Research Document - Artefact 2 (Interview)

I want to gain interviews with cinemas, film enthusiasts and film teachers to ask questions based on interactive film, online video and collaborative projects. I think it would be interesting to see what opinions I can get from people who have a lot of knowledge within film and people working within film exhibition, perhaps to see if there would be a market for developing specialist interactive cinemas.

From my first artefact of an online survey which focuses on asking questions to the general public, I have now created questions fit for people with knowledge on film.

I managed to get an interview with Al Clark a producer at Wellington Films, Nottingham.




Chris Thorby: How do you feel about interactive film within specialist cinemas and having the ability to change the narrative?

Al Clark: I think interactive film being screened in cinemas is interesting. It probably to my mind work with a smaller audience than traditionally watched feature films, maybe based in an environment like the lounge in Broadway which is very much like a home lounge. My question is...does everyone there get to play a part or are they passively watching others? if everyone can be involved then I think its really interesting.

Chris Thorby: Would interactive film stop interpolation with the film? What qualities do you think this entertainment could add to the viewer’s experience?

Al Clark: I think its a different medium really to traditional film. I mean feature films are very passive entertainment you sit there and you're fed the whole storyline from start to end that the director/writer has come up with and you don't get to change it obviously. Interactive, that totally turns it on it's head and you do get to engage and change the story but presumably only within the parameters that the writer/director has already set. I mean even video games are always within the world that's been created, you don't have total freedom, you can't wonder out of the environment. So I think it's more to video gaming than feature film I would have thought.

Chris Thorby: Is it important for viewers to be immersed within a fictional world through film? Should film be thought-provoking and allow us to analyse what we are watching?

Al Clark: I don't think it's more important either way it's just a different choice of entertainment. This sort of 'Choose your own adventure' entertainment has been around for some time in book form, I remember reading them as a kid before all this interactive film where you get to choose different options has been made available. I don't think one is more important than the other it's just down to choice. Whether you can say passive entertainment is less important than interactive entertainment on a more psychological level? then maybe. It's good to stimulate the brain obviously...but your always thinking about a fictional story even if you're not interacting with it, you're engaging with it but that engagement probably takes the form of discussion in the pub afterwards rather than during the actual program.

Chris Thorby: As interactive promotes discussion, how do you feel about communication within cinemas when a film is running?

Al Clark: Well if people are discussing the options, if you somehow have to come to a collective decision then clearly there's going to be order-able communication in the cinema itself, might get quite heated, might be quite entertaining and it's going to be a different viewing experience to watching a film where everyone shhs you if you even cough. People would have to be aware of what kind of viewing experience it's going to be before going in, if there not willing to engage in discussion with the person they don't know next to them or in the 5 rows behind them then it's not going to be the right experience for them.

Chris Thorby: Do you think that online video provides amateur film-makers creative freedom?

Al Clark: If there making a film self funded for example then they don't have any restrictions whatsoever they can make a film on whatever they want that's always been the case, the exhibition is the problem. Online exhibition opens up that wall, breaks down boundaries, you no longer have any barriers to your market, which is the audience. So you can make a film yourself, you can stick it on YouTube yourself, Facebook whatever and grow your own audience, say exactly what you want to say so yes absolutely, it gives film-makers total freedom of expression.

Chris Thorby: Do you think online video is making the world more connected?

Al Clark: Well the whole social media networking is making the world far more connected, we know what everyone is doing at any time.I can tweet right now that I'm sat in an interview with you and straight away however many thousand people are following me potentially know, they don't necessarily know they have to check their phone at that time but we're all connected all the time. Online video is a part of all that and grows community, you as a film-maker, upload films regularly, you get thousand, million however many followers...which would be nice! and they will then watch your next film and we're more connected in that way. People can comment on your films which is kind of interesting, have to be prepared to take the rough with the smooth on that.

Chris Thorby: What are your views on the public producing collaborative projects to be screened in cinemas such as  ‘Life in a Day’?

Al Clark: Public collaborating; obviously there's always someone that's steering the project and at the end of the day it is authored by the director. So it's always got a film-makers stamp on it; what to choose, what not. They're curating it so it's not total open access by the public but I think it's a very interesting project.


