The film Who Am We? focuses on the abstract concept of personality, how we come to know ourselves, and the place that personality tests hold, or don’t hold, within that process. It attempts a critical yet gently comedic stance toward not only the idea of who we are, but the tricky process of coming to know ourselves as well. This film attempts to offer its audience a place within the discussion of how we define ourselves, how we come to know who we are, and whether bureaucratic data can assist us in our search.

 

Though the film may come across as critical at times toward personality tests, specifically that of the Meyers-Briggs Type Indicator [or MBTI for short], it only does so as a means of questioning something that has become quite prominent within both social and job industry circles. As someone who used to believe in the MBTI wholeheartedly, I can now say that my tune has recently changed. Before beginning this film I used to think that the MBTI was a necessary tool that everyone could [and even should] utilize because of the way it assisted us in getting to know who we are better, and to gain a more thorough understanding of just how we interact with the world and those around us. Since the films completion my views have changed a bit and I am now more of a skeptic. This is not to say that I think the test is all bad, rather I do feel it still has some uses, especially in regard to entertainment or personal reflections. With that being said I do not believe it was the film that turned me into a skeptic, but rather my own personal interactions with the film’s participants and actors, my own reflections on how the tests have served me in the past, as well as those who I discussed the topic of the film with.

 

When cultivating the idea for the film and beginning the creative and production process, It was not my intent to create a piece of work that takes any one specific stance or another. My focus in creating this film was rather to cultivate something that the audience could relate with as well as interact with through discussion and discourse, and even further, something they would then be inclined to discuss and share with their own personal social circles. Even more so, I wanted the film to be something that had the potential of not only coming up in casual conversation, but of sparking further branching discussions as the ideas and thoughts portrayed within the film spread. The theme and topic of the film lends itself well to this as it is both highly relatable and already a common topic within social conversation. The one thing I did not want the film to do was provide any one specific or concrete answer or specific standpoint. That is up to the audience and viewer to decide for themselves.

 

It was vital that this idea be presented within film, rather than in writing. The way we come to know and understand someone’s personality is often through direct interaction with them. We are able to visually witness their mannerisms, tendencies, and other natural occurrence that define the way they interact with others and the world around them. Written words can only go so far, no matter the form of description one is using. Not only this but I wanted to cultivate a conversational type atmosphere and for the audience to feel as if they are in fact discussing personality with a friend, or group of friends, as the topic often comes up in social situations. Visual representation offers an appropriate alternative to the practice of ethnographic writing, often able to present the role of the senses within social life, and the way culture constructs personal identity in deeper detail (MacDougall 1998:61)

Creating a film based on our understandings, development, and implementation of personality I was faced with a crucial question, how was I to resemble this abstract concept in a physical form. I regularly over thought it until finally while reviewing some of the shots and footage I took notice to the small intricacies in the way my flatmate spoke, primarily with his hands and expressions. I noticed how his personality came through naturally within conversation and how it expressed itself not only within the physical objects placed throughout his room, but also in the way he acted as well. Often times the personality and character of the person has a tendency to express itself during discussion through mannerisms, forms of body language, and tonality. It was this filming of the people themselves that constructed the visual patterns that further developed their own individual personalities on screen (Nichols 2001). This observational mode pulled the attention away from my own presence behind the camera and instead cultivated footage where the speaker is both directly and indirectly addressing the audience, as if it were a common conversation about personality between friends. The audience can then make inferences and come to their own conclusions on both what is said and what is observed (Nichols 2001).

 

The discussions within the film are also less styled after interview types, and rather are executed and presented in a way that exhibits a natural conversation. The filmmaker, myself, positioned the camera at a place in the room that would be natural for one to be at, were they present at that time. This was deliberate as to attempt to set the audience up in an environment that was open to them as well as engaged with them. I wanted it to feel to the audience as if they were in the room and directly part of the discussion in attempts to replicate that conversational feeling. This observational style of shooting lends itself to forms of apparent and perceived authenticity, moving towards its subjects and away from fictional forms (Young 2003).

 

The film exhibits three different sets of individuals, the first starting with a single person, followed by a group of three, and ending with a group of two. Each set expresses similar yet different viewpoints beginning with more personal reflections on the development and understanding of personality and ending with an attempt at the ‘scientific explanation’ as to the existence of personality tests. “The normal behavior being filmed is the behavior that is normal for the subjects under the circumstances” (Young 2003:101). Not unlike in a regular conversation, when as is expressed in the film, our personalities may be dictated situationally.

 

Though the abstraction of the film’s topic proved tricky and at times difficult it pushed me as the filmmaker to think both more creatively and simply. Rather than making it more difficult by allowing preconceived notions and ideas to take over I enjoyed being able to witness the story unfold and assist in guiding it into a cohesive narrative.

 

Bibliography:

 

MacDougall, D. (1998). Transcultural Cinema. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 

Nichols, B. (2001). Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

 

Young, C. (2003). Observational Cinema. In: Hockings, P. ed. Principles of Visual Anthropology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp. 99-114.

 

External Footage [utilized within the film]:

 

The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. (2015). Who Is Stephen Colbert? [Online]. [Accessed: 13 March 2019]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r36wnaSqJtw

 

Vox. (2015). Why the Meyers-Briggs Test is Totally Meaningless. [Online]. [3 April 2019]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5pggDCnt5M

​

​