A bedraggled, illness ridden week. We have carry over questions:

• How can we emphasise moments of contemplation through making our korsakow films?
• How as filmmakers do we decide on the right amount of “glue” (cohesion) if we are unsure of our user’s media literacy?
• In her discussion of associational form, Frankham states that these films cause relationships between emotional elements rather than logical elements. If we were to implement this in our K-Films, would it require more planning, focussing on content or keywords to portray a specific emotion?

And we also have:

• How important is the theme in a k-film? Is there a risk of losing the cohesion of the film if the theme is not strong enough, or if the theme is too strong, hammering it into the audience too much?
• Does the absence of narrative and conclusion make something unsatisfying to the viewer? Is it something that we search for and in the absence of create ourselves?
• The reading claims that a collage cannot resolve. Can a Korsakow film have a resolution, or is it only able to explore its content?
• Shield claims that all mantages imply a meaning through the juxtaposition of shots. Is the meaning lost when a viewer chooses how they create the montage with a Korsakow film?
• How do I keep a viewer engaged without creating a sense that my K-Film is building towards something (a climactic moment, an ending)?
• Shields describes most films and novels as being predictable, tired, contrived and purposeless. Yet he believes that literature is a form of thinking and wisdom-seeking. How are K-Films so lively and purposeful?