# data[].attributes.body
Both romantic comedies and documentaries manipulate reality through selective storytelling, shaping audience perceptions in subtle yet powerful ways. Rom-coms rely on idealised romance tropes—soulmates, grand gestures, and love conquering all—to create an unrealistic portrayal of relationships, making love seem effortless and fated rather than built on communication and compromise. Similarly, documentaries claim to depict reality but often use selective editing, framing, and emotional manipulation to push a specific narrative, influencing public opinion just as fiction does. Both genres serve as cultural objects that reinforce societal norms—rom-coms shaping beliefs about love and gender roles, while documentaries construct perceptions of truth and morality. My perspective has shifted as I now see both as carefully crafted narratives rather than objective representations of reality; what once felt like genuine reflections of life are actually curated stories designed to evoke specific emotions and reinforce particular worldviews.

# data[].attributes.body
Gigi Bradford’s The Politics of Culture argues that culture is not just entertainment but a site of ideological negotiation. Rom-coms, like documentaries, engage in this negotiation by reflecting and shaping public discourse on love, gender, and identity.

# data[].attributes.body
Gigi Bradford’s The Politics of Culture argues that culture is not just entertainment but a site of ideological negotiation. Rom-coms, like documentaries, engage in this negotiation by reflecting and shaping public discourse on love, gender, and identity.

Both rom-coms and documentaries construct a version of reality that serves a particular agenda—rom-coms idealise love, while documentaries often advocate a specific viewpoint. Neither genre presents a purely objective truth, yet audiences may internalise their messages as reality.

The "Soulmate Myth"

Many rom-coms perpetuate the idea that everyone has a single, preordained soulmate, reinforcing the belief that love is fate rather than effort. In the The Notebook Noah and Allie’s romance is depicted as inevitable, despite class barriers and external obstacles. The idea that true love will always find its way back, regardless of circumstances, is an idealised but misleading notion. In reality, successful relationships require compatibility, communication, and mutual effort rather than destiny.This belief can lead individuals to reject healthy relationships in pursuit of an unattainable ideal or to stay in dysfunctional relationships, believing they are "meant to be."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What’s Love Got to Do with It? (2022) ⭐ 6.3 | Comedy, Drama, Romance

# data[].attributes.body
While romantic comedies (rom-coms) are often dismissed as light entertainment, they function as cultural documentaries, capturing societal norms, values, and transformations in love, gender roles, and relationships. Through semiotics—the study of signs and symbols—rom-coms encode and reflect the ideological frameworks of their time, much like documentaries do with real-life events and social issues.

Rom-Coms as Reflections of Reality

Just as documentaries document reality, rom-coms construct a version of reality through familiar signs, tropes, and cultural codes. They offer a stylised yet revealing portrait of how love, relationships, and gender dynamics are perceived within specific historical and social contexts.

1. Depicting Social Norms

Bridget Jones’s Diary (2001) functions as a semiotic time capsule of early-2000s feminism, capturing anxieties of “the single woman “ in a society still negotiating career independence and traditional romance.

Whereas What’s Love Got to Do with It? (2022) explores arranged marriages vs. love marriages, documenting cultural hybridity and shifting diasporic identities, much like a documentary.

Then the role of something like The Notebook (2004), is to create a kind of contemporary nostalgia for "idealised" love, reinforcing the cultural myth of soulmates and undying devotion.

Semiotic Techniques in Rom-Coms and Documentaries

1. Interviews and Personal Narratives

Many rom-coms incorporate diary entries (Bridget Jones’s Diary), voiceovers (The Notebook), or direct confessions to the audience, mirroring documentary-style narration and subjective storytelling.

In What’s Love Got to Do with It?, the documentary that Zoe films within the movie serves as a meta-commentary, emphasising the film’s own documentary-like exploration of love and marriage across cultures.

