Pages

Showing posts with label Arts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arts. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

[Bort Sept. 2015] The Impossible Scaffold


M.C. Escher: Ascending-and-Descending
Maps make no sense. Many people know this, yet we keep making them to organize our sense of space. Jorge Luis Borges’ flash fiction reminds us that the perfect map is useless and instead cartographers must find balance between abstraction and representation to produce maps that can guide us from location to location. A discussion about maps within digital games threatens to fall into the same analogy of a “real” landscape being turned into textual and symbolic representation. This comparison seems flawed since all digital architecture is first and foremost an abstract map-state before ever being realized as a two or three-dimensional terrain filled with visual landmarks. Unlike an explorer who wants sails to uncharted coasts then meticulously sketches what she sees a as video game designer first writes “Here be monsters,” and them the artists and programmers make the dragon appears.
What we might call the “reverse construction” of digital maps means that all digital space has a narrative foundation to its architecture. From the lowliest iPhone app interface to the campaign of the next Call of Duty game, there is always a way the designers want us to navigate the spaces they create. The 2008 game, Gravity Bone, shows us how the subjective experience of narrative can complicate our traditional understanding of maps and literal space. As a short spy-adventure game that requires fewer than fifteen minutes, Blendo Studio’s experimental storytelling stands at the threshold of the post-WASD generation of indie titles. (It can be downloaded here and I recommend a quick playthrough if you want to avoid the spoilers below). Heralded by many as a novel and witty arts game, Gravity Bone plays on the tropes of adventure games only to cut short and kill the player in the second level.
I still remember the surprising gunshot, theft, and broken window that diverted the game’s narrative into a blurred and frantic first-person chase sequence. The jump from the hotel window led me into a neon noir where layers of highways, tramways, and catwalks cling to a concrete canyon while below a glowing and polluted river threatens on the verge of coagulation. The woman jumped down a hole and I followed and flowed effortlessly through chute after chute until we landed upon a table surrounded with masquerading diners. The party goers watched as we unexpected guests dodge and double back through the room only to leave a cloud of shattered champagne flutes in their wake. The door led the woman back into the smoggy darkness where her feet pattered over the metal grating of a dangling catwalk. When I finally caught up to her around the corner she drew her weapon and fired until my body toppled over the railing. My first person view falls slowly like an elevator stopping at each floor to welcome forgotten memories. The flashbacks of past heists and danger inter cut on the screen as I gaze out on the cityscape. Finally, moments before my body lands on the highway, my visions settle on the image of a woman winning a footrace.
The falling death sequence mirrors the first image of the game where the player begins by descending in an elevator. This visual cues point us to an idea of “verticality” which has often been ignored by the game’s commentators. Much of the progress through the earlier portions of the game subsists on descending into the “furnace rooms” where the player find useful items and then emerges back into the hotel sequences to solve minor puzzles. These chthonic spaces promise at some seedy mechanical dystopia that lurks under the cocktail party elegance. Ultimately, the protagonist, Citizen Abel, fails to be a successful spy who can rise and fall between these two spaces and instead falls one last time to his death. What we have in this narrative is an acute awareness of the z-axis, a space that is often ignored for the more popular length and width, “x,y” coordinates, of cartographic space.
Not surprisingly, Gravity Bone is also the kind of action game where maps seem unnecessary. Unlike a sandbox game or RPG, adventure games assume linearity and are often celebrated for elegantly designing a world that guides the player the way a backlot studio tour might lead movie-goers from set piece to set piece of their favorite summer blockbusters. We don’t want a map because we never need to back track or find alternate routes to these locations. Once we experience a specific location we move on forever. In light of this illusion, I propose that action games deserve the most critical cartographic examination. Their mesmerizing, blockbuster pacing too often persuades us to forget the journey and instead revel in the chain of destinations. The notion of “gravity” in Gravity Bone promises this sense of natural acceleration towards the final contact with asphalt but, the moment I take a step back and analyze the passage through space, the illusion collapses.
When I reached the final catwalk and the woman shot me my vertical elevation was actually above the hotel window where the chase began. You can see it in the picture below; it’s the little window in the bottom left. 
This is physically impossible since throughout the entire chase both characters only moved downward. The chutes streamlined the entire chase sequence and forced me to move only one direction. The M.C. Escher lithograph gracing the top of my post provides a visual depiction of Gravity Bone’s vertical chicanery. Known as the penrose stair illusion, this image depicts the physically impossible yet visually conceivable infinite staircase. Gravity Bone’s chase is a virtual realization of the penrose star. What’s curious about this realization is that it did not disorient my experience during my first playthrough. I only noticed the discrepancy in height after several replays-- the narrative actually masks the architectural impossibility of the situation.

