Documentarys Metamorphic Form Webdoc, Interactive, Transmedia, Participatory and Beyond

SDF 6 (2) pp.141–157 Intellect Limited 2012 Studies in Documentary Film Volume 6 Number 2 © 2012 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/sdf.6.2.141_1 Siobhan O’Flynn University of Toronto Documentary’s metamorphic form: Webdoc, interactive, transmedia, participatory and beyond Abstract Keywords This article examines the evolution of interactive, cross-platform and transmedia documentaries within the context of the earlier model of database narratives and the impact of Web 2.0 technologies. Specific documentary projects illustrate how the interactivity supported by online platforms has influenced the aesthetics of form and altered conventional models of production and distribution. transmedia web documentary interactive documentary crowdsourcing Web 2.0 database narratives A visit to the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) DocLab website in December 2011 attests to the vibrancy and variation of form found in interactive documentaries (i-docs) produced in the past decade. What is also clear in surveying the featured works is that there is no single template for production in terms of either the design of the interfaces and interactivity or the design of multi-platform distributed documentaries. Although this latter form is now more often designated transmedia, following the Producers Guild of America’s creation of the ‘Transmedia Producer Credit’ in April 2010, it is important to recognize that the term denotes a design strategy of distributing narrative content across platforms rather than 141 observational. social media usage and new technologies are driving a degree of accelerated innovation in the form of i-docs that is remarkable. What is evident in contemporary practice is that experimentation with new models of production. Both of these documentaries were launched online and achieved global viral success using social  media campaigns and cross-platform extensions. participatory. documentary makers such as Kat Cizek of the NFB’s multiyear. conversational. i-docs can then be  analysed in terms of how they make meaning via the viewer/user/participant’s engagement with the specific project (Gaudenzi 2009). though not always.Siobhan O’Flynn a distinct and singular model of production. The story or stories are encountered as changeable non-linear experiences. expository. In 2012. 142 . i-docs are often designed as databases of content fragments. which this article will address. screens and technologies is recognized in the description on the IDFA site. Sandra Gaudenzi’s doctoral thesis maps current variants as hypertext. As such. evolving and processual. Here. which extends the realm of digital storytelling into ‘other’ to be discovered realms: ‘Throughout the year. incorporating performance in real-time installations (Cizek 2010–2011). This focus of analysis can then be thought of in terms of the design of interactivity and user experience. often on the web. and his taxonomy of modes of representation1 (poetic. particularly crossplatform design. reflexive and performative) (Nichols 2001) to understand the logic in the shift to the viewer’s experience in interactive design. she extends Bill Nichols’ parsing of documentary points of view that organize to the film-maker. In contrast. two landmark examples of webdocs that combine traditional documentary form with cross-platform paratextual and participatory components are Caine’s Arcade (Mullick 2012) and Kony 2012 (Invisible Children 2012). sometimes including audience created content. It is this notion of ‘beyond linear filmmaking’ that marks the porousness of this emergent and changing field of practice and which presents a challenge in creating a stable taxonomy of forms. however. the text and the viewer (Nichols 1991: 12). in the context of American film and television. the narrative or storyline is often designed as open. IDFA DocLab showcases interactive webdocs and other new forms of digital storytelling that expand the documentary genre beyond linear filmmaking’ (IDFA 2007). wherein unique interfaces structure the modes of interaction that allow audiences to play with documentary content. leveraging the many-to-many (M2M) sharing capacity of social platforms to create global networked communities around traditional documentaries. The fluidity of this space of practice in the adoption of new platforms. With the increasing popularity of Web 2. and which may or may not have interactive paratextual components. documentary makers are increasingly inviting content created by fans (crowdsourcing) and turning to audiences as communities that can participate in funding documentary projects (crowdfunding). In terms of form. Importantly. In practice. complicating further the definitional criteria associated with interactive digital documentaries. i-docs can be contrasted with web-based documentaries (webdocs) that use the Web as a broadcast platform for traditional linear documentaries. participative and experiential while foregrounding the digital interactive documentary or i-doc as a relational object that requires the agency and interactivity of the audience (Gaudenzi 2009: 3). multi-platform Highrise project use both analogue and digital forms. this evolving production model is also being driven by commercial concerns.0 platforms. though. The second frame foregrounds the impact of ubiquitous computing and the development of Web 2. What this article examines is the evolution of a now distinct yet everchanging cinematic form and practice that continues to be rooted in what John Grierson’s termed documentary’s ‘creative treatment of reality’. Having been a member of both the MIPDOC 2010 and the Sheffield Doc/Festival Innovation Award 2012 juries. can invite audience-generated content or not. it may be useful to establish a distinction between interactive and transmedia documentaries. collaborative and social strategies often underlying transmedia productions. transmedia and participatory documentaries and their metamorphic quality in the blurring. and the NFB’s Bear 71 for the Sheffield Doc/Fest Innovation Award 2012 (Mendes 2012). tends to be open and evolving.Documentary’s metamorphic form Transmedia documentaries add a further nuance in that narrative content is designed as distributed across multiple platforms (digital and non-digital). A transmedia documentary distributes a narrative across more than one platform. often (but not always) designed with interactive components. hybridization of multimedia forms are now being recognized in international awards such as the IDFA DocLab. particularly in the context of social concerns. the MIPDOC 2010 WebDoc Trailblazer and the Sheffield Doc/Fest Innovation Award. which acknowledges ‘the project that exhibits originality in approach to form. This article will consider how both forms can be understood within two contextual and interrelated frames. algorithmic cinematic forms as theorized in the early 2000s.1 The emphasis on innovation in form and the creative use of the affordances of digital and web platforms and a shift