A Documentary Analysis Of The Documentary On Body Language

I can honestly say that I have a huge interest in body language, especially when it relates to communication. Throughout our day-to-day activities, communication is actively voiced and because of that I found it interesting to watch the required documentary on body language. I had high expectations for the video before watching. The documentary helped shed light on why it is important to recognize the nonverbal gestures, signs of distress, authenticity of one’s speech, levels of pitch, and rhythm in the voice which in all speaks the loudest. Knowing how to decipher non-verbal communication is a very power tool and once mastered can effectively help express the words heard allowing you to build better relationships.

The documentary provided

Marion Jones is used as a study case on her allegations on whether she was or not taking performance enhanced drugs, in which she denied but later was found guilty. The facial analysis of Marian Jones during the denial phase was deemed as inauthentic compared to when found guilty. When communicating being genuine should always be top priority. Facial expressions are universal whether its showing your happy, mad, angry, surprised and disgusted. Being able to express the countless emotions without saying a word, allows the receiver to reach your level of humility, hearing you and understanding the

That’s why my only issue with the documentary were the experts used in the film to shed light or dissect whether or not the politicians, actors being viewed in the documentary were telling the truth based off body language principals. If I’m not mistaken, I believe all experts in the film were some type of body language consultant. According to Merriam-Webster, a consultant is a person who gives advice to companies for a fee and is a professional who provides professional or expert advice in a particular area, in this case, body language. Because these people get paid to give their opinion, would it be safe to say that a bias or non-objective opinion would be given on this particular topic. I wished there would have been a more detached and academic approach at this point in the documentary. More than half of the film covered pasted videos on politicians and actors, at which the consultants would explain how it was a lie base off principals. My biggest concern with the information was whether the consultant prediction was credible due to knowing the outcome beforehand. I can predict yesterdays whether forecast but not