From my research project to my artefacts I have been most interested in public participation through online video and film. People can build a community in order to create a piece of work such as comments/suggestions through YouTube, filming a part of their day to create a larger project or having input on the structure of an interactive story. Film-makers can take a step back and pass the control to the audience; the people who watch the entertainment can also create the entertainment. Interactive film creates distance for the viewer from the entertainment so they become more of a spectator and less immersed. This means the audience are left with a story that challenges their mind; so they think about the choices and the consequences. Having choices means viewers are put on edge, the film becomes an experience, one which questions their morality on if they want the character to succeed or feel pleasure from their demise. I've found from my artefacts that the entertainment is less immersive and you can’t empathise as much with the “puppet-like” characters. Instead the entertainment focuses on the viewer, what choices they would make being in that situation and what you would do being that character. Interactive allows viewers to analyse themselves as well as entertain.
Online video is a tool of self-expression and freedom in creativity, although argued it can be hard for artists to be noticed online with the mass material available, it is definitely a good place for self-promotion. Everyone can share videos, contribute to work and build collaborations. Interactive and online video builds a community where people can unite through participation.
Sunday 19 May 2013
Monday 6 May 2013
Monday 15 April 2013
Research Document - Artefact 5 (Collaborative Film Project)
A collaborative project where people can borrow a camera attached to a hat to film 30 seconds of their day. I will compile the footage to achieve a short film all in point of view style. Participants will be able to share a part of their day and the viewers would experience it as if they were seeing through their eyes.
Here is the poster I created to advertise the project:
Here is my final video:
I embedded my final video into an online survey so I could ask questions on the project and get responses on what people think of online video.
http://fluidsurveys.com/surveys/chris-thorby/interactive-film-and-online-video-artefact-5/
I didn't get any people to help as I hoped. Initially I wanted 10 people but I only managed to get 5. I allowed them to choose what they wanted to film as long as it wasn't offensive or inappropriate. The 5 people included filming; walking around university halls, driving a car, making cups of tea, a house party and loading a van at a workplace. I found it interesting that they are all so diverse and the audience is thrown into these different perspectives. With more publicity and backing on the project this could of become much more. I would have loved to show more exciting activities such as someone skateboarding, riding a horse or even attach the camera so it’s in the perspective of a dog or baby. Seeing through the eyes of a dog or baby would be really interesting, for a baby the world is completely new and we can never remember how they must of felt. At first I had a video with the 5 participant’s video entries all with its original sound but this wasn't very entertaining to watch and each 30 seconds felt long. I added a music track throughout which delivers more excitement and pace to the video. I liked the concept of public participation and collaboration with this film project, where I have taken the back-seat and allowed them to shape the video. I only took the role of a producer and editor but I thought it was important to not cut each 30 second entry. The idea is that for 30 seconds they can share a part of their day without it being tampered with. The only issue was that each video was a lot longer than 30 seconds so I had to choose which part to put in. This fits to both topics of online video and interactive film; both involve sharing experiences and participation whether it’s interacting with a story or contributing to an online video through feedback/response. My research into these topics has reached its final focus point which is public participation through video and film.
Results
Here is the poster I created to advertise the project:
Here is my final video:
I embedded my final video into an online survey so I could ask questions on the project and get responses on what people think of online video.
http://fluidsurveys.com/surveys/chris-thorby/interactive-film-and-online-video-artefact-5/
I didn't get any people to help as I hoped. Initially I wanted 10 people but I only managed to get 5. I allowed them to choose what they wanted to film as long as it wasn't offensive or inappropriate. The 5 people included filming; walking around university halls, driving a car, making cups of tea, a house party and loading a van at a workplace. I found it interesting that they are all so diverse and the audience is thrown into these different perspectives. With more publicity and backing on the project this could of become much more. I would have loved to show more exciting activities such as someone skateboarding, riding a horse or even attach the camera so it’s in the perspective of a dog or baby. Seeing through the eyes of a dog or baby would be really interesting, for a baby the world is completely new and we can never remember how they must of felt. At first I had a video with the 5 participant’s video entries all with its original sound but this wasn't very entertaining to watch and each 30 seconds felt long. I added a music track throughout which delivers more excitement and pace to the video. I liked the concept of public participation and collaboration with this film project, where I have taken the back-seat and allowed them to shape the video. I only took the role of a producer and editor but I thought it was important to not cut each 30 second entry. The idea is that for 30 seconds they can share a part of their day without it being tampered with. The only issue was that each video was a lot longer than 30 seconds so I had to choose which part to put in. This fits to both topics of online video and interactive film; both involve sharing experiences and participation whether it’s interacting with a story or contributing to an online video through feedback/response. My research into these topics has reached its final focus point which is public participation through video and film.
