Documentary - ANALYSIS OF A DOCUMENTARY
Ian Hislop's Fake News: A True History
What is it about?
The documentary follows Ian Hislop as he goes on a journey to find out about how fake news actually existed way before social media played a big part into it. He discusses how in early New York times, newspapers would purposely write fake news to earn a profit and gain attention. 'Lies Sell' (Hislop, 2019). It covers extravagant stories such as 'unicorns live on the moon' which was posted in the early 1830's in New York, to more recent stories that show the affects that Fake News can have on modern day lives. The documentary also looks at different perspectives as he also interviews a man who makes money from making Fake News stories which are also heavily political.
Figure. 1 Television title sequence (2019)
The documentary follows Ian Hislop as he goes on a journey to find out about how fake news actually existed way before social media played a big part into it. He discusses how in early New York times, newspapers would purposely write fake news to earn a profit and gain attention. 'Lies Sell' (Hislop, 2019). It covers extravagant stories such as 'unicorns live on the moon' which was posted in the early 1830's in New York, to more recent stories that show the affects that Fake News can have on modern day lives. The documentary also looks at different perspectives as he also interviews a man who makes money from making Fake News stories which are also heavily political.
Who's Story is it?
The documentary doesn't specifically feature about one personable story; however, as I mentioned above it does contain interviews of people who deal with Fake News, have been affected or are part of the media circus involved. Although, you could say the story is also everyone storys, because in some way or another, it's likely you have been affected by fake news, which the documentary highlights. As Ian addresses the audience as if he's talking to you directly, he speaks about how we should be more skeptical in relation to what's being shared on our timelines.
What shots are used?
I found the shots really interesting throughout the documentary, many over the shoulder interviews which were heavily featured in that format. There were also establishing shots throughout the documentary, as the documentary was being told in many different locations they used establishing shots to end the segment and now show you where he was in the world, or who he could now be talking to. For example, there is a segment in which Ian is now talking to the CEO of 'The New York Times' and we know this because you see establishing shots of the building now segwaying into this section of the documentary.
There were also many animations, older pictures and photographs centuries old to help tell the story and further the idea of the era he was discussing. Close ups were also used as cutaways as a segment tool too, between interviews you would see close ups of newspaper clippings, tweets, titles and anything related to the topic. In many occasions news paper clippings were used as this was relevant and furthered the story surrounding the fake news stories he was discussing.
They also used wide shots with mass people in central cities, London and Newyork, walking around in mass on their phones which to me as the audience shows me that they're showing you how big of a situation this is. With so many billions of people being on social media also around the world, seeing shots that look busy with mass people walking, gives you a feel to how big social media is and the impact Fake News could have.
Does it interest me?
There were also many animations, older pictures and photographs centuries old to help tell the story and further the idea of the era he was discussing. Close ups were also used as cutaways as a segment tool too, between interviews you would see close ups of newspaper clippings, tweets, titles and anything related to the topic. In many occasions news paper clippings were used as this was relevant and furthered the story surrounding the fake news stories he was discussing.
They also used wide shots with mass people in central cities, London and Newyork, walking around in mass on their phones which to me as the audience shows me that they're showing you how big of a situation this is. With so many billions of people being on social media also around the world, seeing shots that look busy with mass people walking, gives you a feel to how big social media is and the impact Fake News could have.
Does it interest me?
The documentary really interested me, as this was related to the documentary we are filming around social media and fake news surrounding online specifically, it was really interesting to see different perspectives about fake news which surrounded more print media and touched on social media. It was also so interesting to see how fake news originally started and how companies like 'The Sun' in New York purposely posted fake news stories to make money.
The documentary also discussed how fake news was also being used as a way to cover real news. An example given in the documentary was that Donald Trump will accuse a company and call them 'Fake News' when he doesn't want to actually hear the truth. Although, I agree this is probably the case, I did find this part of the documentary to be opinion based from the presenter and not fact. I thought that it was an odd approach considering the whole programme is about fake news and it cant be proved Donald Trump does that, which I thought could have come across as biased.
Overall, I really liked the documentary, I felt it was really well done and scripted, the documentary flowed really well and fed you lots of information. I also loved how the documentary gave you plenty of perspectives. Not only did he interview someone accused of committing fake news which was 'The Times New York, he also spoke to someone who was affected by fake news and was actually put in danger because of false information spread about his company. Ian also went on to interview someone who purposely writes fake news stories for fun about politics that has a huge following. This was really interesting and I found a brilliant part of the documentary, because it allowed you to see the perspective on someone who had been affected by fake news and then someone who purposely writes fake news for fun. It was really interesting to hear the opinions of two different people involved within the same thing.
The documentary also discussed how fake news was also being used as a way to cover real news. An example given in the documentary was that Donald Trump will accuse a company and call them 'Fake News' when he doesn't want to actually hear the truth. Although, I agree this is probably the case, I did find this part of the documentary to be opinion based from the presenter and not fact. I thought that it was an odd approach considering the whole programme is about fake news and it cant be proved Donald Trump does that, which I thought could have come across as biased.
