The interviewer, who is also Gould, sits in the center of the floor in a shadow area that does not cast light upon his face, therefore basically disguising his appearance. The film creates a mystery of an atmosphere so that the two characters are not actually identified, and the spectator continues to listen to the dialogue because it is the more important part of the short film. The maker of the film did a great job with using a narrative that was captivating enough to make the spectator stop thinking about who the conservationist were, but caused a focus on the conversation itself. The speakers were kept in the dark with only a slight visual of who, they were, and enough light to see when they repositioned themselves. For example, when the interviewee moved from behind the object that partially concealed him to another position as he spoke; the interviewer eventually had to turn around, still in the shadow, and continued the interviewing and replying to the responses. I do not feel this short film was formalism because, according to the definition of formalism the short film’s focus would have been on the formal or technical elements of the film, which would have been the lighting, sound, set design and color. Although there was music playing throughout the film that was not its main focus neither, was the lighting or the set design, and certainly not color, because the film was in black and white. The film was also a documentary film. The reason I feel it was a documentary is based again on definition. The film was about a real person, Glenn Gould, who was a Canadian pianist, and was also known as a writer, composer, conductor, and broadcaster. The short film was of him in both roles, one as the interviewee and the other as the interviewer. The information provided during the interview was facts about the career of Mr. Gould. The interviewer wants to know about Mr. Gould’s musical career, but asked first asked if there was a subject that would be off limits during the interview. The answer he received was “music.” Without hesitation, the interviewer rattled off part of the musical history in a quick statement by speaking of the controversy caused by Mr. Gould giving up live concert performances at the age of 32 years old. Also his refusal to communicate with an audience except
The interviewer, who is also Gould, sits in the center of the floor in a shadow area that does not cast light upon his face, therefore basically disguising his appearance. The film creates a mystery of an atmosphere so that the two characters are not actually identified, and the spectator continues to listen to the dialogue because it is the more important part of the short film. The maker of the film did a great job with using a narrative that was captivating enough to make the spectator stop thinking about who the conservationist were, but caused a focus on the conversation itself. The speakers were kept in the dark with only a slight visual of who, they were, and enough light to see when they repositioned themselves. For example, when the interviewee moved from behind the object that partially concealed him to another position as he spoke; the interviewer eventually had to turn around, still in the shadow, and continued the interviewing and replying to the responses. I do not feel this short film was formalism because, according to the definition of formalism the short film’s focus would have been on the formal or technical elements of the film, which would have been the lighting, sound, set design and color. Although there was music playing throughout the film that was not its main focus neither, was the lighting or the set design, and certainly not color, because the film was in black and white. The film was also a documentary film. The reason I feel it was a documentary is based again on definition. The film was about a real person, Glenn Gould, who was a Canadian pianist, and was also known as a writer, composer, conductor, and broadcaster. The short film was of him in both roles, one as the interviewee and the other as the interviewer. The information provided during the interview was facts about the career of Mr. Gould. The interviewer wants to know about Mr. Gould’s musical career, but asked first asked if there was a subject that would be off limits during the interview. The answer he received was “music.” Without hesitation, the interviewer rattled off part of the musical history in a quick statement by speaking of the controversy caused by Mr. Gould giving up live concert performances at the age of 32 years old. Also his refusal to communicate with an audience except