Blind Chance’ 19

Thesis submitted for the degree of doctor in the arts

at the University of Antwerp to be defended by

Ali Baharlou

Promotors:

Prof. Dr. Philippe Meers

Dr. Tom De Smedt Antwerpen, 2021

Prof. dr. Paolo Favero, University of Antwerpen, Belgium

Prof. dr. Philippe Meers, University of Antwerpen, Belgium

Dr. Tom De Smedt, Sint Lucas Antwerpen, Belgium

Dr. Ruth Loos, Sint Lucas Antwerpen, Belgium

Introduction 5

‘Blind Chance’ 19

‘Lock, Wallet, Write, Park’ 27

‘Bezoeker’ 39

‘What would you do?’ 65

Bibliography 81

Filmography 87

The subject discussed in this research is parallel narratives in film and branching narrative paths that can lead to different destinies for the protagonist. We design parallel narrative videos, show them in different formats, record the audiences’ gaze and interview them about what they understood and how they felt, to explore the audiences’ perception of this sort of narrative. This data will be used to design an artistic end product, an interactive narrative in which the audiences decide what happens next.

The questions raised are how the audiences perceive parallel narratives and to what extent implementing diverse narrative forms of presentation can change the audiences’ perception of the narrative? And is there a relation between the audiences’ gaze and which character or branching they prefer in such a narrative?

Keywords: Parallel narratives, Audiences’ gaze, Eye tracking, Multi- screen, Audiences’ perception.

The subject discussed in this research is parallel narratives in film, series of multiple parallel destinies crucially affected by contingent encounters, interactions, simple changes and choices and how these choices can lead to different destinies for the protagonist. The content of these narratives discusses topics of choices in form of exploring the effect of what might have happened.

As a filmmaker and engineer, I try to explore these issues with existing feature films of such structure and my own short films and videos. My aim is to create something that the audiences can relate to and think about outside the frame of the film and cinema and into their normal everyday lives. In this thesis I not only make the narratives, but I have the opportunity to hear and document the feedback of the audiences and interview them about the narrative and how they perceive it, and how it can affect them in their lives.

This text is a documentation of my experience as a filmmaker and an artist and it documents my artistic process and my progress in making my artworks while searching for answers to the questions I have. This text goes hand in hand and chapter by chapter with my artistic practices and contextualizes them. It reflects on my thought process and my progress as I try to create new video pieces in each chapter. Although it may not seem so, each chapter is in fact a part of my artistic process and the combination of all chapters brings me closer to the end artistic work in this thesis.

As for the audience’s perception, while most linear narratives cue the viewer to closure, adopting a closed state of mind, some films open the mind to thoughts of choice and possibility, through the presentation of alternate narrative paths. Optional thinking is a process by which the audiences cognitively interact with the narrative and explore other choices, probable narrative paths and other hypotheses, on screen or off screen (Ben-Shaul, 2012). Hence, through discussing other possibilities in parallel narratives, optional thinking and the perception of the audiences about different endings can be amplified.

By the will of the filmmaker, the audience’s engagement and the direction of their active attention are guided or manipulated with cinematography, editing, use of color psychology, lighting techniques, mise-en-scène, use of different lenses, different angles, time of each shot, etc. These manipulations are aimed to control and direct viewer's attention, allowing the director to control the perception and the visual priorities of elements within a scene which can be the source of multiple interpretations (Hochberg, Peterson, Gillam & Sedgwick, 2007). As for my argument, to what extent can implementing diverse narrative elements, techniques or forms of presentation change the audiences’ perception of parallel narratives? For example, can

5 showing each parallel narrative next to each other rather than chronologically change the audiences’ perception about the equality of these narratives?

In the following chapters, the audiences’ reception will be explored. As previous studies have stated, our response to a film is shaped by the structure of our brains, and instinctive responses to a film are qualified by cognitive factors such as personal experience and culture (Grodal, 2009). Hence, what the audiences see depends on their experiences, preferences, beliefs and how visually literate they are.

As for the audiences’ gaze, when making decisions people tend to choose the option they have looked at more, a psychological gaze study with eye trackers has stated (Smith & Krajbich, 2018). There have been numerous studies on gaze tracking for film and video using single screens. The difference is that I want to explore the usage of gaze tracking among several narratives. The argument that I want to explore here is to what extent there is a relation between where the audiences’ gaze accumulates and which version they prefer, in a multiple version narrative.

In order to delve into these questions, processes will be put forth using parallel narrative films shown on multiple screens using methods such as gaze tracking and audiences’ interviews to examine the audiences’ reception.

On a personal level and for the artistic motivation, I have to explain where the initial idea of this thesis is coming from. Born and raised in a religious country, Islamic Republic of Iran, and being taught mandatory religious courses during fifteen years of school and university, the issues of free will, choice, fate and destiny have had a great impact on me and have always fascinated me.

“Qadar” is the Muslim belief that Allah has decided everything that will happen in the world and in people’s lives and fates, which is also called predestination (Lecomte, 1977). The phrase reflects a Muslim doctrine that Allah has written and measured out the span of every person's life, their lot of good or ill fortune, and the fruits of their efforts. Again God does not need to force anyone to do good or evil by interfering with his will, and a person's actions are not caused by what is written, but rather the action is written, because God already knows all occurrences without the restrictions of time (Fleming & Smith, n.d.). The main question in predestination in Islamic theory is whether man has power to act or free will to choose his action. If he has no power or free will, it means that his actions are caused by another power. If he has the power or free will, it means that God's omnipotence is challenged (Mohamad, 1985).

In Christianity, as in Islam, there is also discussion about the concept of predestination. Some verses of the Bible mention that man is predestined by God, for example, “who can produce some one clean out of some unclean? There is no one” (Job, 14:4). Besides, there are some verses which point out that man is not subject to the predestination of God. For example,

“So that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand” (Mark, 4:12).

Most Shi'a Muslims believe that Allah has ultimate control of the world but that people’s lives are down to their own free will. They believe that God knows what will happen, but this doesn’t mean that he decides it. God knows what choices people will make, but they still have the free will to make these choices for themselves. Therefore, Shia Muslims reject predestination (Pohl, 2010). Some Sunni Muslims believe that God has already determined everything that will happen in the universe. Muslims often say Insha’Allah, which means “if God wills”. This highlights that life has already been planned out by Allah and he has determined how each person will behave. Some Muslims like this idea and find it reassuring that if a bad thing happens it must be part of God’s plan (Fleming & Smith, n.d.).

On a social level, this belief that whatever that has to happen will happen, has passed from generations to generations in my country and is strongly rooted in our culture. This concept and belief has always fascinated me, and I have always sought it in any narrative and storytelling form. My aim is not to enter into these issues from philosophical, religious or social point of views, but simply to make clear where the idea of my narratives and different choices leading to changing destinies come from and how I can implement it in my videos.

Many artistic studies have been conducted on gaze tracking, manipulating audiences’ attention and perception. What makes my research distinctive from previous research is that it facilitates the existing method of eye tracking, to focus on parallel narratives shown next to each other or on multiple screens, to explore the audience’s perception on parallel outcomes and emotions towards different paths and endings.

This study will be able to add other aspects and viewpoints to previous studies on audience’s gaze and perception. While other studies with eye tracking (e.g., Rassell, Stadler & Robinson 2015, Redmond & Sita 2013, Rayner et al. 2009, Kawaze & Obata 2016, Smith 2015, Brown 2015) and several studies conducted by Dr. Tim. J. Smith mostly focus on one screen narrative, my study focuses on gaze tracking in multiple narratives. As for the narrative devices and their effect on audience, the project can be situated among existing studies such as Dr. Smith’s work. Dr. Smith has demonstrated how the human eye moves via small movements called saccades, and that in between saccades the human eye fixates. It is during these fixations that humans take in visual information, meaning fixations are linked to attention and to working memory. We tend to remember objects from our visual field upon which we have fixated, or to which we have paid attention (Brown, 2015). In his PhD thesis, lots of continuity errors in feature films were created to explore audiences’ manipulation and

7 investigate gaze behavior during film viewing (Smith, 2005). Dr. Smith uses eye tracking studies to demonstrate how filmmakers capture and maintain viewers’ attention, with certain techniques, mainly those associated with continuity editing, being more successful than others. Such insights helped me to investigate the effect of narrative elements on my own audience’s gaze behavior.

In the research Seeing, Sensing Sound: Eye-tracking Soundscapes in Saving Private Ryan and Monsters, Inc. (Rassell et al., 2015) data was collected to analyze fixations with a focus on narrative development, characterization, and sound, in relation to gaze patterns, using three films: Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg, 1998), Monsters Inc. (Pete Docter, 2001) & Up (Pete Docter, 2009). The films were chosen because they had very strong and directed storylines and interesting soundscapes. In a dialogless montage scene of the film Up, eye tracking gaze hotspots emerge around the character’s mouths, as if viewers are conditioned to look for identification through the way a film’s central characters “speak”, and are searching for narrative clarification through dialogue exchanges that actually never emerge. Also, where viewers look when the scenes are played with and without sound is explored. With regards to Monsters Inc. when the sound is off, viewers’ gaze actually migrate slightly away from the character’s mouths to focus on their eyes, and to objects that are pregnant with narrative information, in this case the red warning light on the door, a warning that something is about to happen. On the other hand, with Saving Private Ryan, when the Omaha beach scene was played without sound, gaze patterns slightly migrated to objects that could be predicted to be key to what might happen next, such as the soldiers’ guns and helmets.

In the research, Audience Gaze While Appreciating a Multipart Musical Performance (Kawase & Obata, 2016) an eye tracker was used to investigate the viewers’ gaze while appreciating an audiovisual musical singing duo performance. The main findings were that the melody part attracted more visual attention from participants, and joint attention from participants emerged when the singers shifted their gazes toward their co-performer, suggesting that inter-performer gazing interactions play a spotlight role in mediated performer-audience visual interaction.

Regarding different atmospheres and emotions and endings, in another research, Selective Preference in Visual Fixation Away from Negative Images in Old Age? An Eye-Tracking Study (Isaacowitz, Wadlinger, Goren & Wilson, 2006) gaze patterns were recorded as individuals viewed the face pairs. Older adults showed an attentional preference toward happy faces and looked away from angry ones, and did selectively forget negative information.

