Interactive Films and Documentaries

This is a Reflection on Chat 10/01/2011 about Interactive Films and Documentaries.

Findings

Today a very interesting chat and discussion developed with the starting point being Katerina Cizek's Highrise.

Click Image to be Directed to Trailer

Highrise is a 360 degree, interactive documentary about people who see the world through highrise windows; people who live in urban places.

“What we were trying to do was replicate or mimic this feeling of when you visit somebody’s home and you get to know them in a non-linear, fragmented sort of way," director Katerina Cizek says. “You’re talking about one thing, but over the shoulder you see something, and you say, ‘Oh, can I ask you about that photograph?’ And then that leads to a piece of their history."

“The overall Highrise project is not about architecture and urban planning. Primarily, it’s about how people live. The attempt is to peel back some of those stereotypes." (Gerry Flahive, producer)

I like this idea:

“We always think non-linear storytelling is somehow new, that it goes against the grain and is driven by technology. But, in fact, it’s not. It’s very much the way we tell each other our stories in person."

When video tries to mimic real life, hand-held – non-linear – it's experimental but actually it is more faithful to real life than mainstream films. The idea of communicating with someone and jumping from one subject to another – there’s a starting point – and then a journey towards a completely unrelated ending. No buildup towards one story – I guess the beauty of what happens in everyday conversations.

How cities are changing: the idea of a megacity – more people are living in cities - this reminded me of a recent National Geographic youtube video I had seen:

I think the idea of interactivity more successfully connects the viewer with what they are watching - which is why it is an excellent idea for campaigns. Take this interative video on children in Britain living in bad housing,

Click Image to be directed to video

'Trapped' guides the viewer through a story of a low-income British family who need to move in order to find better housing in England. At the end of each chapter, the viewer has the option to choose what they would do if they were in the place of the family. At one point the son seems to be having problem with the mould in the house so the viewer gets the option to either move out, clean the mould or call the doctor.

I'm not sure whether all the choices lead to the same path but mine lead me to the family having to move to a small hotel which is far away from the children's school and the son gets bullied. Eventually the family try to appeal for a better house but they have to stay in the waiting list or get a loan for a new house. I finally got the option to "Do Nothing" or email the council to help these kind of families. It is very hard to "Do Nothing" after choosing the story for this family - which is of course no story at all but is a very harsh reality for a large number of British Families.

Youtube have recently added the option of interactive video where users can click on the video after it is done to be directed to another video. This was of course followed by a number of 'choose your own story' style videos. The above video especially interested me because it dealt with social issues and after choosing various endings it communicates the message that little decisions can sometimes make the world of a difference.

Discussion


After discussing several videos and exchanging links, we started talking about the pros and cons about interactive videos. Are interactive videos the future or simply a gimic? To they enhance film or distract from it. It was quite interesting to see everyone's preferences come through the discussion. Osiris questioned as to why something like Highrise would not be open source - and we proceeded to discuss how it could be a new Google street / a new more dynamic facebook.

Louis felt that interaction distracted from the narrative - however Mariana, Kay and several others agreed that there needn't be a story - in fact the essence of Highrise lied in the fact that the non-linear and loosely structured nature of the video made it seem more like occurrences that happen in real life. A discussion on possible privacy issued followed as well as a question on whether or not privacy still exists and how much control we have over it.

I feel that for an open source project to be successful it cannot be controlled as much, since it's unexpected and open-ended nature would let it evolve into something unknown - now whether positive or negative we are definitely going to learn something from it.

How it links to my Project


Open Source is all the rage right now but I don't think this is going to be a part of my project since I want to focus more on augmented reality at the moment - however I'm not ruling out anything. On the online application it would be perhaps possible to get users to post their own visuals which could change when interacting with a target - of course the visuals submitted by the users might not stick with the theme of the unconscious - but since I said I will let my project be open-ended that won't matter.

As far as the interaction goes - I am a great fan, which is why I will be including interaction in my project. I think nowadays, to just have a screen or painting or projection on the wall in front of an audience is simply not enough - unless it is exceptional. People get bored quickly - more people want to be able to be a part of the work not just to see it. I think it even makes them feel a bit important; more on the same level as the artist, where the artist his/herself is letting them mess about with his/her installation and putting them at the centre of attention.