VICE Documentaries Analysis

For this part of Factual Programming for TV we had to research two VICE Documentaries which we would analyse in detail. I had researched for some time and had found two topics which I found were interesting to research and analyse for this part of the Unit and these are: Internet scamming in Ghana & Surviving alone in Alaska. The reason why I chose these documentaries is that they are something you barely see on TV and it would be something that you could watch without getting bored because the documentaries are giving you continuous amounts information that you may not know in general. Also these documentaries show what happens around the world and show what happens in the real world.

Internet Scamming in Ghana:



A little information about the documentary. As the title says the documentary goes through 20 mins of explaining the Internet Scamming that happens throughout the whole of Ghana. Ghana is supposed to be a good country but had now been banned from most trading sites due to the "Sakawa" that happens, which means Internet Crime in general. These crimes consist of Crimes such as Hitman scams, Lottery Scams & Romance Scams. Romance scams is when the person gets a picture of a beautiful woman and uses it on dating sites and gets the person who they are talking to give them money which is where the term "romance scam" comes from. These scams has made Ghana a place which people

The presenter Thomas's involvement of the whole documentary was very good as it had shown him going through Ghana finding out information about the scam that happen throughout Ghana involving Internet Scamming. Also that fact that the camera man follows them around and shows some signs of un-professionalism shows that the documentary was real and not fake. At 0:32 we see Thomas the presenter talking towards the camera which gives an aspect of interaction with the audience themselves. Also as he is giving the camera an aspect of eye contact it engages the audience to watch further into the documentary as he is showing the place is real and the reality of what is going on around him. This shows the audience that he is not lying about anything but is showing that everything around him is natural and nothing is staged. The mode of address at 0:32 is not formal nor informal he is speaking like an everyday user and this also shows that it is not targeted at a particular audience but is made for everyone to watch.

Throughout the whole of the documentary there are no signs of detailed editing. It has normal cuts and nothing too fancy. This is done so that the audience know the documentary legitimate and has no flaws towards it. Whereas if the editor used fancy editing we would know that it was created strictly for entertainment purposes. Also the camera work is basic it shows the occasional long shot of the area the presenter is visiting to show the audience where they are: often called the establishing shot where the location is revealed to the audience during the start of the documentary so they get a feel of the country and what goes on around the place. The fact that they used simple editing allows the audience to see/find/hear the information almost instantaneously.

Another technique that was used other than the simple editing was the Music, Voice Over and Dialogue. These techniques allow the audience to enjoy what they are watching and also understand what is going on, on their screen. For example without a Voice Over the audience would be confused on what is going unless it is very obvious to see. An example of where we see this is at the very beginning of the documentary where he introduces the area he is at, at 0:27 where he tells us the place he is currently in via the voice over. The voice over allows the audience to gain a better understanding of what everything is about and it guides them through the whole documentary telling us what is happening throughout his journey in Ghana.

Another technique that was used was the music. They had implemented music that related to Ghana just to make the flow seem much better. A good example of where music helps the flow of the documentary is at 6:49 where the Interviewee and Thomas are walking with no dialogue. All the audience can hear is the music. If there were to be no music during this part of the documentary it would immediately disrupt the flow of the documentary and the professionalism of the documentary itself. The music here allows the audience to be engaged because it is not boring them by leaving blank noises throughout the documentary. Also we can see that the music aspect of the documentary is there throughout the whole of the documentary because of the fact that if there was to be no music playing in the background of the documentary throughout it would sound boring because we are hearing just the voices and all the background noise along with it.

An Intro and Outro is vital for a documentary so people know exactly what they are watching. Here the Intro at 0:13 of the whole documentary starts of the the flag of Ghana so the audience get an insight of what the documentary will be about. By showing the flag of Ghana we can tell that the documentary will be based there. By showing the flag we gain information on what the topic would be about obviously linking to the Ghana flag it would be set in Ghana. Here we learn information before we even start watching the documentary which allows the audience to become engaged to watch the rest of the documentary. On the other hand the outro of the whole documentary ends with him saying the future about Ghana as they have found oil of the shore. Thomas the presenter sums of the whole topic and finds a possible solution to the scamming that goes on in Ghana.

 Documentaries tend to use archive footage where the footage is acquired from another source. Throughout this documentary 95% of the footage was primary meaning it was produced themselves and the rest were archive footage. Around 6:34 we see some form of archive footage implemented in the documentary itself. The interviewee calls it "Black Magic" something that they believe in. The archive footage used here gives the audience a better insight of the Magic the people of Ghana believe in. With archive footage the topic that is being explained can go into a deeper meaning and understanding for the audience themselves.This makes the topic more interesting as we get a deeper insight of what the people believe and how all of this works in Ghana. The ratio between the archive footage and stock footage is around 3:1 and is very good because if there were to be too much archive footage the documentary would turn quite boring and unappealing to watch as the quality would be really bad.

A documentary without an interview would mean nothing as we have no evidence of people experiencing what they have experienced. Thomas the presenter interviews a guy who tells us more and gives a bigger insight of what the scams in Ghana are and how they are done. Here at 2:42 he asks the interviewee what the term "Sakawa" means and the guy explains what it is. His role was to answer the questions related to the scamming that take place in Ghana. Again with the use of an interview the audience learn something new and are persuaded to believe that everything he is saying is real. For example if a person was to say something that is hard to believe we can get people to back our point up, persuading the person that the fact is actually real and is not fake. This is the same thing that happens during this interview.

