Alexander Marengo Documentary Analysis- The Taking of Prince Harry

Starts of with a helicopter crashing in Afghanistan, the scene then changes to army personnel saying Prince Harry’s helicopter has crashed. Dramatic music plays as prince harry has guns pointed to his head. War scenes are shown with narration; archive Taliban and kidnapping scenes are shown. Prince Harry footage from 2008 is shown in Afghanistan his nickname was bullet magnet. Scenes cut showing editors of magazines and war personnel explaining their views on Prince Harry’s involvement in the war.

Real interviews from magazine editors are used to show the audience how they would react and write about the kidnap. It gives an insight into how they would overexpose the story to the public thus making the kidnap a larger news story around the world.

The scene starts from Day 1 of Prince Harry’s kidnap; he has been taken to a camp and taken hostage. The documentary almost tells a story to the audience as it shows Prince Harry’s kidnapped experience from day 1.

This is done to keep the audience interested as it is somewhat a drama put together with a documentary style of filming.

Footage (dramatisation) is shown how the police will handle the hostage crisis, ‘spy music’ is played showing a role-play of 2 detectives talking to each other. The scene then cuts to show a meeting between investigators’ briefing the kidnapping. Dramatised scenes are linked with archive footage of war and news stories about Harry’s involvement with the army and the war.

Archive footage is shown of royal members of family taking part in wars such as Prince Harry’s uncle Andrew in the Falklands war. A dramatisation is then shown of harry in captivity in a small hut in an afghan compound. Scotland Yard office scenes are shown displaying investigators trying to find harry, they discuss that they may have found him.

This scene shows a comparison between Harry’s involvement in the war and his uncle’s involvement in the war. The comparison is used to show that Royal Family members are willing to ‘protect’ and “fight” for their country, ultimately it is used to make Harry look like a hero.

Prince Harry is then shown putting on a disguise and dressing like a member of the Taliban; he does this as he is ordered by two Taliban kidnappers. He is then given a gun and marched out of the compound. Political conferences are then shown in the next scene with the prime minster talking about a real kidnapping by the Taliban (this is archive footage).

This use of archive footage shows the audience what could happen to the Prince if he was kidnapped, it makes the audience ultimately worry for Prince Harry’s safety if he were to go to Afghanistan again.

FBI and investigators talk about rescue plans, they rule out the military rescue as they show the army failing to save harry, so they then talk about the next rescue method, negotiation with the Taliban. A scene is then shown with Prince Harry being interrogated by Taliban members; they then lock him in a room. The scene then cuts to show a small excerpt of an interview with a filmmaker that was really taken hostage for 9 days.

Scenes are then shown displaying Prince Harry wanting to call the British embassy, Taliban members then take the phone and talk to the embassy member. A member of the US CIA is then narrating over this scene; he is talking about how the negotiation works and is carried out. This informs the audience of how real negotiations play out.

The kidnappers make a deadline for the embassy to give them 1 million dollars and they have 7 days to get the money or Harry will be killed. Past archive footage is shown displaying journalists being captured and then released for money from time to time. The negotiation techniques fail; scenes then show how hostages can be sold to their terrorist organisations.

The Taliban members finally found out they have captured Prince Harry. Scenes are then shown of what would happen if the Taliban moves to propaganda techniques to exploit the capture. This scene shows archive footage to a good standard, it makes the kidnap more believable.

A dramatisation is shown displaying prince harry in captivity watching a propaganda video showing a man being trapped and begging for his freedom. The documentary then shifts to how the media will talk about Harry’s kidnapping. Day 21 is shown displaying the al Qaeda taking Harry to a desert area so they can make a propaganda video. The documentary then shifts to four investigators talking about an escape strategy.

This documentary heavily features dramatisations that are interlinked with interviews from CIA operatives that give their opinion on how rescue tactics will be carried out in order to save the Prince Harry. It makes the audience believe that if this ‘kidnap’ were to happen; armed forces are willing to do anything to save the Prince. This is done to make the armed forces look good as well as make them look loyal to the Prince’s family and their country.

