So what exactly is this "interactivity" thing, anyway?

1. In “What is New Media?” Lev Manovich proposes 5 principles of new media: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding. Choose an example that you consider to be “new media”, and describe it in terms of these principles.

Well, I admit I am an IT-illerate so forgive me for my lack of knowledge towards the technical terms!
I choose MSN Messenger as my “new media”.

Numerical representation: well, a lot of the display pictures and emoticons offered in the newer versions of Messenger are digitized. The conversations we hold over it requires discrete units. To quote Manovich, “Without discrete units, there is no language.”

Modularity: I can’t say with full certainty, but I think from the periodic “New versions of MSN Messenger” alerts we have gotten suggests that (to an IT NO-how like me) the service was probably built on a certain templates with different independent components which could edited exclusively to augment the existing form of Messenger. The latest version is MSN 8.0, which was introduced less than half a year or so after MSN 7.5 – talk about modularity and immediacy!

Automation: I have not asked the brains behind the MSN Messenger brainchild (sounds like a mouthful!) how Messenger was created. But roughly, as aforementioned, there should be some form of generic template or scripts. From there, image editing, graphics layout etc would be changed [or upgraded as they prefer to call it =)] and assembled to give a new version. “High-level” automation comes into the picture, as Manovich explained, with “media access” and he then extrapolated this to virtual reality. True, I thought about how sometimes a person can choose to remain anonymous or perhaps take on a different new, though fake, identity. And in pretending to be in the new identity’s shoes, he or she experiences a watered-down version of a virtual reality.

Variability: At first glance, I thought MSN Messenger is surely a reflection of variability! With newer versions, variations came. Like the handwriting tool, the animated emoticons, the wallpapers, the photo display, the sharing of files via Messenger etc. Moreover, the sharing and exchange of personalized erm, entities (?) like self-drawn emoticons or self-created & animated emoticons using Macromedia Flash has indeed added layers to this ‘variability’.

Transcoding: Unfortunately, my already taxed brain couldn’t quite catch the meaning of this one. But to come up with something, I shall refer to Manovich’s suggestion that new media consists of the “cultural layer” and the “computer layer”. Perhaps uniquely for Messenger, since any 2 persons can interact with each other from any 2 points on the globe, there could be cultural context involved, thru the computer. In this way, the computer is a means of representing the how communication btw diff cultures has evolved. Has it? Mmm, yeah, I think it had.

What implications do these principles have for narrative and play within interactive media?

To put it crudely, these principles have made narrative and play within interactive media even more complex than it already was to me. (Sorry, Mr Mitchell!)

2. Manovich questions the usefulness of the term interactivity, suggesting that “once an object is represented in a computer, it automatically becomes interactive. Therefore, to call computer media ‘interactive’ is meaningless – it simply means stating the most basic fact about computers.” In contrast, in “What exactly is Interactivity?” Chris Crawford proposes a much stricter definition of interactivity. Compare these differing views, with reference to your own experience of interactive media systems.

From the readings, I get the idea that Manovich subscribes to the element of choice in what he deemed interactive. He said (well, not literally) “the user can choose .. generating a unique work… the user becomes the co-author of the work.”

Whereas Crawford confined it within a clear-cut definition of “a cyclical process in which 2 actors alternately listen, think and speak”. He made it clear that there must be both active and meaningful volleying of 3 processes, failing which scores a ‘low’ on the continuum of interactivity.

I can sorta classify Manovich’s notion of interactivity as a subset of Crawford’s, as the latter offers one which can be applied on a general basis. (If you’re wondering – yes, I’m a Applied Mathematics student, haha!)

My initial slant was towards Manovich’s idea of interactivity. I had the notion that interactivity means choice on the users’ part. And when objects are represented in a computer, there are indeed many choices the user is allowed to temper with. However, this is narrowed a tad too technically. I suppose this is fine within the boundaries of interactive media systems. But after having read Crawford’s article, I guess the value-addedness comes from real, engaging interactivity which is ‘meaningful’.

3. Narrative, interactivity and play – how does Run Lola Run reflect these concerns? How does this relate to Manovich’s concept of transcoding?

I would say, for a first-timer, ‘Run Lola Run’ was pretty cool.
Was it a narrative? I would say ‘yes’- tho it alternated btw different persons, different mindsets.. If I remember correctly, the movie kicked off with a crisp narrative intro.. by some male German who opened with “… (Blah).. in the end, it’s always the same question.” (I was thinking to myself “What talking you?” till now I have yet to make sense of it. :P) As the rest of the movie unfolded, I noticed that the centre of narration shifted from the German first narrator to Lola (while running the final bit to the mart to intersect Manni, she was sorta the principal narrator – “wait for me… wait for me” ), and somewhat also to Manni (Firstly in the reversal of roles in the second bed scene, when Manni seemed to be character whom the audience will somewhat instinctively take on. Secondly when it was Manni’s turn to make his choice – remember how the camera lens shifted to center in on Manni’s redwashed eyes? .. seemingly lulling the audience to see things from Manni’s perspectives?)

The narrative seemed rather digressive (is that the word?) to me at some points.. especially the film slowed considerably from Lola’s fast-paced run to zoom in with deliberation on a proffered a series of ‘camera film shots’ on the futures of the different people Lola met.

Interactivity: Aha. Depends on what the audience is looking out for. You would be disappointed if you really had thot you could choose the different routes Lola take. But if you were like me, didn’t know what the whole film was about, you’d be pleasantly surprised.

On the micro level, I didn’t really find it interactive. I would however, admit that I felt a higher sense of participation in ‘Run Lola Run’ than in other films. My heart raced to the beat of the background music, I could feel my muscles twitch to Lola’s intense run, I somewhat took on Lola’s perspectives then to Manni, I felt like I was running myself when the scene split into Manni, Lola (dashing like mad) and the clock, etc.

On the macro level, there was some form of interactivity tho. When I, as the audience, saw that Lola was gonna die when that poor policeman mis-fired, I didn’t want it to end that way. And hey- it didn’t! Same goes for Manni’s death scene.

But confined within the limits of a film, the director couldn’t possibly collect our preferred choices and decisions if we were Lola and then customize diff endings for us, so perhaps he offered all 3 endings – the very bad, the u-thot-it’s-gonna-be-ok-but manni-died, and the wow-blissful-tho-surreal endings.

Play: to keep this short – I realize ‘Run Lola Run’ was filmed in a way that it was not too dissimilar to a video game. You could tell from the background music (keeps u on the move, like most video games?), the pace (afterall it’s RUN Lola RUN), the reality to cartoon skips somewhat reminding you somewhat of a gaming world, the choices the character Lola and Manni could take and the resulting butterfly effect. All seemingly like playing a video game? To add on, I felt like I could choose to play as Lola, and then as Manni, just like the character selection before a game is played (for most, that is).

P.S. Hope this didn’t sound like my blog name – random ramblings., haha! Afterall, I did spend quite some time on it. =)