Representation and Persuasion in Independent
Online Documentaries
- A Case Study of two Films from the
Anti-Vaccination Movement
Christine Sander Jørgensen
Malmö University, 2019
Media and Communication Studies:
Culture, Collaborative Media, and the Creative Industries
Faculty of Culture and Society, School of Arts and Communication Two-Year
Master Thesis (15 Credits)
Supervisor: Emil Stjernholm
Examiner: Temi Odumosu
Graded: 24/11/2019
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this thesis is to examine how two independent films represent
their claim of a connection between the MMR vaccination and Autism. It investigates how the filmmakers use common documentary practices to advocate their case and by which rhetorical means they attempt to persuade the audiences. Furthermore, it
examines the filmmakers’ central role when they involve themselves as social actors.
Approach: It is a case study of the two films Vaxxed and Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis,
directed and produced by Andrew Wakefield and Polly Tommey. A qualitative content analysis applying a social semiotic point of view was performed, identifying the technical and rhetorical semiotic resources put in use.
Results: Through the analysis, it became definite that the films make significant use of
respected documentary practices and that they, on some levels, successfully persuade their audiences. The films’ argumentation is diluted, however, as the thesis identifies logical fallacies in a significant part of their persuasive messages. Additionally, the thesis criticizes the filmmakers’ participation as social actors when they feature in the films.
Conclusion: It finally concludes that online distribution has changed the context in
which independent films are created as it allows radical thinking to have a far-reach. Thus, it finally suggests the need for a greater focus on how documentary films are used for manipulation and propaganda.
The research contributes to the field of media in the context of social developments as it concerns the consequences of the development of distribution within independent documentary films online.
Keywords: Persuasion, Documentary Filmmaking, Representation, Anti-vaccination movement, Social Semiotics, Logical Fallacies, Online Distribution
List of Figures 3
1. Introduction 4
2. Context 5
2.1 From Broadcasting to Online Distribution 6
2.2 The MMR Hypothesis and its media coverage 7
2.3 Belief in Conspiracy 8
2.4 The Filmmakers 9
2.5 Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis & Vaxxed 10
3. Theoretical Framework 11
3.1 Social Semiotics 11
3.2 Representation in Documentary Filmmaking 13
3.3 Persuasion 14
3.4 Summary 16
4. Literature Review 17
4.1 Social Semiotics in Documentaries 17
4.2 The Persuading Rhetoric of the Anti-vaccination Movement 18
4.2 Situating the Study within the Literature 20
5. Methodology 20
5.1 Content analysis 21
5.2 Limitations 24
5.3 Ethical Implications 24
6. Results and Analysis 25
6.1 The Fundamental Tendencies 26
6.2 The Intro 28
6.3 Use of Home-videos 35
6.4 Use of Interviews 36
6.5 Use of Motion Graphics 39
6.7 The Filmmakers as Social Actors 41
7. Discussion 44
7.1 Summary of Results 45
7.2 Exploration of the Films as Propaganda 46
7.3 Limitations and Need for Further Research 47
7.4 Concluding Remarks 49
List of References 50
List of Figures
Table 1
p. 23
Still Image 1-6
p. 30
Still Image 7-12
p. 33
Still Image 13
p. 36
Still Image 14
p. 39
Still Image 15-16
p. 40
1. Introduction
Documentary filmmaking has a long history of claiming truthfulness about the world and the complexities concerning this have been discussed and researched thoroughly by scholars. However, more research is needed as new technologies allow easy access to the truth-claims and genres within documentary filmmaking develops. New media offer alternative channels of distribution, making it possible for all kinds of films to reach large audiences. Documentaries advocating radical thinking thus become more
pervasive. At the same time, they are increasingly difficult to distinguish from what is generally perceived as respected documentary practice, as they can be well-produced and use recognizable conventions from documentary filmmaking. There are plenty of examples of people using the documentary format to frame radical thinking. One is Brave New Films - an independent left-winged production company with a mission to champion “social justice issues by using media to inspire, empower, motivate, engage and teach civic participation that makes a difference” (Brave New Films, 2019).
Another is the filmmaker, Steve Bannon, who, for a period of time, was one of Trump’s closest advisors. He advocates a republic and conservative policy with an unusual view of history and vision of America’s future (The films of Steve Bannon, 2017). Both examples point to a tendency of independent filmmakers using the documentary format to reach their audiences, which could be argued to have been impossible before the rise of New Media. As the films become lasting artifacts online, they contribute to our thinking about the world and should therefore be subject to research.
My curiosity was awoken as I have found myself persuaded by non-mainstream documentaries in which their truth-claims can be questioned. This makes me wonder about the consequences when former gatekeepers, such as broadcasting stations and producers, disappear. In writing this thesis, I aim to research two of many independent documentaries that advocate radical thinking in the absence of gatekeeping: Vaxxed from 2016, and Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis from 2015. Both are directed and
produced by Andrew Wakefield and Polly Tommey, and claim that the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) causes autism and that the health care industry are conspiring by covering it up for selfish reasons. I am under the impression that the films play a significant part in the new wave of parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, which
can have serious consequences for the children as well as public health. I will argue that there is a gap in documentary research concerning the shift from broadcasting to online availability. Thus, I find it important to examine the overall representation in the films and how they address their audiences. I will also argue that we live in a time with great focus on documentary filmmaking as art and activism, and a much lesser focus on the films used for manipulation and propaganda. As too little concern is given to the
manipulative power of documentary films, one can wonder if the general public watches with a critical eye. From this, the following questions emerge:
• How do the filmmakers use documentary filmmaking to advocate their case? • How do the filmmakers represent their claims?
• By which rhetorical means do they attempt to persuade their audiences?
To answer these questions, I will conduct a social semiotic analysis of the films, focusing on both the visual and verbal content and the rhetorical strategy involving persuasion. Firstly, I will contextualize my research. Secondly, I will present my theoretical framework with social semiotics as the overarching framework, representation and means of persuasion. Thirdly, I will review relevant literature connecting to the subject, and describe the method, before presenting my findings and analysis of the films. Finally, I will put forward my conclusions and give the answers to my research questions.
2. Context
In this section, I will present some contextual knowledge which is relevant to
understand the circumstances in which the documentaries are created. This involves the shift from broadcasting to online distribution, the MMR hypothesis, its consequences and the media coverage, conspiracy belief, and, finally, a short presentation of the key players behind the films and their work.
2.1 From Broadcasting to Online Distribution
It is evident that the internet has changed the distribution and consumption of
documentaries, and one could argue that the internet is excellent for displaying films with radical thinking. In particular the absence of gatekeepers such as publishers, television producers, and government agencies, makes it easier to gain access to perspectives normally considered false, unacceptable, or ridiculous by the majority (Wood, 2013). Some argue that the television broadcasters did not dare to take the risks on documentaries that exerted progressive interventions (Kilborn, 1996), and that they thereby were not represented. Others claim that the high cost of film production has been a reason for keeping the medium out of reach for radical thinkers (Sørensen, 2014). A third claim argues that people who were once afraid to express their radical thinking openly, are now free to connect with like-minded individuals online (Wood, 2013). All claims support that we see an increase in films that represent radical thinking due to the opportunity of online distribution. The third claim also promotes the idea that we not only see a boom in the number of films within this genre, we also witness online opinion-based communities supporting the films’ claim in forums such as
www.godlikeproductions.com.
