For my second blog I honestly was a bit confused on how I was supposed to evaluate the early assumptions I made about the film State of Play, like not heaps has changed in terms of my shock, confusion and intrigue about the film. However for the sake of the blog I tried to be more critical of my first reaction. I’m still trying to understand this whole autoethnographer approach to viewing another culture through a film. For most of my degree and even dating back to school I remember was being told to not write my opinion but instead analyse something from an unbiased view. We were taught to not state how a book or film made us feel but instead write what the director or author was causing us to feel through techniques. Now suddenly I’m being told that in order to research an Asian culture I need to analyse my reaction to a film about South Korean gamers. It all feels a bit odd to me, if Im being honest with you all.
In Ellis’ reading I learned that an autoethnogrpaher recognises the ways that personal experience influences the research process. The method for autoethnogrpahy combines autobiography and ethnography where the author/person retroactively and selectively writes about previous experiences. He states “When researchers do autoethnography, they retrospectively and selectively write about epiphanies that stem from, or are made possible by, being part of a culture and/or by possessing a particular cultural identity. However, in addition to telling about experiences, autoethnographers often are required by social science publishing conventions to analyze these experiences.”
The epiphanies that I had while watching the film and also documented in my first blog included me linking my own personal experience with gaming to the professionals in the film. I was never at all a gamer, and don’t ever plan on becoming one, I don’t think I’m above it or anything I just honestly see it as a waste of complete time. I’m a busy 21 year old and throwing gaming into my life would make it all the crazier. I believe it is because of my lack of care for gaming that I critically analysed the film and also had particularly fascinating experiences while watching the film as I constantly was thinking “how can people get paid to do this.” Like I understand people being paid to actually perform a talent, but personally I did not understand how gaming is a talent? Then again all professions are simply those that are the best at something that not everyone else can do.
My first reaction and blog came from a place where gaming to me was something that only teenagers do, as well as people that clearly have nothing better to do. The documentary did in one point help further my thoughts about this when people began to retire at such a young age, it was like they learnt and trained to be these awesome gamers so that they could retire at the age of 25 because someone younger and better came along. I could easily relate this to professional sport and how often people retire at such young ages because the next “hot shot” came along to take their place. Overall I feel like my initial reaction was pretty negative and that stems from my past feeling or experiences tied to the idea of gaming.