![]() Sex Pistol Bill Grundy 1976: This infamous interview in 1976 will never be forgotten for all the wrong reasons. Bill Grundy (TV host) wanted to create bad reputation of the band 'Sex Pistols' by being rude. He staged this interview by supplying the band alcohol, cigarettes and even drugs. The set did not supply enough chairs which resulted in many members standing looking unprofessional and informal. This triggered a very poor quality interview and put an instant bad name to the band. Also the camera-man were filming with poor techniques, where by the camera were focusing on irrelevant things creating a construction of poorly filmed interviews, to further the image of negativity. This is something I don’t want to use in my documentary as it is an extremely bad interview and I believe I can learn from this. At the time this interview was massive and it was all over the media, it caused moral panic and consequently Bill Grundy eventually lost his job. Martin Bashir and Princess Diana: This interview is totally different to the Sex Pistols shambles of an interview. This entire documentary has multiple retakes, ensuring there is no damage to the peoples Princess' reputation. Everything about this documentary has been places or adapted to influence the audiences portrayal of the documentary interview. The mise en scène of the backgrounds et has been adapted to allow a connection with the audience as it is apparently "in the Princess' house" and that she is a real 'normal' person with personal opinions and emotions, lowering her status to allow the viewer to relate her. However, this is further emphasised by the Princess' body language looking sad to gain emotional support by the audience member. She uses very timid body language and due to this is just post her divorce from Charles. This style completely ruins the authenticity and realism of the interview as it is quite clearly set up. I like the mise en scene set up but for my idea – I won’t pay this much attention to the mise en scene and all the body language like this particular interview in 1995.
0 Comments
![]() The documentary Amy directed by Asif Kapadia totally relied on archive footage which is why looking into this film was so important. I wanted to see how the director had portrayed this film as it is a unique style of documentary - it breaks some of the main codes and conventions but it is effective and it works perfectly (not a dry eye whilst watching it). Kapadia presents Amy as an ambitious woman, someone with strength but she has problems and in the public life that it is hard. He uses techniques with interviews that you never see the person speaking face (unless it is archive footage). This is powerful as one of Amy's friends she said that Amy "was lost and just couldn't stop" (referring to her drug use) whilst on screen there is footage of Amy struggling with drug abuse. This is powerful as we (the viewers) feel empathy for her and look to blame others around her even though it was partly her own fault. This is something to bear in mind when making my documentary is the message Kapadia puts a subjective style view towards it. Codes and Conventions met in the Amy Elements that are in: Archive footage and Stock footage Interviews; use of sound bridge for effect - helps Kapadia give us his message Text introductions to each bit of new footage Use of music -diegetic and non-diegetic Elements that do not feature: No voice of God - only interviews tell the story (extremnely powerful) Its subjective Todorovs Narrative Theory:
Elements of a documentary:
Challenge: Don't follow the conventions Comply: Follow the conventions Codes and conventions:
|
Dan AyersCandidate No: 0008 Archives
April 2017
Categories |