Day 27 is shown, prince harry escapes due to Pakistan forces opening fire near the hostage compound. Day 29 then shows harry being given to U.S forces and then flown to the UK to reunite with his gamily. Harry is dubbed as a hero by the prime mister as a freeze frame show is shown of him walking into NO.1- Downing Street. This scene shows that the media twist the truth in order to make the Prince    look good in front of the public without telling them the true story of  what   really happened, it shows the media sensationalising the kidnapping story in order to positively increase the Prince’s public image.

Channel 4 (the channel that aired the 'docudrama') responded to the controversy the show displayed, "It is a legitimate subject for documentary to explore the risks that Prince Harry faces as a high value target”. 



Michael Moore Documentary Analysis- Bowling For Columbine (Marked)

Michael Moore Documentary Analysis- Bowling For Columbine

Overview

At first, it seems his answer will be obvious: readily available guns. But what appears to be a simplistic anti-gun polemic broadens in scope, to tar the media, racism, greed and US foreign policy. Michael Moore clearly and convincingly expresses his rage at the way fear, violence and the ignorance has gotten to America when it comes to gun crime.

About 20 minutes into the film, The Beatles song "Happiness Is a Warm Gun" plays during a montage in which the following footage is shown: People buying guns, Residents of Virgin, Utah, a town that passed a law requiring all residents to own guns, People firing rifles at carnivals and shooting ranges and a man who takes his shirt off and is shot during a riot.

Comedic, chilling and provocative, "Bowling for Columbine" is a documentary that works as a hugely entertaining movie, as well as a ‘shot’ at American gun culture and the media.

The director/star is a plain-speaking, sharp-witted everyman, who isn't looking to score cheap political points, but is infused with a spirit of honest inquiry. He cuts straight from the wailing children of Columbine crying over their dead classmates to a triumphant Charlton Heston, lifting a rifle over his head with the shout "From my cold dead hands!"

Evaluation

“Are we just a nation of gun nuts or are we just nuts”; a quote from Michael Moore spoken on his documentary ‘Bowling for Columbine’ where he displays his unique process of integration and analysis to come to the truth about America’s necessity of guns.

Michael investigates the Columbine High School massacre in which 12 students and 1 teacher were shot by 2 students in 1999. The 2 students ultimately committed suicide; 15 deaths occurred from the shootings.

The documentary won numerous awards and Michael Moore gained international attention due to the documentary’s success. Michael is proactive in this as he is shown prominently in the documentary; he is mostly in the shot at all times apart from when archive footage is shown.

He gives his heartfelt opinion of certain matters about gun violence and when he is asking numerous people questions. He does this so that he can get his point of view across in a strong manner which shows his passion.

He honestly inquires about gun crime in America as well as showing his own points of views, at times his theories about gun violence can be seen as bias. He naturalistically asks questions to survivors, celebrities and certain officials about gun violence and the columbine massacre that almost shocks them as he is so straight forward and to the point. He does this to get a straight answer from who he is questioning so he can get their most truthful point of view. Michael is careful when he faces stereotypical views, such as Americans love guns and that most Americans feel that guns are a necessity, although he does paint a stereotypical view when the documentary displays a cartoon about the history of the relationship between American and firearms.

To watch the cartoon click this link: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqh6Ap9ldTs

The cartoon implies that America's foundations were built

through the use of the gun. It brings a stereotypical message,

one that makes the assumption that America is a Gun-Loving country.

When he visits an arcade in columbine he talks to 2 people who were bomb suspects, as Michael talks to one of the men the camera cuts to another man playing a gun game which shows the man holding a plastic gun whilst ‘shooting’ at the arcade screen. This could be stereotypically viewed that gun violence links to video games although Michael does not comment on the game.

However he does comment later on in the documentary about video games and gun violence. He does his best to avoid some stereotypes but he does imply stereotypical views some times. As he is making a documentary he has to stay away from stereotypical views so that it he does not give the viewers the idea that he is being biased.

