Pre Production - CASE STUDY - Reggie Yates

The documentary starts with a light soundtrack with an ambient tone. This really sets the viewer up for what will become a very hard-hitting documentary which enlightens the viewer about a subject that they may lack knowledge in. This opening drone shot allows the viewer to see the landscape for themselves, but the tone of the audio helps the viewer understand that not all is well and the subject matter is serious. The use of sound to create a tone and atmosphere cannot be underrated as in the previous projects I have neglected sound somewhat. From those experiences, it is clear that half of the story is missing if the soundtrack is missing or does not fit the tone set for the documentary.

The opening voiceover is very powerful and enlightens the viewer straight away about the subject matter and the issues that will be covered in this documentary. This is something that all good documentaries do, they hint at what is going to be explored in the documentary. If this is left for too long, it could lead to some confusion about what challenges we will see, leaving the viewer confused as to what the point is.

This opening voiceover is also mixed with a piece to the camera, which allows the viewer to see the presenter for the first time. Reggie explains why this story has a meaning to him (Parents from Ghana and he has visited the county many times in his life) which adds another layer of importance to this documentary. The opening sequence clearly lays out that this is a self-discovery mission and the presenter is doing all he can to enlighten in the viewer through living the situations of the locals.

This opening sequence also tells the viewer why this subject matter is important now. This is because a lot of the goods being burned for copper are coming from Europe, specifically England. As this is for an English TV channel, it makes the subject matter relevant and thought-provoking. We instantly know that the documentary is trying to highlight an issue we probably didn't even know existed. This is done through this powerful opening mix of a voiceover and PTC to draw the viewer into the reality and let them explore the subject through Reggie's actions.

I found it interesting that a lot of the shots were handheld and looked shot very raw. They were shakey and it almost felt like a video diary in some areas as the quality was only made usable through the message it was bringing. This was mixed with beautiful drone cinematography and a couple of stabilised shots. It was a real mix of shots which slightly confused me at first. I was looking at this from a directors point of view and made me question if they had actually done a location recce before coming, as they seemed to be very rushed with all of their shots.

This style of filming was down to a lack of planning, as I have seen a number of Reggie's documentaries and most of them are more cinematic than this particular one. This could have been a chosen style, to highlight the rawness of the issue, but more time should have been spent understanding the location beforehand. It would have been down to the inaccessibility of this location which meant they could not determine what could be filmed until they got there. This rushed approach did change the tone of the documentary, as we were now seeing more shots of the appalling situation, rather than crafted cinematic shots.

This shows the importance of planning and location recce and I am already taking a proactive approach when making my documentary as I have already scouted multiple locations. I am aware that my locations are much more accessible than the one used here, which is probably why they ran into issues as a production team. The importance of doing a location recce has already enabled me to understand the potential hazards of each location we are going to visit. This has allowed me to better understand how we should approach filming our documentary so that our tone is consistent throughout. I am likely to do another location scout with the rest of my group so we can collectively decide what the best approach for each scene is.

I noticed that this documentary seems to be created with one or two cameras. There where a lot of instances, in scenes of discussion, where we see the camera move from a two-shot to a one shot in the documentary. The camera physically moving shot types without cuts does create the tone that this documentary is raw and unfiltered. The use of one camera changing shots shows that the situations presented in the documentary are natural and the camera operator is having to think fast, to capture the moment in the most realistic way.

Sometimes these changes in camera shot are covered with a general view shot, but we do see the camera actively move to change shot type on multiple occasions. I am not a fan of the constant camera readjustments being shown, as I like a documentary to be slightly more cinematic and clever with its use of the camera. I am not sure if it was intended to be like this, but I assume it was not the plan as many other Reggie Yates Documentaries feel more "complete" with fewer shots which are created in this style. I learnt that in this style of documentary you want to film moments of authenticity, but they need to be done in a way which is easy to follow as a viewer. Constant camera reframing does significantly lower the production value, even if the moments it captures are more authentic. This knowledge has allowed me to analyse my script and predict where moments of emotion and honesty could arise. Pointing these out to the crew will allow one camera to be focused on a typical wide shot, while one captures close-ups of specific emotions. The use of two cameras is used in many other documentaries with this style, as they help create a more refined and visually pleasing documentary.

