Analysis of Documentary
I analysed this documentary: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/video/street-fighter-ko-dreams-sfv02
The documentary was subjective as it was from the perspective of the old Street fighter players and also new players. The UK champion for the game and his experiences with the game and a few other members from that game's community. This allows it to be accurate, and also have a bias towards favoring the game, but it is first hand and therefore it will be accurate and a reliable source of information. There is no objectivity in the documentary as it is from people who have played the game in the past, and so they cannot be objective as they would have experiences and opinions that will influence the documentary and the story telling. The documentary is impartial and you could argue that is is not balanced as it only shows one side of the argument, but is a documentary of how street fighter has evolved over the years and there is no possible way of there being a counter-argument to it. The documentary is biast and has the opinions of the players, this will then also effect the audience as they will be influenced.
The way the people in the documentary are represented are that they are, calm relaxed but also quite competitive when playing the game in tournaments. It shows them as being clever and their dialogue shows that they are quite clever, the community of the gamers are all quite friendly. This shows a positive representation of the gaming community and it leads the audience to get interested into gaming and possibly make them want to try it out for them self.
The second documentary i analyzed was this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNZO30lPGm4
This documentary was about the gun culture in the USA, The documentary was subjective as the person who is actively in the documentary seems to be anti-guns and so his opinions and dialogue influences and effects how the documentary turns out. the main person ho is doing the documentary also gets together with a former marine int he US army and a few friends to go and shoot guns, and it emphasizes the the fact that getting guns in florida is way easier than any other state as their friend just bought a assault rifle from a garage sale, just with cash and no paperwork showing how dangerous and un-trackable the guns are in the USA. The information however is very reliable as it shows the interviews that the main person does and so it is in first person, the documentary is quite biased towards anti-gun, as it shows statistics about the number of mass shootings in america in different states, but does not give a source or reliability confirmation, so he could just be making it up to try influence the audience. The documentary is not impartial in my opinion as there is a slight anti-gun sense to it from the actions of the main presenter the dialogue and the slight praise of the ban on gun laws being placed when Obama was the president.
The people in the documentary are represented as being calm, but also loving guns as it portrays them going to several shooting ranges to shoot a large amount of ammo, and also it shows that a 12 year old son of the ex-marine is quite the sharpshooter when shooting a shotgun as flying discs. it shows them as being quite friendly however as they offer the main presenter to shoot as well and they tell him about the gun laws in florida and they are ok with the laws and the paper work needed for it , this shows a positive side to the pro-guns as they are abiding by the law as they do their background checks.
