Non-Fictional Prose Course

 Class Notes 10/26/10

Anne: Discussion of what to do on Thursday. People willing to serve as mediators in her absence. This would be a step towards self-directed education. Reactions?

 Veritatemdelixi: Suggested working together on papers.

Anne: We wouldn’t be able to discuss film.

 Aya Seaver: We could discuss film and then do writing groups.

I'm still watching the movie but I thought I would post some initial reactions. The introduction portion of the movie is one of the creepiest things I've watched in a long time. Since this portion is also one of the parts of the movie that really is a creation of art rather than a documentary, I think its really interesting that the creators of the film chose to introduce the movie in this way. Flashing images of people and playing eerie music sets up the film as a kind of real life horror story. I'd be really interested in knowing how much of this documentary was part of Jonathan Caouette's initial idea for the film and which parts were added as a result of input from other directors.

To return to a topic we discussed in last week's class about the idea of perspective, I want to focus this post on the idea that a multilayered perspective is more representative of "reality" than a singular narrative presence. Many people in the class felt that they had difficulty following the plot of F for Fake because of the incongruously layered and spliced approach to storytelling. Thin Blue Line used the same technique of multiple perspectives, but did so in a deliberate and almost heavy handed way.

When I was watching F is for Fake I found that it was confusing to pick apart the story. There were all these people that were supposed to be connected to one another in some way (including Orson Welles own story) and I didn’t see the connection. At some point in the movie, the painter “a fake faker” which was hard to process before the next scene came up.

I do watch reality TV for entertainment but while this mock-documentary used similar camera angles/shifts, the plot/story was not made clear to the viewers.

 I really enjoyed watching The Thin Blue Line. I think it brings out a lot of good points about truth, reality, and facts in any court case and how the "reality" for one person might be a "lie" for another person. The first thing I noticed is how the testimonies of witnesses are not always reliable because many of the people who testified seeing the face of the person who was driving had doubts about what they saw. One lady said that it was dark and foggy and she was not sure if she actually saw Adam's face or rather hair.

 F for Fake for me was not about trickery and truth, it was about a search for legitimacy and fulfillment for an artists work.  The most powerful part of F for Fake is Orson Welles' montage about Chartres cathedral..."one anonymous glory of all things."  Orson Welles demonstrates that in our societies hurried attempt to attach our name to our works we have forgone the opportunity to create art as an anonymous "celebration."  

 David Harris’s interview underscores the fact that everyone has his or her own reality. Even though the documentary makes the point that Adams was not guilty of shooting the police officer, Harris seemed to have convinced himself that Adams was. In his panic, Harris convinced himself of something that wasn’t true. The documentary also brings up the point that “truth” is not by any means absolute. One of the interviewees even said that any attorney can find a guilty man guilty. It takes talented attorney to prove an innocent man guilty. In a court of law whether someone is truly innocent or guilty has no bearing on the outcome of the case. It merely has to do with how well a prosecutor presents his evidence.

It seems to me that Orson Welles got real enjoyment out of deceiving and confusing his audiences. The two performances that we have looked at in class (War of the Worlds and F for Fake) both work to mislead people. (War of the Worlds by accident and F for Fake entirely on purpose.) 

I found myself confused at numerous points in F for Fake, along with many other members of the class. However, while watching the movie, I just assumed that being slightly confused and off balance was part of the appeal of the movie. I think that this slight ambiguity (who everyone was, what was going on) was part of the air of confusion that Orson Welles wished to create in his documentary.