(3) Self-filming: from Video Diaries to Mobile Journalism

Find the first articles on Self-filming here: (1) Origins of Self-filming: Video diaries of Nelson Sullivan; (2) Video Diary, Vlog and Mojo.

Self-filming and public space — Consequences (Part 3/3)

As we have seen with Nelson Sullivan’s videos, self-filming often begins and takes place in the private space, or the intimate sphere. A self-filming act reveals a person and the nature of his existence. But this will of course depend on the context of production and especially reception.

Through a contextual shift from the private sphere to the public domain (TV, Web, social networks, …), these images each revealing some unique aspect of a person’s existence can become, for example, video diaries, and so many testimonies, stories, autobiographies .

As an additional example, this potential is used in the web documentary entitled Syrie: Journaux intimes de la révolution (Syria: Diaries of revolution) by Caroline Donati on Arte.

Here, by self-filming different people living in the heart of the war in Syria and broadcasting on a media more institutional like Arte (TV + web), the border between diaries, Mobile Journalism and amateur video becomes very fine or imperceptible. This system might end up being more than just a simple documentary ** for the spectator. It shows the war by those who live it on a daily basis.

Testifying to a subject or event by filming oneself with one’s mobile phone here unveils a survival instinct within oneself, calling out with a powerful and vibrant voice, which wants to wrest from one’s soul nothing less than the desire to be heard and seen by as many people as possible so as not to be forgotten, a testimony conjured in the disarray of an abominable conflict that has gone on much too long.

On television and other traditional media, self-filming with a smartphone has become a professional technical tool and a complementary system for reporters.

In the context of Mojo, journalists can today, thanks to the smartphone, create the conditions of a live broadcast and more particularly of a live stand up, simply by filming themselves (Piece-to-camera) and by using appropriate applications *** (see also my article Is “Mobile Journalism” made for TV?). In the present case of the Mojo practice, the intimacy context of the reflexive self filming act is largely left out, giving way to an institutional media context (the contextual shift from private to public is almost non-existent in this case).

On social networks, as we have seen with Casey Neistat and Yusuf Omar’s videos, self-filming encourages a specific individual to address a community. Here, by using certain formats of the video diary or Mojo, by the filmmaker permanently addressing the camera, the traditional scheme of communication is modified.

Indeed, it is no longer a media institution, with all its intermediaries, that addresses a typical mass media audience. In this case, self-filming underlines the ability of the smartphone to be omnimedia, i.e. content creation is produced with a smartphone to be viewed on a smartphone (or “by mobile, for mobile” as Yusuf Omar explained at a conference at RTL Group on 22 March 2018 in Luxembourg).

Let me suggest something to think about: beyond the limits mastered by the institutions, the videos posted (mainly in the case of vlogs) on social networks are not considered as “products” (for sale) but are intended to create a “value” for their designer.

This “value”, generally embodied by the filmmaker, is therefore not directly financial. It can be the order of influence, media exposure (social networks), the search for a promotional effect (of the filmmaker or with a commercial partner), boasting an art of living and thus making a community grow and so too the number of views (if the audience is significant, this could then generate a financial contribution to the designer, notably on YouTube).

In summary, this “value” contained in these videos can be a powerful and effective marketing tool. And the self-filmmaker relies on the value of his own person and his influence to create a relationship with an audience (public, communities, fans, friends, followers, etc.)

In the more specific context of Mobile Journalism, the use of self-filming and social networks by a single individual, whether or not a journalist, could be likened to that of gonzo journalism.

The aim of gonzo journalism is generally to recount a fact through the journalist’s subjective gaze and incarnation within his subject, in order to get rid of an objective approach demanded by an institution.

Yet it is necessary to be a journalist and be recognized as such at risk at all times of overturning the basic rules of journalistic verification of facts and bring into play the veracity of the elements presented.

But who then decides on this important status without the approval of a reliable institution comparable to the press or other body? Can the self-designation contain important side effects, particularly concerning reception? For example, can someone label himself as an artist if he is not recognized as such or if his “works” are not recognized as such by an institution like the art world?****

Also, Mobile Journalism can, by extension and by formal designation, become a form of video diary that is based on the date, frequency and time consistency of videos posted by a single person independently on social media.

From a media perspective, posting editorial content on a social network frequently (several times a day) is a news feed. The traditional standard or digital media is established as an institution and in this context, the content is read by the audience as a reliable source of information.

Moreover, by wanting to get rid of certain institutions (most of the time in a benevolent way and to be able to benefit from more freedom in the way a subject is approached), the risk of self-filming with Mojo would be to create subjects too much “inhabited” by the filmmaker. Because here the values of authenticity and veracity for the concept of diary or self-portrait (as Philippe Lejeune evokes it in Le Pacte Autobiographie and Elizabeth Bruss in Autobiography in cinema*****) have some differences with that of journalism.

In other words, if an individual films himself and posts his videos on social networks, the content should not necessarily be considered “real” or “true”.

In a journalistic context, the verification of facts and statements is elaborated under the control of an editorial staff, other journalists, a media institution (radio, TV, newspaper, etc.); a group of people with common objectives that is established and that addresses the public as a media and that will guarantee the essential and necessary trust with the audience so that it remains faithful.

Self-filming and its diffusion in the public space is therefore not without consequences. Can the self-filming of a person by himself be a “self-designation” of a representation that would be free from any institution? So, particularly on social networks, a tension can arise between communications without an institutional intermediary, which works to blend communications within a more formal flow of information, and the growing distrust of a certain public towards media and journalistic institutions.

In conclusion, let’s go back to Nelson Sullivan and his video diaries video. Note that the idea of ​​adding a Fisheye type optics to the lens of his camcorder, came to him from the famous computer HAL9000, endowed with artificial intelligence, in Stanley Kubrick’s film, 2001 — A Space Odyssey (1968).

And it is indeed an odyssey that Nelson Sullivan finally engendered by the way he made use of self-filming. This act has become very common nowadays thanks first to the webcam and then to the smartphone, combined with a broadcast on social networks. This has given rise to a new culture of self-image and a new way of communicating with others.

The appearance of the video diary, then the Vlog and finally Mojo, produced film outlets and systems fully associated with this universe. If self-filming, since Nelson Sullivan, continues on its way, then let’s remain attentive to see which other tendencies this so particular way of filming will develop in the near future.

Article available in French here.

** Odin Roger, « Film documentaire, lecture documentarisante », in Cinéma et réalités, Université de Saint-Etienne (CIEREC), 1984.

*** Jarosz Térence, « Opportunities and challenges of Mojo », Conférence ENEX Coordinators meeting, Bruxelles, 16 février 2017.

****Danto Arthur Coleman, La transfiguration du banal (The Transfiguration of the Commonplace), Seuil poétique, 1989.

****Becker Howard, Les mondes de l’art (Art Worlds), Flammarion, 1989.

*****Lejeune Philippe, Le pacte autobiographique, Seuil, 1996 (1975).

*****Bruss Elizabeth W., « L’autobiographie au cinéma» (Autobiography in Cinema), in Poétique, n°56, novembre 1983.