MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410313877 · doi:10.32920/ifmj.v4i1-2.2009

The Interactive Potential of Emergent Narrative through Spatial Nesting of the Cinematic Experience

2024· article· en· W4410313877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pavel Prokopic, Jayne Sayer

Bibliographic record

VenueInteractive Film and Media Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNesting (process)NarrativeVisual artsAestheticsCommunicationArtMultimediaComputer scienceSociologyLiteratureEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Common application of the term ‘interactive’ within film and cinema tends to require the creation of hyper-narratives. However, this can have implications for the viewer’s emotional connection to and experience of the film (Shaul, 2008). Contemporary interactive films, such as Choose Love (2023), focus on the alternative flow or bifurcation of the plot, offering audiences alternative choices that impact on the protagonist’s journey or outcomes within the film. However, as this paper argues, film cannot be reduced to the plot, as the communication of story in film relies on visuals and sound that constitute the film’s simulation of reality: the world of the story. Furthermore, virtual reality (VR) blurs the line between immersive and interactive experiences, in the way it spatialises the audio-visual simulation of the film world. Indeed, the immersion of the viewer within the film world can create a feeling of interactivity via physical space, similar to immersive theatre such as Burnt City (2022), making the viewing experience participatory – even though the temporal flow of the narrative is not essentially altered. Therefore, interactivity in film does not have to mean audience or personal control over the plot but can instead be expanded to include the world of the story and the ways in which this world can be immersive, especially through the application of emerging technologies, such as VR and Internet of Things (IoT). This can give rise to viewer interaction through the embodied, spatial relationship to the fictional world and the narrative, rather than through making choices about the plot. Through this kind of spatialisation of the cinematic experience, the structure of the narrative is contingent on the viewer’s embodied choices within the space, which gives rise to a sense of emergent narrative (Walsh, 2011). This paper explores the above argument, rooting it in a theoretical framework based in narratology, semiotics, and phenomenology, especially the writings of Sobchack and Merleau-Ponty, and then considers its practical application in the recent multi-media installation and ongoing practice-as-research entitled Nested Cinema, led by Pavel Prokopic, in collaboration with Jayne Sayer. The aim of this research is to test the potential for emergent narrative through spatialising the cinematic form into an immersive experience, while orchestrating smart technology and devices across multiple nested layers of experience: the installation space and IoT flexible lighting, synchronised multi-screen projection, multi-channel audio, and VR. In this way, the installation offers a unique participatory experience, in which the installation visitor makes embodied choices toward the narrative by repeatedly transitioning between the nested layers of the experience – in the process complicating the boundary between their sense of primary reality and the experience of the simulated world of the story. Apart from employing practice-as-research methodologies, the research engages qualitative methods to account for the visitor experience via in-depth interviews. This paper presents the practical outcomes and findings of the research, and considers the wider potential and application of this work to future interactive modes of immersive home cinema technology.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInteractive Film and Media JournalSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207