An investigation and discussion of the film Timecode (Mike Figgis, 2000) as both a cinema and DVD experience in relation

n to Lev Manovichs (2001) principal of the myth of interactivity.

Published online; 27TH October, 2011 ACADEMIC STUDY Conducted by Catherine McCann

The online version of this article can be found at: http://globalgirlk.blogspot.com/ http://www.scribd.com/GlobalGirlK

THIS DIGITAL COPY HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONAL USE SO THAT YOU CAN ACCESS, DOWNLOAD AND PRINT A COPY.

There is an air of ambiguity surrounding the growing definition of interactivity. Major authors including Zimmerman, Mcluhan, Rieser and Manovich relate to interactivity in the physical sense; a set of actions imposed on a media form. However, it will be demonstrated that interactivity takes place on multiple levels. The element of interactivity can be applied to various media forms and is not exclusive to the personal computer or virtual spaces. Interactivity is one of the defining characteristics of new media that separates it from old media. New media such as 3D cinema and blue ray discs are progressions of old media. The demand for interactivity from the public has assisted the technological transition between old and new, as people expect more interaction in their communication experience. Interactivity promotes the possibility of audience freedom as the new media platform provides an alternative viewer-experience, as a space where viewers can participate and interact. However, there are additional restrictions to be considered in the defining line of interactivity due to the level and types of interactivity, which is dependent upon the media vehicle. In the modern epoch, our techno-cultural society has extended into avant-garde cinema and new-age film is experimenting with the interactive principle of new media. Timecode (2000) directed by Mike Figgis is an example of an experimental film that plays on naturalism, as there are no special effects just improvised earthquake techniques, carefully assigned sound design and an improvised script. This essay will propose arguments for and against the interactive nature of Timecode and provide an evaluation of the extent of cognitive, functional and beyond the object interactivity, ascribed to the media vehicles of cinema and digital videodisks (DVDs). Furthermore, these findings will be equated with Manovichs supposition of the myth of interactivity, which shall be clarified at the beginning. Manovichs perception of interactivity is distinct. In order for interactivity to occur, the audience actively participates as users of new media. According to Manovich, (2001) there is the discretion to choose amongst elements displayed and paths that one can decide to follow in real time as the active user develops a relationship with the media, through both physical and psychological interaction. This suggests that the viewer expends a certain amount of control and has the ability to intervene, constructing a self-user experience, with added freedoms and personalisation. This

promotes the perception of co-authorship. However, there are limitations of interactivity, as it remains predesigned by the author or director. This association with intervention and manipulation is similar to the approach taken by Cameron and Crawford (cited in Salen 2003), which implies for interactivity to be absolute, it can be reduced to the notion of a tailored response to a tailored action. Hence, the outcome can be predicted or expected as a consequence of the users influential choice of action. The level of action and influence is dependent upon as to what Mcluhan (1995) deems hot and cold media forms; a further supplementation of the concepts of active and passive media. Mcluhan (1995) explains the fundamentals of hot media as high definition and low in participation in comparison to cold media which are accordingly high in participation and require audience completion (p.25). The cinema and DVD experience can be referred to as both hot and cold as effort is required to complete the experience whether in an Imax movie house or in the comfort of ones own home. This effort embodies either a tangible or mental action. Appropriately interactivity takes precedence at this point and it is divided into three levels of user engagement as enlisted by Salen et al (2003): cognitive, functional and beyond the object interactivity (p.60). These forms of engagement can be applied to the cinema and DVD experience and is evidence that the cinema and DVD are antagonistic to the principle of interactivity as being delineated as a myth. Notably, the cinema and DVD are illustrations of modern art in reference to Manovichs (2001) assumption that all modern art is interactive as the viewer is obligated and empowered to fill in the missing gaps (p.56). Nevertheless this view ignores the potential interactivity of traditional media forms and stimulates the debate of interactivity being present within all media outlets, stretching beyond Manovichs (2001) ideology of the myth of interactivity that neglects a number of media channels, including the total cinema experience.

