Initial Audience Research

Methodology

Audience research is a crucial element involved in a media project, and is undertaken to establish who the audience of that project piece (i.e. a music video, short film or documentary) is. There are many audience research methodologies, and each can be categorised as either qualitative or quantitative.

Qualitative criteria cannot be measured; the quality of each criterion is subjective and can be rated differently dependent upon each observer's personal opinion. Qualitative research methods can come in many forms, including:

- Desk research, which involves textually analysing pieces which already exist.

- Open questions asked on a questionnaire, be it digital or paper.

- Interviews, either group or one-to-one.

- Focus groups, where a group of people discuss sample pieces.

- Observation.

Quantitative criteria, as opposed to qualitative criteria, are objective and can be measured. These methods involve:

- Closed questions on either a digital or paper questionnaire.

- Desk research, with regards to analysing figures.

Chosen Method of Audience Research and Justification

As I already delved extensively into the textual analysis of each format (short film, documentary and music video), and I needed to address a large group, I chose to create two questionnaires. The initial questionnaire will identify who the people completing the survey are, and their views on documentaries. The second will introduce the idea of urban exploration, and their opinions on that.

One of the main advantages to questionnaires is that the respondents have more time to think, and can complete them in their own time. It also allows a large, wide audience to be reached so that many people’s opinions are identified. However, I had to ensure that the questions I asked were all clear and easy to understand, as well as ensuring that I minimise the amount of open-ended questions, as these tend to be skipped.

What Do Questionnaire Results Tell Us?

What questionnaire results tell us is naturally dependent upon the questions it asks, twelve questions which the results of a questionnaire typically attempt to answer include:

1. How large is the audience - both as an average, and as the reach (number of different people)?

2. What kind of people make up the audience? How do they differ from the whole population - e.g. in terms of age group, sex, occupation, etc?

3. Where is your audience? In each part of your coverage area, what percentage of the population are members of your audience?

4. When does your audience use your publication (or tune into your station) - what time of day, what day of week, etc?

5. How do your audience members spend their time? How much of their time is spent being part of your audience, and how much with your competitors?

6. What type of content (e.g. radio and TV programs, newspaper articles) interests your audience most - and least?

7. What styles of presentation do your audience prefer, and what styles do they dislike?

8. Which activities, attitudes, and other effects do your publications cause among your audience?

9. How will your audience react to a new kind of program or article that you might introduce?

10. How can you increase your audience? Is it best to try to find new listeners? Or to bring lapsed listeners back? Or to persuade existing listeners to spend more time with your broadcasts?

11. What percentage of the population in your area knows about your station - and how much do they know about it?

12. What is preventing people from using your service as much as they might?

Clearly there are a lot of questions, sub-questions and potentially more here, and a questionnaire would have to be tediously long to answer them all.

My Predicted Target Audience

Due to the topic of my documentary, I predict that my target audience will primarily be young, possibly between the ages of 16 and 24. Having already researched the topic of Urban Exploration, my original thoughts that it was mostly a male community were wrong; the numbers are actually a lot more even, something like 60-40. As for their education, I don’t think that their level of schooling received will have a giant effect on how interested they are in this subject, however I do think that they will have received at least college-level education.

Results of Questionnaire

Analysis of Results

This survey was posted to a sub-forum specifically created to discuss media pieces on popular social news website Reddit.com, where 43 people completed it. Questions 1, 2 and 3 were asked to identify who the people completing the questionnaire were. The results show that the respondents were a very even mix between male and female, however the age range wasn’t very sparse, with 80% being between the ages of 16-24. The level of education was primarily university degree level, however there were results for each option. We can conclude that most of the members of the forum who responded were university students, who I hypothesised would be my target audience due to the topic of my documentary (urban exploration), so they were the perfect respondents for this survey.

Question 4 was asked simply to identify if there was a general interest in documentaries, and 80% of respondents said they preferred documentaries to music videos and short films. Question 5 was asked to identify what the generally preferred medium of learning about new films was, and although the results showed that the most popular choices were trailers and forums, I have decided to stick with my initial choices to create a poster and magazine article to promote my film, as I feel that the question was worded wrong. In my next questionnaire I will change the question to “Which medium do you feel is best for film advertisement?”, as the purpose of that question was to identify which medium would be best for advertising a film, not teaching a consumer about the details of the film.

Question 6 was asked to see which TV station was favoured by the masses, and the results unanimously showed that BBC1 was the top choice. E4 and Channel 4 also got some results. The result of question 7 showed that the respondents are mostly regular viewers of documentaries, so their opinions were well-rounded.

Question 8 received many different results; however the most popular choice was Planet Earth, which would explain why the results of question 9 showed that David Attenborough was the most popular presenter.

A2 Media Advanced Portfolio Pitch

Wikipedia defines urban exploration as “the examination of normally unseen or off-limit sections of urban areas or industrial facilities”, and goes on to say that “the nature of this activity presents various risks, including both physical danger and the possibility of arrest and sequential punishment.”

