Essay (major final task)
Name of the documentary: Harry Evan’s Strictly Unusual
vehicles: The History of the SUV
How does it represent social issues or groups?
How do the elements of your production work together to
create a sense of ‘branding’?
How do your products
engage with the audience?
How did your research
inform your products and the way they use or challenge conventions?
My research into the topic showed that the majority of successful
car documentaries or documentaries of a similar style and genre to mine have a
presenter, generally someone who is already a well-known presenter such as
James may or Richard Hammond for car documentaries or for history documentaries
Dan snow or Peter Snow. Their stile of presenting most of the information via a
Piece to camera mixed in with either dramatizations or visualisations for
history documentaries and for car documentaries archive footage of the vehicle being
discussed, this is where I took a lot of inspiration from to help come up with
a unique blend of documentary stiles and Genres. I used Steve Neale’s Genre
theory I chose Steve Neale’s theory because I think it fits my idea for my
Documentary the best as I have tried to fit the codes and conventions of a car
documentary while breaking some to keep interest, the main break from
convention being the small sketch about the marketing of the Niva, something unheard
of on a car documentary. My research also showed what the best method of
advertising would be to get the most exposure to my target audience of men between
the ages of 15 to 50, a large age range but an interest in cars is a wide topic.
The best social media to use where Instagram and Facebook as the younger audience
between the age of 15 and 25 are more likely to use Instagram and those between
the age of 25 to 50 are more likely to use Facebook.
My documentary piece represents several social groups and
issues the main being men and Russian stereotypes, this is because the subject
of the clip from the documentary focuses on the Russian SUV the Lada Niva which
appeals to a mostly male audience although there still is a female following to
the car online however it is not to the same universal scale as the male
audience, and it covers Russian stereotypes because there is a sketch that
leans heavily on the Russian stereotype as well as jokes and information
thought the piece, to attract a male primary audience there is humour mixed in
with factual information that would turn off some viewers without the humour
being there. The negotiated audience is anyone interested in cars no matter the
age or gender as there are many more female cars enthusiasts than most people
would think, especially regarding Russian cars, this negotiated audience is
also likely to use the same social media as the intended audience.
I have put humour in the documentary as the topics covered
are full of boring stats and Analysis so to help the viewer both be entertained
and learn something about the vehicles covered, I tried to make it funny and a
bit tongue in cheek. The way I have presented both social groups that are
represented are in positive lights although I use Russian stereotypes for their
comedic value there is nothing deeper than the stereotypical soviet
incompetence that ends up being effective or made out to be. For the male
social group, it is also positive as the documentary covers vehicles that the
older viewers might have seen or heard of before, but younger viewers might not
have which is why it was important to keep both audiences engaged, too much analysis
and info would turn off the younger viewers too much humour without any info
would turn off the older audience and the younger would learn nothing from
watching which is why I struck a careful balance.
I created a sense of branding by taking my favourite parts
of car documentaries and history documentaries combining them to create a unique
documentary that hasn’t been done before, although a focus on a presenter as a character
is a standard convention of the car documentary sub-genre but the addition of sketches
is a break of the convention, it is closest to a renactment from a history
documentary however due to its comedic focus instead of being a perfectly accurate.
There was a lot of revision and changes needed to the final piece,
from it being a large amount of footage only containing the vehicle with a
voiceover edited on top, to a majority piece to camera and in person footage of
the car mixed with a voice over and only limited use of archive footage. The majority
of the changes were influenced by feed back from my teachers as well as my
research.
My choice in editing software was my biggest mistake as I chose
to use Adobe rush which although a good editing software it has a maximum of 3 free
shares which was not enough for the number of drafts I needed so if I were to
do this again, I would use Premier pro because it is much more in depth.
There where also many issues with hardware mainly to do with
the camera as it had a major issue with losing focus during filming and the
microphone would sometimes work and then the next time you press the record
button without changing anything does not work running many takes and not giving
any indication of it happening at the time.
However, despite the many issues with production and post production
the final piece it came out quite well for something that I have created, it
fits its genres codes and conventions and breaks them enough to be interesting fitting
into Steve Neales theory, and is according to those who have seen it an easily watchable
documentary that they would watch to its conclusion if it was a complete
documentary.
By Harry evans
Comments
Post a Comment