users vs creators?

So in the doco I say something along the lines of, 'we're so much more than users of interactive technologies, we're creators ...' ... what's the difference, what exactly did i mean by that?

Well I'm using these technologies right now. I can use digital media to communicate; access information, share information but creating stuff with digital media is a step beyond that. When you're being creative essentially you take pieces and combine them or transform them into something new. So with the UB project I've largely taken pieces of old, analogue, physical media (photos, slides, film, video) and firstly transformed it into digital media (scanning, capturing, telecine-ing) and then mixed those sources together to create my vision of the UB world - that's another level on simply 'using' is it now isn't it.

I think it is worth differentiating between the two anyway.

editing: the magic of pieces coming together

Above are two images that were taken around the same moment during the filming of the UB back in 1978; the first by a still camera, the other from 16mm, but since they were taken they've never been put together as they are here and as they are on the timeline of my doco.

I'm guessing that the magic of this reunion is probably lost on everyone but me, the editor, the creator of this sequence so I'd best explain myself. First there's the moment when you realise that these two pieces of the puzzle fit together. As I mentioned both come from different sources. I've only just received the first image but as soon as I saw it I recognised the frames of the 16mm that it related to - i guess that's the feeling that a researcher longs to have - pieces that fit together that have never been put together before.

Then you lay them next to each other on the timeline and hit play. I guess it's the old Kuleshov effect in play here. In a montage the second image takes most of its meaning from (is contextualised by) the shot preceding it. So prior to me accessing the behind the scenes still shot the piano hands were just anonymous hands playing piano but add that first image, which essentially is a new broader perspective (storyteller) and the story expands exponentially.

So suddenly two separate captured moments (images) that relate to the same historical moment are joined and something weird happens. A world, frozen in time for 30 years, is re-animated.

I think that is awesome and incredibly powerful ... Hmmm :o/ ... guess you had to be there.

Yes. But why would we want to create?

Just finished reading Clay Shirky's Cognitive Surplus. I was hoping to find more. I was hoping to find out why we would want to create media, create our own digital documentaries. Instead I found a lot of other useful information concentrated on our desire as social creatures to share and communicate with others.

I suppose creating something is communicating but I'm not sure the desire to share what I've created is the total reason why I would want to create a digital documentary. That's a good end result, the fact that I can share it with the world but what about the process of actually doing it? Flow is all about process, being in the moment of doing something. Do we go see a movie for the sole purpose of talking about it with others later? I don't, perhaps others do?

I guess sharing on facebook is about being in the moment, sharing on facebook is the process, the flow experience of facebook is in the sharing, whereas  documentary is all about story (and doco can't exist without story no matter what the delivery platform) and it is the story journey that is the process. In traditional doco the only way to get into the flow of the story is to watch whereas the flow of digital documentary can be to watch but also in the creating ... and the experience can be extended again through sharing.

Chapter 3 'Motive' began to examine why but still it was brought it back to 'The motivation to share is the driver; technology is just the enabler' (2010, p.79). I think I need to go back to the literature on creativity to fill in these gaps on what it is about creating that creates a flow experience for us.

Edit. Day One.

While I wait the 22 minutes for my poor little macbook pro to render I thought I'd catch up here. It's been about 6 weeks since my last entry.

In that time I've been writing, re-writing, and re-re-writing the script for the doco. This has been a 6 month process. 6 months! Worth the time though because now I feel like I've done the hard work, laid the path and it's just a matter of assembling it. Just like a piece of IKEA furniture; well designed, looks good but underneath is particle board timber. So hand me my allen key ...

So I recorded a draft of the voiceover on the weekend. I've never included a voiceover in any of my productions before. I've always used text in its place but as a viewer, text is laborious, exhausting to read. This doco is looking like it is going to be around 30 mins long, too long to be constantly reading!!

And I've certainly never recorded a voiceover before. As I was doing it I found myself wondering how it should sound. There's the traditional 'voice of god' style which I couldn't do if I tried. I also don't like the stiffness of the traditional journalistic approach, it's too cold and detached. Then there's the more contemporary style that sounds is more relaxed, monotone and conversational. That's more how I talk anyway so I think this voiceover probably fits into that category. I'll probably have to end up doing most of it again but it is acting as a good track to guide the doco as I begin editing.

I'm right on schedule in beginning the edit today. I wanted the script done by end of July. The next milestone is to have the documentary, or a complete draft of it, done by end of September.

So first thing was to lay down the voiceover which has filled the timeline up to 32 minutes! Man, that's a seriously long production. I'm a bit concerned that it's too long. As I go I'm going to be looking for parts of the VO that I can replace with more succinct visuals to shorten things a bit.

The beginning of the doco contains lots of little bits from all over the place so I've been sourcing them and putting them on the timeline. Sound effects of tones, projectors, wind whistling. All very easy to source on the www. I visited youtube to source the old film and kodak ads ....