This is furthered through observational storytelling Rom-coms often depict mundane, everyday moments in relationships—awkward first dates, misunderstandings, personal growth—making them seem more like studies of human behaviour, much like cinéma vérité documentaries.This only enhanced Through frequently use montage sequences to much like documentaries summarise life .

For example Bridget Jones’s Diary uses a montage of Bridget writing in her diary to symbolise her self-improvement, much like a documentary chronicling a subject’s transformation.

Romantic comedies, despite their fictional nature, function as cultural documentaries by encoding the prevailing attitudes toward love, relationships, and identity. By encapsulating the most intangible emotion -love- into something that fits the narrative of the society and world that surrounds it. It forms what we believe is love and romance through semiotics.It creates a form of reality shaping are inter-personal understandings of ourselves.

# data[].attributes.body
The process of making documentaries has fundamentally reshaped my understanding of what constitutes a cultural object. Initially, I viewed cultural objects as static artifacts—physical creations such as paintings, books, or traditional crafts. However, through engaging in documentary filmmaking, I have come to see cultural objects as dynamic and deeply embedded in social, political, and ethical contexts. This aligns with the perspectives in The Politics of Culture, edited by Gigi Bradford, which emphasises how culture is constructed and contested rather than merely preserved.

One key realisation from making documentaries is that cultural objects are not just tangible artifacts but also include stories, traditions, and media representations. As Bradford states, “Culture is not a fixed entity but an ongoing conversation shaped by power, identity, and interpretation”. A documentary itself becomes a cultural object, influencing how audiences perceive history, people, and societal issues. The editing process—choosing what to include and omit—demonstrates that cultural objects are shaped by selective narratives rather than neural reflections of reality.

Furthermore, I have come to understand that cultural objects are deeply tied to the ethical choices made in their creation. Documentaries require decisions about representation, framing, and storytelling, all of which affect the meaning of the final product. This echoes ideas that “cultural production is always a negotiation between artistic freedom and social responsibility”For example, when making a documentary about a marginalised community, the way their stories are framed can either reinforce stereotypes or challenge dominant narratives.

Additionally, documentaries highlight that cultural objects are not just created; they are continuously reinterpreted by different audiences “The meaning of a cultural object is never singular; it is always subject to reinterpretation and struggle”. This has expanded my perspective, showing that cultural objects exist within evolving dialogues rather than being fixed in meaning.

# data[].attributes.body
After going to the lectures it really made me confront my ideals of the ethical issues raised by the production of film making. Bring to light further questions of autonomy generally within society.

# data[].attributes.body
This analysis of the role a documentary has as a cultural artefact which holds influence. It has however left me questioning;

1. The Nature of Truth and Objectivity

Can documentaries ever truly represent reality, or are they always subjective constructions?

Is emotional impact more important than factual accuracy in conveying truth?

These align with postmodernist critiques of objectivity, particularly those of Michel Foucault, who argued that truth is shaped by power structures, and Jacques Derrida, who suggested that meaning is always shifting and unstable.

2. Ethics of Representation and Filmmaker Responsibility

Do filmmakers have ethical obligations have when telling real people’s stories?

Does a documentary exploit its subjects when showcasing their suffering or is it a so-called necessary evil?

Who has the right to tell a story—should only those who have lived an experience document it?

Do filmmakers have a duty to remain neutral, or should they use their work for activism?

For example, Plastic China exposes global waste inequalities, but it raises ethical concerns about whether the subjects were given agency in how they were portrayed.

3. The Power of Editing, Framing, and Narrative Choices

Does editing a documentary inherently manipulate reality?

Can cutting footage or altering the sequence of events distorting the truth and is it manipulation of the audience?

Where is the line between storytelling and propaganda?

Is persuasion inherently deceptive, or is it just effective storytelling?

4. The Role of the Audience in Constructing Meaning

Is truth in documentaries determined by the filmmaker or the viewer?

How do audience biases shape their interpretation of a documentary?