Results
I asked people whether they
liked the idea of it being filmed in point of view perspective and overall I
received good feedback. People felt as if they put into the position of the
character within the film because of the camera but some would have preferred
more exciting activities instead of the clips I used. It was suggested I should
have shown a range of different lifestyles such as a bus driver collecting
tickets, milkman and a nightclub bouncer as well as a way all characters within
the video could be connected in some way; they could meet up or cross paths.
Someone stated that the ‘handy cam’ shakiness results in an unprofessional and
low budget look/feel than having an immersive effect. It seems the shaky camera
is one thing that makes my film less appealing; someone stated that they felt a
bit of motion sickness from watching the clip of driving a car. In terms of the
point of view camera it has been successful, from looking from the eye
perspective viewers felt immersed into the characters and what they were
doing.
I collected responses of what people thought about the
participants having 30 seconds each in the video without their footage being
cut. I had mixed feedback on this; some didn't like it because it felt too long
and that it didn't give much chance to express their day as a whole, one scene
each didn't fully express who they are and what they do. Someone suggested I
should have cut between each narrative and have an obvious start for each one
which all concludes together. This idea would build a better sense of pace and
provoke a message that these lives are different, they are happening
simultaneously. It is clear that making each participant’s entry link would
have been more entertaining, such as narratives that at some point cross over. I
could have shown clear differences between their lives; what different people
do at the same time of day and how different their lives are. Perhaps it could
have been a section from people’s lives at 3.00pm on a Friday for instance.
Others thought because it was not a glamorised portrayal of their life, it was
unscripted and real. It was truthful, no matter how boring the activity was. It
gave a better sense of time frame and normality to the person’s actions. From
my feedback it seems people didn't enjoy the person walking down the stairs of
the driving scene, one person mentioned they
found the party shot much more interesting and it didn't feel as long as
the others. The experiment focused on whatever people wanted to film because it
was real and truthful but more exciting activities would have made a more
successful film.
The majority of people agreed that removing the audio from
the footage was a good idea as it made it more entertaining to watch. Less than
half wanted to hear the voices and sounds the participants made in their
footage. It’s clear that a soundtrack throughout made my film more exciting, it
made some of the more mundane activities more appealing to watch. I found a
royalty free piece of music and choose something that had a beat to keep
viewers engaged in the film. The beat begins as soon as the first piece of
footage begins and during a quiet section of the track the beat returns as soon
as the ping pong ball hits the cup in the party scene. I believe this made the
party scene the most exciting to watch in the film.
I questioned whether people would like to participant in a
film project like this where they share a part of their life to a public
audience. 8 out of 11 people liked the idea whilst only 3 would prefer not to
and would watch entertainment produced by others. I wanted to see whether people would mind
broadcasting a part of their day to a wide audience and it seems people are
fond of this. I would have thought people would prefer to watch creative
entertainment produced by others as it can be of a better quality but instead
the public like the idea of having input on a film project. The public like to
express themselves.
I asked how people felt about online video making us more
connected and collected a range of opinions. It was said that when uploading a
video it’s more than likely your video will be lost to the millions of
low-quality stuff out there online. It can be hard to be acknowledged with the
amount of material uploaded every day. However others said how because there is
so much access to online video it’s become easier for work to be seen. Social networking
and sharing has become a big part of our lives through Facebook, Twitter, Vimeo,
YouTube, Behance, Blogs etc. Most people spend their time on a computer looking
through online videos to share to their friends. People have said how they
enjoy exploring into the personal lives and cultures of others through online
video, such as vlogs. Online video is a great way of sharing everyday
experiences with friends as well as being a great platform for music/art work
to be seen by more people. It also helps people share opinions on things for
good or bad and builds a discussion. One
response was that it makes things more personal, when people video their lives
it makes the viewer’s feel connected to them. They are given an insight to
their world. It was clearly stated that online is the future, most people own
smartphones and laptops so why not use these platforms to our advantage.