... wait ... rendering is done so back to the editing.

Pursuit of happiness?

Is this what this documentary project is all about? The pursuit of happiness?

Strange but I've had this song going round and round in my head for the last few days ... Nuno Bettencourt's 'Pursuit of happiness' ...

I've just been revisiting Csikszentmihalyi's TED talk. He reminded me that Flow is all about the pursuit of happiness. Flow is the state we feel when we're doing something that creates happiness. Perhaps talking about 'happiness' is going to be more easily digestible in the doco, a better way to talk about it, more genuine, than 'flow theory' which sounds dry, complicated and academic?

We're creatures in pursuit of happiness really aren't we? The dominant aspirations we hold: health, wealth, success, security. What do they all have as their underlying feeling for us when we get them? What promise do they seemingly hold? Happiness.

Happiness is transient, something that is continually moving, if you hold on to it for too long it disappears. Once you achieve your health, wealth, success, security, whatever, you only remain happy for a moment or two before you new aspirations take hold that take you to experience a different level of happiness.

Happiness calls us forward.

The entertainment industry is a channel of easily accessible happiness. Easily digestible flow experiences ... take one pill twice a day, if symptoms persist see your psychologist.

Interactive digital video is a bigger pill to swallow ... not so prescriptive, the user has more control over their experience and flow becomes even more precarious. The rules of digital documentary, at this stage of our digital media evolution anyway, need to be more guiding for the user, designed to guide the user into the flow experience.

The young seekers who travelled to Balingup during the 1970s were in pursuit of happiness. Mainstream life wasn't doing it but the promise of building a utopia (happiness) drew them in.

The artefacts that still remain of these pursuits of happiness are the archives that I'm now accessing: photos, super 8, letters, music.

One seeker in particular, Deacon Chapin, was drawn from the other side of the world to capture this pursuit of happiness (a personal pursuit of happiness for him) in a film. The result of that pursuit is the 16mm film.

Leaving one more pursuit of happiness to mention. Mine.

Sweet. :o) ... I think I'm on to something here ... hmm???!

the autotelic self ... thinking aloud/allowed

Spent some time re-reading a couple of the 'Flow' chapters this morning. I'm thinking about why digital documentary doesn't flow and how it can flow.

According to Csikszentmihalyi (pp205 - 212) flow requires unity with the environment, attention has to be immersed in the environment. The solutions to creating this immersion are put forward as -

1. focus attention on the obstacle (to flow) and then move them out of the way

     OR

1. create alternative goals for the user

Experiencing traditional documentary on a computer is disruptive to flow. There is a keyboard and mouse between the viewer and the screen which is totally different to the cinema screen and/or tv. So the computer environment is an expansion of the cinema screen. You can't apply the same rules to both systems. The challenges and opportunities for action that call to the user are different. The keyboard and mouse add this thing called interactivity, a new dimension, that breaks the flow of traditional documentary which relies totally on immersion in the storyworld.

Somehow the storyworld of the documentary needs to expand to include the keyboard and mouse into the environment. At the moment the digital documentary ignores the peripheral devices, pretends they're not there because in the native cinema and tv formats they're not, there is no external distraction to the screen. But perhaps digital documentary needs to find a way to consciously include these in the environment. Somehow in the story ...

Csikszentmihalyi suggests that flow requires the user to be autotelic, 'a self that has self-contained goals' (p209). These are the types of people who experience flow easily in situations. The autotelic personality is able to set their own goals from any given environment, they are required to operate with unselfconscious assurance, they easily feel a part of an environment, they can become immersed in the activity and are interested and involved in the experience easily.  

So, am I not getting into digital documentary thing because I am not this kind of person? I do often rely on other people to set goals for me. I'm not so great at unselfconscious assurance,  in fact I'm terrible. Am I too self conscious in any environment lose myself and to become easily immersed in the interactive environment. 

Perhaps the non-autotelic person will only ever be able to get into story in the cinema/tv situation - darkened room where there is no environment to be self conscious in. Perhaps flow in the digital documentary can only happen for those who find it easy to become immersed in an environment.

The question is then, how can digital documentary make people like me (overly self conscious) feel comfortable and immersed in this environment? If I can answer that then flow: the optimal experience of digital documentary should follow ...

Narcissism?

This is me ... in night vision ... :o) ...

I'm very rarely awake at 1am so when I was, last Friday night, I thought it would be a good time to try out episode #2 of the reverse interview. Last week I came up with this plan that I would carry a camera around with me and begin to ask the people around me to point it at me and ask me stuff about my PhD. Anything, UB, Flow, PhD experience ... whatever. Kind of like a reverse interview. Why? Well, we all know we're different with different people and I find myself giving different answers to the same questions, sometimes I'm quite articulate but most of the time incoherent. I guess a useful bi-product of this exercise is that I should start to become more articulate after all this practice of answering these same questions.

