Spartin 1

Lark Spartin

Professor Daniel Keyes

CULT 400M

8 April 2020

Exploring and Creating Affect in Interactive Documentary

ReVive is an interactive documentary, extending from a linear documentary created in 2017

with the same title, that follows the stories of the women who participate in a breast cancer

reconstruction group every month at the Okanagan Surgical Centre in Kelowna, BC. The purpose

of reVive is to highlight this group of women and their stories, promoting further understanding of

a women’s relationship with their body, especially after loss of a body part that is culturally coded

as a symbol of sexuality and femininity. The content of this project is sensitive, and with most of

the world’s communication tools transferring to primary digital media and a more distracted

public, I wanted to explore the role of affect in digital storytelling materials and the possible benefit

of interactive documentary over linear documentary. The inclusion of design features to help

showcase content and understanding through form, added affordance of interactivity and choice,

employment of the affective image, creation of para-social relationship, and incorporation of

researched interactive modes and active feedback functions, collectively helped me to position

reVive as a superior affective space, and cultivate a deeper relationship between the viewer and

the material they’re viewing.

I am a Media Studies major, studying visual arts and computer science, with an emphasis

on trying to integrate these two realms of study and produce digital media. In my quest to create

an interactive documentary version of reVive, I first sought out to find a platform that could provide

a visual interface, which could build off artistic traditions of documentary and its cinematic tropes.
 Spartin 2

I settled on using Eko Studio, a toolbox where you can drag in video clips and visually make

connections between them to create a non-linear story. It includes a drag and drop interface,

customizable code, and allows distribution on major platforms. You can further customize your

HTML-5 Interactive video using the Eko developer API if you choose, where you can use Eko’s

Javascript library to manipulate video stream data, create variable-based decisions, custom UI

components, and create interfaces from scratch.

When developing reVive as a linear documentary, I focused on capturing anecdotes of each

of the women and understanding their story. This laid a good foundation when trying to create an

interactive version, because I could fully focus on cultivating compassionate understanding in the

form using visual design features. I took inspiration from The Space We Hold, an interactive

documentary from the National Film Board of Canada, that looked at how to keep content at the

front of viewers minds through interactive design choices. This idoc highlights the stories of three

‘comfort women’ (sexual slaves) for the Japanese Imperial Army during World War 2. At this

time, over 200,000 young girls were separated from their families to be beaten and raped by

Japanese soldiers (Bowen, par. 1). This documentary has very sensitive content, so I was inspired

by how they used the form of idoc to actively bring the user into the story and make stories from

70 years ago still feel genuine and relevant. Bowen Sun, in her article The Space We Hold- How

to make modern audience listen to the past?, explains how the idoc asks for “the audience’s

constant engagement, both physically (through holding the space bar on the keyboard) and mentally

(through adding comments after each story)” (par. 4). The holding down of the space bar allows

audience members to take a break if needed, but also works to weed out the preferred viewers. Only

those who make a concerted effort to stay and listen will hear the story, which contributes to the
 Spartin 3

argument of the documentary, and the warning of needing to “hold the space” to hear these stories.

The pairing of form and content contributed to making meaning in this idoc.

Janet H. Murrays Not a Film and Not an Empathy Machine, speaks about how to employ

empathy in VR. While I am not using VR, it is a similar medium to interactive documentary with

some of the same capabilities. She notes that “empathy is not something that automatically happens

when a user puts on a headset” (par. 10), and similarly, empathy cannot just exist because elements

have transitioned to an interactive form. Murray gives an example from the work Gender Swap

from BeAnother lab, that looking down and seeing breasts will not give males sudden insight into

the experience of females (par. 12). She goes on to give examples of a VR game that allows users

to watch a man struggling with lifting a heavy relief package that has been dropped from the sky,

stating that VR can place us in the moment and highlight “our inability to reach out to a particular

person at a particular moment… and transform it into a dramatically experienced desire to be of

assistance to the hungry refugees” (par.15).This placed VR as a more affective medium than linear

platforms, because it allows viewers to understand and feel empathy in the present moment,

without requiring an explanation or a significant understanding of context. These specific

examples are less important than the fact that VR, a medium similar to interactive documentary,

has affordances than can place it as being more affective than linear documentary.