Do audiences have a responsibility to question the truthfulness of what they watch?And further do audiences have to actively question their own biases in order to interact with these documentaries?

5. The Relationship Between Documentaries and Social Change

Do documentaries have a moral duty to challenge injustice?

If a documentary influences policy, does that mean it had a political bias?For example, Our Planet contributed to global conversations on climate change, but does advocating for a cause compromise a documentary’s neutrality?

6. The Politics of Access and Censorship

Do governments or corporations have the right to censor documentaries they disagree with?

Should filmmakers have complete creative freedom, even if their work is controversial? For instance, China banned Plastic China after it exposed the environmental consequences of the global waste trade. Does this suppression indicate that documentaries hold real power?

7. The Philosophical Nature of Reality and Memory

How do documentaries influence how future generations remember certain events?

If history is written by the victors, are documentaries a way to challenge dominant narratives?

Final Reflection: Can Documentaries Ever Be “Truth”?

Ultimately, the big question remains:

Are documentaries a reflection of reality, or are they just another form of storytelling?

While they claim to represent truth, they are also constructed through editing, framing, and perspective. Perhaps the most honest documentaries are those that acknowledge their subjectivity, allowing audiences to engage critically with the reality they present however aligning themselves against the ides of true reality.

# data[].attributes.headline
Is truth what is factually accurate, or is it the most persuasive version of events? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Is truth what is factually accurate, or is it the most persuasive version of events? 

# data[].attributes.headline
 “Documentary is the creative treatment of actuality.”

# data[].attributes.subject
 “Documentary is the creative treatment of actuality.”

# data[].attributes.body
John Grierson

# data[].attributes.body
Representation and Bias: No documentary is entirely objective—each one is shaped by the filmmaker’s perspective.

When watching Plastic China the focusing on the suffering of its subjects without directly empowering them lead to questions in my self on how ethical this was. There is a fine line between raising awareness and exploiting vulnerable individuals for emotional impact.

After when watching In Inside the World’s Toughest Prisons, the ethical responsibility of presenting inmates’ stories truthfully while respecting their dignity is a key concern.

Does the documentary genuinely advocate for justice, or does sensationalise suffering for entertainment?

# data[].attributes.body
For example, Plastic China (2016) serves as a cultural artefact of globalisation, exposing the environmental and social injustices of the global waste trade. By documenting the lives of Chinese waste workers, the film reveals hidden inequalities in the world economy, making visible the consequences of consumer culture in the Global North.

Similarly, Our Planet (2019), narrated by David Attenborough, acts as a cultural artefact of environmental consciousness, reflecting growing concerns about climate change and biodiversity loss. Through stunning visuals and scientific narratives, it aligns with contemporary global movements advocating for environmental sustainability. But this lead to much debate debat about

# data[].attributes.body
A cultural artefact is any human-made object or production that carries meaning, reflecting the values, beliefs, and concerns of the time in which it was created.But what is the meaning of meaning this module and as a cultural analyst we need to be deconstructed too allow us to truely grasp what is being discussed. So, what is meaning in this context I believe meaning is the formation of emotions or lack there of that spur on creativity and passion that drive the creation of personal meaning Documentaries, in this sense, function as historical records, capturing moments in time while also shaping how they are remembered and interpreted.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Semiotics of Motherhood in Nature Documentaries

# data[].attributes.subject
The Semiotics of Motherhood in Nature Documentaries

# data[].attributes.body
When I was rewatching these documentaries it was brought to my attention how particularly in nature programs the is an emphasis on the mother child bond and the maternal instinct.

Using these instincts by framing them as universal, reinforces human-centric ideas about selflessness, love, and sacrifice. However, in reality, animal behaviors are driven by evolutionary imperatives rather than emotional consciousness.The documentary constructs a maternal narrative by emphasising emotional bonds, sacrifice, and struggle, making it easier for audiences to connect with non-human subjects.Allowing for the audience to connect fully with the sense of the anthropomorphised love between the two animals without a word being spoken.

