This film was originally shot in 16mm , using 2 cameras, Arriflex 16s and Eclair. The reason of using 2 different cameras is that we had 1 400-ft roll (320 ASA) and 3 100-ft rolls (800 ASA) of films, and Eclair only takes 400-ft rolls. The use of Arri (which, by the way, has been one of my favorite cameras) actually gave us quite headache because it only came with two prime lenses (16mm and 75mm, I believe). Along with the fact that we had the very limited space in the set (which was built in one of my classmates' kitchen), the lack of zoom lens made it almost impossible to have the framing I wanted (16mm was too wide and 75mm was not useful at all in the small set like this). The original print on the 16mm film looked just gorgeous, with the great color and clarity. However, it was telecine'd to the VHS tape for the purpose of editing on the computer, and the quality was drastically degraded from 100 to 10. The color turned to be incorrectly balanced (or maybe too much saturated and yellowish) and lots of grains were added. However, it certainly gave the film an interesting look (well, a very experimental look you might say), and I decided to go for it.

It was shot in color all the way, but I changed most of the parts to black & white during the editing process due to my original idea. I wanted to show what was happening in B&W, along with the flashing (vivid) images in color to make the contrast between the reality and the character's (supposedly) imagination. At one point, B&W becomes color because it turns out that the color images are also real, such as the images of the wrench, the woman in the black veil and the falling violin, except for the images of the death of his wife (or someone else - the relationship isn't explained much in the film to make the film ambiguous), which are replaced later by the images of himself dead. So, that point is where he finds out that two different worlds are the one and the same.

This is a very ambiguous film which gives the audience as many interpretations , but at the same time gives them the confusion in terms of what is happening in the story. However, my intention is not to make the story as clear as possible, but to make it ambiguous and, instead, let the style dominate the film in order to give the audience the great " experience" from it. Just watch whatever is on TV for 7 minutes. You might get caught up with the interesting story and watch it through without problem. However, if the story is lame, or the way it is told is boring, you won't be able to watch it through. In the same 7 minutes , you won't get bored watching this film because it is well stylized. The concept I have for filmmaking is "style is more important than content ," meaning the style carries the film and makes it memorable to the audience. To me, a story is like a blank canvas , and is painted using various techniques that establish your style. The quality of the canvas might be important, but not as important as how it is painted. Without a story, you can't normally make a film (so, it's like a blank canvas), but, like the same story won't be directed in the same way by the different directors, at the end their styles differ the qualities of their films. In this film, I have the contrast between B&W and color, regular color and red-tinted color, long takes and quick cuts, slow & fast (/regular) motions, etc. These elements certainly make the film interesting, and bring you to the repeated viewings. Hopefully you'll have the great experience out of this film and watch it again and again!

Taka