The first episode was recorded with Mike which I found quite difficult and then could barely watch it back at all. See the April 27 entry for a reflection on that. Episode#2 was recorded last Friday night with my fellow Wii-Nighters, Tom & Brad. We recorded for about 50 minutes and I totally forgot about the camera and the three of us just talked all things PhD.

As I've begun capturing and watching back both these interviews something strange is beginning to happen. I've gone from not being able to watch myself on camera to being quite interested in watching this 'new' person and hearing what she has to say. It really is like the myth of Narcissus, seeing his reflection in the pond! :o/ ... Not that I've fallen in love with myself!  I know I'm gonna be made to regret writing that ... aren't I? For your information, wikipedia ... the almighty oracle that it is ... tells me healthy narcissism is a good thing.

Anyway, some kind of separation or objectification is beginning to occur. As I watch I'm not really thinking, 'that's me' anymore. That is exactly what I wanted to happen. Awesome!

ANOTHER interesting observation has arisen. Different people find different aspects of this documentary interesting. I talked to someone yesterday and I told them about flow and my reflections on the UB but it wasn't until I got to the bit about the journey of the 16mm film in time and space that their eyes lit up with interest! So this reconfirms that everyone is engaged differently into the documentary, story experience. For some, history does it, others it is the psychological aspect, others like to see the human experience. A good signpost reminder for me that all those parts should remain in my doco. I'd nearly discarded the 'journey of the 16mm' angle but I need to try to remember the parts that I found interesting initially coz if I found them interesting then chances are that someone else out there will find them interesting.

Re your last comments MC - I keep hearing these same words echoing all around me which is great, they serve as welcome reminders to let go of what is known and safe. We're taught to live in what is known and what is safe. Rules, regulations and expectations are our security blankets. "play until you're 10 and then stop playing forever". I thank you and everything that keeps reminding me to play on the other side of what is known. It's gonna take some practice but one day I might even remember it for myself!

:o) This just HAS to start the methodology chapter!

"Even the Almighty took seven days to create the heaven and the earth, and, if the record were complete, we should also learn that it was only at the end that he was aware of just what He set out to do with the raw material of chaos that confronted him."

- John Dewey, 1958, Art as experience, p.65 

the wrong side

Today I found myself on the wrong side of a camera. That is, in front of the lens instead of behind it. Considering it was such a small shift in position it was quite unusual and uncomfortable and no, I haven't felt brave enough to watch it back yet.

This was a first attempt at capturing pieces of material for the doco.

I have been reading about tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966) this afternoon, that's the stuff we know that we don't necessarily recognise as stuff we know. I can recognise the use of a camera as a tool,

'we become aware of the feelings in our hand in terms of their meaning located at the tip of the probe or stick to which we are attending.' (Polanyi 1966, p.13)

Everytime I've picked up a camera in the past it has been to use it to take shots. Each of these experiences has built up over time to create a  tacit knowledge set. It is amazing to experience this same tool for something outside my experience, being filmed. It is like it is not the same tool at all, all of that tacit knowledge I have around the camera disappears when it is turned the other way. A sense of powerlessness arises when a) the camera isn't in my hands and b) the lens is directed at me.

Tuesday morning ramblings from the centre of space

Hey, that title would make a great title for my doco!!

Picking up on comments made 8th April 2010 re the Jabe Babe doco -

So what you're saying is that I need to die and then laugh about it for my film to be interesting or perhaps I should laugh and then die? Decisions, decisions ...

OK, yes, I'm being a bit ridiculous but I have noticed that it helps, in these kinds of docos if the protagonist is dying or has some kind of terrible disease that causes struggle that we, the audience, sit and watch in amazement of and ask, how do they do it???

What is interesting about a perfectly healthy person who thinks life is great?

Nothing. No struggle. No interest there.

So the second fall back in these documentaries is that the protagonist is slightly strange, unusual, odd - Jabe Babe just happened to have both working for her - for want of a better word, a freak, that the audience can sit in amazement of and ask, are they for real???

My thoughts then are that this doco falls into the latter category. The UB is quite unusual and if I'm interested in them then I must be quite unusual. BUT, is this all unusual enough for it to be interesting? This is the question. How on earth do I judge that?

Hoping to get a camera on long term loan beginning this week so that I can begin to collect the bits and pieces of life that will be stitched together to create this. I'm hopeful that this process will help to move this project forward.

I'm discovering how difficult it actually is to make a film that you are in yourself. If this was about anyone else, I would have had it nailed by now. I think that when I observe someone else, what I am actually doing is comparing their qualities with who I am through this contrast and I come to decisions about them this way. I think the same happens when we watch people in documentary, we're constantly measuring and comparing how the person on screen deals with their struggle with how we would deal with it.