To see whether the public contribute to online video I asked
people whether they provide feedback through comments or video responses. The
majority said sometimes, 2 said they do and 1 person doesn't at all. People
mostly contribute to online video by providing feedback which I think is
important. I believe being able to upload work and gain responses from your
audience is great in terms of understanding what they like. Being able to gain
structured criticism from others makes people develop and produce better videos
in the future. The idea of video responses is interesting; the way people
collaborate and contribute to work through video which is similar to my
experiment. Perhaps through one video someone can respond to it with a similar idea,
this could a chain of videos which compile into a film. Through commenting on videos online people can
collaborate with film-makers and video bloggers by suggesting ideas for their next
piece of work.
Monday 1 April 2013
External Client Project - Short Film: Drawing Greg
For my external client project I collaborated with Daniel Bissill and we decided to create a short 15 minute film which we will enter to the 'Bang! Short Film Festival' in Nottingham.
Synopsis
Colin, a shy, young and lonely artist who enjoys reading comic books discovers a coupon for a free sketchbook. He eventually learns that anything he draws within this sketchbook becomes real. He fulfils his loneliness by drawing a friend called Greg who brings fun to Colin's life.
We called our film collaboration 'Giant Panda Productions' and we have a Facebook page which we used to keep people updated on our progress.
This is a short teaser trailer we created in a silent film style. We didn't want to give too much away so we used this style to present something short and comical with a brief description of the story. Using Premiere Pro we put it in black and white, added noise to create an old film look and used silent film speech cards.
Daniel Bissill and Chris Thorby
Synopsis
Colin, a shy, young and lonely artist who enjoys reading comic books discovers a coupon for a free sketchbook. He eventually learns that anything he draws within this sketchbook becomes real. He fulfils his loneliness by drawing a friend called Greg who brings fun to Colin's life.
We called our film collaboration 'Giant Panda Productions' and we have a Facebook page which we used to keep people updated on our progress.
facebook.com/giantpandaproductions
Here is the behind the scenes video of 'Drawing Greg'. During the shooting our film we set up another camera to film the process. We have edited some of that footage together in this video and we recorded a voice over of us talking about how it all went.
These are all the storyboards from the film. I worked on these from the screenplay I wrote with Dan Bissill. In the end we had to change a few scenes so some of these storyboards were rejected when we started to shoot the film.
Dan did a photo-shoot of the characters and crew in the green screen room. I edited this image to create this poster for our film and I am quite pleased with it. I think the comedy of the film comes across through this image of Greg on Colin's back. Greg is holding up the drawing of himself so the audience clearly know he's the character drawn to life.
Tuesday 26 March 2013
Research Document Artefact 4 (Interactive story)
A website called "inklewriter" allows people to write interactive stories. I have used this to write a piece of interactive fiction called 'Altered Being' and it can be viewed here:
http://writer.inklestudios.com/stories/jrv4
I created this story about someone waking up in a strange hospital and given special powers through experiments. The main character is the reader, I have deliberately not specified the gender. I use the word "you..." throughout to make the reader feel as if they are placed in that situation, making them feel how I describe them to feel. The idea was so they could investigate the hospital and discover what has happened to them.
This was the story structure I was going to follow:
I decided to leave this project idea to pursue something different and I have created an interactive film. Using a graphics tablet I haven drawn a series of images which compile to make a simple interactive story about a martial arts tournament fight. I am exploring into the topic of interactive through practice and developing interactivity through the YouTube annotations feature. From this video I want to gain some feedback of how people found the experience compared to a regular story.
I have created an online survey for people to watch the video, interact with the story and then answer questions: http://fluidsurveys.com/surveys/chris-thorby/interactive-film-and-online-video-research-project/
I thought from doing this people who may not understand interactive film would be able to get an idea on what it's about. After watching my video the topic would be fresh in their mind for answering the questions of how they found the viewing experience.
Creating this interactive video was a challenge, I spent a lot of time creating drawings on Photoshop and used Premiere Pro to add key frames for motion. Developing an interactive video was difficult as you have to think about all the different story paths and it can get really confusing. It was like creating pieces of puzzle which needed to be fitted together at the end. It almost felt messy because the story is broken up. I found the outcome was far more enjoyable than the process creating it.
This story was based on a storyboard I made a few years ago and I used key frames to animate it as I would like it to be filmed, such as pans and zooms. I have already created an interactive film before for YouTube so I decided to try something different by making a whole video from drawings. From this I could develop a film idea with settings, characters and costumes I wouldn't be able to film. I find the annotations feature is the best way to create an interactive film.
Structure of the interactive story
There are four possible endings; two lead to victory, one is escaping from a mugger outside the tournament and the other is losing the fight. I had to have a good and a bad ending for the main character so people had to think about their choices and consequences.