The cinema has transformed into a super genre, a popular world commodity and a universal language, recognised as a result of its evolving architecture along side the expanding mise en scene. The medium of cinema is powerful and unrivalled, surpassing traditional media vehicles with its increasing accessibility, interactivity, immersiveness, entertainment values and offer of escapism. The home experience of watching a DVD differs immensely in terms of interactivity in comparison to

watching a movie on the big screen. The IMAX and Storm movie theatres aim to satisfy both the individual and collective by generating high quality surround sound absorbing the audience in darkness, directing all eyes to the screen. Yet, the cinema experience is adjusting continuously due to the 21st century film literate society and N-generation who have raised expectations following the birth of avant-garde cinema and open-source films. The gigantic framed screen impels the active viewer to switch between various mental and psychological actions whilst watching and thus, the viewers eyes are constantly moving. This continuous movement and psychological actions suggest that the cinema does hold potential interactive qualities, which will now be portrayed through the various levels of interactivity.

Cognitive interactivity occurs whilst enveloped in the cinema experience and it involves the psychological, emotional and intellectual participation between a person and a system (Salen, 2003, p.59). Two example theories are closure developed by McCloud (1993) and the sliding scale fabricated by Crawford (2000). Both support Manovichs (2001) definition of interactivity, yet the ultimate dilemma is that the user cannot choose what is displayed in front of them on the big screen. The theory of closure (McCloud, 1993) contends with Mcluhans (1995) cold media approach as the audience is expected to fill in the gaps. Closure is exemplified as the phenomenon of perceiving parts and observing the whole (McCloud, 1993, p.63). The director of Timecode (2000) Mike Figgis attempts to enhance the cinema experience through closure, given there are four separate quadrants in the film and the viewer cannot see the wide view of the set. When concentrating on one quadrant, one may miss information contained within another. Therefore, the viewer is forced to fill in the gaps of the missed details and the events that do not appear on screen. A large amount of mental attention is required when watching the film, as there are several plots occurring concurrently. Comparatively to the norm effect associated with interactivity in a physical action sense, the user interacts mentally through psychological participation. Crawford (2000) perceives interactivity as not an on and off thing, that it is also a sliding scale(p.10), involving a medium, a receiver and a thought. The sliding scale response is elicited in the mind of the viewer. The problem with this outlook is that interaction is left solely up to the viewer and it relates to Einsteins (1920 cited in

Manovich, 2001) reflection that film could be potentially used to control and externalize thinking (p.58), as the viewer attempts to take on the directors mental structure. It is evident here that the line between interaction and interactivity remains vague and ambiguous. Alongside the psychological, emotional and intellectual participation, the viewer could be led to believe that they are co-authors of the work as there is no evidence in their own mindsets to prove otherwise. It could be contended from taking the sliding scale into contemplation, that on receiving messages from a medium such as film, that we as viewers develop an interactive thought system. The opposing connotation of this is that the results of an interactive thought cannot be seen whereas a physical action will develop a tailored response that is clear to the eye.

The negative claims against interactivity ensued by the cinema does not certify for the functional element of interactivity to manifest. An instance of functional interactivity exhibited by Lister et al (2003) embraces the point and click action that causes something to happen. This physical interaction within the cinema screen is virtually non-existent for the majority of films including Timecode. Timecode abides to the movie norm of a fixed beginning and fixed ending that cannot be disturbed, stopped, edited, explored or skipped through. Watching Timecode in a cinema context corresponds to the Lean back, sit up one-way communication tenet, ignoring cognitive interactivity taking place between the screen and the audience. Although cinema is an example of new media; it maintains qualities that exude it to be a form of traditional media simultaneously, proved by its fixed presentation and narrative. Therefore it is both a hot and cold medium with limitations that extend to Manovichs (2001) idea of fixed presentation. Following Timecodes release, parodies of the film started appearing on You Tube constructed by fans and students. Salen (2003) recognises this interaction outside of the original film as beyond the object interactivity or meta interactivity (p.60). The viewer now possesses full control and assumes the role of cameraperson and editor. This is a broad outlook on interactivity but is important to mention as the viewer experiences cognitive interactivity whilst watching the film in the cinema and turns their thought processes into generating a unique work of their own. Additionally, presentation is disassembled and reassembled with each quadrant path

chosen by the original viewer. Beyond the object interactivity therefore complies with Manovichs (2001) interpretation of interactivity.

