Being a âparticipantâ to see the VR animated trilogy: Gloomy eyes (I)
After seeing episode 1 at Venice film festival and episode 2 at Sandbox Immersive Festival, I finally purchased the whole piece (35 minutes) on Steam:Â https://store.steampowered.com/app/1111620/Gloomy_Eyes/ and managed to see episode 3.
Firstly I'm surprised that the voice-over plays a less important role compared to how it was used in previous VR works. The image in front of me can tell 70% of the story itself meanwhile the voice-over covers the rest as adding more details. The audience doesn't have to rely on understanding the voice-over for understanding the whole story. Thanks to the budget over 1.1 million dollars, the creator could make such a complicated and detailed piece come true.
The way that Gloomy eyes adapts the language of traditional cinema is also interesting. Unlike Dear Angelica and Battlescar which use different sizes of the characters (compared to their environment and the audience) to indicate the field sizes (from wide shot to extreme close-up), distance is mostly used in Gloomy eyes.
What the audience's eyes (regarded as the camera) initially see is around medium shot and medium close-up, when they move their heads, they can see the camera movements by themselves: pan, tilt, zoom...... (I like zooming in for close-ups a lot.) When the scene is further, it gives the audience the feeling of a wide shot.Â
At this moment I don't really move because it needs time to receive all the information of the characters and their environment as a whole picture. (I think it's also an indication from the creator: this scene I recommend you seeing from this distance.)Â Also the story happens around the audience in 360 degrees, so his eyes need to move horizontally (and arcuately, to be precise) everytime there is a "transition". For example, in episode 3, from the scene Gloomy was buried again to the scene Nina cries alone by the cliff, the audience needs to keep turning to the right 180 degrees -- very much alike the running film inside the projector, which is hard to experience watching a flat movie.
Speaking of transition, a VR animation is quite similar to a theatre play: there is no transition if the scene doesn't change. While it doesn't mean that the audience has to watch a "sequence shot" in a "still angle": he moves as the "camera" moves (the âcameraâ moves as he moves). If his eyes moves back and forth between two characters, he is cross cutting. When the VR animation is rendering in real-time, the audience is editing in real-time, too. If he watches twice, there will be two different editings. If in the second time he decides to pay attention to the parts that he missed in the first time, his two versions could be totally different as from BĂŠla Tarr to Quentin Tarantino.Â
It reminds me of The horrifically real virtuality, selected in Venice film festival 2018, the main character the vampire pointed one of the audience to be the cameraman, what he asked for could be different each time when there was a different person, meanwhile the audience could choose to obey or not. It reveals the truth to us that everything VR is real-time. (There was a real actor behind The horrifically real virtuality, so both the reality and the virtual reality were real-time.) In other VR pieces where there is no "vampire", we need to take the hint from the creator that we are the "participants" rather than the "spectators" and our perspective decides the "final cut of the film".
(The idea of participants / spectators quoted from âIn the Blink of an Eyeâ by Walter Murch.)
Find the Chinese translation here:Â https://movie.douban.com/review/13221699/















