On Thursday, my environmental studies professor invited us to an interactive documentary film screening about the Maribor uprisings in Slovenia that took place from 2012-2013. My professor recommended that see it because one the filmmakers, Maple Rasza, is an internationally famous anthropologist and activist.
Rasza explained that the film would be anti-authoritarian. We weren’t there to see a particular story that he thought important enough to tell–we were there to decide collectively what sort of story that see. There was one rule–we couldn’t back on our decisions.
There were five points in the film that we got to make decisions. Decision 1 was a scene with various groups of protestors, one of which had a barrel of hay and was prepared to set it on fire. We had the option of staying with the peaceful protestors or following the others. The movie paused as the protestors were rolling the bale across the screen, and we took a vote on what we would do. Surprisingly, Rasza asked us what was driving our decisions. Did we want to see what was most exciting? Were our decisions tactical, political, or just based on curiosity? The most vocal people in room wanted to stay for political reasons since they believed protests need to be disruptive to ignite change (pun intended). We decided to follow the fire.
Decision 2 presented us with the option of hearing why Slovenians were so angry at their cops, and we decided to listen. Decision 3 asked if we wanted to meet an immigrant named Aleš. This time, though, the filmmaker asked only one person because he said that sometimes in protests, everything changes because of one person’s decision. She chose yes. Decision 4 gave us another violence vs safety choice, and this time the vote was much closer, but we followed the fight. The final choice allowed us the see security footage shot from a government helicopter.
I came away from screening/lecture fascinated about the way different technologies impacted what a documentary was. How do we tell stories? What authority is there in telling a story? How are making our decisions about which stories to see? During the second fight or flight choice, I chose to stay because I wanted to understand how everyone was reacting to their situation. The bearded guy behind me wanted to go fight because he believes protests need an disruptive element to be successful. We were asking two very different questions that would’ve given us two different films. In fact, the possibility of another parallel film haunted be throughout the viewing.
We also spoke about what context means for the digital. As an anthropologist, Rasza is used to providing as much context as he can for a studied situation. For this film, the videographer was in the middle of the action jostled with the protestors. How can context refer to “affect, comportment and the body,” instead of just the textual? We felt shoved around too and like we were a part of the physical reality that we watched. Does the this type of context function in the same way that a textual does?
It was great film and reminded me about what we talk about class with regards to interactivity. It seems increasingly that this way of telling of story isn’t limited to games, but all forms of media.