The radical thinkers and theorists who have capitalized on the opportunity of online distribution are enormous and range wide. From people who some would consider harmless conspiracy YouTubers, such as Shane Dawson and the well-known conspiracy-theorist Alex Jones, to the extreme, right- and left-winged, political groups and feature-length films such as Zeitgeist. The last mentioned is one of the most viewed conspiracy documentaries online and developed into the Zeitgeist Movement which is led by the director of the film, Peter Joseph (Sørensen, 2014). The Zeitgeist Movement is far from the only community that has emerged as a reaction to the film’s publication. YouTube has a significant role in spreading this kind of content, whether this is
intentional or not. Although, YouTube has attempted to limit the distribution by
chancing their algorithm to reduce “(…) content that could misinform users in harmful ways - such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat or making blatantly false claims about historical events like
On a final note, as the shift from broadcasting to online distribution makes it possible for everyone to make and distribute films, I will argue that it interferes with the audiences’ conceptualization of documentary filmmaking. I presume that the majority of the general population connect documentaries to truth-telling and that the common-sense assumption is that: “Documentaries are about reality (,) documentaries are about real people (and) documentaries tell stories about what really happened" (Nichols, 2017, p. 23).
2.2 The MMR Hypothesis and its media coverage
In 1998 the gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield published a case series-study in the renowned British medical journal The Lancet together with 12 co-authors. They claimed they had found evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism (The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 2018). The paper also stated that they could not
demonstrate a causal relationship between MMR vaccination and autism, although, Wakefield suggested exactly this in a video released at the same time as the report: “(…) the risk of this particular syndrome [autistic enterocolitis] developing is related to the combined vaccine, the MMR, rather than the single vaccines” (Deer, B. Cited in The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 2018). Thus, he advocated for using single-antigen vaccination, given separately over time, while recommending to suspend the MMR vaccine.
No important nor relevant study has confirmed Wakefield’s findings. On the contrary, many well-designed studies have found no link between MMR and autism (The Vaccine Education Center, 2019), causing a retraction of the case series study 12 years after it was published (The Editors of The Lancet (2010). Although there is substantial evidence against Wakefield’s claims, the theory has spread and established itself among people within Western society. Press outlets covered the case-series study which caused parents to delay or altogether refuse to vaccinate their children (The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 2018). A study researching the media coverage of the alleged link between MMR and autism in Britain (Speers & Lewis, 2004)
that the overall framework used to tell the story created a perception of two equally divided scientific communities, whereas in reality the majority of the research has failed to find any such link (Speers & Lewis, 2004). They further claim that in fact the story was covered mainly by nonspecialist reporters and conclude: “the critical scrutiny of those supporting MMR was not matched by a rigorous examination of the case against it” (Speers & Lewis, 2004, p. 179). This study is not unique and others have presented similar claims (Dixon & Clarke, 2012; Dobson, 2003). Furthermore, in 2006, The Guardian commented on the general media coverage with the headline “The media’s MMR shame” (The Guardian, 2006).
2.3 Belief in Conspiracy
Academic scholars have concluded that the anti-vaccination movement can be categorized as conspiracy belief. According to the most popular anti-vaccination theories, pharmaceutical companies profit from vaccines, motivating them to bribe researchers to fake their data, cover up evidence of harmful side effects, and, ultimately, inflate statistics on vaccine efficacy (Jolley & Douglas, 2014). According to Michael Barkun (2003), the essence of conspiracy beliefs lies in their attempt to delineate and explain evil. The theories, at the widest sense, “view history as controlled by massive, demonic forces,” that are “disguised as innocent and upright” (Barkun, 2003, p. 3). Furthermore, he claims that a conspiracist worldview implies that the universe is governed by design and not by randomness. In continuation of this, he mentions three principles that are found in virtually every conspiracy theory: Nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems and everything is connected (Barkun, 2003, p. 3-4).
Karen M. Douglas, Robbie M. Sutton & Aleksandra Cichocka (2017) have studied the motives of conspiracy theory believers. Their research suggests, that people may be drawn to conspiracy theories when the theories promise to satisfy three
important social-psychological motives: First, the epistemic motive includes “slaking curiosity when information is unavailable, reducing uncertainty and bewilderment when available information is conflicting, finding meaning when events seem random, and defending beliefs from disconfirmation” (Douglas, Sutton & Cichocka, 2017, p. 540).
Second, the existential motives concern people turning to conspiracy theories for compensatory satisfactions when these needs are threatened. For example, the conspiracies offer a compensatory sense of control as they, by rejecting official narratives, make the believer feel that they possess an alternative account (Goertzel, 1994, cited in Douglas, Sutton & Cichocka, 2017). Furthermore, they present studies that show that people are more likely to turn to conspiracy belief when they are anxious and feel powerless. Third, the social motives concern the desire to belong and to
maintain a positive image of the self and the group by perceiving themselves “as competent and moral but as sabotaged by powerful and unscrupulous others” (Douglas, Sutton & Cichocka, 2017, p. 540).
2.4 The Filmmakers
The director of the films, Andrew Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, has published the case series-studies mentioned above. He also stars in the documentaries as an expert on the subject together with other of the filmmakers. It has been proven that he was paid more than 400.000 British pounds by lawyers who tried to prove that the MMR vaccine was unsafe. This collaboration started two years before the published case-series (Deer, 2006). The lead producer is Polly Tommey, a mother with an autistic child, who also features in the films. The second producer is Del Bigtree and he features in Vaxxed. According to Vaxxed’s website, he is an Emmy Award-winning producer on the daytime talk show The Doctors, and has a background in filmmaking, and as an investigating medical journalist. They are all frequent users of YouTube and other easily accessible platforms where they post content on the matter. Tommey and Wakefield have a long history of producing information about autism and their claimed link between MMR and autism. Besides documentaries, they have created the autism magazine The Autism File, and the YouTube channel AutismMediaChannel. Furthermore, in 2003 the semi-fictional TV drama Hear the Silence, based on the controversy, debuted on British TV where Andrew Wakefield had contributed to the script (Fitzpatrick, 2003). Now they have announced the coming of a follow-up of Vaxxed called Vaxxed II: The People’s Truth (Vaxxed 2, 2019) which confirms the importance of researching the films further.
2.5 Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis & Vaxxed
Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis (2015) is about Alex, an autistic child, his mother, Dorothy and, aunt Jolanta. Wakefield and Tommey follow the two women in their fight for getting the right treatment and better care for Alex. Alex’s story is tragic and ends with his death, to which Dorothy and Jolanta pleaded guilty to involuntary
manslaughter. Dorothy and Jolanta claimed that the hospital neglected and abused Alex. Thus, they removed him from the hospital, only to discover that they were unable to handle the responsibilities of providing Alex with the care that he needed. The documentary shows the months leading up to his death. In the resume, it is stated: “Alex’s tragedy tells a story of our time: the systemic failure of the US healthcare system to treat autism as a medical disease rather than a psychiatric oddity” (Amazon, 2015). Vaxxed (2016) tells the story about biologist Dr. Brian Hooker, a father to an autistic child, who receives a call from Dr. William Thompson, a Senior Scientist as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Thompson claims that the CDC has committed fraud and that the MMR vaccine is, in fact, dangerous. The film shows interviews with experts and parents of autistic children to argue the alleged connection between the MMR vaccine and Autism.
