YTread Logo
YTread Logo

Film Theory: Are Shane Dawson's Videos Dangerous? (Shane Dawson The Mind of Jake Paul Docu-Series)

Jun 09, 2021
Hello Internet! Welcome to Film Theory and the third and final episode of our brief foray into investigative journalism. Thanks for moving forward! I know this was a change for the channel, but honestly, this was a project that I was personally passionate about. After watching Shane's

series

on Jake, there were three main themes I wanted to address. First, as a creator on this platform for a large part of my life, I wanted to explore the ulterior motives behind this new generation of YouTuber and the way in which they, and the corporations that often fund them, could be exploiting the trust of the audience.
film theory are shane dawson s videos dangerous shane dawson the mind of jake paul docu series
Secondly, as a parent and early childhood education advocate, I wanted to raise awareness about the manipulation inherent in advertising to children and why it is so easy to do; whether it was intentional or not. and finally we come to today's episode, where as a viewer I wanted to take a step back and cover Shane's trend in

docu

series

in general, to raise awareness about him and, more importantly, the

dangerous

tactics that storytellers can use to influence. Your opinions about the characters and their stories. Now, as I've made these last few episodes, I've seen a lot of comments from all of you that mirrored a lot of my own feelings when I watched Shane's series about Jake for the first time. "I wish Shane wouldn't hold back.
film theory are shane dawson s videos dangerous shane dawson the mind of jake paul docu series

More Interesting Facts About,

film theory are shane dawson s videos dangerous shane dawson the mind of jake paul docu series...

He's too empathetic." "I love Shane, but sometimes his

videos

in this category don't always reveal the whole truth or go as deep as he could when he's searching for the truth." "He promoted this as if nothing was off the table. It was clear some things were off the table." Personally, I wanted to see Jake Paul answer for things like his business decisions and his merchandise, but instead the whole thing felt like a big redemption arc for him. Which begs the question: Should Shane have covered all that "business stuff"? Does it matter that he didn't do it?
film theory are shane dawson s videos dangerous shane dawson the mind of jake paul docu series
And most importantly, are his

docu

mentary series really

dangerous

because of the way he portrays the people who appear in them? Almost as soon as the Jake Paul documentary began airing, Shane was criticized for giving Jake a platform and then intensifying the drama of his story by comparing him to sociopaths. And then, playing dramatic music and using editing tricks to emphasize specific moments, and finally, making excuses for Jake's bad behavior by blaming his parents and his brother. So was the Internet right to criticize Shane? Today we will find out. Oh, and in case you were sick of the guy, this

theory

isn't about Jake anymore.
film theory are shane dawson s videos dangerous shane dawson the mind of jake paul docu series
No. This time the entire bank of Shane Daw documentaries is under my theoretical microscope. Shane, "Oh, I'm nervous" MatPat: You probably should be. Or maybe not! The only way to find out is to dive in. The first, and perhaps biggest, complaint Shane received in his coverage of Jake Paul was his use of music to overemphasize certain key moments early in the series. Jake Paul might be a sociopath, *dramatic chord licks *he has a creepy father, *mysterious high pitched violin chord* Many viewers found him fake and manipulative. And in response, it's something Shane held back as the series progressed.
But even shots like this, the last in the series, *a slow, depressing piano with equally depressing and sad vocals* in slow motion with somber piano music playing underneath is manipulative, turning a simple walk away from the camera into something much more: a deep, meaningful and reflective moment in which Jake's false personality is finally abandoned. One moment he yells, "This! This here is the real Jake Paul!" When, seriously, he was barely walking away from the camera. All of these things: horror, glitches, slow motion shots, and sad music are examples of the psychological principle known as priming. Just as you coat a wall with primer before applying paint to make the paint smoother, you prepare your audience to more easily accept what you are trying to convince them of. *gradually more disturbingly* You know how you know there's about to be a scare in a horror movie because you're walking into a scary place, and then a door starts creaking open and... the music changes? *usually* That's one form of preparation.
But it's not just about music and editing. Everyone has joked that it takes a long time to get a Shane docuseries started. All that time Shane spends talking about how nervous he is and generally spending a lot of time self-deprecating. both in this series and in the Jeffree Star series. But why? Why is he so nervous? No one talks about this, but Shane has a massive presence on YouTube. He is one of the oldest and most beloved creators on the platform. He doesn't need to be nervous around anyone and yet he presents himself as insecure around his subjects.
Well, whether he means it or not, he is preparing his audience to feel the same way he does, as if he is entering the presence of someone much greater. If Shane Dawson approaches Jeffree Star or Jake Paul as a guy who looks up to them or just wants to impress them, is up to him or just wants to impress him, well, it primes us as an audience to think those people are worthy, too. of those emotions. Anticipation of him becomes our anticipation. He's the audience surrogate when what we're really seeing is just one big online celebrity talking to another big online celebrity.
I mean, seriously Shane, you've been a YouTube star for over a decade; I have a house in a really exclusive area of ​​Los Angeles. You are more important than many of the subjects of your documentaries. I mean, sure, you can buy t-shirts at Target, but that's because Target sells really good t-shirts. Anyway, both Shane and Jake also use "lampshade" a lot throughout the series to get you to think how they want you to think. Basically, lampshading is the technique of criticizing yourself instead of waiting for people to use that criticism against you. In the case of Jake Paul's documentary series, video one is dedicated to Shane acknowledging beforehand that people will hate him for making the

