Expanding the Conversation

The VLogs

For our final web event, sekang, dchin and I reflected on the process of our class presentation and asked ourselves the questions we had asked others for the interviews we conducted.

*Both videos are long, so please allow time for loading before watching.

In the first video we reflect on our motivation for our class presentation, the process of interviewing strangers at Philadelphia train stations, the process of editing those interviews and how the product we created related back to the discussions we have had in Critical Feminist Studies this spring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbZFJU-xkgU&feature=youtu.be

In the second video, we interview each other in the same style that we conducted the interviews for our class presentation.  We then reflect on being asked these questions and our new perspectives on documentary filmmaking. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDs50K5UBg8&feature=youtu.be

The Editing Process

In editing our final project, we first cut out silences and interruptions to the narrative flow of the video.  In our second cut, we edited for content by attempting to eliminate redundant statements and tangents.  We still found that our video was very long to watch as one unit, so we split it into two videos.

Because there were no time constraints in this final project, the question about what to take out and leave in was much more difficult to resolve than in our class presentation.  We could have included everything, but were not sure if including so much content would benefit the viewer and would further the conversation.  We envisioned the VLog as a free-flowing conversation, but editing is somewhat the natural antithesis to viewers’ perceptions of an organic conversation.  Because of this conflict, the editing process felt somewhat dishonest to our intent.

Collaboration

We chose to work together because we were all interested in taking our conversation outside of the classroom.  In addition to our common interest in the topic of both our class presentation and our final project, we were all interested in breaking up the monotony of traditional and solitary academic work.  Although sekang and epeck have collaborated previously in science classes, none of us had done major collaborations in a humanities class.   

Although we succeeded in creating a nontraditional academic experience for this project, there were some difficulties.  The hardest part of working together was making the time to physically all be in the same place for several hours.  That being said, we all agree that there were many more advantages to working together than there were disadvantaged.  We all came in with similar ideas, but from very different perspectives.  Because we were all working towards one goal that we had actively shaped together, there were no conflicts regarding the trajectory of our project.  Sekang is majoring in the natural sciences, epeck in the social sciences and dchin in the humanities.  Due to the academic diversity of our courses of study, we each brought something different to the table.  Dchin had a narrative and thematic vision and helped shape the flow of the videos, interview questions and Serendip posts.  Epeck brought her practical experience of conducting interviews and being aware of methodological biases.  Sekang brought an eye for problem-solving both technically and logistically.  Another benefit to working together was that, although it may have taken longer, it was more fun and intellectually stimulating to be working with and challenged by others.  This collaboration is also relevant to our lives after Bryn Mawr as professionals, where we will have to work with others from varied backgrounds in order to achieve a common goal.