Script for Documentary

I started work on the scripting for the documentary, as we aim to film the piece to camera parts in the coming weeks. This was not one of my designated roles, but one that I have solely done to ensure progress is made with the project. This is an outline that see's the introduction and main body content.

Script for Spurn Point

Context: Set for young audience, aged between 7-13. A quirky but informative approach, with short and snappy points.

Introduction Piece to camera (Jason) (approx. 20 seconds, with 10 second music intro) – (Jonny)

Hi we’re at Spurn Point, on the Yorkshire coastline. Spurn is an interesting place that has a fascinating history. Today, we’re going to take a look at how this ever changing place played such a vital role for this area during wartime.

Main Body (approx 1 min 20) Audio voiceover

Spurn point was used as a Military base during world war two.

(Lighthouse shooting) This is the current Lighthouse, but as you can see, the statue figure of the old one still remains as a reminder of its war torn past.

(Fort and Bunker Shooting) Ruins of the bunkers and military fort tell a story of the journey this historic place has been on, as here lays (rests?) the only surviving features.

(Pillbox shooting to coastline, Still to film) The hollow concrete of the Pillbox was the first line of defence, built to protect the mouth of the River Humber from sea and airborne attacks. It was placed on the frontline, armed with a gun aimed out to the North Sea, where the attacking fleets would have passed to enter the Humber.

Basecamp writeboard

As one of my roles is to oversee scripting, I placed a whiteboard on basecamp so that the people whom will write the script can place their ideas, and any drafts to be edited and constructed. This can be used by any members of the group, and can help to make the process and editing of the script more accessible

Basecamp message,

After our visit to Spurn, I left messages on Basecamp to inform the group of our progress.

Hi Everyone,
Today, me, Mike B, and Mike O, all went to spurn today to do more film work and photography. We have gleaned more of an idea about what footage we will use in the documentary, and had also found some good spots for pieces to camera for the introduction and closing.
We will work on a script to go with the footage so that it fits together seamlessly.
Mike B is going to put a couple of the videos on YouTube so that we can view them and give our input on which is best or works well together.
After doing this, we can work the script to the pieces, and then visit Spurn to do the introduction and closing in a couple of weeks’ time.
When we have chosen the footage, the script will need to be completed to go with it fairly quickly, so that we can get back to Spurn before winter sets in and the roads are too bad to drive on.
I will then do the introduction at Spurn, then we should just fit the pieces together.

Vist to Spurn 14th November

After visiting Spurn point today, we have gained a clearer view of what footage we may need to include. We took still photographs, and video footage, of which will be edited and put together so that a script can be written for it.

I took some photographs of the area surrounding Spurn, of which could be used in the archives, a behind the scenes footage, or in the documentary itself.

Storify Newsfeed

My story on developments at Hull City

http://storify.com/russell_3/new-story-1

Question 3 ideas

·         The right to create self-expression is more important than the right to privacy, or the infringement of particular moral codes. (religious, violence, war, taboo) Discuss in terms of two or more relevant visual examples.

Visual examples possibilities:

A war scene, (could use The promise),

Is it more important for the war in Israel and Palestine to be publicised as a topic of public interest, or an exploitation of immoral and unethical interpretation of foreign affairs.

Could compare this to current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Soldiers from our country are there, does this create a stronger public interest? Or a stronger relevance to our current Governments role?

In what ways do these differ, are they portrayed in different ways?

I would gain two images or video files of these two places and interpretations of each to analyse and compare and argue the self-expression of each creators interpretation against the moral and ethical issues that arise in viewing scenes of such nature.

Question 2 ideas

·         Select two discipline relevant brands, practitioners, or works and critically evaluate, compare and contrast these in relation to relevant ethical issues.

Practitioners: Jeremy Clarkson, and Piers Morgan.

Clarkson; Comment on his ethics in journalism, remarks he has made, and him being punished for them. Is this ethically, or morally incorrect, or a light hearted remark taken out of context?

Remarks he has made, including Mexico, and Andy Grays’ sexism row.

I will look at his remarks in print, and also in verbal on his programming, how do they differ if at all?

Do his remarks offend, and what is considered offensive? Does a proportion of society taking offense to something someone says, make the remarks unethical, or is it just a subjective opinion?

Ultimately, does he as a journalist, not have a right to implement his opinion on a topic? Is what is said taken out of proportion, or does he make light of something negative, by using a ‘comical’ journalistic style? What barrier is passed to make something go from offensive, to unethical?

Piers Morgan; What are his past involvements in journalism, how does his approach differ to Clarkson?

Does he approach questions or situations with a motivational charge that is ethical, such as demanding answers to questions in the interest of the public?

Does his questioning demand answers ethically, or I he pushy, to the point, or aggressive? Does he ask the right questions, in the right way?

How does his reaction to events, or answers given, differ to Clarkson’s?

What type of journalist is he? Does he ask question question question, or is he listen, listen listen? Does he accept the answers, or dig deeper to answers given – is this ethical? In the public’s interest? When does something in the public interest override something being unethical?

I will find examples to all these questions, and conclude my essay with this possible argument/decision.

Do Jeremy or Piers, retract comments, or refrain from using particular opinions to avoid being unethical?