In addition, the process of creating Timecode relates to characteristics linked with traditional media filmmaking methods. In my opinion, this is what hinders Timecode from reaching its potential interactive state as the majority of acting was improvised and the film itself wash shot in continuous ninety-three minute takes without edits or added special effects (Timecode, 2000). Figgis replaces special effects with periodic earthquake trembles to jaunt the viewers attention. This shows the power of the author as a narrator and how Figgis interrupts and controls the non-linear narrative, which deviates from the main plot. Also the extent of control held by Figgis deflects from the viewer obtaining co-authorship. The involvement and captivation of the audience again reflects Einsteins approximation of controlling thinking referred to above. The controlling aspect is clearly depicted in the sound design of Timecode that guides the viewer to focus on a specific quadrant and can sometimes be overbearing. The movement of the camera angle further limits where the viewer can go. The four screens are constantly competing for our attention and images change and overlap in the space of the viewing. In my view, when Timecode is viewed on a cinema screen, one is not a co-author of the film as you have to choose between alternatives that have already been created, and thus the actual content cannot be disturbed or adjusted. Moreover, no preludes to scenes are offered. The director and viewer do not participate in an active collaboration in the co-construction of meaning (Lunefield, 2002, p.146). The viewer is restrained to cognitive interactivity. Dissimilar to mutable cinema, the audience cannot edit movie clips and generate new narratives.

However, Perez (2008) establishes a contrary perspective in that Timecode is interactive within the cinema realm as the spectator has the choice of screen to direct his attention to and reasons that no two spectators of Timecode will see the same film, that no one will see the same film twice and that each of us, seeing a different film, one among all the possibilities unfolding before our eyes, will miss much of what there is to see (p.185). Hence, in consideration of Perezs outlook the new media platform of cinema is interactive and hints that paths are chosen solely by the individual, satisfying Manovichs (2001) rationale.

Overall, from examining Timecode as a cinema experience, it is clear that cognitive interactivity is predominant and that Timecode does not permit utilitarian participation or explicit engagement. Additionally, the content remains unchanged and continues with or without the presence of the spectator, even if they decide to leave early. The viewer cannot interrupt the film in order to choose the path of the storyline. One cannot influence the actions or speech of the actors on screen. The reason as to why Timecode differentiates to other films and is particularly intriguing is because it resembles the Cinema experience multiplied by four.

Dissident to the cinema experience, the DVD experience of Timecode offers the audience added control through extras, audio tracks, scene selections and special features. However, the user remains limited by the architecture of the medium as DVDs are mediated through digital technology such as personal computers and television screens. Additional options of a DVD allow the user to take action by interrupting the DVD through zapping the pause, rewind, fast forward, change audio language or skip button and this can result in the interrupting and deconstructing of the linear narrative. Hence, the participator can choose which section of the film to play but they cannot influence the paths associated with the story, as content is not distorted. Cognitive interactivity is clearly noted here and the DVD experience portrays congruence with Cameron and Crawford (cited in Salen et al, 2003) acquisition of a tailored response to a tailored action. The argument at this point could be contrived that the viewer becomes user and ostensibly co-author, as we are all artists in our own right (Bauman, 2008). Moreover, the DVD experience conforms to Perezs claims of interactivity as mentioned earlier.

Aarseth (1997, cited in Jenkins, 2007) in opposition to Perez draws a comparison between a viewer and a reader which contests the notion of the viewer procuring any authority over a media vehicle; however strongly engaged in the unfolding of a narrative, remains powerless and like a spectator at a soccer game, he may speculate, conjecture, extrapolate, even shout abuse, but he is not a player (p.4). This view reverting back to the cinema indicates that it is still attached to its traditional form and that the role of the viewer is reminiscent of hot media showing passivity and non-responsiveness on the part of the medium. Thus, highlighting that interactivity may be in actuality a myth in terms of the cinema and DVD experience

as the argument for interactivity present within these mediums is weak and is reliant upon our psychological, emotional and intellectual participation.

In evaluation of Timecode as A DVD experience, the viewer has the decision to watch all four quadrants or to focus on one. However, the other quadrants cannot be switched off by the simple push of a button. The only advantage to this is that if the viewer encounters disinterest they can choose to adjust focus to the next quadrant and repeat this process which links to the power and control Figgis maintains over the viewer. Weiberg (2002) argues against the idea of co-authorship in Timecode as Figgis guides viewers and draws attention to different parts by developing clever sound design. Figgis admits to this application of sound design to direct attention in several interviews, but on the DVD interactive extras in special features allows the viewer to change the audio in relation to each quadrant. The user can access four unedited soundtracks and the music separately, unto which the user can complete their own individual mix, creating a unique work in line with Manovichs (2001) interpretation of interactivity.

