Or is it just a game?This is one question James Milward asks in reviewing the Future of Visual Storytelling (is Interactive) panel. As a fellow filmmaker, I also wonder if it possible to "make a film that a viewer can play with and affect that actually feels enthralling, satisfying and exciting?" My opinion of interactive films is that they are stuck in the "choose your own adventure" era.
A perfect example is the Waking Up Hannah Dove Soap interactive video. This piece has a simple structure of Content-Decision-Content. The production is high quality, but the interaction is limited by a multiple choice story break that allows the viewer to "choose" what comes next. I think this is old media content on a new media platform.
Another example is the Secret Location mystery. The decision options are even fewer (Yes or No questions), but this mystery genre is organic to the choose your adventure format. Still, the story is barely altered by the "interactivity" of the viewer.
Len Manovich states in "The Myth of Interactivity" that old media presents a fixed order, whereas new media allows the viewer to "choose which elements to display or which paths to follow, thus generating a unique work." What is so unique about these interactive videos?
There exists an exhaustive number of options. In no way are you making your own video, but narrowing the content watched as you progress through the program. A different approach, and seemingly more interactive is the Samsung Anyfilms. Here, you can "create" your own stories by graphing plot, style, mood and content elements on a grid.
As this is pre-recorded in nature, these "unique" stories are little more than recutting of the material shot. While there are thousands of ways the tale can be told, the problem lies in the quality of product. It makes no sense. The "creation" process is convoluted (I'm not exactly sure what it means to place an underwear icon on a exclamation point to question mark vertical axis). And the end result is not a compelling mystery, but a meaningless barrage of sex/money/murder.
On one end of the interactive spectrum, there is a quaint narrative, which allows the least possible dictation of the story by the viewer. On the other end is the larger volume of options, which yield a confusing jumble of images and sounds. Common to both is that the material is all prerecorded, therefore true uniqueness is impossible. Every possible outcome of the interaction has been pre-determined except for one:
Will you buy our product? I don't believe advertising to be the proper propellant of this new film form. These companies are not trying to give the audience agency, but dictate consumerism instead. However, these explorations are not a total failure, as they invest the capital needed to explore the ways to expand the idea of interactive film.
I can only assume the final frontier to be a 3D dream-like simulation, where your thoughts become reality. This would make use of prosthetic memories for story guidance. I refer you to Total Recall for further insights.
Image Sources: SXSW,
BJ,
ReplyDeleteYou do a good job of highlighting the major themes, nuances, and problems with both the clips and readings that we looked at for today's class.
You have a clear stance on interactive advertising: it's not working. Perhaps you can offer up some insight into how it would work using your film background? I want to hear more of your thoughts on the subject.
-Alex
BJ,
ReplyDeleteI think you said it perfectly with: "I think this is old media content on a new media platform."
Everything we watched felt old, outdated. Perhaps it is, seeing as this is the 5th anniversary of Subservient Chicken.
I also wrote about the similarities between these videos and the "Choose your own Adventure" books that were so popular when we were young. It really does seem like someone re-read one and decided that the genre could be applied to online advertising. However, I think these interactive ads failed because they focused too much on the storytelling and not enough on the product.
Personally, I think product placement in TV shows has more of an effect on the viewer. Does this happen in films as much?
BJ,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you. As you said in class, by "interacting" with these ads, you aren't picking the content, you are narrowing what is available to you. In the end, there is only the content they provide for you in certain storylines which sometimes, end up the same way anyways. I think its interesting that you say uniqueness is impossible. I agree with this. But I think its all about the impression that the user is thinking they are experiencing a unique program, and creating how the story plays out in their own eyes -- which I feel is the whole point of advertising as an illusion. Like I said, I think these ads are great for people who are already users of their product, but for others, its just not that intriguing.
-Dayna