This answer was written in response to the first three minutes of the BBC documentary "Is Alcohol Worse Than Ecstasy?". This video extract was used in the actual AS Media exam, and is a great example of the often controversial source material that the exam board will present you with. Remember, the examiner will be looking for you to identify the ideology of the text when pushing for a higher grade.
The documentary can be found in very low quality here. Remember to only watch the first 3 minutes (unless you get into it!)
Study the extract from the BBC Horizon Documentary ‘Is alcohol worse than ecstasy?’ Analyse the extract commenting on visual codes, technical and audio codes and genre.
The BBC Horizon documentary uses a wide variety of visual codes, technical codes and genre conventions to create a range of meanings for the audience. In doing so, it presents the beginnings of a powerful and accessible documentary on the danger of illicit and potentially harmful drugs, and questions the ideological implications of certain drugs being illegal.
The introductory sequence uses a wide variety of visual codes in order to establish the themes and ideology of the show. A range of news footage making sensationalist reports on drugs is used, with trusted names like Fiona Bruce reporting on luridly named drugs such as ‘Nazi crank’. These images are presented in a distorted and confrontational way, as if filmed directly from a TV screen. This symbolises to the audience the confusion and fear surrounding the drug debate. Edited into this sequence are an array of footage of drugs being prepared and taken by unseen users. Unlike with the news reporters, no faces are shown. This signifies that drug users are anonymous, criminal and even dangerous. This footage is shown undistorted and with frequent extreme close ups, emphasising the shock value of the images. The confusion here is further emphasised by the use of onscreen graphics and newspaper headlines, which run simultaneously with the voiceovers and drug footage. These three aspects all emphasise the disorientating and confusing nature of the drug debate, instantly positioning the audience into a situation where they know they will have to make up their own mind, which is an effective technique for producers to use.
The use of non-diegetic music within this sequence has many connotations for the audience, which change as the sequence progresses. After using an initial selection of uncomfortable digital noises, which connotes despair and confusion, the documentary uses a Bob Dylan folk song, which is completely contrapuntal with the mood of the sequence. The use of folk guitar creates a binary opposition between the cheery song and the scenes of drug taking. This hermeneutic code suggests that not only do drugs have negative implications for users, but there are also positive ones as well. The bob Dylan song was probably selected for its use as a countercultural, pro-drug anthem. After the opening sequence, the music takes a very different turn, with a combination of plucking strings and heavy, digital drums. This soundtrack gives the sequence a particularly ‘druggy’ effect, as this genre of music could well be played in a club where drugs are taken. The use of digital dance music and the folky Bob Dylan song creates a very explicit double mode of address, and signifies the intention of the documentary to appeal to not only younger audiences, but older audiences, both of whom will have very different opinions on the drug debate.
The ideological notion of the drug debate comes down even to the very title of the documentary, which asks a question to the audience in a direct mode of address. In order to do this, a wide variety of interviewees are used as talking heads, and are edited together in very quick succession. A rapid-fire montage of very different people on a park bench, including a young black man and his daughter, followed by middle aged white man in jeans and a t-shirt positions the audience in such a way that they are forced to make a difficult decision. Straight after these two unnamed interviewees, the documentary interviews Prof David Nutt, and the voiceover explains that he is an expert in the field. This reassures the viewer that though there are many enigma codes being presented, a definite answer will be decided on by the end of the show. This corresponds with Todorov’s traditional view of narrative, where a three act narrative structure is concluded with a restoration of the equilibrium. Professor Nutt even states that he will be using three ways to assess if drugs are actually harmful.
The voiceover claims that by the end of the program, ‘Britain’s most dangerous drug’ will be revealed. The use of the word Britain here assumes that the audience are British, and effectively positions them with the text, and with the educated and confident professor Nutt. There are other institutions of Britishness used throughout the documentary. Firstly, the foaming pints of beer at the bar in the introductory sequence creates an important gratification of self identification for the British audience, though the suggestion that alcohol may be more harmful than ecstasy also creates conflict. Finally, the programme is made by the BBC, a well-respected British institution. Along with the horizon strand of documentaries, the prominent use of the BBC logo at the start has connotations of quality, of presenting an unbiased point of view, and of intelligent and in depth documentary making. By aligning itself with Britishness, the documentary successful intrigues its British audience.
The program is definitely a documentary, and it evidences a range of genre conventions that prove this. Firstly, the use of archive news reports combined with a range of interview footage are edited together in a succession of quick cuts to emphasise to the audience that a range of information is being looked at. While the BBC logo and the documentary format may suggest impartiality, the doc has a definite point of view, that alcohol is actually worse than ecstasy (a fact which is emphasised by a middle class academic backing up this claim, announcing it has no long term effects in a calm voice), and that the drug debate cannot move forward while the public are ‘provoking…the media’. This is emphasised by the emphasis of information contrasting with the panicked reporting of ‘the media’ (again, the use of the term ‘Nazi crank’ as opposed to a scientific name). This suggests that the program has definite agenda and ideology. Being made by a prominent media institution, The BBC, it can be argued that there are issues of bias, as it is taking a one sided look at the debate, presenting its own point of view as a question, and ignoring the… (I lost my train of thought here and moved on to a new paragraph. This can sometimes be a great tactic for the exam!)
Despite being a documentary, in terms of genre conventions, there are several atypical aspects. It is impossible to ignore the rapid fire editing, which makes the doc resemble an MTV music video more than an unbiased documentary, and breaks the sense of verisimilitude on several occasions. The use of on screen graphics are often distracting and confusing, which many edits seeming unnecessary. For example the distorted scan line effect on the opening shots, and the cutting to current and historical news broadcasts actually make the program more confusing than informative. When David Nutt is being interviewed, a loud and ‘whooshing’ non-diegetic sound effect is played, which is used to emphasise his name as it moves onto the screen. However, all these digital post production techniques show is that the BBC are taking a very condescending view of the audience, and are doing everything possible to position them in such a way that they have to accept the dominant ideology of the text. This is further emphasised by the use of narrative techniques within the text, promising a debate that has been planned for ‘the last two years’. In this sense, the text creates a utopian solution, promising a conclusion to the confusion and the debate in a way that is conclusive and easy to understand for the audience.
To conclude, the documentary uses a variety of techniques in order to position and anchor the audience in to the preferred reading of the text. The introductory sequence uses a wide variety of visual codes and technical codes to establish the confusion and complexity of the drug debate, with the montage of footage also suggesting the debate have continued for many years. The use of music is particularly effective in allowing audiences to make polysemic interpretations, symbolising that drugs have both positive cultural and negative sinister effects. The doc interviews a wide variety of people from different ethnic backgrounds, creating an atmosphere of inclusivity, though far more screen time is given to Nutt, suggesting a n adherence to traditional patriarchal hegemony. The doc uses typical and atypical genre conventions to create an exciting, though less informative program, emphasising entertainment over knowledge, and even using the techniques of music videos. This final editing choice makes the documentary particularly condescending to the public, and makes a very serious and worthwhile debate cheapened as a result of using the genre conventions of other forms of media.