THE PAEDOPHILE NEXT DOOR

Documentary Film

Analysis Worksheet

Name: Hannah Diver

Step 1. Pre-viewing (Do not worry if you have already viewed the documentary; answer the questions to the best of your ability.)

Title of Documentary: The Paedophile Next Door

Date Released: 25th November 2014

Principle documentary maker(s): Steve Humphries and Rudolph Herzog

Why did you select this particular documentary for this assignment?:

I chose this documentary because there aren’t many documentaries about Paedophiles, like there are for Serial Killers and I wondered if it would present an objective view and offer up a solution to decreasing the risk of assault. Paedophiles are a slightly taboo matter that isn’t addressed enough - this documentary brought to light, the small population of paedophiles that don’t want any harm to come to children.

What do you think you will see in this documentary? List three concepts or ideas that you might expect to see based on the title of the documentary or list what you already know about this documentary:

1. The causes behind being a paedophile and how it can affect life

2. Ideas on how to solve the amount of cases appearing

3. History of assaults that have happened and how people react

Step 2. Viewing

Type of documentary (check where applicable):

_____x_____ Advocacy for social concerns

_____x_____ Biography

__________ Career Profile

__________ Community History

_____x_____ Research/Factual

__________  “How To”

__________ Training/Orientation

____x______ Investigative

__________ News/Special Events

___________Skits & Spoofs

__________ Travel/tourism

__________  Nature

Physical qualities of the film: Describe all that apply.

Music:

The music was instrumental and wasn’t made obvious, the subject matter was placed above all because it was so serious. There wasn’t any lyrical music as I can remember, which goes to show that it was to be taken more seriously.

Live action:

All the documentary was live-action because it was a documentary about real people and assaults and it was important to hear stories from those who have been affected - then the audience would have listened more closely and been more horrified.

Narration/Voice Over:

The filmmaker, Steve Humphries,  was present in the frame throughout the documentary so it wasn’t narrated constantly with a voice-over. This meant he was participating with the interviews and affecting what happened. There were news stories read out at the start to set the tone and to show a lot of cases.

Background noise/Special effects:

There was ambience/wild track to make it more natural alongside any music played.

Animation:

There was no animation present in the documentary, and could have affected the tone of the documentary.

Though you could say there was the animation of the titles appearing on screen.

Color/Black and White:

There was a natural color scheme because footage was taken from reality and it wasn't emphasising the beauty of nature or the like.

Interviews (Who did the filmmaker interview and for what purpose?)

There were interviews from victims of assault- this is done to give the audience a first hand view of what happened, they are more likely to feel saddened or horrified if it was a first hand account. To be objective, there was an interview with a paedophile who hadn't harmed or planned to harm children. He wanted to prove to people that not all paedophiles wanted to harm young people so in the future, people would approach them and offer help, rather than subject every paedophile to punishment.

There was a former Scotland Yard expert that was tasked with hunting paedophiles online.

Dramatizations or reenactments:

There were no dramatization or reenactments because the stories were told with words rather than images.

Note how camera angles, lighting, music, narration, and/or editing contribute to creating an atmosphere in this documentary.

They used static cameras with medium shots, for their interviews because it was more formal and the audience would be more understanding, instead of distracted by surroundings in the interviews. There were shots of nature to fill in places and a lot of the documentary was slow paced so it was a more solemn atmosphere.

The news stories placed at the beginning created the atmosphere for the rest of the film, which was that it was a saddened/serious atmosphere.

What is the mood or tone of the documentary?  What emotions does the documentary evoke in its viewers?

This documentary evokes the audience to feel shocked, worried and helpless due to the accounts of victims and the Scotland Yard hunter saying that “we aren't even on the boat to go see the iceberg” when talking about finding all the possible offenders. There would have also been disgust evoked with the introduction of Pie, who wanted to change the laws, allowing sex with children. However sympathy or guilt should have been evoked when the paedophile stated that he didn’t want to harm children and that he just wanted people to approach him with more than just a harsh judgement, asking for help like anyone with a mental health problem.

Step 3. Post-viewing (or repeated viewing)

Circle the things that you listed in the previewing activity that were validated by your viewing of the documentary, then answer the following:   

What is/are the central message(s) of this documentary?  Be specific. Use examples from the documentary to support your choice.

The main aim was to explore the possibility of preventive treatment in order to manage the situation of paedophile epidemic. a message was given and tried to prove that not all Paedophiles are alike and some could gain help, though this problem was never addressed correctly and neither was the first. There was no firm or explained answer to a treatment for the epidemic, leaving questions answered like how many times would they need to go to therapy? How many times would they be monitored? Would there be the aid of medication?

Discuss the bias in the documentary (point of view of the filmmakers).   

There is a small bias that reflects common sense - paedophiles are a threat and the audience members would likely agree with the filmmakers decision. However there is another side to the argument, that not all paedophiles are dangerous, documented with the interviews of Eddie. Thus the filmmaker has tried to be unbiased, but is still reflecting that paedophiles are to be handled carefully.

Consider the effectiveness of the film in communicating its message. As a tool of communication, what are its strengths and weaknesses?

As said before, the aim of the documentary was to find a treatment for the epidemic of paedophilia, yet the filmmaker left the answers unanswered with little improvement to before the documentary. On the other hand, it broadcast the first hand account of assault, which would be a possible stimuli for starting improvement.

How do you think the filmmakers wanted the audience to respond? What evidence is there that the filmmaker was looking for this response?

Humphries, likely wanted people to keep a small amount of their judgment towards paedophiles, yet through the fact that a ‘harmless’ paedophile was asked for his side of the story, Humphries wanted to help get his message out so that audience members can hopefully take note and improve their prejudice towards them - offer more help so they aren't all wrongfully accused of assault. Through speaking to professionals, he proved that there can be a neurological explanation for this behaviour.

The documentary starts with an interview of an ex-Scotland Yard investigator, who warns of the danger in internet chat rooms. This would hopefully encourage parents to protect their children on the internet more.

Does this film appeal to the viewer's reason or emotion? Explain the role of each in this documentary.  

Using emotion, it would appeal to the users because they want to protect themselves and children from assault, thus they would listen more when emotions are triggered. Their reason would be appealed to as they don't want justice to be served incorrectly, thus they would listen to Eddie, when he asked for people to reach out in a helpful way instead of judgmental.

How does it make you feel?

It makes me feel disgusted, when I see the harm done to the childhoods of those assaulted. They can't seem to escape their fate and that needs to stop. Which is why I was happy to see a ‘clean’ paedophile want to help solve the problem.

Write a question to the filmmaker that is left unanswered by his/her documentary. Do you believe the question was left unanswered purposefully?  Why or why not?

How effective would the treatment of therapy be?

I think the question wasn't left unanswered deliberately, since Humphries doesn't seem to have any other option and the therapy had yet to have proven results. There is also the advancement of science, so there is the chance that better treatment will appear in the future.