I chose the short documentary “‘Guernica’ in the Kitchen” because I like food and cooking and it seemed interesting. The video was filmed by Jennifer Carpenter, but I couldn’t find information regarding whether or not the editing was done by her or by someone else. The documentary was about a restaurant, minibar, in DC that serves very unique food. The Washington Post’s chief art critic went to the restaurant to explore the idea of whether certain types of food can fall into the category of modern art. This aspect of the documentary also seemed fitting for this class based on our readings about modern art and its widely varying forms.
The video begins with a close-up of art critic Blake Gopnik talking about the restaurant and his reason for being there. This offers a nice introduction by connecting the viewer with one of the major characters in the video and introducing the major ideas. The film then switches to a split screen, first showing the minibar restaurant sign on the right and a master shot of the restaurant interior on the left. This gives the viewer a clear setting and an overall sense of the restaurant. Following these opening shots, the screen splits many times, becoming a collection of different boxed shots placed strategically over a black background. The early shots are close-ups or extreme close-ups of the food by itself. Later, the screen shifts to include a medium shot of Blake as he poses the question about whether food of this type can be considered modern art. This shot focuses the viewer’s attention on Blake to convey the central question and purpose of the documentary. As the video progresses, the split screen continues showing close shots of food being prepared, food being served, and food being eaten, leaving no possible way for the viewer to miss the central importance of food in this documentary. The shots of food are juxtaposed with mid-shots of the conversation between Blake and chef Jose Andres. The effect is that the viewer’s attention is constantly focused on all the unique and interesting food, but Chef Andres still has a part of the attention and so is able to relate to the viewer his opinions about his food and how it relates to modern art. At select moments, the split screen is replaced by a single shot of the conversation between the chef and critic. This emphasizes important points of the conversation and effectively directs the viewer’s attention to these key segments. The multi-split screen is the most powerful visual editing tool in this documentary. I think the editor may have chosen this to create a more modern feel that reflects modern art and so fits with the primary theme of the documentary. The many shots of food give the viewer many views of the restaurant and provide a very effective way to hold the viewer’s attention. The segments of conversation between Blake and Jose Andres and integrate well with the presentations of the food, and the conversation provides audio continuity liking the multitude of different shots. This documentary style was very different than what I would traditionally expect, but I think it worked very well with the context of the subject.
The video can be found following the link below.
I agree with your analysis of the different shots in the video. I particularly like when you mentioned the single shots of the conversation between the chef and critic and how they emphasized the most important parts of the conversation. I also think they serve to emphasize specific reactions the chef or critic had to what the other was saying. These reactions also might not have been as obvious if Carpenter hadn’t chosen to show their faces as they reacted.