Film/TV2 – Analysis #2
Question 1
I feel like their treatment was broad enough to capture what they were looking for. From what I had heard there was only really one member of the team who was physically and mentally well enough to go out and shoot something. This made it very limiting on her part although I think she got some really strong moments caught on camera. There was a definite eerie-ness about it all. The treatment read overwhelmingly free or trapped. I feel like they captured something more along the lines of deluded or misguided. They initially set out to uncover what it was that made the residents of Broken Hill so happy by living there. Instead through the film it felt as though they’d quickly discovered that their subjects were incredibly happy and there was no sway about it so instead they set them up, portrayed their views and juxtaposed it with the desolate, dirty, empty shots of Broken Hill so the notion of “what is so good about Broken Hill to you?” became something along the lines of “How can you live in a place like this? It’s terrible”. I still think it was a great piece though. I just think their stance on the question they set out to answer was answered immediately and they’d formed an opinion around that answer which shaped the whole documentary.
Question 2