Gravity Bone’s narrative arc and ultimate catharsis demanded that the city rearrange itself to let the protagonist fall farther than what ought to be possible. The discrepancy between altitude offers an example of architectural metaphor unique to videogames. What other spatial inconsistencies have I walked right by in video games? What steps do designers take to hide space and distance from our digital eyes? More importantly, how can we add these fantastic virtual leaps to our growing arsenal of hyperlinks and Twine games to build a more powerful nexus for self-expression and storytelling? I suspect Borges and Escher still have much more to tell us about the rules and rule-breaking potentials of those atlases that arrange our world.  

Friday, November 12, 2010

Skyfaller

here is that essay about Star Wars Episode 5 and Aristotelian Tragedy

We Americans prefer action and adventure to pity and fear any day; directors must cleverly hide their tragic stories to reach the masses. George Lucas’ Star Wars saga is one grandiose story of redemption. The fifth movie in the story’s chronology, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, appears to follow the original Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, by creating a highflying space opera. Instead, director Irvin Kershner directly focuses on character development, “I like to fill up the frame with [the characters'] faces. There's nothing more interesting than the landscape of the human face." (Director’s Commentary). The movie baits the audience by opening as an epic then altering its style mid-way into a full-fledged Aristotelian tragedy.

As a technical sequel, Empire begins in medias res; the Empire and the Rebellion still play a galactic game of cat and mouse. After the rebels evacuate from Hoth, the story breaks into two simultaneous storylines: the shenanigans of the Millennium Falcon’s crew and Luke’s search for Yoda. Aristotle supports multi-faceted epic plot lines in The Poetics, “This has the advantage of giving grandeur to the poem, of affording a change for the listener, and of diversifying the poem with dissimilar episodes,” (52). Diversification is a major element to enjoying Empire. Kershner uses a variety of screen fades that capitalize on the dynamic scene changes from the insides of a space slug, to the bridge of a Star Destroyer, and then dark swamps of Dagobah.

The inklings of a tragedy appear once Luke crash lands onto Dagobah and begins training under Yoda. Before that, on Hoth, Luke plays the role of big shot hero and courageously leads the counter attack against the Imperial AT-ATs. When preparing for the defense of the base, we hear this dialogue, “DACK: Right now I feel I could take on the whole Empire myself. LUKE: I know what you mean.”. Luke arrogantly treats the battle as “just another day with the Rebellion”. The audience admires Luke’s bravery especially as he single-handedly destroys a walker. Luke’s combat and leadership superiority mimic the moral superiority of Aristotle’s tragic heroes. Once removed from the action however, his heroic pride starts becoming noticeably flawed as it clashes with his goal of becoming a Jedi Knight. Yoda, the exiled Jedi Master, identifies that hubris will not make a Jedi. Luke believes his hefty resume of anti-Empire actions is enough to prove his worth. The wise green one ignores Luke’s achievements, and responds:

“This one [Luke] a long time have I watched. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing. Hmph. Adventure. Heh! Excitement. Heh! A Jedi craves not these things. You are reckless!”

This recklessness appears all too soon when Luke tries to justify his decision to leave prematurely, “But I can help [Han and Leia]! I feel the Force!” but the spirit of Ben rebukes “But you cannot control it.” We see a well-defined Aristotelian hamartia when Luke leaves. He absolutely believes he can fix the problems at hand. Truth is, Luke can never comprehend how horribly unprepared he is.

Assured by both Yoda and Ben, the audience realizes Skywalker’s doom and yet they still support him as he ventures forth to Cloud City, literally “walking in the sky”. This mental duality produces dramatic irony that further builds the suspense during Luke’s clash with Vader. At the climax of the battle, Luke experiences the triple tragic blow: reversal, recognition, and tragic experience, all up to par with the Poetics. Losing his hand and light saber, Luke painfully falls from hero to Vader’s helpless victim. He also experiences the most tragic form of recognition, described as, “that which results from the incidents themselves in which the astonishment too results from what is probable.” (33), when Vader says, “I am your father.” Only the flow of the plot itself catalyzes this revelation, supporting Aristotle’s expectation that plot must control all other elements. Furthermore, Yoda’s earlier remark about Luke’s father causing Luke to respond, “Oh, come on. How could you know my father? You don't even know who I am,” amplifies the ironic recognition. In response to all the events conspiring against him, Luke’s actions remain true to his character as he rejects help from the Dark Side and falls down the central shaft.