Through the apparent lack of planning that went into some scenes, I can assume it meant that the director and presenter had to recreate some scenes to get them from a different angle. There are many random jumps and at times the clips didn't quite match each other. This is what makes me think that had to reshoot some of the sequences with action or movement, to allow them to inject more crafted cinematic shots into the project.

This goes to show how important some sort of plan is before filming starts. The cast and crew went into creating some scenes of this documentary woefully underprepared which has led to some scenes feeling staged and filmed in an uncreative way. This is a surprise as some scenes are beautifully shot and had a lot of time and thought put into them. It is a shame that didn't stay have a consistent tone throughout this documentary, as that would have allowed the viewers to connect to the story further. This makes me slightly concerned as a director who is also in front of the camera. It certainly makes me think about planning a lot more than originally thought, so that the crew get the shots I'm thinking of and fully understands the cinematic approach that will be consistent throughout the documentary. This has led to me placing further hints at the style of particular scenes in my script. I have also sent reference material to my collogues which will allow them to know my inspiration for each scene.

I still love this documentary as it tells a great story, which is the most important thing, but looking at it as a director I am somewhat disappointed with its production quality. It uses a lot of L Cuts which is a great cinematic technique which allows the viewer to hear the contributor before we see them.

"An L cut is a variant of a split edit film editing technique in which the audio from preceding scene overlaps the picture from the following scene, so that the audio cuts after the picture, and continues playing over the beginning of the next scene."

It is a great cinematic effect when used correctly, but in situations throughout this documentary, it felt un-needed and unplanned. This gave the impression that the crew were unprepared and were struggling in the situations because of where the area the documentary was set.

An example of having the time to set up a meaningful shot with impact, is when one of the Burner Boys is destroying some white goods and setting them alight. This is a very powerful shot as black smoke is billowing out of the machine highlighting the terrible living situations they are going through.

I felt a little disgusted when I saw this, because I thought no human should have to put themselves in this much danger to survive. This is what a shot like this does, it creates a powerful emotion in the viewer. The production did do a good job at points in this documentary to capture those scenes as these are the shots that stick in peoples mind when discussing this topic in the future. I feel like there should have been more shots like this and they were a little too reliant on handheld shots which were set up on the fly and did not have the same impact. The use of iconic shots will be different in my documentary, but they will still be used to have an impact on the viewer. An example of an iconic shot I have chosen after watching this, is one as I enter Brands Hatch to complete my racing license. I am creating this specific scene to have a large impact on the viewer, I will use the large Brands Hatch logos at the circuit entrance to heighten the drama. the camera will be placed low, showing the logos and the sky, enabling my car as I drive in to be small, highlighting the large task I have ahead of me.

Possibly because of the nature of the topic matter, being put into the shoes of this group of people is very powerful and allows the viewer to connect to the subject matter. As Reggie is subjecting himself to living in conditions no human should, it allows the viewer to sympathise as they are probably more like Reggie than the locals. The locals see this as somewhat normal and do not understand how dangerous the situation is. This means if this documentary was more observational it could lead us as viewers to not feel the same emotions that we do when a presenter is in the situation themselves.

Having a presenter that is partaking in "The Life" also allows the people in the film to be challenged. He always knows when to speak out when something is not right, challenging people, even if he grew a close bond with them. He does it in a very humanising way which does not leave the people he is surrounding himself within any type of disgust or hatred towards him. He poses most things he disagrees with in the form of a question which allows the other people in the film to have a conversation about the disagreement.

Many times we see the subject matter speak and it is clear they do not know what they are saying or have little knowledge of the truth. I think questioning, rather an interrogating, allows the viewer to connect to the Reggie as he speaks to everyone the same manner. This leaves everyone to respect him and allows more honest answers from his contributors.

 The way he communicates with the audience, as well as the way he interacts with people on screen, is superb. This comes down to relaxing into the project and believing in the issue or subject matter you are exploring. It will also be down to doing a lot of prep before-hand and test shoots to understand what and how you say things to the camera. Reggie will be my benchmark, I hope to be able to get somewhere close. Knowing information about my fellow contributors will allow me to dig deeper when finding the honest answer. This is the knowledge that will need to be found before each interview. This will allow me to be honest with the viewer as they will be getting interviews with answers that reflect the truth. This will be down to research before each scene, enabling me to relax the contributor and have an honest conversation.