Michael Moore is quite deliberate when he tries to elaborate his point of view with visuals and imagery such as the prominent use of archive footage and music which fits links to the video. He makes fun of some situations with different footage to get his point across. He uses satirical humour such as using spoof videos or humorous footage that is linked to certain topics such as gun violence.

Michael Moore uses editing in some scenes of the documentary to make his point seem more powerful. In some scenes when he is talking to certain people and asking them questions, after he is finished talking to the person he keeps the camera rolling on the person for an extra couple of seconds so that the viewers can see the expression on the persons face to see if they meant what they said.

He creates a rather powerful scene when he goes back to the columbine high school and talks to one of the teachers who witnessed the shootings years ago. Whilst he is walking through the school the police recording plays from the day of the massacre, this creates a certain mood when he is walking through the corridors as if he is thinking, “the massacre happened here” as if in disbelief that something so tragic could happen in a school.

Whilst he is walking through the school with the teacher she becomes upset about reminiscing about the tragedy, when Michael comforts her the background track plays Charlton Heston (a former spokesperson for the NRA) saying “I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands”. This quote when heard in this particular scene makes the viewer feel that Charlton Heston is somewhat a bad person and implies that his pro-gun rallies are one of the causes for gun violence.

It makes the viewer feel that the massacre and overall gun violence in America was somewhat influenced by Heston’s views on guns. The narrative used in the documentary does in some way simplify some issues

regarding gun violence.

Michael Moore’s approach to analysing gun violence does makes it easier to understand his views about issues. Michael Moore’s narrative technique of comparing serious issues of outrage with more general issues is quite prominent for example; the general message of the National Rifle Association, the number one pro-gun organisation in the United States and the incident Columbine High School.

In a very interesting part of the documentary a moral narrative is implied, a shot/reverse shot is used where Michael Moore confronts Charles Heston about a young girl murdered by a gun in his home town of Flint. A medium close-up is used showing Michael Moore holding up the picture of the child who was murdered.

This shot is used to show that Michael is the Hero and Charles is the villain, he confronts Heston with the school photo of the innocent child who got killed by a gun. It shows Charles turning around, he is filmed in long shot this shows the viewers that he may does have regrets what he has said about guns in the past.

The shot makes him look less dominant and rather weak and physically worn out from the accusations that Michael Moore has placed on him. Charles turns around to look at the photo and he is somewhat seeing the error of his ways.

This creates the Moral Narrative of the documentary; it shows that Charles Heston may be wrong about guns and that talking positively about guns is wrong in some manner. This scene however swerves away the general narrative the documentary portrays in previous scenes.

Michael Moore sometimes uses sarcastic comments to accompany footage; he does this to put his point of views across in a humorous matter, as if what he is showing us is common sense. There is somewhat an explicit argument about gun violence, it’s more implied in this documentary by Michael Moore, and there are so many conflicting views about guns in this documentary. He does directly say that there is more gun crime in the US than in Canada and other countries, and he does say that guns and ammunition are easy to obtain the US. Michael Moore’s argument about gun violence is very implicit as he mostly implies that some forms of gun violence are linked to other topics. He uses common sense assumptions to present his views. Such as gun violence may become more frequent if guns are so easily obtainable in the US and in local stores.

Michael Moore puts the viewer in a position in which they can determine their own point of view and compare it to Michael’s views. He gives the viewer a lot to think about, he makes us come to our own conclusion about violence and gun crime.

Donald McIntyre Documentary Analysis- Lucky Tucker (Marked)

Donald McIntyre Documentary Analysis- Lucky Tucker

The Documentary is about the lifestyle of former underworld gang member Ian Tucker and his lifestyle after leaving the world of crime, this documentary is conducted by Donald McIntyre, he follows Tucker around and films him as he tries to get an idea about who Ian Tucker is and how he lives and thinks.

Interviews are conducted with ian tucker, he talks about his crimes almost in a bragging manner, like he is proud of the crimes he has committed, this gives us an idea that he is rather smug and ‘has a big ego’. This means that he get the message that he is not a very nice person as he doesn’t care about the consequences of crime

Dramatisations and reconstruction footage is shown of ian tucker’s crimes, this gives an idea of how he orchestrates the precocious crimes he has committed and it gives us an opinion of what he is really like and the way he thinks.