Both films are set in the U.S and have been distributed through various channels. You can buy Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis on Amazon prime video and stream it on Peeps TV on Roku Channel, the filmmakers’ own channels, and several other streaming sites. It has also been possible to buy it on DVD when it premiered. Vaxxed was
supposed to premiere at the 2016 Tribeca Film Festival, co-founded by the actor Robert De Niro. He pulled it back because of an outcry (Fortune, 2016) and it then got picked up for distribution by Cinema Libre. It later premiered at the Angelika Film Center. and in 2017 it was given a private screening in Cannes where Cinema Libre said it had earned 1,2 million dollars and that they had signed distribution deals in several countries (Hollywood Reporter, 2017). A website is dedicated to the film (Vaxxed, 2016), where you can buy it and read more about the film and the filmmakers. It took around seventeen years from the case-series study was published until the movies premiered. A reason for this can be that the case series-study was not withdrawn before 2010. The films can be seen as a counter-reaction to the withdrawal of the study,
alongside other kinds of information on the alleged connection between MMR and Autism in different media outlets, such as the magazine “The Autism File”.
3. Theoretical Framework
In my theoretical framework, I employ social semiotics as the overarching theoretical perspective. In this section, I aim to explain the approach and its related key terms and concepts as presented by Hodge & Kress (1988), Bezemer, J. & Jewitt, C (2009) and Leeuwen (2005). Furthermore, I apply the notions representation and persuasion which will create a natural connection between social semiotics, media research, and the subject of analysis. Regarding representation, I will apply the ideas of the documentary film theorist Nichols (2017) and the visual anthropologist Ruby (1992). Finally,
persuasion will be explained as presented by documentary film theoretician Michael Renov (1993) and media researcher Marshall Soules (2015). The choice of notions is the result of research presumptions that apply to Vaxxed and Who Killed Alex
Spourdalakis.
3.1 Social Semiotics
Social semiotics is, first of all, concerned with meaning makers and meaning-making. It studies the media of dissemination and modes of communication, which meaning makers use to represent their understanding of the world (Bezemer, J. & Jewitt, C, 2009). Hodge & Kress (1988) argue that it differentiates from traditional semiotics as it does not assume that texts produce exactly the meanings and effects the meaning makers intent. They argue: “It is precisely the struggles and their uncertain outcomes that must be studied at the level of social action, and their effects on the production of meaning” (Hodge & Kress, 1988, p. 12). Ledema (2004) argues that traditional semiotics focus on ‘signs’ whereas social semiotics focus on the text as socially
meaningful, and entire processes. He explains: “The sign is an analytical category: text, by contrast, is a social category. Texts, then, are defined as being the semiotic
an important concern that itself should be understood as a text, which finally breaks with the assumption that verbal language is always dominant and autonomous (Bezemer, J. & Jewitt, C, 2009). This also highlights the importance of looking at intertextuality. Within social semiotics, the key term, multimodality, allows a text not to be divided merely into ‘verbal’ and ‘non-verbal’ communication. Theo van Leeuwen (2005) explains multimodality as “the combination of different semiotic modes - for example, language and music - in a communicative artefact or event” (p. 281). The term shifts the focus from the isolated text being the primary source of communication, which makes it possible to view other modes as meaning carriers and not merely as modes that serve to expand or modify these meanings.
Social semiotics focus, among other things, on the following key concepts: sign, semiotic resource, mode, meaning potential, and finally, multimodal orchestration (Bezemer, J. & Jewitt, C, 2009; Leeuwen, 2005). A Sign is a borrowed concept from traditional semiotics. Within social semiotics, the sign-makers become the focus as signs are made in the interest of the sign-makers and their availability of semiotic resources. Thus, the relation between form and meaning is always motivated by the sign-maker and shaped by the environment and circumstances. Semiotic resource focuses on the sign-makers’ choice of resources rather than emphasizing the system of available resources (Bezemer, J. & Jewitt, C, 2009). It can be explained as being “the actions, materials and artifacts we use for communicative purposes” (Leeuwen, 2005, p. 285). According to Leeuwen (2005), the resources are signifiers that have a theoretical and an actual semiotic potential constituted by all their past uses which are known to and considered relevant by the users of the resource. Furthermore, the potential uses are uncovered by the users based on their specific needs and interests. A mode refers to a set of socially and culturally shaped resources for making meaning. A semiotic mode is, for example, the semiotics of the image or the semiotics of music (Leeuwen, 2005).
Meaning potential can be compared with the term affordance, as it describes the meanings it affords to the individual. However, whereas affordance present meanings that have not yet been recognized, meaning potential focuses on meanings that are already introduced into society (Leeuwen, 2005). By using ‘potential’, the term
on it. Thus, a semiotic resource can have several meaning potentials in different contexts. Multimodal orchestration refers to the interplay between the modes. Any mode in the ensemble carries only a part of the message, and the orchestration is thereby the relationships between modes, which can both be aligned, complementary or
contradictory (Bezemer, J. & Jewitt, C, 2009).
3.2 Representation in Documentary Filmmaking
Bill Nichols (2017) explains that there exists six modes of representation: Poetic, Expository, Reflexive, Observational, Participatory and Performative mode. I have identified two that is interesting for this study; The expository, and the participatory mode. The expository mode addresses the viewer directly, uses titles and voices to tell a story, and wants to advance an argument (Nichols, 2017). It relies heavily on an
informing logic that is carried by the spoken word, which means that the images serve as a supporting role that “illustrate, illuminate, evoke, or act in counterpoint to what is said” (Nichols, 2017, p. 122). With the participatory mode, the filmmaker interacts with the subjects and do not merely observe them. Usually, it uses interviews or
conversations which involves collaboration or confrontation. Nichols argues that the mode embraces the spectator and that “the viewer expects to witness the historical world as represented by someone who actively engages with others” (Nichols, 2017, p. 123). The filmmaker may become a social actor him or herself, although the filmmaker will have a certain power over the camera that other social actors cannot have. It is appealing to observe what a lack of the other modes means for the validation of the films. For example, the observational mode as it honors the spirit of observing events where the camera becomes a fly on the wall with no form of interfering (Nichols, 2017).
