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.

Class notes 10-21-2010

pfischer – discussing the issue of Nazi discussion and how it wasn't productive

kgould- it functioned as a healthy way to dialogue, shouldn't have taken as much time as it did

Anne Dalke – use value of name calling and how discussions can be stopped when you name call

platano – discussion about what we should be posting

rachelr – I usually talk about something we discussed and I didn't feel we finished, or a critical response. Something to open the discussion

Biology in Society Senior Seminar

Bryn Mawr College, Fall 2010

Session 7

Psychiatry and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM)

Kwarlizzie, Collette

Questions

While watching this film I was struck by the editing - the splicing in of different shots in an almost frenetic way gave the movie a fast pace and a flashy air. The editorial presence of Welles himself was strong as well, and he was shown in some scenes to be sitting at his editing desk going over the footage. The heavy emphasis on editing coupled with the disputed 'real-ness' of the film made me think that I was watching the first example to reality TV, or perhaps the inspiration behind the kind of programs we see today.

 I just thought this little clip of of my favorite shows, "Friends" shows us another side of what reality is. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXr2kF0zEgI