For this analysis, I chose to watch an observational documentary called 'The Secret Life of 4 Year Olds', which is all about 10 children coming into their nursery, with cameras everywhere and microphones on to capture all of the shenanigans they had, with scientists listening in to their conversations and telling the audience about the reasons that the kids are doing what they are doing. An observational documentary, as defined by Riley Hooper, a documentary filmmaker in Portland, Oregon in America, defines an observational documentary as they:
"eschew interviews, voice-over narration and a soundtrack, and instead present footage of real life as it unfolds. The effect is a documentary that tends to show, not tell, and invites each viewer to draw his or her own conclusions from the film." (Hooper, 2011)I would describe this documentary as observational as it shows the actions of the kids playing without intruding on them. I liked this documentary as it showed the different personalities that the kids have and showing the scientific side of why the kids were acting the way they were. Another reason why I would describe this documentary as an observational documentary as they weren't really intruding when the kids were playing they were 'observing' them.
With regards to the filming style, I was impressed with how the company rigged the camera to match the eye-level of the children and that allowed them to capture their conversations and actions without the children being aware. The storytelling approach was that initially there was an introduction of the nursery itself and the setup, and then each child had their own introduction where you met their parents and saw the child in their home environment. This enabled the viewer to form their own first impression of the character of the child, their lifestyle and their relationships with their parents. The shoot was filmed in two days, six months apart, which allowed the storytelling to show the children developing relationships and dealing with conflict.
I felt the way that the children were portrayed was positive as it was in a more natural environment rather than being interviewed in a studio. With the individual families it showed how different family setups can influence a child's behaviour. For example, the boy called Chaim was actually quite a bully and I think this could be because both the parents worked a lot and didn't spend much time with him as they would like and both the parents admitted that they don't spend as much time with him as they should.
There were a number of experiments that were set up to see how the children would react. The most interesting ones being the den building exercise, where the children were split into two teams, one of the teams had all of the more dominating characters and they really struggled with the task as they failed to cooperate with each other and work as a team. On the other side, the less dominant children interacted well with each other and succeeded in building the better den. The only child with any resilience in the dominant team was a boy called Christian, who later on returned to making the den himself. Another interesting experiment that was set us was where there was a chocolate cake that was deliberately left unattended and no rules were given to the children beforehand. In my opinion, I liked this experiment because it showed some of the children taking risks and added drama to the storytelling. However, this scene was proved controversial as some viewers complained that this set up perceived the child as naughty when in fact they were no rules set.
Lastly, a similar dilemma was set up where a girl called Skyla was the only one that received chocolate in her leaving gift. The director chose Skyla to give the chocolate to because they knew that she would struggle to share with the other children, and they chose a chocolate bar with the same amount of squares as her peers. Whilst this made good TV viewing, in my opinion, this wouldn't normally happen as usually every child would receive the same gift so no child felt left out. I believe this portrayed Skyla in an unnecessarily negative way. Even though there are varying opinions on this documentary, overall, it was very successful as it went to continue on as a TV series.
Emma Norris, a PhD student at the University College London, reviewed this documentary and said the following: "This show was definitely an entertaining watch. It evidently captured public attention, given the number of quotes and screen-grabs online the next day. However, focus tended to be on the comedy of conversation rather than the developmental insight drawn from this unique observation. Although experts were on board to analyse proceedings, discussion of the psychological processes and wider literature were very limited." (Norris, 2015). This following quote clarifies my point in saying that opinions were divided but the documentary still proved popular.
References:
Hooper, R. (2011) Documentaries defined. At: https://vimeo.com/blog/post/documentaries-defined/ (Accessed 16/05/2021)
Norris, E. (2015) The secret life of 4-year-olds. At: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/secret-life-4-year-olds (Accessed 18/05/2021)
No comments:
Post a Comment