My project is placed within the context of existing ideas about parallel narratives, but the new viewpoints is that these studies will be explored and tested in other forms of narrative presentations. For stage like performative installations, inspirations come from works of artists

8 such as Rimini Protokoll. For multiscreen installation or potential labels of “projected image” or “multi-projection” installation, influences and inspirations come from following works of artists:

Stan Douglas’s multi-screen video installation The Secret Agent (2015) is a six-screen full length drama looking at the aftermath of the fall of the dictator Salazar in Portugal in the mid-1970s. In this feature film each scene is shot from different viewpoints or played out alongside other incidents happening somewhere else at the same time. The viewer is forced to stay alert and constantly shift their focus of attention from one screen to another.

Douglas Gordon’s 24-Hour Psycho Back and Forth and To and Fro (2008) is a two- screen installation in which the film Psycho is slowed down to a few frames per second, extending the film’s duration to 24 hours. The film is played on two identical screens installed side by side. On one, the film starts from the beginning, and on the other it starts from the end moving backwards and thus for a brief moment after waiting for 12 hours the screens show the same sequence.

Shirin Neshat’s Turbulent (1998) is a two-screen video installation which portrays a male performer singing for exclusively male audiences on the left screen. He is met by an applause and as he bows, on the right screen a chador-covered female performer starts singing for an empty auditorium. The two performers create a powerful musical metaphor for the inherent in gender roles, cultural power, and injustices in Iran.

Pierre Huyghe’s The Third Memory (2000) is a two-screen video projection which reenacts the 1972 hold-up of a Brooklyn bank in Sidney Lumet’s film Dog Day Afternoon (1975). By bringing together the news footage of the actual event, fragments from the film, and footage of John Wojtowicz, the person upon whom Al Pacino’s character Sonny Wortzik is based, Huyghe examines the intersection between film, filmic reality, reality as memory, and reality as constructed by the media.

Pipilotti Rist’s Ever Is Over All (1997) is a two-channel video projected into a corner of an exhibition space. In the video, a young woman joyfully walks down the street with what appears to be a large flower. A field of flowers is projected to the right side, which partially overlaps with the image of the street sequence. Suddenly, the woman swings the flower and begins to smash the windows of cars parked along the street. This work literally shatters screens, signaling the need for a conceptual shattering of conventional notions.

Bjørn Melhus’ The Theory of Freedom (2015) is a three-screen video installation in which we see the protagonists Mister Freedom and Miss Independence walking through a desolate metropolis. They are quoting from neoliberal texts mixed with religious delusions about the biblical apocalypse as they wait for the Day of Judgement. The video is an investigation into the concepts of freedom, capitalism and religion.

Doug Aitken’s Electric Earth (1999) is a multi-room, multi-screen video installation that immerses the viewer in a loosely structured narrative about a young man in a big city, walking along the deserted outskirts of Los Angeles at night and it creates a haunting picture of alienation in contemporary society.

David Claerbout’s split screen installation Riverside (2009) manipulates the experience of sound by playing with the audio balance of the soundtrack in the installation’s headsets. It diverts the attention of the audiences as an attempt to state lack of unity in the audience’s perception toward the narratives in separate screens of the installation.

Another influence is Eija-Liisa Ahtila. She explores topics such as storytelling, variation and combination of time, narration and space in her multiscreen video pieces such as The wind (2002), Consolation Service (1999), The house (2002), If 6 was 9 (1995) and The Annunciation (2010). For instance, in The Annunciation, two different versions for classic film presentation are projected. One unfolds with one picture image, and the other has three images next to each other.

Her work Consolation service consists of an elaborate two-channel fictional narrative projected on a long blank wall at the back of a darkened rectangular gallery space. The two projections are screened synchronously and offer two different perspectives of the same story, facilitating comparisons between two points of view that overlap only rarely. Whereas other artists like Douglas Gordon and Shirin Neshat have utilized this dual screen technique primarily to emphasize spatial differences, Ahtila's double screens deconstruct temporal as well as spatial continuity, where one screen is primarily concerned with detail and context shots, and the other with moving the narrative along, although this is not readily apparent on a first viewing.

Regarding the similar methodology in the field of studying the audiences and their reflections of topics in the narrative, there are numerous research studies such as the work of Tomas Axelson’s research, which uses individual interviews as artistic methods (Axelson, 2008). In this research study, interviewing the audiences opening up about their way of thinking, their opinions and emotions towards the narrative investigates audience’s feedback and reactions on multiple screen narratives and the ways they perceive it. It also explores audience’s perception on parallel outcomes and emotions towards different paths and endings.

I have created three main chapters and a final chapter. In the chapter ‘Blind Chance’, the parallel narrative film Blind Chance (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1987) and different ways of presenting it is explored. In the chapter ‘Lock, wallet, write, park’ the focus is on the preference of the audiences in shorter and simpler parallel narrative videos. In the chapter ‘Bezoeker’

10 different endings and cinematic techniques in a narrative piece and its influence on the audiences is explored.

In the final chapter ‘What would you do?’ insights from the previous chapters would help to make a new artistic component, an interactive narrative. An interactive narrative is a form of digital experience in which the audiences create or influence a dramatic storyline through their actions or decisions.

One of the reasons to use an eye tracking instrument is to give the audiences the choice to control the ending of a video piece and to choose a path or ending in a parallel video piece. In this chapter everything from previous chapters will build up to a short film where the audiences get full control of the narrative. One can state that this idea of controlling the film makes it look like an adventure video game. Most video games have a save system in which if you make a mistake or want to change your strategy, you can do that. When one choice leads to death or to an unsatisfactory outcome, we are able to return to the starting point and make another choice. Indeed, in games what was first time a mistake, can be done a second time in a correct way. As in parallel narratives, the director holds the view that the human condition lies in having to make choices and decisions without knowing what lies ahead. In a video game you can keep repeating a task until you get it right, and most of the parallel narrative structures in general unfold three stories or segments, exactly the same number of “lives” granted in classical video games like Pac-Man, Mario and Sonic the Hedgehog.

One of the earliest interactive games was the 1983 game Dragon’s Lair, where the player had control over some moves of the character and could decide which move or action the character does when in danger. If the player would choose a wrong move, they would see a scene where the character dies, until they would choose the correct move which would allow them to proceed. Then, there was only one possible storyline in that game to proceed, the move that the designers intended them to make. But since then, the gaming industry invested a lot in that form and as of now, for example, Telltale Games which produces story-based video games based on popular series like The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, and Batman, has largely invested in story-driven, choose-your-own-adventure narratives which feature multiple branching and endings based on decisions taken earlier in the game by the player. In 2018, Tribeca Film Festival hosted the screening of the first episode of the game Guardians of the Galaxy: A Telltale Series and an entire theater of audiences got the chance to vote for the direction of the narrative in the game that was screened live on the big screen. But concerning this playability feature, how close can the medium of gaming come to the medium of cinema?

Regarding the artistic methodology, the end presentation of the thesis is a new interactive narrative in a cinema room. An interactive narrative in which the audiences decide what happens next. All the insights from different chapters in this thesis help me shape this end presentation. Also, my influences and inspirations come from existing works of artists and films.

One of the first examples of interactive cinema was the experimental film Kinoautomat (Radúz Činčera, 1967) which followed a protagonist named Mr. Novak through a dramatic day. The film would freeze nine times so the audiences can participate in nine different decisions and at those nine times, a live actor would walk out and explain the choice to the audience. The audiences then could push a button to vote which of the two different options they would prefer. At the same time a corresponding light bulb around the screen would highlight their choice giving a quick view of the total audiences’ reaction. Later in 1992, Loews movie theaters invested and installed interactive remotes designed for films like the short film I’m your man (Bob Bejan, 1992) a 20-minute film in which the characters turn to the camera on certain points and ask for the audience’s help in making one of six choices.

Later in 2008, a series of five interactive adventures called Chad, Matt & Rob's Interactive Adventures were created on YouTube and utilized its annotations function to narrate interactive stories that allowed the user to guide the narrative. The series included The Time Machine, The Murder, The Birthday Party, The Teleporter, and The Treasure Hunt.

In December 2018, Netflix's first major interactive film with live-action scenes, Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (David Slade, 2018) was released. Netflix worked with Black Mirror's creator to develop a narrative that took advantage of the interactive format resulting in 10 different endings.

The first live interactive movie, My One Demand (Matt Adams, 2015) was filmed and premiered on 25 June 2015. The film was shot and streamed live to the TIFF Lightbox cinema in Toronto. Audiences in the cinema used their phones to answer questions from the narrator and their answers were included in the voiceover as well as in the closing credits.

Another example is the film Late Shift (Tobias Weber, 2016). The film follows the story of a night shift parking lot employee who gets into a heist in a London auction house. The film was screened at the New York Film Festival and Raindance Film Festival and had 7 different endings and several storylines based on the voting which the audiences did through their smartphones, and the majority vote became the choice used in the film.

Interactive movies often have difficulties in maintaining an immersive experience throughout the story, because the engagement via keystrokes, joysticks or game pads, such as the film screening examples described above, prevents the viewers from being entranced by the dream-like immersion in the experience, and because the viewer may lose track of the storyline when required to make decisions about every new course of actions (Gerrig 1993, Murray 1997).

The gaze-guided viewing of interactive movies research (Vesterby et al., 2005) states that non-intrusive gaze tracking holds potential for adding engaging game-like interaction to narrative media, while retaining the immersive experience associated with the viewing of motion

12 pictures. When selections among action branches are seamlessly interwoven into the viewing process itself, the viewer may interactively navigate the narrative structure while never interrupting the cinematic ‘suspension of disbelief’. Watching an interactive movie should not be a stop-and-go affair. Rather, it should feel like being on a bus that doesn’t stop until the end of the tour. For me, that is another reason to choose the eye tracking glasses. The difference that my end work shall have with the existing films, is that I aim to have an immersive experience throughout my interactive video.

Next to the artistic methodology of using an interactive narrative, the scientific methodology, is eye tracking. Eye tracking can be used for quantifying viewer’s experience of a video, comparing viewing behavior across different viewing conditions and groups, as well for testing how cinematic techniques such as editing, light, mise en scene and camera movements impact and take control of where the audiences look at and how this control can lead to audiences’ manipulation of perception. In this study, the gaze tracking will be used in multiple screen forms to explore how form can influence the audiences’ perception and how gaze and directing attention works with multiple screens.

