Fishermen to architects: how is new immersive technology shaping the 21st century documentary?

Kirby, Thomas

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

This paper will explore technological developments in current documentary production, assessing how these are individually and comparatively immersing the audience in the film and the story and creating spectacle. The paper will track how spectacle operates in the 21st century documentary, assessing two particular films as case studies to critique this concept and addressing whether the filmmakers are embracing the new technology, thereby creating new experiences for the audience and thus approaching the production of documentaries differently. The paper will also assess the audience's desire and growing expectation for spectacle and how this could be causing shifts in the landscape, before examining the interaction of audience, technology and filmmaker.

The two films that will be addressed are Leviathan (2012) and Cathedrals of Culture (2014). These two films act as demonstrations and representations of current documentary that produce spectacle and immersion for the audience, but they differ very much in approach. Leviathan is following in the style of Cinema Vertie and very observational, whereas in Cathedrals of Culture, everything is planned and then executed. Both films utilise developments in new technology, the GoPro and the 3D camera system. However the methodology for the use of the equipment and the presentation of the images and stories to the audience differ vastly. In Leviathan, to continue on its Verite approach there is no clear voice over or dialogue. In comparison each of the films in Cathedrals of Culture has a clear voice-over, which acts as a guide for the audience though each building.

Cathedrals of Culture is a collection of 6 films, each lasting 30 minutes and each looking at the soul of various buildings: the Berlin Philharmonic, the National Library of Russia, Halden Prison Norway, the Salk Institute in the United States, the Opera House in Oslo, and the Pompidou Centre in Paris. Shot entirely in 3D the film is presented as a 'project about the soul of buildings allowing the buildings to speak for themselves and to examine human life from the unblinking perspective of a manmade structure.' (1)

In the current film production environment 3D camera systems have changed rapidly, as a result of the work of James Cameron (predominantly for use in fiction films), and the developments around the point of converge, taking away the 'arbitrary screen plane' (2). The 3D camera system has been used in a number of documentaries: for example, Pina (2011), Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2011) and Cathedrals of Culture.

Leviathan was produced by the Harvard Sensory Ethnography Lab. The film follows life on the fishing boats sailing out of Massachusetts. To begin with, the filmmakers started to film in a traditional documentary approach, however after losing a number of cameras to the ocean, they turned to a camera more associated with the adventure documentary, and action sports: the GoPro. The GoPro camera system has taken the adventure sports and action world by storm, becoming the dominant camera in the market. At its simplest the GoPro is the classic point and shoot. It doesn't come with a viewfinder, you just point it in the rough direction and, with its super wide angle lens you hope it captures what you need. In Leviathan the film makers are coming close to the model of Documentary Trinh T. Minh-ha, seeks with making the cameras invisible'. While the filmmakers might not have set out to hide the cameras from the audience deliberately, the potential that Leviathan demonstrates is of note in the future of documentary.

The Spectacle

Documentaries are creating a sense of spectacle, capturing the world and presenting it to the audiences. In terms of capturing the world, it is also worth noting that this isn't limited to the images; capturing the sounds of the world and presenting these alongside the images is key to the creation of spectacle. Since the origins of documentary, audiences have been looking for spectacle and the filmmakers have been finding new ways of presenting it. The difference is that what the filmmaker and audience once saw as spectacular, they now see as standard; the spectacle has had to evolve. Debord commented:

'THE SPECTACLE IS NOT a collection of images. Rather it is a social relationship, between people that is meditated by images.' (4)

In this comment Debord identifies the point that the key is the relationship between the audience and the filmmakers, made possible by the images. This idea will now be explored further, in addressing the question of what is the spectacle. From the first screenings, where audiences were amazed and startled by the train rushing towards them (L'arrivee d'un train en gare de La Ciotat (1896)), while tales of the audience trying to escape the train remain as folklore, the concept remains. Without the audience to respond, the spectacle would not exist. The spectacle is contingent on the presence of the audience.

