Write about what you want from this studio
After finish the first class of this studio, I knew this studio is a general media study, which includes multiple studies such as non-fiction film production, a short documentary of 5 minutes duration, a promotional video, a photographic essay, a podcast and so on. That will be a new project for me, that never heard about non-fiction film, and also I barely watch the documentary. Maybe that will be hard for me to get in a new field of media, in the other hand, that will be a good thing for me, to learn new things always makes me feel excited and get the sense of achievement easier.
In this studio, I want to improve my editing skills, not just about how to editing, but learn more about how to produce a good film, for example, when we want to show a sad atmosphere in the film, how would the editor do. Also, I want to go deep into non-fiction film, because when I watching the screening ‘ F for Fake’, I have no idea what was that and non-fiction film. There are many things I can’t understand but I’m happy to learn. The other one I’m expected is photography and shooting, I didn’t really study photography, but I love photograph to catch the moment in my boring life, a good photo can always arouse my enthusiasm of the life. So, I’m expecting the next class that we would talk about aesthetic Standards for photography/video.
This is a good starting of this studio, after I finish the first class, the movie and the class tasks helped me had a concept of non-fiction, although I was very confused and couldn’t understand when I watching that movie. I believe at the end of this course, I will get a lot of new knowledge of editing skills and know what is a non-fiction film.
Reflect on the class materials in Module 1A
The first video is about why doesn’t Cathy eat breakfast, and there is a man always following Cathy and guess why she doesn’t eat breakfast, and Cathy didn’t really talk too much. The second video is the girl tell her story that how she survives from anorexia in front of the camera by herself. The first video is like an interview, the second one is like a brief biographical film.
The first video is single take and doesn’t have many edits, that is not a selfie, there is a person from the audience angle to shoot, there is background music, but no narration. To compare the first video, the second one has more edits and more background music, and there are different cuts not single shot. The narration is by the three persons in that video.
In my opinion, when I watch the first video, I thought that would be a breakfast advertisement, which has a lot scenes of cornmeal, waffles and so on. The second one can be a public interest advertisement for people that have Anorexia.
About <F for Fake>, It focuses on Elmyr de Hory’s narrative of his career as a professional art counterfeiter; de Hory’s story serves as the basis for the fast pace of authorship and authenticity, the background of the investigation, and the value of art. The film can be a documentary, operating in several different styles and described as a film essay. It is a non-fiction film, this movie tells the audience to think about ‘Copyright’, also, the story about ‘Picasso’ can be a question that when they viewing a production, they would care about the production or just about the producer who produced that work? When people start to think about these questions, I think the aim of the director has achieved.
Reflect on this weeks film (F for Fake)
Most of the footage of <F for Fake> comes from the BBC documentary about the Hungarian painter Elmyr de Hory, written by American writer Clifford Irving and by French director Francois Reichenbach. Orson Wells bought the film and re-spliced it, telling a completely different story. In addition to Elmyr de Hory, the fake genius, interspersed with the sensational Clifford Irving fake American tycoon Howard Hughes autobiography, and at the end of a miracle between his girlfriend Oja Kodar and Picasso. True and fake, a large number of montages, the rapid transition between scene characters, coupled with Wells himself from time to time to confuse the audio-visual, it’s overwhelming for me.
Not only the story of Elmyr de Hory and Clifford Irving shows two major questions raised in the film of Orson Wells: What is art, and the boundaries between true and false; the story of Picasso created by Orson Wells challenged the concept of “art”. Oja Kodar’s cousin’s grandfather destroyed Picasso’s paintings and sold them for fake. Except for Picasso himself, no one knows that it is not Picasso’s handwriting. The exhibition has a great success under the name of Picasso. The critics of the artists all appreciate the artistic achievements of the works. The question is what do people appreciate? The work or the name of Picasso? What level of shock and enlightenment does the art bring to us, and should this shock and enlightenment be linked to the artist’s “brand”?
As for the existence of the film “F for Fake”, is the biggest challenge to the concept of “copyright”. In addition to some of the transitional chapters and the “Picasso”, the story of all Elmyr de Hory and Clifford Irving comes from the filming and news materials of French director Francois Reichenbach; but the film had been rapid splicing and unraveling reorganization. In general consideration, shouldn’t “F for Fake” be the work of Orson Wells?