The radical advancement in technology within the last decade has allowed for the birth of a new narrative – digital screen narrative; this has otherwise been named as “digital storytelling” as it has given rise to what has been described as a “personal narrative” (Alan Davis, 2004) in which ordinary individuals are able to tell their ‘story.’ This is a narrative that had not existed, perhaps, in the earlier forms of screen narrative such as that of film and television. This essay will continue to explore the relationship between the growth of technology and its impact on this changing form of digital narrative – citing the differences of earlier forms (film and TV) in relation to that of the new; delving into the contrast of the users of each time of media, as well as looking at the changing position of the audience from one of distance to one of interaction and participation. This essay will also pay attention to the crossover of how certain forms of digital screen narratives, such as video games, are able to incorporate traditional film linear narratives with the interactivity that comes with new technology.
The rise in technological success and production has allowed, or even opened the door, for everyday (perhaps untrained) individuals to participate in the world of film production and screen narrative; it has made room for them to not only create content but simultaneously gives freedom to deploy their work to mass audiences. This already highlights the ‘physical differences’ between that of digital narrative and that of film or TV; “before, different physical locations met within a single magazine spread or film newsreel; now they meet within a single electronic screen” (Manovich 2001, p. 173-174). This shows that there is no ‘physical’ presence with digital narrative/media – it is most likely just an electronic file. With regards to earlier forms, there are: film reels, physical photographs, audio and sound saved on CD’s or tapes and perhaps even paintings. This is perhaps one of the clearest ways in dividing these two forms of narrative, in fact this ‘physical’ difference is part of what defines digital narrative in particular. Alan Davis (2004, p. 1) writes that a digital story is “a form of short narrative, usually a personal narrative told in the first person, presented as a short movie for display on a television or computer monitor or projected onto a screen.”
It is access to new technology that has given this rise to what Davis (2004, p.1) calls “personal narrative,” a narrative that appears to surround that of the consumer. The distance seems no longer there – they are able now to participate, in a way that did not seem possible before with earlier more traditional forms of narrative, (film and TV).
“In recent years there has been a clearly discernible thread of hyperbole, or, as Woolgar (2002) would have it, ‘cyberbole’ around the growing accessibility and power of digital technologies, combined with their availability and potential for use by ‘ordinary’ people for radical or democratic ends (for an influential example see especially Rheingold, (2003). A sub-genre of this discourse concerns the accessibility of tools for content production and distribution by non-professionals, and the likely impact on the dominance of culture by the mass media. Arguments have appeared that in one way or another suggest that the increased availability and power of digital technologies, combined with the Internet, allow ‘everyone’ to be a media participant, if not producer.”
Jean Burgess (2006, p. 201-214)
This idea that Burgess (2006) suggests of “everyone” having the ability to be “producers” is valid today; the users of these digital tools (and media) vary from that of traditional cinema, they are all skilled enough/are able to understand the ‘language’ of this platform thus having the ability to actually create digital screen narratives (Manovich 2001). This is in “contrast to cinema, where most ‘users’ are able ‘understand’ cinematic language but not ‘speak’ it (I.e., make films)” (Manovich 2001). Burgess could be criticised with his use of the word ‘producer’ when referring to non-professional digital media creators; this is due to the fact that digital screen narrative has led to what some call a “small screen” culture, in which, a different set of skills and abilities are required (Hodgson 2010). However, there is the question of how this affects narrative? If these people are now “producers,” do they differ then from professional producers in the world of film and television? Is their narrative different?
The answer – yes, narrative is different with digital screen; it allows for a different level of interactivity that has been formed between the creators and users of the digital platform. This has created a new culture that had not yet existed within the earlier forms of narrative – film and television.
“Participatory culture is often used to talk about the apparent link between more accessible digital technologies, user-created content, and some kind of shift in the power relations between the media industries and their consumers (see especially Jenkins’ 2oo6a). Indeed, Jenkins’ definition of a ‘participatory culture’ is one in which ‘fans and other consumers are invited to actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content.”
Jean Burgess and Joshua Green (2013, p. 10)
This notion of a ‘participatory culture’ is supported in other work; Janet Marles (2012) writes that “digitally also provides interactivity. With interactivity comes a potentially spontaneous, engaged and active audience able to choose how they receive content.” The work of these researchers is definitely valid today; this interactively is evident on multiple social and digital media platforms – one of the largest and most known is the site YouTube. An area of digital screen that has received large amounts of attention in recent years; content creators seem to tailor their narrative to their audience’s needs and wants – something that may not have been possible within the earlier film world. This “circulation of new content” that Burgess and Green mention is a reflection on the globalisation and interconnectedness that comes with the internet; thus, by uploading digital content its able to be shared across the world – reaching wider audiences. An example of this is Facebook; a platform that has been used in place of a stage where various forms of media drama are performed – these include images, short videos, articles, as well as the sharing of links and blogs (Wotzko and Carroll). The audience of today, unlike that of earlier forms of narrative, “are able to become the participants in the drama by having the opportunity to interact one on one with characters through their social profiles and to respond to media shared by the characters.” (Wotzko and Carroll)
However, it could be argued that earlier forms of narration, particularly television, is able to take part in this world on interactivity. With TV now being able to be watched online, such as BBC IPlayer, it has brought the ‘conversation’ of the drama, for example, to an online viewership. Fans of a certain show are able to communicate and discuss the narrative – although they may not have a large hand in helping mould or change it, traditional forms of screen narrative are also able to indulge in the oversharing world of digital media.