Blog #4

While I enjoyed Kirsten Johnson’s presentation in class last week, I found myself disagreeing with some of her words. I loved the way she moved around the classroom. Her movement represented confidence, which is something I really admired. It’s rare to see people with so much confidence especially in a new environment, but she seemed to have no trouble adjusting. I liked that it was so interactive, too. Staying engaged didn’t feel like a chore the way it sometimes does in class (not this class but school in general). I loved the discussion we had as a class as well as the film she showed. However, something I didn’t like was the questions she asked the class about her film, or rather the responses she gave. 

When asking students to pick a word that described her film, she called on someone who didn’t have an answer for her. When they finally came up with the word “identity,” something they seemed excited to share, Kirsten seemed to shoot it down instantly because it wasn’t a word that would “make her [Kirsten] want to know” the student she called on. This along with the exercise she made us do seemed unnecessary to me. I thought the student’s word choice was completely valid, as the class discussion kept coming back to identity. In a way, the entire discussion was based around identity, Kirsten’s especially. Her film was about the identity of the people of Kabul and her own identity was reflected in the film. Everyone’s identity in that film had something in common, which had to do with the surveillance balloon. Kirsten’s identity was reflected in the style of her film. Something I didn’t like was when she mentioned that she didn’t pay the child in the film with the balloons because she didn’t want it to seem like a transaction. That was my favorite shot in the film, and I recall her saying it was one of her favorites as well. This was all the more reason why she should have compensated the child. Without him and without his balloons, that beautiful shot wouldn’t exist. I don’t think that decision of whether or not it would feel like a transaction was hers to make. Not only did the film and our discussion explore identity, but the exercise she gave us explored it as well. By asking two people - strangers or not - to look into one another’s eyes, she asked us to essentially be vulnerable for the sake of being vulnerable. Which I think is absolutely fine, by the way, however I don’t like when people do things for the sake of being “profound.” Following the exercise she asked us who enjoyed it, who felt uncomfortable, etc. To me that has everything to do with identity and who you are. If you’re confident and outgoing you might not feel insecure when staring into someone’s eyes. Or, if you’re quiet and introverted you might have an easy time staying relaxed and focused during the exercise. I don’t mean to make a wonderful class into something negative, but I felt as though the class became about who could have the best comment/most interesting persona. Even if that wasn’t true for some students it could be true for others. This is something we won’t know for sure, but it’s what I felt.

Aside from my feelings about her commentary toward the student, I genuinely enjoyed her film and her presence in the classroom. I learned so much about her methods of filming and just going about life, as well as learning more about myself!

x