Thanks to increased media attention, urban exploration has seen a sudden rise in popularity, even prompting the release of a show on the Discovery Channel called Urban Explorers; however a lot of current explorers see this as an issue as not all viewers of the show who become activists are noble enough to abide by the unwritten laws that urbexers have created, which could arise negative connotations towards urban exploring and it’s participants in the future.

One of the unspoken rules is to “take nothing but photographs and leave nothing but footprints.” This simple line is key for many reasons and when followed, lowers the risk of being caught, creates an illusion that you were never there, retains the state of the site and gives no reason for property owners to become stricter. Genuine explorers will never steal, vandalise or damage the property or the building itself, their sole intention is to explore and photograph.

Even so, the involvement in this hobby is still seen as being rather obscure, and I have selected it as the topic for my documentary for this very reason, that it’s a relatively untouched subject that I can really expand upon and explore.

The vast majority of explorers run in extremely close-knit groups that occasionally converse via online forums, and are known to post reports on the buildings they explore. Rarely do they expand on the report itself, and it’s extremely uncommon for them to give out directions or tips on entry. This is because they wish to maintain the low-risk of property owners or authority clocking on to people exploring the buildings, however they will generally advise and warn others on security to avoid detection.

Luckily I already explore regularly with several friends, so I have several locations currently available for exploring. I will record footage from several buildings, including an abandoned orphanage, swimming pool, TV studios, factory warehouse and mill, allowing me to pick and choose from a wide variety of locations.

The target audience for my documentary is hard to pinpoint, however I do expect the general demographic to be young and open to the idea of urban exploring, as several members of older generations I have spoken to have been slightly too closed-minded to completely accept it as an authentic hobby. The younger generation is generally more accepting of the idea of adventure and exploration, however it is not limited to them and I have found some success in reaching out to older generations.

I have drew inspiration and influence from Steve Duncan’s “Undercity”, one of the few existing documentaries on urban exploration in which he explores New York’s transit tunnels, scales Brooklyn Bridge and traverses through The Freedom Tunnel, the name given to the Amtrak Tunnel running underneath Riverside Park in Manhattan, New York.

Short Film: Review 3 - Charlie Bit My Finger (The Horror)

Director Background

Jeff Chan is a Canadian director, producer and writer, who before his Charlie Bit My Finger – The Horror film, had directed two shorts, one of which he wrote. He also produced two more separate shorts in 2009. He graduated film school in 2008 and last year admitted to being a broke filmmaker ever since graduating, even with the success his shorts have garnered.

Reception & Audience

The film has received nearly a million views since it was uploaded to YouTube on May 2011. The short was a big hit with the online crowd, due to it being a horror parody of the popular viral video Charlie Bit My Finger.

Jeff Chan, being a “Redditor” himself, uploaded the short to the “videos” subreddit, where it hit the front page, gaining nearly 2,000 upvotes. There are over a million subscribers to that particular subreddit, which was a major reason it gained the amount of views it did.

Narrative & Textual Analysis

The film’s opening is completely silent, as three lines in a thriller-esque font fade in, introducing the film. The actual lines act as a bit of a juxtaposition, the original viral video is hilarious, and is a complete contrast to the serious tone which the opening lays out.

The entire short is filmed from the point of view of the protagonist, Charlie. The opening fades in to the small child Ethan calling Charlie over to investigate what’s happening outside. Daylight pours through the thin curtains into the low-key lit house, and together with the furniture barricading the windows, suggests that the building is a stronghold to whatever dangers lurk outside.

The entire scene is silent until Charlie draws back the curtain and a zombie unexpectedly bursts through. High-pitched non-diegetic music now plays in the background of the shot, to promote the sense of urgency.

Ethan and Charlie are forced to retreat back into the safety of the house. The camera pans quickly round as a fellow defender of the house throws Charlie a baseball bat. The camera pans quickly again to reveal another zombie entering the room. Charlie waits for the zombie to approach him and swings the bat, creating an over-emphasised video game-esque sound in doing so and knocking the zombie to the ground. The short is also parodying the popular zombie game Left 4 Dead here, via connotations such as the first person point of view, as well as the weapons used and the sound effects which accompany them.

Another zombie lunges at Charlie, knocking him to the ground whilst he uses his bat as a barrier between himself and the zombie. The music picks up now to increase the tension.

The fellow defender of the house grabs Charlie and pulls him back into the recluse of the room to protect him. The camera pans down to Charlie’s arms as he rolls up his sleeve, revealing a deep bite mark.

The camera edges begin to show pulsing red lines, which eventually transform into a red filter covering the entire shot, to represent the transformation which Charlie has made into a zombie, and his sudden craving for blood. The cries from Ethan’s mother as she urges him to run up the stairs to safety are distorted, perhaps representing the zombie’s inability to comprehend the language it once knew.

Just as Charlie reaches the top of his stairs in his bloodthirsty stupor, and the non-diegetic sounds of the high-pitched music climax, Ethan’s mother pulls out a shotgun and fires directly at the camera.

