This is the Research for my Documentary project.
For our research task, we had to watch and analyze 5 documentary openings.
Worst Roomate Ever, Netflix.
Documentary Opening 1: (Worst Roommate Ever) |
Before You Watch |
Look only at the thumbnail and title. What are your expectations for the documentary? What are the connotations of the image, font, colour, or title?
What do you expect to see or hear in the opening?
| I think the documentary will follow a more mature and serious topic and genre based on the title and the picture of the lady who looks serious, unfriendly, almost like a mugshot nothing that screams joy. I expect the documentary to include suspenseful discordant music.
The title and image I think aims to make the whole point and message of the documentary clear, the latter being “Worst Roommate Ever”, with it all being in bold and white to really get the message there, and the words “Worst” and “Ever” being larger really makes it clear and obvious what is thought about the woman included in the thumbnail, who already looks very serious, and aside from that very lacking of expression.
Clips of an individual's life with their roommate, maybe things like what life was like with them what their routines were, and what exactly made their particular roommates worthy of the title “worst roommate ever”
|
After You Watch |
Who is the target audience?
Why do you think so?
Give one example of each and explain the meaning: Camera: Mise-en-scène:
Editing:
Sound:
| Perhaps young adults and adults, as the documentary consists of drama within households consisting of roommates, and it’s something that people of this demographic usually have (living in dorms/shared housing), so they might feel more connected to the whole documentary.
Hand-held camera: The documentary consists of shaky, unstable camera movements with this technique, it both helps the audience feel more “on the ground” or present with the individuals in the documentary, but also uneasy because of how much it moves, how much energy it has.
The house and overall environment of the documentary is portrayed to be gray and lacking of color and life, almost like it had sucked out the life of the individual, or to the individual the place has lost all joy and meaning, instead now littered with trauma, especially when we compare it to the picture of her child shown which was colorful and bright, portraying joy. Title card glitches.
The whole opening scene consists of unsettling non-diegetic music, but more particularly when pictures are shown of either her in a hospital, past pictures, etc. It serves to reel the audience back in into the new pictures and maintain suspense.
|
Would you continue watching? Why/Why not? | I think I would, the whole opening felt very dark, suspenseful, and the eventual title card with the glitchy effects really helped it too, makes me anticipate or wonder what else could the documentary have, how did the child play in this, how the individual got hurt, what else happened. Though the whole theme of roommates doesn’t really latch on to me.
|
Documentary Opening 2: (What Jennifer Did) |
Before You Watch |
Look only at the thumbnail and title. What are your expectations for the documentary? What are the connotations of the image, font, colour, or title?
What do you expect to see or hear in the opening?
| I expect the documentary to be centred around a person named Jeniffer, who I assume is the person on the thumbnail, and look into certain actions that made them worthy of a documentary, and people related or involved with Jeniffer, who maybe could chime in their own alibis or opinions during interviews.
The thumbnail consists of a split picture of who I assume to be Jennifer. The picture on the left portrays here in a bright lightning, joyful face and expression, and clear-esque picture which may be her innocent and joyful facade and how people view her, while the one on the right portrays here in a dark reddish, almost monochrome, and distorted mugshot, which might be her real personality, and shows her to be guilty, unfriendly. The title being in all caps and bold makes it easier and clearer for potential viewers to read, the lack of flair, or style makes it seem serious and more urgent and present as it feels like there’s no room for such.
I assume the opening might consist of things that add context to the documentary to aid the viewers from the get go, this may include pictures or flashbacks of Jennifer and whatever she did, clips from conversation recordings, interviews from her relatives and individuals involved with her.
|
After You Watch |
Who is the target audience?
Why do you think so?
Give one example of each and explain the meaning: Camera: Mise-en-scène:
Editing:
Sound:
| Teens and young adults, the documentary based on the opening is full of drama, impact, and loud dialogue which I think is something people of younger ages would find interesting, older people might find it too much. Jennifer also seemed young, she also lives with her parents I assume, since based on the call Jennifer is living with her parents, and it might be something younger people relate to more.
High Angle Camera: A high angle camera was used in the scene where Jennifer was in the interrogation room, it depicts her to be weak, exposed, fragile, supported further by her physical behaviour and voice, it’s almost contradictory how the opening depicted Jennifer compared to the thumbnail, which may make viewers assume something more is involved.
Most of the clips shown use a dark, almost monochrome color palette and I think it helps set the tone of the documentary being serious, dark, and possibly twisted, examples are where the documentary shows the long, stretched hallway of the police stations, and the interrogation room is shown through the CCTV POV.
The opening included quick cuts of crime scenes from actions committed by Jennifer, this adds context to whatever Jennifer did, gives people an impression of how “evil” or twisted the person who committed the crime is, and alongside it is whenever the pictures changed, there would be gunshots from the voice call, which aligns as an edit.