Finally, Timecode contrasts highly to other interactive creations such as the Elephant Dream (2006), an open sourced film that is free to download and edit according to the users disposition and follows Manovichs (2001) idealisation of interactivity. Supposing if Timecode had been released through this open source film culture technique it could have augmented its existence as a truly interactive piece of art.

In summary, the cinema and DVD experience is increasingly extending its flexibility and application of the principle of interactivity as illustrated through positive and negative claims synthesized by academics. From this verdict, Timecode is an excellent example of an experimental film but is deficient of a strong argument for interactivity and lingers in the pre-interactive stage. Arguably, the potential for interactivity considering Manovichs (2001) Myth of interactivity is achievable but in my opinion, is not applicable to the film Timecode. I agree that in this circumstance that interactivity is partially a myth if it were not for the case of cognitive interactivity. Notwithstanding, glimpses of the future cinema and DVDs looks to be based around the digital aesthetics of interactivity and the totality of immersion.

Bibliography Books Bauman, Z. (2008) The Art of Life. Cambridge: Polity. Crawford, C. (2000) Understanding Interactivity. U.S.A.: New Riders Publishing. Darley, A. (2000) Visual Digital Culture. London: Routledge Gobel, S., Rainer, M. and Iurgel, I. (2006) Technologies for interactive digital storytelling and entertainment. Springer: U.S.A. Lister, M. et al (2003) New Media: A critical Introduction. London: Routledge. Harris, D. (2002) The New Media Book. London: BFI Publishing Manovich, L. (2001) The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press Mccloud, S. (1993) Understanding comics: the invisible Art. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. McLuhan, M. (1994) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Nitzan S. (2008) Hyper-narrative interactive cinema: problems and solutions. New York: Rodopi Rieser, M. and Zapp, A. (2002), New Screen Media. Cinema/Art/Narrative. London: BFI Publishing. Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. (2003) Rules of Play. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Stewart, C. Marc, L. and Kowaltzke, A. (2001) Media and Meaning an introduction. London: British Film Institute. Young, P. (2006) The Cinema Dreams Its Rivals: media fantasy films from the radio to the Internet. U.S.A.: Minnesota Press Interviews Figgis, M. (2000) "Digital Cinema Plays With Form" interviewed by Jason Silverman. Available at: <http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,35098,00.html> [Accessed 19th November]. Figgis, Mike (2009) Perspectives interviewed by Trilling. D. in New Statesman. July 16, [Online]. Available at: <http://www.newstatesman.com/film/2009/07/film-cinema-interested-story> (Accessed 9th February 2011). Figgis, M. (1999) "Tikering With Time", interviewed by Rob Blackwelder in Contact Music. [Online] Available at: http://www.contactmusic.com/new/home.nsf/interviewee/figgis (Accessed 9th February 2011) Figgis, M. (2000) Interviewed by Veneruso, T. [Online] Available at: <http://www.nextwavefilms.com/timecode/index.html> (Accessed 16th January 2011). Lecture notes Utterson, A. (2010) Digital Aesthetics: the myth of interactivity? [Lecture to BSc Digital Media Year 2] 11th October.

Online Articles Barthes, R. (1977) Death of the Author, translated by Richard Howard, [online] Available at: <http://evansexperientialism.freewebspace.com/barthes06.htm> (Accessed 9th February 2011). Manovich, L. (1996) On Totalitarian Interactivity. Available at: <http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/totalitarian.html> (Accessed 23rd January 2011) Manovich, L. (1996) Cinema and Digital Media. Available at: <http://www.manovich.net/TEXT/digital-cinema-zkm.html>(Accessed 5th February 2011). Weiberg, B. (2002) Beyond Interactive Cinema [Online] Available at: <http://keyframe.org/txt/interact/ > (Accessed 6th February 2011) Jenkins, H. (2007) Inventing The Future: Digital theory And The Utopian Imagination. Available at: <http://web.mit.edu/cms/People/henry3/pub/digitaltheory.htm> (Accessed: 6th February.) Perez, G. (2008) Film In Review, The Yale Review 89 (1) pp. 184-186 Wiley [Online] Available at: <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/00440124.00487/pdf>. (Accessed 16th January 2011) Williams, R. (2000) Once Upon a Time Code, The Guardian [Online] Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2000/aug/11/culture.features> (Accessed 16th January 2011) Films Elephants Dream [Film] Directed by Bassam Kurdali. Available at: <http://orange.blender.org/ > (Accessed 9th February 2011). Timecode. 2000 [DVD] Directed by Mike Figgis. U.S.A: Optimum Releasing.