Womenulls Aid 'Blind Eye' - MPC's ground-breaking new commercial

Women's Aid 'Blind Eye' - MPC's ground-breaking new cinema commercial

We've all been exposed to interactive film via personal devices (computer, handheld, console), but in their latest ground-breaking work for UK charity Women's Aid, WCRS and The Moving Picture Company have taken the experience to the masses, allowing every member of the cinema audience to control what they view at the same time. Utilizing the stereoscopic technology that makes 3D screening possible (basically a filter that presents both left and right eye with a different image), 'Blind Eye' is a 65 second film in which two scenarios simultaneously play out: one shows a seemingly normal story of a woman preparing dinner; the other including the harrowing addition of an abusive husband. Audiences can flick between which scenario they want to see by closing either eye – leading to a clever 'Will you turn a blind eye?' payoff at the end of the commercial. We chatted to the film's director Chris Vincze about the challenges of using the technology, the origins of the idea and how you set about creating two simultaneous stories.



The film is a pretty audacious use of stereoscopic technology. Was it a concept first that you were looking to apply to a project or something that emerged when pitching on the film?

The technology came first, and then we were looking for a project for which it would be suitable. WCRS came to us with the idea of having something different in each eye with the simple question "would it work". I did a few tests which showed that it worked very well, as long as you were careful to avoid 'ghosting' or 'crosstalk' (the leakage of the image from one eye into the other). An early test of the technique was a car driving across a beach. In one eye I put hot air balloons gently floating in the background, and in the other the car was surrounded by attack helicopters. The difference in tone was really obvious and it was then immediately apparent that the technique would be best served by something with real emotional content. WCRS saw this and then came back with the script for Women's Aid, which was inspired, a perfect fit for the technique.

Which of the two views did you storyboard/choreograph first? Was any tweaking needed on set?

I always worked with the abusive side first, both in the choreography and blocking, and the edit. Then the nice side just fitted in with it. We were very fortunate to be able to have a rehearsal day in the actual location. So when it came to shooting day everything had been blocked out and defined the day before, so we could concentrate on the performances.



How closely did you work with Women's Aid when coming up with the spot's content?

I worked very closely Women's Aid as I wanted to make the spot as authentic as possible. I wanted to know what makes the guy treat her in this way and why she puts up with it. So at the rehearsal, before we did any blocking, we sat down with Teresa (from Women's Aid), and the actors Mark and Lucy, and talked for a while about their characters and back-stories. Teresa gave us some examples from actual case studies she had worked on, which we incorporated into the action.

Do you thinking broaching a very serious subject like domestic abuse with experimental techniques is risky? Did you feel extra pressure not to get it wrong due to the content?

There's a risk in any new technique. It's very difficult to convey the audience experience of this technique without actually seeing it, so it was really important to have something to show people and show them how it's actually going to work. I shot a whole test version of the script to make sure that it was going to work properly. This was really key in getting Women's Aid on board as we could actually show them something. It was also vital in highlighting any difficulties in the new technique to iron out any teething problems. So when we came to doing the actual shoot I was fairly confident that it would work, but there was still the pressure to get it right on the day, especially for such an important cause.



Is there a frustration as a director in not being able to fully control the viewer's experience? Would you consider this a piece of 'interactive film'?

Yes, I would say it is a piece of interactive film. It definitely requires an engagement from the viewer as you need to actively participate in the story. The whole point is that you choose whether or not to ignore domestic abuse ('turn a blind eye') or recognise it and do something about it. I don't think it's frustrating at all in allowing the viewer to create their own experience – it's what makes this an interesting film.

How was the edit? Did you cut one view fully first and them match it in the other or were they controlled simultaneously?

I cut the violent side first and made that a fully working film, and then matched the nice side to that. There were a couple of tweaks after that due to the nice side, but it mostly worked violent side first.

Did you encounter any unexpected technical issues in the spot's construction? Anything insurmountable?

It was crucial to have done a full test shoot first to really work out what would work and what wouldn't, so there wouldn't be anything unexpected. With something as experimental as this you don't want any nasty surprises. The hardest thing was the continuity of action between the different films, but Lucy was amazing in reproducing the action and the timing. There were small issues with props continuity which involved patching areas in post, but nothing insurmountable.



Did the charity have any reticence in creating work that can only be viewed through one medium? It seems that most moving-image campaigns nowadays find themselves on every display device possible, but this one only works on stereoscopic screens.

I think that they thought that the idea of being involved with a new technique and a totally new viewer experience was something very exciting, and which would outweigh the limited run that it would have. The film has certainly had lots of press and exposure so far, so hopefully that is raising the profile of the charity even if people don't manage to see the piece. We are looking into bringing the film to a wider audience (possibly 3D TV) and onto other media – the internet is a perfect platform for this and we're investigating all sorts of interesting technologies to preserve the interactivity of the viewer experience.

Are there any other viewing technologies you want to re-appropriate? Can you think of any other cool uses of stereoscopy?

Ah, now that would be telling…

Published 18th December, 2012