away from traditional linear form are evident in a sampling of the list of recent award winners: the NFB’s Highrise for the IDFA 2010 (Cizek 2010). ARTE’s Gaza/Sderot for the MIPDOC 2010 WebDoc Trailblazer (Brachet 2008). The first frame is defined by the structural principles underlying database narratives and a consideration of how the emergent phenomenon of i-docs should be understood as both an extension of and deviation from earlier conceptions of database narratives as randomized. mobile and tablet devices as multiple screens that have contributed to the uptake of participatory. digital and Web 2. and in earlier examples tends to function as a closed database. social media. a key point of discussion for both juries was the question of innovation in the digital space in adapting and using the affordances of web and digital platforms and technologies. Designing for participation has become an almost required component in the discussions of transmedia documentaries. The artistic and aesthetic calibre of digital i-docs. text and paratext.0 platforms. as documentary makers seek to leverage social media platforms to invite audiences to contribute content and to connect with each other. as numerous projects exist as hybrids.0 technologies are also blurring prior divisions between fiction and nonfiction. As two forms that deploy non-linear content design models. An i-doc can be web-based or created as a physical installation. but it is a discrete contained work encountered on a single platform. 143 . Simultaneously and paradoxically. director and audience. storytelling and delivery’. Here i-docs continue established practices of documentary makers who have sought to activate audiences in response to social justice issues and crisis initiatives.0 platforms have amplified and extended the efficacy of what Bill Nichols termed the twentieth century’s non-fictional ‘discourses of sobriety’ and documentary’s underlying ideological and activist stance in relation to its audience (Nichols 1991: 3). it can be participatory or not. The instantaneous connectivity of Web 2. though not always. In contrast. associations and reversals that can telegraph meaning through the poetics of the text. Janet Murray in Hamlet on the Holodeck defined the four essential properties of digital media as: procedural (rule-based). action based. our relationship to the work fundamentally changes and we become interactants (O’Flynn 2011). Antecedents can also be found in surrealist films. the experience lacks meaningful complexity in adhering to a structural model articulated here: ‘As a cultural form. This is achieved by strategically organizing dynamic content within a clear thematic and/or polemical frame that guides the meaning of and engagement with the experience. Manovich’s reductionist view of narrative as a simplistically linear structure driven by cause and effect. juxtapositions. which the interactive work then ‘breaks’ in order to ‘choose your own adventure’. a key distinction of contemporary works is that i-docs are designed to be coherent and conceptually unified experiences.1 a postulate that critical engagement with the potential of database narratives has wrestled with over the past decade (Manovich 1999). Bill Nichols includes the poetic mode in his Introduction to Documentary as an addition to his earlier taxonomy of four categories (Nichols 1991. A review of critical thinking on interactive cinema and database narratives of the past decade reveals key breaks between past and present practice driven by specific technological innovations. Soft Cinema was designed as a (re)combinatory work for DVD or screen that mixes audio and video clips in an algorhythmic sequence that ensures no single viewing is ever the same. These framing devices are one response to a tension articulated by Lev Manovich in his statement that ‘database and narrative are natural enemies’. Nichols 2001). and highlight in contrast the agency and participation of the ‘interactant’ in playing with dynamic interfaces that then shape and frame the experience of a given work.e. Yet. see also Aarseth 1994). and encyclopaedic (interactivity necessitates an 144 . illustrates the lack of affect that results from the absence of strong narrative and/or paratextual frames. In the interest of recognizing how radical the quality of a shift to experiential design for the audience is in an interactive medium. is also evident in Carolyn Handler Miller’s statement that ‘The viewers can be given the opportunity of choosing what material to see and in what order. They might also get to choose among several audio tracks’ (Miller 345. i. When interactivity is reconceived as an engagement with a dynamic interface that is playful. i-docs can be organized as fragmented narratives focused on an individual though more often on a community or communities. Alternatively. What is lost in this conception is the complexity of narrative structures that layer meaning through patterns. Manovich’s own 2005 database cinema project. Soft Cinema: Navigating the Database. exploratory and not based on expectations of utility. a narrative creates a cause-and-effect trajectory of seemingly unordered items (events)’ (Manovich 1999). ‘user’ and ‘interactant’ in order to acknowledge the utilitarian and consumer orientation of the term. database represents the world as a list of items and it refuses to order this list. I will use two distinct terms. the complexity of poetry and traditional documentary. participatory (interactive in that they are responsive to input). spatial (interactive works of necessity are designed to encourage exploration through a system of networked and/or linked content and/or through hypertext or graphic environments). ‘user’.Siobhan O’Flynn First line of enquiry: Evolution of interactive to transmedia documentaries In the context of the first frame of database narratives. this hybridization supports ‘multiple perspectives of particular situations. inviting content generation. David Hudson’s essay ‘Undisclosed recipients: Database documentaries and the Internet’ makes a valuable contribution to the field of documentary studies in adapting Marsha Kinder’s theory of ‘database narratives’. Kinder 2002: 6). the mechanics of interactivity can initiate exploration. see also O’Flynn 2005). algorithms)’ (Hudson 2008: 2). Rather than presenting documentaries as closed structures. reflexive. in contrast to the conventional trajectory of documentary film production.0 platforms is evident in the expectation now in 2012 of participatory design in i-docs. Significantly. Interactive works add complexity to the break of immersion necessitated by interactivity. heralding the very important questions: why do we play with interactive content and what generates pleasure and satisfaction in interactive environments? Marsha Kinder revisits Manovich in ‘Designing a database cinema’ to argue that narrative and database ‘are two compatible structures whose combination is crucial to the creative expansion of new media. cinema release and broadcast mechanisms. as ‘dual process of selection and combination’ (Hudson 2008. In