What do you want from this studio?

1. I’d like to learn more media production skills, e.g. film skills, devising skills, producing skills and editing skills.
2. Improving the ability to coordinate with others, especially working in small groups during the second half of the semester.
3. I would also like to know more about how non- fiction materials can be arranged for different results and audiences.
4. How we use the media production skills to tell the non-fiction story properly, and how we engage in non-fiction media making with contemporary applications.

What do you think the studio is?

I think the studio is that the how the non-fiction arranges for different audiences and outcomes by attending the studio activities, and make our own non-fiction work for expressing our thoughts.

Reflect on F for Fake

In my opinion, the most interesting part of F for Fake is at last twenty minutes. At first of this movie, the director promises that all he says is true in the next one hour, so when the director talks about the story between Elmyr and Picasso at the end, the audiences actually only focus on the story, don’t notice it already passes one hour. When the director jumps out again and says, this story is actually made up, I feel we are fooled by the director. Before I watched this, I thought the documentary has to be real, based on the solid fact, but, obviously, F for Fake is not. After watching it, I feel very confused, because the movie is mixed up by couples of stories, and the director shows sometimes, and lead the audience’ thinking. In this way, I am thinking, if the directors’ frame or the voice-over of the ordinary documentary impact the audience’s thoughts? It is difficult to tell if the director tells a story in an objective, without a little emotion. I understand the director wants to tell us, how to value the arts? The paintings drawn by Elmyr are not arts? The paintings without a signature are not arts? Why art forger can’t be an artist? Etc. I did a little bit of research after watching it, to my surprise,  all video materials about Elmyr and Howard Hughes are from BBC documentary. He makes up a new movie by re-edit,  that makes me thought, who is more important for a movie? The director or editor?

The initiative post

I would like to talk about a documentary called First in Human. It talks about some stories happened in building 10 of NIH. In building 10, there are most excellent medical talents and the most advanced medical equipment, the reason why they come together is for solving unsolvable disease problems. The patients who come building 10 have already tried all medical treatments offered by the hospital, but the disease still is not cured. The documentary is between these patients and doctors. It is difficult for me to finish the whole episodes, because, at the first of documentary, the doctor already said, all therapy treatments have only experimented on the animals, there are not enough data and examples that prove it also works for the human. It is a very high possibility of failure, so it means, the patients may suffer a huge pain, then dead. The patients in First in Human with optimistic, with family’s supports, experience many times of therapies, the body may become better, may become worse suddenly and then die quickly. It’s an unknown journey. That is why First in Human amazing: live or die, each patient adds profoundly to humanity’s understanding of how the human body works; and succeed or fail, every researcher who dedicates their life to medical research brings us one step closer to a cure(from voice-over of First in Human). The First in Human uses simple words to explain the reasons and solutions of diseases, and as much as possible show the whole process of the whole treatment. I believe that is First in Human beautiful is, tell audiences there are some patients and doctors making a huge contribution to human.