The space we hold — How to make modern audience listen to the past?
For those who are not familiar with Asian history, they may have never heard of the term “comfort women”, which refers to sexual slaves for the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II. From across Asia, throughout China, South Korea and The Philippines, over 200,000 young girls were separated from their families and held in comfort stations, where they survived years of beating and rape from Japanese soliders.
More than 70 years have passed, the surviving comfort women are getting old and many of them have passed away— the history shall not be forgotten, but how can we make audience today listen attentively to the sufferings of the past?
Interactive documentary, The Space We Hold, has provided a possible answer. Created by Tiffany Hsiung, Christopher Kang, Patricia Lee, and the National Film Board of Canada (NFB), it tells the stories of three grandmothers, each was a victim of sexual violence by the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II. This documentary hopes to change the way you think about how we respond to stories of sexual violence.
Unlike ordinary documentaries where the audience just simply lean back and watch the video, the stories in The Space We Hold has asked for the audience’s constant engagement, both physically(through holding the space bar on the keyboard) and mentally(through adding comments after each story). In the rest of the article, I would like to explain what is the effect of audience’s engagement, and why did the producer design it in such a way.
Let’s first take a look on the physical engagement. In The Space We Hold, each victim’s story will only unfold when the audience hold the space bar on the keyboard.
If the audience let go of the space bar during the story, an option will pop up on screen asking the user either hold the space bar to continue listening or choose to stop.
So, what is the effect of this function on the audience?
When I was experiencing this documentary, except the novelty of “holding the space bar” in the very beginning, my mind was full of puzzle: “Why do I need to hold it all the time?” And I was frustrated a little bit when I loosened the keyboard unconsciously and the story automatically stopped. I felt my story experience was interrupted.
Therefore, there is a risk that audience’s story experience might be interrupted in an unconscious and unwilling way. And there is a further risk that audience may break their emotion flow and take a little bit time to resume themselves to the place where they’re interrupted. It is not hard to imagine how unexpected and frustrated when the story suddenly stopped and you’re still with your characters.
But are there any positive effects of this function? Of course yes!
Firstly, Since the stories in this documentary is hard to hear, offering the audience a chance to take a breath and decide whether to get into the story shows great respect. While the audience are making the decision on whether or not to listen to the stories, the producer is actually selecting the audience — those who choose to stay and listen are the targeted audience where the story will have the most significant influence. And I believe this is one of the reasons why the producer designed it this way.
Secondly, audiences’ experiences are enhanced through physical interaction. As AR storyteller Karim Ben Khelifa puts it:
“we make sense of the world through stories and we remember them through experiences”.
Through physically pressing down the space keyboard, the audience need to lean their bodies forward, changing their roles from “passive sit-backers” to “active listeners”.
Thirdly, holding the space bar also creates an implicit meaning of “holding the space for someone”. In an interview with David Oppenheim, a co-producer of National Film Board of Canada, said that his fear was that people will take “the space we hold” in a literal sense. Their intent was actually around the metaphorical meaning of “the space we hold”. For his colleague who has had experience in violence against women activity, the notion means “holding the space for someone”, empowering(the victims) a room to speak, and a room for the audience to actively listen. Just as the sound narration of The Space We Hold stated: “Their stories are difficult to hear, but even more difficult for them to tell.”
Except the physical engagement, The Space We Hold also asks for the audience’s mental engagement by asking them to leave a response after each story.
For this function, I won’t call it an “interruption” because this new task is only introduced after the previous activity is finished. However, constantly switching between tasks might also challenge people’s concentration on an activity:
“Because of a person’s limited processing and memory capacity, one suspends work on current activity at the risk of losing track of the current activity by failing to resume the work where it was interrupted. But taking the time to make the current activity recoverable runs the risk of losing the new idea.” — Miyata Y., Norman D.A.. Psychological issues in support of multiple activities, User Centered System Design.
Will the audience feel less engaged into this documentary because they are asked to change between “leaving a response” and “watching the story”? Possibly yes, but I would argue that audience’s engagement will not be severely negatively affected, because each “leaving a response” request is not mandatory. Those who don’t want to leave a comment can simply proceed and enjoy the next story. But, by asking for audience’s engagement each time, the producer is choosing his audience again: those who feel affected by the stories, it is quite natural for them to share their emotions and thoughts, which will enhance the whole story experience.
Therefore, the audience’s experience is further strengthened through a social network at the end of the project. After hearing all three grandmother’s testimonies, the audience are directed to a beautifully-designed page where they can see each other’s comments.
So how does this social network enhance the audience’s story experience? Unlike a story which consists of a beginning, a middle and an end, the experience of the story is more about the emotions which have been provoked and the changes of their state of mind.
In this case, as audience watch the video and listen to the grandmothers’ testimonies, their sympathy will arise, and they may even feel the call of action when hearing the narrator says that women in conflict zones are still suffering from similar tortures. Therefore, it is a natural need for audience to outlet their feelings. And the social network function here satisfies their need. Moreover, by looking through the comments from different people, audience will feel that they are connected beyond the boundaries of location, language and religion, greatly enhancing the experience of the story.
In conclusion, this documentary asked for user’s continuous input, both physically and mentally, and by doing this, it takes the risk that users’ experience may be “interrupted” from time to time, but this helps the author to reach his intended aim, which is to change the way you think about how we respond to stories of sexual violence. It is okay to ask for input from your audience — as long as you have a good reason to do it.
About the author: Bowen Sun is currently studying M.A. in Digital and Interactive Storytelling Lab at University of Westminster. Determined to transform digital insights into tangible solutions. Welcome to find more about me through Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bowen-sun/
References:
K.B. Khelifa (2017). Discover the Making of the Enemy. Available from http://theenemyishere.org/ [Accessed 29th November, 2017].
Yoshiro M. and Donald A. N. (1986). Psychological Issues in Support of Multiple Activities. Available from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b4f6/9cd80812e03b58c4b9db4a49c10d55f67722.pdf [Accessed 10th February, 2018].
