So Matt Soar wrote this article for this week’s reading, and he states at the end that he is open to criticism about Korsakow.

Right now, I could go nuts with criticisms about the software, the point of it, and unleash all my anger about the broken program. I won’t, and I will tell you why.

Somebody likes it. Somebody uses it and finds it facinating. It’s a software that somebody thinks is an amazing new format to create multi-linear stories.

I think the biggest problem I have with Korsakow is that I’m just not that interested in it. I’m a narrative guy, start middle and end guy. I like fictional films. So when we have to make a multilinear documentary my mind hit a stone wall.

From what I can gather about korsakow projects are that a filmmaker goes out of his way to film something. They have an idea about what they want the film to be about, and they go and film that. Here’s a little criticism of the course now. Our 5 weeks of short films are related to the set constraints given to us. Then we have to put them together in a meaningful way. So everybody’s project was based around the loose categories of light, shape and movement. Why not allow us to come up with a subject for the K film, then follow the constraints but around that subject matter. A more progressive work perhaps? I don’t know. Like I said, my mind hits a stone wall with this subject. Maybe I’m not an outside the box thinker, but not everybody has to be. In The Lego Movie, there are a few Master Builders who can create without instructions, and everybody else in the world can only build with instructions.

I build with instructions, but I put all the instructions together to build something new.