The idea of filmmakers becoming social actors themselves in the participatory mode is worth dwelling on. Jay Ruby (1992) points out that documentary films are assumed to give a ‘voice to the voiceless’ and that the general assumption is that this task is best accomplished by professional filmmakers employing both their technical and artistic skills. He speaks of a “crisis in representation” (Ruby, 1992, p. 46) and explains how a paradigm shift has occurred in the relationship between the maker and
the filmed. One reaction to the crisis of representation by the independent documentary community, was to find ways to “speak with” or “about”, rather than to “speak
for” (Nichols, 1983, cited in Ruby, 1992, p. 48). The technological development made it possible to empower the subjects through use of on-camera-interviews that were to affect the viewers emotionally. Ruby argues that the ‘voice of God’ narration was replaced by talking head ‘expert witnesses’ which, in his opinion, grew so big it became a cliché. At the same time, outsiders’ ability to accurately represent minorities was questioned, and the misrepresentation got so entrenched that it is presumed that only the group themselves can offer a proper representation (Burton, 1958-1972, cited in Ruby 1992, p. 55). A natural consequence of this is the number of alternative cinemas that have emerged. It is essential to take into account that Ruby’s text is from 1992 and that New Media, together with Web 2.0, has emerged since then. If his historical analysis were to continue, it can be presumed that the shift to online distribution, mentioned in the context chapter, would be of great importance and possibly be considered a new paradigm shift.
3.3 Persuasion
Persuasion is mentioned as a natural part of documentary filmmaking in a considerable share of the literature that theorizes and analyzes the subject. Thus, it is difficult to find scholars within the field who actually engage with persuasion, attempting to grasp it. However, Michael Renov (1993) speaks about it shortly as he categorizes persuasion as one of four fundamental tendencies of documentary filmmaking. The four tendencies are: 1) to record, reveal, or preserve, 2) to persuade or promote, 3) to analyse or interrogate, and 4) to express (Renov, 1993, p. 21). According to Renov, to be persuaded means to be moved towards a certain comprehension of the
incommensurable, dealing with rhetorical figures, logical proofs and structuration of arguments at the level of sound and image. Furthermore, it is possible to be persuaded by the ethical status of the filmmaker or the interviewed subject. Therefore, persuasion can be seen as an emotional induction. He also emphasizes that the documentary’s truth-claim “(which says, at the very least: ‘Believe me, I’m of the world’)” (Renov, 1993, p.
30) is the baseline of persuasion for nonfiction film, whether it is propaganda or a rock documentary.
Since Renov views the four tendencies as interrelated, he does not isolate the concept. To achieve a wider perspective. I turn to media researcher Marshall Soules (2015) who, like Renov, argues that persuasion (and propaganda) are built on the foundation of rhetoric. He refers to Aristotle who argues that rhetoric leverages logos (logic and reason), pathos (appeals to emotion), and ethos (character, ethics) to persuade audiences (Soules, 2015, p. 3). According to Soules, persuasion seeks to change
attitudes, values, beliefs, and behaviors. Persuasion requires an ‘anchor’, defined as an existing belief or attitude, to be successful. Anchors provide focus and motivation for target audiences, and he continues by saying that “Peer pressure and social norms exert powerful influences and act as anchors of belief” (Soules, 2015, p. 3). Persuasive communicators build trust and anchor their argument by acknowledging values and attitudes, and since the existing anchor has already been internalized, the persuasive message can appear as common sense rather than persuasion. Thus, it can be
challenging to identify. He presents examples of Logical fallacies, which are flaws in reasoning. He explains they can be highly persuasive and skillfully framed with rhetoric devices, ambiguous language, compelling emotional appeals, and figures of speech (Soules, 2015, p. 27). In relation to my investigation, the most relevant examples are: Equivocation, vague and ambiguous language used to obscure the truth; Red herring, an irrelevant topic used to divert attention away from the main issue; Misleading vividness, emphasizing a small number of dramatic events to dispute significant evidence; Appeal to authority, where testimonies of an authority supports a claim, even though the person might not be an expert or might be biased; Bare assertion fallacy, a statement that claims it is true merely because it is asserted, highly seen in relation to expert testimonies (Soules, 2015, p. 27-28).
Soules (2015) also speak about persuasion concerning propaganda. He states that in its original meaning, propaganda promotes belief and ideology, leading toward conversion and action. He argues: “When a persuasive message is designed to benefit only the sender, it moves toward propaganda or coercion” (Soules, 2015, p. 3). He presents different forms of propaganda, categorized by Ellul, one of them being
irrational propaganda which is “filled with false logic, arguments to emotion and appeals to beliefs, myths and symbols” (Ellul, 1965 cited in Soules, 2015, p. 7-8). In contrast, there is rational propaganda that presents itself as scientific evidence. He also argues that critics generally distinguish propaganda from persuasive campaigns based on considerations of intention, scope, consequences, and sponsors. It is generally thought that propaganda is exerted by powerful sponsors such as governments, large organizations, or corporations, and, if individuals, the wealthy and powerful ones. Finally, he also mentions that propaganda differs from advocacy because it “must dominate messaging in mainstream media; the stakes (risks) are high, with considerable consequences; and there must be significant action - or inaction - based on changed attitudes” (Soules, 2015, p. 6).
3.4 Summary
To summarize the theory, social semiotics will be the overarching perspective, as it serves to study the different semiotic modes of the texts. It also allows the analysis to not merely to focus on the text, but also the context. It relates to representation because the expository and the participatory mode, presented by Nichols (20017), can be understood as semiotic resources used by the filmmakers. Persuasion proved to be a broad notion appealing to logic, emotion, and ethics. Renov’s (1993) argument about persuasion being one of four fundamental tendencies for documentary filmmaking confirms the importance of researching it further. The notion contributes to a social semiotic framework as a desired outcome for the filmmakers must be to persuade the audiences through their advocacy. Furthermore, the filmmakers are of great interest in the understanding of Vaxxed and Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis, and a social semiotic approach allows their role to be significant. Soules’ view on propaganda and its relation to persuasion was also presented. As argued in the introduction there is a great focus on documentary filmmaking as art and activism and a much more limited focus on the films as used for manipulation and propaganda. This will be accounted for in the discussion.
4. Literature Review
The following chapter offers a literature review focusing on previous studies about documentary filmmaking conducted around two of the above mentioned theoretical approaches: social semiotics and persuasion. It also takes the anti-vaccination movement into consideration as these studies allow me to position the thesis and identify knowledge gaps.
4.1 Social Semiotics in Documentaries
Ledema (2004) makes a social semiotic account of a documentary about a Melbourne hospital called Hospital: an Unhealthy Business, where he links the film’s sociopolitical intertextualities to how it is editorial put together from one second to the next (Ledema, 2004). He connects a social semiotic approach with “the political understandings, the reading positions and the practical possibilities” (Ledema, 2004, p. 5). His approach inspired me to use social semiotics for the overarching theoretical framework. It promotes detailed analysis and acknowledges that the analyst’s position guides the interpretation, which it sees as a strength rather than a failure. By analyzing micro-aspects of the film, he concludes that a social semiotic approach can contribute to the understanding of how narratives unfold and how arguments are put together and reinforced. The analysis concludes which social actors’ point of view the filmmakers favored and how the film exploited resources typically used to construe an objective view. Furthermore, it proved a heavy use of editing style, camera use, and sound
editing. He emphasizes how viewers may be critically attuned to what is said, but less to the image and sound as we often do not have any resources for dealing with them, other than intuition and commonsense. Thus, it calls for a deconstruction of the editorial choices, camera strategies, visuals, and sound. If not, “a whole universe of meanings escapes critical notice” (Ledema, 2004, p. 26). He argues that in addition to critical linguistic literacy, there is a need for a critical visual and audial literacy enabled by tools such as those made available by social semiotics.