Isaacs sees the spectacle as the moment that you turn to your partner and say 'that's magical'; it is when the image transcends the screen and moves you. There are examples of this happening both within Cathedrals of Culture and Leviathan. In Cathedrals of Culture, in the Salk Institute film the audience are treated to a number of time-lapses of the building, placing the building in its landscape and demonstrating the scale and design of the building and its links to nature that happens in the research at the institute. Or within Leviathan you see the realities of life on these vessels as the fishermen are working on the fish; that it is hard and lacking in glamour but can be seen in a different light. Furthermore in Leviathan, alongside the visuals the audience are treated to a 5.1 surround sound mix, with sounds of life on die vessel moving all around them. This creates an experience that demonstrates how spectacle is not just in the visuals, but that the auditory senses can also be used in creating and experiencing spectacle.

The spectacle is not solely limited to the big dramatic 'wow moments'. Cousins and Macdonald observe that spectacle also exists in the small details: the dust settling after the demolition and the leaves blowing in the wind (6). The capturing of the small details connects to the perception of the capturing of reality. There is a spectacle in the intimacy of moments, the capturing of tiny details. Moments that are personal, individual or linked to a moment. The big wow moments and the small details combine to create a spectacle for the audience.

Gunning in his seminal article 'An Aesthetic of Astonishment', observes:

   Rather than being an involvement with narrative
   action or empathy with character psychology, the
   cinema of attractions solicits a highly conscious
   awareness of the film image engaging the viewer's
   curiosity.' (7).

It is this that allows filmmakers to explore new ways to implement the spectacle within their works. Gunning addresses it as being separate from the narrative action, however it is the engagement of the viewer's curiosity which is key to the notion of spectacle and, as I will shortly address, immersion. Saunders comments 'Documentary can, should and does do more than just bear detached witness or produce evidence for our perusal' (8). The spectacle in the documentary is not all explosions and Computer Generated Images; it is creating something that the audience can engage with and form an attachment to.

It is important to return to Debord at this point: 'THE SPECTACLE IS NOT a collection of images. Rather it is a social relationship, between people that is meditated by images.' ' Spectacle is the sense of a relationship that is built between the audience and the filmmakers as they both engage in the film, it affects the emotions that the audience experience while viewing and the lasting effect the film has on them, as they leave the screening space. It is the act of interpretation and, linked to this, the act of enjoyment. Spectacle is always evolving, though this evolution allows audiences to connect in new ways to films and allows filmmakers new ways to explore. This relationship between the audience and the filmmaker and the engagement with the film leads us to the second point of debate of this paper, immersion.

Immersion

The concept of audience immersion, like spectacle, is not a new concept. It has been there since story tellers immersed people in oral tales around the fireside. However, the methods of creating immersion; have changed massively. But as Axani observes, the sense of immersion is something that, as humans, we seek and desire:

   Immersion is built into the human psyche, and
   we will constantly look to be captivated through
   storytelling. As a medium allows for more immersive
   experiences through technological innovation,
   strong stories are all that is required for widespread
   adoption. Significant psychological studies
   have shown the personal benefits of immersion in
   story that explains why we constantly seek the best
   possible ways to indulge in it. (10)

Axani here reaches in to the heart of the audience's desire for immersion, and how technology has enabled filmmakers to create more immersive experiences. His comments also show how the audience, alongside the filmmakers, are seeking the best way to engage with the film.

Within contemporary popular thinking, you mention the term immersion and people start to think about Virtual Reality and tools such as Oculus Rift and Google Cardboard. However, immersion should definitely not be limited to these technologies: "The primary tool of immersion is the audience's mind. It's about the audience getting in there, just like a novel is about the reader getting in there." (11). It is this two way engagement that is the key; it is the immersion that leads to engagement: 'To be immersed means to be engaged, not just physically but also mentally and perhaps also emotionally. ".The immersion of the audience in a film is not simply about flooding the audience with information and images, it's about allowing them to respond to the visual and auditory stimuli and engage with the film.

Does this point render this debate pointless as it is addressing technology as opposed to the mind? The technology is the method used to immerse the audience in to the text and thus should be an essential part of the debate. This has always been present; without technology we wouldn't have film. What technology offers are new ways to help the audience immerse themselves, and new ways for makers to create works in which to immerse the audience. There is a shift now with more and more people exploring and discovering how immersion might work in the 21st century. This is in part due to the technology as people are finding it more readily affordable to experiment, and develop new concepts.

