Baron’s The Archive Effect has kept me considering something about the home mode movies of both audiovisual archive and private collection senses. On page 82, Baron defines the effects of home mode movies as “…the presence of such documents in appropriation films may represent a democratizing of history and contribute to public knowledge about or experience of past events by including traces of otherwise unknown individuals into histories that previously accounted only for those who held the most social and political power”. This definition, I think, exactly describes the meaning and the function of home mode documents. It also reminds me of the concept of reformulating these home mode documents with the sense of temporal disparity. In this sense, instead of being narrated officially and authoritatively as traditional archives, it is true that the footage and audiovisual appropriations, recording individual’s daily lives in the simple ways, not only reveal the democratic spirits but also visualize the life and society in the past.

Many now use smartphones or cameras to record their lives for various purposes, but once those private movies made by themselves are debunked in public no matter with or without their will, I think there will be some certain ethical issues even though the movies are just used by the professionals for academic or archival purpose. Baron also raised a similar question: “What are the ethical implications of using home mode documents in public texts?” (82). I think it’s hard to answer. Obviously, these footage and appropriations are precious and valuable for us to look back in public texts, but it also involves privacy problems and seems like “a voyeuristic peek into other people’s private lives”. Thus, the status of home mode documents will definitely change when they appear in different texts.

Another thing I’m also considering is how to understand properly while watching appropriation films, like The Maelstrom: A Family Chronicle. Someone may feel a little bit confused about what is going on, if he or she barely has a good knowledge of the history in 1930s. I have no idea whether someone else feels this way, but I do. It seems like when watching the more authoritative archival films, say, BBC documentaries, I  usually have a fairly clear purpose for what I am watching, why I watch these or what I am supposed to do after watching, but after watching The Maelstrom: A Family Chronicle, I am a little lost. Baron discusses the“video confession”, a kind of appropriated confessional video footage, which may present more complex human emotions. I’m curious about the reaction by somebody who watch it. Will he or she feel lost as I do? I assume these reactions, such as getting lost, feeling nervous or awkward, are probably parts of archival voyeurism.

The term “unruliness” is reiterated in the outset of this book, I can’t help thinking that is there any boundaries between the private footage collection and the archival appropriations? Is it necessary that some rules be established to make a clear distinction between the private and the public? If so, what will happen to the footage and audiovisual experiences in terms of archival effect?