Skint, Benefits street and The MightyRedcar comparison
The main difference I can see between the three programs is the background of the poverty. In ‘Skint’ it was because of the loss of the fishing industry where the majority of the town worked and was a major source of income. In ‘Benefits Street’ and ‘The Mighty Redcar’ there seemed to be no single cause for the poverty, it was the location itself which was rundown, making it cheaper to live there causing the people to come from different backgrounds to live there. Instead of a once thriving town hitting hard times.
In ‘Skint’ there seemed to be an older community who were unemployed from the old fishing industry who were better able to look after themselves and act as role models for the children. There seemed to be more respect for adults in ‘Skint’, for example the kids centre which was run by two old people who respected the kids and the kids respected them giving the children a good role model and a place to hangout and be themselves. You can see the positive effect it is having on them by the way they act and talk. For example the two lads defending prostitutes, acknowledging the they are just people who have hit hard times. But this effect did not follow through to young adults who were portrayed as having a lack of respect for their community. The man who was tagged for violent crime was not sorry for what he had done to other people at all and said this, but he only showed sorrow once his behaviours affected his own life and his girlfriend, when she nearly dies in the car crash.
In Benefits Street where the kids seem more immature and out of control the children in skint seem more mature and aware of life. In Benefits Street the people are portrayed as hopeless, even the adults seem to be big children who are just as unaware of life as their kids are. Very young children were playing with alcoholic adults (Fungi) and the parents didn’t seem to mind this. The parents were shown as unable to control their children, in one scene they couldn’t get them to go to nursery, or get his pyjamas on. The very young child was shouting at the parents as that’s all they did to him.
White Dee, a grumpy nightmare woman was called the Mum of the street and is the closest thing the children there have to a role model. But apart from lending one couple her laptop she was portrayed as an argumentative and depressed individual, she wasn’t able to best advise people, she did say that she loved the community they had there but also seemed to say it was all a lost cause and wouldn’t get better for example she mocks the man for the errors in his personal statement.
In The Mighty Redcar there isn't such a community shown as the story is following three specific people instead of an area who don’t know each other and each of them has a different story. In all the stories there is someone looking out for them and supporting them, showing people do everything they can to ensure these kids have a good future. The film makers are giving The Mighty Redcar a positive message. In Benefits Street the characters seemed more desperate and their situation was clear and portrayed as they had no options although I got the impression they were getting options but they just weren’t smart enough to take them. For example the young father went to the job centre but then quit his job. He doesn’t seem to care and is unable to look after himself or his family. This couple are shown a lot in the episode and they are unable to cope really and even understand what the social worker is trying to do to support them, they laugh with their boy at getting him to behave when the social worker is there as if they are in trouble too but the only control they have when the social worker is not there is by locking him in the porch which will not teach him how to behave any better.
In skint however we got some background but it didn’t make their situations seem as desperate or tight. There was more a sense of community as everyone was in the same boat and all the old fishermen would get together in pub and the kids centre etc. You did meet different generations such as the father and daughter and his grandchildren, so there is more of a sense of family. But in Benefits street tis episode only really showed parents and children there was no extended family included at all.
In Skint and Benefits Street there is a wider range of people where as The Mighty Redcar is specifically focusing on teenagers trying to have a future.
Benefits Street and Skint are more poverty porn unlike The Mighty Redcar which is overall giving a positive, hopeful message Skint and Benefits Street are just documenting the lives of people in the lower-class status. The Mighty Redcar has a relatively positive message of people trying to turn their lives around and creating a living for themselves. whereas Skint and Benefits Street are highlighting poverty and benefits across the UK.
I believe all these programs are biased. there may be truth behind them but they are all exaggerated. I think Benefits Street is biased showing the street as dangerous and the people as stupid and useless. At the start White Dee tried to say we are like a big happy family while opposing footage was shown. White Dee is biased as it is where she lives, and the film maker is biased showing it as a horrible place to live and uses extreme examples of behaviour by the people who live there i.e. they are stupid, drunk, depressed or addicts who can’t look after their kids. But there are a lot of people who are on benefits who are not stupid and are trying to get jobs and get out of their situation but they are not shown. I think this kind of programme is poverty porn as it is making the viewer feel good about themselves and is also giving an excuse to have no sympathy for the people on Benefits Street as they aren’t really trying. The viewers will also feel comforted that they will never find themselves in in this situation. But the example families they show are extreme cases with additive behaviour and poor mental health what they program doesn’t show is how hard it is to get out of this situation once you are in it, even if you have qualifications.