Survey results
From the survey I have collected results from 11 people who participated in watching my interactive film and completing the survey. 100% of people enjoyed interacting with the story and the majority of people liked being in control; with the ability to change what will happen. The minority prefer not to be in control and taken on a ride when watching a film. It seems the concept appealed to people who participated in my interactive film. From my interviews with Al Clark and David Mew they believed interactive film was more like a video game than a film so I decided to present this question to the public. 7 of 11 people said my film was more like a video game because you are in control of the character against it being a film with optional story paths. It seems then interactive is more of a video game experience than an actual film. I believe this is because viewers cannot sit back and relax whilst watching but have to participate and engage into the experience. Interactive could be negative in the way viewers are forced to make a contribution when they may not wish to.
In my survey I asked people to provide any ideas of other interactive features they can think of to improve the viewers experience when watching a film. I received a variety of interesting responses such as smell, narration and eye tracking. Smell was something used in cinemas in the past but was never anything popular, using scratch-and-sniff cards at certain points of the movie would be distracting and annoying. It was interesting to read about different responses to eye sight with tracking points when your eyes follow to a certain area on the screen. That kind of technology is like a computer screen instead of a cinema screen and that your eyes become a mouse to interact with the film. Someone else suggested it would be interesting if you could select your own character traits and see how you would do in that situation. This could also suggest the morality of the viewer; how their own personal character traits and choices would work in a 'film-like' scenario, for instance "would you survive a zombie film?". A participant mentioned interactive feedback whilst the film was being made, so it could be written by the audience. Just set the scene and let it write itself with the film-maker picking the best ideas and filming it section by section until there is a complete film. The audience would then have a film with ideas that people have contributed to. Another idea following from this would be to have some kind of interactive screen where you can choose how you would like the film to pan out from selecting a range of ideas and character traits. It is interesting to allow the audience to contribute in creating their 'own' film and watch it back. It seems more audience participation when watching a film can be positive thing if new technology was developed to engage the viewer.
http://writer.inklestudios.com/stories/jrv4
I created this story about someone waking up in a strange hospital and given special powers through experiments. The main character is the reader, I have deliberately not specified the gender. I use the word "you..." throughout to make the reader feel as if they are placed in that situation, making them feel how I describe them to feel. The idea was so they could investigate the hospital and discover what has happened to them.
This was the story structure I was going to follow:
This is the structure I came up with for my interactive
novel; there are six possible endings and a range of choices of where the
reader can take the story. I thought of such a large number of choices to keep
the reader entertained and have a lot of control on what happens. The story is
focused on putting the reader in the position of the character so I believed it
was important to let them decide what the character should do throughout the
novel.
I decided to leave this project idea to pursue something different and I have created an interactive film. Using a graphics tablet I haven drawn a series of images which compile to make a simple interactive story about a martial arts tournament fight. I am exploring into the topic of interactive through practice and developing interactivity through the YouTube annotations feature. From this video I want to gain some feedback of how people found the experience compared to a regular story.
I have created an online survey for people to watch the video, interact with the story and then answer questions: http://fluidsurveys.com/surveys/chris-thorby/interactive-film-and-online-video-research-project/
I thought from doing this people who may not understand interactive film would be able to get an idea on what it's about. After watching my video the topic would be fresh in their mind for answering the questions of how they found the viewing experience.
Creating this interactive video was a challenge, I spent a lot of time creating drawings on Photoshop and used Premiere Pro to add key frames for motion. Developing an interactive video was difficult as you have to think about all the different story paths and it can get really confusing. It was like creating pieces of puzzle which needed to be fitted together at the end. It almost felt messy because the story is broken up. I found the outcome was far more enjoyable than the process creating it.
This story was based on a storyboard I made a few years ago and I used key frames to animate it as I would like it to be filmed, such as pans and zooms. I have already created an interactive film before for YouTube so I decided to try something different by making a whole video from drawings. From this I could develop a film idea with settings, characters and costumes I wouldn't be able to film. I find the annotations feature is the best way to create an interactive film.
Structure of the interactive story
There are four possible endings; two lead to victory, one is escaping from a mugger outside the tournament and the other is losing the fight. I had to have a good and a bad ending for the main character so people had to think about their choices and consequences.