Therefore, in my situation where I'm attempting to capture a part of myself that is of interest to others I have nothing to help measure up to or with and am finding it quite unsettling. It's like floating in the centre of space. I guess we need the contrast of others to know ourselves.

I think I'm understanding now that if I can capture parts of my life on camera then this will be enough to be able to separate and see 'Carolyn' a little more objectively, as a character in a documentary and as a person that may (or may not) be of interest.

Interesting aspects according to me

Interactive media as an alternative lifestyle

I think you understand 'Flow' perfectly. In fact, you're the first to pick it up, in relation to what I'm trying to do here, so quickly and with what seems to be a rich understanding of it. I like common ground :o)

It had not crossed my mind to draw parallels between interactive media and community/alternative living as you've done. Thanks for the insight. I get it, in order to live an alternative lifestyle as the UB were new rules had to be learnt, there were different challenges offered through UB living that weren't offered in the mainstream. The way I see it, the people that went off to join the UB had to be looking, searching for the joy of discovery. Mainstream culture wasn't giving them that so off they went to this new type of experience. They were referred to by the UB as 'seekers'. Perfect, as they were seekers of new life experiences. Perhaps in interactive doco we need to learn how to be seekers.

It is really interesting  to use this to understand more about interactive doco flow and to envisage a future for it.

I see that many of the aspects of UB life in 1978, things that were unique to these alternative lifestyles have now become an accepted part of mainstream living. Yoga, health & fitness in general, organic food, organic farming, meditation, eastern philosophy, ... the list could go on. I don't remember much about 1978 but I'm quite sure that none of these things were norms of mainstream living in Australia at that time. Fast forward 30 years, even 20 years, and look, all of these things are well accepted and even valued aspects of mainstream living in the 21st C. It is really interesting that you laughed (ok, we) - 'nazi youth camp' -  when we saw the vision of the UB people jogging around the property but when I drive to work each morning I see dozens of people jogging up and down the footpaths on Glynburn rd - why is this not so funny? Maybe it would be if we were part of a culture that didn't do that kind of thing.  Don't know. In terms of Flow, the UB culture had a 'rule' that health and fitness were good, our 21st C mainstream culture has the same 'rule' now.

Anyway this tells us that there's been a transferral from alternative to being mainstream over a period of time.  Although, not all aspects of UB life have become mainstream - I'm not sure anyone would be up for doing the Brotherhood Reel anytime soon :o/ ... even me.

If we return to the parallels you drew between interactive media and alternative living in your last posting then this tells us that while interactive media, documentary, at this point is alternative living. It offers different rules and challenges and requires different skills of both producers and audience (who must learn to become users or seekers). As you mentioned  - the UB & interactive media are disruptive systems to the norm. So we're sitting here in 'mainstream, traditional doco' land with all our rules and skills relevant to this and we look over there and wonder, how on earth can 'alternative/interactive doco' land ever Flow? What a funny place! Just like if you visited UB 1978 - you have different goals, skills, rules and are not into the challenges they were offering. Totally out of the flow.

Given this, will Interactive Doco Flow begin as we learn the new skills and rules required. Just like the UB seekers had to do? And what is it that would drive us to want to learn new skills and rules?

Csikszentmihalyi, in his book Creativity (1996) suggests that humans have two main tendencies - one toward entropy - the desire to rest, store energy - and another toward negentropy or creativity - the joy of discovery, growth, evolution. His study into creative people found that these people do what they do (paint, invent, research sell things, make things, whatever) for the joy of discovery. Not to finish it or for anything connected to the end result, but to engage in the process of discovery, learning, growing. He refers to this as an autotelic experience and identifies as key to Flow.

Contemporary society seems to have us geared toward entropy - can't wait for the weekend when i can rest, cant wait to finish this so I can rest, can't wait for my holidays etc. We're fast forwarding through life to get to the bits where we can rest. And of course, don't know about you but as soon as I do rest, I get bored and immediately want to get back into the creativity stream. It would also appear that the entire entertainment industry is all about feeding this desire to rest as well. Traditional media feeds our desire to rest doesn't it? Is this why Interactive media isn't flowing for us? If we could approach an interactive doco through our desire to be creative, learn, grow, evolve rather than our mindset of resting would the experience bring about Flow for us? Is this new skill required on the part of the audience? How can interactive doco get users into the state of the joy of discovery? Into that autotelic experience?