Instead of having the camera spin round or fade out to signify Charlie dying, the camera cuts straight to the lines shown in the screenshot below, the ending to a short which purpose it was to promote the festival. The ending is a morbid take on the originally light-hearted viral video.

Production Trivia

The film is a horror parody of the viral video Charlie Bit My Finger, which was also shown on Rude Tube, a television show which plays popular viral videos from the web. Chan was asked to create the short film for CFC’s Worldwide Short Film Festival of June of 2011.

A SI2K camera was rigged to a baseball helmet to establish the incredible point of view shots, and was counterbalanced by adding a 5 pound weight. The camera operator was said to have a very difficult job because not only did he have to hit his marks and frame the shot properly, he had to act as well.

The short was shot on a budget of $1500.

Short Film: Review 2 - The Think Tank

Director Background

Peter Calloway is an American TV show/film writer, story editor, producer and director. Before writing and directing The Think Tank in 2010, he co-wrote over 40 episodes of Brothers and Sisters, a popular American sitcom. He’s also a producer for the TV series Hellcats, however The Think Tank was his first time directing. His father is David Calloway, a producer best known for his extensive work on Freddy’s Nightmares, a spin-off TV series from the popular film Nightmare On Elm Street.

Reception & Audience

Unlike Spin, The Think Tank did not receive very much national publicity and did not win any awards; however this was not due to lack of quality. The film went viral in 2011, and was a big hit on popular social news website Reddit. The short was hosted on Vimeo, where it achieved nearly 200,000 views and overwhelmingly positive feedback.

The film also received an average rating of 8.4 on IMDB.

Based on the plot of the film and the websites it was advertised on, it’s safe to say that the demographic of this film would primarily be males between the ages of 16-24. Also confirming this theory was the high percentage of men who commented on the film on Vimeo.

Narrative and Textual Analysis

The film opens with a fade in to a medium shot of a stressed-out businessman, struggling to be heard over the sound of his co-workers arguing loudly. The camera slowly pans outwards as the businessman stands from his chair, in doing so tilting slightly to create a low-angle medium-long shot to represent dominance, perhaps showing us that he is the team leader. His co-workers quieten as he delivers a motivational talk in attempts to reorganise the meeting, with two of the co-workers hands and arms creeping in to the corner of the shot.

The camera then cuts between medium-length shots of two of the “co-workers”. During this shot-reverse-shot, we can see that the meeting is between different manifestations of the protagonist Marc’s personality, and is supposedly taking place inside his own head.

The manifestations are portrayed in stereotypical fashion, to reinforce the idea that they’re all different sides of Marc’s personality. For example, one of the “Marcs” is a classic jock, reclined in his chair with his feet rested on the table, wearing a polo shirt with a popped collar, talking about how much he loves football.

The film also parodies a classic convention of thriller movies, where one of the characters would make a dramatic entrance into an important meeting, with a crucial mission update. At this point, the viewers of the film should understand, if they hadn’t already, that it’s a metaphorical meeting taking place in the mind of a nervous man on a date.

The camera then cuts out to a shot-reverse-shot between Marc and his date, Stephanie. Tranquil, diegetic music plays softly in the background of a low-key lit fancy restaurant to establish an intimate setting. The second shot on Marc is a close-up on his face as he nervously sips on his water, desperately trying to “buy some time” to think of an answer to Stephanie nonchalantly prying him about his last girlfriend.

The camera then cuts back to the meeting, where the different sides to Marc’s personality argue over what’s the best move to make. The arguing continues until the sensitive-appearing side to Marc rises from his chair, claiming he has an answer. The camera then cuts out to a long-shot of the room, perhaps to show off his pink-polo white-trouser combination, reinforcing the idea that this is Marc’s sensitive, almost “feminine” side. Also backing this up is the solution he proposes to Stephanie’s question, which is that they should “open up” to her, by telling her about “their” last girlfriend. Although they initially reject this idea, the masculine, testosterone-fuelled sides of Marc eventually succumb to his solution when they realise it’s their best chance of having sex with her.

The soft music fades slowly in again as Marc confesses to Stephanie that he was engaged to his previous girlfriend just a year ago. After Stephanie asks him more about the details, the camera cuts to a medium-long side shot of the couple, to give the viewer a better view of Marc sighing, perhaps in exhaustion due to the topic of what he’s being asked about.

The conversation draws to a close as they both stand up, assumingly bringing an end to their date. A clever scene transition is used here when Marc asks if Stephanie would like to head back to his place for a nightcap.

A high-angle shot of Stephanie is used to begin the scene transition. Marc has just asked her the question and finished helping her put her coat on. As she is mid-way through spinning round, the camera cuts to a shot of Stephanie at similar shot length completing her 180 spin, but now she’s located in the same room as Marc’s inner thoughts, wearing a business suit, not unlike the team leader of Marc’s manifestations.