Survey results
From the survey I have collected results from 11 people who participated in watching my interactive film and completing the survey. 100% of people enjoyed interacting with the story and the majority of people liked being in control; with the ability to change what will happen. The minority prefer not to be in control and taken on a ride when watching a film. It seems the concept appealed to people who participated in my interactive film. From my interviews with Al Clark and David Mew they believed interactive film was more like a video game than a film so I decided to present this question to the public. 7 of 11 people said my film was more like a video game because you are in control of the character against it being a film with optional story paths. It seems then interactive is more of a video game experience than an actual film. I believe this is because viewers cannot sit back and relax whilst watching but have to participate and engage into the experience. Interactive could be negative in the way viewers are forced to make a contribution when they may not wish to.
In terms of the options to direct the story most people said
they selected am option and went back to see the other choice. The minority
thought about which choice to make and the consequences. The majority didn't care as much to which option they went for as they knew they could re-play it
again with the alternative. I think this makes it less exciting but this is
because it’s not a collaborative interactive film, people are viewing this
within the privacy of their home. Perhaps if it were something screened in a
cinema with an audience to select choices based on votes, participants would be
more focused on the options and the outcome.
The majority wanted the main character within my film to
succeed whilst 1 person wanted him to fail. It seems the viewers are more
focused on a good ending than a bad one. My research document focused on an
aspect of the viewer’s morality when watching a film. The disturbing film ‘Funny
Games’ includes a character constantly reminding the audience of their choice
to turn off the film and questions us why we are watching. This led me to
question the morality of viewer within an interactive film, if the viewer is
controlling the character’s choices then they become more involved with them.
Choosing for the character to fail can represent the morality of the viewer,
what they wish to witness through a fictional context or perhaps a form of
catharsis.
From the survey most of the people said they can connect to
the character more in an interactive film because they are controlling them and
put into their position. Less than half said they can connect more to the
character within a traditional film because they are not in control of their
situation and can empathise more. I thought more would agree than can connect
more to a character within a traditional film. David Mew (Manager at Savoy
Cinema) thought that an interactive film would never be as a good as a
traditional film in terms of emotional depth, he didn't see how the viewers
would be able to connect to the main characters though this entertainment as he
believed they become more one dimensional puppets. I understand this to a
point, being out of control and left to witness the character struggle, fight
and overcome enemies does take you on a ride. Interactive allows the viewer to
step in and alter this so it could lose the mystery and unexpectedness when
watching a film.
I allowed participants in my survey to describe if they feel that can be immersed within an interactive story as much as a traditional film story. One person responded that as long as the story has great characters that you can relate to then it doesn't matter if the film is in an interactive form. The person believed I captured the emotional feelings of the struggle the main character felt and that he felt 'real'. It seems that my interactive story had was enough to build a connection between the audience and the main character and was immersive. However other people suggested that not being in control can be more immersive because you are completely unaware of how the story will pan out, what plot twists might occur and that it removes the surprise element. Some thought that interactive film feels like a game because when a 'wrong' option is selected in the video it feels like a 'Game Over' screen and you find yourself going back for the correct ending. People are not watching it as a film story as such, instead they are selecting the options to achieve a good ending like a video game, otherwise the experience is not complete and in that way it's less immersive. Although one person thought its more immersive being in an interactive story because you become the main character, making the story personal to you but enjoys relaxing watching a traditional film more.
I allowed participants in my survey to describe if they feel that can be immersed within an interactive story as much as a traditional film story. One person responded that as long as the story has great characters that you can relate to then it doesn't matter if the film is in an interactive form. The person believed I captured the emotional feelings of the struggle the main character felt and that he felt 'real'. It seems that my interactive story had was enough to build a connection between the audience and the main character and was immersive. However other people suggested that not being in control can be more immersive because you are completely unaware of how the story will pan out, what plot twists might occur and that it removes the surprise element. Some thought that interactive film feels like a game because when a 'wrong' option is selected in the video it feels like a 'Game Over' screen and you find yourself going back for the correct ending. People are not watching it as a film story as such, instead they are selecting the options to achieve a good ending like a video game, otherwise the experience is not complete and in that way it's less immersive. Although one person thought its more immersive being in an interactive story because you become the main character, making the story personal to you but enjoys relaxing watching a traditional film more.
