Seite - 93 - in >mcs_lab> - Mobile Culture Studies, Band 2/2020

Mobile Culture Studies. The Journal 6 2o20 (Travel) Anna Karina Sennefelder | Revival of the cultural stereotype? 93 These stories of cinema success as nothing more than a lucky coincidence can be read as part of the self-branding strategies that travellers have operated in the digital age (van Nuenen 2016) and can be decoded, in line with the pragmatical theory on documentary, as one out of many typical “signals of authenticity” (Hattendorf 1999: 72) within documentary which are intended to enable the constitution of a specific “perception contract” (Hattendorf 1999: 75) between viewers and film. Thus, it is not surprising that in the video call for the crowdfunding of Reiss aus, the corresponding buzzwords are mentioned by Wendt and Stirnat, signalling the viewers to read their film as an “authentic” documentary. Hattendorf called those explicit verbal expres- sions on the authenticity of the represented events, given mostly at the beginning of a film, one of “the most elemental signals of authenticity” (Hattendorf 1999: 73). Stirnat emphasizes: “It is important for us to tell things the way they happened, while remaining authentic” (Wendt and Stirnat 2017: 2:56–3:00). And Wendt explains: “Why should you support us financially? [...] If you love Africa as much as we do and would like to see all its diversity and not just this one-sided media coverage, then support us” (Wendt and Stirnat 2017: 5:01–5:08). Both Allgaier and Weisser as well as Wendt and Stirnat present themselves as young, independent travellers who ended up “accidentally producing a movie” (Wendt and Stirnat 2019b: 6:04–6.06) that aims to contradict the negative, Western mainstream media. Therefore, both Weit and Reiss aus provide the characteristic “codes of authenticity”, while “code” means that a specific “film- ing strategy of authenticity creates a supra-individual impression of being authentic among the audience” (Hattendorf 1999: 85). Both films claim to transform the “half-knowledge” promoted by the mass media into “credible knowledge” (Huck 2012: 245) with the filmic representations of their ‘authentic’ travel experiences. Both couples are using their self-chosen status as a “sec- ond-order observer” (Luhmann 1995) and are calling upon “the audience’s knowledge of the machinations of the mass media in order to stage its own credibility in contrast to them” (Huck 2012: 246–247). However, it is important to note that the image of the ‘anti-mainstream filmmakers’ is counteracted by the filmmakers themselves. When Wendt is asked about the genesis of Reiss aus at the premiere of the film in a German cinema, she refers to herself as a “passionate jour- nalist and filmmaker” (Wendt and Stirnat 2019b: 3:39–3:44), just as Allgaier describes himself as having developed from a “passionate filmer” into a “freelance cameraman” who has worked for different production companies and tv-channels (Allgaier and Weisser 2017b: 261). There is no doubt that Wendt and Allgaier are professional filmmakers and do know what they are doing with a camera. While I agree with Hanna Schlüter’s critique of the disregarding of a privilege discourse in these films and of the “unrestrained dethematisation and romantisation of poverty” (Schlüter 2019), I disagree with her judgement of the films as “garbage”. These per- sonalised travel documentaries are neither products of mere accident, nor can they be handled as trivialisation. Given the professional background of the filmmakers, and considering the positive feedback that these films received from large audiences, I categorize them as media products that satisfy an obvious need for such optimistic and simple travel stories. As a result, I argue that these films should be examined as a part of self-branding culture and classified as educational for the question of how self-constitution and cultural identity are dealt with in current representations of travel experiences.