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.

Photo restoration

So, these are the small steps that are long forgotten in the final part of a documentary. These small, time-consuming, yet worthwhile things like restoration of photographs. These shots of Fred Robinson were taken by Jon Rhodes in 1972. Stephen got hold of the negatives from him, we scanned them in and I've been playing with it in Photoshop this morning, trying to bring it back to life.

Each step of the creation of a documentary such as this one is almost like re-animating a time and a space that has long since passed, and in the case of this photograph, long since faded away. A few strokes of the Photoshop brush brings it back to life in no time.

A-ha?

Just had a wild thought that could be the 'missing link' I've been looking for to tie my argument together.

There's been a gap in my thinking/argument up until this point that I keep stepping over. In the first instance I've been talking about the not so successful digital repurposing of documentary and how it has lost its essence. Good fine but then I've been jumping to 'Flow theory is the answer' to the optimal documentary experience. It was a bit of a leap and everytime I tried to think how to link the two together ... well they didn't logically fit together.

SO, I began to think about other formats that have been re-purposed for the digital realm and then link the qualities that are in common between the traditional and digital formats. Games are the obvious answer. They are equally as engaging and successful in both traditional formats and digital. The two are different in their technical/physical qualities but similar in many other ways.

Then I began to list these common qualities that digital and traditional games have -

• play
• win/lose - clear goals and feedback
• challenges - requires skill and rules to play
• immersive - loss of self-consciousness when engaging
• transformation of time when playing

As i listed these qualities I recognised them all as being qualities of Flow and a-ha the missing link, using this case of games can be my bridge to discussing flow and then discussing flow in relation to documentary will assist in identifying the optimal experience in both digital and traditional environments.

A-ha! :oD

Organising the literature: an interview with myself

I'm content with the methodology chapter for now ... so moving on ... back ... to Chapter 2: Contextual Review and attempting to map out the areas that need to be discussed to contextualise this research. I know what needs to go in there but the puzzle is how to structure it to lay the best foundation for my discussion of the optimal experience of documentary.

What does the reader need to know first?

Documentary, how has it been written about over its 80 year history? Who are the main players? What are the main issues that have been addressed?

And then?

Digital documentary, what has been done and written so far? Outline the observed problem of it not being engaging. Why is this so?

Next ...

Digital media is different to traditional media with regard to its engagement of the audience. Traditional media does it this way ... and digital media does it this way ...

Yes, and then?

... shh, I'm thinking ...

And then?

So, we just need to swap the old traditional characteristics of engagement for the new digital characteristics and documentary will successfully move into the new dimension? Give examples of digidocs in action ... no it is not as simple as repurposing the characteristics of engagement.

So what needs to happen?

we need to open doco up and see what the qualities are that make it the optimal experience and then take these qualities and adjust them for the digital dimension.

Good, so there's your structure then!

Thanks.