Teenage Cancer Trust
https://bealegend.org/legendary-experience
Andy’s A Legend:
Introduction
This week we watched a video made by Reason Digital Media Company (https://reasondigital.com/), about a fundraising event based in London in aid of Teenage Cancer Trust. We watched two videos about the said Fundraising event.
What was the intended outcome?
The intended outcome was for the viewers of this video to feel encouraged to participate next year. This video changes the idea of sportsmanship, changing a marathon from being a spectator sport usually run by/for athletes to finish quickly, instead it is a place where all people of all different backgrounds can come together and complete this for one cause. The video emphasises this when Andy says that he was determined to run across the bridge, he explains that he was running for the memory of his brother and had no ulterior motives such as fame or the gratification of completing the marathon quickly, just to raise money and awareness.
On their website they even state
“We want personal bests in fundraising amounts – not just race times. That’s why instead of creating a fitness coaching website we created a fundraising coaching platform instead. “
Further proving that the athleticism is not what matters here.
How does this video raise money and awareness whilst improving the incentive for people to sign up for the run next year?
Andy shares a heart felt anecdote. He shares his experience of him running over the bridge and explains how he never thought he would be able to run it. He said he felt determined to run over the bridge and once he had completed the anecdote by explaining how he felt immense pride.
Andy shares how much money he raised, which raises incentives for people to run the marathon next year. Andy explains that he raised over £26,000 just as he hit the 26 mile mark, this further demonstrates the point of the video that the raising money is more important than running the race fast. I know this because, throughout the whole video the only thing that Andy talks about is how much money he raised and why he ran the race. By not talking about how fast he completed the race, it then makes the audience not think about the time- rather the money that would be raised for a good cause. Even on their website they write that they want to raise half a million, and don’t mention the times they want the race to be completed in. He shared that he was doing this for is deceased brother (Rob), suggesting that he wasn’t running this for self-achievement.
In the background there is Happy swelling music, cheering and a positive atmosphere. Whilst he’s talking, there are B rolls of other shots of London’s landmarks and the colours of the charity.
Lastly this events spokesperson, Russell Brand. He is not an athlete, or anyone remotely involved in sports. This further breaks down the barrier that this charity marathon is only for athletes and dedicated annual marathon runners. Russell Brand is known as a survivor- after kicking is drug and alcohol problem he is now reformed, coming into the light as a changed sober man.
Russell Band has been a long time advocate for this charity and explains that you should ‘look good by doing good’. In his charity video, he begins by mocking charity videos by says ‘now we are gonna does the proper ad, that was just some meta stuff where we comment on the idea of an ad’. This is quite satirical and provides inward looks approach the idea of a charity advert. He is seen with Chris (A teenage cancer sufferer) who also banters along with Russell on the idea of being kind, being compassionate for teenage cancer trust. Explaining that you should run the marathon to look good by running the marathon.
Russell Brand is seen as a saviour which can be linked to the cancer saviours. After years of battelling with addiction, he now is clean and sober. Many people can relate to him and his struggles as many of this generation have struggled with the modern temptation of substance abuse, they, therefore, are able to identify with him as he is able to share an unbiased, recent recall of the events whilst also raising and talking about taboo subjects. People can identify with him because he is young a relatable, figure who is unafraid to talk and point out the controversy and make fun of it to bring it to peoples attention.
Cancer is often a subject that people don’t want to talk about, especially teenagers suffering from this disease, therefore him talking about the teenage cancer trust is not out of the blue, in fact, it is quite within his realm to talk about this subject in a satirical, sarcastic way.
How was the charity represented throughout the video?
The colour was the main part of this video as the colour is also part of the charity logo. The constant use this throughout the video is anchored, reminding you of the charity and it logo colours.
How the media production was constructed to be effective
- Audience targeting- The video targeted all types of people from athletes to people who wanted to run for a cause
- Placement- They shot Andys part of the video was shot next to the remaining marathon runners. There was a lot of colours to reminding people of the charity logo
- Modes of address- they showed all the landmarks of London of where the marathon would be passing through.
ANALYSIS
Cheering in the background provides a warm atmosphere where people feel welcomed into the community. It gives the sense of warm fellowship which entices people to contribute to the cause.
Music is slow but uplifting. This is because we are focusing on him as he tells the story
The main landmarks of London entice more people to run at the aspect of running past the most historic buildings in London:
There is a voice over almost cutting through the music as a narration- showing the what Andy says is more important. When the voice cuts through, it encourages the audience to listen to what he as to say as he is in the foreground.
Shows Actuality footage- makes it authentic, this would be footage such as B roll of people clapping and cheering without the knowledge that they were being filmed. This shows the audience what the actual event will have in store.
Logo and colouring is constant throughout (anchoring). This constantly reminds the audience what the event is and who its for without continuously mentioning the event and the day that it is- The logo makes it cleaner and since it is the background colour, it is visible throughout the video.
