Report on Bowling for Columbine

I've studied this documentary to look at how bias is used in documentaries as a convention.
Bias through selection and omission was used by them showing a clip of Michael Moore bending down to Charlton Heston's intercom, this proves that Charlton Heston is too important to see without asking and he is a big man, (he is made inferior). The music is from roundabout 1940's, it is a jolly, jazz piece. It is a piece of 'black' music and this created irony when becomes evident to Charlton Heston as a racist.
Bias through placement was used for Charlton Heston's posters behind him; they make him look glorious and a hero. His employees clearly put them there because they want people to think certain things through positive connotations.
Bias by headline/title was used by Michael Moore saying that he is a member of the NRA (American Gun Club) and that is the reason why Charlton Heston agrees to see him.
Bias through choice of words by interviews, Michael Moore used a lot of open/closed questions.
Bias by captions, photos, edits, lighting and camera angles was used by cutting out the rubbish and keeping the good, so it makes it go question...answer, alternatively. He also shows Charlton Heston the photo of the 6 year old girl that was shot and killed by another 6 year old. He came with this photo, knowing that the interview would get out of hand. The documentary was edited well and if you aren't expecting edits, you can't notice it at all. Statistics were used a lot, they are the truth and they are a good way to be bias because the person that they are aimed at, cannot argue back and it made Charlton Heston angry. Statistics are powerful and you cannot argue back because you know that they are the truth.
Leading questions work in the way that you have already decided what you are going to talk about and you know where it will lead to.

Deconstruction of Documentary

The documentary that I have chosen to denotate and analyse is, 'Supersize vs. Superskinny.' I have chosen this because I enjoy watching it and find it interesting how they have to swap diets. I also feel it is relevant because it is to do with diets, and eating habits, therefore I may find some inspirations to put into my documentary. In this series, the location, in the feeding clinic are two women at opposite ends of the weight spectrum but with one thing in common; they both want to look wonderful in their wedding dresses. They are swapping diets so they can learn some home truths about their diets. Dr. Christian Jesson is in charge in the five day feeding clinic diet.
The skinny woman is thirty-one year old mum, Jeanette, she is six stone eight. To introduce her, there is a picture of her very skinny, anorexic body. She looks very unhealthy and this shows one side of the extreme food diets.
The narration is a woman telling us all the information that we need to know. She doesn't have much tone to her voice and isn't very exciting to listen to, but she is an expert so it is good to listen to her.
The obese woman is thirty and is called, Rosemarie, she is twenty-one stone. Over three times the weigh of Jeanette! To introduce her, there are pictures of her obese body. She looks very overweight and this shows the other side of the extreme food diets.
This documentary shows the two very extreme diet sizes on the scale of diet. As this film doesn't show an average weight it is shocking to see the obese and anorexic person be put together. This is because the only people we can the women with are each other and they are on completely opposite sides of the scale of diets. They make the documentary like this because the women's diets are supposed to be shocking.
It is bias from one diet to another, saying how skinny or how obese people can be. When the women meet and are put together, you can tell how bad food diets really are. This is because they are going from one extreme to another and it isn't a very pretty sight.
There is Archival Footage of them living their normal lives are shown at the beginning when we are introduced to them. Documentaries use Archival Footage because it shows you what the person looked like before they came on this documentary, so that you have some idea of how they have improved/not improved.
There aren't any interviews in this documentary; they are just face to face interviews with Dr Christian talking to the women about their diets. They talk to him because he is an expert and he will give good advice that will help them improve their diets. This advice can also be useful to the people who are watching the documentary if they suffer with diet problems.
Narration is happening through out the documentary and we are told lots of information. The narration works because it informs the audience about what is happening and it also helps the audience if they want to go on a diet. The information that is given is about the women's lifestyle and how they are coping with their five day diet. The narration is also given because it makes the audience want to carry on watching the documentary because it is educational and you learn lots about diets from it. I think personally that the idea of swapping diets is great and it is very interesting. If I find it like this, I am sure others do too. I think that this documentary has the theme that targets many women. This is because all women care about how they look and what people think of them.
As well as many narrations there is also music in the background, it isn't emotional it is to keep the pace of the documentary going. The music is normally played when the women are talking about how hard the diet is. This is because it is hard for the women to change their diet so dramatically and when they explain their feeling and thoughts to us, the music is there for the background.
There is a lot of editing by text coming up on the screen because it also gives us information. For example - they say how many calories you should have each day and how many calories the women have each day. It also tells you about the exercise that the women have. The camera angles are different in every scene. This is done because it makes it exciting instead of using the same camera angle in every scene. The camera shot that is mostly used is the medium shot.
A camera technique that isn't used is, 'wobbly camera'. It is because the 'wobbly camera' is normally used in films that are filmed as you would see life and not in documentaries about size. I think they used medium shots most of the time because it is a camera angle that fits in every mise-en-scene in that you need to see.
We can tell by the characters that Jeanette finds it hard to force food down her, especially when it is an obese person's diet. Rosemarie finds it hard to not eat too much and she is obviously starving and Jeanette is obviously bloated. This scene is constructed so that we can see how each person is suffering with their new diet.
Apart from when we see their bodies at the beginning of the documentary, the camera shots are mostly medium shots.
The documentary is full of information about being healthy/unhealthy. This is for people who want to put on weight or loose weight. I think that most of the audience watches this documentary is because they want to focus on their own weight and they want some tips and advice on how to do this.
The documentary does look like it has been edited so that the women look unhealthier than what they actually are. This is done by editinjg around their eyes, to make the look black and more tired like, however this could be done to show the emotion and feeling that the women are going through. They may even look like this is real life, but it is a real bad look and it keeps the audience interested to keep watching the documentary.
Another thing that makes people want to still carry on watching the documentary is how people want to know how the women have got on with their new diets. This is why this is always shown in a documentary (2 months - 1 year onwards). They show this because people are interested in how much the person(s) have improved over their time being in the documentary.