The opening included a non-diegetic audio of the actual 911 call from Jennifer, the call itself adds into the immersion and helps viewers place themselves at that time from the get go and adds context to the documentary, the audio was loud, sharp, and pierces the ears, which could make the opening very disorienting, and uncomfortable.
|
Would you continue watching? Why/Why not? | I think I would, the topic is very interesting and it feels much more dark and engaging over the previous documentary we looked over, there’s also confusion added from the contradiction of how the thumbnail portrayed Jennifer as to how the opening did so, finally the opening cuts off before Jennifer was to answer, which leaves me at a cliffhanger.
|
A Deadly American Marriage, Netflix.
Documentary Opening 3: (A Deadly American Marriage) |
Before You Watch |
Look only at the thumbnail and title. What are your expectations for the documentary? What are the connotations of the image, font, colour, or title?
What do you expect to see or hear in the opening?
| I expect the documentary to follow a family, who I assume are the ones in the picture, and what exactly went wrong with their marriage and maybe the fate of the young children of the family, it’d probably follow the lead up, and the eventual crime committed.
The title of the documentary being in full bold, all caps, and white makes it easy for the reader to read and potentially understand its theme with a quick glimpse, the family placed on the thumbnail just behind the title very obviously make us associate the deadly marriage to be associated with the people on it, and the family seeming happy and smiling might make people wonder what went horribly wrong.
Maybe it’ll open instantly with the crime which is very likely a murder, it’d probably consist of 911 calls, maybe interviews from individuals related with the case or family and victims directly, pictures of the setting and crime scenes.
|
After You Watch |
Who is the target audience?
Why do you think so?
Give one example of each and explain the meaning: Camera: Mise-en-scène:
Editing:
Sound:
| Young adults to adults, the documentary as a whole follows a family and a marriage gone wrong, which I think unless it has much more drama, younger people might find the topic too boring, too generic, or in general not interesting enough.
Close up shots: The documentary uses close up shots when portraying the children of the family at that time, who were now, I assume, young adults. This might’ve been done to show the faces and introduce the audience to people who were directly involved and related to the crime, and might play a role in the documentary later on, and might also give viewers reassurance, knowing the children were fine.
The neighbourhood and house in which the crime took place was portrayed to be dark, dimly lit and concentrated lighting, and at night. I think it’s to give off a sense of unease, mystery, and potential danger, since the audience won’t be able to really be introduced and familiarize themselves with the neighbourhood from the get go, the darkness and inability to see the full neighbourhood and it being empty also makes the place even more scary, considering how a crime was committed here.
The documentary shows the audiences a few crime scene photos albeit at quick succession and in a form of quick cuts, I believe this is done so the audiences are able to point out the very obvious parts of the pictures (blood stains, messy furnitures), and become unable to fully observe and view the photo before being met with another one, it causes the audiences to be shocked, maybe even overwhelmed with the amount of violence that was involved.
The documentary includes the actual 911 call between a person related to the crime and an operator, what I think this does is it gives the audience some form of context to what possibly happened at the time the crime was committed, it could also help the audience ground, place, and immerse themselves in the world of that current period, which could help them stick to the documentary and become more invested in it.
|
Would you continue watching? Why/Why not? | I wouldn’t, I think the topic of the documentary isn’t too interesting for me and not something I could get into, though there might be some twists and turns in it based on the opening, the whole stretch of having to get there doesn’t seem worth it to me.
|
The Puppet Master, Netflix.
Documentary Opening 4: (The Puppet Master) |
Before You Watch |
Look only at the thumbnail and title. What are your expectations for the documentary? What are the connotations of the image, font, colour, or title?
What do you expect to see or hear in the opening?
|
The image has the face of the criminal blurred and glitchy, the prior makes me think that their identity is unknown and its primary theme is the search for the criminal, while the latter makes me assume that it is digitally based and involves technology within their crimes. The title being written in all caps and bold, particularly on “The Puppet Master” makes it obvious and easy to understand who this criminal is referred to, and could hook audiences immediately, whereas the text below it supports the theme of the documentary.
I think it may involve brief chat logs and interactions individuals had with the criminal online, maybe interviews with those who were directly affected by them, and some criminal detectives discussing how “they’ve never seen anything this bizarre”
|
After You Watch |
Who is the target audience?
Why do you think so?
Give one example of each and explain the meaning: Camera: Mise-en-scène:
Editing:
Sound:
| I think it’s targeted towards young adults, primarily because the crimes take place within the internet which is a place where younger individuals spend much of their time in, and so the documentary could serve as a reminder, warning, or just relatable in general. It could also make them think of their older relatives, and how their relatives might be affected by digital crimes, considering their usually lower knowledge of tech.
