Words Fail Me: On the need for terminology unique to Immersive Storytelling
“VR Film.” How often have you encountered the term? It’s useful. It tells you that an artistic work is more than that catch-all, the experience.
But are we honest when we label a VR experience a film? On its face it suggests little more than a qualitative distinction from a motion picture; the way a silent film differs from a technicolor “talkie.” They’re all films, right? The answer lies not in semantics. But in, what is for argument’s sake, “user experience.” The core experience of Wiene’s The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari (1920), watching a story that’s projected onto a surface, told in moving images, is far closer to that of Star Wars than would be a Stars Wars VR film. The VR experience is, to an extent, cinema inside out. You engage with the story because you are part of it.
And there’s more.
You’re passive in a motion picture experience. In XR you can’t be. Yes, people argue that Google Cardboard is passive because the viewer cannot alter (e.g. interact with) the experience. But the viewer must turn around. That movement, deciding where and when to focus, is how the viewer fuses images and sound ― filtered through emotional response to the same ― into a coherent story.
Motion pictures are presentational. They’re a director saying, “I’m showing you the story as I understand it.” The VR film, like all XR, is spatial. It’s an artist saying, “Here’s an environment you can explore, near, far, perhaps as different characters; and in doing so, you’ll understand the story in a manner that matters most to you.” The nature of the environment varies by medium. And effects potential emotional intensity and quality.
Let’s say we have a Doctor Caligari VR experience. All is moody. Distorted walls and deep shadows suggest mental uncertainty, even instability ― like the movie. They may literally close in. And you cannot escape no matter where you go. This is maximum intensity.
What about the same story in AR? Well, AR affords suggestive presence. It’s somewhat like reading a novel. You assemble mental images in real time while you move word-by-word through the fictional world. The very act of reading makes you conscious that you’re not quite in that world. Likewise, in AR you “fill in the blanks” of a world suggested by CGI, sound, etc. And emotional intensity concentrates in those suggestions.
Given all the above, can we say that XR simply expands the concept of “film?” In my opinion yes, as much as photoplay, an early term for the motion picture, expands the concept of the stage play; meaning, “not really.” Think about it this way, “Should an emerging art form, touted as challenging traditional notions about storytelling, adopt an old technology term that’s essentially misleading?”
What’s the solution?
Should we have a concise term that means “an experience in which a person comprehends the story by means of sensory and spatial exploration?” Not necessarily, though one will probably arise. And I don’t see a term based on technology. XR devices are too varied for one term to cover them all.
We could define XR film at a basic level. It’s a narrative. And that’s a term I suggest, narrative. It’s descriptive rather than prescriptive. It has nearly identical usage to film. We can have the indie and short narrative. “VR,” “Wearable AR” and so on would indicate the experience type. An example is Little Women: A VR Narrative.
What about 360° videos? Should we have 360° narratives? We could. However, “360°” indicates an experience distinct from traditional (e.g. 2D) video. The point is not to create a system for new terminology. We merely want terms that accurately describe. What are your thoughts on this?