Overall, I really liked the documentary, I felt it was really well done and scripted, the documentary flowed really well and fed you lots of information. I also loved how the documentary gave you plenty of perspectives. Not only did he interview someone accused of committing fake news which was 'The Times New York, he also spoke to someone who was affected by fake news and was actually put in danger because of false information spread about his company. Ian also went on to interview someone who purposely writes fake news stories for fun about politics that has a huge following. This was really interesting and I found a brilliant part of the documentary, because it allowed you to see the perspective on someone who had been affected by fake news and then someone who purposely writes fake news for fun. It was really interesting to hear the opinions of two different people involved within the same thing.
How does it impact the audience?/Aesthetic and Visual approaches?
As I mentioned above, I felt the use of photographs, newspaper cut outs told us as the audience exactly what kind of era he was speaking about and gave you a feel for how it would have been at that time, I felt that was really important throughout the documentary because as the audience not being around at that time, its hard to visualise what he may be talking about if there is no footage. So it was a really good way of showing the audience without needing to much telling, using photographs and newspaper clippings.
At the beginning of the documentary, they also used the visual approach of using reenactment. I also thought this was beneficial as the audience, as it led you into a false pre-tense by believing the story he told you about the dog being shot in a fake news story. Once the reenactment ends, you then see Ian Hislop who tells you the story you just heard was all fake. I thought this was a brilliant way to engage with the audience right at the beginning of the documentary, especially because with Fake News you are kind of tricked into believing something that's not true which proves his point that you should be more skeptical. As I mentioned, I also thought this was a brilliant part of the script because within 1 minute of the documentary you're engaged with everything the presenter is saying.
Although, I felt the reenactment was an engaging tool used within this documentary, some filmakers have divided opinion about the tool of reenactment within documentary. In a article written by Susan Kouguell she states 'The use of reenactment in documentary films has filmmakers, film theorists and critics divided. Some believe the use of reenactments brings historical accuracy into question while others feel it enhances history.' (Kouguell, 2015). I can appreciate this statement because I do feel that a reenactment can't be 100% historically correct as most of the time we only have a recollection or a piece of information that advises us on what happened. So in some cases reenactment could be used to bring tension or dramatise the documentary for the audience which I don't think within my documentary based on Fake News that would be fair or morally correct. Especially as we don't want to come across biased or have anything that could misinform the audience.
So although I feel it worked perfectly within this scenario as they were trying to prove to you that you shouldn't believe everything, I agree with the statement in some sense that reenactment in some occasions could bring historically incorrect information, which leads me to think it could defer from the learning of a documentary.
How this will impact my own documentary?
I found this documentary was very valuable in the sense of research for my own documentary. It was really impressive to see how the topic of fake news can be presented. It was really important for me to see how news paper clippings, photographs and establishing shots can forward the story. I want to make sure as DP for this documentary I am providing the team with all of these attributes because I feel it helped the flow of the documentary run really smoothly which then for the audience creates an easy and informative watch.
The documentary also featured heavily different opinions and perspective which will also impact my documentary as I want to ensure we are providing this for our audience too. This fits heavily with the BBC 3 remit and what we're trying to achieve by showing other peoples perspectives to the audience to help them understand reasoning and something they may not of. As not everyone comes from the same type of world, it's important people are aware of other peoples opinions and lives which is also part of the BBC 3 remit.
Following my recent narration research too, it was important to see an older narrator of Ian Hilsop narrate around older history, within my research it showed that you should have a narrator who is similar age to the target audience and I felt this worked really well within this documentary. So it is important we now find a narrator who is of the age of 16-34 to build rapport with our BBC 3 target audience for our documentary as this documentary proved the narrator was related to the time of era he was discussing.
The documentary also featured heavily different opinions and perspective which will also impact my documentary as I want to ensure we are providing this for our audience too. This fits heavily with the BBC 3 remit and what we're trying to achieve by showing other peoples perspectives to the audience to help them understand reasoning and something they may not of. As not everyone comes from the same type of world, it's important people are aware of other peoples opinions and lives which is also part of the BBC 3 remit.
Following my recent narration research too, it was important to see an older narrator of Ian Hilsop narrate around older history, within my research it showed that you should have a narrator who is similar age to the target audience and I felt this worked really well within this documentary. So it is important we now find a narrator who is of the age of 16-34 to build rapport with our BBC 3 target audience for our documentary as this documentary proved the narrator was related to the time of era he was discussing.
List of Illustrations
Fig. 1 The BBC (2019) Ian Hislops Fake News - A True History - Film Freeway [Documentary Title Sequence]At: https://filmfreeway.com/IanHislopsFakeNews-ATrueHistory (Accessed 18/03/2020)
Bibliography
Ian Hislop's Fake News - A True History: (2019) [Television programme] BBC Four 07/10/2019.
Fig. 1 The BBC (2019) Ian Hislops Fake News - A True History - Film Freeway [Documentary Title Sequence]At: https://filmfreeway.com/IanHislopsFakeNews-ATrueHistory (Accessed 18/03/2020)
Bibliography
Ian Hislop's Fake News - A True History: (2019) [Television programme] BBC Four 07/10/2019.
Kouguell, S. (2015) 'Reenactments in Documentary films: Is there an Authentic Truth in Documentary?' In: Script 17/04/2015 At: https://scriptmag.com/features/reenactments-documentary-films-authentic-truth-documentary (Accessed 18/03/2020)
Comments
Post a Comment