Bill Nichols’ books Introduction to Documentary and Representing Reality claim that there are six different types of documentary. These are – poetic, expository, observational, participatory, reflexive, and performative. There are also sub-genres of documentary, which are categorised by either the topic they revolve around such as nature, history, science, or the style in which they are created, such as investigative, fly-on-the-wall and objective.
One thing which each subset of documentaries has in common is their codes and conventions; whether that documentary challenges them or not is a different issue. Conventions of documentaries include (but are not limited to) –
Voiceovers – Where a narrator (such as David Attenborough from Planet Earth) discusses the topic of the documentary, allowing video clips to simultaneously play in the background. This is done to inform the viewer, or to perhaps sway their thoughts on an issue.
Archived Footage – This is where the creators of the documentary implement already-existing footage to aid authenticity and to perhaps add further information which they were unable to obtain themselves.
Vox Populi – Latin for “voice of the people”. This is where people on the street are asked a question regarding the topic of the documentary, possibly to show what the thoughts of the masses are, or to act as a stepping-stone to which the presenter/narrator can elaborate upon.
Interviews With Experts – These are usually included after a view has been expressed through the documentary, to back up a point already made. They are also included to reassure the viewer that what they’re being informed of is authentic.
Natural Sound and Lighting – Documentaries will often choose not to alter the natural sound and lighting offered by a scene or location, as this could affect the “realism” they are trying to portray.
Facts and Figures – Statistics are typically used to enforce a point that the documentary is making (such as in Inside Job), however these figures should not always be trusted. If the documentary is critical of an issue/topic then figures will be incorporated (such as in Supersize Me, to make McDonalds appear worse than it is) but not justified.
Camerawork – This is usually affected by the style and nature of the documentary, for instance handheld shots are more common in documentaries about world events. As for interviews, the camera is typically positioned at a medium length, with the interviewee’s eyeline 1/3rd of the way down the screen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
