That video that we watched.

I can't quite remember the name of creator of the second film we watched Tuesday afternoon but It seemed to be the first film so far that really got to me, that I understood. Her style of breaking down her life into into chapters with themes of virtues or emotions helped in following a seemingly disjointed film with sporadic imagery. Although, like Sadie Benning's films, I sometimes grow tired of masturbatory imagery for the sake of seeing distorted pictures on a screen. I understand that this process and believe that these filmmakers artistic metaphors are perfect in an autobiographic film. It's these people telling their own stories that will feature a feel that they insert into it. I loved the narrated parts and even the typing of the letter provided a stark contrast to the silent images that roamed the screen. Her story of her childhood was interesting as she fell victim to a pair of parents that seemed defunct.

Saint Augustine Confessions

I'm just going to try something new so that I don't fall asleep while reading this... It's more like a real-time blog type thing.

Pg. 21: After reading the first page I had to make sure that this is the text I was supposed to read. So far this praise to God has nothing to do with an autobiography and seems more like a preachers sermon.

Pg. 25: Saint Augustine's confessions to God barely fits anything resembling an autobio. I love the philosophy of God and his wishes as well as the theory of his religious ideals but this text is merely a letter to God expressing his own understanding and praise. This direct conversation written to God has barely done more than express the views of the author. He even speculates on his own childhood based on his encounters of babies.

Pg. 30: Finally, we have reached generalizing about his own life and childhood. He has begun to go in depth about growing up and discussing his goal in life. He recounts how respect from others is what he is told is important in life. The further he goes into his life the more detailed he gets whilst still talking to God. Obviously, his purpose is to reflect his knowledge of how God desires man or specifically himself to live onto his audience, God.

Pg. 35: St. Augustine seems to look back at his childhood with a sense that he wishes he would have been then like he is now. He still spouts theological philosophy, which at least for me detracts from the idea of this being an auto biography and more of a confession... there is a difference. The intention of this text is not to breakdown the authors life but merely an example to the God of how he understands his own religion.

Pg. 41: Gives the final closing for this chapter and institutes for one last time that his life is owed to God and that he wishes forgiveness and understanding from him. Going back to my previous post, six pages ago, this text does not demonstrate an attempt at an autobiography. St. Augustine is not recounting his life for the purpose of justly telling his own story. He is staying true to his intention of speaking with God to demonstrate his acceptance of him and his quest for forgiveness.

If I write an autobiography can "I" read it?

Eakin's argument about a singular contributor to an auto biography completely confused me as well as incited a deep need to be overly facetious about his pro-multi personality psychological review. I saw a line early on in the text that made me think about standing in front of a mirror and how this equals multiple "I"s. From there he goes on a rampage through psychology-ville which is completely lost on my tiny brain. I got really caught up in the "socially based self hood" which to me means putting on a different face for various groups of people, friends, and family. And then came a list... "ecological self," interpersonal self," the private self," and so on.
It's all really interesting although I tend to disagree with the whole premise of the article. Sure, people demonstrate slight (or major) multiple personalities or "selves" but that doesn't mean that an auto biography is not written by a single person who has complete control and even the knowledge of their own multiple selves... I mean I know that if I ever wrote an autobiography I sure would consider the fact that I can act completely different to various people.
Truthfully, the one hand that writes an autobiography is attached to a singular person therefore it is an autobiography in my book... unless its a Siamese twin.

Steven Johnson's blog is a generic blog based on the commercialization of himself and career. He pulls you in with a little information about himself and kids, you begin to think oh, how cute he's talking about his kids. He ten carefully begins to pull the consumer in as you scroll down the page. His posts about his book is a self congradulation that throws all of the attention to his own products and books.

Internet: Created for people to socialize and confess

"Blogging in the post−9/11 period closed the gap between Internet and society.
Whereas dot−com suits dreamt of mobbing customers flooding their
e−commerce portals, blogs were the actual catalysts that realized worldwide
democratization of the Net." - Geert Lovink

While reading this last article of the week I had to stop and read this line a couple times. The idea that the internet has become a tool solely based on the interaction and communication is true in many ways. Between blogging, video blogging, instant messaging an e-mails, the internet has become the bulletin board to the world. With this simple thought regurgitated, why, in a world of identity theft, scary internet stalkers, and just random evildoers, do people feel comfortable sharing and confessing their lives in text, film, and audio? Why does Joe Brown from mid-America feel compelled to post an autobiographical blog about his day to day life? Is the satisfaction we feel after posting such information truely that satisfying? And who takes the time to read Joe's blog after it's written? Or does that even matter? Joe's blog may never be read but the simple idea that they're out there, out of his mind makes him rest easier at night. I guess I really can't grasp the idea of confessing my "sins", random thoughts, or daily happenings online.

Michael Renov's ideas about the death of the auto biography seem to follow in the same vein of Bruss's with the idea of internet archiving and blogging. His idea of a mass produced auto biography sets, premade blog pages and web rings producing multi user/creater biographies fits well with the idea that films cannot be made by a singular person. His arguements, while on the surface may seem logical, dig at a population who are carried by thier comsumer background into purchasing kits and using pre-designed layouts. He seems to ignore the idea that the act of creating an autobiography is piggy-backing of someone else's idea, therefore whether mentioned or not, the person who first wrote an autobiography must recieve some credit in an autobiography written in modern day. If you want to get down to brass tacks where is the special thanks to the person who crafted an autobiograoher's pencil or typewriter. Renov's article, like Bruss' predates an age of You-Tube and a small technology minded population that has the capabilities to produce their own pages and films that are posted on the internet. An internet that may have been created by the Department of Defense but now exist in a free forming computer space mass, much like a large physical library that houses Benjamin Franklin's own leather bound autobiography.

On ON CANNIBALISM

After watching Fatimah Tobing Rony's, On Cannibalism, I easily begin to understand why Elizabeth Bruss could form an opinion about the death of the autobiography in a film medium. The short six minute film seemed to be a conglomeration of Rony's own thoughts and life as well as a history lesson about her ancestors and family. With the content being 50% about her own life I would definately be under the opinion that this is not an autobiography but more of a filmaker's opinion of history, racism and stereotypes based on personal opinion. The also enforced the one idea of Bruss's that seemed to stick with me; this film wasn't made by one person. This film seemed to have a small group producing this film that often featured Rony on camera, leaving an unseen person behind the camera and physically making the film. Unlike Sadie Benning's films, which at the very least seem to be filmed completely solo, Rony's film includes a plethora of people separating it from the autos.