Another study using social semiotics, made by Flowers & Swan’s (2011), examines the food social movement by analyzing the film Food, Inc. They examine the
construction of knowledge in food social movements, how they generate this
knowledge, and they focus on the film’s representation processes through the formal filmic properties. Thus, it becomes an examination of how the film shows knowledge rather than how it is consumed or produced. They thereby limit their studies as they do not look at how the film circulates, the range of economic, social and political relations, institutions and practices that surrounded the film or, finally, how it is received by its audiences (Flowers & Swan, 2011, p. 242-243). They produced a multi-modal analytical framework drawn from the work of Ledema and Leeuwen and also applied Halliday’s three metafunctions: representation, orientation, and organization, although they do not cite him for them. Under the theme representation, they examined the film’s verbal, musical, and visual representational techniques. Regarding orientation, they examined the set-up through the camera angles and distances. The organization relates to the film’s structure, rhythms, genres, and integration of different elements.
Whereas it is clear how Ledema has used social semiotics as a theoretical framework, it is more challenging to pick out in Flowers & Swan’s text. Ledema provides the reader with the analytical scheme and a selection of his samples, and makes a final conclusion on the social semiotics in the text. I argue that Flowers & Swan use it more as a method than a theoretical framework and concludes only on behalf of ‘knowledge’. Where Ledema’s text can be seen as a ‘how-to’ apply social semiotics, Flowers & Swan’s text contributes to an understanding of the method when carried out.
4.2 The Persuading Rhetoric of the Anti-vaccination
Movement
Most studies made around the anti-vaccination movement’s ways to persuade its audiences involves examining websites. For example, Kata (2011) who calls the anti-vaccination movement’s techniques for “cunning” (p. 3784) when she concludes that they take advantage of the current postmodern medical paradigm where individuals play a more involved role in their healthcare as the internet provides easy access to health information. Or Moran et al. (2016) whose study showed that anti-vaccine websites use
a wide array of persuasive tactics to influence information-seeking parents. One being anecdotal evidence in the form of personal testimonials. They also appeal to underlying values and ideologies by speaking to people’s sense of individuality or freedom of choice (Moran, et al., 2016). An interesting study by Grant et al. (2015) examined the persuasive features of pro-vaccine and vaccine-skeptical websites. They did so by conducting a qualitative analysis with the purpose of generating hypotheses concerning which features of the websites are persuasive to the people that seek information about vaccination. Similarly, as I have stated in the context chapter, they emphasize the internet’s transformation of mass communication, offering its users’ new means of information sharing. They used the anthropological method of thick description when reviewing the rhetorical features and used Aristotle’s three modes, ethos, pathos, and logos, as used in my theoretical framework, when addressing persuasion. In the analysis, they linked the modes to five categories: ownership and hyperlinks to other websites determined its ethos, the visual and textual context determined logos, and, lastly, social activity and user experience was linked to pathos. The vaccine-skeptical websites showed to have a larger digital ecology than the pro-vaccine sites because they linked to a variety of vaccine-related websites and leveraged the affordances of Web 2.0 with interactive features and digital media (Grant et al., 2015). They conclude that whereas the pro-vaccine websites concentrated on presenting evidence-based scientific research, the vaccine-skeptical sites focused on creating communities of people affected by vaccine-related practices. Grant et al. do not make a final account of Aristotle’s three modes, but one can argue the vaccine-skeptical sites rely heavily on pathos.
Bricker & Justice (2018) take on a broader perspective when examining the anti-MMR vaccine arguments. They argue that many analysts have misdiagnosed the root causes of vaccine skepticism and that it is no longer productive to discount scientific skepticism as merely a problem of ignorance, religious reasons, or conservative
ideologies. They argue that: “simplistic accusations of blame on one political or cultural subgroup are inaccurate, and that the emergence of powerful anti-vaccine advocates points to the power of a conspiracy theory supported by anecdotes” (Bricker & Justice, 2018, p. 1). They claim that anti-vaccination arguments utilize conspiracy theory rhetoric by alleging “a concerted effort by the media, government agencies, and
pharmaceutical industry to conceal the truth about the vaccination–autism link” (Bricker & Justice, 2018, p. 6). They explain how conspiracy theories can help parents of
autistic children to combat a sense of powerlessness. They end their article by making an account of two anti-vaccine texts, Callous Disregard and Vaxxed, by taking on a conspiracy theoretical framework. They conclude that the conspiracy elements of the texts enhance the persuasiveness of the personal anecdotes and that ‘together’ serves as important psychological functions for the audience ((Bricker & Justice, 2018, p. 13).
4.2 Situating the Study within the Literature
This thesis can enrich previously reviewed literature, as it builds on a new tradition of using social semiotics as an analytical framework when critically engaging with documentaries, and in particular, documentaries concerning a societal issue. In the literature review of the persuading rhetoric of the Anti-vaccination Movement, it
became clear to me that most research is done on websites or the movement per se. So, I also believe that my study enriches previous literature by examining what I perceive as an equally powerful means regarding the movement’s persuasion strategy. Most of the research I have reviewed uses a qualitative approach, which I also use in the thesis. A reason for this is that I want to make this case study an exploration. Another reason is that documentaries about and for the anti-vaccination movement have not, to my knowledge, been subject to research before. In my opinion, it is difficult to quantify a problem when not having anything to build it on. I hope that this qualitative research potentially will foster quantitative research on the matter.
5. Methodology
As my research consists of two case studies, I have chosen a qualitative approach where I work from an interpretive point of view, conducting a content analysis. According to Flick (2014), there are several reasons to analyze qualitative data.One of my aims is to identify the documentarian means the filmmakers use, which consequently cause it to be difficult to distinguish them from what is generally perceived as documentary practice.
Another aim is to research how the filmmakers represent their claims and how they persuade their audiences. It involves a study of both the visuals, the verbal text, and sound elements from a social semiotics’ point of view. I see it as a beneficial method as it allows me to analyze the content from various angles, emphasizing precisely the elements I, as the interpreter, find most important. In the following section, I will describe my use of content analysis.
