The Impact of Cellphone Documentaries

When doing the assigned reading for this week, I was interested in the discussion of how new technologies can have an impact on mainstream and traditional media forms. As Sørrenson’s article was written in 2008, he was not able to write about the impact of smartphones in his article.

In the last 6 years, smartphones have become an increasingly integral part of everyday life. With inbuilt cameras often at a similar quality as DSLR’s on the market, consumers now have an increased access to high quality equipment that professionals have. With the lines progressively blurring between professional and amateur, consumers now hold an incredible amount of power within the market.

I was interested in how smartphone technologies have awarded consumers with this power, and decided to explore the rising phenomenon of cellphone technologies. I found this article on PBS, which provides some excellent examples of well-made cellphone documentaries. Delaney (2012) explores how equipment to assist with excellent cinematography for smartphones is growing, stating that as “technology in ‘real’ camcorders is improving, one can expect smartphone technology to continue improving as well”.

The second example provided in Delaney’s article “Apple of My Eye” is a short documentary produced and edited purely on the iPhone 4. While the film is cute, interesting and well made, I was more interested in the behind the scenes aspect, which is attached at the end of the film (and which is actually longer than the film itself). The filmmakers are seen using dollys, tripods and other film equipment made specifically for iPhones. This manufacturing of equipment specifically for smaller, handheld, consumer devices is completely in tune with Astruc’s vision and predictions, which was discussed by Sørrenson in his 2008 article.

The development and sale of filmmaking equipment made specifically for smartphones has a massive impact on the mainstream film industry, and particularly modern documentary makers. If just anyone can produce a high-quality film with their phone, what point is there in investing in expensive equipment and crews? If just anyone can produce high-quality, real footage, what point is there in investing time and money in documentary makers?

Delaney’s article provides excellent examples of cellphone documentaries and begins a discussion about the impact that smartphones will have on the mainstream film industry.

Integrated Media 1 Reading (Week 2)

The reading this week by Sørenssen explores Astruc’s hopes and predictions for how film and television would be a revolution in not only entertainment, but also “a fundamental tool for human communication” (Sørenssen 2008, p.47) and compares them to the realisation of the contemporary world.

One of Astruc’s main predictions was that “new and expensive technology would eventually spawn more consumer friendly versions” (Sørenssen 2008, p.50) and this increased access to media production technologies would lead to diversity in the market.

Sørenssen outlines three things, which must change in the market to allow for this change to happen:

  • Economic Development: The change and development in price between products available for professionals and amateurs
  • Miniaturisation: The change in physical size of equipment to become more appropriate for individual operation
  • New and alternative forms of distribution: The change in distribution channels towards channels for alternative products

Sørenssen explores how the rise in availability and popularity in technologies such as the camcorder (and later, the smartphone) allow for a democratic change in the public sphere of media publications. The popularity of iPhones alone saw 33.8 billion units sold in the last quarter of 2013 (Velazco, 2013). Concurrently, the rise in popularity of the Internet has created channels for people to share their content, with ComScore (2013) finding that in April 2013, 38.8 billion hours of online video content were viewed.

The smartphone and rise in video quality in smartphones has led to an increase in digital production, as the drop in price (economic development) and change in size (miniaturisation) has made the equipment more accessible for the average consumer. In addition to this, YouTube has created an alternative distribution channel for consumers. As discussed by Sørenssen (2008, p.54), YouTube has created “an open channel for the teeming millions of prospective content producers” who would otherwise would not have had the place to share their content.

This rise in popularity and content development follows Astruc’s vision for the future of content production. Astruc hoped that alternative spheres for content creation and sharing would further democracise the media. He hoped that authors would one day create and communicate ideas with a camera, not a pen, and that new media for lead to new ways of producing and understanding content. Through the rise in popularity of smartphones, Astruc’s vision is slowly becoming realised.

 

ComScore 2013, “comScore Releases April 2013 U.S. Online Video Rankings”, viewed March 14 2014, <http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/5/comScore_Releases_April_2013_US_Online_Video_Rankings&gt;

Sørenssen B 2008, “Digital video and Alexandre Astruc’s caméra-stylo: the new avant-garde in documentary realized?” Studies in Documentary Film, vol. 2, no. 1

Velazco C. 2013, “Apple Sold 33.8 Million iPhones, 14.1 Million iPads and 4.6 Million Macs in Q4 2013”, TechCrunch, viewed March 14 2014, <http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/28/apple-q4-2013-iphone-ipad-mac-sales/&gt;

 

 

 

Week 1 reading: Interactive documentary: setting the field

Ashton and Gaudenzi’s reading discusses the growing production and relevance of interactive documentaries in the last 40 years, since the Aspen Movie App created by Lippman in 1978. Interactive documentaries are defined as a media product with “an intention to document the ‘real’ and that uses digital interactive technology to realise this intention” (Ashton and Gaudenzi 2012, p.126).

Ashton and Gaudenzi outline define and explain four distinctly different types of interactive documentaries as being:

  • Conversational – The original form of interactive documentaries – it contains an interactive video reconstruction of an experience. This type of interactive documentary positions the user to be in a discussion with the computer interface and the documentary.
  • Hypertext – In this form, the user interacts with pre-existing options. The most structured way to explore the ideas presented by the documentary makers.
  • Participative – This type of interactive documentary actively involves the users within the production of the documentary. This relies on the user to create the experience for themselves
  • Experiential – The newest type of interactive documentary harnesses mobile technology to combine the movement within physical space to create a digital experience.

Each four of these types of interactive documentary creates a different dynamic between the user, the author and the artifact – each one presents a different construction of reality and proposes a different kind of interaction.

Ashton and Gaudenzi then go onto discuss different peoples thoughts on interactive documentaries, which were presented at two symposiums run exclusively on this topic. Two of the viewpoints I found most interesting were:

  • Alexandre Bratchet (Upian) discussed the importance and relevance of a good interface in creating a successful delivery and the creation of meaning. He also stated that participation around a interactive documentary is as valid as participation within an interactive documentary.
  • Nick Cohen (BBC) discussed the 90-9-1 model, which is assumed for many modern media forms. This model states that, within any media form, 1% of people are actively creating the content, 9% are viewing and contributing to the content, and 90% of people are viewing it but not actively contributing. Through the creation and viewing of interactive documentaries, this model is becoming less and less reliable, as more people are involved with creating and contributing to content.

In the conclusion of this article, Ashton and Gaudenzi discuss how interactive documentaries allow for new ways to present multiple points of view. Through multiple entry points and storylines, interactive documentaries offer a deeper level and of discussion and engagement with the presented ideas.

1 4 5 6