Documentary is particularly interesting. I've identified that, in terms of Flow, the goals of documentary are to learn or to know and to be entertained. Interesting. This genre appears to be attempting to feed both of our tendencies - sit back, rest and be entertained as well as pay attention and engage in the joy of discovering new things about this world. Interactive doco is perfect for allowing the creative aspect - to learn and know to be presented but doesn't follow the traditional rules of entertainment, especially suspension of disbelief. Doco commentator/author Bill Nichols disputes that suspension of disbelief happens in documentary, rather he calls it 'activation of belief' ... rubbish, it's the same thing as suspension of disbelief. And this is where Flow breaks down.

And this brings us nicely back to your question from last posting - Did the UB require suspension of disbelief to perpetuate flow? Yes. Although suspension of disbelief is brought through immersion, so that is also required. Flow requires that the outside world be dimmed so that the experience can overtake all of the senses and a loss of self awareness arises - i believe certain philosophies refer to this as 'being in the now'. Immersion in the experience is required. In filmic terms, immersion allows for the suspension of disbelief  Dark room separate from the ordinary world, loud sound, big screen ... all about shutting out the outside world. The UB lived separately from mainstream society, had big ideals and they all worked hard and were kept busy to keep the people in the Flow. hmm ... that description also works for the mainstream cult we all live in too, though.

Apologies for the extra long posting, so much to say!! I wonder if you can submit a PhD thesis by Blog?... this of course has discussed two streams of flow that my doco is trying to deal with - UB Flow and Documentary Flow. There is a third which I'll post about some other time, my Flow and where the UB and doco fit into that.

Thanks for listening. Writing this posting has brought me to some new insights ... and as a seeker of the joy of discovery that is awesome :o)

Documentary Flow

In 1975 pscyhologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi theorised that an optimal experience of life is best described as Flow. His theory described 9 characteristics that can be found in any experience where Flow is achieved (1996, p.112) -

• There are clear goals
• immediate feedback to one's action
• a balance between challenges and skills
• action & awareness merge - at one with what is going on
• distractions are excluded from consciousness
• no worry of failure
• self-consciousness disappears (self growth after the experience)
• sense of time is distorted
• activity becomes autotelic

Csikszentmihalyi (1990) states that:

The combination of all these elements causes a sense of deep enjoyment that is so rewarding people feel that expending a great deal of energy is worthwhile simply to be able to feel it (Csikszentmihalyi 1990, p.49).

Over the years this theory has been applied to the design of a range of diverse activities, from designing playground equipment to computer games. The first part of my exegesis is dedicated to the discussion of Documentary Flow, I've not been able to find any previous literature where Flow has been applied to the design or discussion of traditional media. I'm looking to identify and discuss what it is in traditional documentary that gives us, the audience, an experience of Flow. Then I can then examine and compare the emerging form of digital, interactive documentary and identify how Flow might be achieved. From observations and experiences with interactive documentary I have noted that the original spirit or heart or essence, that has been documentary over the past 80 years, is missing or at very best faint. Documentary is more, or should be, than a space (website) that contains an archive of audiovisual material. I have watched many traditional format docos where I wasn't initially interested in the subject but through their magic (heart, spirit, essence) they reel you in a make the experience Flow. Interactive doco struggles to do this.

I'm likening this spirit or heart to Flow - the optimal experience of documentary. A first draft of what is described here is complete and my focus now is to build a cross-platform documentary (what that actually means is still loose) that exemplifies Documentary Flow in both traditional and interactive versions of the genre. Then, I'll go back to the exegesis and discuss my doco in detail in relation to Flow.

What's behind the gaze?

What do I see in this archive and where does it take me? In these questions Mike I guess you've summed up the focus for the documentary. Right up front in the film there needs to be the setting up of these questions that the audience wants answered - just like you've been hooked in/intrigued I guess this is the position i need to place the audience in as well. To answer these questions and actually get to the 'meta narrative' of the film a little further digging is required so I can't give it to you right off. Hand me a shovel, a pen and some A4 lined paper and we'll see where we go.

Thanks for your comments David (DM). I should introduce this 3rd voice commenting occasionally - David spent 4 or 5 years living in the UB, has become the most wonderful of friends and has had to trawl through his past life as a communard as I've been on this journey of discovery. He's a great collector of things and is a major contributor to the UB archive I've been using. Interestingly he was one of many interviewed for the ABC doco and was not included in the final production ... probably due to the fact that he didn't find his UB experience mentally disturbing and has no dusty old bones to pick with SC. His story was far too positive for the vision of the film. Contentment doesn't make for good story.

Anyway, back to me :o) ... and to the blog - Yes, DM, I consider this film as a kind of alchemy; the bringing together of elements that have been brewing.  It will bring my own personal response (although won't be outwardly stated) to the ABC film and serve to close my UB journey and allow me to move on to whatever comes next!!! Can't wait!

Stay tuned ... next posting I'll flesh out my theory and passion for the Flow of Documentary ...

