Documentary Analysis (unfinished)

Documentary One:

‘Should dance be allowed in the Olympics?’

Morgan Bolton

The topic of this documentary is the questioning of dance being an official Olympic Sport. Some of the answers from the general public included both positive and negative reactions. The angle taken on the documentary was clearly that dance should be in the Olympics, as Morgan (the presenter) was obviously biased within her dialogue and that was the particular point of view.

The key issues in this documentary were: (shown and explained at 0:23)

-          Should dance be apart of the Olympics?

-          Would the public approve of this?

-          Is dance even a sport?

Throughout the documentary, the following people have been interviewed.

General Public:

The general public were the first people to be interviewed in this documentary, before it had even properly begun. There is a mixed response from the public. Some claim that yes, dance should be in the Olympics as it would give it a new twist and perhaps people could be more interesting, however others say that as there are so many dance shows out already and one person even claimed that he didn’t necessarily view dance as a sport, therefore it shouldn’t be in the Olympics. The reason the general public were interviewed first was to allow the show to have some form of balance and a non biased beginning as to avoid everything else in the show looking too biased.

India and Stefano (IMD members from the Sky 1 show ‘Got To Dance’) and Jordan & Duane

Morgan had decided to interview them as they are dancers themselves, therefore giving appropriate balance to the documentary as they have the most experience in the field they are in. They began by explaining why dance was quite a difficult hobby to take up. When asked the question, India claimed that dance should not be apart of the Olympics whereas Stefano said that it definitely shouldn’t because dance would probably loose it’s individuality and dance already has enough publicity and competitions that it shouldn’t be dragged into the Olympics too, which Jordan and Duane both agreed with. Morgan then challenged them as to why they thought that dance got the views that it did. This offered the documentary an opinion that perhaps they didn’t have beforehand.

Kemick Sandy (Boy Blue)

This man was a choreographer himself. He was able to give different aspects of the opinion to the documentary. So far in the documentary, there had been mixed opinions and Kemick was just apart of this. He explained that dance was such a wide range of styles that technically, dance is the Olympics in itself since there is no one way to describe it. This is actually like a thinking point, allowing the viewer to maul over this thought and giving the documentary a range of decent opinions.

The presenter’s role in this was to allow the audience to have different roles of interpretations toward the main subject of the documentary. I believe that she was slightly biased in the show, she appeared to be ready to argue with anyone that disagreed with the main point, however this just made the show a little more interesting and fun to watch. Elements of the show flowed particularly well – for example, showing Morgan and her dance partner rehearse on the train in public, which worked very well, it also shows their love and passion for dance. Morgan was heavily involved with this documentary by being the main focus of the programme, the one to give facts and figures and overall sides of opinions. Morgan was quite forward with her presentation and modes of address, overall very bold and outgoing. (shown from 0:52 - 0:58)

Facts
- Morgan states that 68% said yes and 32% said no (0:50) which is a fact that she had concluded herself through her own research.
- Morgan explains how hard dancers work and how they train.
- Breaking was put forward as an idea for the Olympics but did not receive enough votes.
Opinions
- Morgan begins the whole documentary (0:14 - 0:17) saying herself that if dance is a sport, it should be in the Olympics. This was in fact a matter of pure personal opinion because if someone didn't think dance was a sport then they wouldn't want it in the Olympics, however it was treated as a fact.
- Whilst questioning the people in Westfield's, the opinions varied with yes and no, some saying that there is enough attention put on dance as it is already.
- Whilst interviewing the dancers, many 'no's' came out, but that was purely based on their opinion.
There are actually a higher number of opinions in this documentary, however there were enough opinions as to ensure that the show definitely was not biased in any way. This was a good thing as it still allowed the viewer to decide for themselves on whether dance was suitable to be in the Olympics.

