbing questions’.(https://snorkleeys.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/documentary-representation-of-reality/) He also states ‘These are questions that Moore tries to answer in the film. He has his own answers and he attempts to make his viewers believe on him. Briefly saying, he wants the viewers to think that he is right’.

My feeling is that Bowling for Columbine is subjective. I think that Michael Moore is too close to the subject matter, therefore not allowing him to be unbiased. He himself is a member of the NRA. He even owns guns of his own. In the film Michael Moore seems to target the president of the NRA Charlton Heston. His previous plan had been to stand against him for the presidency of the NRA. Instead he decided to focus his attentions on this film. Upon learning this information my faith in Michael Moore was dulled. I do think that the documentaries that he makes are of a high standard, but unfortunately they all seem somewhat tainted by his touch at the same time. He never approaches the subject matter objectively and that is his style. He has an agenda and therefore he manipulates the facts, so as they all point towards the solution that he wants you to see. Michael Moore is someone who is very politically active and of course in the past year what with the US election he has been very outspoken. He wants his voice to be heard and has learnt that the only way to do so is to be the loudest voice in the room... and what’s louder than a cinema screen. 

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

World at War:Genocide

The Holocaust is considered to be one of the darkest and most inhuman occurrences of the human race. How could they murder so many people without regret simply because of their race. Iran in 2006 decided to hold an investigation into the holocaust ever really happened, perhaps due to their lack of understanding, it is hard to really see why it ever happened, how something like that could happen. Perhaps they believed the human race was better than that or they just wanted it to be better than that. One of the producers of the show spoke out on the matter claiming that they continued to collect evidence long after they had enough so as it could be used I the eventuality that something like this came around. He also commented on the fact that it was not the victims who provided the bulk of the evidence but the perpetrators or rather the puppets of the Nazi rule.

I would say that this was objective. In this series they displayed no personal opinion on the matter they simply told the facts. It is possible that they could have simply used what evidence served their belief but with such a sensitive subject it seems unlikely. The creators of the show looked to distance themselves from everything occurring on screen. Even the narrator, he talks in such a disconnected, monotone fashion showing no emotion. This could be because he cannot actually see what it happening on screen as he is in a recording booth. However coming from such a highly respected actor as Laurence Olivier this seems unlikely. It would appear more likely that this is a creative decision that has been taken.

The interviewees did not hide from the truth. They accepted what they had done or refused to do. They talked about what they witnessed and the hate involved. The script itself was not very involved, they knowingly made it so as a disconnect was put between them and the events, it was not full of emotion. By not making the script play with the audiences emotions, you allow the footage to be even more effective. The narrator themselves was very impersonal to the audience, you never actually see their face, it is a voiceover. Everything that the creators did was done to make it appear objective and therefore more compelling and persuasive.

The World at War is considered to be one of the most reputable documentaries put out and is carried in high stead by many. It is admired not only by historians but the common people. It carries a high rating of 9.2 on IMDb which places it in 12th place on their list of the greatest TV series of all time.(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071075/) People praise the show for many reasons, the prevailing one being it’s cold hard look at the facts. That is what it puts forward, not their opinions but the facts that they have unearthed. In an interview with the Guardian,(https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2013/oct/28/how-we-made-world-at-war) the creator of the series Jeremy Isaacs makes light of the fact that this was a part of the series that the narrator Laurence Olivier was personally not a fan of. He attempted to nullify his contract after reading the script as he found its approach to be uninteresting. This shows that this to be their approach from the very start and how they were looking to be objective. One of the directors involved with the series, David Elstein commented on how they ‘commissioned an archive expert to examine every piece of film’. This again shows how the sought after authenticity for this project. They wanted the cold hard facts, nothing else. ‘What I have seen so far is completely disingenuous and not the least bit objective, as history should be’, this is a quote from a blog of someone who writes often about this subject matter.(https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/genocide-episode-20-of-the-world-at-war/)

Much of the documentary is archive footage, no reconstruction is used. I would see this as being because the real images would horrify people much more. They are actually seeing real people on screen going through real suffering. This has a much stronger effect than if they know that they are just actors playing out a scene. Also if you have the images why not use them. Real will almost always be better. This episode of the documentary is even considered to be so disturbing that in 2009 when the series was being repeated on the BBC, this episode was skipped out in the initial run due to it’s dark nature. ‘They didn’t see as being ‘appropriate for daytime audience as it was particularly distressing’. This shows just how willing the creators were to not shy away and how relevant and even shocking this documentary still is today.

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

Documentary Research

Guinea pigs live very simple lives. They are satisfied with being fed daily and need their water changed. They need no more space than is allowed by their hutch but do enjoy the freedom provided when they are released into the garden to run amok to their delight.

The food that they eat is dry kernels which need some extra vitamin c added as they cannot produce it themselves. This also needs to be added to their water which should be changed every 3 days along with the bedding in their hutch. Hay should also be added so as they can keep warm in winter months as they are originally from Peru but have adapted. They will also eat the hay but straw will them sick along with watery vegetables such as lettuce. They enjoy eating cucumber, celery, apples, carrots, sweetcorn, broccoli, pak choi and many other vegetables but not much fruit.

I have never seen my guinea pigs sleeping and this is due to the fact that they don’t have set sleeping times. They simply sleep when they want to along with anything else. They do not stick to any strict rules. They do what they want, when they want. They have also taught themselves how to sleep with their eyes open. They so as to escape predators in the wild. They must aware at all times for danger.

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

Purpose of research in Media Industry

Research is an essential part of the media industry. It is used on many different projects involving film, TV, newspapers, basically anything to do with the media industry.

When writing an article in a newspaper or magazine or online first the journalist must carry out extensive research so as the know all the facts and also so as they can find something new to talk about in their article or else it would have no purpose. If you don’t have an understanding for what it is you’re talking about then no-one will take you seriously.

Films and TV Series are the same. You can write a script on any subject you want but if you get your facts wrong then much of the audience will instantly switch and will write off your product. Research is important cause it will help to not make you look like an idiot when you release your project that have worked on for a lengthy period of time.

There is also market research for when you want to release a product. When is the best time for release. A horror film will obviously make the most money at Halloween but what about every other genre of film. You carry out research and read the market so as you can release your film or TV series at the optimum time when it is likely to make the money. People’s tastes change constantly either every day, week, month. You need to predict what the next great craze will be, Vampires, Zombies, etc.

You should research your audience to determine who to market your product to. What age, gender, etc. will be most interested in giving you their money and then how to convince them to do so. With research you can determine the best course of action to take and how to market the film.

When researching for a documentary you will approach in the same way as you approach as a newspaper/ magazine article. Your research will be extensive and lengthy and not all of it will be given the light of day. You must determine what information is relevant to your project and whether it helps get people to believe your point of view on the subject matter.

Media isn’t media without research.

[conorwrightfactualresearch-blog]

Documentary Research Questionnaire