From this interview with Al Clark I have gained some useful opinions on interactive film and online video from someone who works within feature film. It was interesting to hear opinions from someone who works within film and see if interactive appeals to him as well as his views on amateur film-makers producing work online.
In terms of interactive film Al Clark thought it would work better with a smaller audience which is understandable if it involves a large amount of people within a cinema discussing options. It could become quite heated. If everyone can be involved in an interactive cinema experience it could be really interesting but if some are passively watching others the viewing experience would not be so good, not everybody will be getting the most of out the film. It could be said that with an interactive film you are granted more freedom than a traditional feature film as there is room to explore and shape the story however you're not granted total freedom. You can only choose where to take the narrative through the parameters the director/writer sets. Al Clark thought interactive film becomes more of a video game than a film.
Looking at feature film in comparison to interactive I asked which he found was more important; being sucked into a fictional world or put in a position thinking about what your watching and the choices you make. He believed one wasn't more important than the other but was just down to choice, but the question he raised was that interactive could be more important on a psychological level; to stimulate the brain. Through this entertainment viewers are given room to analyse what they are watching and the consequences of the choices they make, in some ways it makes the audience more involved with the characters. However Al Clark said that you are always thinking about a fictional story and engaging with it, it just takes the form of discussion afterwards instead of during the film.
If interactive promotes discussion in cinemas the audience would have to be aware of the viewing experience before they enter as some may not enjoy it as much as others. Some people in cinemas are fine with a small amount of noise such as people eating snacks, coughing, sneezing whatever but others maybe more frustrated by this. Again it's all down to choice.

In terms of online video, Al Clark agreed that self funded film-makers have no restrictions on what kind of films they make. Online video takes away the barriers in your market and through YouTube, Facebook and social networking you can grow your audience. There is total freedom of expression.
Social media networking is making the world far more connected, we know what everyone is doing at any time and online video is part of that. It grows a community, you as a film-maker and a medium to gain followers who will watch your next film and we become more connected in that way. People can comment on your films so you can hear the thoughts and opinions of your work from your audience.
With public collaborative projects such as 'Life in a Day' are authored by the director and always has a film-makers stamp on it; such as what videos to choose or what not. It's not total access by the public, not everyone would be able to freely express themselves through a film project but Al Clark did agree that this idea is very interesting. There could be more room for work like this.

Research Document - Artefact 1 (Online Survey)

I created a research document which was a study of interactive film and online video. To progress my research I am making 5 artefacts.

My first artefact is an online survey I made which can be found here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FCCLG3B

For this video I created all the line drawings with a graphics tablet using Photoshop and imported them into Premiere Pro to create this simple animation. I used a royalty free piece of music called 'Bull Dawg NO BASS' by Royalty Free Kings (http://www.royaltyfreekings.com/). I think this video is a good way of clearly illustrating the information from the survey. It has also been useful for the question; "Have you watched any short interactive films on YouTube or other websites?" because I could use annotations so viewers can click and view the video examples.



I collected the results from the Jan 6th - Feb 11th and created this video with charts, percentages and examples of responses.
From this I wanted to see what interactive films people have seen and their opinions of it against regular linear film. I also wanted to see what videos people watch online and what videos they upload.

I found out the majority have watched interactive film on the internet such as "YouTube Street Fighter", "Create a Rapper" by Dormtainment and "Haircut" by Niel Cicierega. I haven't come across these before so it has been interesting to find out new interactive videos and what kind of interactivity appeals to them. It seems short funny interactive videos are more popular to interactive films.

I asked if people would find interactive more appealing to regular linear film and the majority said no. People stated that it would be time consuming, disruptive of the narrative flow and that it's better to relax with a film without missing out on part of the story. However some people agreed that interactive film could potentially be more interesting and liked the ability to change what happens in the film. It seems that people are more interested within short humorous interactive videos with no strong narrative and that an interactive film with different directions of the plot would be too disruptive.

Over 60% sometimes navigate through the interactive annotations feature on YouTube so its clear that the interactive function is well known and that people understand navigation through interactive YouTube videos. This means interactive YouTube videos could become more popular with new features developed for better interactivity.

About half of the people watch short films on YouTube and the other half prefer music videos/covers, funny videos and video blogs. There is a huge following for artists trying to progress with their music online and some support for short films. Short films aren't that popular against the range of material that's uploaded, the majority of people from my survey enjoy funny videos the most.

People enjoy uploading and sharing videos of friends online but their is also many which try and post their work for recognition. The internet is used as a platform for sharing experiences and to become acknowledged. Posting video online is a good way to broadcast work to a mass audience.

Everybody who participated owned a recording device of somekind, even a camera phone so sharing experiences online is widely accessible. The majority use phones for filming whilst a few owned digital cameras, camcorders and DSLR's.

The majority only subscribed to 1-10 channels on YouTube meaning their isn't a huge following for amateur talent online.

Research document

I have created a research document which is a study on Interactive film and online video, I believe these two topics link through the means to interact, communicate and share experiences. This explores the participation of the viewer through interactive cinema - how it’s the changed the fundamental nature of the film experience for the audience, collaborative projects and shared material through online video.

With interactivity a connection is created with the fictional world whilst online video connects with the real world. I am interested in viewers having participation and involvement with film. I have combined the topics of interactive and online video as a means to contribute and collaborate. Viewers contribute to the story through interactive and within online video the public are sharing experiences around the world. This form of media unites us, providing more to see of the world as well as providing a voice for the public; a way they can be seen by a mass audience. I am promoting the idea of a project which has been contributed to; people can collaborate and unite from different cultures and backgrounds in order to reveal an insight of their lives. Through interactive film the similar idea applies, the contribution to the film story allows the viewer to own a piece of the work.