As for eye tracking, there are approaches each with different means and different installations. One approach is to use mounted eye trackers. These trackers will be mounted on multiple screens or monitors. In this approach, one can move their head around as much as desired and still maintain decent tracking. This means you don’t have to calibrate them every time. The limitation in this approach is that you have to fix them on monitors or screens no larger than 30 inches. In this approach the audiences will be limited to one viewer per monitor.

One approach to gaze tracking is the method using webcams by the website called ‘Eyesdecide’. This approach has been used in the chapter ‘Lock, Wallet, Write, Park’. It is the option for eye tracking without special hardware. This allows you to approach eye tracking studies and attract audiences and invite them to collaborate on your research online, from their homes with their own laptops.

In an installation setting, people have to be present at the location of the installation and around the opening time. Besides, only one person at a time can participate since there is only one eye tracking glasses available. But this approach is free from a certain place and a certain

13 time. Meaning that anyone can participate whenever they wish and from wherever they wish. Also, in this setting several people can participate at the same time.

In this method, there should be as less head motion as possible and proper light to have accuracy. There is a calibration process in the beginning to capture the gaze more accurate. After the participants click on the link, they receive instructions for the best situation needed for the eye tracking such as facing towards the windows and not behind it during daytime, wearing no eye glasses, putting the hair back from the face, sitting on a desk and not moving the head a lot. After that, another visual instruction checks whether the face is lit enough, close enough to the screen or in the center, and instruct the participant to do so. After that the calibration process begins, on a white screen a red dot is shown, the participant has to look at it for some seconds and click it, this process repeats itself 30 times, with 30 dots in different places of the screen.

Another approach to gaze tracking is using eye tracking glasses. This allows free head motion because the eye tracker is fixed to your head. In this approach you don’t need a computer screen nor a monitor and the glasses can be used on big screens and you can do eye tracking experiments in other environments as well. But this approach limits the amount of audiences at a time to the quantity of glasses used in the research. This approach has been used in chapter ‘Bezoeker’ and final chapter ‘What would you do?’.

The artistic justification of using an eye tracking glasses is that I did create a piece in which I make the audiences conscious about the fact that directors are indeed manipulators and dictate to them where to look but at the same time I want to give them a chance to react, interact and, in the case of the final video of the thesis, decide for the video piece.

The eye tracking glasses used in this thesis is Pupil Labs glasses. The glasses are designed to be lightweight and adjustable in order to accommodate a wide range of users. They consist of 1.World camera, 2.Nose support, 3.Eye camera, 4.USB-C connector clip (See Figure 1).

In using eye tracking glasses everything depends on capturing good raw videos of the eyes. We will need to physically adjust the eye camera on the headset to get good images of the eyes. If the pupil is detected, a red circle around the edge of the pupil and a red dot at the center of the pupil will be seen (See Figure 2).

Figure 1. Eye tracking glasses’ parts

Figure 2. Correct capture of viewer’s pupil

In order to know what someone is looking at, we must establish a mapping between pupil and gaze positions. This is what we call calibration. The calibration process establishes a mapping from pupil to gaze coordinates. At the beginning of each gaze tracking 6 markers will appear one after each other in the middle and on the corners of the surface that we intend to record and the audience member should look at each for several seconds until the red dot in the middle of the marker becomes green and the software automatically proceeds to the next marker (See Figure 3).

Figure 3. Calibrating the glasses using markers

But what is my artistic interest in tracking the audiences’ gaze with a surveillance element? The eye tracking glasses tracks the visual experience of the viewer. My ultimate aim is to use this gaze data from the glasses to make an interactive experience in the last chapter, to let the audiences control the branching narrative and proceed with the version they prefer. But before doing so, I have to know, is there a relation between the audiences’ gaze and which version of the story they prefer to explore more? Because if there is a relation, then I can proceed and connect the gaze of the audiences as a factor to be the drive of the decision making in my narrative.

With a background in filmmaking, I try to explore issues of different paths, endings, fate and destiny with existing films of such structure and my own videos. My aim is to create something that the audiences can relate to and think outside the frame of the video and into their normal everyday lives about it. In this thesis I not only make the narratives but have the opportunity to hear and document the feedback of the audiences and interview them about the narratives and how they perceive them.

The objectives in this thesis changed in the process. Over the course of the research, I realized I needed to focus less on trying to come up with solid general conclusions about how the audiences watch a film. Earlier, I wanted to explore several effects, first being the effect of these narratives on the audiences’ perception of choices not in films but in their real life, which is not something that can influence the audiences that easily and can come to a conclusion. Second effect was if a powerful narrative can change audience’s initial perception formed from their background which again is not that easily calculatable. Hence later the objectives changed as I progressed in my thesis and therefore, the numbers and data in this research are not there to draw a definite scientific conclusion about general audiences but merely to exhibit the emotions and perception of my audiences and an in-depth understanding of the effect of my videos in the chapters ‘Lock, Wallet, Write, Park’ and ‘Bezoeker’ on my audience.

In the following chapters the narratives will be presented in different forms of projection, including single screen and multiple screen projections in a screening or exhibition and viewing on laptops and home PCs of audiences. The narratives will be presented with different visual elements such as different view angles, shot lengths, shot types and different editing.

In order to explore my objectives, I have created three main chapters and a final chapter. For each main chapter, I have created video pieces and these artistic creations help me explore the objective I have in each chapter. You can begin with each of them you like and continue in an order you like. Then there is the fourth chapter which is the final chapter. In this final chapter, the insights from previous three chapters would help me to come up with a new artistic creation.

In the chapter ‘Blind Chance’ the focus will be on the feature film Blind Chance and the research will implement Slavoj Zizek’s views on parallel narrative being futile to convey its message. He claims that the chronological order of such narratives betrays their message of multiple paths and equality of multiple realities (Zǐ zek,̌ 2001). This chapter discusses the parallel path narratives, the influence of presenting them next to each other rather than linear and the influence of such videos. Also, it will be explored that do the audiences’ perception about a parallel narrative change if it is shown other than its linear sequential form? And how feasible is it to watch multiple storylines next to each other?

In the chapter ‘Lock, wallet, write, park’ shorter and simpler videos with the same structure presented and the focus will be on the preference of the audience. In this form of multiple parallel narratives next to each other, which path or version do the audiences prefer? Is there any relation between what they gaze more at and what they prefer?

In the chapter ‘Bezoeker’ different endings and different cinematic elements and techniques in a narrative piece and the influence on the audiences will be explored. Which endings do the audiences prefer and why? Which characters do they have more empathy with and why? Is there any relation between what they gaze at and which character they have more empathy with?

In the final chapter ‘What would you do?’ insights and outcome from the previous chapters would help to make a new artistic component and previous forms of representing of such videos would help to build up with a new presentation of a narrative which transcends the questions of the thesis alongside some answers through an experience for the audience.

You can choose between 3 chapters to read; simply click on the chapter you would like to read or go to its page number:

- Chapter ‘Blind Chance’, Page 19.

- Chapter ‘Lock, Wallet, Write, Park’, Page 27.

- Chapter ‘Bezoeker’, Page 39.

Since I left my home country, Iran, and immigrated to Belgium on 2012, I find myself thinking a lot about the topic of “what if” and “what might have happened”. Since then I look at the world around me somehow different and it has affected my filmmaking as well. Whenever I want to create an art piece, this topic gives me inspiration. Every day I think, what would have happened if I had stayed? How would have my life looked like? What could have stayed more or less the same and what not?

There are numerous films dealing with different characters’ storylines woven into each other or into parallel universes, but what I am focusing on in this chapter are “what if” scenario structures, where there are several story versions, each with their own possible outcome, their “what might have happened”. Films with this structure are branched and divided into two, three and sometimes even twelve parts after a certain time in the story. They are caused by different choices which the protagonist can make on the same objective, showing what might have happened if the main characters made certain choices or failed to do so. Therefore, the narrative shows a first version and when it ends, it goes back to the beginning of the story and this time either the character makes another decision or something he does or doesn’t do unintentionally changes the course of the narrative. Possible narratives express and question if protagonists in parallel lives would have behaved differently to the environment with different choices, and to what extent their destinies would have been altered by their choices and by chance.

From September 2016, I started looking for existing feature films that can represent this kind of structure. I have chosen this specific structure because for me it can reflect on issues of fate, belief, free will and destiny by showing different paths that the life of a character can take, and my aim is to confront my audiences with such issues and witness their reaction to this kind of narrative. I find it very interesting how one of my audience members answered when I asked her about the topic of “what if”:

“…. In life you always have different opportunities and always make choices, I can relate it to my own life if you ask , for example the fact that I am with my husband, I made a choice, but I don’t think about these what ifs anymore, it is better not to think about it otherwise you are not living in the real life, you are living in the past, in my point of view so many things you can choose but so many are not in your hands.”

As for the form of these narratives, it seems that a new artistic representation is required since parallel and alternative reality films back away from their most radical suggestion that all the possibilities they depict are equally real. In most of the known films with this kind of structure, the difference between the versions are inevitably about happy endings, sad endings and open

19 endings. Because film remains a linear, sequential medium, it tends to imply that the final alternative shown is also the most real one (Zǐ zek,̌ 2001). Zizek claims that the chronological order of such narratives betrays their message of multiple universes and equal multiple paths, and I assume that Kieslowski was aware of that and there is a chance that the order in which the sequences are proposed is chosen to address this issue. But here I would like to examine how other forms of presenting this film, multiple screens instead of one screen, can change audience’s perception of multiple paths and their equality and how feasible is it to watch multiple storylines simultaneously next to each other? Will it change how the audiences think about the possibility of which version of the narrative is true? Will they think that all of the branchings are possible and can happen at the same time when the presentation of the film changes? That is why I chose the following form of presentation for this narrative.

There are several films with this specific structure such as Blind Chance, Sliding Doors, Run Lola Run, Smoking/No smoking, Groundhog Day, It’s a wonderful Life, Next, Edge of Tomorrow, Primer and etc. but in this chapter the focus is one of the more successful films in exploring this realm, Blind Chance (Krzysztof Kieślowski, 1987).