The camera then cuts to a medium-long shot of a meeting held in Stephanie’s mind, where the attendees are the different sides of her personality. Two of the notable members are a cheerleader and a dressed-up version of Stephanie wearing a dress and tiara. This is the final shot to the film and acts as a punch line, the message behind the short perhaps being that men and women are equally nervous on dates, and sometimes treat it like a business meeting, maybe even too seriously.

Production Trivia

The protagonist Marc is played by Matthew Rhys, and the woman who plays Stephanie is Paula Rhodes, both of whom are actors on Brothers and Sisters, the show which Peter Calloway is best known for.

Short Film: Review 1 - Slip

Director Background

Jamin Winans is an American filmmaker, writer, editor and music composer. As well as working on films, he has contributed to commercials, and along with his wife created Double Edge Films in 1998. He released his first two short films, Blanston and The Maze in 2003; two years later releasing his short film Spin, winning over forty festival awards at over eighty festivals worldwide. His first feature was released later the same year, “11:59” premiered at the 2005 “Montreal World Film Festival”, winning several Best Feature, Audience and Editing awards at various festivals globally.

His recent work consists of Ink and Uncle Jack, the latter having over 100,000 hits on YouTube.

Reception & Audience

Released in 2005, “Spin”, received critical acclaim upon its debut, winning it over forty awards at over eighty festivals worldwide. The YouTube video for this short film currently has just fewer than 3 million hits, and was on the front page of Recafe.net.

“A mysterious DJ is sent to a busy city block to mend a series of tragic events that occur in our everyday lives.” Is the tagline/plot summary for this short film and is often cited along with it, which may attract younger viewers - primarily teenagers and people in their 20s. The short film received critical acclaim online, going viral back in 2006. The online community as a whole consists of mainly younger generations, adding to the theory that this film’s demographic is rather young.

Narrative

The film opens to a mysterious DJ presumably being transported to an alleyway, by falling from the sky. After picking himself up, he finds himself at a busy city block where he sets up his seemingly standard set of turntables. He stands unusually calm, whilst a crowd gathers round a cyclist who’s been knocked to the ground through a collision with a car. As he slams his fingers down upon and rewinds one of the records, the crowd freezes and begins to “rewind”, as if time itself is being rewound. He continues to rewind time back to the point before the cyclist is hit by the car; he plays the scene over several times until he identifies the cause of the accident. A basketball falls out of a mother’s grocery bag, rolling idly across the pavement into the path of the cyclist. The DJ observes this, then allows the “scene” to play so that the ball rolls towards the cyclist, at which point he twists a dial on his turntables, modifying the ball’s motion path so that it does not cause the crash. The DJ, pleased with his work, packs up his turntables and begins to depart the scene, until he sees the ball roll into the course of a businessman, who falls into an elderly man who’s pushing his wife in a wheelchair, making him lose control and send his wife hurtling into the course of the car. The DJ sets up his turntables again, re-modifying the balls motion path so that it no longer collides with either the cyclist or the businessman. Pleased, he picks up his turntables and again begins to depart. However this time, the ball sets off a chain reaction leading to a series of unfortunate events concluding in the city block being blown up. The DJ realises that this situation will take great thought, and he essentially tapped into the lives of all the people in the scene, so that he may find out who they really were, and what they needed. This time, not only did he prevent the death/casualties of the people in the scene, he changed them for the better by bringing the community together via a chain reaction of events. He walks off for what he believes is the final time, until the mother’s young daughter drops her doll, breaking it. The DJ breaks the fourth wall here, staring dead at the camera as if to say “Really?!”, he sets up his “timetables” once more so that he may rewind time to before she breaks the doll. Then, he sprints away from the city block before another minor, trivial inconvenience occurs, requiring his help.

I believe that the deeper meaning behind this film is that the DJ symbolises all entertainers. The chaos which unfolds without him is the typical state of life. His minor modification represents the small effect which mediocre entertainment has upon society. The final change of events, including the sublime life-saving, represents the effects which a truly magnificent artist can have upon humanity when their craft is well-executed. Delving deeper, we could devise that the DJ’s good, but unsuccessful first intentions represents people in general attempting to resolve situations via solutions which may or may not apply to that given circumstance. His initial answers actually resulted in a worse set of events than what happened without his interruption, and only after analysing the people in the scene could he completely comprehend their needs. Only then was he able to produce a solution which harmonised all of their lives simultaneously, creating an ersatz of community in the park, an idealistic, utopian, loving community.

Textual Analysis

Non-diagetic ominous music dominates the diagetic noises of car horns during the opening medium-long shot, in which the camera pans across and steadies upon a parking spot at the end of an alleyway. Centralised by the camera is a circle of light in the otherwise shadowed alleyway, which the DJ falls into from above, off-screen. As he falls, the non-diagetic music builds up and the beat drops as he lands on the ground. The act of landing in the circle could be a metaphor for entertainers such as DJs always finding themselves in the spotlight.