Kate Nash, in her article Modes of Interactivity: Analysing the Webdoc, expands on the use

of interactive documentary design elements contributing to the understanding of a central thesis by

giving an example from Highrise: Out my Window, saying “the grey dilapidated exterior contrasts

with the warm, colourful interiors (that illuminate on rollover) to support the documentary’s thesis:

that in spite of their ugly exteriors, high-rise buildings are spaces of creativity and community”

(202). Nash goes on to agree that interactivity is an important element in establishing empathy,
 Spartin 4

explaining the integral role the viewer has in determining the temporal order of the film when she

says, “the documentary maker structures into the text specific opportunities for interaction that

impact on the relationships between elements. Viewed in this way, interactivity is a key element

of the webtop’s structure and, therefore, meaning” (203). I integrated this use of design features to

showcase content within form, and used the added benefit interaction to evoke empathy on one of

the first screens of reVive. The screen asks the viewer how old they are, and gives three options to

click: Under 40, Between 40 and 60, and Over 60. Depending on which button is clicked, the

viewer is shown a story that is told by someone around the same age as what they selected. Erin,

who is 35, roots her age in her choice, talking about her initial drawbacks of breast reconstruction,

the lack of prior family history, how she enjoyed her ‘new pair’ of breasts, and how she wanted to

feel normal in participating in activities with her children. Amberlee, who was diagnosed at 43,

takes a practical approach, explaining her reluctance at first to getting a

mastectomy/reconstruction, but how she didn’t want to always worry or wonder if her cancer was

going to come back. She does state some of the scarring and hurdles that could occur but talks

about how reconstruction simply gave her the confidence to keep going. She says that breasts are

a part of our sexuality, motherhood, and identity, and overall, takes a more traditional, realistic

approach. Christine, representing the ‘Over 60’ age demographic, gives a more light-hearted

approach, saying she is still too young to just give up. She does talk about the trauma of it, and not

feeling like she had time to mourn the loss of her old breasts, but her attachment to the breast

wasn’t the major thing. It was just looking and feeling normal, and not doing it for someone else,

but for herself, at that point in her life. This design feature and linking a viewer’s personal

characteristics to a particular narrative, attempts to produce a story that resonates with the viewer

and the issues that they too face at certain ages. The basic challenges spoken about, such as having
 Spartin 5

children or ideals of beauty, are similar to many other women’s challenges, yet these stories

position those challenges in the context of loss and healing. This also furthers a key argument in

reVive: no matter what age you are, there are multitudes of reasons for why women choose to

reconstruct their breasts after cancer. Overall, regardless of the age that is chosen, reVive tries to

promote reconstruction as a helpful operation. This choice is one that a user may not get to make

in linear documentary. In the linear version of reVive, all the women’s stories were interlaced, and

with time constraints, there was not enough time to go as in-depth into each story. This means

viewers might not see a piece of relatable information, or if the first few clips weren’t intriguing,

they might not get to information that resonates with them. It is almost impossible to structure

information where the first few clips will resonate with all different types of users. For instance, a

60-year-old woman might not have as much to gain by watching a 30-year-old’s story, if that story

is all about having young children and how this effects their choice. In interactive documentary,

the viewer takes an ‘active role’, and as Aston and Gaudenzi explain, “the ‘moment of truth’ is in

the hands of the audience” (2012, 126), meaning that no longer will viewers just be passive and

interpret what they are seeing as it unfolds, but they can be apart of constructing an experience that

is meaningful to them. Viewers watching reVive, some who have been diagnosed with breast

cancer themselves, can potentially feel more control within this medium, as many of them feel a

lack of control in their lives.

It could also be argued that giving the viewer more ability to navigate and explore, and

taking the ‘composer’ role away from the director, makes it harder to showcase a specific argument,

as well as position an interactive documentary as more affective than linear documentary. As most

of us understand from watching linear films, the shots edited together in a specific way, and their

relation to each other is a large part in what cultivates this meaning and emotional response from a
 Spartin 6

viewer, as seen in the Kuleshov experiments. In Adrian Miles article, Interactive Documentary

and Affective Ecologies, he introduces the idea of the ‘Affective Image’, a concept introduced by

Deluze, which could be a potential solution to the lack of control a creator has in the interactive

documentary realm. Deluze further situates the affective image within the perception image and

action image, or the model known as ‘Notice, Decide, Do’ (Miles 23). The perception image (the

‘noticing’) is referring to the camera’s ability to choose what to shoot. In turn, the action image

(the ‘doing’) is always a response to what is being seen. The affective image is the space in between

these (the ‘deciding’), and the shots that expand the time of decision between perception and

action. An example of the affective image in linear film is the close-up shot, which serves to slow

action, like the Mexican stand off in “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” made in 1966. Miles also

cites Nichols, who states that traditional documentaries use the affective image by representing

arguments and ideas rather than action and use the interval between perception and response to

poetically reflect (Miles 22). These in-between spaces become a more crucial part in creating

empathy in interactive documentary, because it is the one part that the creator of the interactive

documentary can control. Miles argues that this in-between ‘deciding phase’ is what helps users

understand and extend the work into the world (24, 26). He puts importance on widening this

interval, and straying away from an action image template, like a first-person shooter game, where

decisions are made quickly, because it “risks diluting the significance of online documentary” (26).