While this technique helps audiences connect emotionally, it frames nature through human values, reinforcing a myth that animals think and behave exactly like humans.And as such Animals should in this context experience emotions in the same way humans do, making conservation a moral rather than ecological issue.Positioning the narrative to one that is aimed at global conservation and towards preservation.

Through the uses of signifiers that trigger an emotional response in the audience the filmmaker is able to connect and influence the audience and the subject to communicate their understanding and narrative of the world through a certain perspective.

🔹 Example:

A scene where a cheetah mother risks her life to protect her cubs is edited and narrated in a way that mirrors human narratives of parental heroism.While factually accurate, the choice of music, slow-motion shots, and Attenborough’s emotional narration transform it into a mythological story of motherly devotion.

Reference:

Barthes, R., 1972. Mythologies. Translated by A. Lavers. New York: Hill and Wang.

# data[].attributes.body
These ethical questions are prominent in the channel 4 Inside the World’s Toughest Prisons as it positions itself as an investigative and immersive documentary. Raphael Rowe’s participation as an outsider entering prisons for firsthand experiences allows viewers to feel as though they are witnessing the gritty realities of incarceration. However, this narrative framework introduces ethical concerns regarding the potential exploitation of inmates for the sake of sensationalist entertainment. Rowe’s immersion in violent, high-risk environments raises questions about the responsibility of the filmmakers to protect both him and the prisoners. The film’s strategy to present an extreme form of “reality” may blur the lines between journalistic integrity and entertainment, exploiting the risks of such immersion for spectacle rather than substantive social critique.Rowe’s role as a journalist participating in violent situations—especially in high-risk prisons—can be seen as a problematic form of voyeurism. By focusing on survival as the central narrative theme, the documentary risks reducing complex issues like the failure of prison systems to mere spectacle, reinforcing sensationalised tropes of prison life that may mislead or distort public perceptions of the criminal justice system. Only enhanced by the used of Cinema Verité, or "truthful cinema," documentary style that aims to capture raw, unfiltered reality. The technique emphasises a "fly-on-the-wall" approach, where the filmmaker’s presence is minimal, and the subjects are allowed to unfold naturally in front of the camera. This is evident in Inside the World’s Toughest Prisons, where Rowe’s participation in prison life and the lack of voice-over narration create an illusion of "authentic" observation.The immersive nature of the documentary risks creating a sense of objectivity that may mask the reality of the situations presented. Rowe’s presence within the prisons cannot help but influence the way events unfold, raising questions about whether the documentary truly presents “truth” or whether it is a constructed, mediated representation. By positioning Rowe as both a subject and an observer, the film challenges the traditional documentary boundaries, yet also exposes its potential for manipulation.

Does the documentary truly shed light on the systematic issues within prison systems, or does it primarily serve to entertain an audience by amplifying violent aspects of incarcerated life? This tension between exposing societal flaws and the ethics of how those flaws are represented demands a critical approach to the documentary’s intentions.

Foucault, M. (1975) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Pantheon Books.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside the World’s Toughest Prisons: Season 7 | Official Trailer | Netflix

# data[].attributes.headline
📖 Philosophical Nature of Translation & Documentary 

# data[].attributes.subject
📖 Philosophical Nature of Translation & Documentary 

# data[].attributes.body
🎥 Documentary = inherently interpretative, influenced by the 🎭 filmmaker’s perspective, much like translation is shaped by the 🖋️ translator’s choices.

📜 Claim to truth in 📽️ docs, like in translation, is ultimately a claim to honesty rather than objectivity; every documentary involves narrative decisions.This lead to questions of what truth truly is and can anything be truly be unbiased and truthful.

# data[].attributes.body
📖 Films mediate reality for 🌏 audiences unfamiliar with the 🌱 subject matter—translation isn’t just linguistic but visual & formed of the ideological.