In my survey I asked people to provide any ideas of other interactive features they can think of to improve the viewers experience when watching a film. I received a variety of interesting responses such as smell, narration and eye tracking. Smell was something used in cinemas in the past but was never anything popular, using scratch-and-sniff cards at certain points of the movie would be distracting and annoying. It was interesting to read about different responses to eye sight with tracking points when your eyes follow to a certain area on the screen. That kind of technology is like a computer screen instead of a cinema screen and that your eyes become a mouse to interact with the film. Someone else suggested it would be interesting if you could select your own character traits and see how you would do in that situation. This could also suggest the morality of the viewer; how their own personal character traits and choices would work in a 'film-like' scenario, for instance "would you survive a zombie film?". A participant mentioned interactive feedback whilst the film was being made, so it could be written by the audience. Just set the scene and let it write itself with the film-maker picking the best ideas and filming it section by section until there is a complete film. The audience would then have a film with ideas that people have contributed to. Another idea following from this would be to have some kind of interactive screen where you can choose how you would like the film to pan out from selecting a range of ideas and character traits. It is interesting to allow the audience to contribute in creating their 'own' film and watch it back. It seems more audience participation when watching a film can be positive thing if new technology was developed to engage the viewer.
Research Document Artefact 3 (Interview)
For my third artefact I interviewed the David Mew, the Duty Manager at Savoy Cinema, Nottingham. I thought it would be really good to hear opinions about interactive facilities from someone who works within cinema and see if it was positive or negative. As someone who works in film exhibition I thought it would be useful hearing his views on interactive film, public collaborative projects and amateur film-makers exhibiting work online.
Chris Thorby: How do you feel about cinemas with interactive facilities?
David Mew: I think it depends on the context, I think it could be a positive thing. I couldn't really see it being a particularly mainstream kind of experience in the same way as a multiplex showing them. I don't think it would be something the cinema going public would really take to. I think it's quite suited for an art house thing but again only as a special one-off event rather than a regular Saturday/Friday night kind of thing.
Chris Thorby: Interactive film allows viewers to analyse what they are watching, the decisions they make and the consequences. Feature film completely immerses viewers within a fictional world. Do you believe interactive film is positive or negative in this aspect?
David Mew: I think in terms of interactive film against traditional film, I think interactive would be less immersive because you are constantly been drawn out of the plot/story and be prompted to make decisions or trying to effect what's happening on the screen...and it does depend on how often you being prompted to do this and the way your doing it at all, if you're being asked a question every 2 or 3 minutes then that's going to get quite frustrating perhaps, quite annoying but then again if you're not being asked enough times or enough of your opinions then again it could be frustrating. In terms of being immersive I don't think you have to be able to interact with something for it to be immersive. The danger is that the plot and the characters will suffer because if you are just controlling someone on the screen then the character (the protagonist) becomes just a puppet it doesn't become someone you can connect to and can build an emotional bond with. Characters in computer games tend to be quite one dimensional, they're not someone you tend to meet on the street or whatever, they're quite very fixed stereotypical roles and I think the danger with interactive film is that the characters might just become just that, just a blank slate for the audience to control.
Chris Thorby: With an interactive film the control of the story is passed to the viewer. The film-maker sets the pathways but the viewer directs it's route, in a way ownership is passed from the author to the audience. How do you feel about this?
David Mew: I think from the viewers point of view it could end up being not as great experience I think in terms of cinema and why it's so popular is because of the fact you're not in control. You're basically sat down and you're telling someone else "take me on a ride...show me what you've got" and I think cinema, great cinema should speed you up and take you along this kind of ride at it's own pace. The director knows "you need to be sped up at this point or he needs to have a lull in this story at this point" and I think the idea of the viewers then becoming "actually we want to hurry past this bit or we want to run away from that bit" I think that experience could lose what it means to be gripped by a truly great film. Having said, you know it's an interesting kind of experiment, an interesting novelty to go and take part in an interactive film. I wouldn't want it to replace traditional cinema, which I don't think it ever would.
From a director's point of view I think it would be quite an exciting challenge to try and do, I think it would be a lot harder to make a good interactive film than it would be to make a reasonable traditional film because you have to think about all these different branches and I guess the film would end up being defined as to what the audience can't do. If they get used to being able to control this and control that, make the character do all sorts of things then really it's up to the director to try and not limit that in order to make it a good experience...but also to make sure that at the end they've still come through something that has sort of meaning and depth to it rather than just a computer game on a screen, which wouldn't be worth it. An interactive film would never be as good as a computer game in terms of that role player kind of role but it would never be as good as a traditional film in terms of the emotional depth.
Chris Thorby: Online video provides a shared community for people to experience a range of entertainment across the world. Do you feel this makes us more connected?