contrast to utility-oriented interfaces that function as content delivery systems (think Netflix). since all narratives are constructed by selecting items from databases (that usually remain hidden). even visual display of a graphical user interface (GUI)) towards act. discovery and pleasure in the unexpected and idiosyncratic design. as a frame for investigating i-doc as a form. hyperlinks. open-ended knowledge’ (Hudson 2008: 6). observational. as pleasure can be generated as a result of experiential design in web interfaces. She recognizes the importance of patterning and our cognitive engagement in digital narratives of controlled randomness in that these textual landscapes require ‘… a constant refiguring of our mental cartography with its supporting databases. Recent interactive storytelling platforms such as Mozilla’s Popcorn HTML5 have been designed to pull real-time content from the Web in relation to existing designed content. taking the idea of an Internet-based documentary to a logical next phase. Murray’s concluding discussion looks to the more expressive potential of digital media in capturing human experience and its potential for pleasure. emphasizing movements towards collaborative. One consequence of this shift he identifies is ‘from object-based “push” media (celluloid. Hudson also cites examples of Internet documentaries that combine the representational strategies of conventional documentary with what he terms ‘the less conventional mode’ of ‘dialoguing’ (Hudson 2008: 6). community networking that is now characteristic of many 2011–2012 i-docs and transmedia documentaries. search engines and representational conventions’ (Kinder 2003: 353). He argues ‘that database documentaries loosen assumptions about documentary from fixed modes (expository. and then combining these items to create a particular story’ (Kinder 2003: 348–349.Documentary’s metamorphic form exponentially increasing database of alternative possible content depending on the degree of choice) (Murray 1998: 71–83). video.based “pull” media (user acts. personal) and towards open modes (collaborative. As he traces through a number of examples. collaboration and sharing throughout 2011 and 2012. Attention to the user experience in individual projects is now a necessary design component. this process of selection and engagement in negotiating a database structure online can mimic the archival structure of the Internet itself (Hudson 2008: 6). 145 . foreshadowing the participatory. The impact of Web 2. interactive)’ (Hudson 2008: 2). allowing for a more detailed understanding of the database structure. which was produced in Thalhofer’s Korsakow software. The second is the often ‘flat’ or ‘static’ interface design that takes only minimal advantage of the affordances of web interfaces. a binary choice structure that can work well in games. in what Robert McKee termed the archetype structure (McKee 1997). As a design tool. ‘Water’ and so forth. where the focus of interaction is only on what content to view next. Seven Sons does this with tags such as ‘Sand’. In these earlier models focused on user as editor. the conception of interactivity is based on a concept of a sliding scale of control. semi-open (when the user can participate but not change the structure of the i-doc) or completely open (when the user and the i-doc constantly change and adapt to each other)’ is also useful here (Gaudenzi 2009a). interactive online films (documentary or drama) designed in this form are more often reified experiences that rarely create an emotional resonance with the interactant and this is a consequence of two factors. Gaudenzi usefully refers to these highly structural and controlled works as hypertext documentaries (Gaudenzi 2009b). a recurrent promotional mantra was the allure of ‘now you can edit your own film’. One can return to Murray’s flagging of the importance of pleasure as a significant aspect of engagement with digital media and increasingly more recent dynamic interfaces are designed to be pleasurable and exploratory in their own right. Yet. audio and video clips as linked or not linked to preceding clips. Thalhofer’s software allows film-makers and audiences to experiment in a highly controlled way with non-linear film and create an associational structure moving from element to element via an associational tagging system. functioning as a zero/sum equation where the film-maker cedes in varying degrees authorial and/or editorial control to the user who has a limited degree of choice within a discrete and finite database of content. 146 . Notably. the French i-doc Journey to the End of Coal (Bollendorff. Looking back over the past five years. which works with a simpler interface that focuses attention on the question of editorial control rather than user experience (Thalhofer 2003). 2009) is designed as a ‘choose your own path’ experience within a highly constrained set of choices that do not impact on how the narrative unfolds. The first is that the removal of a fixed editorial structure results in the absence of a sense of a narrowing horizon of choice leading to a dramatic climax and conclusion. Winner of the Prix SCAM 2009 digital interactive artwork award. In short. we want them to be new media specific’ (Manovich 1999). Seven Sons. A good example of this early form is Florian Thalhofer and Mahmoud Hamdy’s nonlinear documentary (2003). Korsakow uses a rule-based system that preloads available clips based on predetermined algorithms that tag images.Siobhan O’Flynn When considering (user) experience design within these earlier works. it is this aspect of experience design that often offsets and balances what can be challenging and/or distressing content. the evolution in form resulting from technological shifts is clear. Sandra Gaudenzi’s discussion of three modes of interactivity in i-docs: ‘semi-closed (when the user can browse but not change the content). Korsakow is one answer to what Lev Manovich defined as the challenge for ‘new media’ when he stated that we ‘expect computer narratives to showcase new aesthetic possibilities which did not exist before digital computers. yet which adds little narrative enrichment to the beautiful cinematic content. whereas The Profiles reconfigures participant photos in a vertical line. and no individual work establishes a template for future i-docs. the replication of an existing structure or design is more than likely a failure to think through the idiosyncracies of the core experience to be communicated in a given project. Commentary and Photos. but through a spatial. Clicking on The Events produces a horizontal chronological time line. Its dynamic interface and recombinatory structure positioned Standard Operating Procedure as a more complex experiential Web documentary that demonstrated how more immersive webdocs are when the interface design is aesthetically and thematically linked to the content. Yet. NFB producer Loc Dao has described the process behind the production of the webdoc and how all elements within the interface design had to support a sense and experience of liquidity. The Prison and Director’s Q & A. and integrated with. with the contract interrogators at the bottom of the vertical stack. the experience of negotiating the database/website is as important as a design element as the choice of colour palette or conventions of cinematography or graphic style. the first marked evolution away from a cinema-rooted form arose because of a shift to experiential interface design. organized hierarchically with the commanding officer Brigadier General Janis Karpinski at the top. which also provides an excellent example of how the experience of a dynamic interface design can be expressive of. In the digital space. Here too. dynamic presentation of the infamous photographs and an organizational structure that supports multiple modes of accessing the content (Morris 2008). and is positioned in a more exploratory mode in relation to the content (McMahon 2009). The Profiles. Rolling the cursor over individual photos triggered each photo to scale larger in turn and encouraged the interactant to click on a given photo. followed by the descending order of officers to privates. In all of these instances of integrated design. Smaller peripheral images are then organized with headings indicating: Personal Account. character and setting. corresponding to Aristotle’s fundamentals of the good drama defined as plot. the website design worked as an elegant and intuitive interface wherein the associational and causal links between reordered images was always clear or easily recuperated. fitting given that the subject of the documentary was North America’s Great Lakes (Dao 2010). have to constantly innovate in form in the marrying of interface and narrative. Another i-doc that broke new ground in the thematic integration of content and interface design and that worked with a closed database narrative was the NFB’s i-doc Waterlife (2010). As such. the creators of i-docs. unlike film-makers. With this kind of dynamic interface. Manovich’s insight that ‘new’ media foregrounds the database of editorial possibilities always latent in film production is still a valid reflection on the underlying database structures of the i-doc form. the content or subject matter in a highly pleasurable way. A menu in the upper left opened tabs to reorganize the content as: The Events. the user becomes the interactant. 147 .Documentary’s metamorphic form A key feature of the web documentaries discussed so far is that they are structured to tell a reasonably coherent ‘story’. The home page displayed a group of the infamous photos taken by the US military personnel and images taken from Morris’ interviews with the military personnel scattered around the film title. The interactive website for Errol Morris’ Standard Operating Procedure (2008) fits here telling the story of military participants in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse. causing the images to reorient with that photo as the now central image. engagements with. critique and on occasion mobilize in response to the calls to action embedded in documentary’s re-presentation of real-world crises.0 social media platforms and the affordances of the Internet to use extend documentary projects across multiple platforms.. archived and networked online. Here. Web 2. where the film is a discrete artefact viewed in cinema or on DVD. One source of mobilization and creative innovation stems from the recognition by content creators that the Internet can support an immediate dialogue and exchange with and between a global audience via Web 2. i-docs extend a logic of engagement that traditional documentary makers have often designed for. any snapshot given here will likely be repositioned as a past moment in the light of new technologies and platforms by the time of publication. the filmmaker .. and to invite audiences to participate as collaborators.0 platforms empower audiences as networked communities who can intervene. Stella Bruzzi has defined the documentary film-maker as one who invades real space wherein the documentary manifests as ‘a dialectical conjunction of a real space’ (Bruzzi 2000: 125). social media platforms and wikis. Web 2. the development of multi.0 platforms.or cross-platform documentaries has led to the rapid coalescence of an array of strategies under the designation of transmedia documentary. and re-representations of experience through the M2M functionality of social media platforms. Moore and Spurlock attest to Nichols’ claim that ‘documentaries always were forms of “re-presentation” of reality .” a history documentary for an “electrate” audience’ examines the process and challenges of making an Internet documentary for Australia’s ABC Internet Portal in 2002 (Beattie 2008). While this has been a goal of traditional social change documentaries with the foregrounding of directorial voices and expose practices in the works of Errol Morris.. always a participant witness and active fabricator of meaning’ (Nichols 2005: 18). i-doc and transmedia creators establish clear narrative frameworks. polyphonic narratives was a familiar protocol. Combined with the networked capacities of Web 2. designing for the Web in 2002 was uncharted territory in terms of audience reception to non-linear database narratives. Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock who call for reform in industry and/or government.0 platforms. Key to this change has been the shift from what can be defined as the one-way channel of communication in traditional documentary where films are of necessity linear in presentation. As these practices are fluid and evolving.0 technologies and platforms support M2M conversations between audiences and content creators via multiple platforms including blogs. i-docs position content producers and the communities they engender as deliberate catalysts for social activism.Siobhan O’Flynn Second line of enquiry: The impact of Web 2. the connectivity of the net is unprecedented. As she notes. Yet. established by 148 . ‘Documentary expression online: “The Wrong Crowd. participatory. Beattie asserts that the experience of ‘ordering the real’ from fragmentary.0 technologies and practices My second line of enquiry extends from this first phenomenon in tracing how i-docs have increasingly leveraged the phenomenon of Web 2. which is the capacity of documentary to serve as a catalyst for public outcry and hopefully social activism. in a conclusion similar to that of Marsha Kinder.. digital technologies and social platforms provide more immediate and widespread opportunities for multiple interventions. In contrast. Where the films of Morris. where this exchange can be immediate. When webdoc. Debra Beattie’s essay. In contrast. This gamification of a compositing of historical events invites participants to respond in the game space to an intended lynching of an African American man. the concept of transmedia in 2012 now functions in two overlapping though not always integrated ways. leaving children to save the day. a global developed world food shortage in which African elders held the key for survival.1 In Angelica Das’ post ‘Transmedia for social documentary’ on the Tribeca Future of Film website. Where traditional documentaries were presented in the final edit as a static closed artefact. interactive. Transmedia documentaries that rely on curation and collaboration of PGC are distinct from those that design highly structured and authored content systems.Documentary’s metamorphic form directors such as Errol Morris in The Thin Blue Line (Beattie 2008. It is possible to present a wellresearched database of verifiable documents embedded in cinematic images. 