Fitting for a tragic ending, Luke does not die. The scene of him grieving and hanging from the weather vane provokes a catharsis. As he holds on for life “pity is aroused by the plight of the man who does not deserve his misfortune.” (24). A boy who cares about his friends should not have his reality crash around him, and we see Luke in agony. Even after Leia and Lando save him, he never returns to his old farm boyself.

Sadly, Kershner breaks from the tragic frame, finishing with a dénouement that does not “result naturally from the plot” (30). Instead, the final scene implies the main characters have plans to “right the wrongs”. As a result, Skywalker’s personal tragedy gets sandwiched between the earlier epic and the resounding finale to the saga.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Alien compared to Aliens

Alien (film)Image via WikipediaThe xenomorphs of LV426 are an iconic, terrifying bunch. I finally watched Alien and Aliens this week and I'm inspired to write after being asked which movie I like better. To begin, James Cameron has a way of taking an idea and making it a grandiose endeavor in the movie industry. "Favorite" seems irrelavant to discuss on the internet but I am willing to consider and compare the steps these movies took to be a science fiction action/horror movie.

We'll start with the singular Alien, setting; some gritty cargo spaceship and and for one part an uninhabited planet. The mystery factor a huge thrill ride when Cane discovers the field of hibernating eggs. The most important aspect is that the alien must escape from its host in a grisly manner. As much as its terrifying now, put yourself into the time period and realize that such a gruesome "birth" was a massive surprise to the first audience members.
The rest of the film follows Ripley and the crew as they try to survive against the invader. Plain and simple; human reactions to an unnatural enemy. The lack of light and space is absolutely detrimental to a human's natural abilities and scenes in the airducts ooze of claustrophobia. The only weapon available is Prometheus' gift. In addition, the discovery that "Ash is a robot" and the corporation considers the crew expendable completely destroy any sense of trust for the universe. In the end, Ripley escapes the ship with only Jonesy, a sylvan companion who will stand stand by the protag when the rest of space turns a cold shoulder.

James Cameron's sequel does not depend as much on the sci-fi setting but rather on the human interactions. Already, being 50+ years older can wreck havoc on your perspective of the galaxy. Using the allegory that the xenomorphs represent the feral, inhuman aspect of rape, the beginning scenes represent Ripley's inability to forget the terrifying monsters of her past. In addition, with the company ignoring her initial reports, she has no where to turn and lives a isolated life in an apartment complex. Agreeing to go on the expedition is only after trusting that she can get her old career back and hold hope of an attempted normal future.
Enter the marines. Classic science fiction reminiscent of Heinlein's troopers. On the planet, after a couple of interesting technology cinematics and the first alien encounter it becomes clear that training alone will not save you. It returns to ingenuity, Ripley's best resource. This time around, she is not as alone because of the discovery of Newt and the mother-daughter bond created. As the survival aspect of being locked up in the colony increases, the interactions between the humans becomes more important. Ripley needs to trust Bishop for the escape route (I would also say he represents a religious cleric who can help Ripley deal with all the rape, on a side note). Burke realized as a greedy corporate puppet and his supposed betrayal. And that one marine, the name evades me, who keeps having a break down about the inhumanity of their enemy and the hopelessness of the situation. Of course there is Ripley's lone venture into the hive center in the end but its the middle of the movie that comes alive with character development.Aliens (film)Image via Wikipedia

As a conclusion, both movies follow the SF interaction between humans and nonhumans. Alien follows a more precise sci-fi "if-then" statement, "if an alien was in the ship what would the humans do?" with a great deal of unknown and darkness thrown into the mix. Aliens on the other hand, seems to have better character interaction, and slowly gives Ripley strength to save Newt and destroy the cause of her suffering and dreams alluded to in the beginning. Because of these redemptive qualities, Aliens is a more humanist approach of science fiction while Alien is content with discoveries and scares.


Enhanced by Zemanta