Exaggerated mise en scene

Jabe Babe doco clip

The above link is to an Australian documentary by Janet Merewether about Jabe Babe and her life with Marfan (giant?) syndrome. I point it out because I love this relatively new(?), almost hybrid, kind of documentary where there is definitely a very real story being told by a woman about herself but there is an element of fiction/fantasy going on. This element doesn't take away at all from the realism of her story, in fact it accentuates her story with an aesthetic beauty. I love how this adds to her words, she is sitting amongst a model of a suburb to illustrate her personal feelings of being a giant. I guess a good description of it would be a exaggerated use of mise en scene which normally plays a huge role in fictional film but is not usually at the forefront of documentary. The mise en scene of documentary is usually subtle but here it is fantasised and fictionalised and totally in your face. Love it! 

I came across this clip as I was beginning to contemplate how I will represent myself in the film. I have no simple answer yet.  My comfortable place (in life and in filmmaking) is to sit behind the camera and observe the world ... not in front of it, ... speaking. The entertainer/performer archetype (if she exists) is well asleep! Deep and meaningful verbal conversations are reserved for the few that I feel comfortable with ... not a piece of electronic plastic sitting on a tripod staring at me, flashing a little red light!! Jeez ... now there's a conversation killer! Now, the written word ... blogs for example ... i seem to be able to share my voice clearly and accurately in this format. Not all that engaging for the audience though .. :o/ ... I'll keep working on this one - i want aesthetic engagement through mise en scene and clear, engaging communication in the representation of myself.

one year to go and it's just begun

Two years ago someone said to me, 'you need a filmmaker on board with this PhD thing' ... yer right, I responded, where am I going to find one of them!

Now, with exactly one year left on this journey and at exactly the perfect moment, the filmmaker materialises (hello and thanks MC!) and the team is complete! Two supervisors to guide the academic thought/writing processes and one filmmaker (and, as it happens, ex-communard) to extract the story/film/artefact from me. I am very happy :o)

So, let's start this conversation.

Mike, first up, you're spot on with your initial observations and seem completely in tune with what is going on here. I get a sense that this dialogue has great potential and I am incredibly appreciative of your willingness to be involved. I know that it can be hard work getting interested and involved in someone else's creative pursuits. I hope it will prove to be rewarding for you.

I understand and agree with your take on Naturalistic Inquiry, your thoughts are somewhat deeper than what I've presented in the blog thus far. I understand that this is the process and exploration of the intertwining of elements and perspectives. In my methodology chapter I've tried to explain this using the metaphor of fractals - an infinite structure that repeats itself over and over, that will completely alter given the slightest disturbance. I, as the filmmaker/researcher am at the centre of this little universe and I can be found at all levels. The fact that you are now an element in this research project/film will have changed the process and results. I look back upon the previous two years on this journey and see all of the barriers and false starts and I could say, if only I could have been where I'm at now, two years ago ... but as you say, things that are obvious in hindsight are never obvious in foresight. Each one of those barriers and false starts were key to where I am now.

As I mentioned to you today, I've found it challenging to identify why I care about this thing called the Universal Brotherhood. My initial hook (six years ago) was the spiritual leader Fred Robinson. His apparent calling in life was as a prophet more than a leader. He believed passionately that the world was in trouble, on the wrong path with regard to education, economics, lifestyle and he spent the last 40 years of his life dedicated to 'doing God's will'. His spiritual sources were obscure - channelled information from the 'elder brothers from outer space', a 19th Century book called the Oasphe and another called the Urantia.

You asked, why is that interesting to me? Fred 'spoke' to me because he was talking about concepts that had long been part of my life. I grew up in a house where it was quite normal (and as a child, exciting) to be discussing ETs, ghosts, channelling and other astral phenomena. I grew up with a knowing that there is an unseen, intangible element to this world that it is far more expansive than we could ever fathom so to discover, as an adult, this 80 year old man who had been touring around the country in the 1960s and 70s trying to convince the world of his message for the 'new age' was exciting and I was keen to know what he had been saying.

From that initial interest I began meeting and interviewing some of the ex-communards who live in Adelaide. From this I made a 20 min film called 'The Calling' that was about Fred. Through these people I began to learn more about life in the community and it became like a living world for me. This sounds ridiculous but a part of me felt a shock when I went over to Balingup in WA, to the community and saw that it wasn't there like it was in the 70s, that the characters I had heard about were all 30 years older and could barely remember their time in the UB!! I would speak to them as if a day hadn't passed by. it wasn't these 50 year olds that i knew, I felt as if I knew them as 20 year olds and a part of me was disappointed to not be able to speak with them. This prompted me to begin thinking about time and space and how the archives were kind of like little portholes in time, allowing me to peak into the past, allowing me to converse with the people of the past.

