Video Diary Reflection
Introduction
Gibson (2005), drawing from ethnomethodology in a Bourdieusian framework, offers a focus on the structures that organize participants choices in production (38). The author posits, “…videos, thus, are always mediated by the participants’ internalized perceptions of the social world and thei positions in it. An ethnomethodological reading of the video accounts provides one means for analyzing this interplay” (38).
Utilizing Gibson’s (2005)“movie method” framework, I will be analyzing my own video diary of my experiences of not going to Africa this summer. The author offers 5 questions for consideration:
1. Audience: To what audience(s) does the video appear to be oriented?
2. Scene: What identity aspects are being addressed and how, that is, in what types of scenes?
3. Director: Who was involved in directing the video, and what does this reveal about the participant and/or his relationships?
4. Role: What role(s) or subject position(s) is/are being expressed and performed?
5. Cut: What is not included in the video and what does this reveal about identity construction? (i.e., What remains hidden from view, and why?)
Audience & Scene:
The video diary I have created has one very clear, one very intentional audience, but other, perhaps more nuanced audiences. Very clearly, this was shot and filmed for a class, therefore the scene reflects some level of care and positionality for a professional, academic environment. I chose to look “presentable” to camera, wearing making and having my hair presented in a certain way. I also chose a professional looking shirt that was appropriate to be seen on camera, at least in my own viewpoint.
However, in contrast, I also shot this, sitting on my bed, under a blanket. Subconsciously, I believe I recognized, at the time, the vulnerability I felt in making such a video, and therefore chose a space that was comfortable and safe for me. In this, the audience became more intimate; I invited them into my personal, vulnerable, authentic space, but in dichotomy, my face reads very closed off and distant.
In this, I believe I unintentionally summoned a second audience, which I acknowledge at the very beginning of the video: myself. Perhaps it is the knowing “this video is for a class,” but the content ended up being mostly for me, rather than anyone else. In this piece, I offer up a contrasted identity of myself — one where I invite you into a vulnerable space, but am still polished in presentation of that space.
Director and Role:
As Gibson (2005) notes, “Questions 3 and 4 are related to who is directing the video and what roles are being enacted (39). As both director and star of the video diary, I made intentional decisions about what to include in terms of dialogue. I censured myself multiple times in the video, as noted by my frequent and looking off camera to think. This act is subtle, almost positioning myself to look thoughtful and contemplative, when in reality, I was thinking, “wow, you should probably shouldn’t say that on camera for posterity’s sake.”
I also chose visually what was included in the shot — the width the shot, and my positionality in relation to the height of the camera. I actively chose to the shoot the video face on in selfie mode on my phone. This reveals the relationship between my own physical embodiment in the room and the phone itself as a non-human actant (see Latour). Being able to see myself on camera affected my ability to atually make eye contact with the camera, especially early in the scene. However, this improves over time as I relax into the feeling of watching myself. (There are many, many connections to be explored here about Zoom, online learning environments, teaching, the self, etc.)
Cut
The final question of Gibson’s framework considers not what it is in frame, but rather what was left out, and in this case, MUCH was left out. First and foremost, the final product was about 5th attempt over a series of days to create one video diary entry which I deemed appropriate and acceptable for class. I also, at one point, started to make a more narrative type of video diary focused on walking/where my feet go during the day. This idea was also abandoned, as I ended up deeming it “too curated” for a video diary. I felt that I was thinking too much like a filmmaker.
Additionally, I made the choice to leave it as one long ramble. It was very hard for me to watch in playback (mostly because I look very sad.) However, I made an intentional choice to leave it uncut because seems to leave a level of authenticity, which is a valuable identifier to me as producer of content, and positions me, again, as a vulnerable, honest creator.
Applications
Honestly, this assignment was very difficult for me, given the circumstances, but was useful in analyzing identity construction of myself as both a participant and director of the diary. I can see many applications of not only Gibson’s framework, but also how this type of production offers individuals a chance at co-creation and agency in the presentation of their own story. I also see the value in reflexivity, asking a filmmaker to consider their positionality in relation to the subjects. I hope to enact this type of work in future projects as one way to encourage participants to have an active role in their own identity construction.