The immersion that is happening in the two exemplar films and in other works is not simply a visual immersion, it is the engagement of all the senses. It is the concept of getting into the reader's mind to allow them to become immersed in the text. It is an experience. As Casetti outlines:

   filmic experience is arguably both that moment when
   images (and sounds) on a screen arrogantly engage
   our senses and also that moment when they trigger
   a comprehension that concerns, reflexively, what
   we are viewing and the very fact of viewing it. (13)

It is the engagement with the story, through the visual and auditory stimuli that leads us to form attachments to what the audience are seeing, and through this immerse their minds. What this paper will focus on is how the new technology of the GoPro and 3D camera systems offer access to spectacle and immersion.

Now I will assess each of the two films that this paper is considering and assess how they have each created spectacle and immersion.

Cathedrals of Culture

Wenders, who was the executive producer on the project, is a champion of 3D within documentary with other works such as Pina. In an interview promoting Cathedrals of Culture he comments:

   We have come to a terrible and totally wrong
   conclusion that 3D is strictly related to action and
   special effects (14)

Wenders clearly sees that 3D and the documentary do have an interesting relationship that is worth pursuing. So is Wenders right? Is 3D technology is an exciting opportunity for documentary filmmakers? And more than that, can embracing the new technology create a new sense of immersion for audiences?

The 3D images captured and presented are striking for a viewer, filling the screen with images of these cathedrals. The technology does play a key role in creating the spectacle and immersion. The technique that they used to create the 3D is called the "Natural Depth[TM]" method and it was created by Alain Derobe. 'The "Natural Depth[TM]" method aims at converting the real depth of the subject to obtain a limited depth called "Scenic Box" through the theatre's screen.' (15) The scenic box is the volume (the space in front of and behind the screen), that the audience experiences within the screening. Though this use of the scenic box technique the audience gains an enhanced perception of the building. This then enables the audience to experience the buildings as a spatial experience. This experience enhances the level of immersion.

Within Cathedrals of Culture I see that there is a new sense of immersion that the audience experiences. For example, as Deborah Young comments in her review:

   The camera takes a seat in the circular hall behind
   a row of spectators watching Simon Rattle conduct
   Debussy, and their outlined backs jump out of the
   screen right in front of the film viewers, in an
   incredible optical illusion. (16)

The audience within the cinema space become immersed in the performance. This immersion is created by the technology. It allows the audience to access the performance in a way they haven't been able to before. The experience is transformed.

   The incredible gain for documentaries is a heightened
   immersion that puts the viewer like never
   before >> into a place << and allows him or her to
   perceive architecture, for instance, as a real spatial
   experience. (17)

In this comment Wenders is correct. Of the various buildings filmed in Cathedrals of Culture, I have only had the privilege to visit the Pompidou Centre thus far in my travels. However, by viewing Cathedrals of Culture I have had the opportunity to explore the buildings in a unique manner. I was able to immerse myself in exploring them through the use of 3D technology, which gave me a spectacle to get lost within. Would the film have worked well if it had only been in 2D? I think it would, but the immersion that you gain from the extra dimension transforms the experience from looking at images to exploring a space--thanks to the scenic box created though the 3D. There is an argument that the film enables the audience to experience the buildings in ways they might never have seen before or gained access to--this is particularly true in the section of Cathedrals of Culture set in Halden Prison.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

However I think the spectacle and immersion is not solely created by the images, it is in the buildings themselves and the stories they tell, with the chance to gain a fresh insight into the buildings as a whole and see parts of the buildings that members of the public would never have been able to access. Spectacle is not solely in the technology; it is in the events captured.