videos

.
That they will "discount" that they will accuse him of giving Jake a platform. Shane Dawson, "Shane, if you do this, we'll stop writing... ...we don't want to be a part of this." I will literally stop watching Shane Dawson if he tries to sit here and make me feel bad for Jake Paul. And, sure, some people did all those things, 🅱but 🅱because Shane overshadowed us with those arguments, they immediately lost most of the power they would have had if they had just gotten out of the 🅱lue. Jake Paul also speaks in his opening call to Shane saying that people "hate him" and that Shane will regret doing this.
Jake Paul, "People HATE me... ...like they literally hate me... And... Jake Paul "I... ...I don't. If this is going to hurt you, then "I don't want to do it." Acknowledging his own flaws or at least having other people say that he has flaws, which in turn deprives the haters of all their ammunition. I mean, I confront myself all the time on the show. . Screen that my jokes are 🅱 advertising 🅱 because they are all the time. It's time for your interview, huh... Uh... How come it's time to not have an embarrassing intro joke at the expense of Markiplier personalities?
Oh Hwoh! *husky laugh* And what that allows me to do is turn off all comments about my embarrassing humor, even my lampshade is itself a lampshade. You can't blame me if I admit it and move on. , so let's move on. And finally there is the framing. Framing is essentially how something is presented to an audience that influences the decisions people make about how to process that information. The most important piece of framing in the Shane series is the whole discussion about "sociopaths" at the beginning of the series. By simply asking the question, "Are Jake and Logan sociopaths?", he frames every interaction and video clip that happens afterward in a way that makes you think, "Hey... maybe THEY ARE sociopaths by saying THIS: Shane Dawson," and the more I realized and researched and the more I learned about sociopaths," and then showing this, where Logan goes from pretending to be nervous to not being Logan Paul, "...a great scene in my first big Hollywood movie." ... .. .and I just wanted to...
I'm just, Me! Ha! *claps"... I'm just kidding! I'm so fucking excited!" Suddenly, this is no longer just someone putting on a show for the camera. But rather, it's implicitly saying, "Wow," this person must have a facade, a lack of emotion. He must be evidence of sociopathy. Mentioning the word "sociopath" and using this treatment Shane, "He's a sociopath," is very different than using this treatment, "He's a sociopath." *kids applauding* And again let me screen the lamp. I know because I do it all the time. This type of framing happens over and over again along with preparing to paint a picture of people who can't speak for themselves before seeing images of Jake's father;
We start with the fact that Shane and his team have heard that it's weird. Shane: "I've heard weird things about the father, but I've never actually seen..." Andrew: "I've definitely heard things, yeah." And yeah, that's okay , sure it's definitely weird. But Shane sets us up to already have these preconceived notions about the characters surrounding Jake Paul based on the way he's talked about them beforehand. One of the most important framing decisions any