As he arrives at the main location of the film, he observes the scene and begins to unpack and setup his turntables. This is shown via quick cuts of him unclipping the cases, opening them up, setting up the tripod stand, inserting a cord and positioning the needle. Some amplified diagetic noises of him setting up the turntable is slightly audible above the loud non-diagetic beat which has dominated the film from the start. These quick, extreme close-up cuts along with the heavy beat creates a slightly hectic atmosphere, personified by a crowd consisting of an elderly couple, a lawyer, a mother and her child, gangsters, a drug addict, his dealer and a break-dancing philosophy student, gathering round a cyclist post-collision with a car.

The DJ, witnessing the scene before him, slams his fingers down on the record which simultaneously does two things. Firstly, time freezes in the film. People are literally frozen mid-action, showing us that the DJ is performing an impossible feat through the use of his magical “timetables”. Secondly, the non-diagetic beat stops, creating a serene atmosphere in contrast to the prior shot. As he then rewinds the record, we can hear the diagetic noise of the record being scratched along with a new non-diagetic beat, replacing the previous “hectic “one. This new beat is more calculated and controlled, symbolising the DJ’s actions and thought process.

Several shots later, after he realises that amending this situation will require a smarter answer, he presumably taps in to the lives of the characters in the scene and analyses their needs, and how to achieve them. This is shown through a montage in which each character is displayed with bright, blurry, flashing colours, perhaps representing their thoughts and needs, maybe even just for visual effect. A non-diagetic, “futuristic” noise is heard consistently throughout these shots, adding to the magical effect imposed by the DJ.

His new answer to the situation is perfect, the community is harmonised and now accompanied by a non-diagetic, soft, melodic beat. Witnessing the pleasant community and interactions occurring around him, the drug dealer is inspired to donate his profits to the break-dancing Philosophy student, surprising even the DJ. The camera cuts to a medium shot of the DJ, so we can see his face, which expresses a pleasant surprise.

The final shot injects comic relief into a film which has some underlying serious messages. It’s a long shot of the DJ running away from the scene, before another problem arises, requiring his help.

Production Trivia

Jamin Winans, the director, also composed the musical score for this short film.

Also, there is product placement for Myspace.com, advertised on the breakdancer’s vest.

Documentary - Review 3: King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

Director Background

Seth Gordon is an American film director who started off as a cameraman for the documentary Dixie Chicks: Shut up and Sing. As well as The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters being his directorial debut, it was accepted at the Sundance Film festival. He has also directed Four Christmases, Freakonomics and Horrible Bosses. On top of this, he has directed a variety of music videos and commercials, as well as two episodes of the American Office, and an episode each of Modern Family and Community. Overall, Gordon has worked with a variety of different media forms, granting him experience for directing all types of formats be it music video, fictional movies, or in this case, documentary.

The King Kong arcade game champion Steve Wiebe often makes a cameo in Gordon’s other film works, such as with Horrible Bosses and Four Christmases.

Reason for Selection

The reason I have selected this documentary is that I wished to analyse three documentaries that were at completely opposite points of the film spectrum. Firstly I analysed Inside Job, a serious documentary which revolved around a world event in the form of an economic crash. Secondly, I analysed Planet Earth, a less serious, albeit equally thought-provoking documentary. This brings me to King of Kong; I have selected this documentary because it is extremely light-hearted, easy to watch and differs to the other documentaries I have analysed.

Textual Analysis

The poster for this documentary is bright and attractive, combining varying shades of only three colours, blue, orange and white. The posters layout and design is reminiscent to the retro, vintage-styled posters that are now popular among youth culture. The poster is double-bordered by a simple orange then blue line, and is decorated in ribbons not unlike how a carnival/show poster would be. There are thin blue lines spanning the length from the edge of the border, centralising in the middle of the poster where the referee, Walter Day, is illustrated in a circle, which is most likely done as a reference to coins used to play the game; there are clear video gaming connotations observable on this poster. Above the referee, the two main people in the documentary (Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell) are encompassed by circles also, the colours used on each person is reversed on the other (i.e. one’s skin & hair is blue, the other’s is orange) to symbolise their rivalry. Below a ribbon summarising the plot of the documentary lies its tagline, “Don’t get chumpatized”; the line is centred around a word which was popular in the 70’s - “chump”, and has been adapted, however after doing some research I discovered that although Gordon claims he composed the line, it was around for a while before that. The font used for the title of the film is very childlike; the bubble-writing is reminiscent of the actual King Kong font used on the game’s menu screen.

Reception

The film received overwhelmingly positive reviews from various big-name movie review websites such as Rottentomatoes.com who reported 97% positive reviews, and Metacritic where it had an average score of 83/100. Robert Wilonsky of Village Voice went as far to call it a “miniature masterpiece”, stating it was his “favourite movie of the year” in 2007; the film also made an appearance on several critics’ top ten lists of the best films of 2007, earning a position in Variety, Empire, The A.V. Club, The Oregonian and San Francisco Chronicle. Richard Roeper quite rightly stated that the film deserves an “Oscar Nomination for Best Documentary”, and indeed it got one, although it came second-best to Sicko. However, it did win four of the other six awards it was nominated for, all for Best Documentary Feature.