Leviathan

The camera of choice for the filmmakers of Leviathan was the GoPro, fully waterproof, compact and inexpensive. This enabled the filmmakers to capture life on a shipping vessel that is a long way from scenes in Deadliest Catch. The cameras could be placed anywhere, on the fishermen, thrown about the deck and, being fully submersible, they could crash in and out of the waves. This deployment of the cameras shifted the role of the filmmakers; far from spending time crafting and rehearsing shots using their eye they filmed with their body: 'Capturing not so much images as sensations.' (18)

This ability of the cameras to go anywhere on the deck and around the ship allowed the filmmakers to create an experience that immersed the audience in life on the ship; they were living with the fishermen at all times. The GoPros are not the highest quality cameras and their night--time operation is questionable. Castaing-Taylor comments that at times they registered movement as 'ghost images'. By this he meant that the movement left artefacts behind on the images so it looked as if there were ghosts moving on deck behind the fishermen. Regarding this what some would see as a flaw in the footage Castaing-Taylor goes on to say: "The footage seemed to be much more opaque in a good way" ... "It activated the viewer's imagination much more." (19)

Though this deployment of the GoPros the audience is actively immersed in the scene trying to assess what is happening and where they are on the ships. As Hitchcock says 'Watching a well-made film, we don't sit by as a spectators; we participate.'(20). This is what the GoPros enable to create within Leviathan. The spectacle of life on the ships captured in such a raw and arresting fashion led to an active participation and engagement of the audiences mind.

Alongside the GoPro, the second element of spectacle and immersion that the filmmakers created was within the sound track. Taking the sound from the GoPros and turning it in to a 5.1 soundtrack. Through the use of the sound the arresting experience surrounded you with the crashing of the waves, the clanking of engines and the squawks of the seagulls. Through the use of the sound the immersion was heightened, as the filmmakers utilised not only the visual stimuli of the cameras but also the auditory stimuli from the sound mix. This demonstrates how the spectacle is not solely limited to the visuals but is part of the whole cinematic experience.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

What the filmmakers were able to do with Leviathan, was to approach the challenge of capturing the reality they wanted to capture and present, and assess the available technology to determine what would best capture that reality. They realised that while the GoPro had its limitations, such as the lack of view finder, and limited quality, it had the potential to create a new sense of immersion for the audience. Then through this immersion of the audience they were treated to the spectacle.

The Audience

It is important to pause and readdress the audience, and the evolution of the documentary, examining the audience's desire for spectacle in relation to the filmmakers and addressing how this has caused shifts in documentary production.

Audiences throughout history have been listening to, and engaging with, storytelling, from the original tales around the camp-fire to where we are today in a world that experiences multi platform stories. As humans we are fascinated by stories, we want to become immersed in them and experience them. Murray comments:

'A stirring narrative in any medium can be experienced as a virtual reality because our brains are programmed to tune into stories with an intensity that can obliterate the world around us.' (21)

Within this notion of the audience it is still important to remember that the audience are developing, and becoming far more aware of film and the language of film. They have become aware of the filmmaking process and aware of its potential. They are no longer simple spectators, as in Plato's Cave. Their role as audience members has shifted from watching passively to actively engaging with the text. Casetti observes: 'Cinema is the site of an experience which has reshaped the meaning of experience.' (22) Through this reshaping of the experience I see that the audience have played an active role and are still engaged in the development of the documentary. This is due to their desire to be immersed in the documentary and the spectacle that it can offer.

Are the audience craving more spectacle and fresh ways to immersed in a film? Are they driving forward the development of the documentary? The answer is both yes and no. Without audiences viewing and experiencing films, where would filmmakers stand?

Alongside this development I see two other key elements which are driving forward the evolution of the documentary, forming a trinity of elements each with their own evolution and all three having a combined evolution. The two other elements are: the filmmakers and the technology of production. Through the combination of these three elements documentaries have evolved and create experiences which 'obliterates the world around us' (23) when we experience them, as Murray remarked.

It is the combination of the trinity that creates the development and evolution of the documentary. An important aspect of this is the audience's desire to the things they have never seen before and to be exposed to stories. For this to be achievable though, you need filmmakers. Filmmakers who are willing to go out into the world and capture these things to present them to the audience. The documentary is evolving through the role of the filmmakers. Errol Morris says that one of his favourite things about the documentary is that you have the opportunity to re-invent the form with each new project. Filmmakers are looking for new ways to capture the world so as to expose the audiences to something new. This can be seen within the works of the two films referenced with the filmmakers looking to create something that pushes the form forward.