David Mew: Yeah definitely, yeah definitely makes us more connected. I mean growing up I kind of feel I had a good idea of what it meant to be a student at an american college for instance because I'd seen Hollywood films. I've seen 'Road Trip', 'American Pie' that sort of thing...I had an idea of what it means to live in a suburban american town and yet I don't really know what it would be like to be a French teenager or a German growing up and going to school because you don't get exposed to that media. So I think YouTube and online video in general you can just have a window on someone's life that you would not really have access to where it not for the internet, so online video is really a great way of actually being able to experience things that aren't backed by multi-billion dollar marketing industries. You can see a small film-maker who's said "I've made a film, I've put it up" and people can look at it, enjoy it and share it. Yeah definitely makes you more connected, you definitely get access to a lot more creativity and less homogenized creative people, so yeah definitely a positive thing.
From the interview with David Mew I gained some useful opinions of interactive film and online video from someone who works within film exhibition. Again like Al Clark he believed cinemas with interactive facilities would work better with a smaller audience, not so much with a mainstream cinema but a more art house one as a special one-off event. David thought interactive would be less immersive than traditional cinema because you are constantly drawn out of the plot; you don't need to interact with something for it to be immersive. Being prompted to make a decision every 2 or 3 minutes could become frustrating but then again if you're not asked enough it could be annoying. The danger with interactive entertainment is that the characters and plot will suffer. The protagonist becomes just a puppet that the audience can't connect or have an emotional bond with, but more of a one dimensional computer game character. He said that great cinema is popular because you're not in control, it takes you on a ride. Having the ability to change what you do such as being able to skip or runaway from something could lose what it means to be gripped by a great film.
From a directors point of view it would be harder to make a good interactive film that it would to make a reasonable traditional film; you have to think about all the different story branches and the film ends up being defined by what you can't do. It's also important that with an interactive film the audience come out of something that has depth and meaning rather than just a computer game on a screen.
David Mew believed that an interactive film would never be as good as a computer game in terms of role playing and would never be as good as a traditional film in terms of emotional depth. His view was that interactive would affect the viewing experience and story of a film in a negative way. With a traditional film you want to be taken on a ride, put out off control and left with something with meaning and in his view, interactive does the opposite.
David agreed that online video definitely makes us more connected. YouTube and online video provides a window on someone's life that you wouldn't have access to if it weren't for the internet. It allows you to experience things that aren't backed by multi-billion dollar marketing industries such as small film-maker's work which people can share. Through online video there is access to a lot more creativity and more experimentation.
Chris Thorby: How do you feel about cinemas with interactive facilities?
David Mew: I think it depends on the context, I think it could be a positive thing. I couldn't really see it being a particularly mainstream kind of experience in the same way as a multiplex showing them. I don't think it would be something the cinema going public would really take to. I think it's quite suited for an art house thing but again only as a special one-off event rather than a regular Saturday/Friday night kind of thing.
Chris Thorby: Interactive film allows viewers to analyse what they are watching, the decisions they make and the consequences. Feature film completely immerses viewers within a fictional world. Do you believe interactive film is positive or negative in this aspect?
David Mew: I think in terms of interactive film against traditional film, I think interactive would be less immersive because you are constantly been drawn out of the plot/story and be prompted to make decisions or trying to effect what's happening on the screen...and it does depend on how often you being prompted to do this and the way your doing it at all, if you're being asked a question every 2 or 3 minutes then that's going to get quite frustrating perhaps, quite annoying but then again if you're not being asked enough times or enough of your opinions then again it could be frustrating. In terms of being immersive I don't think you have to be able to interact with something for it to be immersive. The danger is that the plot and the characters will suffer because if you are just controlling someone on the screen then the character (the protagonist) becomes just a puppet it doesn't become someone you can connect to and can build an emotional bond with. Characters in computer games tend to be quite one dimensional, they're not someone you tend to meet on the street or whatever, they're quite very fixed stereotypical roles and I think the danger with interactive film is that the characters might just become just that, just a blank slate for the audience to control.
Chris Thorby: With an interactive film the control of the story is passed to the viewer. The film-maker sets the pathways but the viewer directs it's route, in a way ownership is passed from the author to the audience. How do you feel about this?
