VR vs other Media

 Do you believe there is a way that VR can be used to foster a greater degree of empathy than other media? How might it be done?

 On the one hand, the use of VR technology in Education has been proved more effective than traditional and online, educational methods. Science’s professors at CERN, in conjunction with Stanford University, after they realized that science classes were bored, ineffective and expensive, created a science VR laboratory simulator. This experiment shows that students, who participated in VR classrooms, learned 76% more and quickly than students using another educational method.

Additionally, VR is a great tool for the assessment, training, and treatment in neuroscience medicine. It also has been used for the treatment of PTSD and others psychological disorders, a good example of that is the University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies Med VR Lab, which was created to the study and advancement of VR simulation technology for clinical purposes.

On the other hand, the access to VR technology is restricted to the developed world, where, most people have access to cellphones or tablets. The fact that VR advances are carried out by private corporations, like google, strengthen the idea of a media restricted to a specific population or region. In some areas of the world, where people don’t have access to basic needs or cannot afford technology, the use of VR seems unrealistic.

In conclusion, the fact that VR is an immersive, body, sensorial experience, is not evidence that can push social-changes further than another media. The thoughtful, skillful use of VR can help to better understand collective, social issues, for example, the Syrian refugee crisis or global warming. However, it cannot alter greedy, selfish, discriminatory inner-selves. The re-surging of nationalistic, neo-fascist ideas on developed countries, exemplifies this idea.

Week II

Do you feel like the filmmakers were able to use space in a compelling way?  What about the actors lends itself to VR, or is inappropriate? Some shots were moving, and some static. How did this difference help or hinder the narrative?

To begin with, World Tour: A Jump VR film tries to experiment on how motion and place can work together on nature by exploring different ways of editing. It seems that the filmmaker is interested in asking questions about how narrative is working in VR and What is the right way to edit? What is the viewer’s role? And Where is she/he located?

However, I feel like, World Tour: A Jump VR does not convey a compelling narrative because It fails to evoke an immersive experience. As a viewer, I feel floating on top of the Earth, disconnected from the places, going from one place to another, like in a different reality.

The actors lending themselves to VR seems in some way contribute with our experience, mainly on the shots on top of the mountain and in the cableway.

On the other hand, the filmmaker use of space in 52 Places to Go: Madagascar, was resolved in a very compelling and successful way. I am inside of the jungle with the animals or traveling in the canoe, together with the actor.  There is a clear narrative that is re-enforced by the position of the camera, which moves with the boat or with the characters. Moreover, the way that the video was edited it is supported by the absence of images’ distortion.

In conclusion, the two videos differ mainly on the use of the space, given by the location and movements of the camera, and the place where the viewer is positioned, during the edition. These differences increase or reduce the immersive experience, at the same time that has an effect on the narrative of the film.

Week I

The nonfiction movie, My Mother’s Wing, the use of spherical 360º camera produces a totally immersive experience, which intensifies the viewer’s emotions and participation. Through this 3D goggles, I am not longer a spectator. I am inside of the scene, like an invisible actor or a spy.  I have the impulse of walking together with the characters, trying to reach them or their things.  This eight-minutes documentary eloquently transmits on the spectator the violence endured by the people who lives in the Gaza Strip, without overwhelmed them. Additionally, the absence of images in the transition from one scene to another, support the character’s feelings of loss and fear.

Indefinite is a VR film about immigrant’s detention centers in the UK. In my opinion, the use of the 360º spherical camera did not further improve the film’s storytelling nor produced an immersive experience on the spectator. There is a dichotomy between the strength of the story and the scenes, which are reinforced by ghostly transitions, abstract images, special effects and water floating figures, which gives the impression of a feeble story. Additionally, the 14:48-minute length of the piece does not enhance the idea of indefinite detention.