film

maker has is how to end his

film

. Shane could have ended his docuseries any way he wanted. Like say with Jake's ex-girlfriend Alyssa Violet, a moment that, as I understand it, chronologically seemed to be one of the last things he filmed.
That would leave a much different impression on the overall narrative arc of the story than ending on that sad slow-motion piano shot. And it sure is a big decision, but even the smallest things are subject to framing. Check this out: Shane, late night, cooking, torn pajamas, buying a Diet Coke, great drink choice, by the way. This shot seems like it's doing nothing, but it's actually there because it frames what comes next. Shane: "An update and also a disclaimer and also an apology. That's a lot." He addresses it directly by addressing the audience's first criticisms directed at the early parts of the series.
This scene makes him sympathetic, downtrodden, and relatable. He's been up all night. He drinks Diet Coke and has torn pajamas like us. This apology would look and feel very different if it were framed, for example, in the foyer of his mansion with the Jeep in front of him. I think that's my, and many other viewers', biggest problem with the Shane docuseries. Which was meant to be an honest revelation about this controversial figure. Shane: "I want to be really honest about it and investigate you..." But in the end, it came out biased in Jake's favor and honestly, that makes sense, right?
Controversial figures will not simply agree to expose videos about themselves. To gain the level of access that Shane has, the subject of the videos must be confident that the story being told will benefit them. But that's not how this thing was rated. And it wasn't just this one about Jake Paul either. How can you make an honest assessment of the disaster that was TanaCon, looking for someone to blame, when Tana Mongeau herself, who created the unfortunate event in the first place, was the one who accepted the Streamy award from her? in your absence. Tyler Oakley, "The Streamy Acceptance in Her Name is Tana Mongeau." Gabbie Hanna's reaction right there, yes, relatable hashtag, was mine.
The person who scammed her fans and made them wait outside for several days and then was exposed by Shane, is she the one who will accept the award from her? It's a strange choice. Tana Mongeau, "I think we can all agree that this is the only time I will receive the "Creator of the Year" award. To be honest, I wouldn't even be doing anything if it wasn't for Shane." And then Shane tweets about her being her family. Shane: "I'm too kind, too forgiving, and too loyal." You can't do that Shane! You are a documentary filmmaker. We need you to expose the unbiased truths.
You are the arbiter of these facts, is what I thought. But in researching this episode, I discovered that I was wrong and I couldn't have been more wrong. "Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong" When I, and I'm sure many of you, think of the term 'documentary', I think we all have a pretty clear image in our heads of an antelope running away from lions in Africa. or a trip through the cosmos, or an informative documentary about people like "Jiro Dreams of Sushi" or "Exit Through the Gift Shop", all narrated by Morgan Freeman; Morgan Freeman, "I'm Morgan Freeman," because it's always Morgan Freeman.
Morgan Freeman, "We are all travelers on an endless journey of discovery." Documentaries are what my parents used to watch on the History Channel and now Shane Dawson is making a cool new version of them using YouTube vlog style with investigative journalism. But here's the thing: documentaries aren't what you thought they were; There are some really famous places you can go to show off your documentary filmmaking skills, like theCano Sundance Film Festival. Both have entry definitions for their documentary film divisions that essentially boil down to the following five components: one, the use of inventive film language and the ability to connect with an audience.
Two, the use of effective narration. Three, originality. Fourth, cultural relevance. And finally, they have to inspire the audience to want to know more about their topic. And that is! That's really the list of criteria for a documentary film. Do you notice something is missing? From the outset, there is nothing that says that documentaries have to be truthful. I mean, sure it has to meet the dictionary definition of documentary, which is a film about a real person or event, but there's nothing in these criteria about having to tell the whole story or portray the subject in a balanced way.
All you have to do is talk about them. Documentaries are about being effective storytellers, not about being effective journalists. According to Bill Nichols, one of the world's leading documentary scholars and theorists (I'm not making up his title), he is a true film theorist, the purpose of a documentary is not to educate you, but to persuade you. Nichol states, in that quote, "Documentary films make an effort to convince, persuade, or predispose us to a particular view of the world...they may entertain or please, but they do so in relation to rhetoric or persuasive effort directed at the social world." existing", end of quote.
All those documentaries about penguins on melting ice caps, what they're really doing is trying to persuade us to stop global warming. Those Neil deGrasse Tyson astronomy documentaries? Fund space research. "Jiro dreams of sushi"? Eat more sushi! And, from the looks of it, Shane meets all of these criteria as well. TanaCon expo blames attendees and gives them a refund. Interviewing Jeffree Star? Changing the audience's opinion of someone who had been branded as a racist, dumb beauty influencer. Investigating Jake Paul? Eeehhh... It's a little unclear. But he ended up rehabilitating his image and differentiating him from Logan. Shane has three documentaries in the works.
Just not documentary in the way that I, and I think a lot of his audience, understood them. It's interesting. When you step back and look at this entire series, this three-part series on film