Documentaries also contain Objectivity and Subjectivity. This helps the audience get a clear understanding of a fact or an opinion. A clear subjectivity is near the end of the actual documentary at 19:57 where Thomas talks about the oil near the shore that was discovered in Ghana. His opinion was that it would probably solve all of their problems related with Internet Scamming. Again as this is an opinion the audience are forced to take both sides of the opinion because it could possibly solve their problems but at the same time it couldn't. A clear objectivity part of the documentary is at 3:36 where Thomas talks about the Investment Scam. He talks about a fact that has happened in the scamming scene of Ghana. By showing us proof and giving facts the audience get a better understanding of the scam and is not left to over think the scam.

Throughout the whole documentary we are told a lot of information which we learn about the scamming in Ghana. This is called the exposition. We are shown a footage then that is explained by the voice over or dialogue between the presenter and Interviewee. A clear example of this is at 5:33 where the Relationship scam is shown. The voice over gives a better understanding of the scam and the visual aspect of the documentary shows the actual scam in progress. This helps the audience understand how they actually do it and makes them aware of anything that may happen in their future relating to scamming.

We are engaged throughout the whole of this documentary because the flow was no disrupted nor was there a lack of visuals. This meaning we are constantly shown a new thing in the documentary which was very good as it does not bore the audience and keeps them engaged to watch more of the documentary. To keep us interested in the whole situation/topic they have included voice overs to help us, Archive footage to show us proof, Scamming in progress and the whole culture of the "Sakawa Boys."

Russia's underground Film Industry:



Throughout this whole documentary the Presenter Shane Smith contributes a major part to the documentary. His mode of Address is not formal nor informal just again like all the other documentaries normal. at 0:44 we can see the level of involvement is very good as he had explained everything. Most of this part of the documentary the pieces to camera aspect was very good as he was interacting with the audience and giving very good eye contact to the camera. Also his hand movements have an aspect of engagement because if he were to just sit there and say what he is saying to the camera it would be very boring to watch and unappealing to the audience.

The camera and editing is kept to a minimal and they have shown that documentaries can be made on the cheap because he is in one place throughout the whole part of this documentary and doesn't move to a new location. And the editing is also kept to a basic because it is just using cuts to show the next clip. At 4:00 we can see a pre-recorded clip but the editing was more focused on the secondary footage rather than the primary footage which made it seem wierd. But also the used overlays to show the audience who was speaking and who they were. Again as we know it documentaries have very limited editing going into it.

As this documentary was done on the cheap there wasn't very much music while the presenter was talking, it was just him in a quiet room by himself talking with no background noise nor music. This makes the audience feel a little bored because it would disrupt the flow of the whole documentary because during one cut there is music and the other cut there would not be music. A very good example of this is at 4:10 where the presenter is talking and just before there was music then it cuts to him and there is no music. This cuts the flow of the documentary and doesn't allow it to be as professional as it can be. But on the other hand it could have been done to let the audience listen properly due to the information being very important.

The intro of the whole documentary on the whole was very good a it introduced filming to the audience but the use of secondary (archive) footage it had shown/told the audience that this was a topic which would be set in the past because the quality was not great and most elements were black and white. The intro usually sets the tone of the whole documentary to show whether it'll be boring or entertaining to watch. On the other hand the outro was very good as it linked to the start of the whole documentary on the intro. The intro started of with a monkey and the outro did the same it ended of with a monkey. I think this was done for aesthetic reasons of the documentary or it was done because monkeys where apart of the Russian Movie Culture.

The balance between archive and original footage were staggering because within the 9 Minutes of the first part of the documentary most of them were archive footage which shows that there was not much effort put into this documentary but also in a way it engages the audience as it shows what the movies were like back in the day. An example of this is at 1.58 where he talks about the cinema in the 1920's. Again while the voice over is running we are shown archive footage relating to the whole event which gives the audience a better understanding of what happened in the 1920's in Russian. The videos guide the audience through the voice over allowing them to fully understand what Mr Shane is talking about.

Surprisingly this documentary actually had an interview because of the 9 Minutes I had to watch. The only thing that was a downside was that the guy being interviewed spoke Russian. At 3:30 the interview starts and the fact that he spoke Russian was good because it had shown an aspect of realism as the person being interviewed was not an actor for the documentary. This in a way keeps the audience engaged because while he is speaking Russian we get it translated in subtitles and also it shows they are actually in Russia and talking to Russian people who speak Russian.

A clear objective (fact) that was said during the course of this documentary was at 5:48 where he talks about this naked man that was put on a chain for a year acting like a dog and attacking people. They also provided proof along to go with it so the audience know what he was talking about. The fact they have used archive footage to back up a fact was good because it again helps the flow but really lets the audience understand how the filming industry in Russia developed over the years.

A subjective (opinion) part of the Documentary was not shown clear where he fully portrayed an opinion but I found an opinion  where he was going to film the next day and he was "excited". This begs the question whether he was really excited. Judging by that he was but we do not know whether he would enjoy it or not therefore I classed this as an opinion.


Exposition is shown through  the use of archive footage as it was easier to explain with the use of voice overs. Also as this topic was based near the 1920s they had to have archive footage because it would not be shown in modern times. The documentary was trying to give information in the easiest way by showing it through archive footage. Because this topic was very old they would have been literally forced to show archive footage otherwise the audience would not understand it and would be lost.

And finally to keep us engaged I think the use of the archive footage was great because it allowed us not only to understanding but to get an insight f what the movies looked like. We could possibly relate that to use because we can compare what movies were like back then and movies now and it makes us think how technology has improved and become more advanced throughout the years since Parallel movies where create in the underground film industry in Russia.