5.1 Content analysis
I hope my interpretation can serve to explain the embedded relationships enforced by the filmmakers to persuade their audiences. I have chosen these specific documentaries for several reasons. Firstly, Wakefield is considered the key person in the controversy. Secondly, it is the same director and producer behind the films, which makes it possible for me to conduct an in-depth analysis of exactly their methods for persuading the audiences. Thirdly, Vaxxed 2 will be online from November, 2019. I have chosen to conduct a content analysis as the interpretation serves to validate the truth-claims the film makes about reality (Flick, 2009). For this, I turn to Rick Ledema (2004) who presents six levels of analyzing content in documentaries: 1. Frame; 2. Shot; 3. Scene; 4. Sequence; 5. Generic stage; 6. Work as a whole (Ledema, 2004, p. 189). Frame, which is seen as the lowest level of analysis, is defined as a still taken from a shot. This is the only level in the analysis that excludes spoken texts and sound elements. Thus, studying frames means to transform moving images into stills to analyze details and the setting of a documentary (Pollak, 2008). The next level concerns shots, which are uncut camera actions. Following shots come scenes which are defined by a continuity of time and space that can include more than one shot. The fourth level concerns sequences which comprise contiguous scenes, not linked by time and space, but based on thematic or logical continuity. The fifth level regards generic stages, which are combined
sequences. A generic stage marks significant shifts in the documentary. Ledema (2004) exemplifies it by saying that characters may display a shift from resistance to
acceptance, from pursuit to confrontation or from struggle to abandonment. In a
shift in topic, time, or place. These shifts are usually highlighted by editing features (a change in the visual or auditory elements). The generic stages tell us where we are in the overall filmic text. Depending on the result from the other levels, the sixth level, work as a whole, will be more or less classifiable as a particular genre. Ledema (2004) claims that the primary distinction between genres is ‘narrative’ and ‘factual’ genres. They are defined as “predictable relations between social-cultural, industrial-economic and symbolic-mythic orders” (Ledema, 2004, p. 189). I have chosen this procedure because each level, from 1-6, offers a broad perspective and ample space for interpretation.
5.1.1 Sample
My sample consists of excerpts from the films, retrieved July 15, 2019. As the films are published online, I cannot guarantee that the films have not been or will be subject to change, as this happens with several online distributed films. As far as I know, this is the only published versions at this given point in time. As I have previously established with my theoretical framework, the notions I want to explore are already embedded in my mind: I presume certain things about the filmmakers after studying their background and motives, and thus my focused interpretation is already affected by my overall assumption of the film. To be on front foot of my own bias, I have watched the
documentaries several times before reducing the possibilities and ultimately deciding on the final sample. Firstly, I identified the broader categories and then I found the excerpts that were most representative for each category. As repetition in mood and style occurs, I did not find it beneficial to conduct a in-depth analysis of the films’ full length.
Furthermore, I have prioritized to focus on the filmmakers as they play a dual role, switching between directing/producing and being an expert or eye witness. My sample consists of excerpts from the films which differ in mode, style, and content. The excerpts can be categorized as: Intro, home-videos, interviews, and motion graphics.
5.1.2 Conduct
After deciding on my sample, I conducted the content analysis with a systematic procedure, as presented by Field (1988). Whereas Ledema’s six levels are used to differentiate and define the components in the documentary, Field’s approach is used to systematize the analysis within these components. It is usually applied for analyzing television news as his process is beneficial to get an overview and categorize the empirical material. He breaks it down in eight stages: 1. unitizing content; 2. transcription; 3. developing and using categories; 4. verbal analysis; 5. vocal and expressive analysis; 6. scene composition analysis; 7 describing the interplay of
components; 8. toward explanation (Fields, 1988, p. 184). I have adjusted his procedure to fit the content and to make it function together with Ledema’s level of analysis. The result is Table 1, and in the appendix, there is a complete scheme with an overview of the in-depth analyzed excerpts.
In this case, unitizing content meant to identify the parts of the film I want to analyze. The transcription was made in a separate document. The categories described in the section about my sample are the result of Field’s third stage: developing and using categories. Before considering Field’s fourth stage, the analytical level informs which of Ledema’s levels the analysis operates on. The verbal analysis is referred to as rhetoric and deals with the argumentations. Rhetoric also considers the vocal and expressive analysis if noteworthy. After this, I have added sound as this is together with image and verbal text a semiotic resource the filmmakers use. An analysis of the image and scene composition follows, including camera angles, and finally, I will conduct a description of the interplay between the modes.
Table 1: Analytical Scheme
Unit Category Analytical Level
Overall descriptio
n
Rhetoric Sound compositionScene Interplay 1
2 3
5.2 Limitations
The primary challenge in using this method is its flexibility and that there is no “right” way to carry it out (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). The analysis relies solely on the interpreter. For this reason, film analyses are rarely conducted exclusively but as an addition to other methods (Flick, 2009). I have decided to set aside this stance. As a consequence, I must study the content from every aspect possible. To assure validation, I created the analytical scheme above which considers an in-depth analysis of the visuals, audio, and the rhetorical strategies embedded in the sample. According to Titscher et al. (cited in Kohlbacher, 2006), content analysis is always used if the communicative content is of greatest importance, if it is possible to formulate categories in advance, or if the analysis is concerned with the lexicon of a text. I believe the films fulfill those criteria.
Furthermore, the theoretical framework is clear, offering a structured procedure for how to conduct the analysis. I am confident in relying exclusively on this method, but I acknowledge that this research is a product of my subjective assessment, which is why I have considered the validation of the research. The intention of explaining my method and how I have conducted the analysis in details is to give the reader a full
understanding of the process and how I have treated the data. Finally, as a consequence of the scope of the thesis, the method also limits the study to concentrate on the content only. It does not take into consideration the prior circumstances such as production and economy, or the aftermath, such as audience reactions and media effects.
5.3 Ethical Implications
Before initiating the analysis, I have considered the ethical issues that might arise from using qualitative content analysis as a method. When engaging with a visual method, informed consent is usually a central principle. However, as my sample consists only of excerpts of an already publicized documentary, informed consent is not necessary (Collins, 2010). Furthermore, the films are still available online. Even though it is not necessary, my moral outlook makes me consider some precautions as I do not wish to take advantage of the fact that there is no agreement in place with the filmmakers or the filmed subjects. Consequently, when choosing samples from the category called Home
video footage, it became essential to me to only use excerpts that are in line with the verbal text in the film. Thereby, I could partly make sure that the home video belonged to the interviewed subject. Furthermore, I have edited the still images into black and white drawings in my analysis, to keep the social actors’ identity discrete. In my findings, I point out a situation in Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis, where I question the filmmakers’ intentions, and I argue there is an ethical issue when they film Alex in a vulnerable state. My immediate thought was to present still images of the situation, showing Alex’s discomfort with being filmed. However, I realized that this decision would go against my moral outlook, and finally, I removed the images.
It is also essential to me to emphasize that the analysis does not aim to question if their belief is valid or not. The purpose is not to engage in a discussion about whether the claim is true or not, but how documentary filmmaking is used to advocate their belief. Some people might find it irrelevant to examine films with such radical claims, but the fact that they are not considered respectable should not exclude them from research. As Barkun puts it:
Failing to analyze them will not keep some people from believing them, and history is littered with academically disreputable ideas that have had devastating effects—for example, the scientific acceptance of racial differences in the nineteenth century. Failure to examine them did not cause them to disappear. My examination of certain odd beliefs does not signify my acceptance of them (Barkun, p. 10, 2003)
By being in an ongoing dialogue with the theoretical framework, consisting of theories I find credible, I believe I have conducted the content analysis respectfully and thus ensured its validity.