The documentary received a rating of 8.2 on imdb.com from an average of over 17,500 votes, and has been slowly rising in popularity over the last couple of weeks, as of October 2011.

The YouTube video of the documentary’s trailer currently boasts over 250,000 views, and the movie grossed over $50,000 on its opening weekend across five screens in America, which isn’t bad for a low-budget film. The documentary also played in many independent cinemas across the UK.

Audience

The age rating for this film is PG-13; therefore the younger half of this documentary’s general demographic of this film which would be males under the age of 21 can enjoy it as well. Although males under 21 are the films general demographic, the documentary was made in 2007, meaning that the generation which would play this game in arcades in the 1970s would now be middle-aged, possibly working/middle class; meaning that both genders around the 50 age mark would also be interested in this film, due to the nostalgia factor. As well as these audiences, people who enjoy gaming in general would also be attracted to this film; as gaming is now much more accessible in homes across America (where this film debuted) the audience for this film is quite broad and reaches out to a number of people.

Genre/Form

Albeit not a conventional one, this documentary is rightly sub-categorised as a sports documentary, coming 4^th in a popular movie website’s top ten list of sport documentaries (http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/117/1171820p2.html). It contains the codes and conventions of “usual” sport documentaries: interviews with game officials, footage of the sport being played, the competitive factor etc.

Plot/Narrative

The documentary revolves around the task of achieving the global high-score of classic arcade game Donkey Kong; the record was held by Billy Mitchell for nearly 25 years since the early 1982, when he achieved the record during a photo-shoot held by LIFE magazine in front of some of the world’s top gamers. However when underdog Steve Wiebe (a teacher from Washington D.C, who started playing during a spell of unemployment) approaches the scene, Mitchell’s score is bested by Wiebe’s once-thought-impossible 7 digit score of 1,000,000 points. During the following months, the two contenders engaged in a cross-country duel throughout the year of 2007 to see whose name would become immortalised in the Guinness Book of World Records (2007).

Textual Analysis

The film opens to a montage of interviews with various video game players, Walter Day (video game referee) and Billy Mitchell himself to immerse the viewer into the subculture of retro arcade games. These shots are more snippets of interviews, carefully selecting short quotes from a variety of sources to allow for quick cutting, which synchronises well with the intervallic slow strumming of guitar strings.

In-between shots of the quick interviews which make up the opening credits, there are slow, low-key lighted, in and out pans of an in-focus arcade game element such as a joystick in the screenshot below, which are anchored by the name of the producer, director, or in this case the title of the film as it fades out.

We are then shown archived footage of the 1982 LIFE magazine photo-shoot, where Billy Mitchell along with Steven Saunders (who claimed to have a bogus score of over 3 million, only to be crushed by Mitchell later on that day) and many other gamers had accumulated. During this archived footage, a shot transition is used where there is a cross fade between an old picture of one of the current interviewees, and them now in an interview. This shot transition is used several times when switching from a shot of archived footage to a shot of one of the players now.

The documentary also includes another important code and convention which is the use of graphics to display facts and figures, as evadible below in the form of a graph, the line of Billy’s score transcends upwards as fast, non-diagetic violin music is heard over a montage of game footage, archived footage and shots of Billy.

When the scene switches to describing Wiebe’s background, the camera switches to a close-up of Wiebe’s hands playing a piano. This diagetic music switches to non-diagetic however remains continuous and unbroken as the camera cuts to a slow pan out of Wiebe on Donkey Kong with his son. The lighting is low-key here too, however the music is much more innocent than it was with Mitchell, helping to portray Wiebe as the “good guy, family man”.

After this scene, for roughly 15-20 minutes there’s a lot of scenes revolving around the “dark side of the game”, with regards to cheating, unverified scores, underhanded manoeuvres, etc. This creates a very competitive atmosphere as we realise that this is an actual sport; however later on we receive a feel-good shot which contrasts to the last few scenes.

Bill Mitchell arrives at Doris Self’s house, an 80 year old woman contending for the world’s high-score on the arcade game Q-Bert. During this scene, the lighting is high-key which contrasts to the last couple of scenes, the dark music is replaced by Joe Espisito’s hit “You’re the Best Around” and Doris herself can’t stop smiling. This feel-good factor provides some relief and reminds the viewer that the element of fun is not lost.

Production and Influence

Although this is a largely factual documentary, both Walter Day of Twin Galaxies (video game referee) and director Seth Gordon claim that there are inconsistencies and inaccurate events in the film. In an online forum, Walter Day has made a post stating several points, a few of them being:

- In 2000, a new contender Tim Sczerby claimed to have beaten Mitchell’s score, however Wiebe’s score bested both of the other two’s, and Sczerby’s score was impossible to verify and therefore did not demand inclusion in the film.

- Wiebe actually held the high-score for almost 3 years, and when his video-recorded score of 1,060,000 points was rejected, the record actually reverted to Wiebe’s previous score in 2003.

Gordon also claims to have portrayed Billy Mitchell to be a much lighter character than his real life persona, saying that he’s “so much worse than we painted him out to be” but Gordon omitted these scenes as the documentary would have been much darker than intended, therefore justifying his toying with the facts concerning the course of events.

