“For thousands of young persons around the world today, the cinema is a way of living. As we find ourselves faced with increasing leisure time, the camera will become more important as an instrument of creative living as opposed to its present role as conditioner of the dronelike existence we now lead. I mean to suggest that the camera –either cinema, or video, or both –as an extension of our nervous system, functions as a superego that allows us to observe and modify our behavior by observing our “software” image just as world man modifies his behavior by observing his collective superego as manifested in the global videosphere. By creating new realities in video/cinema we create new realities in our lives.”
Introduction
Before you begin, here’s a mini interactive film scene for you to try.
A List of Interactive Video Tools. Source: Author.
Motion picture companies in recent years are blurring the line between film and video games, bringing technical practices that have been adopted by interactive video games for many years. With the drift of film history into greater realism and higher audience immersion interests, interactive films that make compromises for the audience to take control are emerging. Filmmakers use different new-media technologies such as Eko Studio and Wirewax to engage an audiences’ interaction, but the medium is still so young that more extensive research is needed. This research examines the differences between the engagement models of interactive films and video games to identify the reasons why interactive films do not obtain a larger market.
Interactive storytelling: Overview
The first interactive film in theater was Kinoautomat (1967), where the audience made choices for the plot but only with limited interactivity, for there were only two storylines converging at each decision point. This film was well received but was later banned for political reasons. This storytelling technique has gained recent attention with the rising popularity of gaming and gamification. One of the most famous interactive films in recent years is Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) produced by Netflix. It, however, received mixed reviews. While its interactive form marks a technological advancement in the filmmaking industry, the story itself was deemed not strong enough to sustain the audience’s interest for multiple trials. Many studies have mentioned that the narrative flow of an interactive film during its production phase should be similar to that of video games, taking into consideration all the possible outcomes. However, the main difference between a video game and a film is that a film usually has a plot a director wants to deliver to the audience, who are more like observers, whereas a video game is more about the users’ real-time experience. Right now, the storytelling techniques have yet to reconcile this problem. Interactive cinema is still alternating between the engagement processes of videogames and cinema rather than a hybrid of the two affective experiences. While interactive cinema is an interesting interdisciplinary concept, the different expectations for entertainment forms may be the cause of experiential dissatisfaction among some consumers.
Why interactive films don’t have the same success in their market compared to video games
Enjoyment Models
The motivational model for a video game is based on self-determination theory, which can be broken down into three parts: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The concept of autonomy can be perceived as the “free will” possessed by a story’s participant. It means a person is in control of their own choices without any interference from the outer world. Competence refers to people’s sense of efficacy. Relatedness is about social connectedness, which includes both connection with other players and the avatar in games. Researchers have found that a person would enjoy a game more if any of the three motivations is fulfilled.
On the other hand, while the motivational model of films also encompass both hedonic (happiness) and eudaimonic (meaningfulness) enjoyment, the eudaimonic enjoyment refers to more than just the internal needs identified in the self-determination theory. It includes “truth-seeking” or “meaningfulness-seeking.” It means that one more insight is integrated in watching a film: life meanings while witnessing the film plot.
That requires the audience to be invested in the story, which is moderated by how immersive the storytelling presents itself. However, a co-viewing experience, unique for interactive cinema, might negatively impact this form of invested engagement. First, it creates divided attention as they recognize how the crowd makes the choices rather than themselves, which also violates the concept of autonomy. The divided attention means less enjoyment as it disengages the individual viewer with the narrative’s reality. It is even worse when a person is unable to see the ending that they want to see because the majority of the audience chose other paths.
Even if a person decides to watch an interactive movie at home on a streaming platform rather than going to a movie theater, thereby avoiding the negative impact on the divided immersive experience, it can still be disrupted. By interrupting the cognitive capacity to decide on which choice the character makes, the audience distracts themselves from the concrete storyline. Disrupting the immersive experience would then lower the immersion-based enjoyment, unless “disrupting the immersive experience” is integrated into the story itself, like Black Mirror: Bandersnatch.
Idea Behind Production
The expectation for a video game is to follow the journey our avatar experiences as we make choices like in real life. We are not expecting any “ending” to their story. Rather, we are exploring the world around them as their fate unfolds. However, films are usually a concrete story, which has a beginning, a climax, and an end. The story delivers messages from the production team and fulfills people’s “truth-seeking” motivation.
In order to deliver the message and carry out the narrative filmmakers want to convey, they have to compromise the audience’s autonomy – sometimes there are not enough choices and sometimes making choices do not seem to change the plot at all. These limitations become frustrating to the audience. While expecting an array of interesting outcomes, they only see the same plots despite endless trials. Compared to wasting time repeatedly ruining their hopes, the audience might prefer linear movies as the curiosity wears off.
Conclusion
As an emerging filmmaking narrative that has much potential, interactive cinema presents another innovative entertainment choice for the general audience. However, due to the reasons presented above, interactive movies might not become blockbusters or mainstream until technological advancements are made to suit its unique storytelling narrative. Forthcoming research will conduct a comparative case study of Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (interactive film), Late Shift (interactive game/cinema), and Detroit: Become Human (interactive game) on the scales of critic reviews, technology, and storytelling to expand on potential future directions for interactive films.
+ Resources
McSweeney, Terence, and Stuart Joy. “Change Your Past, Your Present, Your Future? Interactive Narratives and Trauma in Bandersnatch (2018).” Through the Black Mirror, 2019, 271–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19458-1_21.
Mitchell, Alex, Fernández-Vara Clara, and David Thue. Interactive Storytelling: 7th International Conference on Interactive Digital Storytelling, ICIDS 2014, Singapore, Singapore, November 3-6, 2014: Proceedings. Springer, 2014.
Nee, Rebecca C. “Wild, Stressful, or Stupid: Que Es Bandersnatch? Exploring User Outcomes of NETFLIX’S Interactive Black Mirror Episode.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 2021, 135485652199655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856521996557.
Oliver, Mary Beth, and Arthur A. Raney. “Entertainment as Pleasurable and Meaningful: Identifying Hedonic and Eudaimonic Motivations for Entertainment Consumption.” Journal of Communication 61, no. 5 (2011): 984–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x.
Przybylski, Andrew K., C. Scott Rigby, and Richard M. Ryan. “A Motivational Model of Video Game Engagement.” Review of General Psychology 14, no. 2 (June 2010): 154–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019440.
Schwartz, David I. “Beyond 'Bandersnatch,' the Future of Interactive TV Is Bright.” The Conversation, November 2, 2020. https://theconversation.com/beyond-bandersnatch-the-future-of-interactive-tv-is-bright-111037.
Tal-Or, Nurit. “The Effects of Co-Viewers on the Viewing Experience.” Communication Theory 31, no. 3 (August 28, 2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtz012.
Veale, Kevin. “‘Interactive Cinema’ Is an Oxymoron, but May Not Always Be.” Game Studies, September 2012. http://gamestudies.org/1201/articles/veale.
Weiberg, Birk. “Beyond Interactive Cinema.” keyframe.org, August 1, 2002. http://www.keyframe.org/txt/interact/.
Willoughby, Ian. “Groundbreaking Czechoslovak Interactive Film System Revived 40 Years Later.” Radio Prague International, June 14, 2007. https://english.radio.cz/groundbreaking-czechoslovak-interactive-film-system-revived-40-years-later-8607007.
Youngblood, Gene. Expanded Cinema. New York, NY: Fordham University Press, 2020.