6. Results and Analysis
Before presenting my results, I will consider the intertextuality of the films which is central to social semiotics. Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis premiered the year before Vaxxed and has arguably contributed to the meaning-shaping of Vaxxed, and thereby the audience’s interpretation of the text and understanding of the filmmakers. The first film
highly leverages pathos by appealing to emotions, whereas the second film is a mostly logical and ethical account of their argumentation. The films do not comment on each other, but they have various similarities. Firstly, besides having the same director and producer, several of the social actors appear in interviews in both films. Reed for example, who is acting as a mother to an autistic child in Vaxxed is the nurse who have been contacted by a whistleblower in Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis. Secondly, they both connect the MMR vaccine to autism. In Vaxxed, this is the focal point. In Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis, this happens at the end of the film and does not get much attention. I do not know if Vaxxed was already in production when they finished Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis, but the interposed remark certainly connects the films. Thirdly, they both present a whistleblower. The whistleblower in Vaxxed is used
throughout the film and is the reason behind them disclosing the alleged fraud. The two films also interrelate to other texts with the same purpose, such as the youtube channel, fiction film, and magazine mentioned in the context chapter. Furthermore, it has come to my attention that several YouTube videos have been released subsequently to the films to explain different aspects. For example how Brian Hooker in Vaxxed legally taped the phone conversations with the whistleblower, which we are presented extracts from. This is one of the consequences of online distribution that I have mentioned earlier.
The following section takes the form by discussing each aspect from my theoretical framework by analyzing the following: the utilization of the four
fundamental tendencies within documentary filmmaking; the introductions as they set the tone of the films; the three technical resources identified when categorizing my sample; the filmmakers role as social actors.
6.1 The Fundamental Tendencies
To approach my research questions, I will first use Renov’s four tendencies, as
presented in the chapter about persuasion. Renov (1993) argues that the four tendencies are fundamental of documentary filmmaking. Thus, they can reveal how the filmmakers
make use of recognizable conventions of documentary practice. For clarity, the four tendencies are:
1. to record, reveal or preserve 2. to persuade or promote 3. to analyze or interrogate 4. to express.
The films intend to reveal the truth behind CDC’s (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) motives to preserve the MMR vaccination and the consequences of it. Whereas Vaxxed focuses on the controversy Wakefield’s research caused and the filmmakers’ accusation of the CDC, Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis tells the story of Alex, his mother, and godmother. The filmmakers aim to persuade their audiences about the truth. They do so by analyzing and interrogating the facts, CDC’s arguments, and the system’s medical treatment of a boy who has suffered as a cause of CDC’s motives. To persuade their audiences, they use different rhetorical strategies, utilizing Aristotle’s logos, pathos, and ethos. Vaxxed uses all three strategies in persuading its audience: Logos is present in expert witness interviews, explanatory motion graphics, and academic references. Pathos is established within home-videos and emotional
interviews with relatives to autistic children. Finally, ethos is identified when presenting a whistleblower and by emphasizing the professional status of the experts in the film. Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis mainly rely on emotional interaction with its audience as it tells the personal story of Alex, his relatives and their meeting with the system.
However, logos and ethos is also present and founded in the same technical resources as Vaxxed.
To utilize the first three tendencies, the filmmakers use different forms of expression founded within documentary practice. As already established, the films can be seen as a mean for advocating a conspiracy theory. Some conspiracy documentaries use crude forms of proselytizing (Sørensen, 2014). However, I will argue that Vaxxed and Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis belong to the conspiracy documentarian genre, which stays close to what is conceived as established and accepted documentary formats. I will argue that a reason for this can be found in the trust audiences already have in the
documentary tradition. As Renov argues: the baseline of persuasion is the documentary format’s ability to claim truth. Taking Nichols’ (2017) modes of representation into account, both films’ overall mode is the expository and, from time to time, the
participatory mode. The expository mode is observable in the constant presence of the voice-of-god narrator in Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis, the headlines used in Vaxxed when the filmmakers exhibit their pieces of evidence, and in the informing logic by the talking head expert witnesses. The participatory mode can be seen in the interaction between the filmmakers and the social actors in interviews and conversations, mainly in Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis. Both modes are commonly used in various documentary genres.
From the above, I can conclude that the films use all four of Renov’s tendencies of documentary practice. By fulfilling all four tendencies, the films point to the problem of persuasive messages appearing as common sense rather than persuasion, as explained by Soules (2015). The persuasive messages are communicated through an overall accepted media form; thus, the communicators have already built trust merely by making use of documentary conventions, and the persuasion can thereby be challenging to identify. Overall, the films use three semiotic resources to persuade their audiences; home-videos, motion graphics, and interviews. I will take a closer at their chosen resources after analyzing and establishing the meaning of the films’ introduction.
6.2 The Intro
6.2.1 Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis
Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis begins with a shot consisting of a home-video of Alex and his mother, Dorothy, smiling and kissing each other. There is only diegetic sound present until the voiceover begins to speak and sad piano music starts to play: "What turned Dorothy Spourdalakis, a loving mother…” cut to Alex’s godmother, Jolanta sitting in a chair, “…and Jolanta Agata Skrodzka, a loving godmother, into killers”. On ‘killers’ a non-diegetic sound of a camera taking a photo is used and the piano stops playing. The picture shifts to two mugshots of Dorothy and Jolanta who both look
devastated. Then begins a montage of different news covering the case and the trial while underlying music plays. A new shot is established, a close-up of Polly Tommey, speaking on the phone, and the voice over continues:
In February 2013, the Autism Team, a group of professionals dedicated to treating autism, received a plea for help on behalf of a sick and severely affected child. A 14-year-old boy in a four point locked restraint in the Chicago hospital.
While the voice-over tells the story, we see the autism team sit in their studio, talking. When mentioning the sick and severely affected child, we see a close-up brought by FOX news channel, of an arm strapped to a bed. It zooms out, and we see it is Alex.
A boy being treated, in the words of witnesses, like an animal. What followed is a story of our time. A tragedy. One of an antiquated and failed perception of autism as a psychiatric condition. One that has blamed bad parents and bad genes. That sees autism as irreversible, amenable only to damage control with restrained, locked doors, electrocution and
psychiatry’s panacea of mind-altering drugs.
Then we see shots of Leo Kanner and Bruno Bettelheim, two former children’s
psychiatrists and finally, pictures from a surveillance camera of a strapped person who is screaming like an animal. The voiceover continues while the camera zooms out from a sunrise taken over by a candlelight that the wind blows out as the voiceover utters a last sentence:
A perception now challenged by a new vital view of autism as a medical condition, (shot of a lighted candle in the dark) one that for many can be understood treated, and ultimately prevented. But not in time for Alex Spourdalakis.
