Bowling For Columbine Documentary Analysis

This term, we reviewed the history and process of documentary making. By viewing objective and subjective documentaries, the elements and operations of each were identified. The given task was to apply this knowledge by creating our own subjective or objective documentaries in groups. My group contained Ellen, Mia, Bonny, and Mercedes which I was satisfied with as we all shared a similar work ethic. In creating a documentary, I experienced first-hand the decisions and mechanisms of this procedure.
Working together in a group was a challenge. Due to the large number, sometimes there was nothing to do. I would suggest cinematography elements based-on my media arts experiences whilst other group members wanted simplistic or aesthetically pleasing

Mr. MacKenzie had previously expressed he liked our idea so we used him as an appeal to authority. All student interviewees were people our group members knew personally; this made them more likely to be informal, seem more honest and agree with our stance. Students of all ages were interviewed for diversity. Drama students, in particular, were selected with the expectation they would use emotive language and hyperboles (which could be used as persuasive devices to sway the

The use of Michael Moore’s satirical humour made the film engaging and his camera appearances added to its dynamic nature. Spellbound, though interesting, seemed formal, structured and dull compared to the subjective documentary’s spontaneous nature. Our documentary is subjective as, like Bowling for Columbine, only one side of the story gets told. Additionally, our film only used opinions, interviewees, facts, and statistics that supported our views. Our survey was intentionally written to achieve favourable results through vague language and closed-ended questions. Whilst Moore interviewed people who disagreed with his side, they were extremists and simply cemented the audience’s view. Like Moore, our presenters also appeared on camera and interacted with the audience rather than making them a fly on the wall. Our documentary contained some objective elements too; for example, the impacts of the camera’s presence on the subjects were not explored, our camera crew was concealed and factual evidence was used to support our