In this chapter the focus will be on the feature film Blind Chance and here are the reasons why. First, because it is one of the few films that personally makes me think and try to connect the narrative with my normal everyday life and my reality. Second, because it is a well written and directed film in this genre and the idea of branching realities is the dominant aspect and philosophical question of the film rather than an entertainment aspect like Next and Edge of Tomorrow. Third, because the character doesn’t know about other branches like the characters in Groundhog Day and It’s a Wonderful Life which for me makes it more true to the idea of parallel realities existing next to each other. Finally, because there is a complexity as to cause and effect in this film, it is about fate, fate of this character and the character does not necessarily have a better fate when his decisions should normally bring about a better fate. For example in the version in which he does not take any political sides and try to live a calm life away from any kind of danger he gets killed while in the other two versions in which he takes side in politics and exercise dangerous activities nothing deadly happens to him in the end.

So, it was an interesting film for me strictly narrative-wise and I did not choose it because it was banned in Poland from 1981 to 1987 before it was aired in a censored version, something that it is not foreign to me at all since film’s censorship and banning still happens in Iran as well.

In Blind chance WITEK is a medical student who is leaving his town and is late for his train. His future path will be examined by whether or not he will catch the train he is running

20 for. Through three possible parallel storylines, Witek experiences his possible futures. In this way the film Blind Chance shows how simple, unimportant and sometimes irrelevant choices can change the protagonist’s life and the path of the narrative.

In Blind chance, the end of each narrative is marked by a tear in the film’s temporal fabric that is indicated by the use of slow-motion and the rising, Baroque musical theme. In the first two episodes the protagonist faces difficulties in his life but he remains healthy and alive as in the third episode his life changes for better and becomes ideal, but he gets killed in an airplane accident in the end.

In December 2016, I organized a private screening at my atelier space. There, I projected the film Blind Chance in its original video and audio format on the wall of my atelier. The size of the projection was 2 meter in diameter. I screened the film to 5 audience members and afterwards had a concise talk with them about the equality of three versions and their thoughts over Witek’s destiny (see Appendix A1).

Zizek claims that the chronological order of such narratives betrays their message of equal multiple paths and as I have thought, all audience members believed that the last fragment is the reality and the segments before are either not real, imagination of the protagonist, trials and errors or a rewind in time. But what struck me, was the reason they gave as to why they thought the third chapter is the real one; for example, one audience member put it like this:

“In the other versions, he doesn’t die and there is no ending to his story, like in the first one he is in the airport and just misses his flight and gets angry and in the other one he ends up with his aunt, for me none of them is an ending, while in the third one there is an ending, a sad one, so I guess that is the real one.”

According to them, because there was no end to the story of the protagonist in the other chapters, they were not real, and the real chapter only comes when the story (or life of the protagonist) has an end. Another audience member also talked about the fact that when the film reaches its end, then there is no time left to go back, no time for trial and error and no time to rewind back, hence the last chapter should be the real one.

One audience member said the third chapter is real since the film begins in the airplane and ends in the airplane. So, is Witek predestined to end up in the airplane and die? Does he have free will after all? If everything around him happens based on chance, as it is stated in the title of the film, does he have free will?

Continuing the topic of predestination and free will, what ideology did the filmmaker want to convey with its story? If the director was aiming to show that you are free to choose between these destinies and that they can all happen, then this message was not conveyed according to the limited interviews I had. The interesting fact was that all the audience members were conscious about the physical running time of the film and it was an important factor for them to decide about the chapters.

Now I am curious if I shatter this linear structure and take away the chronological order of the film and the fact that the film ends with chapter 3, will the audiences perceive the chapters the same way?

My artistic drive is to find a way to show these stories somehow that it can be conveyed they are parallel. For that I reshaped this film’s linear presentation to see if it changes the audiences’ reception about its parallel nature. So, I edited the Blind Chance scene by scene and put the three segments of Witek’s life next to each other instead of the three segments coming after each other.

In March 2017, I organized a screening at my atelier space. There, I projected the 3- screen ‘Blind Chance’ video, on the wall. The size of the projection was 2 meter in diameter. The installation includes three chairs with headsets on them. The audiences would sit on either of these chairs and pick up the headset on them. Each headset has the audio of one specific storyline out of multiple storylines. I screened it to 5 audience members and afterwards had an interview with them about the equality of three versions and their thoughts over Witek’s destiny (see Appendix A2). Here is the Link to the 3-screen “Blind Chance” film: https://youtu.be/p41B1hKCGwo

Now I could see changes in the audience’s response about the equality of the chapters and how the presentation can affect the viewers. One audience member said it very simple and clearly:

“In one he got on the train, in the other one he didn’t and in another one he got arrested I suppose…for the rest I cannot really say, it was with different love of his life each time and different jobs I think, … you are asking me which one was real? I think all of them, if you show me like this, I say all of them because I can see them at the same time, and of course it is a film but I would not say it was imagination of the guy or something like that…”

These three different destinies and choices are something to be reflected and how simple and sometimes irrelevant choices can change the protagonist’s destiny and path of the narrative. In classical narration, chance plays almost no role at all, the protagonists live in a world that seems planned from A to Z: nothing, or almost nothing, happens ‘just like that’, for no specific reason. Almost always a causal connection exists between successive events, and it is nearly impossible to point out an event that is not meaningful within the plot as a whole. Modernist cinema, on the other hand, shows stories evolving in an aleatory way, without much

23 emphasis on causal connections. The events seem affected by contingency rather than being necessary. They might not have taken place, and the fact that they take place does not determine the lives of the protagonists in a powerful way. The modern universe shows indeterministic characteristics, whereas in the classical universe the protagonists' future follows only one determined path. Whereas there are different paths shown in the narrative and chances to have another life, there is a discussion that despite the multiple paths, the opportunity to change the future is limited to simple scripted events in this kind of narrative and it cannot grow more than handful of limited outcomes.

Regarding the equality of multiple narratives and realities, 4 out of 5 audience members believed that all the storylines are happening parallel to each other and that it is not a flashback, unreal, imagination of the protagonist nor a time-travel narrative device. Although one audience member thought the only real chapter is the one with sound, the one that she could hear. The role of audio in this kind of installation is explored further in the chapter ‘Bezoeker’ in which I organized a similar installation.

Regarding the feasibility of watching a feature film in 3 screens, after 5 interviews one issue was frequent in all the experiments; the fact that the audiences could not follow up all the storylines with different plots and subplots and found the presentation of a feature film in 3 screens confusing. For the people that haven’t seen the movie before, this way of presentation was very confusing, as so much information was being fed to them, three different storylines with different branching of subplots and different characters. They could only follow one storyline at a time and come back to other versions with the help of subtitles but there was no consistency in their viewing and could not give a summary of what have happened in other storylines. After being asked to summarize the other versions and endings they could just come up with segments of sequences and often doubting what has happened.

With changing the presentation of the narrative from linear and chronological into 3- screen presentation, my audiences thought about the equality of three stories more compared to when it was shown chronological. It is a good start as this sort of presentation has worked, now I needed to see how I could make a short film following this pattern.

Later on, I figured out that I cannot draw a solid conclusion with this limited data, and this insight has been explored further in other chapters. The other outcome was that I thought it would be an experience that can challenge audiences and transcend a message about choices in narratives, free will and fate but when I wanted to go deeper about these issues I figured out the presentation of the narrative was confusing for all the audiences and they could only follow one branch of the story, therefore detailed questions about the impact of decisions in all three stories was not possible. Later I figure out that I should not assume that showing these decisions in films can change audiences’ perception about their decision making in real life. This cannot happen easily and to influence the audiences about such issues are much more complex than

24 that. I also learned to make the presentation of the video, being three totally different narratives with different subplots shown next to each other, less confusing for other chapters and my final chapter.

Another artistic drive in this chapter was to explore the structure of the film itself. For that, I went through the whole film, shattered it to pieces and built it up again to three chapters to see how the director has directed each chapter. Can I find scenes with similar themes that appear in each three chapters at the same time as the arch of the character proceeds? Another aim was to examine if the director has used the same shots for the reoccurring initial scene (where the story branches)? What does that mean if they are all the same shot? What if they are not the same shots used?

Interesting enough, I found out that he has used a mixture of both, meaning in the three introduction scenes which Witek is running to catch the train, some shots are identical and some shots are not. What does that mean? For me, it means that this was not one story which branched into three stories the moment Witek could (not) catch his train, they were indeed three different stories happening next to each other, even from the beginning, before Witek goes to the train station. The story never branched, there were three parallel stories from the beginning. My opinion aside, the real important insight for me was how my audiences experienced this film shown in different presentations and the feedback they give me that could help me make a better presentation of this sort of narrative.

This experience of re-editing a feature film, this deconstruction and reconstruction also taught me a lot about the process of editing and screenwriting. The protagonist has more or less the same arch in all the three chapters, more or less the same number of scenes in each chapter and they all follow a pattern. The protagonist finds an old love, he is being given an opportunity to join an organization, political or not, he tries to do his job well and tries to be a better person and, in the end, he witnesses the consequences of his (political) actions affecting his career and his love life.

Every day since my immigration to Belgium, I have imagined a parallel life, a life that I have stayed in Iran and I wonder what would have happened? I decided that if your imagination is strong enough, you can imagine these two lives happening parallel to each other. As I have felt these two simultaneous lives here in Belgium and in Iran, I wanted the audiences to experience this feeling through the fictious medium of film. I wanted to portrait this parallelism and how possible can it be, in the medium of film, and I have the impression that I was successful considering all of my limited audiences grasped and felt these parallel lives as I intended. But as a filmmaker, if I want that my audiences can follow all the narratives then I have to find a less confusing way to portray this kind of parallel storytelling.

From here you can decide to read further between 2 chapters; simply click on the chapter you would like to read or go to its page number. If you have finished all the chapters you can go to the final chapter at page 65.

- Chapter ‘Lock, Wallet, Write, Park’, Page 27.

- Chapter ‘Bezoeker’, Page 39.

In this chapter I decided to experiment with shorter videos, something simple and less confusing than a feature film; one sequence pieces, without dialog and action based. I designed four simple one-minute pieces: ‘Lock’, ‘Wallet’, ‘Writing’ and ‘Maximilian Park’.

