60 Minutes aired an episode also entitled Submission where they talk about the film’s impact and interview the writer of the film, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. As usual, 60 minutes does a superb job of brining the situation to light for Americans and telling the story with gripping interviews and video footage.

60 minutes always seems to do a good job of explaining the segment to viewers as to why it is on the show and what the situation is, because most of the time the viewer has no idea about the content of the segment. This was no different for Submission. I had no clue about the film, nonetheless the aftermath of the film, but producer John Marks made sure to make that clear before delving into the interviews and meat of the story.

60 Minutes is one of the best at asking the right questions in interviews that allow for breathtaking and unique responses. When interviewing Ali, they get her to say she will not back down from making a sequel to the movie because it would only prove to the radicals that their violence did the job. this is about as good of a “quote” as you can get on television and the interviewer deserves credit for getting that out of her.

The CBS documentary show also does a good job of getting video footage from the streets of Holland in the aftermath of the murder of Van Gogh. In a community that is usually known for peace and harmony, it is very interesting to witness the streets looking like the aftermath of a gang fight in downtown Chicago.

60 Minutes was obviously given a gripping story in the first place with Submission, but it is what they did with it — the interviews, video footage, explanation of the murder — that make this show one of the best.

The National Geographic Channel’s Galapagos, brings the viewer in immediately with gripping shots of its volcano erupting. The documentary begins by following a group of researchers as they are filming the volcanoes and the habits a a species of iguanas unique to Galapagos. The use of camera angles in this segment are very good. They use a great shot where the camera is behind one of the researchers who is filming a volcanic eruption with his own camera. It gives the viewer a great sense of the distance researchers keep from these eruptions as well as depicting how breathtaking this phenomenon is.

They also use great close-up shots when filming the iguanas. The iguanas don’t have nay fear of humans, and in turn, the researchers were able to get as close as they wanted to make for great documentary shots. They also move the cameras, following the iguanas to the mouth of the volcano to give the viewer a better sense of the iguanas’ journey.

Another great use of camerawork to bring the viewer closer to the action, is when the researchers are descending the volcano, they show landslides happening all around them. This shows how dangerous it is to be doing what they are doing.

The documentary transitions to Galapagos dolphins and trying to figure out their habits. They do a great job of showing the viewer how they about doing this by showing a unique way of filming the animals. They strap a camera to a long pole which they proceed to dip into the water to get a great shot of the dolphins swimming at top speed.

Another great use of camera work mixed with other editing features is when they show a slow motion depiction of a bird flying. They use very whimsical music as they show the bird slowly settling down onto the ground. This is something that many might not notice, but it is a great use of editing equipment.

Finally, they take the viewer to what the Galapagos is probably best known for, the tortoise. They discuss how old the tortoises can get (over 100 years), and talk about how Charles Darwin used to like to ride on their backs. They give the viewer a great perspective of how old these creatures are by saying Darwin himself may have ridden the back of some of the creatures they were showing on the film.

After watching the Biography Channel’s Steven Spielberg, my initial thoughts were mainly on the man himself and how fascinating his story was instead of trying to analyze the actually documentary about the man. But then I realized having thoughts about how fascinating his story was means the documentary did its job.

The documentary begins talking about the childhood and upbringing of Spielberg, which is a lot harder to do than they made it look. Talking about someone’s otherwise boring childhood is no easy task. I think they made it work because they used a lot of still photos from the points in his life that the narrator was talking about. For example, when Spielberg was a teen, he made a movie that required his mother throw a bucket of cherry juice all over the kitchen. When they were describing this event, they had a picture of either Spielberg or one of his siblings covered in the red goo. Showing pictures like that allows the viewer to feel like they are a part of his childhood as well.

The documentary also did a good job of describing the struggle Spielberg faced while growing up as an aspiring filmmaker. Using interviews from his parents and siblings was the best path to take because those were the people who were around him the most during that time.

When they started getting into his actual movie career, they do a great job of narrating what his mentality was like while making his early movies and what the actors who were in his movies thought about him. They also show what was going on in his mind, and then show a scene from one of his films to prove to the viewer that is what Spielberg was thinking at the time. If the viewer can have both audio and video confirmation, it is the best way to make something memorable.

