Day: November 21, 2008

A few comments on the Comprehension – Interpretation – Experience thread and Mulholland Drive…

I think our discussion about how a lot of the effect of the film is lost if a viewer attempts to decipher the “meaning” of Mulholland Drive as if it were a puzzle film with one solution was right on target. After viewing, I read the dream interpretation of the film and was satisfied enough with that. There are lots of clues that point towards that, and you could interpret the non sequiter scenes as dream-logic depictions of Betty’s internal psychology. But even with subsequent viewings (and this was probably time 5 or 6), I don’t really think about comprehension or interpretation nearly as much as I like to enjoy the visceral experience Lynch affords his viewers. Scenes like the subliminally terrifying diner scene, the coffee/producer scene, or Betty’s audition with the dirtbag actor work on such a gut level that they remind me of the Quatsi-films in terms how they make me feel…I can watch them time and time again (I put on at least one of these three scenes several times a semester on my projector without watching the rest of the film). For Lynch, especially in Mulholland Drive, content takes a back seat to feelings, empathy, and experience. Audiences exhibit nervous laughter and inexplicable emotion, unsure of how to digest a particular scene or performance. The film is successful in that Lynch can make you feel very uncomfortable, happy, terrified, etc. without any backstory. Many of the scenes stand alone.

Mulholland Drive reminds me a lot of Perfect Blue, a really good Satoshi Kon (director of Paprika and Toyko Godfathers) anime and similar puzzle film. Its plot revolves around a Japanese female pop icon who abandons her group and music career to pursue a future in film. However, she can only land a sleazy role in a trashy sitcom and feels violated by her role in the show. Soon, her grip on reality begins to slip as she loses herself in her character and its unclear what scenes happen in the show versus in her real life. Furthermore, a stalker is posting intimate details of her life on a blog, which she then obsesses over and reads – taking everything she reads as fact about her life. The veil between reality and fantasy is utterly confused as her coworkers begin to show up dead, often brutally murdered.

Both these films are definitely a step in the right direction in terms of representing dream worlds with their style and narration. If you were to think of dreams as film, an individual has an unusual role as both narrator and audience. My favorite part of the diner scene is how the action imitates the nervous guy’s dialogue moments earlier – often in dreams, you are explaining events as they happen because your brain already knows where they’re going. Audiences leave these films confused about their feelings, and that’s the desired effect – dreams often don’t have a causal relation between events, there exists non sequiter motivations for “scene changes” or action, and tone is implied on the most base, visceral level.

Psyduck, my favorite Pokemon

I just played a listing Pokemon game on this great list site (try naming all the countries in the world in 15 minutes)…only got 84 out of the original 151 Pokemon…not bad for a game I played 9 years ago…videogames really teach kids how to learn systems of interaction, the rules that govern a fictive world, etc. A lot of games are exercises in memory and cause/effect simulation…players learn how to learn and engage in exercises based on trivia and systems not directly applicable to the real world; it’s basically the same thing as a lot of liberal arts classes.

One of my favorite games of all time – DOTA, in particular, demands a tremendous amount of memory and game knowledge of its players. DOTA (Defense of the Ancients) is a third-party custom map for Warcraft III in which two teams of five compete in a mini war to destroy each others bases. Players control a single Warcraft hero (a powerful unit with four unique abilities) and push lanes of attack accompanied by waves of computer-controlled soldiers. Gameplay is both individual and team-oriented – players must focus on building their character effectively and efficiently throughout, using the gold and experience gained from killing waves of enemy troops to buy stat-enhancing items and learn new abilities while staying alive long enough to coordinate effective team attacks on the opposing base. An average game takes a little over an hour.

An artistic depiction of DOTA

The game is so popular that more players on battle.net (Blizzard’s online gaming server) are playing DOTA than any other game (including stock Warcraft III), and the game is responsible for many innovative and creative third-party plugins and programs that enhance Warcraft III online gaming. There exist player-created and monitored competitive leagues and a stringent rules/regulation system that punishes bad players by banning them – some of these players are so serious they only want really talented competition.

In line with the memorization of 151 pokemon (and their countless abilities, evolutions, and types), DOTA has 91 unique heroes…each with four unique abilities. There are 110 items to pick from; many of which have to be created by combining a number of more basic items with a recipe. Anyone who is good at DOTA (and the game has a very competitive community) must have complete knowledge of every aspect of the game. Successful play requires this expansive knowledge in order to both maximize your hero’s efficiency in item builds as well as adapt to enemy hero and item strategies. In hero fights, there’s no time to guess what spell an enemy just cast or what item they’re using–action must be instinctual and reactive, based on specific animations or effects…and there’s no forgiveness from your teammates if you make a mistake. There is usually an effective counter to any hero, play style/strategy, or item build: it’s basically the most complicated game of rock-paper-scissors ever invented.

Anyways, that pokemon list game just reminded me of DOTA, and since I’m writing my paper on ludology/narratology, I thought I’d write a post explaining it. Replayability is a big thing in videogames, and on the scale from pure narrative to pure ludology, it’s the difference between replayability and re-experience. DOTA has massive replayability because its game mechanics rely on interaction…dynamic and unique matches with infinite opportunity for change. Obviously, every game feels familiar, but you’d never play the game the same way twice.