These videos are made in the regard that I, as a writer of narrative pieces, often write about a pivotal situation, where different possibilities can occur. This can be a scene where one simple action or reaction changes the path of a narrative and leads to different parallel outcomes and different storylines, like when a character does a good deed in the video piece ‘Wallet’. In order to intrigue the audience’s empathy towards the character, I have put him in bothersome everyday situations which the audiences can connect to, such as when a character wants to do something and the situation doesn’t work as the character desires. The video pieces ‘Lock’ and ‘Writing’ use this technique in which someone wants to get into a place or to write something, but he cannot.

The artistic aim of this chapter is to see if there is any relation between the gaze of the audiences and what they prefer or chose. I suspected there would be a relation and the purpose was to see if I was on the right path and connecting with my audience. Then I can create a more complex interactive artwork based on the results.

In the beginning of the process of designing these experiments I wanted to generalize the findings but now I know that my findings are not there to be generalized, as the viewing habit and decision making is a complex phenomenon and the databank and number of viewers are not high.

In these experiments I have used the method of eye tracking via a website called ‘Eyesdecide’. This website uses the viewers’ webcam to track their gaze. This allows you to approach eye tracking studies and attract audiences and invite them to collaborate on your research online, from their homes with their own laptops. This approach is free from a certain place and a certain time and anyone can participate whenever and from wherever they wish.

From December 2017 to February 2018 and as well in July 2018 I sent invitations to friends and family and invited them to participate in my experiments. I got reactions from Iran, Belgium and United states. The invitations included a link to the ‘Eyesdecide’ website. After the participant clicked on the link, the calibration process would begin and after that the short videos I have made would be screened for them while their gaze would be recorded by the website.

As I have audiences from Iran, Belgium and United states in my eye tracking experiments, I would try to explore how people from East would watch these parallel videos compared to the audiences from West. This observation of different viewing habits is not scientifically important for me as we don’t have enough context about the viewers to make any statements, but the aesthetic aspect of different viewing habits that will appear on the heatmaps is intriguing for me, how will they look in this limited audience?

For this chapter, different short video pieces were recorded. Rather than focusing on the long narrative, one situation was explored in each of these videos. In each video, the character deals with one issue and three different outcome occurs. Afterwards, the links to the eye tracking site were sent to different people. The gaze of 5 people for each video piece was recorded and their gaze data were stored. Then a question was asked which they had to fill in, the question that which version of the narrative do they prefer and why?

In this video, there is one simple situation: What can happen when you approach your locked door? In three videos, a person approaches a door and tries to open the door. In the middle video, the person opens the door easily and enters the house without any problem. In the other 2 videos, the person has difficulty opening the door. He tries the digital passcode but it doesn’t work. He tries different keys but that doesn’t work. The person in the left video can finally go inside after several tries. The person in the right video, continues to try till the last second of the video.

The audiences were asked to watch the video and answer which version they prefer and why. I also have to mention that I use the real names of the audiences and I have the permission to do so (see Appendix B1). One audience member, Fereshteh, female, 64 years old, Iranian – American, chose the right video as the video she preferred (See Figure 4), the video that has the most duration of the audiences’ gaze on it and she responded:

“Well, I preferred the third one, cause you cannot say till the end if he’ll get in or not. He is obviously trying, and the keys he has don't match. Either the lock is changed or he doesn't have the right key or cannot find the right key. Until the end you could not say if he can get what he wants or not and the struggle continues. It is an easy outcome but the fact that you see he is trying and still cannot get in and the fact that you have seen in the other version he cannot go in but with several tries he can, this third version becomes interesting. You ask, can he finally go in? can he succeed? or he is just locked out and cannot go at all. I could imagine this myself.”

Figure 4. Heatmap of the video “Lock”. The heatmap shows the gaze of audience member 1.

Some audience members, instead of simply explaining what they have seen, continued further on and gave excuses as to why they think the lock does not work. I was happy to see this short narrative could intrigue the audience member to ask all these questions and wanting to know and see more.

After being asked which version they prefer, 3 out of 5 audience members said the video on the right, as it kept them guessing if the character can open the door or not. And that is to say that the viewers looked at the video on the right more (see Appendix B2).

In this experiment I wanted to find out is there any relation between where the audiences would look and what they would prefer. Indeed, the audience members preferred the video that they have gazed more at, according to the heatmaps. These heatmaps gather and visualize data about the most attention capturing sections and elements present in the video. Data is gathered by the program on how many times a viewer looks at different sections in the video and on viewers' fixation length, which is then plotted in the form of an eye tracking heatmap. In each heatmap, the dominant circle is indeed where the audiences looked more and the version of the narrative the audiences preferred (see Appendix B2). In regard as to which videos they preferred, I have to say the videos that made them think what happens next,

29 the ones that even after they were finished, got the audiences thinking. In fact, the videos that the audiences could see themselves in, had accumulation of their gaze and they talked dominantly about those videos. As to use of motion to manipulate audiences’ gaze, every time a dominant motion happened in one of the three narrative, it got the momentary attention of the audiences but it did not keep them from returning to the version they were following more.

In this video, there is one simple situation: What do you do if you find a wallet on the ground? You can steal the money, or try to find the person that lost it in different ways or just ignore it. In the left video, the guy passes by the wallet, doesn’t pick it up and chooses to ignore it. In the middle video, the guy picks up the wallet, looks through the cards in the wallet and goes another direction, presumably to find the owner. In the right video, the guy picks up the wallet, steals the money and throws the wallet back on the ground.

The audiences were asked to watch the video and answer which version they prefer and why. (see Appendix B3). One audience member, Aisan, female, 32 years old, Iranian, chose the middle video as the video he preferred (See Figure 5), which has the most duration of audience’s gaze on it and she responded:

“Well, the version that the person goes out of the frame is more interesting for me as I start thinking what he is doing with the wallet? Is he giving it to a policeman? Or putting it in a safer place? Is he giving it to a supermarket to keep it and tell people a wallet has been found? is he ringing a specific house because he recognizes the person in the card he or there is an address?”

Figure 5. Heatmap of the video “Wallet”. The heatmap shows the gaze of audience member 4.

Link to the gaze recording of one of the audience members: https://youtu.be/bxJrLf1H4PY

The interesting observation here for me was that this audience member watching the middle version, in which the character gets out of the frame to deliver the wallet. She kept watching the empty view of the street and scanned her eyes around the top corner waiting for the character to come back in the frame.

After being asked which version they prefer, 4 out of 5 audience members said the video in the middle. That is to say that the viewers looked at the middle video more. Here the audiences mostly start their gaze and stay in the middle screen in the beginning and then shift it to the right as there is action happening there. With each great motion in any of the three screens their gaze shifts to that screen (see Appendix B4).

The audiences were very interested about the middle video and wanted to know what happens next when the character exits the frame in the middle version with the wallet. One audience member started imagining what happens when the character gets out of the frame and what he is doing outside the frame, his gaze was mostly on that version of the story and he preferred that version. Another audience member said that if he is in the same situation, he will do what he does in reality and doesn’t touch the wallet, he could see himself in that version of the story, as well his gaze on that version was the longest. And another one said that in films it depends on the character, if he is a good character, he will look for the owner, if not, he won’t. Here, I had also the same outcome of the previous video, indeed the audience members preferred the video that they have gazed at more, according to the heatmaps. This was a simple moralistic video and wanted to capture the reaction of my audiences as morality in narratives is as well an issue that I like to explore.

In this video, there is a simple situation: You have to write something; it can be writing for a project, writing an email, writing a book or anything else. The procedure can go smoothly or it can be difficult at times. In the upper left video, the person is trying to think and starts writing, but his mind is blocked and he cannot produce anything. In the upper right video, the person is writing smoothly and the words pour in continuously and he is having a good flow. In the video down, the person writes the first sentence but is not sure about it and keep erasing and rewriting the first sentence and cannot go beyond the first sentence.

The audiences were asked to watch the video and answer which narrative they prefer and what do they think about any of them (see Appendix B5). One audience member, Sam, 18 years old, female, American, had empathy with the person that cannot write anything and preferred to be the person that can write in one sitting (See Figure 6):

“Well I prefer to be like the man that could just write in one go, but mostly I am stuck as well in the first couple of days that I have to write a text…so I am actually the man on the left that couldn’t come up with anything. I really get him and know what a horrible feeling it is when you want to be productive but it just doesn’t happen.”

Figure 6. Heatmap of the video “Writing”. The heatmap shows the gaze of audience member 1.

My artistic drive comes from a screenwriting technique; one of the ways to intrigue the audience’s empathy towards the protagonist, is to put him in an annoying everyday situation which the audiences have experienced and felt before and can connect to. Therefore, I chose this situation in which from time to time a person can have difficulty writing a letter or an e-mail. I wanted to see if I can intrigue the audience’s empathy in such a short video without any background from the character and by only giving him a simple task?

After being asked which version they prefer and have empathy with, 3 out of 5 audience members preferred the right video, one audience preferred none and one audience preferred the bottom video. 3 out of 5 audience members had empathy with the character in the left video and one member had empathy with the bottom video. The viewers looked at the left video more (see Appendix B6).

The insights are interesting here, because the response is divided between, what the audiences prefer to be, and what they are themselves in real life and therefore can have empathy with that character. The beginning gaze was as well somehow equally divided between the three screens. In comparison to the other two videos, here nothing much happens and there is no action with motion, so I witnessed that the audiences are freer to look where they like as their gaze was not directed like the last videos with motions in the videos.

After having done gaze trackings with these three videos and interviews, I decided to do another video piece, this time different in context to other videos. This resulted in the video piece Maximilian Park, where there is no single main character, nor a single definite action nor reaction. The motivation to capture this video was again very personal and a relevant topic considering the European migrant crisis. The crisis also known as the refugee crisis is a period characterized by high numbers of people arriving in the European Union overseas from across the Mediterranean Sea or overland through Southeast Europe.

