NMK event report from April 2002

Digitisation creates exciting possibilities to experiment with form and move further away from the strictures of conventional linear narrative. In this evening seminar at BAFTA, chaired and produced by Stephen Jeffery-Poulter, documentary maker Peter Armstrong, film director Mike Figgis and games developer Peter Molyneux discussed the relationship between digital technology and new forms of storytelling.

Peter Armstrong, One World International
Peter Armstrong launched into the evening�s discussions by launching something of his own - One World International�s new web-based documentary venture, One World TV (www.oneworld.net/tv). One World TV grew out of the organisation�s earlier attempts to run an open documentary portal, in association with partners such as Oxfam and Unicef, broadcasting full-length 30 to 50 minute documentaries over the web. Despite the high quality of the films (focusing on human rights issues around the world), the project was deemed not to have worked as well as it might have on the internet, occassioning a strategic rethink.

Recognising the problem as one of making the message fit the medium (attention spans are notoriously short on the web), Peter and his team decided to deconstruct the documentary-making process into short chunks. In doing so, they came up with a film-making process that better reflected the internet environment - one that was collaborative, interactive, fast and non-linear.

One World TV�s solution was to divide each documentary into short individual scenes, each of which made only one major point, but raised several additional questions. Viewers could then choose which question to follow, and in doing-so construct their own narrative structure. For example, an Aids sufferer in South Africa talks of her frustration at her community�s refusal to acknowledge the nature of her plight; the viewer then chooses between hearing her thoughts about death, hearing her daughters views on the situation, or watching her give a talk at a local school.

But it doesn�t stop there, for as well as enabling those watching the piece to choose their own narrative paths from a pre-determined number of options, One World TV actually allows viewers to upload their own scenes to the documentaries - perhaps in answer to questions raised in initial scenes. The documentary becomes a collaboration between a range of individuals with a range of viewpoints, rather than the work of one film-maker. Alternatively, contributors can build entire documentaries of their own, using a series of their own clips.

Peter�s colleague Jo Hill demonstrated the process using video diaries submitted to the site�s database by Israeli and Palenstinian contributors. Jo showed how any individual with a minimum of technical expertise and a 56k modem could add footage to the site through a straightforward web interface. Upon uploading their material, the contributor can choose to add a title, a text summary, and subtitles if required (once complete, this information cannot be changed by anyone other than the original contributor). The film-maker then adds their clip to a nodal point between scenes in an existing documentary - either one of their own, or one submitted by another individual. If they choose, contributors can prevent their clips from being incorporated into other people�s documentaries.

www.oneworld.net/tv

Mike Figgis, Film Director
Mike Figgis believes that we are living through the most exciting time for film-makers since the introduction of sound in the 1920s, thanks to the combined influence of a range of digital technologies, including cheaper cameras and media, non-linear editing and post-production techniques, and the marketing and distribution potential of the internet. What he can�t understand is why the rest of the movie industry does not seem to share his enthusiasm.

In Figgis�s view, the full significance of digitisation is not appreciated by a film industry that prefers to dismiss the �digital revolution� as yesterday�s news. When they hear the word �digital�, US distributors react �like a bum just asked them for a handout on the street�, Figgis says, and he is frustrated by the Studios� reluctance to encourage film-makers to explore the creative possibilities of digital film-making.

Ironically, Figgis received the active encouragement of his studio when he made his first foray into digital film to make Timecode, in which four parallel, intertwining narratives are shown simultaneously, each filmed in a single take, and shown on a separate quarter of the screen. Figgis explained how the project began as an idea for a one-off performance art piece which would have been heralded by a Time Out advertisement announcing the commencement of filming, wrap party and premiere of a new film, all in a single evening. By chance, he ran the idea past the head of Sony Pictures John Kelly, and was rewarded with the chance to shoot the movie with studio backing in LA, on condition that the entire project was made entirely with Sony equipment and products.

Because Timecode is not a plot-driven film, but one in which is driven forward by the interaction between four separate conversations, Figgis decided not to write a conventional script, and instead used music paper to measure out the four strands of dialogue, with each bar representing one minute of screen time (each narrative was 93 bars long, the length of a standard digital video tape). This technique worked well, allowing him to keep each of his narratives perfectly in synch as he filmed them, but also had the advantageous side effect of minimising studio interference in the project (although Figgis did build-in more structured endings to his four narratives at the behest of the studio).

Normally the script document is central to the process by which the studio stamps it�s authority over a movie, for what is written in the script ultimately dictates the cost of production, and studio executives are prone to interfering with scripts as a means of trying to control the expenditure of their money and guarantee a return on their investment. With no script to act as a blueprint for Timecode, there was nothing to interfere with, and not one studio executive visited the set during production.

Thanks to the nature of both the project itself and the digital technology used to make it, the speed of production was very fast, and the film was completed the month after shooting began. Sony liked what it saw, and Timecode was given a limited release in which it achieved good box office figures and was well-received by critics. Despite it�s initial enthusiasm, however, the studio�s enthusiasm for the picture proved to be short-lived: the movie was pulled from cinemas as soon as audiences started to drop off, wasn�t released in non-English speaking countries for fear that subtitling would be problematic, and the DVD (which allows viewers to create their own audio mix, altering the interplay between the four conversations) is not available outside of the US.

