Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 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. This article argues that 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 spatializes 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 spatialization 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. This article 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. The aim of this research is to test the potential for emergent narrative through spatializing 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, synchronized multi-screen projection, multi-channel audio, and VR. In this way, the installation offers a unique participatory experience, in which the installation participant 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 participant experience via in-depth interviews. This article 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".