I am reading about the cinematic “close-up” for this week’s class on the figure in film, and it got me thinking about the role the ‘close-up’ plays in telling a story, the subtleties is invites, and what it does (instigates) in terms of the spectator’s relationship with the film/character, and what – if anything – carries over (or not) into the player/avatar relationship I’ve been yammering on about for the last 3 years.
The idea that the close-up expresses something that cannot be fully ‘acted’ by an actor – that muscle movement and other physical elements that are just outside the actor’s control give something extra – something internal – to the scene. Essentially, this is the key of ‘photogeneity’ – that it only exists within movement which is (technically) only capturable by the cinematic process, which therefore differentiates the cinema from the other arts. The argument is that while a photograph can “capture” reality, it does not demonstrate it in its fullness. That a smile is not really a smile in a photograph, because a smile is an continuous act (… but I am getting off track). Even though the cinema ‘films’ reality, by using such techniques as the close-up, it is drawing the spectator into an interaction that is beyond or outside the scope of ‘real’. The close-up does not exist in every day life, so – I would argue – the emotions it instills in the spectator are heightened emotions that are not typically found (to that extent or in that manner) in their daily lives. Nonetheless, it creates an intimacy between the spectator and the acted character on the screen that is essential (i would argue again) for purposes of spectatorial identification.
In Jacques Aumont’s text “The Face in Close-up” (in The Visual Turn: Classical Film Theory and Art History), he talks about the use of the close-up as both a ‘tool’ and a ‘symbol’ (p. 141). I like this idea – especially when I try to think about the game avatar and its dual role as tool / representation (don’t get me started here – this is completely inarticulated at the moment .. but I am trying to work towards moving away from the game avatar as pure representation – and away from simply a navigational tool – but it’s a quest I may fail in the long run – but until then …). So – thinking that the close-up can function as both a tool and symbol, where does that leave the avatar? And in what particular states of the game (or play?). One of the downfalls of computer animation, is the lack of (realistic – and I use that term loosely) facial expressions. When the player is confronted with a gamic close-up, they are faced with a dead, empty gaze. Does this necesseraily mean that the player is less invested in the emotional relationship with their avatar? I know that this is quite a jump from the few sentences above – but perhaps this is something to think through to see if I can make point A connect with point B.
This (haphazzardly) brings me to questioning what visual elements are borrowed from cinema that enables (or enhances) the player / avatar relationship, what cinematic elements don’t work and what elements are unique to game design to draw in the player (to draw the player into the relationship or the narrative – I haven’t thought that through too much yet). At this point, it’s simply something to think about as I work through the semester’s readings, while thinking of ways of fitting my work into it all.
kellyboudreauphd.ca 