Gordon also claims that instead of the rumoured fictional remake, there is a possibility of there being a sequel depicting how the original changed the men’s lives.

In the My Name Is Earl episode, "My Name is Alias", a tribal person references the movie by saying "Hey, there's about to be a Donkey Kong kill screen in the game tent... if you're interested”, the same line which Brian Kuh says as Wiebe is playing.

Documentary - Review 2: Plant Earth

A Brief History on Documentary

Early film (pre-1900) consisted of simply displaying an event, notable examples being a train pulling into a station and works exiting a factory. These were all single-shot events that were captured on film; originally called “actualities”, the term “documentaries” wasn’t coined until 1926. Most of these films were recorded by Auguste and Louis Lumiére and were less than a minute in length due to the technology they had.

Robert J Flaherty directed “Nanook of the North” in 1922, which embraced romanticism and kick-started his passion for the movement, leading on to him creating several more heavily staged romantic films.

Newsreels were sometimes staged however often recorded re-enactments of actual events such as war footage.

During the 1920s-1940s, documentaries were created and used for the purpose of propaganda, typically with the hopes of installing patriotism within the country’s soldiers. One of the most notorious propagandist films is Leni Riefenstahl’s “Triumph of the Will.”

The very nature of cinéma vérité meant that it was dependent upon technological advancement in film with respect to lighting, camera and sound. This was popular throughout the 50-70s, where the filmmakers took advantage of the smaller, handheld cameras and its ability to synchronise sound, meaning they could film events as they were acted out. A noteworthy example of cinéma vérité is D.A Pennebaker’s “Don’t Look Back”, a documentary covering Bob Dylan’s 1965 tour.

Modern documentaries are much more diverse/light-hearted, and have became increasingly successful with releases such as Supersize Me, March of the Penguins and Earth.

Director Background

Sir David Attenborough has been known as the face of naturalist documentaries for over half a century, best known is his presentation of the Life series, and is a former senior manager at the BBC. He has also worked on numerous other projects including Life on Earth, State of the Planet and The Truth about Climate Change. Even though he’s now 85, he currently still works on several projects including Frozen Planet, a new series for BBC one looking at the effects of climate change on polar regions.

He has gained international recognition thanks to his wildlife documentaries, and has been called “the greatest broadcaster of our time”. His programmers are often cited as an example of what public service broadcasting should be like, and has influenced a generation of filmmakers. He has received numerous awards including his Knighthood (1985), a special recognition award in 2006 and a BAFTA in 2009.

Reason for Selection

One reason I have selected this documentary series to analyse is that it’s widely acknowledged as the best documentary of all time, and contains many incredible shots that are excellent for analysis. Another reason is that I have seen a lot of work from David Attenborough already, and his documentaries are extremely interesting and entertaining.

Textual Analysis

The Planet Earth series promotional poster is graphically very well put together, it’s clearly had a lot of time put into its creation and is effective in attracting the viewer’s attention. The poster features a herd of elephants travelling across a grassy landscape, with a flock of birds circling overhead. The elephants are extremely out of proportion with respect to the size of the planet they’re walking across, which has been done to make them observable by the viewer and give an insight to what the documentary is about. The sun is on the verge of rising over the horizon, illuminating the far side of the planet, allowing the overall design of the poster to steadily darken towards the bottom. The title of the series is placed conventionally at the top of the poster, with its tagline underneath. Planet Earth is in all lowercase, and the “e” which begins “Earth” is outlined by a bluish tint, giving the effect that it is symbolising the earth. The tagline reads “prepare to see it [planet earth] as never before”, and ends just before the sun’s rays. As a graphic piece, we can really appreciate the effort which has been put into it to make it appear as professional and attractive as possible; the poster simultaneously fulfils its aims of catching the viewer’s eye and displaying what the documentary will be about without seeming cluttered and text-heavy.

Reception

The credentials of the filmmaker, the large amount of promotional material, the high-profile marketing campaign, and a primetime BBC one slot are all elements which resulted in Planet Earth attracting huge audiences upon its debut and receiving multiple awards. Planet Earth won a Natural History award in 2007 at the Royal Television Society’s programme awards, a Judge’s award and a Photography award. The series also received two awards for Best Documentary Series and Innovation in Broadcasting from the Broadcasting Press Guild, was nominated for 3 separate BAFTAs and that still isn’t a complete list of awards. In terms of audience reception, the first episode (which I have chosen to analyse) From Pole to Pole received over 11.5 million views, and received the highest audience appreciation score of any British programme in 2007.

The series has a rating of 9.7/10 on IMDB.com, making it the website’s highest rated documentary (be it film or series) and the highest rated TV series.

There is no official trailer for the Planet Earth series on YouTube, however when conducting a search for “Planet Earth David Attenborough”, the top videos each have around 1 million hits. There is also a YouTube video of the lyre bird, which has 8 million hits within itself. I have quoted these two statistics in an attempt to give some perspective on just how popular Planet Earth and other works by David Attenborough really are.