The expansive archive has been a hook for me as well and the search for the long lost 16mm film became somewhat of a holy grail scenario, check out the keyword 'Deacon Chapin' for the blog postings about this journey. This passion for history is something that I have reflected on over time. I have an absolute passion for personal histories. I love to see old photos, home movies, letters, anything that tells me about who people are and where they've been. This is key to my love for documentary. Through processes of self reflection I have come to the conclusion that my deep interest in other people's history is because I don't have one of my own. I was adopted and as an adopted child my lineage begins and ends with me. So, if this is an accurate reflection then it's not lost on me that my entire interest in the UB could stem from the need for a history of my own. These people that lived in the community are of the same generation that my parents would be. Have I immersed myself in the world of the UB community because that is where I would like my own history to be?

Hmm, Mike, did you ever think of becoming a psychotherapist? You asked two simple questions and have opened a door to a new dimension! If this is where I'm at and where I'm coming from then this is no longer a film about the UB but about myself ... :o/ ... do i even want to go there?? Filmmaking as therapy?

Over and out ...

fred: the dark side

This is a still from the 16mm. It shows Fred in silhouette. When it is watched in its native silent self it is quite an eery shot. What was Deacon's intention for this in the final film? Did he also detect Fred's darkside? Did he plan to include this part of Fred's nature in the original film? I can't think how else this shot may have been used. It certainly doesn't portray the loving, light-hearted Fred. Needless to say, I'm using it to talk about his dark side.

Let sleeping dogs lie?

Over the last 24 hours I've been thinking, is it really a good thing to be re-animating this 16mm film and therefore re-animating the Universal Brotherhood with all the positive and negative energies that comprise the community? Would it be best to let sleeping dogs lie and leave the UB in the past? Is that where it belongs?

What does it have to offer us here now in the 21st Century? From the story told in the ABC's Compass documentary it becomes apparent that perhaps there is nothing. The community was a negative experience for those people, it has nothing but pain and hurt to offer them in the 21st Century. But if I run with that it doesn't sit right for me. I have listened to around about 50 people talk about their experience with the UB and I have only heard negative perceptions from a handful and then, those same people also spoke of their positive experience as well.

As with every experience in this place there is a whole range of perceptions to be gained out of a single experience. I know and acknowledge that there was a darkness associated with Fred, with Centre core, with the UB experience but I guess it is my choice and the raison d'être of this film to shine the light on the gifts, the positive legacies that the UB offers us in 2010.

Thankfully, I didn't live in the UB and I have the freedom to make the choice to take this positive approach. Why the ABC would choose to tell the story they did is a mystery to me, I guess it had something to do with engaging the audience through the fail-safe method of dramatic intrigue. They interviewed many of the same people that I have spoken to and it is revealing that they chose to shine the light on the journey of those who didn't enjoy the experience. This would appear to be in direct conflict with the mantra of the community and Fred Robinson, 'we are not here to combat the negative, but we are here to establish the positive'. 'The Brotherhood' was very much a film about honing in and combatting the negative forces ... my film will, in line with the UB mantra, be made to establish the positive.

So, returning to my question. What does the UB have to offer us in the 21st Century? Well, first, as an example (biggest and best organised?) of that whole 'alternative' movement that was around at the time, the Universal Brotherhood is to be congratulated for influencing our (mainstream culture) focus on healthy living. They ran an organic farm, ate simple organic food, meditated, did yoga, jogging ... all of the healthy living qualities we value today in mainstream culture they were doing it 30 years ago. And in this way the community was a 100% successful, it was Fred's initial vision to 'create a heaven on earth for the children', to show the rest of the world how it could be done. It took us 30 years to tune in but look how much of UB life is now reflected in mainstream culture. Fred would be jumping with joy to see how many of us now are living his dream!

It would be easy to make a film that analysed and pulled out all of the mistakes the UB communards made. But why would I do that? What does that have to offer us in 2010? We should look at history, find what worked well and repeat those bits, not the bits we want to discard, leave behind, forget.

I'd like to introduce ...

... the star of the show ... Deacon Chapin's 16mm film from 1978 about the Universal Brotherhood. I have spent the best part of the last two days watching, logging and capturing 7 hours of film. It has been a 6 year wait to do that. Veeery satisfying that this door is finally opened and the film has revealed all of its treasures.

Quite a strange feeling preparing to work with someone else's film. Deacon shot this 32 years ago ... i was about 18 months of age!! Kind of strange, he, his wife at the time and soundman Rock Ross begun the work that I will now complete. Some very nice shots in there, especially with silhouettes/lighting. Much of it is in wide-shot where individuals aren't recognisable, this is good news as I'm not sure how many of these people would want to be recognisable or agree to be a part of this film. This is like playing with someone else's clay ... would they approve of how I shape it?

