Types of Question
Closed Questions:
Can be answered with either a single word or a short phrase, no room for elaboration
- They give you facts
- Easy to answer
- Quick to answer
- Keep control of the conversation
Usage:
- Opening & Closing
- For testing understanding
- Setting up a desired positive or negative mind set
- For seeking yes to the big question
You can turn any opinion into a closed question that forces a yes or no answer by adding tag questions
Open Questions:
Likely to receive a long answer, deliberately seek longer answers
ACTIVELY LISTEN TO THE ANSWER
- They make the respondent think/reflect
- They will give you opinions and feelings
- They hand control of the conversation to the respondent
Usage:
- To develop conversation
- To find out more about a person
18 October 2016
Unit 27: Factual Programme Production Techniques for Television - Task 1
Task 1a
When making a documentary or factual film, there are many key issues you need to look out for and may need to deal with depending on your subject.
There are many different types and styles of Documentary. However the main way in which Documentaries differ is whether they are Objective or Subjective. Factual films can approach their subjects either objectively or subjectively. Objective documentaries are mostly unbiased (the direction most documentaries tend to follow) while Subjective documentaries offer a specific point of view.
In Objective Documentary, sometimes called Direct Cinema or cinéma vérité, the film maker tries to show the events in the most unbiased way possible. This means they have to avoid letting their opinion slip through during the process of making the film and make sure to stay impartial and avoid any kind of manipulation of events during the post production. An example of an Objective documentary would be 'Jesus Camp'. This is an interesting objective film because it still led to a very one sided view from the audience as they had a very negative response to the subject, an evangelical summer camp. However, the film makers were very unbiased as they showed all the sides of the subject equally, in fact, most of the time they just showed the events at the summer camp as they were. It was just the choice of the of the audience to feel negatively about it rather than being influenced by the film to feel a certain way.
In Subjective Documentary, the film maker bases the film around their opinion of the subject. While this style is rarer in bigger films, there are some well known film makers who have made subjective documentaries. Michael Moore is one of these film makers. He's made documentaries such as Fahrenheit 9/11 & Bowling For Columbine, which are very controversial topics. While most controversial documentaries would come under Objective as it can be risky to be bias about those kinds of subjects, Moore is bias and uses his opinion, making the films subjective and much more personal. Subjective documentaries often have the filmmaker appearing in front of the camera participating in what is happening. Moore does this, and another good example of someone who makes their documentaries this way is Louis Theroux. He is always on camera conducting interviews as opposed to being behind camera and making the contributor the full centre of attention. Being more of a personality in your documentary doesn't necessarily take away from the focus of the subject however it is hard to be on camera, giving direction to the documentary, and not let your opinion come through.
Privacy is incredibly important in a factual piece as real people and real events are being recorded. As a film maker you have to be very careful when respecting someone privacy who is in the documentary as they might not want you to use certain information or even in some cases they might not want you to show them on camera. Often in Documentaries about controversial topics contributors may request not to have their faces shown or even have their voices disguised as they could be endangering themselves and/their family and friends due to their involvement in the subject. One extreme example of a persons identity being kept completely hidden in in 'Exit Through The Gift Shop' in which famous street artist Banksy is heavily featured throughout the film in sit down interviews but his face is never shown and his voice is always disguised. What is different about this situation is that many people know of Banksy and his work but not who is he is. Interestingly, due to this, there is no way of knowing that the person in these interviews even is Banksy. If you were to breach these privacy requests it would be considered unethical. In some cases contributors have been misrepresented or so they claim to have been and they might not like what they have been shown saying. However, this does not necessarily go against the persons privacy as they should understand that everything they say can be recorded and can be used and in some cases, while considered unethical, manipulated in post-production.
Speaking of Representation, Documentaries often go into a lot of effort and specific detail when trying to represent different people. Things such as clothing and even location can all be specifically chosen by the film maker depending on how they want the contributor to be represented. While location might not seem important to someone's representation,, it can chance the audiences perception of someone without them even realising which is why film makers often plan the representation of their contributors down to the smallest detail. An example of this can be seen in one of the pieces I worked on for work experience. We had to make a promo video for a group of ex-criminals, ex-drug users etc. and just people who weren't doing so well for themselves. In one of the sit down interviews we had with a contributor, we had them sit in a specific place which didn't look very nice and his clothing choice, while not chosen by us, represented the sort of background he had come from which together represented him instantly as someone who was probably of a lower class. This could be considered manipulation because while you aren't faking anything, you are exaggerating the truth and what is already there.
Task 1b
I need to understand all of the key issues mentioned above when making my own documentary. My documentary will be about Spiritualism which is a subject that many people believe in while many others do not, making the audience very split. While I could head in the direction of being bias in my film and choosing one side to talk about, this won't be what I'm going to do. My approach will objective and be as unbiased as possible in the way I present the subject.
At the time of writing this, I am sceptical about Spiritualism however other members of my team fully believe in it. This should help keep the documentary impartial and keep a balance in the direction of the film as it can be very easy when having a belief that weighs more to one side to start being bias, even without realising it.
I will have to be careful about privacy because I would like to film some of the readings the mediums will do however they can be very private and personal so I would need to ask permission and even if i got permission I would need to be respectful and no get involved in any other way than filming.