149 . uses a Second Life simulacrum environment to engage participants in of a 1930s lynching (Olive 2010). the rapid uptake of social media and the clear evidence of fan enthusiasm for connecting. see also Jenkins 2009). Since then. This second model often overlaps with the first in what again is often a sliding scale between authorship and curation. Most importantly. Of great significance is her observation that ‘even within the changed and fragmentary reception platform of the computer screen’. the global oil industry collapse. i-docs are increasingly processual in that they can be designed as ongoing projects inviting the submission of participant-generated content (PGC). porous and participatory databases. these distinct forms require very different approaches to narrative design. and increasingly ‘transmedia’ is used as the catch-all phrase for a disparate set of strategies mixed in varying degrees. which necessitated a high degree of engagement from a core audience (Jenkins 2006. As a design strategy. online documentaries can be open in form and practice. and a second peak oil crisis. transmedia properties depended on fan willingness to discover distributed content. which sustain in a fragmentary manner the essence of the documentary argument’ (Beattie 68). Within this fluid digital space. remixing and sharing content online has been leveraged by artists and the entertainment and advertising industries in the promotion of participatory storytelling where fans as communities are invited to co-create content. 1999) as a transmedia entertainment property that ‘unfolds across multiple media platforms. As Jenkins noted. Lance Weiler’s Pandemic and Tony Pallotta’s Collapsus have used hypothetical frameworks projecting near-future scenarios to invite audiences to address and/or ‘solve’ crises and generate narratives in the process. as expanding. 68). 69). Wachowski 1999). Another hybrid form occurs with the blurring of fact and fiction. The catalyst crises for these ARGs were. Because of the Internet’s connectivity and global reach. extending across multiple platforms. Jacqueline Olive’s documentary project on lynching in America. Henry Jenkins formalized the term in his analysis of The Matrix (The Wachowskis. Always in Season. which the game curtails from its conclusion. a global virus that immobilized adults. Hybrid documentaries such as Jane McGonigal’s World Without Oil and Urgent Evoke. creating. audiences retain an impulse to narrativize non-linear content (Beattie 2008. respectively. with each new text making a distinctive and valuable contribution to the whole’ (Jenkins 2006: 95–96. the hybridization of forms is now as rapid as the emergence of distinct forms. The documentary maker can design ‘to engage the empathy of the viewer. one of her examples presents another hybrid merging of fact and fiction (Das 2011). that crowdfunding is a strategy used to fund any and all enterprises from iPhone cases to dental surgery to transmedia documentaries. So they are truly community-centered participation. analogous to the separate panels within a quilt’. Flickr and Facebook for supporters of a given project has also contributed to the global enthusiasm for participation evident in many i-doc projects. Bard’s 150 . This model of inviting an audience to contribute content within a specific constraint or frame is also identified as one of a number of categories Nora Barry defines in her essay ‘Telling stories on screens: A history of web cinema’ (Barry 2003. to advocacy or to action. A 2011 post by i-doc producer Mandy Rose identifies a similar phenomenon in collaborative documentary in what she terms the ‘Creative Crowd’ model (Rose 2011). (Srivastava 2011). Second. The ease of uploading content to YouTube. each uses its platform to move beyond awareness . Vincent Mosco’s work on the myth of new media technologies as ‘bring[ing] about revolutionary changes in society’ flags ‘a genuine desire for community and democracy’. Here. Barry n. Finally. that crowdfunding is a business development model that is content agnostic and in itself is in no way determinant of whether or not a project is transmedia. to connect participants to commit to a particular worldview. What is significant in the context of how the digital sphere has impacted i-doc production is that media creators are now reaching out to audiences through crowdfunding initiatives. Lina Srivastava’s TEDx Rome Talk on ‘Transmedia documentary and social change’ details a number of transmedia documentaries that use cross-platform and participatory strategies and that have been structured to provide catalysts for audience activism (Srivastava 2011). we find a range of interactive practices supported by web platforms and digital technologies that still define the scope of what are grouped under the term interactive works today. Her ‘pass-along narratives’ are defined as ‘a filmmaker starts a story and places it online. each project uses a number of different platforms to cross boundaries and borders to foster transformation. I would emphasize. though. and other filmmakers or viewers from around the world add to it’ (Barry 2003: 546) and align closely with what Sandra Gaudenzi terms ‘collab docs’.d). changing the dynamics of curation and/or collaboration.. A return to this not so distant critical overview and the questions posed by Barry in the conclusion of her essay is illuminating. in direct partnership with the platform creator. however. Mad V 2009).Siobhan O’Flynn Crowdfunding has also become an important factor in media creation in the Web 2. Her criteria of the necessary characteristics of the successful transmedia documentary integrates the two streams of authored and participatory strategies discussed here: Each project has at its core the use of local voice. Barry provides a taxonomy of form and practice that had emerged with the impact of digital technologies and artists’ experimentation with creating content for new screens.0 sphere. as the categories she notes continue to anchor current trends in the development of interactive online content yet trace these trends to practices before the phenomenon of social media. One should note. ‘multiple participants contribute fragments to a highly templated whole. Examples given are video artist Perry Bard’s Man with a Movie Camera: The Global Remix and Mad V’s The Message and the distinctive characteristics of these works are ‘energy and repetition’ (Bard 2007–. Here.. In the typology she creates. (2004: 19). often at the beginning of the development of a production rather than targeting audiences with marketing campaigns six weeks or less prior to release. This core