Sub Genres

There are five sub-genres for a documentary.


The expository mode is characterised by the 'Voice of God' narration directly addressing the viewer. There is a direct relationship between images and the voice-over and interviews are used to only support the film's argument. it has a conventional narrative structure and the narrator tends to appear as a character in the documentary. Typical documentaries that follow this sub-genre tend to be nature documentaries.


The observational mode is characterised by a non-interventionist or fly-on-the-wall style of presentation, unobtrusive camera work, appearing to offer a 'window on the world'. They tend to be relatively long takes connoting that nothing has been 'cut out' and zoom lenses and hand-held cameras follow the action. They are edited in a way to give the impression of 'lived' or 'real' time and there is speech which is overheard and not directed to camera or audience. There is synchronous sound and only diegetic music is used because it originates in the documentary's world. Big Brother and I'm A Celebrity tend to follow this documentary sub-genre.


The interactive mode is characterised by the acknowledged presence of the camera and crew. The film-maker also speaks directly to their subjects and an emphasis is used on monologues and dialogues. There is a representation of multiple viewpoints, contributing different information and editing which maintains logical continuity. In this sub-genre there is no definitive argument which leaves the audience to decide and develop their own opinion. Typical documentaries that follow this sub-genre are ones such as Embarrassing Bodies.


The reflexive mode is characterised by acknowledgement of the medium to problematise it and discussion of the problems of making the documentary. They also make it explicit about the process of representation and make it explicit on institutional issues (such as who is funding it)


The performative mode is where the maker 'stars' in his/her own film, is also self-reflexive, such as Kurt & Courtney (1998)


After getting more into my documentary, I have decided that it will be a bit of an 'expository' and a bit of 'reflexive' documentary. This is because there is a voice of God narrating the documentary, but I'm not necessarily being part of the documentary or arguing as such.

Yasmin analysis

Summary (back of DVD case): Yasmin is a spirited woman whose life has become a precarious balancing act as she attempts both to please her traditional Pakistani family and enjoy the freedoms of Western life. Having rebelled against her family as a teenager, Yasmin yields to the demands of her widowed father and agrees to marry a cousin 'from home'. The omens are not good when she the goat-herder from a Pakistani village meets the vivacious, Westernised Yasmin. After the shocking event of 9/11, Yasmin's life begins to change; her innate sense of confidence starts to evaporate and she becomes increasingly ostracised at work. Yasmin is only jolted out of her crisis of identity when she witnesses a brutal internment of her husband under the draconian rules of the Anti-terrorism Act. The injustice of this event forces Yasmin to re-evaluate her faith, her culture and her relationships. The scene is set for a compelling and topical personal drama of what it means to be Asian, Muslim and British in the 21st Century.

My own analysis: The down that this is set is in a mainly Muslim-dominated town, that involves racism, for example, graffiti on a shutter door. Non-diegetic music is played throughout the film to create emotion and show the culture they live in. In the film Yasmin goes to the pub with a 'friend', but still sticks to her religion and has a non-alcoholic drink. Extreme close-ups are used in this film a lot to show the emotion of the characters. Diegetic sound is played across the town of Muslim prayers and speeches. Yasmin seems like a totally different person when she is under the influence of her Pakistani family.

Although Yasmin is a film, it relates to a documentary because it deals with real life every day situations. I feel it has helped me watching and analysing this because the film could actually be made into a documentary, because of the situations they have used.