Documentary Unit: Research

Benefits Street

Benefits Street was a greatly controversial documentary when it was first broadcasted and has raised peoples conflicting opinions ever since. Wether you think its good or bad, there is no arguing that the show has been a television success. As a result it would be interesting to find out the key as to why it is so successful. Because despite its negative media coverage, it is still gripping to its viewers, for its social conventions.

As do most modern documentaries, Benefits Street opens up with a short drone establishing shot. For this we are greeted with 'James Turner Street', a British street of council houses to people living off benefits.

When filming, I wish we could've used the drone to get some establishing shots and GV's; especially for the Berlin Memorial. However, we were unable to given the strict drone flying laws, and after asking the memorial, they didn't want us to do so. We worked around this so they weren't detrimental to the piece, but they definitely would've enhanced its aesthetic look.

Benefits street is an observational documentary. We follow the stories off not just one person but several groups and individuals. The interviews are informal, and appear to be conversational-like.


Usually when interviewing someone, Benefits Street will try and keep that typical documentary interview framing where they have the subject on one side and keep the other side clear. Most of the show is shot in actuality and when interviewing someone it will usually be as soon as something has happened, almost like the subjects are reaching out to talk to someone (its audience). This is what we will be doing in our documentary to some extent. We hope to catch some people taking selfies or running around/behaving inappropriately at the memorial and see if we can catch an interview with them just after its happened.

Regarded as ‘poverty porn’ by its critics, Benefits Street is very ‘in yo face’ and with such circulation surrounding the show, its difficult to avoid seeing it. Having watched the show, I have to question its reliability. It seems relatively biased and seems to portray their lives in a rather negative limelight. There are times of social well-being and togetherness, but like with most things, the bad overrules the good; after all this is being shown to millions of people. After researching into the show a little more, i found an article which claimed “a problematic aspect of the show is the level of aftercare for the residents”(Hiffington Post 14/01/2014). Having poor aftercare is a dangerous move. After the show many of their lives will have turned around; their reputation is tarnished making them more unemployable that to begin with. However, they are also making money . from the show and guest appearances on the television shows such as ‘Big Brother’. The mirror climes that one of James Turner Streets resident ‘White D’ “may have banked more than a £1million from personal appearances and TV work”. Such mistakes I would avoid making when filming our documentary. Some of what we show will be a little controversial. I'm mainly speaking about the interviewees at the holocaust memorial; some of them are clueless as to where they are. In a sense this portrays them in a negative limelight. However, to avoid this and it from affecting their lives harshly and unfairly, our presenter concludes that its simply a lack of awareness and he too was "tempted to sit down" on some of the monuments. In a sense this was a social experiment to see if people did realise where they were and if they though twice about being 'disrespectful'. We also blame the sign posting of the memorial, as its not very clearly marked so unless you know what it is before you go there, its difficult to otherwise know. 

The shows portrayal of its subjects and level of aftercare eggs the question as to how ethnical it is. Before we filmed our holocaust survivors, we were asked to show ethics clearance. This was the first time our course had anyone be asked for such a form, but Helen managed to find one for us. This was so the survivors don't become vulnerable to 'false journalism' which is fair enough. Although thats something we wouldn't consider doing in a million years, its better for us both so they have that guarantee and they trust us, therefore more likely to open up to us. I'm not sure how much ethical clearance was put in place before making 'Benefits Street', but its effectiveness is questionable. 

Sources:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/benefits-streets-white-dee-reveals-8042089
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/11597197/Benefits-Street-reviews-and-reactions.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bansi-kara/benefits-street_b_4593434.html