Amy Winehouse:
Is anyone to blame for Amy death? Why? What content in film made you feel that way?
I don’t believe there is anyone specific to be blamed for Amy Winehouses death, but I think that she was a vulnerable person and there were a number of decisions made that could have helped her life take a different route and there are people who could have done more to help prevent it. For example I believe Amy’s parents could have supported her more in helping her get back on her feet. For example, when Amy was throwing up all of her meals as a young girl she told both her parents about it but they brushed it off saying ‘it will pass’ rather than taking her seriously. Something that stood out to me was that she didn’t even try to hide the fact she was doing it and openly told her parents. Normally people with bulimia are very secretive and try to hide it. This gives the impression she knew something was wrong with her and wanted someone to help her. When she was ready to go to re-hab and better herself and she needed her father Mitch to support her he told her not to go to re-hab which I think was a real opportunity missed. In the documentary he said, “Amy doesn’t need to go to rehab, she doesn’t need to”. This gave the impression he was in denial and refused to see Amys illness. Mitch claims the interview was edited, cutting out some words and changing the meaning of his statement. He claimed part of the text was frankenbite cutting which took out the words ‘at that time’. If this fact is true I think it is even worse as it implies he knew she was ill and needed to go to rehab but he didn’t want her to go just yet. I believe he thought rehab would limit her career progression and what fame she had would fade away. Amy was ready to go to rehab and he was the only reason she didn’t, Nick does say that often rehab doesn’t work the first time. But I think if she had gone to rehab and was mentally more stable she may have coped better with that increase in pressure as she got more famous. Also the most important thing was that she was prepared to do it which means that the results would be better than her being forced to go later. Shortly after Amy overdosed she was supposed to go on tour to America. Her friend Lauren and Juliette didn’t want her to go because they were worried about her health and they told Mitch about their concerns and begged him to do something to which he replied “What am I going to do? She got to go on tour”. Her friends said “Take her passport away from her. do something so she can’t go, she needs help.” and he said “Can’t do that she’s got a tour booked.” This astounded me, as her guardian and you expect him to do the right thing for his daughter instead of letting her go on tour when she clearly isn’t well. In the end her friends stole Amy passport without his permission and when he found out he said “what have you done that for? She needs to go to America. Why have you done that?” In addition a couple of years later when she needed her Dad to help her up out of the drugs and depression I don’t think he thought about Amys feelings or considered the effect all the publicity was having on her. The film also shows him going to see her in St Lucia where she was on holiday away from the pressure of fame and he took a camera crew with him, which obviously upset her as she told him this. It seems that her parent didn’t listen to her throughout her life. Blake Fielder had a great influence over her and I don’t think he realised how what he was doing affected Amy or he just didn’t care because he was ill himself and was a drug and alcohol addict. I think she knew he was bad for her as in the film she said to her friend “I think love is killing me” as she also had and an addiction to Blake and would take drugs to be with him. But I think a big reason for her death was the press and the public. Amy was constantly being swarmed by cameras, she couldn’t even walk down the street. “if I could give it back to walk down that street without hassle I would”. Amy would always have addiction and mental health problems that she needed help with but in St Lucia away from the cameras she stopped the heroin and crack cocaine and went back to alcohol. She seemed calmer and may have been able to be helped for the alcohol addiction at this point. Drugs and alcohol were her only escape. Music used to be an escape and a way to feel better and put the situation in perspective. But the more music she produced the more fame she got. Seeing Amy’s story really changes my opinions about the privacy of celebrities.
Do you think the film is fair/honest?
Do you think the film is fair/honest?
I think the film is honest because it is made of real footage from a number of different sources which makes the content more reliable and it would have been harder to cut the footage to a different story. And despite there being a possibility of frankenbiting in some areas like Mitch Winehouse claimed I think all of the events and comments are from real events.
However I think the film is very biased and doesn’t give a fair portrayel of some of the characters and possibly over or under eggaggerating some scenes. The film portrayed amy as the victum and blake and her farther as horrible people when in reality she is also to blame and they may not have been as selfish is they are made out to be. The events may be honest but I eel there may have been things left out which would give the viewers a fairer view on the different characters in the film.
