Asymmetric hybrids

Today I was in a conversation where somebody said that he was interested in the possibility of interactive movies. He immediately acknowledged that a lot of people in the world of narrative film did not share his enthusiasm. “They want to be the artist,” is the way he put it. That is, they want to have precise control over how an audience experiences the flow of the narrative.

At that moment it occurred to me why we are not seeing more interactivity in movies: Because as soon as you add interactivity to a cinematic experience, it is no longer culturally labeled as a movie. Rather, it is labeled as a game.

For example, the landmark work Façade is an excellent example of what happens when you add interactivity to a visual narrative.

As soon as Façade came out it won all sorts of recognition in the Game world, including the Grand Jury Prize at the Slamdance Game Festival.

Yet it is completely unknown in the film world — because being interactive, it is seen as a game.

Another way to say this is as follows:

Question: “What do you get when you cross a movie with a game?”

Answer: “A game.”

I wonder how many other such asymmetric hybrids can be found in our culture?

Here’s at least one more:

Question: “What do you get when you cross a car with a computer?”

Answer: “A car.”