📺 When watching A Life on Our Planet it clearly seen Attenborough as both 👁️ observer & participant, blending 🎭 storytelling with 📢 advocacy, making it part memoir & part scientific translation.Making the audience feel a stronger sense of connection to Attenborough and as such a stronger connection to the content. It makes it personal.

🎬 Filmmaker’s role affects 👀 engagement—how 🛠️ solutions are presented, which 🌍 agencies are emphasised, & which 🌏 communities are depicted as key players with influence over policymaking & action.

🔄 Translating ecological crises into 📢 accessible narratives faces the challenge of preserving nuance while ensuring 🌍 global engagement—simplifying scientific issues for accessibility can sometimes lead to oversimplification.

This mediation of is the creation of a story a perspective of one at least. This then means in much likeness to the non-fiction genre of film such as rom-com’s we can see in creation there is always perspective and a story.

# data[].attributes.body
🎥 Filmmakers balance fidelity & interpretation, they become like translators  that navigate the tension between 📖 literal accuracy & conceptual meaning. (The Art of Reading Like a Translator highlighted this for me and when rewatching my favourite documentary series David Attenborough In one memorable sequence, the documentary follows a snow leopard navigating a steep cliffside in the mountains. The camera work is a mix of wide shots showing the vast, rugged landscape, and intimate, close-up shots of the snow leopard as it carefully makes its way down the cliff. The cuts between these shots emphasise the immense scale of the mountains, heightening the sense of danger and difficulty. At the same time, the close-ups create an emotional connection with the snow leopard, letting viewers see the tension in its muscles as it moves cautiously. This combination of cuts heightens the suspense, making the viewer feel invested in the animal’s success in overcoming its perilous path.

This idea of translation is something that i find very interesting because it is also formed off of personal interpretation and personal context that are formed overtime and drastically change the meaning and relationships we have with cultural artefacts.

# data[].attributes.body
⚖️ Ethical Considerations in Documentary Filmmaking

⚖️ Ethical responsibilities of filmmakers = those of translators in terms of fidelity to subject matter & audiences—truthful yet engaging representation must be balanced.

🎓 Education vs. 🎭 persuasion—while docs inform audiences, they also advocate, raising bias concerns on whether documentary is “objective” or activism.

🎬 Framing can inspire action but must balance emotion with factual accuracy; excessive dramatisation may distort realities, making accurate translation of reality vital.

# data[].attributes.headline
“Myth hides nothing: its function is to distort, not to make disappear.”

# data[].attributes.subject
“Myth hides nothing: its function is to distort, not to make disappear.”

# data[].attributes.body
(Barthes, 1972, p. 121)

🔹 This quote highlights how myths and perspective do not erase reality but reshape it into a more culturally acceptable or ideologically driven form. In documentaries like David Attenborough’s Planet Earth, the beauty of nature is emphasised while human impact is selectively framed, reinforcing the myth of pristine wilderness in need of conservation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mothers of the Animal Kingdom | BBC Earth

# data[].attributes.headline
Roland Barthes: Myth and Ideology in Documentaries

# data[].attributes.subject
Roland Barthes: Myth and Ideology in Documentaries

# data[].attributes.body
After watching and confronting my preconceived ideals of “seeing is believing” and that what I see especially in educational documentaries couldn’t be warped too much. However, when analysing these documentaries I found myself referencing back to Roland Barthes (1915–1980) the French semiotician who argued that media and cultural texts construct myths that shape how we understand the world. These myths appear natural and self-evident, but they are actually ideological constructs that reflect specific cultural, political, or economic perspectives.They are changing of how we see by selecting what we see. Documentaries use, Barthes’ theory to helps us see how filmmakers select, frame, and present reality in ways that reinforce or challenge dominant ideologies. By relying on signs, symbols, and narrative structures, despite their claim to objectivity, actively participate in shaping ideological perspectives through these myths.

