Audience Participation In Storytelling

When discussing audience this week, I couldn’t help but think about media that actively asks for the audiences participation in order for the narrative to unfold. “Vote for what you want to happen next” experiments give the audience agency. They feel as if they are in control, even within the strict options set by the writer. One of the most memorable acts of audience participation for me would have to be Batman’s; A Death in the Family. Where readers were asked to call in to decide the fate of sidekick Robin.
What I’m reflecting on today is how we can use Audience Participation in Game Narratives. The idea of the audience being able to take control of the way a story unfolds without flipping back the page is something in interested in. Although games like ‘The Walking Dead’ are popular and use audience participation affectively, users still have the chance to replay the game whenever they want or watch other endings through youtube. I am looking into the idea of an absolute the ideas that audience participation actively shapes the rest of the liner story.

With todays use of kickstarting and crowd funding it’s not unrealistic to suggest that audience participation could be used with the main writers able to shape and form the main ideas. However is the idea of the choice being in our hands put us at direct fault when something eventually goes wrong? Is the wonder of what would have happened if I had voted the other way something to conflicting for fiction?

Overall I think this is where the problem lies, we don’t want to actively be responsible for drawing out the end of something we love but maybe there is something to audience being able to voice there ideas within the brainstorming stage because writers can see what’s at stake and whats interesting but it’s only something time will tell.
I’m also attaching a game I’ve played on  new-grounds game: ‘One Chance’ I think it employees an interesting mechanic when it comes to audience participation and story telling.

Play ‘One Chance’ here.

Storytelling

“Everything is story, story is everything.”

This weeks reading: The Substance of Story focuses heavily on how writers/storytellers use protagonists cause an audience reaction. Although I found the reading to be extremely interesting and helpful it began to make me wonder about if you could tell a story without using a protagonist.

Audience want to recognise a shared humanity in their movie characters, as long as your paper clip character, has some eyes and a strong desire to fix his problems a bond is formed with him.  So what happens if you take away character and focus on subjects? Is the story about the tree falling in the forest a story without a person there to duck and weave a branch? Can we as creatives tell stories using subjects rather than characters?

An example that sprung to my mind was Stan Brakhage experimental film: The Dante Quartet, a short silent film which was created by painting images directly onto the film. There are no characters only text and movement of colour divided into four parts: Hell Itself, Hell Spit Flexion, Purgation and existence is song. 

For me the spilt into four different parts tell a story of a journey through hell, and the way the paint moves faster or colours are repeated show what each of these stages are like. This feels like a narrative without a protagonist however it’s easy to say that the film maker is the protagonist or that it’s simply not a narrative at all.

This question is something I might want to look into exploring through the continuation of my course.

You can watch The Dante Quartet here

Narrative and Non Narrative

It’s very often asked if experimental films have form or narrative? At first glance it’s easy to dismiss an film without words, characters or a clear conclusion. However I believe that it’s through pattern, and repetition that form and narrative can be conveyed in films that are more abstract. For example in the film we watched today ‘We Have Decided Not To Die’  I think still has a narrative that runs through it, even if it wasn’t it’s intention. The act of framing the the film into three separate rituals gives us the impression of three acts, or in this case there are three different stories being told. Even the title seems to give the three protags causality they have all chosen not to die so it’s a way you can make sense of whats happening to each of the figures in the story, it also seems like the characters go from one state to another mimicking that of a journey.  In class we came up with our own reasons as to what made this film narrative and non-narrative.

Narrative
-the film is broken up into parts to follow (each ritual)
-the characters seem to go from one state to another
-the title explains the will behind the three protags
-each part has an emotion low follow be an emotion high

Non Narrative
-visions of weird stuff happened, no representation, nothing is said
-whole piece is in a state of chaos
-lack of conclusion
-characters are props, no motivation

Although I agree with a lot thats said here, but I still believe that just because there seems like there’s nothing literal going on a narrative can still be conveyed in ways that’s abstract, because there are many different ways of story-telling. Even though it’s not clear it still shows the journey of three different people who are choosing not to die.You can view the film here.

We Have Decided Not To Die from Sion Roberts on Vimeo.