theory

, it all comes down to one central theme: manipulation through the medium. In episodes 1 and 2, I gave Jake a hard time because he and his corporate sponsors are exploiting the inherent trust that comes from the digital video medium. YouTube is different from movies and television, at least for now. Viewers expect more authenticity from it because it is literally people holding a camera in front of their faces.
There's a perceived truthfulness on YouTube that can lead people to believe that creators don't have their own agenda, when we've seen with people like Jake, they certainly do. The same can be said for Shane, to a very different extent; We just spent, however many minutes this video lasts, talking about how Shane just produced a textbook documentary using persuasive techniques like framing and setup that any good storyteller uses. There's absolutely nothing wrong with him except the runtime because, seriously, dude, he just makes some tough editing decisions and cuts everything out, for God's sake. No, the problem is with us, the viewer.
If you're surprised to learn that documentaries are manipulative and biased like it honestly was for me, then you and I are the problem. We expect our documentarians to be honest, but they are not. And, depending on your environment, they don't have to be. So what makes them dangerous is not the way they present themselves, but the way we observe them. We expect the documentary medium to be truthful, but there is no requirement for it. We watch YouTube and documentaries as if we are seeing something absolutely true when that couldn't be further from the truth. I know you probably thought this episode would end with me attacking Shane, because I often frame episodes that way, but the truth is, what he's doing is smart, not just from a YouTube programming perspective, but from the from the point of view of cultural relevance.
The real takeaway from this episode in this whole series of theories from Jake Paul's series, "documentary theory", eh, ha, I like it, is this: don't accept everything you see as fact and don't expect people to in Youtube. to be truthful or impartial, even your absolutely favorite creators. I can tell you that most of us try to be as honest as possible when we make videos. But everyone, everyone, has some kind of agenda. And critical thinking is the only thing that stands between you and being fooled. Don't be someone who passively accepts what you're told, whether it's buying tickets to a 19-year-old YouTube convention or buying a t-shirt. of someone who is attacking his enemies.
If you think about it, or don't have to think about it, I'll tell you explicitly, this whole thing is the reason film theory and game theory exist as channels; I learned early on to think critically about the stories I'm told and the underlying motivations that people might tell me those stories, and that led me to make shows that look at things from a different angle that asks the question: Maybe they are lying to us? If I can pull back the curtain and inspire critical thinking in some of you who are also watching, encouraging you to keep asking questions, then I'm doing my job.
But hey, that's just a theory, a movie theory, and we'll get back to normal later this week because I know a lot of you are wondering: where are the real movies and the real theories? Oh, but lastly, for the love of God, Shane, don't make this next one a 13-part series. However, if you're looking for some good exposition material, I've seen you tweet a lot about Defy's MCN closing. As someone who was an employee of Defy and was in their network when the company collapsed and has worked in many different capacities. Throughout the multi-channel network universe, I have many funny stories to tell you.
Subtitles reviewed by DJ_WOLFF – Randomly Uploaded Memes™

If you have any copyright issue, please Contact