So why has Sony not been more supportive of an innovative and successful piece of work produced and distributed by Sony and made entirely with Sony technology, from cameras and microphones to video tape and editing equipment? Surely by not promoting the film more heavily, the studio has missed out on a great deal of valuable publicity for Sony Corporation products? The problem, Figgis contends, is political. It is simply not in the interests of the controlling sector of the movie (or music) industry to encourage cheap digital methods of production and distribution, for to do so would threaten executives� well-paid jobs and undermine the studios� control of the production process.

Ultimately, Figgis believes this could be a positive development. It is now becoming possible to make, edit and screen a movie to a high technical standard without the need to go anywhere near a studio, distribution company or merchant bank, and if done well the end-result can be far better than most big-budget offerings from Hollywood - precisely because low-budget film-makers can�t disguise mediocrity behind special effects and marketing hype in the manner of the big studios. And as Timecode demonstrates, lower budgets mean lower financial risks, giving film-makers greater freedom to experiment with more experimental methods of creating narratives.

Peter Molyneux, Lionhead Studios
While digitisation can reduce costs and complexity for film-makers, the production of computer games increasingly resembles big-budget moviemaking in terms of cost, financing, and development time. Sales of computer games now exceed film box office receipts worldwide, but in storytelling terms this inherently digital and interactive medium still has a long way to go before it can match the depth and sophistication of the movies, TV or the written word.

The earliest computer games that Peter Molyneux was involved in were text adventures, written narratives in which the reader could choose the direction of the story at periodic intervals by choosing from a number of options. In many ways, Molyneux believes that until recently these text adventures marked the highpoint of gaming narratives, for all of the visuals were generated in the player�s imagination. Although it has long been the aim of games developers, it is only now that we are starting to see products that can match the visual flair and subtlety of TV or film.

In theory, it should be possible to design games like interactive movies, in which characters and plots spin-off in myriad different directions according to the whims and judgements of game players. In practice of course this is a near-impossible task, requiring the creation of millions of intertwined narrative threads, each as well-conceived and well-written as the next. Instead, plots are almost always secondary to the action that drives a game forward, and the integration of the two is rarely seamless. Historically, Molyneux explained, developers have approached the problem of how to incorporate plot into a game without disrupting the gameplay in one of three ways:

Story, Action, Story - e.g. Wing Commander
In this format, interactive action sequences are interspersed with passive narrative segments providing plot exposition. Unfortunately players tend to skip the story sections in order to get on with the shooting, fighting or driving of the action sequences.

Level-based Narratives - e.g. Dungeon Keeper, Command & Conquer
Under this scheme, there is a longer narrative sequence at the end of each gaming level. This allows for lavish, cinematic visuals, but players often forget important details as they advance further into the next level.

Entwined Narrative - e.g. Black and White
A more recent approach, as employed in Molyneux�s own Black and White, allows the players themselves to decide when to view short narrative sequences, which occur regularly throughout the game, and none of which are more than 1 minute long to discourage skipping. This method depends on the creation of a more dynamic world - which means longer development times for games producers.

So that�s the form, but what of the content? Here, Molyneux argued, there is massive room for improvement. Traditionally games have been aimed predominantly at a fairly narrow market of dependable consumers (young men), while the stories they tell have had a similarly narrow thematic and emotional focus. In addition, games plots are often created by the programmers and artists working on the project, rather than by professional writers with an understanding of drama and characterisation. Molyneux believes that this will have to change before games can reach a wider audience and exert a greater cultural influence. He envisages a time when games scripts will be as professional and polished as film scripts, when games explore love as often as violence, and the contemporary world features as frequently as fantasy and sci-fi settings. For this to happen, it will probably be necessary for storytellers from other disciplines to contribute to games development.

Gaming narratives do not evolve in the same manner as conventional linear narratives, however, and it is necessary to understand the technology and development process behind a computer game before you will be able to write for one effectively. For a start development is often a slow and frustrating process, but while it can take two to three years to complete a game, you might not know what you�re going to end up with until the end of that process. Characters are developed separately from other elements such as background graphics, and the whole is pieced together in jigsaw fashion according to what time and technology allows.

A strong narrative flow is essential in a game, but while the narrative might progress in a linear fashion, it is also personalised for each individual player. This means that the storyline in a game will proceed at the player�s pace rather than the scriptwriter�s, and this can be a tricky concept to grasp for those accustomed to writing for film or TV. Peter Molyneux suggested the following guidelines for writers who wish to try developing a concept for a game, or adapting another piece of work for a gaming environment:

• Games need a strong narrative flow, written with skill
• Progress of story is linear, but personalised
• Story progresses at player�s pace
• Rewards must be built-in
• Gameplay and storytelling should be integrated

Your Comments

Do you have any comments about this report? Or did you attend the event and want to share your views on the discussion? Email your comments to colin.kirkpatrick@nmk.co.uk and we'll post them on this page (at the Editor's discretion).

This event was presented in association with

To have a look at the original event click here.