As an immigrant filmmaker, I follow the lives of immigrants and their lives after immigration and I compare it to the lives of non-immigrants. I have lived close to Brussels north railway station and next to it is the Federal Immigration Office. Every day I would notice the immigrants who basically live in that station and the park next to it and the hundreds of people passing by, watching them. I always wanted to know what these people think about the situation and the fate of these refugees as they pass the north station and this park. So once again, for me, it was an issue of fate, how being born in a certain country, its geography and politics would dictate and change your fate. The act of observing the lives of these immigrants in Maximilian park every day from a distance and the fact that if you look a little bit to the right or left, you would see totally different group of people with contrast to them intrigued me to make a video.

Narrative-wise, my works so far were about different branching in a narrative and fate of one person. Here I wanted to do something else, different branching that already exists, not in the life of one person but of several people. This high contrast in a vicinity of this park was as well another reason to make this video. I chose documentary style because I did not want to add anything fictitious to the situation I was witnessing. I chose this piece because I could witness three and possibly more different situations, different mindsets and scenes happening next to each other from a building next to Maximilian Park so I chose to show this time, three parallel scenes happening next to each other, and to observe whether the audiences would prefer the narrative they gazed more at or not.

This video is a bird's eye view over Maximilian park in Brussels and the street close to it. Depicted on the left video, are some of many refugees that live in this park and wait for their asylum status. On the middle video, there is a playground full of children in the same park and on the right video a street corner next to the park where people are busy living their lives.

The audiences were asked to watch the video and answer what do they think about the narratives (see Appendix B7). One of the audience members, Hamideh, female, 62 years old, Iranian responded (See Figure 7):

“What shall I say? I am thinking why you put these three videos together? The kids are playing a football game. I think in my mind I connect these videos by a theme, theme of playing a game, kids are playing football, in the street you are playing game of life, I know I am thinking out loud and make it very philosophical, but it is like that for me, playing a game of life on the streets, trying to get what you want and live and for refuges is the same they are playing it and putting themselves into a lot of difficulty to have a better life, to…to survive and get what they want.”

Figure 7. Heatmap of the video “Maximilian Park”. The heatmap shows the gaze of audience member 5.

I was very impressed that she compared these three videos to playing games and connected them together, with the theme of playing a game. When I was making this video, I was trying to show different lives next to each other and their contrast. So that is an interesting deduction, to see life as a game and with different difficulty levels for each person dependent on several factors such as wealth, family, society, geopolitical position and so on.

Although the accumulation of gaze in this case study is divided more or less equally, in total the viewers looked at the middle video more. Looking at each viewing separately, in three cases, case 1, 2 and 3 each audience member preferred the version which he/she had gazed more at (see Appendix B8).

Of course, it is an important topic and my mistake was to think that since I am filming from distance and the faces of the people won’t be visible or recognizable, there will be no

35 problem. To be honest I was afraid if I would ask them and say I want to film them they would be conscious about it and won’t act natural again, that was another reason that I distanced myself from them. But of course, it was a progressive insight as I learned the boundaries of ethics and that it is wrong to film the refuges or anyone else without telling them and I decided to not exhibit the video anywhere and if I do, would blur their faces. I learned that I should ask anyone that I intend to film in my installations and be clear about that.

In this experiment I learned the border of manipulation by surveillance as the audiences were quite aware of it, as one of the mentioned it saying “it gives a feeling that you want us spying on people.” Now I know that with this video I have put them on spot, being aware of the surveillance and then having to have to answer my questions. Although one audience member talked about how one of the refugees is praying and having faith and the other audience said that the message of the video is like ‘everyone is playing the game of life’ and sometimes you should go through hard times to survive, as I reflect later on, I know that with the video, I wanted to force the audiences to talk about morality of it, which in this case is not the best idea. It is better to do something more subtle. In the chapter ‘Bezoeker’ I would try to work around issues of faith and immigrants more subtle.

During the interviews and seeing the results of gaze tracking I witnessed that the more time each audience spent gazing upon a specific version of a narrative, the more that audience member would prefer that version. Of course the amount of audience is limited and is not meant to be a general conclusion, but my limited heatmaps, as an artistic representation of my 3 screen narratives suggest that whenever an audience has more gaze on a specific version of the narrative, he/she has more to say about that version and often prefers that version.

In the beginning of this chapter, my aim was to produce data-driven insights and charts, analyzing demographics and categorizing the audience, and drawing conclusions like the studies before, such as in the research that gaze patterns were recorded as individuals viewed the face pairs and older adults showed an attentional preference toward happy faces and away from angry ones and did selectively forget negative information (Isaacowitz, Wadlinger, Goren & Wilson, 2006). But after doing the interviews and seeing the results and consulting my promoters, I realized the aim is not to scientifically prove a relationship between gaze and parallel narratives, since the collected data sample was too small to draw conclusions from. I decided to change my aim and showcase and document the artistic experience, using it as new inspiration for new experiments. The different viewing habits of Western and Eastern appeared in the heatmaps are interesting. Only in the video piece ‘Lock’ there was a small difference in the viewing pattern, the Eastern audiences looked more to the right screen and the Western

36 audiences looked more at the left screen (see Appendix B1). Here I was only interested in the aesthetic aspect of these heatmaps and the possible difference in them, since I did not want to draw any conclusion and was just curious to see if my intuition could be correct about different viewing patterns in such an installation. If we repeat the experiment on a larger scale, with a large data sample of viewers from West and East, would there be any meaningful difference between how audience members would look at a 3-screen installation? And if so, would that change which version they would prefer more, only because of their viewing habits?

By the will of the filmmaker, audience’s engagement and the direction of their active attention are guided or manipulated. In these videos the element of motion was used. These videos showed me that my assumption is true and that motions not only in one screen but also in 3 screens can play a big role on directing audiences’ gaze. Later, these experiments would help me to decide for the installation that is described and analyzed in the last chapter. I was impressed to see that in my experiments the audiences behaved as I thought they would; here the audiences preferred the screens they watched more and some wanted to know what happens when the video they preferred ended. To me that can be a good point to base my further videos and their presentations. It helps me design an installation to continue with a narrative and probably an ending that the audiences would show more interest and gaze more upon it. But will the result be the same if the scene is longer and for example a short film?

- Chapter ‘Blind Chance’, Page 19.

- Chapter ‘Bezoeker’, Page 39.

During my academic years several scripts were proposed, one about the fate of a person that does a hit and run, but the character didn’t have that much so the audiences could empathize with him and was deemed shallow so I searched more for a story that could serve a purpose for engaging the audiences and have different perceptions, with the idea of following different characters in the more or less same situations with different outcomes or different point of views.

Once again, I was looking at the topic of faith, as an artist it is an important issue for me. I remember in the first months that I came to Belgium, when I was 24 years old back, one day we were visiting a cemetery in Brussels with fellow students from our master program and there was a statue of Jesus Christ somewhere in the cemetery. Two of my Spanish friends started talking about how Jesus was just an ordinary man that stood up against the Romans and how organized religion, God, heaven and hell is just there to check everyone in line and is a best way to rule and have people under the control. That conversation was striking for me at that moment as I noticed the difference between the community I live in now and the community I have grown in, in which, having faith in something bigger, is crucial and rooted in the culture and behavior of people from childhood, again I don’t want to enter issues from a cultural or social point of view but would just like to explore these topics in my artworks and in my videos.

My short film in this chapter is called ‘Bezoeker’ and the idea of it has come to me as I was reading a play by French-Belgian author Eric Emmanuel Schmitt called ‘Le Visiteur’. One of the main themes in this play, which had a great influence on me, is the belief or disbelief in God. The play is set in Vienna in 1938, when Nazis are starting to take control of the city and prosecuting Jews. It explores the inner conflicts within Sigmund Freud as this occurs. He is still confident in the future and refuses to leave the city. The play takes place on the night when the Gestapo arrest his daughter and take her for questioning. Freud is left alone in the house when a stranger enters through the window. The visitor, in tuxedo and top hat, has some incredible things to say. But who is he? A mad man or a magician? Or is he really, as he claims, God in person? The readers are left to decide who this visitor really is.

The idea of my short film also comes from a real event. On march 2013, reverend Isaac Poobalan, the rector of St John’s church in Aberdeen, Scotland, invited Muslims to pray alongside Christians in the church because the nearby mosque was so small that some

39 worshippers were forced to pray outside. This event has had a great influence to shape the idea of ‘Bezoeker’.

‘Bezoeker’ is an improvement over the previous scenarios as it has subtler conversation between people about their hopes and what they believe in. There is a discussion going on about plumbing that hides the real discussion about trust and faith. The main character is relatable and the audiences can have empathy with him. The narrative piece, is a 15 min short film about a priest that faces an unexpected problem while preparing the church to welcome and help out some guests. It is holiday and a pipe has burst in the church. It seems that he cannot find any plumber, until a mysterious man shows up to help. The priest is there as the protagonist to represent the audiences who would follow him. An external factor of positivity, the plumber, and an external factor of negativity, Michael, hence the configuration of this short film. Here is a description of the characters:

The character of the plumber: He is a mysterious character and can be interpreted differently. I tried to make it believable for this character to have two sides, for the audiences that like to believe he is a higher power, I have put lines with double meaning, at the same time, if you want to believe he is just a weird plumber, it can work as well, everything he does or says can be rationalized. He can have fixed the pipe or not. There could be a shop in Koningsstraat or not. I tried to have both versions plausible so the audiences chose for themselves what you want to believe.

The character of Michael: The character of Michael nags throughout the whole narrative and is in the state of doubt and disbelief all of the narrative. In the negative version his lines are more believable.

The character of the priest: He is influenced easily, less easy in the positive version which he believes more that everything can become ok.

Link to one screen version of the short film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI3Wb3GSVH0

The single screen version of ‘Bezoeker’ was selected at Tehran International Short Film Festival and won the best international film prize. There, professor Andrzej Bednarek, the Jury president and the previous head of Polish National Film, Television and Theatre School “Lodz”, also discussed the element of language in this short film. He discussed that the fact that the main actors speak Dutch, and the plumber who fixes everything speaks French, at the same time that beautifully put the two languages together, can produce different opinions, approaches and perceptions from the audiences either from Flemish or Walloon background. This can also hint the Flemish-Walloon division. A division that rests mostly upon the fact that its Walloon inhabitants mostly speak French and its Flemish inhabitants mostly speak Dutch. A division that could lead to a hypothetical situation which has been discussed by both Belgian and international media envisioning a split of the country along linguistic divisions, with each of the Flemish Community (Flanders) and the French-speaking Community (Wallonia) becoming independent states.

