Explanation of Short Film "Newsreal"

In my Canadian Experimental Film and Video class we were given the option to create an experimental film or video as an end project and provide an accompanying 5-page explanation.

Here is a link to my video "Newsreal"



And here is a variation of my final paper:

Digital technology has been hailed for the popular access that it provides to various forms of art and communication. It is also hailed for its enhancements in narrative storytelling, cartography, space exploration, anatomical record, and military mapping. (Mitchell, 3-10) This praise of the digital medium has also been met with considerable criticism. While this technology allows a new freedom in imagery, it comes with the sacrifice of the indexicality of the image and its ontological properties. The very binary composition of digital imagery, while accommodating layered manipulation, nullifies the ontology of the image. My experimental video Newsreal (2008) reflects on this notion through my wilful manipulation of digital imagery for the purposes of indicating the instable concept of ontology found in the digital image.

To compliment the analysis of this film it would be beneficial to refer to the theories of Lev Manovich. Digital technology has been revered for its advancements in storytelling traditions (with video games for example), yet Manovich insists on condemning the privilege that narrative receives during discussions of digital cinema. Digital technology may provide means of advancement in the story-telling tradition, however it violates certain revered philosophies of photography and conventional cinema. One of the defining principles of conventional cinematic processes is that cinema stresses “the aura of reality ‘captured’ on film.” (Manovich, 299) That is to say that the basic ingredient of traditional cinema is reality, organized and configured for the exposure and “capturing” onto celluloid. The images on the film are impressions of what existed at one time, in one form or another. As Manovich articulates, “Cinema is the art of the index; it is an attempt to make art of a footprint.” (Manovich, 295) Similarly, William Mitchell tastefully describes the photographic image as “fossilized light.” (Mitchell, 24) With the digitization of the image, whether through 3D computer animation or the digitization of live-action footage, the traditional cinematic image not only loses its indexical relationship with reality but also loses its privilege as the only material from which motion-pictures can be produced. The common material of digital imagery what Manovich refers to as the “pixel”, but could more accurately be identified as the binary digit. The reduction of the motion-picture to a series of androgynous digits or pixels increases its plasticity. This plasticity renders the “given truth” of the photographic image obsolete. Without indexicality, an image does not bear an existential bond with its referent, and therefore is no longer reliable as an ontological representation of reality.

The purpose of Newsreal is not to condemn digital imagery for its lack of ontology. The purpose is merely to indicate towards this philosophy and its relationship with digital imagery. The film is comprised of three parts: A war newsreel, an advertisement, and a magic show. The idea was for the film to take the form of the various clips that would have been shown before a theatrical film screening in the 1940s. I chose this period for its distinct aesthetic (for I intended to emulate it) and for the period’s imagery anchoring in indexical representation of reality. Each in its own way, the segments comment on the manipulability of the digital, and how reality becomes only a small factor in the material constructs of the digital image. Generally, I used digital filters to modify the video so that it was sepia toned. Another digital filter makes the video appear as though it was actually being projected on aged film, complete with simulated scratches on the celluloid. Additional projector and phonograph sound-effects further the film-viewing illusion. This use of digital technology immediately attempts to deceive the viewer into thinking that what they’re seeing is photographic, and therefore indexical to reality. In actuality, the raw footage in the video has passed through multiple digitization processes. All footage (whether “real” or computer engineered) was mediated through a Panasonic digital camcorder. In the case of the magic show, which was originally recorded photographically, I recorded the footage from YouTube, which is itself a digital platform.

The first segment in the film is a found-footage video collage imitating a WWII newsreel. I recorded the (digital) audio from a British news reel depicting WWII aerial raids from YouTube. I then proceeded to collect footage of various flight and war simulation video games with my digital camcorder. The games include Star Fox 64 (1997), StarCraft (1998), Body Harvest (1998), Wing Commander (1990), and Axelay (1992). I then replaced the authentic WWII footage with my newly captured, digitally constructed, video game footage, also adding in an orchestrated soundtrack. The effect is a seemingly authentic newsreel consisting entirely of computer-engineered imagery. I was able to digitally manipulate artificially-produced contemporary imagery in a way that seems period authentic, and indexical to reality. This is evidence of what Mitchell calls the mutability of the digital image. What he refers to is the rapid manipulation of digital information through the simplistic alteration of digits. “The mutability of digital data” says Manovich, “impairs the value of cinema recordings as documents of reality.” (Manovich, 307)



The second segment of the video is razor advertisement. The advertisement also stands as a metaphor. While the advertisement is attempting to sell razors, it never shows the actual razor, the razor in action, or even the effects of the razor. So while you are meant to believe that this razor is worthwhile (since we are told it is), you never see why you must believe in its proficiency. The only visual cues that support the razor’s proficiency are found-footage intellectual montages of CGI sequences from Hollywood blockbusters such as The Incredibles (2004) and Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005) which signify the act of shaving. All in all, there is nothing in this segment that is concretely indexical to the razor or its performance. One would not buy a product which they have not seen, and yet audiences accept illusions of CGI as believable representation of reality.



The magic show sequence is not only significant to this thesis in form, but also metaphorically. After all, performed magic can be seen as an illusory play which deceives viewers into believing what they see is real. The announcer emphasizes this by declaring, “If you don’t think seeing is believing, here’s a performer that will prove it!” Similarly, digital imagery creates illusory reality through manipulated presentation. In keeping with the theme of Newsreal, I decided to take a further step and manipulate the actual footage of the magic show. In order to emphasize the lack of ontology in the digital image I superimposed an animated clip of Winston Churchill’s face over-top of the magician’s. Thus, it is Winston Churchill’s magic show, and the digital effects employed force audiences to except it as the given truth of the image. This superimposition of digitally animated imagery over raw footage supports Lev Manovich’s claim that ontological footage becomes only one building element in a layering process when cinematic process becomes digital. Manovich adds that “cinema can no longer be clearly distinguished from animation. It is no longer an indexical media technology but, rather, a subgenre of painting.” (Manovich, 295) In a welcomed coincidental irony during the magic show, the narrator reassures the audience that “these pictures...are continuous and there are no camera tricks.”