After being immersed in this film for the last two days I think my perspective on the Universal Brotherhood has altered or at least refined. From the rushes it becomes apparent that there were two distinct aspects - the spiritual and the physical. Fred, of course was all about the spiritual but all the people are very focussed on the physical aspects of the community - farming, raising children, living, apples, bee-keeping etc. The film shows how separate the two were yet at the same time how they were so in tune with each other. I guess that is what the community was doing - practicalising the spiritual ... as Fred would put it.

So, now where? I see that this 16mm film is a gold mine and creates an excellent visual foundation for the documentary so I'm going to start syncing ... attempting to ... sync up sound. Then once that's done I'll head back to the narrative structure work i was doing the other day.

sacred geometry as a structure for ideas

After using a mind-mapping tool yesterday I couldn't quite work out what was missing. It was the right tool for allowing me to get the ideas down on paper but essentially they're still in a linear format (parent connection/child connection). It wasn't until I was talking to a friend about it that it became apparent that there needs to be a non-linear structure to guide the ideas. His suggestion was to use circles, not just any old circles but concentric circles.

There's an ancient symbol called the 'Flower of Life' that dates back before ancient Egypt. It is considered along the same lines as the golden section, a universal pattern that can be observed at all levels of existence. Sacred geometry in general appears to be considered as a blueprint for all creation so I guess that also covers the creation of media!! I guess it is also the forerunner to fractals, they appear to have similar guiding principles. It exemplifies that all things are connected and interrelated and affecting each other.

I'm still playing with this idea but the preliminary thoughts are that each circle becomes an idea related to the documentary subject. So I put myself in the centre circle because I am at the centre of the film, exploring this subject. Then the next layer of circles around the centre become main themes or ideas or characters to be covered: fred, 16mm film, etc. Once all the circles are filled (randomly or is there logic to it?) they all link and overlap in several places, so the overlap becomes the connection between the two. Then all i do is work out what the overlap between those two circles could be and this is how it is presented in the film. For example, the circles of Fred, SC and spiritual philosophy overlap with each other. Then I think about what there is in the archive that represents this interconnection. There might be a photograph or a scene in the 16mm film or a newspaper archive.

This, I guess, will result in the film being a bit of a circular collage and will serve to show the interconnectedness of these surrounding themes, concepts, ideas. The picture above shows a first attempt at this. The outer ring is made up of the characteristics that are obvious at first sight, then the bits that have been significant for me, with me at the centre. Would be interesting to continue exploring this map with the golden ratio. Perhaps plotting that through this map would give me a narrative path to follow through these concepts?

Or am I just getting too abstract now?? :o/

Logging 16mm vision

time is irrelevant::: non-linear scriptwriting

So, who says a script has to be in courier font, size 12, double-spaced lines, single sided ... blah blah. How about a non-linear script?

I've begun trying to piece together some kind of structure for the artefact, documentary Caravans, Children & God. It seems that there are 4 paths going on here, 4 stories to tell and they do not sit nicely, chronologically in a story that is told from beginning to end. The first story begins in the late 1800s as Fred Robinson is born, then we skip forward 70 years to 1972 when the Brotherhood sets up camp in Carranya, 1978 the 16mm film is shot and then fast-forward 30 years to when I pick up the baton and run with it for 6 years.

Time is an irrelevant concept to this documentary. This kind of chronological randomness begs for a non-linear approach to scripting. Hot on my mind at the moment is mind-mapping and I'm using a mind-mapping tool to record all of the events, facts and figures, archive material etc that will be the ingredients of the film. Stir it up (the random nature of the visual representation of these ideas does a nice job of stirring), find a solid structure (narrative?) - not one based on time but maybe one based on themes? ideas? There still needs to be a' cause and effect' drive to guide the thing. It still needs to take the audience on a journey, an emotionally engaging/immersive journey.

But one of the cornerstones of the narrative journey is time! How can events unfold over time if time is not considered. Well, there's two types of time going on. Firstly there's the historical timing of these events and secondly there's the running time of the linear documentary. And I guess what I'm getting at here is that there obviously will be a running time for the linear documentary. It will take ...mins to watch. BUT, the storyworld/ historical time is not a key factor here. I can find other ways to link events, other than 'this happened, then that caused this to happen etc ...'

It is almost as if the 3 main paths: the UB, Fred and the 16mm film were all happening concurrently and me, as the thread that links them all together is jumping from one path to the next making connections based, not on time, but on my own thoughts/ideas. After all this film is a collage of the archive material which is based in the 'now' moment. The archive material is happening right now and i am actually able to jump from one path to the other irrespective of time.

So, historical time is not a concept that needs to be explored in this documentary. Just as in interactive documentary 'I' (the user or in this case, me as the filmmaker) become the cause and effect that drives the journey. In the linear component of this cross-platform documentary I am exploring the archives and the thoughts and ideas that come to mind as I do so are the links that tie the story together.