I infused the concept of the ‘Affective Image’ with the added affordances of interactivity into the

design feature of allowing the viewer to choose their age in reVive. These first videos attempt to

connect with the viewer right away by establishing common personal characteristics. This makes

the order of the video clips less important, as the in-between space is where ideas and arguments

are explored and most of the emotion is evoked.

Another way I wanted to encourage empathy and affect was by studying para-social

relationships. Horton and Wohl’s article, Mass Communication and Para-social Interaction:

Observations on Intimacy at a Distance, explores para-social relationships, which are described as

a “simulacrum of conversational give and take” (215), usually taking place between viewers and

TV personalities. Historically, para-social relationships encourage a more manipulative

relationship, promoting an ‘illusion of intimacy’ through a primarily one-sided, calculated

interaction where the TV viewer functions as a consumer being advertised to (217). Regardless of

how this has been employed in the past, it is interesting to note the possibility that these para-social

interactions can exist and be comparable to real social interaction in television viewer’s eyes. This

led me to similarly try to structure personas in reVive, hopefully in a less manipulative way. On

the main menu screen, I wanted to show a video clip of each of the women, instead of just a button

with a name. The user is very likely to see this, as the menu page is triggered anytime a viewer

wants to watch another story. First impressions are made almost instantaneously, so the short video

of each woman served to create their persona and encapsulate the emotion of their story through

body language and facial expression. For instance, characters like Paula and Rana have an overall

more serious facial expression, which links to the tone of their stories, whereas characters such as

Julie, Amberlee, and even Rachelle have a more cheerful tone. This is a feature that could not be

employed in linear documentary, or if it was, it could not give the viewer choice to skip directly

to the story they are interested in. In linear documentary, a viewer is forced to watch what is

displayed in front of them, which could lead to boredom or distraction if the viewer doesn’t

resonate with the information. Interactive documentary, on the other hand, can persuade a user to

choose the story they would like to watch, and possibly create a type of para-social relationship

between the woman on screen and the viewer. Horton and Wohl state the only criteria for this
 Spartin 8

relationship is that the persona can be integrated into daily life, dependable, and be counted on

(216), so I made sure to frame the stories as a personal account, rather than just showing

information, to provide the viewer with a persona that met this criteria.

Throughout the creation of the interactive version of reVive, I incorporated other elements

that further helped to establish the interactive documentary medium as superior to creating affect

through the promotion of a greater sense of freedom. Traditional documentaries usually require a

hefty time commitment, making it easy for viewers to feel stuck. Similar challenges can occur in

interactive documentaries, especially those that have been adapted from linear documentaries.

Waterlife is an example of an idoc that has an overwhelming breadth of information. In this vein,

I attempted to keep each story under 8-10 minutes, to make sure not to overload viewers with

information. Moreover, once you click on a specific story in Waterlife, there is no way to tell how

long the story will take. So, even if this information is affective and relatable, it does not win out

against linear documentary because there is no way to measure progress, which can be distracting

to the viewer. Due to shrinking modern attention spans, if a user is not immediately intrigued, they

are likely to exit out of the whole idoc rather than taking time to search for something that they do

resonate with. In reVive, I incorporated two buttons to pop up on screen after approximately one

minute - ‘Exit’, and ‘Watch Another Story’, as well as a progress bar, to allow viewers to focus in

on the story without these external worries. Viewers now have access to one particular element

that is not available in linear documentary- if they immediately don’t find a connection with the

material, they have an opportunity to find a story that they do connect with. In The Living

Documentary: from representing reality to co-creating reality in digital interactive documentary,

by Sandra Gaudenzi, different modes of interaction and how they position users in interactive

documentary are explored. The Hypertext (hitchhiking) mode refers to the user being able to
 Spartin 9

explore many pre-established paths. This can be linked to the metaphor of hitchhiking, ‘where one

starts a ride with someone and continues with another one’ (47). Some could see this as a downside,

of trying to entice a user to potentially not interact with as much of the story as they could have in

a linear fashion by providing different options. However, I see this as an upside. If a viewer is truly

interested, this hypertext ability provides potential for them to interact with more affective

information that will resonate with them, rather than making viewers watch a quantity of videos

that they may deem useless. When a user feels trapped, as they could in linear documentary, it is

harder to create genuine empathy. Generating this feeling of affect between viewer and material is

intangible- creators can’t possibly create a single linear film that can represent the most optimal

structure that resonates with the greatest amount of users, as they have no way to guess how a user

may react. Giving users ability to seek their own genuine connections with freedom of choice gives

more than one single opportunity to create affect. Gaudenzi goes on to say that these interactive

modes are what help the viewers learn about the arguments in the work, and not necessarily the

topic of the documentary itself (33).