Also the documentary features a scene where the crime drama ‘the bill’ is used to link with his real life crimes, this is done to merge fiction with reality. This gives us the idea that underworld gangs can be infiltrated by the police and that criminals such as Ian tucker can be eventually caught.

The song ‘Bat out of Hell’ is used to depict ian tucker as a ‘Bat Out of Hell’, this displays Donald Macintyre’s opinion of him and it also gives the audience an idea that ian tucker is a bad thing to society or ‘evil’. The documentary does give us a more intimate look into his home life; one scene shows Ian tucker with his daughter, this scene does show that he is loving parent and that he does love his child. This gives the audience the idea that he can be a person that expresses love instead of hate.

Donald McIntyre raises the issues of underworld gang criminals in this documentary; he gives us an insight into their lives, what they think and how they live. At the end of the documentary a scene shows a confident

Ian Tucker going into court facing 6 ½ years imprisonment for a crime, he was convicted for the crime. Donald McIntyre a created a documentary that is rather biased towards Tucker and Underworld Gang Criminals.

His narration at the end when Tucker was charged sounded as if the sentence was inevitable and that Ian Tuckers over confidence overshadowed that fact that he could be convicted

Louis Theroux Documentary Analysis- Gambling in Las Vegas & Behind Bars (Marked)

Louis Theroux Documentary Analysis- Gambling in Las Vegas & Behind Bars

Louis Theroux is a British broadcaster best known for his Gonzo style journalism, gonzo journalism tends to favour style over accuracy and often uses personal experiences and emotions to provide context for a topic or event being covered.

His first journalism job was at Metro Silicon Valley, an alternative weekly newspaper in California. In 1992 he was hired as a writer for Spy magazine. He was also worked as a correspondent on Michael Moore's TV Nation series.

His 2007 Documentary Gambling in Las Vegas shows the audience about the life of gamblers and what they get up to in casinos in Las Vegas, how much they spend, win, lose and how they feel about gambling.

He tries to find out why gamblers continue to play even when they lose money. In this documentary he raises the topic of gambling addiction.

He gives us a non-judgemental but rather biased look towards ‘the high-rollers’ of Las Vegas’s casinos. He also tries to experience the life of a gambler he even wins some money playing pontoon and leaving the audience with the thought that gambling only makes sense ‘when you’re winning’.

One scene shows Louis conversing with an elderly lady who loves to play the slots, she reveals to him that she has lost $4 Million over the years playing the slots and that the casino ‘treats her well’. This gives us the idea that the casino is ‘using’ the woman only for financial gain and acts like she is a valuable customer.

He shows that gambling addiction has gotten to the gamblers he associates with; he also shows that they are totally oblivious to the fact that they may be addicted. He also shows that addicted gamblers have the idea the ‘if you’re winning then why stop’.

Louis gives the audience an intimate insight about gambling addiction as he experiences the lives of ‘addicted gamblers’. He makes the audience judge the gamblers shown in the documentary as he does not judge them himself.

He also uses this style in his 2008 documentary ‘behind bars’ that sees Louis visiting a state prison (San Quentin) where he gets to know the lifestyle of inmates as well as conversing with them and experiencing the typical day of life of a convict.

Scenes are shown of Louis eating with two other convicts , everyone seems very open to Louis, he presents  himself as a polite interested, non-judgemental person for people to talk to He also goes into the court yard to talk with criminal ‘factions’ that are separated by race.

Louise’s style is that he tries to experience from the convict’s point of view about prison life, he shows a great deal of empathy towards these convicts as he tries to find out why they did the crimes they did and how they feel about prison life in general. He remains fairly relaxed through the whole documentary; this is done to give the message that possibly the stereotypical view of prisoners is wrong and that you don’t have to be completely cautious and paranoid around them and that they are not necessarily ‘bad people’ but misunderstood.

The documentary shows that Louis is trying to create something that is not judgemental; he purely leaves the judging to the audience about prison life and dangerous criminals.