The music begins to pick up pace. This is nearing the middle/the end of the video. This raises spirits as Andy starts talking about the reasoning behind running this race and talks about how much it mattered to him and possibly his brother. The music makes the moment more heartfelt and makes the story Andy is telling about his brother less sombre and more celebratory. Celebrating the life that he lived and the lives this marathon will hopefully save.
- He talks about the money he has raised and shows that anyone can raise this amount.
- The usage of low-level shots
Low-level shots provide a break in the normal camera shots. Changing the view of the shots also makes the audience more inclined to keep watching the video.
The video also puts forward the idea of community. We are shown this because they continue to talk about how the people around them were cheering them on, this strengthens the idea of how by doing this run you’ll be surrounded by other like-minded people who will also be doing the run providing an amazing sense of community.
- More about the idea of community – You may not raise the most but you’re still contributing if you join.
In the video there is a Narrative arch ( the experience and reasoning behind him running the marathon) and how much money he raised.
Sue’s a Legend
Introduction
This video almost has the same structure as the previous story. The video includes music from the last video this creates a sense of identity which draws a link to the charity and the event.
At the end of the video, there are people who come up and hug her at the end. It doesn’t seem as if she knows them- This shows a sense of community, as people you don’t know will cheer you on and provide and safe inviting environment for everyone.
What was the intended outcome?
The intended outcome was to show that people of different backgrounds would still be willing to help and cheer all participants along and that everyone was there for each other. They iterate this by showing a clip at the end when a pair of women come and give her a hug as a way to congratulate her, it is unclear whether Sue knew these people to begin with but if she did it further suggested the marathon would be filled with people who cared about you can would cheer you on from start to finish even if they didn’t know your name, they were enthusiastic to be involved and to applaud their efforts.
BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE
Oscar-winning documentary by Michael Moore, Bowling for Columbine has also racked in 41 other wins including the best documentary by the Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards. Bowling for Columbine focuses on the massacre school shooting at Columbine high school, and the growing gun violence crime in America. Pooling opinions from Charlton Heston (Advocate for the NRA), Marilyn Manson, Trey Parker and Matt Stone (South Park Creator) and the victims of the crimes he investigates, Bowling for Columbine sets out to unearth the roots of this bloodshed. (IMDB- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/?ref_=nm_knf_i1)
Who made the video material?
The documentary was written, directed and narrated by Michael Moore. We can see this in the credits and on the IMDB page relating to the movie.
Who was the video material made for?
The documentary was released in America, Canada and Germany but has been recently added to the Netflix online library. It was aimed at mature demographic, as it is rated R on IMDB and a 15 on Netflix. Michael Moore explores adult themes such as; gun violence. E.g. we are shown a rally that occurs a few days after the Columbine massacre, where a bereaved father speaks on the topic that the guns used at the school were not hunting guns, and should, therefore, be regulated as each gun was bought legally. Moore’s documentary deals with adult themes such as mass murder, Accidental homicide and bereavement of the victims and how they live their lives now.
The video material is sensitive therefore is aimed at a mature demographic. Aimed at people who understand the repercussions of gun violence, who want to make a change in American laws whilst also aimed at those who don’t want a change offering an unbiased view on gun laws and those who abide by them (gun owners). Often drawing attention to the absurdity of how someone can buy a gun by opening a bank account but also pointing out that this is normal in America and the town he grew up in.
What was the intended outcome?
Moore talks to a school teacher who was present when a 6-year-old boy shot a 6-year-old girl in the stomach. He used his uncle gun that he took to school with him that day. Heston, speaks and says that we should teach the children, when they see a gun to ‘leave it, call an adult or the police’ rather restricting the access to firearms. Many parents were in uproar at this, and when Micheal Moore confronted Hesten (NRA Advocate) the interview was drawn to a sharp close.
INSERT PICTURE OF MEMORIAL
However all throughout the film, Moore gives both sides of the argument for and against enough time to talk and prove themselves. He talks the teacher who witnessed the shooting and called the police herself and also interviews people at a gun show. Each person is given time to answer the questions where Micheal shows no bias or scrutiny.
The intended outcome was not to sway the people to guns or away, as Moore never shows his opinion on guns till the very last moment, he lets the people in the documentary speak for themselves and this allows the audience to form their own opinions on gun violence and gun laws in america without pushing a certain idea down peoples throughts.
INSERT PICTURE PEOPLE WHO SPOKE E.G THE DAD, THE VICTIMS, THE TEACHER
How the media production was constructed to be effective?
At one point of the documentary, there is a montage of pictures. This pictures depict the violence within America and the world.
The music In the background is What a Wonderful World by Louis Armstrong. This is quite ironic and humourous. Moore uses these techniques to almost make light of the shocking things that are happening all across the world.
What a Wonderful World placed behind the photos and videos of violence is very ironic as before the montage Moore interviews Evan McCollum of Lockheed, the largest weapons maker in the world (Lockheed Martin Public Relations).