The single screen version of ‘Bezoeker’ was selected at .MOV Kurzfilmfest in Cologne, Germany to be screened in two days, 11 and 12 July 2018. MOV film festival was one of the

41 festivals close to me that I could attend and in pursuit of getting to know my audiences and their perception, I could organize to interview its audience. The audiences consisted of students, 15 years old and above, from Cologne International school. The screening was held at Cinenova Cinema in Cologne and each day 300 students showed up with their school teachers and watched a screening of 10 short films which ‘Bezoeker’ was one of them. Between a pause in the middle of the program and after the program I interviewed several audience members about my short film (see Appendix C1). It was a challenge as so many of them didn’t want to have an interview either because they were shy or just said they have nothing to say or no certain views. I was very curious to know what younger audiences would think about the short film, the characters and the ending.

It was the first time I could see in a mass audience, if my ideas in making a narrative that can intrigue optional thinking has worked or not. Could I make a narrative that people have different perception about? Could I make a character that audiences will have empathy with? If they were true, I could continue later on capturing the gaze, knowing that I could make empathetic characters. As a filmmaker it is a big opportunity to see your film in a cinema and it is a bigger opportunity to be able to interview your audience. The insights I got from my interviews include the fact that many audience members used the characteristics of “nice”, “happy”, “friendly”, “positive attitude”, “realistic” and “relatable” for the character they liked the most. One audience member emphasized that the nice face of the actor has made her like him and the fact that his character was “calm”.

Of course, I am aware of the nature of my questions and the choice of the church as an environment and setting, but I don’t believe it will influence the response of the public to talk about niceness or positive attitude of the character. What influences them is the script and the traits in the character, I could easily make a creepy priest or in another creepy narrative, do the opposite and make a creepy character likeable as it is about the character’s traits you insert in your character that makes him likeable or not as we have seen many times likeable negative characters in films and it is not totally about the influence of the setting but how the character reacts to the setting. So here my aim was to see if I am successful in making a character likeable and empathetic which I was and I could continue later on capturing the gaze knowing that my character is empathetic.

When asked about the ending of the short film (See Figure 8), an audience member thought it would be too cliché if a happy ending is shown, if the doors burst open and thousands of people turn up, and she said that the open ending makes the film interesting while another audience member said while she hoped for a happy ending she prefers not to see in on the

42 screen and rather imagine it. Many audience members thought that the guests will come at the end and from their point of view the priest’s belief that the guests will come will make it actually happen.

An audience member said she is used to happy endings and love happy endings and they are the best and another audience member said because he becomes emotionally attached with the characters it affects him if their fate is not of a happy one. Another audience member emphasized that they are used to happy endings from Hollywood productions and the fact that the good always wins or the narrative is always the same, predictable, being spoon-fed or answers all the questions. They generally liked open ending and the fact that the audiences can think and decide what will happen next.

I tried to explore if there is any relation between which character, they have empathy with and what ending they would prefer. I witnessed that no one that had empathy for the priest would want a sad ending for the short film. For the rest I could not find any coherent relation in any cases.

Figure 8. The last shot of the short film ‘Bezoeker’.

It is time to test if, this time, doing 3 screen narrative will work or not. In order to lessen the confusion, there is no big difference or different plots and subplots in the three narratives, but different camera angles and different shots with different intonation of the dialogs. The

43 purpose is to create three different atmospheres and perspective of the same narrative. In the first version we get to see all the characters when they talk. In the second version we mostly follow the priest and see him more and whenever he comments he is more hopeful compared to the other two versions. The third version we watch and follow Michael more and he is meaner and more serious and convincible in his suggestions compared to the other two versions. Respectively the positive version ends with the audiences hearing a door getting open and the footstep of some people approaching.

The changes in the three versions are intended to explore the audiences’ perception of the storyline and the empathy they will grow with the characters. The takes in the second version are chosen to be mostly singe uncut shots of the scene, placing the audiences a little further from the action till the moment the plumber shows up and after that we focus mostly on the priest and have mostly medium or close up of the priest and follows him. In the third version takes have been chosen somehow to follow Michael most of the times without as less as interruption possible. The first version is the classical follow up of the story and mostly covers all the characters and show their faces when they are talking.

Here is the link to the 3 screen Bezoeker Video Piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R_Jgge0RiY

And here is a continuous breakdown of the scenes in different three screens:

Version 1: The introduction scene Version 2: In the second version we Version 3: In the version we get shows the interior of a church so the start from the beginning of the priest’s introduced to the priest with a wider audiences get familiarize with the conversation with the bishop. Here shot positioning him in his environment. There is music on this there is no sign of building an surroundings, without hearing any version and it is more cinematic in this atmosphere with the music and wide actual facts about the phone scene in the sense that we cut to the shots of the church. The audiences get conversation, he is just saying goodbye close up of his actions, here opening involved with the full conversation. to someone (See Figure 9). the wet bible and then showing his From the first part of the conversation frustration. It takes its time and as we that only exist in this version we find out get to know the priest. We cut to the that he hasn’t done this act on his own, priest that is talking on the phone. We but has proposed it in the church to his enter from the middle of his fellow people. By this I have tried to conversation with presumably a higher give more information about the figure. He explains that the people he background of what has happened has invited need a place to rest. We and how it can influence the audiences know his motive for preparing the if they know the whole, half or nothing church and that he has difficulties with of that conversation. the bishop.

Figure 9. Scene 1. Version 1 on the right, Version 2 in the middle, Version 3 on the left.

Version 1: We get introduced to David Version 2: In this version the whole Version 3: In this version the focus is on and Michael, two people that have scene plays out in one single wide shot. the negative character, the character of shown up to help the priest. We soon We are farther away from the Michael who is always nagging and figure out that the pipe in the church characters and the scene plays out in looking at the situation negatively. This has broken and there is no plumber to real time without any editing scene is a single uncut medium shot of be found. David tries to find one, but manipulation forcing you to look at only Michael as he learns about the the guy hangs up on them. Michael only the character talking. The scene pipe incident, the phone call that gets wants to stop the water stream but also takes longer to finish. nowhere and his attempt to go and cannot and, in the end, the priest asks stop the water stream which he cannot. from David to go out for help. In the Among other takes, this was a take that scene the attention shifts from the actor put all his effort to be as character to character by cutting to negative as he can and his intonation whomever that is talking and most of will be with mockery and disbelief (See the shots are medium shots. We are Figure 10). closer to the characters in the space.

Figure 10. Scene 2. Version 1 on the right, Version 2 in the middle, Version 3 on the left.

Version 1: We start with the close-up of Version 2: This is the single uncut wide Version 3: This is a single uncut close some blankets on the ground, it is the shot edition of this scene. We are up shot of Michael as he talks and nags only version showing blankets and the standing farther away from our about the plumbers. This take has been intention of the priest to shelter the characters during the scene and the chosen as he is more negative about guests so they can sleep in the church. characters go away more and more as the situation and tells his line with more We continue with a wide shot of the the scene proceeds somehow that we influence to disappoint the priest (See church. The priest is preparing fruits are shown more of the environment as Figure 11). and food for the guests. Michael asks the faces of the characters. if the guests are coming or not which the priest answers, he is not sure about it. Michael then continues making the priest doubt about his initiative and that he has to cancel the invite as the water is running and there is no plumber.

Figure 11. Scene 3. Version 1 on the right, Version 2 in the middle, Version 3 on the left.

Version 1: The plumber shows up. The Version 2: In this version we witness the Version 3: This is the first time in the priest gets happy by seeing him. plumber walking in the church video that Michael shares his screen Michael is doubtful of who he is and although we can see that no door is time with the Priest for the full scene. how he knows them. The plumber open behind him. His shoes and We see a single uncut medium shot of knows them, knows what has trousers are totally dry as we hear rain Michael with the priest as he starts to happened and where. The priest is outside and see water on the ground. influence the priest more and more. confused but is happy that the plumber In this version we exclude Michael as We have a buildup of the confusion is here. He thinks that David has asked much as possible and focus on the first Michael has and the influence he starts him to come here. In this version the impression and influence the plumber to have on the priest. We see the editing has the simple rule of following has on the priest. It is a single uncut dynamic of the Michael with the priest whoever that is talking. We have a mix medium shot of the plumber (See Figure 12). of the plumber’s charisma and the throughout. confusion of the priest and the doubtfulness of Michael.

Figure 12. Scene 4. Version 1 on the right, Version 2 in the middle, Version 3 on the left.

Version 1: In this scene Michael starts Version 2: As we started to follow the Version 3: In this version we follow a nonstop rant and casts more doubt priest in this version earlier, we Michael nonstop as he is casting upon who this plumber is and how he continue following him as Michael lays doubt. This take has chosen among knew there is a problem here and the out his suggestions about the plumber. other takes that is more convincible. fact that he is lying where he is coming He again tries to dismiss what Michael We follow him in a single uncut from and he doesn’t know what he is is saying but this time we are watching medium-close up shot (See Figure 13). doing and he cannot fix the problem him nonstop without any cut and today. The priest tries to respond back without seeing Michael and we are and dismisses his suggestions but now able to see his reaction more. is more doubtful. Here we have ping pong editing and follow whoever is talking.

Figure 13. Scene 5. Version 1 on the right,

Version 2 in the middle, Version 3 on the left.

Version 1: The priest which is doubtful Version 2: In this version we are Version 3: We focus on the plumber now asks the plumber if the problem is witnessing both characters in the shot. and his influence in this version. One fixable and if he can fix it today. The It is a single uncut two-shot. Again, we single-take uncut close up shot. The plumber answers that he has heard are a little further away from the take has been chosen to look less them and he just wants to know what characters as we are in other versions. convincible compared to other versions the priest thinks himself without the As the conversation moves along, we (See Figure 14). influence of anybody else, which the can witness both characters reactions. priest answers that he is hopeful that the problem is fixable by the plumber. The plumber, happy now to hear the priest’s own thoughts, tells him that the pipe is fixed. The editing is classical ping pong style and we follow whoever that is talking.

Figure 14. Scene 6. Version 1 on the right, Version 2 in the middle, Version 3 on the left.