Black screen and the title song begins while we see a close-up of Alex’ death certificate being filled out. The intro ends with a quote from Joseph Stalin: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic…”
The sequence last 2:56 minutes with long shots, creating a low tempo, and consists of home-videos, news broadcasts, still pictures, motion graphics and shots of as the alleged ‘Autism Team’. It uses the voice-of-God technique, a narrator, known from Nichols’ (2017) expository mode, to address the viewer. This serves to assemble the historical fragments into a united rhetorical and narrative frame, controlled by the filmmakers. In the news montage they use diegetic sound, and the shots can be
understood as icons used for authenticity and claim truthfulness. The montage is used to display the medias’ representation of the case, for example by showing a clip of an anchorman saying “prosecutors call it a cold, calculated and premeditated murder…”. The media gets connected with expressing accusation and judgment towards Dorothy and Jolanta. This reinforces the positive self-image that the filmmakers want to construct in the next shots of, first Polly Tommey, and second, the rest of the autism team. They are connected with words as ‘professionals’ and ‘dedicated’ by the help of
the narrator, creating a contrast between the media outlets and the autism team.
Furthermore, the narrator shifts his intonation from severe and dark to light and hopeful when the sunrise appears and announces that the autism team challenges old perceptions of autism; they bring new hope to autistic children and their families. Another way in which they persuade their audiences is with heavy use of images of autistic children strapped or having attacks, inducing the audience with emotions. The viewer cannot escape the horrifying pictures and can only be left with agreeing to the filmmakers’ argumentation about the current perception of autism having failed: ‘There must be a more human destiny for these children’. The images and the voice-of-God follow each other throughout the intro. From this, I will argue that the interplay between the modes, in this instance, the combination of image and verbal text, is orchestrated as
complementary as explained by Bezemer J. & Jewitt, C. (2009). That said, there is also a contrast between the strong and horrifying pictures of Alex and other children and the calm voice of the narrator, leaving the impression that the viewer can trust the narrator and that he will guide the viewer safely through the documentary.
Finally, I want to point out the meaning potentials of the quote by Joseph Stalin that ends the intro: "The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic…”. The quote itself complements the rest of the intro. The word ‘tragedy’ is also used by the narrator when speaking about Alex’s case. It validates the reasons for telling Alex’s story and emphasizes the effects the filmmakers intend to create with the film. If I look at it as a semiotic resource, it is inevitably to consider the source. The viewer is doubtful to connect Joseph Stalin and his actions to positive artifacts. In this context, Stalin can be seen as the evil face of a society or system that suppresses its citizens, and one can argue that the filmmakers use him as a symbol of the healthcare system. It creates an image of the filmmakers being the underdogs fighting against the great evil in the same way we see in many conspiracy theory documentaries.
6.2.2 Vaxxed
Vaxxed starts with a news montage regarding a measles outbreak in Disney Land, California, explained as the worst spread in fifteen years. Throughout the montage, they use dramatic music to create tension. Thirty-nine seconds into the film, in the middle of
the news montage, a reporter asks an interviewee: “I mean, is this all basically because of the anti-vaccination movement? Because parents aren’t vaccinating their kids?” Whereafter the interviewee hesitates and stutters as he answers: “Yeah, you know, I think so.” From here, the news montage shifts from informing about the outbreak to accusing the anti-vaccination movement of being the cause of the outbreak, also
mentioning Wakefield’s study linking vaccination to autism. Subsequently the montage shifts focus again to explain how a bill gets passed, requiring children to be vaccinated. It ends with an interview with Barack Obama who encourages people to look at the science and CDC’s information about the subject. His last words are: “Get your children vaccinated.” The news montage happens in a high tempo and lasts for 1 minute and 40 seconds. “Get your children vaccinated” is left in the air, and a black screen occurs, lasting for four seconds, which is relatively long for a black screen, and the music stops. In the last second of the black screen, we hear the sounds of a computer-typing. The tempo shifts and becomes calm while the sequence now shows a shot of hands typing on a computer keyboard. A voice-over starts to speak:
“I have waited a long time to tell my story and I want to tell it truthfully. I was involved in deceiving millions of taxpayers regarding the potential negative side effects of vaccines. We lied about the scientific findings. The CDC can no longer be trusted to do vaccine safety work. Can’t be trusted to be transparent. The CDC can’t be trusted to police itself. Just a few thoughts.”
It is followed by the name and title of William W. Thompson, the whistleblower, in an outdated word-art style. Music creating tension plays as we see a syringe injecting blue smoke on a black background. The smoke fills out the screen, and the title ‘Vaxxed’ appears with white letters, except for the second ‘x’ which is red.
Whereas the intro to Who Killed Alex Spourdalakis mainly appeals to the audience’s emotions, Vaxxed’s introduction highly appeals to the audience’s sense of justice and autonomy. The rhetorical strategy lies in the news montage’s narrative: Firstly, they establish the problem of the measles outbreak. Secondly, they create the understanding that the government and media outlets needed a scapegoat, which resulted in the anti-vaccination movement being blamed. This understanding is later followed-up by Bigtree, producer and featuring in the film, when he explains that none mainstream news outlet spoke about the movement revealing the CDC’s fraud as Big Pharma finances them. Especially the shot of an interviewee hesitating when answering can be understood as a lie in an attempt of covering it up. Thirdly, they show shots of a senator offering legislation to abolish personal belief exemptions, leading to the bill getting passed that forces children to get vaccinated if they are in institutions: ‘If you are not vaccinated, you cannot go on with your everyday life.’ Finally, by showing the
president, the most significant authority in the U.S, giving the same advice as the CDC, they connect him with the fraud which conclusively expresses the filmmakers’ truth: ‘They are all a part of the conspiracy.’ It is a general assumption that news outlets should objectively report about the world, but at the same time, people are also skeptical about the media. I will argue that In Vaxxed, the filmmakers utilize the viewer’s
skepticism by taking the news fragments out of their original context and compose them in a way that it becomes meaningful to themselves. The meaning of this news montage is finally to create an ‘us’ and ‘them,’ resembling Barkun’s (2003) definition of
conspiracy belief. ‘They,’ the CDC, the media, and the government are the evil forces, that are “disguised as innocent and upright” (Barkun, 2003, p 3).
The “fade to black” is, as already mentioned, longlasting and notable.
Considering it from a social semiotic point of view, one can argue that the filmmakers transform a technical resource into a semiotic resource; thus, the “fade to black” has high semiotic meaning. The stillness of the longlasting black screen establishes a shift from the former chaos to a calm, poetic mode supported by a voice-over speaking for the whistleblower, which forms the semiotic multimodality. It creates the idea that the audience will be part of something confidential; in this case, the first connection between the whistleblower and Brian Hooker. The following written text appears ongoing, creating an interplay between the spoken and written text as if the text is written in the very moment the viewer reads it. William W. Thompson, the
whistleblower, is introduced and the rest of the film is mainly built up around his revealing accounts of CDC where he is a senior scientist. The filmmakers communicate that this is an email written by Thompson. We do not know who the receiver is, but I assume it is Brian Hooker who Thompson throughout the film provides with
information and data to expose the CDC. The text is working as a persuasive message to engage the audience in the narrative that will follow. By proclaiming his guild, “I was involved in deceiving millions of taxpayers regarding the potential negative side effects of vaccines,” he stands out as a martyr, willing to sacrifice his career for doing what is right. The text speaks directly to the viewer. You are the taxpayer who has been
deceived, and it is your child who can or will potentially feel the negative side effects of vaccines. By acknowledging important values within the viewer, the filmmakers