Standing in front of these missles he explains that he doesnt understand why the boys would do such a thing to Columbine, and can only imagine it had something to do with the anger and frustration that they had felt and consequently has added $100,000 to an anger managment program, to help combat and prevent another thing happening. Moore brings up that children might not believe aggression and violence is abd thing because their father goes off and works with missiles and weapons of mass destruction. He asks ‘Whats the difference between these weapons of mass destruction and the mass destruction that happened at Columbine’ McCollum says that he doesnt see the connection and goes on further to state:
‘Missiles we designed are to defend us from people who would want to be aggressors against us. Societies, governments and countries annoy one another but we have to learn to leal with that anger, frustration or that annoyance in appropriate ways. We dont get annoyed with someone and just drop a bomb or fire a missile at them’
Then almost immediately showing how the world did exactly just that.
The effectiveness of media production, real and potential?
-Effect on Society. There was little to no change others . No laws were changed or regulated, however the usage of guns around young children has since dropped . Other than people coming in disprove what Moore had said. e.g that the day of the shooting the boys didn’t go bowling as Micheal had stated in the cause of events. This documentary does open peoples eyes to the problems that occur in America and the injustice of it. Even talking to Mark Taylor and Richard. Mark and Richard were both shot at the Columbine and are barely standing after the amount of operations that they had, in fact Richard is paralysed from the hips down. After going to Kmart to return the ammo that was still stuck in their body, what they got in return was more than they’d expected.
-Effect on me. There has been a big change for me after watching this documentary. Mostly as I didn’t know much about gun violence and found myself interested in why there is a spike in gun aggression in america and not anywhere else in the world. Moore indentified many different reason that people give to the reasoning to gun violence and why it is mostly centralised in America, such as violent games, movies, their history and the laws. However each was explained as almost every other country in the world is exposed to the same things and have the same blood-soaked history. The one that stood out most was the Media.
When travelling to Canada, Moore discovered that most people there dont lock their doors, they have the same amount of guns as America, they see the same movies and play the same video games, the only difference was the news they watch then they come back home. The media in America is very intense in the way it documents a play by play of violence right down your road with all the details- creating a scared society and they only way to feel safer is to have guns to protect them selves to the over representation of crime that media is telling them is there. There was a great contrast in Canada as the news was more about politicians and the community, rather than a shoot out in a nearby village. Since the media wasn’t scare mongering then there wasn’t any need to be scared of turning the corner.
This documentary raised the issue of why gun violence predominantly occurs in America.
Successes
- The budget for the film was $4,000,000
Opening Weekend
$209,148 (USA) (13 October 2002) (8 Screens)
£157,898 (UK) (17 November 2002) (28 Screens)
$60,987 (Argentina) (1 April 2003) (15 Screens)
$24,142 (Austria) (6 December 2002)
$56,355 (Brazil) (23 May 2003) (16 Screens)
$442,609 (Europe) (29 November 2002) (114 Screens)
$179,426 (Germany) (29 November 2002)
$6,738 (Hong Kong) (6 June 2003) (4 Screens)
€25,664 (Italy) (20 October 2002) (13 Screens)
€40,854 (Netherlands) (11 December 2002) (8 Screens)
$93,657 (Switzerland) (29 November 2002)
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/business?ref_=tt_dt_bus)
Bowling for Columbine made $58,008,423 worldwide, including $21,576,018 in the United States. It also broke box office rates, as it became the highest-grossing documentary in America, Australia and Austria. These records were broken next by Fahrenheit 9/11 also by Michael Moore.
2. Awards and nominations
- 2002 Winner, 55th Anniversary Prize, 2002 Cannes Film Festival[2]
- 2003 Winner, César Award, Best Foreign Film
- 2003 Winner, International Documentary Association (IDA) – Best Documentary of All Time
- 2003 Winner, Academy Award, Best Documentary Feature
During the screening at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival the film received a 13-minute standing ovation
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_for_Columbine)
3. Criticism
By John T Cornish
Many people argue that this documentary wasn’t really upstanding as unbiased claiming to provide misinformation and lying by omission which subliminally made the audience side that’s against gun laws in America.
What Culture provides a clear reason as to why Bowling for Columbine wasn’t a real documentary. Pointing out things such as lying by omission, changing statistics, manipulation of editing and making connections that aren’t true. For example in the Brief history of America.
Within the brief history of America we are shown how the Klu Klux Klan and the NRA are almost one and the same. However this is proven to not be true as the NRA was established in New York and stood against slavery as it was formed by the union soldiers. However What Culture explains that Moore has a way of finding racial hatred everywhere.
Cornish points out that the audience takes the fact that this is a documentary for granted and expect it to be truthful. This, however, is not true as Moore and bend the truth however way he wants it.
(http://whatculture.com/film/5-reasons-why-bowling-for-columbine-is-not-a-real-documentary?page=4)
BTEC: CREATIVE MEDIA PRODUCTION 