Close Up Shot: The opening interview included close up shots of whom I believe to be relatives of a victim of this puppet master, giving a close shot of the faces of these people helps us see their emotions and expressions more, allowing us to feel the weight more, being face-to-face with them also helps us feel emotionally attached to them, like sharing a personal moment and space.
Dark Blue Hue: In the last few parts of the opening, a darkish blue hue is used when following an actor portraying the perpetrator. The use of this cold and almost emotionless color makes us feel on edge and emphasizes the sense of mystery behind the real identity of the criminal, this helps us feel and associate this person with danger and unease.
Cuts: During the interview, simple cuts were used to transition and show the faces/focus the camera on the person currently speaking. It helps the words of the person feel more emphasized and focused on as accompanying their words with their faces makes it harder to ignore, it also helps us establish a sense of familiarity of these individuals, decreasing and potential for confusion, and makes the scene feel like a conversation, where the spotlight is passed and takes turns doing so.
Diegetic Audio: By purely using diegetic audio in the interview, where in this case its the people asking and answering questions, it ensures the audience are not distracted or aided by any additional music or sounds, making the scene have a greater sense of realism as the audience may feel as if they are actually present on the spot.
|
Would you continue watching? Why/Why not? | I personally would not, I find the topic and sub-genre of the documentary to not be too exciting and interesting, though I’m not really sure what crimes might’ve been committed, I feel that since it focuses on digital crime, it’s nothing too dramatic or breathtaking.
|
Can I Tell You A Secret?, Netflix.
Documentary Opening 5: (Can I Tell You A Secret?) |
Before You Watch |
Look only at the thumbnail and title. What are your expectations for the documentary? What are the connotations of the image, font, colour, or title?
What do you expect to see or hear in the opening?
| I think the documentary may follow a theme of a hidden or personal crime, scandal, or personal obsessions that has happened between 2 people. There might be themes of harassment, stalking, or some form of privacy breaking crimes involved within it, and I think it’ll revolve around the victims experiences, and the uncovering of the perpetrators identity.
The title makes it feel like the audiences are an important individual within the context of the crime as its like they are being asked a very personal and secretive question, helping the audience feel more tied and sucked into the documentary, it also serves as a way to make the audience feel curious and wonder what might the secret be. The title being written in a bold and white text ensures that it directly grabs the viewers attention as it makes it stand out and seem important, without distractions or colorful additions, it makes it seem very no nonsense and straight to the point.
I think it would introduce us to the main victim and individuals directly involved with this crime, showing their daily lives before it happened and affected them, it could then slowly reveal the crime being first happening and being done, and how it might’ve affected the victims life.
|
After You Watch |
Who is the target audience?
Why do you think so?
Give one example of each and explain the meaning: Camera: Mise-en-scène:
Editing:
Sound:
| I think the documentary is primarily geared towards the age groups of teenagers and young adults. The whole theme of unhealthy obsessions, and stalking especially online and digitally. This is because it is very relevant to their lives where social media, online privacy, and even digital distant relationships are present and a constant part of their lives. The documentary also seems to be more emotional, dramatic, and personal which may be more interesting for younger audiences.
Close up shots: The documentary consists of close up shots which is especially used when the person is speaking. This helps the audience familiarize themselves with the individuals affected and involved with the case, and considering there are a handful of individuals, it helps the audience create some form of connection and introduction to the voices and faces of the people, which could decrease future confusions or at least act as a starting benchmark of who is in it.
Dark, Melancholic coloring scheme: Using this coloring scheme makes the documentary feel tense and somber, using it at the opening allows the audience to prepare or acknowledge how it may follow tense and serious topics. It also helps create a sense of mystery and unease, considering the coloring scheme being cold and melancholic is very un-welcoming and to some uncomfortable to see, especially if they are aware of the documentary’s topic. Abrupt Cuts: The opening uses multiple abrupt cuts. Using this editing technique gives off a sense of tension and shock as jumping from one scene or individual to another might seem disruptive and unnatural, the quick cuts also removes any room for the audiences to dwell on details or features deeply, keeping the audience on edge and engaged. Muffled Voice: The whole opening sequence of the documentary consists of occasional voice overs of the real or acted perpetrator, with their voice being muffled and deepened. What this does is create a sense of mystery and distance for the stalkers voice which could give their audience some idea of what gender or person they might be like, this help the documentary drive on as it could reel in the audience who’d want to know who the criminal really is, it helps maintain the mystery from the start.
|
Would you continue watching? Why/Why not? | I personally wouldn’t. The whole sub-topic of stalking, digital crimes aren’t too fascinating or at least dramatic for my personal taste, though I appreciate how the opening already feels very dark, mysterious, and a bit engaging.
|