concern is explored through multiple platforms including the two-authored i-docs. possibly as an app. Highrise. The focus of this project is the enquiry into the experience of life in high-rise towers. the ‘artist’ and/or studio no longer control the text or the media landscape. intended to emulate the viral success of home-made. The online iteration of the film changes daily dependent on the number of images or clips of PGC as the site loads different content elements each day. unstable and changing than that of the twentieth century. an HTML5 interactive video that animates one tower’s residents revisioning of their high-rise (Cizek 2011a). and future partnered research projects linking transnational sites. launched in 2010. non-professional videos (think David at the Dentist). Today’s media landscape further complicates the efficacy of what Brecht proposed as the contradictory text designed to challenge the passivity of consumeroriented audiences (Belsey 2002: 126). as these new documentary forms have no reliable or standard business model. feeding the curated Highrise: Out My Window Participate component on the NFB website (Cizek 2011b). the challenges of production and financing are further complicated in that there are no template business models for revenue generation for webdocs. distribution. there is wide agreement that the NFB’s multiplatform documentary project. If one tracks the rate of adoption of YouTube and Facebook as broadcast channels and community sites for contemporary content. Future extensions will include a game. the NFB is a government supported institution. For documentary makers reliant on broadcast. In 2012. Consider the difference of today’s media landscape to what Catherine Belsey observed in 1992 building on Brecht and Barthes’ theorizing of the ‘writerly’ text (Barthes 1970: 5): 151 . This rapidly evolving and disruptive aspect of media production is inseparable from the activist orientation of Web 2. it is evident that cross-platform distribution and social media outreach have been reactive strategies. The Thousandth Tower and Out My Window. Clearly. the Flickr group that invites submissions of photos taken from anyone’s high-rise window (Cizek 2011c). It should be noted that the NFB producers are in a relatively privileged position in terms of funding as even with budget cuts. is one of the most innovative transmedia documentary projects currently ongoing.0 documentary practices wherein one can argue that the participatory strategies of contemporary i-docs and transmedia documentaries are intentionally designed to empower audiences as active members of galvanized and sometimes activist communities. The last significant shift that should be touched on in terms of what has changed with the evolution of the i-doc is in the complications to business models.Documentary’s metamorphic form ongoing participatory remake of Dziga Vertov’s 1929 film Man with a Movie Camera invites a global audience to submit footage corresponding to the 1276 shots from the film’s 57 scenes in order to remake the film shot-for-shot. As such. which are more porous. arts grants or crowdsourced funding. the website changes daily in response to the ongoing submission of content from a potentially global audience is searchable and designed with simple utility oriented rather than experiential interfaces. i-docs or transmedia documentaries (the same applies to dramatic cross-platform content). As an ongoing project. If awards are an indicator. participatory strategies would seem to contemporize Brecht’s challenge within the theatre space to transform passive audiences to active ‘spect-actors’ (Harris 2001). which Cizek and producer Gerry Flahive call the world’s vertical suburbs. content creators in 2012 (documentary and dramatic) are scrambling to leverage social media platforms to connect with audiences where they already are. Within this constantly evolving mediascape. although the participatory strategies of contemporary i-docs and transmedia documentaries arguably extend Brecht’s challenge to audiences to engage as ‘spect-actors’. Both goals exist as intertwined. Conclusion In conclusion. shifting the centre of gravity and IP control away from traditional old media content producers.Siobhan O’Flynn ‘In what I have called the interrogative text there is no simple hierarchy of voices such that the reader is offered privileged access to the work’s ‘truth’. for the creators of webdocs. curator and collaborator now demands a flexibility and willingness to experiment with the means of communication and a commitment to engage in communication. texts are disrupted. audiences and/or subjects of a given documentary project remains unstable. those participatory strategies are also necessarily undertaken in the interest of promotion. marketing. Brecht’s disruptive strategies have been incorporated into marketing campaigns as a means to engage consumers with a given brand. As such. as the authors of ‘Customer participation in retail service: lessons from Brecht’ detail (Harris 2001). i-docs and transmedia documentaries. by hopefully galvanizing core communities towards activism. Instead the reader constructs meaning out of the contradictory voices which the text provides’ (Belsey 2002:  129). Meaning today is no longer provided. And as the digital sphere provides opportunities for webdoc. notions of interactivity have changed over the past decade in response to two key factors. as a cycle of engagement between media creators and audiences who can become participants generating 152 . created and distributed by audiences who bypass earlier models of production and reception. Meaning is also generated in the interactions of audiences as networked communities. Two. it is also clear that an affecting frame and/or invitation to collaborate is as powerful and effective as a well-told story. necessary components in what contributes to success. the determination as to where power and agency ultimately reside. Interactivity can occur in multiple ways: in the interactivity of a well-designed interface. One. traditional models of financing and revenue generation no longer apply. i-docs of the last five years have demonstrated an increasing attention to interface and user experience design as dynamic structural elements expressive of a thematic core to the given narrative. Ironically. the shift from film-maker to transmedia producer. with the documentary maker. i-doc and transmedia documentary film-makers that are unprecedented. and the opportunity to create new business models for financing and revenue generation abound. Instead. a shift away from a binaristic ‘choose your own adventure’ orientation towards plot as an either/or structure and narrative causality to an exploration of experiential interface design. remixed. distribution and box office and merchandising revenue. responding to online content and to each other. Jon Reiss and Sheri Candler’s How to Sell Your Film Without Selling Your Soul provides a series of case studies of idiosyncratic transmedia business strategies tailored to specific documentary and dramatic projects (Reiss 2010). Here. as traditional business models often no longer apply. Further. the impact of social media and the rise of participatory strategies of engagement have positioned audiences as collaborators and creators who can expect an immediacy of response and the opportunity for agency. the goal of community-building is often directed simultaneously towards activism and revenue generation. To be blunt. controlled or conveyed solely by the ‘authored’ text as either Brecht or Barthes conceived. Cizek. pp. Interact’.’ NFB Blog http://filmmakerinresidence. (1970). documentation of the individual works (webdoc.org/2011/09/08/the-i-doc-as-a-relational-object/ Accessed 8 September 2011. 544-551. Sandra.interactivedocumentary. Angelica. ‘Towards a Productive Critical Practice: Readers as Consumers. Accessed 20 June 2012.tribecafilm.’ in Critical Practice 2nd edition New York: Routledge 2002. (2008). Barry. New Documentary: A Critical Introduction. 61–78. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. Gaudenzi. Das. Carpentier.146. 153 . though necessarily incomplete.net/wp-content/2009/02/Ch-5_hypertext_web-draft. London: Routledge.com/watch?v=pYDFUvO4upY&lr=1.18/en/archiv_ files/20011/E2001_102. (1994) ‘Nonlinearity and Literary Theory’.’ Participation and Media Production: Critical Reflections on Content Creation Cambridge: Cambridge UP.net/wp-content/2009/07/sg_panel-yr3_2009_ch1. (2010) ‘NFB: Create. NXNE InteractiveToronto.‘Telling Stories on Screens: A History of Web Cinema. transmedia documentaries) and the processes of interaction and flows of PGC is vital.’ Studies in Documentary Film 2(1): pp. Gaudenzi. and Benjamin De Cleen. Espen J. Belsey. REFERENCES Aarseth. Catherine (2002).youtube.html Accessed 20 May 2011 Dao. ‘Introduction: Blurring Participations and Convergences.8. (2008). 51–86. National Film Board of Canada. Strauss and Giraux.Documentary’s metamorphic form content. or in communities supporting social change and production financing.interactivedocumentary. Nico. in George Landow (ed) Hyper/Text/Theory. Beattie. 1–14. http://www.pdf Accessed 15 August 2011. http:// i-docs. Attended 20 March 2010. transmedial documentary. (2011) Highrise: Out My Window Installation. (2009b) ‘Chapter 5: The Hypertext interactive documentary through the lenses of the live documentary. Roland. Connect.ca/blog/?cat=15 Accessed 20 August 2011. (2003). Barry.pdf Accessed 20 May 2012. S/Z (trans. IDFA DocLab. (2000).’ http://90. as digital works have no lasting material substance and there is no guarantee that a web-based work will be online for any length of time. ‘Transmedia for Social Documentary. ‘Documentary expression online: ‘The Wrong Crowd. (2008). (2011) ‘The i-Doc as a Relational Object’. Nora. Stella. Kat.’ in Jeffrey Shaw and Peter Weibel (eds) Future Cinema: The Cinematic Imaginary after Film. (2010). ‘Digital Shanachies. 126–144. Nora. ‘Coca-Cola’s Happiness Factory: Case Study.’ http://www. can contribute to our understanding of the historical context and future trajectories of the interactive. November 18 2010. (2009a) ‘Chapter 1: Setting the Field’. New York: Farrar. pp. Richard Howard 1974). (n. ‘5 Words Are Surely Enough. Gaudenzi.’ Tribeca Future of Film http://www. Sandra. Gomez. Barthes.com/tribecaonline/future-of-film/Transmediafor-Social-Documentary. Loc.d).pdf Accessed 15 August 2011. Kat. i-doc. Debra.’ Cross Media NYC. pp. Cizek. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bruzzi. My hope is that this critical reflection on the evolution of these rapidly metamorphing documentary forms. http://www. At this juncture. (2011). Sandra.nfb. Jeff. Amsterdam. (1997). 2. (2009). Kony 2012. Henry. Soft Cinema: Navigating the Database. Bloomington: Indiana UP. ‘Hot Spots. 18. (DVD) Cambridge. Marsha.html Accessed 14 March 2011.com/ watch?v=faIFNkdq96U Accessed 9 April 2012. New York: Harper Collins. Cambridge. IDFA DocLab (2007). (2012). and Narrative Fields Forever: Bufhuel’s Legacy for New Digital Media and Interactive Database Narrative’. (2005). ‘Database as a Symbolic Form’. Kinder. forthcoming. pp. Power. ‘Transmedia Storytelling and Entertainment: Course Syllabus’ http://www. http://www. Daniel. NY: New York UP. ‘Customer Participation in Retail Service: Lessons From Brecht. Hamlet on the Holodeck: the Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. 154 .org/about/ Accessed 8 October 2011. ‘About’. p. ‘The Voice of Documentary. Nirvan. Kim. (2005). Lev. and Steve Baron.org/2009/08/transmedia_storytelling_ and_en. Oxford: Focal Press. Bill. McKee. ‘Afterword.). Myrick. (1991). Holubowicz. (2001). Marsha.youtube. 359–369. Film Quarterly. Story. org/journalPages/MFJ34/Manovich_Database_FrameSet. http://mfj-online. The Blair Witch Project. Jenkins. 2nd Edition. 83–102. (2012). Janet. Manchester: Manchester UP. (2011). MA: MIT Press. (2006). 2: 1. In Jeffrey Shaw and Peter Weibel (eds) Future Cinema: The Cinematic Imaginary after Film. (1998). Manovich. Mosco. 2–15. Bill. Kinder. p 89–98. (2011) ‘Idoc with an “I” as Interactive’ http://www. Henry. Gerald.doclab. Robert. in Nassim Ballestrini (ed) Adaptation and American Studies: Perspectives on Research and Teaching Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag. http://www. Nichols.henryjenkins. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. MA: MIT Press. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Siobhan O’Flynn Handler Miller. ‘Designing a Database Cinema’. (1999). A Theory of Adaptation 2nd Edition. Hudson. o2creation. Manovich. Invisible Children. pp.html Accessed 24 August 2009.com/watch?v= Y4MnpzG5Sqc Accessed 5 March 2012. New York: Routledge. Jenkins. O’Flynn. and Andreas Kratky. 346–353. Lev.’ in Linda Hutcheon. Harris.’ Studies in Documentary Film. (2001). Cyberspace. New Challenges for Documentary. Representing Reality: Issues And Concepts in Documentary. pp. (2003). (1999). Siobhan. ‘Undisclosed Recipients: Database Documentaries and the Internet. Avatars. Cambridge: MIT Press. Siobhan. Bloomington: Indiana UP.youtube. The Digital Sublime: Myth. Carolyn (2004) Digital Storytelling: A Creator’s Guide to Interactive Entertainment. Caine’s Arcade http://www. Murray. Nichols.org/2011/02/23/idoc-with-an-“i”-as-“interactive”/ Accessed 25 February 2011.” International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 29: 8: pp. (2012). O’Flynn. (2002). 55: 4. Nichols. and Eduardo Sánchez. Bill. Vincent (2004). Richard Harris. Mullick. David. pp.’ in Alan Rosenthal and John Corner (eds. (2008). ‘Designing for the Interactant: How Interactivity impacts on Adaptation. Introduction to Documentary. Pictures. Alexandre (2009). Erika. Scope: An Online Journal of Film & TV Studies http://www. (n. Kat. Andy. ‘Memento and Switching’. ‘Digital distribution.nfb. (2008).tv/?lang=en Accessed 28 January 2010.com/2011/11/30/four-categories-of-collaborativedocumentary/ Accessed 11 November 2011. (1999). and Szalat A (2008-2009) Gaza/Sderot. Segretin Abel.ca/ Accessed 21 August 2011.php/webdoc/ Accessed 27 January 2010.ejumpcut.scope.org/?page=coc_nm#transmedia Accessed 7 April 2010. Samuel. Kat. participatory culture and the transmedia documentary’ http://www.’ TEDx Transmedia Rome http://www. Man with a Movie Camera: the Global Remix. (2010).ca/Accessed 12 May 2010. Reiss.com/tribecaonline/future-of-film/transmedia-for-social-change.T-ij9Y7HY20 Accessed 26 October 2011. Journey to the End of Coal. and Lana Wachowski. (2011).html Accessed 12 September 2011.nfb. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.org/about Accessed 14 October 2011. http://www.(2011b) Highrise: Out My Window Participate. (2010) Highrise: Out My Window. producersguild. and Sheri Candler. (2010). Cizek. Lawrence Scott). Cizek.uk/filmreview. Austin: U of Texas. Bollendorff.ca/tag/out-my-windowparticipate/ Accessed 2 March 2011. (2007-ongoing).cbc. Webography Bard. Propp. php?id=122&issue=4 Producers Guild of America. Lina. 1 Day http://1day. Jon. http://dziga.honkytonk.com/groups/nfboutmywindow/ Accessed 2 March 2011. CBC. Cizek. Perry.com http:// collabdocs. Renov. (2011). Srivastava.sellingyourfilm. National Film Board of Canada http://highrise.tribecafilm.nottingham. Brown. Chuck. Michael. Honkytonk Films http://www. Kat.nfb.Documentary’s metamorphic form O’Flynn. (2011a) Highrise: One Millionth Tower HTML5 Trailer. (eds) (1996). Vladimir.ca/one-millionth-tower-trailer/ Accessed 12 November 2011. (2011).html#. Morphology of the Folk Tale: 2nd Edition (trans. Kat.fr/index. and Suderberg. Resolutions: Contemporary Video Practices. Brachet. Wachowski. Film Collaborative.perrybard. National Film Board of Canada http://highrise. Mandy. and Derrick Evans. National Film Board of Canada http://highrise. 155 . ‘How Transmedia can lead to Social Change.d).arte. Rose. (1968). (2010) Highrise: The Thousandth Tower. The Matrix. Kat. Warner Bros.(2011c) Highrise: Out My Window Participate. Siobhan.ac. Tryon.wordpress.html Accessed 4 January 2012.flickr. National Film Board of Canada http://www. LaTosha. http://www. (2010-ongoing) Bridge the Gulf Project http://bridgethegulfproject.net/ Accessed 14 November 2011. ARTE-TV http://gaza-sderot. National Film Board of Canada http://highrise.org/trialsite/TryonWebDoc/ index. Brachet A. How to Sell Your Film Without Selling Your Soul. Cizek.‘ Collabdocs. ARTE-TV http://prisonvalley. (2005). ‘Four Categories of Documentary.nfb. Cizek. ‘Transmedia Producer Credit’.arte. Prison Valley.ca/Accessed 15 October 2010.com/about. tv/?lang=en Accessed 15 July 2010. com/philipscinema Accessed 10 March 2010.nfb. (2010) To Be Heard.(2007).1386/sdf. org/ Accessed 11 November 2011. Mad V. We’re All in this Together. youtube. (2003). http://waterlife. Kyle. Seven Sons http://7sons. Her academic research examines the function. (2010). and Kevin MacDonald.Siobhan O’Flynn IDFA (International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam).com Accessed 22 June 2011. Kara.nytimes. (2010). Leanne. Errol. Ruddick.ushahidi. cross-platform to transmedia design. Legiardi-Laura. NFB Digital. Mendes. ‘Documentary’s metamorphic form: Webdoc.com/user/lifeinaday Accessed 24 August 2010. Michael. (2008). Thalhofer. Parallel Lines http://www. (2010) Power Poetry http://www. (2007). RSA/Philips. (2012). http://www. 6: 2. Scott. DearPhotograph. Jesse Shapins. A Moment in Time http://www.nfb. Jones.onedayonearth.ca/#/bear71 Accessed 24 January 2012. Florian. Martinez. Kevin (2009) Waterlife. foresighting emergent trends in digital storytelling and entertainment in a Web 2. (2009). Mapping Main Street http://www. interactive. ‘IDFA DocLab ‘About’ statement.ca/ Visited January 10 2010.nfb. Ridley.doclab. 141–157. and pyschogeographic practices across media.com/pages/03info01. Studies in Documentary Film.com/standardoperatingprocedure/site. Standard Operating Procedure (Interactive Website).org/index.com/ watch?v=q9ySxrzpP-g Accessed 14 November 2011. Tom Carden and Eric Rodenback. National Film Board of Canada http://bear71. She is 156 . Waterlife Interactive (2010).org/ Accessed 18 February 2011.0/3.html Accessed 17 November 2008. http:// www. Roland. doi: 10.’’ http://www. Olive. Migurski. Roland Legiardi-Laura and Amy Sultan.com/ interactive/2010/05/03/blogs/a-moment-in-time.mappingmainstreet. design and experience of narrative in interactive environments.2. (2010ongoing). Taylor. Sony Pictures. Always in Season Island http://www.org/about/ Visited February 14 2011.com/ Accessed 10 March 2011. McMahon.powerpoetry.alwaysinseasonisland. Suggested citation O’Flynn.html Accessed 14 October 2011.141_1. http://www. (2011). National Film Board of Canada http:// waterlife.tobeheard. Life in a Day.org/ Accessed 14 October 2011.6.com/ Accessed 17 June 2010. (2010-ongoing). (2008-ongoing). transmedia. Ushahidi. Debra Shaffer. (2010).html Accessed 10 October 2004. Bear 71. S. Jeremy and Allison. thalhofer.youtube.ca/Accessed 6 June 2010. and Mahmoud Hamdy. pp. http://legacy. Oehler. Contributor details Siobhan O’Flynn is a Senior Lecturer in the Canadian Studies Program at the University of Toronto and Faculty with the Canadian Film Centre’s Media Lab.crimespotting.sonyclassics. participatory and beyond’.(2009-ongoing). One Day on Earth http://www. Oakland Crimespotting Map http://oakland.0 world. Edwin.youtube. New York Times. http://www.org/Morris. and James Burns. Ann Hepperman.html Accessed 3 May 2010. Jacqueline. 1988. Contact: 115 Fulton Ave. M4K 1X7. Faisal Anwar.com Siobhan O’Flynn has asserted her right under the Copyright. on Nuit Blanche and transformational publics with her collaborator. Ontario. funded by SSHRC. Toronto. Canada.Documentary’s metamorphic form currently engaged in a two-year research/data visualization project. Designs and Patents Act. 157 . E-mail: sioflynn@gmail. to be identified as the author of this work in the format that was submitted to Intellect Ltd. intellect www. . Bristol.com. Intellect. The Mill. BS16 3JG.edu Frances Gateward Ursinus College [email protected]. Call for Papers Submissions may include essays devoted to issues specific to either Japanese or Korean cinema. Topics for essays for future issues may concern: • Historical considerations and reconsiderations • Authorship • Genre • Spectatorship and audiences • Reception of Japanese and Korean cinema regionally and globally Editors David Desser University of Illinois [email protected] Journal of Japanese & Korean Cinema publishers of original thinking ISSN 1756-4905 | Online ISSN 1756-4913 2 issues per volume | Volume 5. Parnall Road. to view our catalogue or order our titles visit www.com or E-mail: journals@intellectbooks. nevertheless share many cultural attributes. but articles on interactions between them will also continue to be considered. 2013 Aims and Scope The increasingly transnational status of Japanese and Korean cinema underlines the need to deepen our understanding of this important film-making region. UK.edu Intellect is an independent academic publisher of books and journals. These neighbouring countries. so often in discord politically. providing scholars with a rich source of research. Fishponds. . users may print.Copyright of Studies in Documentary Film is the property of Intellect Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. download. or email articles for individual use. However.