Watch the sequence Addiction to crack cocaine and Blake
List the techniques used by the director to show Winehouse’s battle with drug addiction and why they may have been used.
The sequence shown starts with a home video filmed by Blake which gives a recognizable, possibly sentimental feel to it. Maybe not personal but for me it reminds me of the Christmas videos my Dad films. It shows Amy at home in her everyday life, with all her records and clothes around in a messy state it is like a normal home and you see her as a person instead of viewing her as a famous star. Her activity and behavior is quite lively and busy to start with she is just in her home moving around as if she is just doing everyday household jobs and appears happy. This makes it more tragic when Blakes voice over starts talking about the drugs and how it hooked them immediately.
As you watch the video Amy quickly goes from a busy active person to someone who is completely disconnected from the world around her as if she was tranquilized. At the beginning of the film you see her from a distance (across the room) and then the filming changes and is a close up shot of her face. She doesn't seem happy or energized at all and she is gaping her mouth like a fish drowning out of water, who is trying to communicate. You don’t see Blake move at all in the whole sequence he just sits on the sofa. Just before the scene of Amy spaced out you see the coffee table in front of Blake and the drugs they are going to take. This links Blake directly to the drug use.
What do you feel is the overall effect of this sequence?
The overall effect of this scene makes you feel sad and protective over Amy. The sequence starts making you think she is ok and she can be helped. As Blake calmly explains how he really enjoyed using the drug and thought Amy would too as it removed all negative feelings it made me feel angry at Blake for introducing such a vulnerable girl to crack cocaine and heroin.
Can a documentary be objective why do you believe this?
I don’t think a documentary can ever truly be objective as there are too many elements of the documentary that are edited decisions are constantly being made about what to include, order of clips, hoe to organise and edit scenes. All these different decisions influence the final product, even if the film maker doesn't do it consciously, some opinions and preferences will be presented or implied in the final piece. The obvious choice for the most objective documentary's are purely factual ones, but even these are probably trying to influence the audience. For example if it was about pollution there will be facts contained but the film maker will choose to include the negative facts which will make the audience agree with the documentary by the end…
A nature programme like ‘Blue Planet’ it the most objective documentary I can think of. In these documentaries there is no message or reason to have opinions that sway the audience as it is just talking about the facts about different sea life. The documentary about Amy was made up of a series of scenes and interviews with different people in her life. In some cases it was a video of them talking which could not have been easily edited or changed and so gave a true idea of what individuals around her thought and said about her. But overall the film is subjective. Amy was a vulnerable person and this word is used to describe her constantly. But the way it is edited makes Amy seem more innocent than I think she was and there is no footage of her challenging her Dad very strongly and I think she must have done that. Also living with her and her addiction would have been hard to do. Blake is portrayed as a very bad person who ruined her life but he was also ill himself and doesn’t come across as very clever or manipulative in the film. Amy’s dad seems more sinister then I would like to believe he was, but he is portrayed as a manipulative person living off her fame.
How far should we accept what we watch/read? Why?
We should accept what we read to a certain extent but never take anything on boared too strongly as, especially in this time there are issues with fake news and false portrayals of events or people. For example although the Amy Winehouse film may have been biased it doesn’t man the content is to be disregarded completely as there is truth in the film and there are still valuable lessons and information which I think people should always keep in mind, for example points about the privacy of celebrity's and the things Amy did which eventually caused her death.
How can we make sure what a documentary presents as fact, is true?
There is never a way to be totally sure whether what is shown in a documentary as fact is true but I think there are some ways in which you can erase some doubt. One way is to look at how the content is presented. For example, if the characters are shown talking or if it is a voice over and there is a possibility of frankenbiting. Of course it doesn’t rule out the possibility of the character being told what to say.
Another way to erase doubt is to compare it to other sources. For example after watching the film about Amy Winehouse I watched a clip on YouTube from the Jeremy Kyle show where Blake was talking about His and Amy’s relationship. Compared to the film there was a totally different mood and he expressed how much he loved her and how he regretted ever introducing her to drugs in the first place and that he just wasn’t thinking. There is the possibility he was just saying this in front of the camera but never the less it made me question the honesty of the Amy Winehouse film and weather there was a possibility of frankenbiting as there wasn’t really a time where you saw Blakes face as he spoke.