Original Footage
- Intro (0:00 - 0:09)
- Train footage and asking questions to random members of public (0:09 - 0:52)
- Interview intro 1 (0:52 - 0:58) (1:04 - 1:06) (1:12 - 1:16)
- Interview footage (2 minutes of original footage)
- Interview footage 2 (3:35 - 3:42) (4:22 - 4:29)
- Intro to next segment (5:23 - 5:30)
- Dancing at the station / on the train (5:30 - 6:14)
- Rehearsing (6:15 - 6:30)
- Performance (6:32 - 7:37)
Found footage
- Got To Dance footage 1 (0:58 - 1:02) (various input at random moments in the interview)
- Boy Blue footage (1:06 - 1:12)
- Olympics (3:15 - 3:30)
- Boy Blue and Streedance footage (3:45 - 4:22) (4:29 - 4:39)
- In between dancer footage including the olympics (4:50 - 5:22)
Overall there was more footage from Morgan, more original footage than anything else and I think that it made the documentary flow very well. It was more effective than anything else because it made the whole documentary look professional but not in any way too forced and gave it quite a personal feel.

I would give this documentary a distinction. I believe that altogether, Morgan did a very good job of balancing her points and being able to support what she had to say through other opinions and statistics, which made the documentary look rather impressive altogether. The one thing I would say to improve with would be whilst doing the voiceovers, if she made a mistake to start again, which would make it look even more professional than it already was.

Documentary Two:
"Should cannabis be legalised in England?"
Sukhi
The topic of this documentary is the controversial topic of whether cannabis should be legalised in England or not. This included a selection of interviews and feedback from the general public to help gain an average idea on what the overall opinion on legalising weed was. The presenter appeared to be for legalising cannabis as what she said and the way she said it gave the impression that cannabis is somewhat good for the body and therefore should be legalised. The key issues in this documentary was:
- Should cannabis be legalised?
- Who would this benefit?
- What would be the effects on society?
These are the following people that have been interviewed:
Kiran Virdee (drug user) [1:51 - 3:55]

Kiran was the first interviewee and set the tone for the whole documentary, stating that if cannabis was legalised in this country it would 'help everyone' which then turns into quite a biased view since we later find out that she has had athsma previously and that in fact, cannabis has helped her with her asthma attacks and now she appears to hardly have them. She allowed the audience to gain the positive aspects of cannabis as the majority of the viewers would probably have a very negative opinion of the drug, therefore helping to balance out any standing stereotypes of the drug and what it does, already giving the show quite a comfortable balance.
Gavin Dhillon (drug dealer) [4:32 - 5:24]
Gavin was the second person to be interviewed and he gave two different opinions to legalising weed. He stated that it would be both a good thing and a bad thing. He said that although he made a lot of money out of it, an increased amount of people would probably ruin his business a little, because although the demand would be higher, it also means that the price of cannabis would go down, therefore his business would be directly affected. This allowed the viewer to see another aspect of legalising weed from a different perspective, again, supposedly giving balance. However Sukhi (the presenter) then states that it is a 'thumbs up' for legalising weed when in fact, Gavin said nothing of the sort. Therefore instead of giving balance the documentary has been made to look very biased.
General public
Sukhi then went on to ask general members of the public to say what their opinions were.
General Public #1: This man explained that actually, saying that cannabis is illegal could also be used for alcohol, giving that alcohol can sometimes give the same side effects as cannabis itself. This was a thinking point for the viewer and was actually quite effective in the documentary. 
General Public #2: This man stated 'yes' straight away.
General Public #3: This man said no, giving balance to the previous answer.
General Public #4: This man made a fair point and stated that there would be many ripple effects that were to take place if weed was legalised in this country suggesting that crime would increase.
General Public #5: The final member of the general public stated that she went to Amsterdam (where it is legal) and she said that it would be a good thing to legalise cannabis as if they do, they would be able to control it. However she then stated that she didn't necessarily agree with the effects of it, therefore ending the segment with balance.

Facts:
- Suhki spends the first 1 1/2 minutes explaining exactly what cannabis is and what it does to the human brain, therefore relating what it does to the body.

- She also explained it was the most widely used and illegal drug all over the world.
Opinion:
- The first interviewee, the drug user, had a strong opinion that the drug should be legalized.
- The second interviewee had mixed opinions.
- There are five members of the general public, all with specific opinions on the matter.
Altogether, there are definitely more opinions than fact in this documentary, as only a few facts were explained at the beginning of the programme. However there are only so many facts that can be given on a subject that is purely based on opinion, therefore it worked well in this documentary.

Original footage:
- Everything from 1:23 - 6:57
Found footage:
- Everything from 0:26 - 1:20