Version 1: In this scene there is a Version 2: In this version, we focus on Version 3: In this version we look at the conversation in which the priest wants the plumber’s face and don’t see the priest face all the time as the plumber to pay the plumber for his services but priest’s reaction. It is an uncut shot of is saying he doesn’t need money and he doesn’t accept it and goes away the plumber. In this version we don’t has to go. After that when we come saying he has other people who need see the plumber leaving and when back to Michael again, it is only him his help. We see each character when Michael questions the plumber’s we follow and we see him saying his they start talking. We see the plumber actions we watch the priest and his line trying to cast doubt upon the leave only in this version. Michael reaction is more convincing this time plumber’s action. Then we wait with again questions that he couldn’t have that he thinks the plumber fixed it. Then Michael for David to arrive (See Figure fixed the pipe only with one tool he had we wait with the priest for David to 15). which the priest responds that arrive. apparently, he could. Then we wait with the priest for David to arrive.

Figure 15. Scene 7. Version 1 on the right, Version 2 in the middle, Version 3 on the left.

Version 1: David arrives and tell us he Version 2: In this version, we follow the Version 3: I this version we follow hasn’t seen anyone nor asked anyone priest and David next to him and we Michael as he again casts doubts and to come here. The priest gets confused don’t see Michael’s reaction. Here the say he was right all along. The priest’s but thinks that the plumber was the one priest sounds more convinced, he lines are less harsh and convincing and that they were on the phone with quarrels with Michael more as why he shows that he is tired of this earlier. Michael doesn’t accept and the thinks the plumber was the one on the conversation. We look at the door and priest says that it is enough for him to phone. In this version Michael doesn’t then the screen goes to black (See know that the plumber came and fixed respond back no more and doesn’t Figure 16). the problem. Michael prefers not to comments on guests anymore. We talk anymore about it but comments watch the church’s door with David that he thinks the guests are not and the priest and as the screen cuts to coming. We look at the church’s door black we hear the door getting open as we get closer to it. The screen cuts and hear footsteps. to black.

Figure 16. Scene 8. Version 1 on the right, Version 2 in the middle, Version 3 on the left.

At May 2017, I organized a screening of three different versions of the short film ‘Bezoeker’ at Videolokaal room of Sint Lucas Antwerp (See Figure 17). The installation includes three chairs with headsets on them without any signs to differentiate them from each other or make options out of them. One of the topics explored in the installation is the role of audio. The audiences would sit on either of these chairs and pick up the headset on them. The choice they make about where to sit would lead them picking up a specific headset on that chair. Each headset has the audio of one specific storyline out of multiple storylines. So, in the installation, the narrative can change for the audiences with a simple choice and the audiences are confronted with a very simple interaction; where to sit and whether they will question the integrity of other headsets’ audios.

Here is the link to ‘Bezoeker’ installation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS-VTYpv4v8

Figure 17. ‘Bezoeker’ Video Installation – Sint Lucas Antwerpen

The narrative piece was shown in Sint Lucas Antwerp Videolokaal room. The installation included the projection of three versions next to each other on the wall from right to left, version 1, version 2 and version 3. The video piece was 15 minutes in a loop with one-minute countdown between each loop. There was a projection schedule on the door so the audiences start the piece from the beginning. In the exhibition room there was a camera pointed at the audiences recording while they watch the narrative. There were 3 chairs with 3 identical headsets on them. The audiences would enter the room and sit on any of the chairs and the video piece would begin. Each headset has its own specific audio. So, there were 3 audios each correlated to one of the versions. The audio of each chair was not from the version shown in front of it but from the one next to it, in the effort that audiences would not end up watching the version in front of them. There were no indications that there are 3 different audios. The experiment was designed to examine if the audience member will be curious to see if the other headsets have different audios as there were three different versions of video were shown and will they try to change their audio or even change their chair to change what they are hearing and experimenting the narrative piece with a different audio? Will the audience member follow the narrative piece they have its audio more than the other two ones?

As for the result, one audience member that we had, one-third into the narrative changed her chair and her headset and continued watching till two-third into the narrative which then she went back to her seat but picked up the third headphone, the one she didn’t experiment the narrative with. In the end when asked, she didn’t know there were three different audios but as being curious she wanted to be sure that she is not missing anything from the narrative and wanted to be sure she is exploring all the options. Upon doing that she found out that she had a choice all along to hear one of the three audio versions connected to video versions. After that it became obvious to her that as narrative have different versions, the way she can experiment the narrative is multiple as well.

So, if we want to know what the outcome of this experiment was, it is the fact that she approximately watched the screens connected to her audio more than the other screens (see Appendix C2). As eye tracking glasses were not used in this exhibition, the recorded gaze is not accurate and is approximate. Before she changed her seat and her headphone in the first one- third of the video, she looked at the screen connected to the audio more than the other versions. After she changed her position and headset, she looked at the version connected to the audio more and when she went back to her third position, she, as well, watched the screen connected to the audio more than the other versions.

After being asked with which character she can connect herself she said the character of the priest. As in total she has watched that character more. After being asked if she thinks that the guests are coming, she said she thinks they are coming. It is to say that she followed the negative version the least. Of course, more audience members are required before any evaluation can be made to see if there is a relation between their gaze and which character, they have more empathy with and which ending they prefer.

One specific topic was the role of audio in the installation. When asked what did she thinks about the installation, the discussion was what the best way is to approach the audio of the installation to catch the essence of the interaction? The installation includes three chairs with three headsets on them without any signs to differentiate them from each other or make options out of them. The audiences would sit on either of these chairs and pick up the headset on them.

The choice they make about where to sit would lead them picking up a specific headset on that chair. Each headset has the audio of one specific storyline out of three storylines.

In the second visit an audience thought the other headsets on other chairs are playing the same audio as she is listening, while the other audience member doubting whether the audios are the same or not. There is a main question raised by this issue; should the audiences know that each headset is playing different audio? Should there be a sign or a hint, or chairs and audios getting titles to get distinguished so the audiences realize? In this way, they would know that there are different options for the art piece from the beginning and that they are making a choice thus making them conscious about their decision.

On the other hand, if different audios are not hinted, the audiences will sit and pick up headset and might not be aware of choices and options they have and based on their mindset they might think that the audios are all the same and some might start to doubt and explore other options. Now let’s discuss three possibilities.

First, if the audiences know different parallel audios exist, then they are making a conscious decision where to sit and would know this will change the art piece for them and it would be likely that they get intrigued to try other audios for the story, as one viewer went further and tried all the headsets thus knowing for sure they were different audios and then chose one. She sat on one of the chairs and chose not to have the audio from that chair but the headset from another chair. In the discussion with the viewer I suggested that the setup without hinting anything about audio variations and some audiences exploring it and some deciding unconsciously about it can work better with the final intention of the installation.

Secondly, if the audiences don’t know about audio choices, they might think that all the audios are the same and the art piece is forcing everybody to listen to only one of the audios from three storylines and this is how the installation works. It would be a statement about how they will perceive the probability of existing choice in the installation by default. But the question is, will they ever doubt about their thought during the projection? For suggested that there are three different audios, it can be done indirectly and subtle, by having the volume of all the headsets louder than usual so the audiences find out others are listening to different audios through each headset. This hints the audiences that the art piece is not only limited to what they are hearing while makes it clear for them that they have made a choice in perceiving the art piece.

Thirdly, during the projection the audiences might start to doubt that there are more audio variations and they are missing on something and the other headsets might indeed provide them with another audio from the story. Thus, for them the installation has the potential to interact with. They can think back, but not sure if they have made a changing decision towards their perception of the art piece or not. The fact is that they have the ability to change their

56 headset. Above all, the audiences listen to one of the audios to one of the storylines while they can watch other parallel narratives. They can either follow one or more storylines if they want, but the sound of one of the narratives will be dominant over their ears. The question is, will the audio of one story force them to follow that one a bit more? It might depend on the mindset of the audiences and which will be easier and more intriguing for them.

To sum up, if the audiences doesn’t find out that there are different audios and there won’t be any titles, distinction or signs between audios to make it clear, it will help the installation work more closely to the content of the narrative. I would rather not show there are different audios so in this way it can be about a decision that unconsciously changes the art piece. The audiences come in the room, not knowing what they are about to see, for them there is only one simple decision done unconsciously, a seemingly unimportant choice they have to make; where to sit? Unfortunately, the light for this visit was not enough to capture where the audiences are looking.

The screening of 3-screen ‘Bezoeker’ at Sint Lucas Antwerp Videolokaal room was at May 2017. At March 2019, I tried to do that experiment again because this time I had the eye tracking device which could accurately and more precisely capture the gaze of the audiences and I had more audience members.

The outcome of the screening at Vidoelokaal room was that the one audience member watched more the version of the narratives which she was listening to and she had more empathy also with the character she watched more. Now, this time I have more audiences and I can measure the gaze of them accurately to see if there is a relation indeed or not. Another decision for the last screening was the setup of the audio. At that time, I argued that if the audiences don’t find out there are different audios and if there won’t be any titles, distinction or signs between audios to make it clear, it will help the installation work more closely to the message of the narrative, which was, small actions and choices can change your narrative. I argued that I would rather not show there are different audios so in this way it can be about a decision that unconsciously changes the art piece.

In that last screening my aim was to show, parallel to the narrative, in the installation, that unconscious choices (picking a chair with a headset of a certain audio of one of the narratives) can change the narrative for the audience. But since then my aim has changed and

I am not trying to convey this message that an unconscious choice can change the narrative but a conscious choice, in order to make the installation more interactive and let the audiences decide. Therefore, I decided to change the setup of the audio for this screening and let the audiences know there are different audios playing in each headset and the fact that each headset’s audio is connected to one of the narratives and there are three different audios each connected to one version of the narrative.

My aim is now to make an installation that the audiences can have a choice how to experience it, that they can control and interact with it (which here is minimum, by choosing the audio), not an installation that in the end you confront them that there were different audios. Here the confrontation would be the relation of their gaze with what they talked about in their interviews by showing them their gaze heatmaps.

After acquiring an eye tracking device, I could do the screening and installation again. The eye tracking device allows free head motion because the eye tracker is fixed to your head. In this approach you don’t need a computer screen nor a monitor and the glasses can be used o