In Gaudenzi’s article, Aarseth (who was one of the first theorists of digital non-linear

narratives), was cited, along with his coined Active Feedback Functions (46). These functions are

a valuable set of deliverables when building an emotional experience within interactive

documentary. When looking at non-linear narrative, these include the explorative function (the

user deciding which path to take), the role-playing function (taking on a character in that space,

usually yourself), the configurative function (users creating or designing part of the narrative), and

the poetic function (the user’s actions, dialogue or design are aesthetically motivated) (46). In

reVive, the explorative function can be seen in the ability for the user to jump between stories and

choose what information to interact with, and can be linked to as the previously mentioned
 Spartin 10

hypertext mode. As for the roleplaying function, reVive visits this criteria a bit more intangibly, as

the documentary is not literally a game with avatars or customizable characters. Although reVive

is intended to have an informative element to it, in the sense of making women aware of their

options when it comes breast reconstruction and giving an option on the menu to explore ‘The

Group’, it strives to position itself in its anecdotes as making a viewer feel as if they are having a

conversation with a friend or a sister, instead of having a conversation with a doctor. Because of

the tone of the documentary, and it’s sharing of more personal topics, it may not be explicitly

giving the viewer a character, but it is positioning them as an invited viewer, rather than an

outsider, connecting them one-on-one with someone they could potentially relate to. You are no

longer just a viewer, but a privileged friend engaging in conversation. The viewer is taking on a

role as an invited viewer in the space: a friend, a family member, or a fellow breast cancer survivor,

rather than just a student. The tone of the stories provides the viewer with a situated character to

take on.

Moving to the configurative function, while users cannot explicitly design or create the

narrative they are viewing, they are encouraged to share the idoc and add their own story at the

end. This takes the story out of the idoc space and makes it real, allowing viewers to append their

own thoughts. Users can perform their own close reading of the material in another platform,

creating their own version and opening discussion. In this version of reVive, when thinking about

the poetic function, I kept the interface fairly non-intrusive, added visual aids to the stories such

as photos, and employed interactive design properties to showcase content within form and further

key arguments. In a future iteration of this project, I would like to dig deeper into creating a more

aesthetically and poetically motivated journey by incorporating visual metaphor when it comes to

linking this form to content. These active feedback functions from Aarseth were a great blueprint
 Spartin 11

in establishing affect in reVive, and positioning it as unique, if not more successful, at establishing

empathy than linear film.

The five most important components of establishing interactive documentary as an

affective form that can inspire empathy are: design elements that showcase key concepts and

arguments within the medium’s structure, interactivity that informs meaning, the use of the

affective image, the creation of para-social relationships, and incorporation of researched

interactive modes and active feedback functions. Through integrating these into reVive, I built a

superior affective space, and cultivated a greater, more personal connection between viewer and

material.
 Spartin 12

Works Cited

“Eko Studio.” Eko Creators, studio.eko.com/.

Sun, Bowen. “The Space We Hold - How to Make Modern Audience Listen to the Past?” Medium,

DisLAB, 15 Feb. 2018, medium.com/dislab/the-space-we-hold-how-to-make-modern-

audience-listen-to-the-past-c69f5e4243a2.

“The Space We Hold.” Spacewehold.nfb.ca, spacewehold.nfb.ca/.

Murray, Janet H. “Not a Film and Not an Empathy Machine, by Janet H. Murray.” Medium,

Immerse, 27 Mar. 2019, immerse.news/not-a-film-and-not-an-empathy-machine-

48b63b0eda93.

Nash, Kate. “Modes of Interactivity: Analysing the webdoc.” Media, Culture & Society, vol. 34,

no. 2, 2012, pp. 195–210., doi:10.1177/0163443711430758.

“NFB/Interactive- OUT MY WINDOW.” NFB/Interactive - OUT MY WINDOW,

outmywindow.nfb.ca/.

Miles, Adrian. “Interactive Documentary and Affective Ecologies.” SpringerLink, Palgrave

Macmillan, London, 1 Jan. 1970, link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137310491_5.

“The Kuleshov Experiment.” The Kuleshov Experiment | Basics of Film Editing,

elementsofcinema.com/editing/kuleshov-effect.html.

Horton, Donald, and R. Richard Wohl. “Mass Communication and Para-Social

Interaction.” Psychiatry, vol. 19, no. 3, 1956, pp. 215–229.,

doi:10.1080/00332747.1956.11023049.

“Waterlife.” WATERLIFE, waterlife.nfb.ca/.

Gaudenzi, Sandra. 2013. The Living Documentary: from representing reality to co-creating reality

in digital interactive documentary. Doctoral thesis, Goldsmiths, University of

London [Thesis]