Something that I noted that worked well in this documentary was how in certain situations it was shot like a video diary. It included transition slides on the days and transitions including the time of day. It is a small editing technique, but it helps the story keep moving along at a steady pace and keeps the viewer up to date with the progress being made by Reggie. This is one avenue we can take in certain scenes, as it is very certain some scenes will be more planned than others, meaning some scenes may feel like a YouTube video rather than a documentary. The use of transition slides and time/day info helps keep the film's narrative consistent throughout and ensure the cinematography captures the correct tone.

I also noted that Reggie speaks to the producer rather than directly to the camera. I like this a lot more as it feels less scripted and much more honest to the viewer. It would be easy to direct the camera formally, but it documentaries like this, addressing the camera like that makes it feel very staged. When part of the point of the documentary is finding out about new situations it is important to have that trust between the viewer and the presenter that is documentary is not staged and has no bias. Looking off camera allows the scene to be more authentic, allowing Reggie to open up on his thoughts. This technique has been adapted for our project as we think directing the camera throughout would insinuate that I am a presenter rather than a contributor. By being a contributor, I am guiding the story along by my stories and actions, rather than telling the viewer directly.

Throughout the documentary, it keeps reminding us as the viewer why this is relevant now. Showing shots of Sainsbury's vacuum cleaners makes the viewer think about their habits when getting rid of goods and allows the question of what we are doing wrong as a country.

When we see Reggie's reaction we also share his disbelief that this is where some of our goods end up. This is a powerful scene, as it clearly illustrates with video how the United Kingdom and the viewers watching this documentary, are actually involved in this whole issue. While it is hard to blame the consumer for issues that are down to the large corporations, it certainly allows the viewer to question their disposal of waste. This allowed me to understand how I am going to allow the viewer to question themselves. Throughout our piece, I will be posing the question of why the viewers have not achieved their dreams. By doing so, it allows the viewer to think about what they could be doing better. This technique also allows the documentary to have a wide audience as the subject matter is broad, even if our chosen dream is specific.

The soundtrack helps set the tone for each scene, enabling the viewer to have some understanding of what they are supposed to feel. The editor would have worked closely with the director in making sure the soundtrack fits the tone that the director was trying to create when filming this documentary. George and I will work well together in the edit to ensure that the final edit looks how I planned it originally.

However, I am aware some scenes will appear that will not have been in the script (due to the nature of the documentary - exploring subjects with an answer that is not clear). We will make sure that the tone is constant throughout which keeps the trust between the viewer and the project. Clear and effective teamwork between the director and the editor will be key to the success of our project and ensuring our project is honest to itself in giving a true order of events.


There are moments of reflection which are sometimes said in the middle of a conversation to the producer/camera op behind the camera. These sequences are "reaction shots" to what he has said/is talking about which do a good job at enabling the viewer to connect on an emotional level. The best documentaries are ones where the presenter is active including a certain amount of "conversation" between the viewer and the presenter, these moments of reflection help create that mood.


The chats with contributors are very personal in this documentary and the camera operator captures close-ups throughout as they are the best way of showing emotion in a character. I know we could have had more "intense close-ups" as with some characters I found it hard to relate to them as they were filmed at a distance. We could not see the micro-emotions you see when you are close up, meaning the emotional connection was lessened. I would like to include a larger proportion of close-ups in my documentary as I want the viewer to feel the emotion that I will be going through as a contributor. These moments of emotion allow the viewer to understand the importance of my story and how I have changed through the experience.

The closing commentary is very powerful and closes the story very well. Commentary sometimes closes a documentary like this better as it allows the presenter some time to gather his thoughts before deciding upon the appropriate ending.

Sometimes documentaries that close on a PTC feel too forced and staged and I have made this mistake in the past, resulting in a poor ending. I had been thinking about the ending of our documentary and tried to decide which style would be most effective. I feel we should not make a decision until the documentary is nearly finished editing, but in my script, I have ended our documentary in a powerful voiceover which reflects on my experience and questions the viewer about their dreams.

Overall, Reggie and his documentaries are a big inspiration for my project and I am glad I have analysed one in further detail to understand why they are so good. The storytelling was great and that is what is most important when following a subject matter which the viewer has little knowledge of. In a lot of scenarios, the shot types pick themselves because the power is in the contributor's story rather than the choice of shot. From my experience in filming motorsport, I know what works and what does not, and I have communicated this information with the team. This will allow our documentary to be both cinematic and tell an honest story. The use of multiple camera will help this effect, but we are certain not to stage many sequences as that would detract from the value of the message being broadcast.