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.