Wednesday, 23 March 2016

Analysing Vice.com Documentaries

The first documentary i watched was "Confessions of a bartender" (link: )which seemed quite subjective and bias to an extent as there was mainly only one side to the story, coming from a actual bartender. There are facts about being a bartender as well as opinions coming from the bartender who was being interviewed. The interviewee representation would have an effect on how the message being carried across (Don't be a bartender basically) as the bartenders has been given a mask to cover their face in order to protect them as talking about events that have occurred whilst working which may make audience's realise how dangerous their job is. Also, he dressed as casual working class man and spoke like one too (swearing/slang) ; a hoody, jeans and trainers, seen from a long shot which i think the aim was to see the people who do the job and to be able to picture/empathise with the guy.

 However, you could also say that the documentary is not so biased as the bartender did mention the cause, the cause of most of the issues they face. He mentioned that people, mostly men, visit clubs and pubs in order to get rid of emotions and forget about most of the problems they are facing. This can be classified as a fact as he mentioned it was a personal experience and delivered this 'fact' collectively but can be opinionated too as it might not always be the case.  Audiences perspective changes of people who attend clubs and pubs (contrast between the start of the documentary and the end) although we didn't get to hear the side of people who actually go clubs which means the documentary is still subjective.


The second documentary that i watched was called "Cash slaves" which i'd say was very objective as the issues of financial dominance was addressed by both parties in the documentary. We heard both sides. The main issues raised were as i said before financial dominance and of course sex slaves and the cause of this. The presenter i'd say was impartial as she delivered her speeches based on facts and she didn't talk about her personal opinions about the whole issue. She also allowed both sides to be seen by interviewing the women who take money off the men (financial dominance) and the men who give the money to the women and her submissive (cash slave). There was balance!  This will give audiences an insight on how the whole thing works as there's information from different point of views. The involvement of a sexologist talking about the psychological side of the issue (makes facts seem accurate) also supports the fact that the documentary is impartial as he delivered facts on why people were like that and it was normal.

In addition, the representation of both sides worked very well. The financially dominant women  clothing were very explicit and showy yet good and healthy, creating a  sort of stereotype on the type of women who are financially dominant. The men had Eastern European accents and one of the men shown was dressed really badly (washed-out clothes) which implies and make viewers think that the men were once rich and once their cash is drained they start to look really bad and face financial problems. This is a key fact and a sort of conclusion to the documentary.