Hyde Park Graffiti- Documentary Analysis One

8/14/2019 Hyde Park Graffiti- Documentary Analysis One

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hyde-park-graffiti-documentary-analysis-one 1/4

Using elements such as mise en scene, cinematography, editing and sound I will

analyze a short but effective sequence of this documentary, I will also include

how important interviews are to create an effective documentary.

This documentary is about the increase in graffiti in local areas. This

documentary is called “Hyde PARK GRAFFITI”. They discuss how graffiti is on anupscale and gain interviews with people and ask them if it is art or vandalism.

The first shot we start off with is handheld (as seen in figure 1). The camera

observes the council men getting along with their business of cleaning the

graffiti of the wall. This handheld shot is effective because this gives you a sense

of the daily routine that these men have to go through. The handheld shot is also

easier to show the graffiti all over the surroundings such as bins, house’s and

even vans.

They interview one council member (as seen in figure 2) while the other is

cleaning using special materials (as seen in figure3). This gives a good cutaway

as it shows visual proof of what the council worker is trying to get across and the

audience get a sense of how costly this can be to the tax payer. Cutaways are

very important when interviewing as you want to keep the audience engaged as

they can switch off at any moment.

If you look at the mise en scene, their clothing suggests that their job isn’t of a

high class aspect and you can identify that they could be council employees due

to their dress code, they also seem to be wearing gloves and masks which

suggests that their job can be dangerous due to the chemicals used as you see

him figure 3. Their location is obviously of a local community area as they show

through cutaways of the surroundings of shops and parks nearby therefore we

connote a residential area and expect an interview from maybe a member of thepublic.

Fig 1

Fig 2 Fig 3



This is a great technique that the cinematographer has used here (seen in figure

4), you can see that he has placed the camera low and it appears to be slightly

tilted, this gives a good visual effect and denotes vandalism and relates to whatthe council worker is talking about.

You can hear in the background cars and ambient sounds, therefore we know

that he is interviewing by the roadside and this gives the audience that this is

kind of a live interview and not something that has been staged in order to

create an argument for the documentary. Also a key fact about the lighting is

that it is very neutral as they use natural lighting outside.

Here in figure 5 you can see how the editor has used a numerical of shots

together and cross dissolved them to give a visual purpose of showing graffiti

everywhere, composed with the voice over it gives meaning into what it saidabout that graffiti can be classed as vandalism. Also the editor has made it more

appealing for the viewer to see as seeing graffiti on walls to many times may

disengage the audience.

At this stage there is a voiceover, this voice over is explaining to the audience

how that tax payer’s money is being spent in the thousands. At this point the

audience should be engaged as it’s their money that is being used therefore

what the voice over has done is to bring the audience into it and cause them to

feel negativity towards graffiti. The voiceover gives statistics which is vital to

back up the means of this documentary otherwise this documentary would just

be an insight to his opinion and show no proof or justifications.

Fig 4

Fig 5



We then see another interview as seen in figure 6. This interview is again by the

roadside, this is because graffiti is illegal on the outside therefore makes the

situation more of a serious matter. As you can see the Graham is being

interviewed on the left side of the screen, being on the left indicates they have

used the rule of thirds which is an interview technique which evidently indicates

that this individual is off importance and what he says could be relevant.

Also on the right side of the screen you see the graffiti which can indicate that

even though the man in figure 6 is head of environmental action that his efforts

are not being recognised or even displayed as you can still see graffiti

everywhere.

Also his clothing implies that he is someone important because he is wearing a

suit, although it cannot be justified as simple as that but it is backed up by the

editors use of typography, you can see that the editor has displayed his details

for the audience to understand his relevance to this documentary.

So far we have had to opinions that graffiti is vandalism (figure7) but in a

documentary you expect to see both sides of the story because you do not want

to appear biased. Therefore they gain an interview from a graffiti artist which is

crucial because it may relate to any young teenagers who may be a watching

this documentary. When interviewing the cinematography starts using all

elements of shots to show the excessive amounts of work needed to create

graffiti such as whip pan, zooms, tilts etc, this therefore connotes that it can be

classed as an art form when done adequately.

Fig 6

Fig 7



In conclusion this documentary has expressed a vital aspect of how graffiti

affects the economy and has proved that although graffiti is illegal it effects tax

payer’s money, you could connote that only the elder generation are affected by

this were as the new generation can class this as artistic.

Hyde Park Graffiti- Documentary Analysis One

Documents

Transcript of Hyde Park Graffiti- Documentary Analysis One