Whilst looking at examples of interactive documentary; it is important to note the success of The National Film Board of Canada's critically acclaimed documentary, Out my window (Cizek, 2010). The documentary studies the lives of families living in high rise apartments in 13 cities across the world. The website offers the user with a number of different scenarios that they can access; removing the conventional linearity of a guided storyline in favour of the user clicking on 'rooms' within the frame. Options to turn on or off the accompanying ambient sound also allow the user to be presented with a differently emotive story.However, perhaps more contributive to the interactive fashion of the documentary is Out my window's (2010) designation 'sub-documentary'. Set within the paradigm of 'High Rises'; the documentary is just one of a collection of different pieces on the nature of high rise apartment culture and the stories found there. This collect is growing to accommodate new stories and features. However, it is apparent that the way in which these pieces are contained or encapsulated within a given genre gives significance to the argument that there is cohesion and a structured form behind an interactive 'fascia': non-interactive elements held behind the premise of interactivity. Barthes (1978) argues that: "In the multiplicity of writing, everything is to be disentangled, nothing deciphered; the structure can be followed, ‘run’ (like the thread of a stocking) at every point and at every level, but there is nothing beneath: the space of writing is to be ranged over, not pierced."
Whilst referring to literature; the inferred understanding of written narrative being 'disentangled' yet not 'deciphered' can be applied to that of Out my window (2010). Despite having a seemingly non-linear user interface; the website still requires users to willingly participate in the illusion that an author does not exist behind the piece. The documentary asks that viewers accept an attempt at multi-linearity; rather than embrace a concept that has no guiding voice, or authorship. As (Whitelaw, 2002) critically asserts,the interactive documentary could be seen as "little more than a functional platform for delivering bite-size chunks of quite traditional documentary." This statement lends strength to the concept that an 'outer-skin' exists. Behind this, the interactive documentary finds itself still tethered to the original intentions of the author, who designs a seemingly unlimited audio-visual platform for users, whilst using conventional documentary methods to deploy his own ideas, agendas and initiatives.
If a documentary wishes to become fully non-linear; it will need to be uncategorised, genre-less and constantly evolving in terms of both content and its' subject matter. Moreover; the documentary will have to exist as author-less, as the very function of an author is to impart guidance over narrative. Without the author, creator, or designer, the product truly becomes "a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture" (Barthes, 1978). However; this move drastically reduces the effectiveness of cohesive narrative; as without a structure to how content is uploaded to a website, it can become hard to sift through, maintain and ensure consistent quality. Whitelaw (2002) also begs the question that:"if we explode and open the structure, how can we be sure that the story is being conveyed? Other stories, or non-stories, may become possible.
Many recent interactive documentaries react by ensuring that the content is always overdetermined, that each clip, each chunk of content points back to the unifying narrative. We may surf at will through its facets or aspects, but the “theme” is never more than a click away; the possibilities of other themes, other interpretations, other realities,are closed down."This also brings into repute the conventional way in which an audience expects content to be offered to them. Having been conditioned to accept minimal participation in the building and deconstruction of narrative; the archetypal cinema-goer can reject the added effort and use of individual initiative required in order to 'create' their own narrative. A study by I-Docs, (2011, cited Gaudenzi, 2009) argues that: "the viewer participant engages differently in an interactive documentary than in a linear one. Her agency goes far beyond the act of interpretation or empathy, typical in linear films, and stretches as far as new modes of interaction can go. What is relevant in digital interactive forms is the degree of agency that the multiple participants have on the final product and how those actions will position them. The degree of agency depends on the different modes of interaction that are possible in digital media.”
Furthermore, it can be found that a viewer has to participate much more physically with an interactive documentary; making it an active, rather than passive experience. The 'Hypodermic syringe theory'; although deemed by academics as "endemic" and "misplaced" (Klaehn, 2010, p331), does have credibility in it's basic concepts of audience reception theory. Packard (1957) set out to outline advertising strategy; establishing the concept that audiences were unavoidably receptive of television advertising. The theory does carry over to the argument that audiences of conventional television have been conditioned towards passive viewing. Even if this theory is outdated, and perhaps super-seeded by a current 'on-demand' culture; it would still explain why interactive documentary makers are not fully adopting non-linear designs within their documentaries.
