Integrated Media: Reading 08

Shields, David. Reality Hunger: A Manifesto. New York: Vintage, 2011. Print.

This extract from David Shields is a strange piece of writing which delves into the characteristics and some pros of interactive documentary.

He touches on a number of different angles in her disconnected article but stays on topic and effectively summarises a number of points that are useful to interactive documentary makers, such as us.

The most interesting points:

‘The absence of plot leaves the reader room to think about other things’: without a traditional 3-act narrative structure, a k-film (for example) has the capacity to provoke a much wider band of thought than plot-driven narratives that tend to restrict the train of thought that can follow its’ reading/viewing/consumption.

‘A great painting comes together, just barely’: this abstract comparison between a great painting and poetic documentary is a fascinating way to reflect upon how the ‘disconnectedness’ of an interactive documentary can actually work to its favour.

‘Collage is pieces of other things. Their edges don’t meet’: this point is also fascinating, making the claim that a finished collage need not have all matching pieces that all contribute to the overall piece in the same way… It is meant to seem odd and mismatched.

Integrated Media: Reading 04 RYAN

Ryan, Marie-Laure. Avatars of Story. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006.


This article by Marie-Laure Ryan is based upon the definition of what makes up a narrative – which Ryan briefly discuses and then summarises in list form. It is accepted by Adrian that lists are a very useful method to ‘approach making, and reading, Korsakow films’.

Ryan summarises that narrative is the textual realisation of story and story is narrative in virtual form. This interesting perspective allows us to think more effectively about the relationship between the two and how narrative is different from other text types because of its ability to ‘evoke stories to the mind’.

After finalising her arguments, Ryan raises the point that we ‘can never be sure’ that the text is read in the exact way that the writer intended.

Integrated Media: Reading 03

Bordwell, David, and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 2013.

Having read this before, I decided to briefly address the points made by Adrian that were:
– Define what a narrative actually is, and;
– Think about what experimental practices can teach us to better see the role of multi linearity, both in general and for also specifically for our Korsakow films.

As this was quite a dense thing to read, I’ve really tried to condense my summary and also the responses to the questions raised by Adrian.

Bordwell and Thompson define a narrative as ‘a chain of events in cause-effect relationship occurring in time and space’. This simple definition is then expanded on when Bordwell and Thompson state that a narrative begins with a particular event, to which the characters and environment of the narrative respond and the cause-effect relation of the narrative begins to take place.

According to this reading and based on my own understanding:
– an event is an occurrence that effects the characters in a narrative in a profound way
– a cause-effect relationship with when one event causes a response, which causes another event and so on, so forth
– time is the progression of the narrative, whether it is chronological or not
– space is the world of the film, specifically the places in which the narrative unfolds

I think that this definition is perfectly legitimate for the purposes of our understanding in Integrated Media. Whilst Bordwell and Thompson continue in great depth to explain the notion of narrative, it makes no sense at this point for me to keept babbling about what a narrative essentially is, as it is put so eloquently by Bordwell and Thompson.

In terms of experimental practice in narrative, Bordwell and Thompson define experimental films as ‘those that are made with the intention of challenging the traditional idea of what a film is, what it shows and how it shows it’. Experimental films are simply created in a non-conformist manner and are seen by many as the testing grounds in which many filmmakers explore their own ideas about what is possible in the medium of film. I feel as though this definition provides an adequate coverage of experimental film as a whole and about what we’ll be doing this semester with our Korsakow films.

In terms of the ‘type’ of experimental film we’ll be making, I feel as though our films will best fit into the associational category, whereby the material we’re creating is truly trying to have meaning and communicate something, rather than be a nonsensical abstract film. I think it is important for a our interactive documentaries to have meaning, to capture the imagination of our ‘readers’ and to provoke thought or carry some kind of message. Whether or not this is achieved will depend mostly on the type of audience and how deeply they think upon the links that we will attempt to create between our Korsakow films.

In terms of multi linearity in our films. I feel as though Korsakow films haveto be non-linear because of the fact that the audience is free to interact with them and decide how they want to watch them. This means that several interpretations will be possible and that we actually have very little control over how they’re read – we only determine the content and how it’s displayed. Not how it’s ordered, not how it’s viewed.

Integrated Media: Readings 01

Aston, Judith, and Sandra Gaudenzi. “Interactive Documentary: Setting the Field.” Studies in Documentary Film 6.2 (2012): 125–139.

Having never really heard/read about Interactive documentary before. This reading was crucial in me reaching some sort of understanding about what I-docs actually are. Aston and Gaudenzi couldn’t have made a simpler description than ‘any project that starts with an intention to document the ‘real’ and that uses digital interactive technology to realize this intention’.

In this article, Aston and Gaudenzi seem to be referring to the whole I-doc trend as a new innovation that hasn’t been around for long. Which is true. In comparison to other forms of documentary, I-docs are relatively new ways of documenting.

In summary, this article was great to read as it captivated and simplified the unfamiliar idea of I-docs to me.

 

Hight, Craig. “The Field of Digital Documentary: A Challenge to Documentary Theorists.” Studies in Documentary Film 2.1 (2008): 3–7.

From the beginning, this article strikes me as a reflection on the history of documentary, but at the same time – a prediction about where documentary will end up in the future. Hight mentions how documentaries are known to ‘respond’ to the new technologies that are constantly emerge and then use that technology to approach ‘documentary’ in different ways. One of the most obvious examples that is currently having a large impact on documentary and filmmaking as a whole is the emergence of the ‘GoPro’ action camera. Allowing for footage that has been previously impossible to capture, now easier than ever for even the most amateurish filmmakers, the GoPro is a favourite bit of tech amongst action filmmakers.

It was interesting to read that Hight also thought that documentary culture, as evidenced byBill Nichol’s three-part definition, had been changed by the modern technological developments that were becoming available and being used by documentary filmmakers.