As for the representation of the Spiritualists at Gifted & Blessed, I wouldn't want to purposefully make them look weird or odd as one of the aims I have for the documentary is for people to watch it and see normal people who just happen to be mediums and spiritualists rather than present them in a way the audience who aren't familiar with Spiritualism would think they were weird. Of course, I also wouldn't want to change the way they present themselves much because I would want people to see them for who they actually are.
When making a documentary or factual film, there are many key issues you need to look out for and may need to deal with depending on your subject.
There are many different types and styles of Documentary. However the main way in which Documentaries differ is whether they are Objective or Subjective. Factual films can approach their subjects either objectively or subjectively. Objective documentaries are mostly unbiased (the direction most documentaries tend to follow) while Subjective documentaries offer a specific point of view.
In Objective Documentary, sometimes called Direct Cinema or cinéma vérité, the film maker tries to show the events in the most unbiased way possible. This means they have to avoid letting their opinion slip through during the process of making the film and make sure to stay impartial and avoid any kind of manipulation of events during the post production. An example of an Objective documentary would be 'Jesus Camp'. This is an interesting objective film because it still led to a very one sided view from the audience as they had a very negative response to the subject, an evangelical summer camp. However, the film makers were very unbiased as they showed all the sides of the subject equally, in fact, most of the time they just showed the events at the summer camp as they were. It was just the choice of the of the audience to feel negatively about it rather than being influenced by the film to feel a certain way.
In Subjective Documentary, the film maker bases the film around their opinion of the subject. While this style is rarer in bigger films, there are some well known film makers who have made subjective documentaries. Michael Moore is one of these film makers. He's made documentaries such as Fahrenheit 9/11 & Bowling For Columbine, which are very controversial topics. While most controversial documentaries would come under Objective as it can be risky to be bias about those kinds of subjects, Moore is bias and uses his opinion, making the films subjective and much more personal. Subjective documentaries often have the filmmaker appearing in front of the camera participating in what is happening. Moore does this, and another good example of someone who makes their documentaries this way is Louis Theroux. He is always on camera conducting interviews as opposed to being behind camera and making the contributor the full centre of attention. Being more of a personality in your documentary doesn't necessarily take away from the focus of the subject however it is hard to be on camera, giving direction to the documentary, and not let your opinion come through.
Privacy is incredibly important in a factual piece as real people and real events are being recorded. As a film maker you have to be very careful when respecting someone privacy who is in the documentary as they might not want you to use certain information or even in some cases they might not want you to show them on camera. Often in Documentaries about controversial topics contributors may request not to have their faces shown or even have their voices disguised as they could be endangering themselves and/their family and friends due to their involvement in the subject. One extreme example of a persons identity being kept completely hidden in in 'Exit Through The Gift Shop' in which famous street artist Banksy is heavily featured throughout the film in sit down interviews but his face is never shown and his voice is always disguised. What is different about this situation is that many people know of Banksy and his work but not who is he is. Interestingly, due to this, there is no way of knowing that the person in these interviews even is Banksy. If you were to breach these privacy requests it would be considered unethical. In some cases contributors have been misrepresented or so they claim to have been and they might not like what they have been shown saying. However, this does not necessarily go against the persons privacy as they should understand that everything they say can be recorded and can be used and in some cases, while considered unethical, manipulated in post-production.
Speaking of Representation, Documentaries often go into a lot of effort and specific detail when trying to represent different people. Things such as clothing and even location can all be specifically chosen by the film maker depending on how they want the contributor to be represented. While location might not seem important to someone's representation,, it can chance the audiences perception of someone without them even realising which is why film makers often plan the representation of their contributors down to the smallest detail. An example of this can be seen in one of the pieces I worked on for work experience. We had to make a promo video for a group of ex-criminals, ex-drug users etc. and just people who weren't doing so well for themselves. In one of the sit down interviews we had with a contributor, we had them sit in a specific place which didn't look very nice and his clothing choice, while not chosen by us, represented the sort of background he had come from which together represented him instantly as someone who was probably of a lower class. This could be considered manipulation because while you aren't faking anything, you are exaggerating the truth and what is already there.
Task 1b
I need to understand all of the key issues mentioned above when making my own documentary. My documentary will be about Spiritualism which is a subject that many people believe in while many others do not, making the audience very split. While I could head in the direction of being bias in my film and choosing one side to talk about, this won't be what I'm going to do. My approach will objective and be as unbiased as possible in the way I present the subject.
At the time of writing this, I am sceptical about Spiritualism however other members of my team fully believe in it. This should help keep the documentary impartial and keep a balance in the direction of the film as it can be very easy when having a belief that weighs more to one side to start being bias, even without realising it.
I will have to be careful about privacy because I would like to film some of the readings the mediums will do however they can be very private and personal so I would need to ask permission and even if i got permission I would need to be respectful and no get involved in any other way than filming.
As for the representation of the Spiritualists at Gifted & Blessed, I wouldn't want to purposefully make them look weird or odd as one of the aims I have for the documentary is for people to watch it and see normal people who just happen to be mediums and spiritualists rather than present them in a way the audience who aren't familiar with Spiritualism would think they were weird. Of course, I also wouldn't want to change the way they present themselves much because I would want people to see them for who they actually are.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)