“Myth transforms history into nature.” (Barthes, 1972, p. 129)

# data[].attributes.headline
Documentary as a translation of language. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Documentary as a translation of language. 

# data[].attributes.body
After the lectures I began to view the role of a documentary as a type of language ,in of itself, that’s focus is communicating meaning through a structured system of signs, symbols, and narratives. This language is only understood within the cultural context of the visual form curate by the filmmaker. The film maker becomes a kind of Translator holding the power of perception on a mass scale without necessarily speaking a word.

Key ways a film maker holds linguistic power and influence:

🎥 Visual and Verbal Communication 🗣️

Documentaries use images, footage, reenactments, and interviews to tell a story, much like words and sentences convey meaning in spoken and written language.

📸 The use of camera angles, lighting, and composition influences interpretation, similar to how tone and syntax shape meaning in verbal communication.

✂️ Editing as Grammar 📝

Just as grammar structures language, editing structures a documentary’s message.

🎞️ The sequencing of shots, cuts, and transitions dictates the flow of information, much like sentence structure dictates meaning in text.

⏩ Techniques like montage (juxtaposing images) function like punctuation, shaping how viewers understand and emotionally respond to content.

🎭 Symbolism and Semiotics 🔍

Documentaries often rely on visual metaphors and cultural symbols (e.g., a lone tree to symbolise isolation 🌳, dark lighting to indicate danger 🌑).

🔠 These symbols function like words and phrases in a language, creating deeper layers of meaning.

📖 Narrative Structure and Persuasion 🎤

A documentary, like spoken or written discourse, follows a narrative structure (exposition, conflict, resolution) to construct meaning.

🎙️ The voiceover acts as a narrator, guiding interpretation, just as a storyteller or author does—holding the power of the narrative through tone, tempo, and inflection.

💡 Persuasion techniques (selection of footage, emotional appeals, expert testimony) function like rhetorical devices in speech and writing.

🌍 Cultural Codes and Context 🎬

Just as language varies across cultures, documentaries are influenced by cultural and historical contexts, affecting how they are interpreted.

🎭 Different genres (investigative, observational, participatory) function like dialects, each with its own style and conventions.

📽️ A documentary operates as a language by using visual, auditory, and narrative techniques to communicate meaning, shape perception, and persuade audiences. Just as verbal and written language influence thought, documentaries influence how we see and understand reality—through a powerful manipulation of the senses. 🎶👁️

# data[].attributes.headline
Why did I choose this type of cultural expression?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why did I choose this type of cultural expression?

# data[].attributes.body
As a result of the Cultural Analysis course my ideas of what a cultural object (specifically documentaries) has only broadened. It has made me question in depth the fundamentals of my pre conceived ideas and connected how culture is relevant and present in all forms of artefacts.

When entering this module i had a very point blank view on the documentary as fact and as a hyper realistic form of information consumption which could be formed but inherently wasn’t.

In particular documentaries capture and present aspects of society, politics, history, and culture, offering insights into dominant ideologies, social struggles, and historical narratives. It provides a biographical representation of the current state of the world through a specific lens. As such they influence public opinion, spark debate, and sometimes drive social and political change by raising awareness about important issues. Analysing a documentary critically helps uncover biases, framing techniques, and whose perspectives are amplified or marginalised, contributing to media and cultural literacy. Documentaries use storytelling, cinematography, and editing to shape perceptions, making it important to assess how these techniques influence the message. I feel that documentaries serve as historical records, preserving events and voices that might otherwise be lost or overlooked providing a nuanced perspective on the subject which have been carefully curated.

The analysis on Plastic China furthered my own interest on the Ethical concerns around objectivity, manipulation and distortion, and consent in documentaries that are crucial to understanding their impact and credibility.Whilst also opening my eyes to the idea of how within film making our opinions are heavy shaped by the director.

This idea was then furthered more once i applied this to the creation of film in general, in particularly the rom- com genre.