I think Skint is biased because it try's to portray the people as good trying to make the audience feel bad for them and show sympathy, for example on valentine day when he planned a bath and gifts for girl I think it may have been staged as the characters didn’t act lovey dovey live they cared or anything. Maybe trying to invoke a reaction from the audience? I don't think he actually cares too much saying he has no regrets in life even though he was tagged for harming someone.
The Mighty Redcar is biased because it is portraying the kids as good as gold, innocent, vulnerable and their situations as dire. The goal is to make a living.
Factual analysis:
Can a documentary be objective? Why do you believe this?
When watching a documentary most people generally assume it is objective by the definition, but I don’t believe a documentary can ever be truly objective as it is really difficult to capture reality on screen. The reason I think this is because there are several things in the film making process which can be controlled or manipulated by the film makers, even if it isn’t consciously done, from the gathering to the editing of the footage. For example, there is a possibility that the characters in the documentary are being told by the director what to do, setting up scenes and situations. Even if it is not done consciously as they go through the process of making the documentary they become more familiar with the characters and it is a natural reaction to become more biased and draw conclusions to how they would like it. Even if this is not the case the director must have some effect in organising with the characters when they can film, when they have to leave, how much time is allowed to pass between shoots etc. And even if it is a completely observational film the characters in the story are aware of the cameras, people change their behaviour when a camera is present not as in they change their identity or their personality’s, but their behaviour definitely changes, whether they are acting livelier and more fun or quiet and more reserved. However, I think the most influential aspect of documentary film making is the editing and that is where people can be extremely manipulative. In some respects it doesn’t even matter how they got the footage or what footage they got. The directors and editors can decide the story the want to tell by using different parts of their footage out of context and tell different stories from the material gathered. In the editing you can control who goes on screen at what moments, which questions to explore and show, what parts of the film to cut and which ones to leave in. it is easy to make a very subjecting documentary even if they don’t mean to.
To me the most objective documentary I can think of are nature documentary’s such as frozen planet and blue planet by David Attenborough. But even these documentary’s are subjective when the discussion moves into wider issues such as global warming or the impact of humans on a given environment or animal then it is more opinion based. When I watched The Mighty Redcar I felt it was very subjective because the way it was portrayed was that the characters were fighting against all hope to be able to make a living. I understand having a good education and a good job is important and I understand for some people it is harder then others but I believe the film makers are portraying Redcar in a bad light.
How far should we accept what we watch/read? Why?
I believe we should accept what we watch/read to a certain extent but there are certain things to consider before taking anything on-board too strongly. For example, the source of the information we are reading. If there is a documentary about London and there is an interview from someone who lives in London the information is more reliable as they live there are have first hand experience of what it is like, equally however it also means they could possibly be more biased and have strong opinions as it is where they live. Another thing to consider is the intentions of the product and the intentions of the creator of the product. When filming or editing the film makers are very influential of how the final product turns out. An advert for skin care would obviously talk about all the positive effects the product has because the intention of the advert is to portray the product in a positive light. Knowing the creators intention gives us information to help us choose whether we accept or reject the product. For example I believe the documentary ‘The mighty Redcar’ is show Redcar in a bad light making us feel sorry for the characters and wanting to watch more to find out what happens to them and making us feel better about ourselves and our situation.
How can we make sure what a documentary presents as fact is true?
By looking at a number of different sources and seeing if any of them share similarity’s in their content. Also if it is a well known and trusted source or if information was gathered from many sources and used in a single piece of work it will be hard to discredit all of the sources used as it will be hard to edit or cut out information and it will be more reliable if lots of sources have the same message.
Using your own knowledge and first hand experience.