David Mew: I think from the viewers point of view it could end up being not as great experience I think in terms of cinema and why it's so popular is because of the fact you're not in control. You're basically sat down and you're telling someone else "take me on a ride...show me what you've got" and I think cinema, great cinema should speed you up and take you along this kind of ride at it's own pace. The director knows "you need to be sped up at this point or he needs to have a lull in this story at this point" and I think the idea of the viewers then becoming "actually we want to hurry past this bit or we want to run away from that bit" I think that experience could lose what it means to be gripped by a truly great film. Having said, you know it's an interesting kind of experiment, an interesting novelty to go and take part in an interactive film. I wouldn't want it to replace traditional cinema, which I don't think it ever would.
From a director's point of view I think it would be quite an exciting challenge to try and do, I think it would be a lot harder to make a good interactive film than it would be to make a reasonable traditional film because you have to think about all these different branches and I guess the film would end up being defined as to what the audience can't do. If they get used to being able to control this and control that, make the character do all sorts of things then really it's up to the director to try and not limit that in order to make it a good experience...but also to make sure that at the end they've still come through something that has sort of meaning and depth to it rather than just a computer game on a screen, which wouldn't be worth it. An interactive film would never be as good as a computer game in terms of that role player kind of role but it would never be as good as a traditional film in terms of the emotional depth.
Chris Thorby: Online video provides a shared community for people to experience a range of entertainment across the world. Do you feel this makes us more connected?
David Mew: Yeah definitely, yeah definitely makes us more connected. I mean growing up I kind of feel I had a good idea of what it meant to be a student at an american college for instance because I'd seen Hollywood films. I've seen 'Road Trip', 'American Pie' that sort of thing...I had an idea of what it means to live in a suburban american town and yet I don't really know what it would be like to be a French teenager or a German growing up and going to school because you don't get exposed to that media. So I think YouTube and online video in general you can just have a window on someone's life that you would not really have access to where it not for the internet, so online video is really a great way of actually being able to experience things that aren't backed by multi-billion dollar marketing industries. You can see a small film-maker who's said "I've made a film, I've put it up" and people can look at it, enjoy it and share it. Yeah definitely makes you more connected, you definitely get access to a lot more creativity and less homogenized creative people, so yeah definitely a positive thing.
From the interview with David Mew I gained some useful opinions of interactive film and online video from someone who works within film exhibition. Again like Al Clark he believed cinemas with interactive facilities would work better with a smaller audience, not so much with a mainstream cinema but a more art house one as a special one-off event. David thought interactive would be less immersive than traditional cinema because you are constantly drawn out of the plot; you don't need to interact with something for it to be immersive. Being prompted to make a decision every 2 or 3 minutes could become frustrating but then again if you're not asked enough it could be annoying. The danger with interactive entertainment is that the characters and plot will suffer. The protagonist becomes just a puppet that the audience can't connect or have an emotional bond with, but more of a one dimensional computer game character. He said that great cinema is popular because you're not in control, it takes you on a ride. Having the ability to change what you do such as being able to skip or runaway from something could lose what it means to be gripped by a great film.
From a directors point of view it would be harder to make a good interactive film that it would to make a reasonable traditional film; you have to think about all the different story branches and the film ends up being defined by what you can't do. It's also important that with an interactive film the audience come out of something that has depth and meaning rather than just a computer game on a screen.
David Mew believed that an interactive film would never be as good as a computer game in terms of role playing and would never be as good as a traditional film in terms of emotional depth. His view was that interactive would affect the viewing experience and story of a film in a negative way. With a traditional film you want to be taken on a ride, put out off control and left with something with meaning and in his view, interactive does the opposite.
David agreed that online video definitely makes us more connected. YouTube and online video provides a window on someone's life that you wouldn't have access to if it weren't for the internet. It allows you to experience things that aren't backed by multi-billion dollar marketing industries such as small film-maker's work which people can share. Through online video there is access to a lot more creativity and more experimentation.
Sunday 10 February 2013
Research Document Artefact idea (Collaborative Video)
I want to get about 10 people to film 30 seconds of their day so I can compile a short collaborative film involving public participation. I have a camera attached to a hat which I want people to borrow to achieve a point of view shot. This is an interesting idea exploring different perspectives. I was inspired by Ridley Scott's 'Life in a Day'.
I used the bottom part of the camera which would attach to a tripod. I found a screw that was the right width and length to fit into the camera as well as long enough to go through the hat. Using a knife I pierced into the front of the hat and used a screw driver to create the hole for the screw. I used a screw and a washer to fasten the camera in place. I attached the camera underneath the hat so it was eye level to achieve the point of view perspective. It films upside down but I can change that in post-production.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)