I didn't realize how much variety, in terms of works produced, there is in the autoethnography genre. The films are not all the basic "day-in-the-life" kinds of structures; rather, they can potentially be just as unique from each other as the people are who make them. The only real common ground they should have is being presented from another's point of view. Autoethnographies don't even have to be completely true in this case; it doesn't matter as long as they leave the viewer with some insight in perspective of another person. These "pseudo" works are impressive because of the amount of work it would take to make a fictional reality believable. In a way all works are pseudo on some level, whether the director is aware of it.
I'm personally a fan of the distorted point of view, because it's believable since the works are supposed to be based solely around another person's perspective. We all see things differently and, in most cases, distort reality from the truth (which is something one will never completely understand because their perspective, no matter how "transparent" it is, will influence their world.) In Sadie Benning's work, for example, she tends to focus on distortion in a more literal sense. She achieves this through use of "pixel-vision" and heavily cropped imagery. But even George Kuchar's and Walter Benjamin's works are distorted. Kuchar's works are based around his negative view of himself and are, therefore, a distortion in reality based on his perspective. Whereas Walter Benjamin's look towards the past via photography is inherently distorted because he cannot completely recall everything and has to fill in the "gaps" with knowledge gained throughout life.
I am interested in making a work that is my point of view (what else could it possibly be?) on both past and current events in my life that are revolved around the people in my life.