Lastly when they get into the making of Jaws, they take out a lot of time in the documentary for this one moment in Spielberg’s career, and for good reason. It was his first big hit and skyrocketed his name into stardom. They use narration from many of the actors in the film, show behind the scenes footage of the struggles they had while making it, and interviews with his family members who Spielberg confided with in the tough time.

The thing that makes this documentary so good is the amount of research that went in to making it. They chose a plethora of actors and family members to interview and had several photos and video clips to bring the viewer closer to Spielberg.

            The documentary begins by showing people base jumping into caves in Borneo, Mexico with parachutes. The shots the BBC used to show the people jumping and then what it looks like on the inside as they are falling gives the viewer a great sense of how massive these caves can be. The narrator, David Attenborough, also uses the analogy that the cave could fit the Empire State building, which gives viewers an instant image in their heads as to how big it actually is.

            When they move to another set of caves, they bring the viewer to a massive pile of bat guano, covered beatles and other wildlife. The innovative camera work used to slide up the hill is a credit to the BBC’s long-time experience with making documentaries. They use a pully system where one end has the camera and the other is an opposing weight so the camera glides smoothly up the hill without anyhitches. To show how many bugs there were on the pile, they showed one of the cameras being swarmed by insects as soon as it was set on the pile. Again, it gives viewers a great sense of what it is really like. The BBC is great at not only explaining the conditions, but actually showing proof of the conditions as well.

            Maybe the most fascinating portion of the documentary was the cave called Leiturgia. It took the researchers ten days in the cave to get down to its furthest point to show viewers giant crystals that had formed over the years — a sight Attenborough says is one of the most unique in the world. To give viwers a sense of how steep and dangerous the plight to the bottom of the cave is, they give an anecdote of an explorer breaking his or her ankle. It took around 100 cavers three days to figure out a way to get the person out of the cave. I can’t think of anything better to describe how incredibly mysterious and almost untouchable these caves are.

            And of course the narration is always good with the BBC and David Attenborough. When they are at the end of Leiturgia, Attenborough tells viweres it is the only time people have had and will have permission to bring high-tech camera euipment down that far into the cave. At one point he says they were able to bring a crane — which is necessary to bring the giant crystals to life. And of course right after he says “bring them to life,” the nest four or five images are breathtaking views of those crystals and it shows why any person would take ten days out of the sunlight to capture it.

            Another great narration from the documentary is when they are showing an arial view of the cave the people were base jumping out of. Attenborough says not only is it spectacualr above, but the most spectacualr is what is waiting down below. Right after he says this, the camera dives down into the caves’ waterfall, and proceeds to follow the running water through a maze of caverns while Attenborough describes the process of erosion and previews what viewers are about to see. It is somethig very subtle, but it also something that separates the professionals from the amateurs.

Photo from http://www.wildlifeconservationfilms.com/images/beverley.jpg

The first thing that caught my attention in National Geographic’s ‘Cameramen & Women’ was how they brought the viewer into the program right away by giving the viewer a sense of what it is like to take photos.

They start with a running slide show of a variety of gripping photos, mixing in video of the photographers on the scene taking the photos. While the photos and video are flashing by, there are photographers narrating what it is like to be a photographer and what it means to them to have that job. It gives the viewer a real sense of what it is like for these photographers to take these photos instead of just simply displaying the photos.

Another feature of the documentary I enjoyed was when they show the roots of the photography in National Geographic, describing how it was known as a glamorous job. They then flash to the current state of photography in the magazine and while saying it is still glamorous, they delve into the not-so-glamorous features of what it is like to be a photographer.

It is one thing to tell the viewer about what it is like to be in a forest full of insects, but it is another to actually show the viewer footage of these hardships. The documentary does a great job of displaying the photographers in the field, battling insects and worms. But the thing I was happy to see was while they showed how difficult it can be to take these photos, they end up showing some of the photographs that were taken to show that battling the conditions is worth it in the end.

They not only show the photographs, but they also show some of the techniques used when taking the photos and the mentality behind taking that style of photo.

Finally, the most dominant aspect of the documentary is the photographers narrating what the job is like and why they do it. There is a narrator, but he is used very sparingly. I like that they allow the people who actually do the job explain what their experiences have been and why they do it instead of a monotone narrator talking to the viewers.