As proven by the above examples, Newsreal reflects on this notion that the very binary composition of digital imagery, while accommodating layered manipulation, nullifies the ontology of the image. Through my wilful manipulation of digital imagery Newsreal indicates the instable concept of ontology found in the digital image. Thus, while this digital technology allows a new freedom in imagery, it comes with the sacrifice of the indexicality of the image and its ontological properties.

Bibliography:
- Mitchell, William J. The Reconfigured Eye : Visual Truth in the Post-photographic Era. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994.
- Manovich, Lev. “Digital Cinema and the History of a Moving Image: Cinema the Art of the Index”, The Language of New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001

"Subjectivity of the First-Person Shooter" By Adam Slight

Lately I have rekindled my passion for N64’s Goldeneye 007, and since the semester is finally winding down I’m able to find more time to play, both the single player missions as well as some riveting multiplayer matches with James Leclaire. I haven’t appreciated Goldeneye 007 this much since 1997 when the game was released (that was more than 10 years ago!). I recall the attention surrounding the game and its close imitation of the 1995 film Goldeneye. I even re-viewed the film recently and notice precise similarities between spatial layouts of sets/levels, replicated gadgets, and close character details (I recall noticing the Alec Trevelyan character in the game wearing a gold ring on his “finger”).

Playing the game this morning (the facility level) I began to apply to Goldeneye 007 some ideas that I have previously explored. As you may or may not know, I have an escalating interest in the application of cinema (and in extension, video games) to various conceptions of “real life experience” a la Andre Bazin’s “Myth of Total Cinema”. In short, I’m close to comfortable stating that I don’t think Total Cinema (cinema as an attempt at an all-encompassing recreation of reality) is a myth at all. Without getting too divergent on this topic, I’d like to skip ahead a little.

The first person shooter genre is in my eyes a very important step on the path to Total Cinema. As the name implies, in the FPS the player is the “first person” to experience what the in-game character experiences. Alternatively, second-person implies a player address, like in text- based adventures (“You find yourself at a fork in the road. Do you turn right, or left?”), while the third-person perspective suggests the player as an omniscient controller of a visibly “other” character.

First-Person

Second-Person

Third-Person

Implicitly, the first-person perspective places the player within the in-game character. As I mentioned in my colloquium presentation on video-game sound experimentation, the first-person shooter allows the player a subjective experience parallel to the in-game character. If one wishes, they may refer to Bordwell and Thompson’s "Film Art" and their discussion on Perceptual and Mental Subjectivity in traditional cinema. Perceptual subjectivity is simple; the film gives “access to what characters see and hear”. A good example of this is the Point of View shot – the shot that first-person shooter permanently assumes. While in cinema, mental subjectivity is the use of stylistic devices to provide insight to what characters think, FPS’ often simply provide perceptual subjectivity to allow players to assume their own desired mental state. Obviously this is not always the case. In Goldeneye 007 for example, coloured bars appear at the sides of the screen upon character injury (a possible visual cue for “panic”). Similarly, N64’s Perfect Dark applies a trippy, blurred slo-mo effect when Joanna Dark gets punched or sedated.

In my colloquium presentation, I focused mostly on sonic subjectivity in the FPS. Using Call of Duty 3, I indicated to several examples where in-game sound is presented to the player using surround sound technology, subjective to the character's own experience. Environmental and diegetic sounds are heard in subjectivity to the direction that the character is facing, in effect to the acoustics and conditions of the setting. The best example I can present is the “ringing ears” effect, when all sounds are deafened by a constant ringing when a grenade explodes near the character.

While I may seem enthusiastic about the FPS’ subjectivity, there are some problems that I considered while playing Goldeneye 007 this morning. There are many limitations that have yet to be overcome by the FPS’ genre. Most of these limitations are based on player perspective. While it is interesting to consider the physical relationship that the player has with the character (the player physically exerts energy and muscle to push controller buttons in order to “physically” move the in-game character through virtual space) this process is still very crude. Here is a list of limitations that I immediately notice:

- The in-game character lacks peripheral vision. This may extend to the wide-screen cinema which arguably imitates a person’s field of vision. I noticed this as I was swiftly moving around a corner in The Facility, and was unable to quickly check a blind-spot for enemies (much like checking a blind-spot while driving)

- A player’s eyes are indefinitely disconnected from the character’s. Instead of forcing a relationship between gamers’ eyes and character eyes, the game creates a contract between gamer and game which encourages the gamer to assume and inspect the character’s presented field of vision. This problem introduces many other problems such as the quality of the gamers’ eyes, the difference between player depth of field and character’s depth of field etc.

- While recent developments in dual-analogue controls have rendered the character’s legs independent of the character’s waist (players can now move in one direction but pivot/point in a separate direction), independence of the character’s neck has yet to be brought into mainstream consideration. The character’s eyes are inherently connected to the direction that he/she is pointing their weapon. I have seen variations of temporary solutions to this, most of which assume a temporary third-person perspective. This unfortunately removes a level of subjectivity from the mix. I have also seen flight simulators which detach the eyes from the weapon, allowing the player to look from side-to-side within the cockpit.


While normally a first-person shooter, Quantum of Solace also uses a third-person cover system in order to detach the character's eyes from his gun

If anyone can think of other problems with the first-person perspective, or examples that overcome some of these problems, please let me know.