The clip with 8 million views.

Audience

I think that the target audience for this series is extremely broad, which is one of the reasons it received such high viewings. Documentary as a genre has its own target audience, and I believe that anyone remotely interested in documentaries would have been interested by Planet Earth. As a demographic, the series targets people who are interested in wildlife and nature, which I think would typically be either middle-aged or teenage males; however the topic is so relative to human nature that anyone can appreciate it. The series also attracts people who enjoy learning, which would be students/teachers, a large demographic.

Genre/Form

This documentary is undoubtedly a nature documentary, and David Attenborough had a huge influence on this sub-genre of film. Nature documentaries have their own codes and conventions, generally taking a scientific approach to educate the viewer; however they often include shots of animals simply for viewing pleasure (this show being no exception). In nature documentaries, interaction with wildlife can vary greatly, ranging from full interaction with animals (classic to Attenborough’s style) to simply explanatory voiceovers. Some nature documentaries stage interaction with animals and instead of recording the clips of animals in nature, they are taken of animals in captivity.

Footage of nature documentaries are being increasingly more exploited by production companies, selling the footage to schools, libraries, museum exhibitor, advertisers etc.

Plot/Narrative

From Pole to Pole reveals the effects that climate change has on seasonal transitions and animals in their habitats. Emperor penguins suffer through 4 months of darkness in Antarctica, where temperatures can plummet to below -70 degrees. At the same time, spring is just arriving in the Arctic and polar bears transition out of their hibernation with their cubs to greet the ever-depleting amount of ice. In Northern Canada, three million caribou begin to migrate 3,200 kilometres across the arctic tundra. Meanwhile, the world’s rarest cat - the Amur leopard - faces difficulties with hunting for prey in eastern Russia due to the destruction of its habitat. Birds of paradise also make a feature, as well as African hunting dogs, elephants, seals, sharks and more.

This particular episode identifies the effects of climate change and the polar ice caps, as well as the destruction of other animal’s natural habitats and the dangers (such as extinction) that they face.

Textual Analysis

The show opens to an establishing shot of earth, with the sun slowly coming into view as earth continues its orbit. There is a non-diagetic musical score playing in the background, which synchronises with the light, a loud pristine note plays as the light from the sun fully immerses and blinds the shot. The title “planet earth” slowly fades in throughout this shot.

Several establishing shots of earth play over the opening scene, as Attenborough’s voice introduces the show. His calm, steady voice compliments the soft musical piece playing in the background whilst he talks about how rapidly the human population has risen over the last century.

The first truly awe-inspiring shot we receive is that of a flock of birds, which starts out with what would be an extreme-close up on the flock, then pans out to a long shot to reveal an astonishingly huge flock. A soft musical piece plays in the background to show how majestic nature really is when undisturbed. For the aerial shots throughout the show (such as this one), a special airborne camera was used with a 400mm lens that was able to zoom into single animals from a kilometre away without disturbing them.

The transition from the bright skies to the shot we receive afterwards is a huge contrast, a close-up of several emperor penguins enduring the blistering cold in Antarctica. The soft music we heard before has completely gone, replaced by the diagetic sounds of the blizzard/wind gusting past the penguins. Again, the camera eventually cuts to a longer shot to show the size of the herd, another eye-widening moment.

Again, we receive another contrast as Attenborough explains how Spring has just begun in the Arctic. The mood completely switches here, the sounds of the blistering winds are replaced by the original soft music, the lighting is much brighter, and the images the viewer receives are much friendlier and send off an “aww” factor in the form of a long shot of two polar bear cubs emerging from hibernation.

In the next scene, we are displayed a large herd of impala, running freely across open plains. Soft music plays in the background to slow-motioned clips, and the shots play at a gentle pace, reflecting the nature of the impala. However, the camera then cuts to a shot of an African hunting dog, the music turns sharper and more ominous as a dog singles one of the impala calves out, and through clever use of quick-cut editing and increased music sharpness, a tense atmosphere is created and the viewer finds themselves rooting for the calf to get away. Unfortunately for the calf, he is caught by the impala; however the music stops here and does not darken, perhaps suggesting that although it’s a sad moment, it’s simply the nature of these animals.

During a forest scene, there are much more close-ups than in the other scenes so we can view individual birds of paradise, as these kinds tend to travel alone. The diagetic sounds of wildlife can be heard over Attenborough’s excellent narrating. The cameraperson also manages to capture an exquisite close-up shot of one of the birds attempting to attract a female by spreading it’s feathers (much like how a peacock would) to display it’s design which resembles a face smiling.

The non-diagetic musical pieces often reflect the mood of each shot extremely well, and often synchronise with the diagetic sounds within the clip. For example, during one scene where a giant shark catches and devours a seal, the music is ominous, dark and foreboding. This reflects the mood of the shot well and adds to the atmosphere.

Production

The project took 40 camera teams shooting at over 200 different locations all over the world for more than five years to complete.