This brings us to the third element, of technology. Without technology we would have no film. Technology is developing and evolving, causing shifts in the form. William Uricchio, head of the Open Documentary Lab at MIT comments: 'shifts in media have always gone hand in hand with technological development.' (24) The two films which I have focused my thoughts on in this article have used the new technological developments, and caused shifts in media. Leviathan took a camera which was prominently used within action sports or as a B-Camera and deployed it in a manner which created a new immersive experience for the audience. Cathedrals of Culture taking the technology of 3D and re-evaluated how it might be deployed in documentary film, allowing the audience to explore and experience the spectacle of the buildings featured in the film.

Conclusion

The documentary is shifting and evolving. The evolution is driven by the audience and their desire for spectacle, but it is the trinity of elements mentioned above which has created the current state of the documentary today.

The two technologies that I've addressed shows how there are multiple ways of immersing the audience in the film. Through the audience's immersion in the film they receive an enhanced experience, allowing them to engage with the stories being told.

By way of a coda, I want to issue a warning, not to fall into the trap of thinking that the use of new the technologies will create spectacle and immersion, and thus a stronger film. There is more, Rose comments: 'Technological additions should complement the immersion already present in the human system.' ' It is this complementing and engagement which has been created by the two films I have considered. What the filmmakers did was, through the technology and the creation of spectacle, to create an experience which engaged the audience's mind and in which they were immersed. The filmmakers created an experience which transcended the screen and which the audience found moving.

Notes

(1) "Cathedrals of Culture World Premiered in Berlinale Special," http://www.wim-wenders.com/ wim-wenders-and-mary-zournazi-inventing-peace/.

(2) Frank Rose, The Art of Immersion (New York: W. W. Norton & Company Ltd, 2012), p. 54.

(3) Trinh T. Minha-ha, "The Politics of Forms and Forces" (paper presented at the Poetics and Politics of Documentary Film Research Symposium, Aalto University, Helsinki, 2013).

(4) Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (New York: Zone Books, 1994), p. 12.

(5) Bruce Isaacs, The Orientation of Future Cinema: Technology, Aesthetics, Spectacle (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), p. 113-14.

(6) Mark Cousins and Kevin Macdonald, Imagining Reality: The Faber Book of Documentary, 2nd ed. (London2006), p. 4-5.

(7) Tom Gunning, "An Aesthetic of Astonishment: Early Film and the (in)Credulous Spectactor," in Viewing Positions: Ways of Seeing Film, ed. Linda Williams (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1989), 121.

(8) Dave Saunders, Documentary (Oxford: Routledge, 2010), p. 17.

(9) Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 12.

(10) Shaun Axani, "Immersion, Media and Storytelling," https://itp.nyu.edu/classes/fnm-sp2015/ immersion-media-and-storytelling/.

(11) John Norton, "The New Storytelling," http://www.bbc.co.uk/ academy/article/art20150225170348718.

(12) Kevin Brooks, "There Is Nothing Virtual About Immersion: Narrative Immersion for Vr and Other Interfaces," Motorola Labs

(13) Francesco Casetti, "Filmic Experience," Screen 50, no. 1 (2009): p. 56.

(14) Wenders in: Scott Roxborough, "Berlin: Wim Wenders on How 3d Is Drowning 'in a Lack of Imagination' (Q&a)," http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ berlin-wim-wenders-how-3d-677303.

(15) Alain Derobe and Transvideo, The Stereoscopic User Book (France: Transvideo, 2009), p. 32.

(16) Deborah Young, "Cathedrals of Culture: Berlin Review," http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/ cathedrals-culture-berlin-review-678678.

(17) Wim Wenders, "Executive Producer's Notes," in Cathedrals of Culture Production Notes (Metrodome Distribution, 2014).

(18) Leo Goldsmith, "The Violence of Sensation," http://reverseshot.com/article/leviathan.

(19) In: ibid.

(20) Alfred Hitchcock, "Why Thrillers Thrive," in Hitchcock on Hitchcock: Selected Writings and Interviews, ed. Sidney Gottlieb (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1936).

(21) Janet H. Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1999), p. 98.

(22) Casetti, "Filmic Experience," 57.

(23) Murray, Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace, 98.

(24) Suvi Andrea Helminen, "Evolution An Inside Look At The MIT Open Doc Lab," Dox Magazine, http://www.doxmagazine.com/ evolution-inside-lookat-mit-open-doc-lab/.

(25) Rose, The Art of Immersion, 4.