This paper sets out to study how creative documentary practices deconstruct traumatic memory, and then digitalise witnessing and engagement afforded by digital technology in the award-winning online interactive documentary The Space We Hold. Premised on culture memory studies and documentary studies, the social function of the documentary in reshaping narratives and forging public engagement has been discussed in this research. Interactive documentary becomes the unique visual artistic medium that allows the wider public to bear witness and emotionally experience the meaning of a traumatic past. This interactive project is reviewed as one site of memory to answer the main research question: ‘How does hypermediacy in an interactive documentary enable this non-linear storytelling structure to reframe the narrative and identity of a community that struggles for social justice?’. Along with presenting direct provocation through the innovative hypernarrative, this interactive documentary focuses on victims’ current lives, familial feelings and their contribution in pursuit of justice, showing depth in reflection and density in life. By exploring how The Space We Hold acts as a bear and agent to enhance audience engagement, I contend that the documentary is restyled as a space that allows individual memory to intertwine with collective memory through the combination of authorial expressivity and interactive participatory. In this pragmatic and reflexive approach to bear traumatic witness, we sense the constant battle between stigmatised communities and their reinterpreting narratives.
AlexanderJ. C. (2016). Culture trauma, morality and solidarity: The social construction of ‘holocaust’ and other mass murders. Thesis Eleven, 132(1), 3–16). https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513615625239
2.
AssmannJ. (2001). Cultural memory and early civilization: Writing, remembrance, and political imagination. Cambridge University Press.
3.
AstonJ.GaudenziS. (2012). Interactive documentary: Setting the field. Studies in Documentary Film, 6(2), 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1386/sdf.6.2.125_1
BergerJ. (1972). Ways of seeing. British Broadcasting Corporation, and Harmondsworth: Penguin.
6.
BoerP. (2008). Loci memoriae-Lieux de memire. In ErllA.NünningA. (Ed.), Media and Cultural Memory (pp. 19–26). Walter de Gruyter.
7.
BolterJ.GrusinR. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. MIT Press.
8.
BreitsohlL. (2022). Bearing witness in analog and digital witness films: Ethical aesthetics in Shoah and Waltz with Bashir. Genealogy, 6(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy6010014
9.
BryllaC.KramerM. (2018). Introduction: Intersecting cognitive theory and documentary film. In BryllaC.KramerM. (Eds.), Cognitive theory and documentary film (pp. 1–18). Palgrave Macmillan.
DoveyJ. (2017). Who wants to become Banal?: The I-doc from experiment to industry. In AstonJ.GaudenziS.RoseM. (Eds.), I-Docs: The evolving practices of interactive documentary (pp. 272–288). Wallflower Press.
13.
EdgarM.RouchJ. (2003). Chronicle of a film. In FeldS. (Ed.), Ciné-ethnography (pp. 229–265). University of Minnesota Press.
14.
ErllA. (2008). Literature, film and mediality of cultural memory. In ErllA.NünningA. (Eds.), Cultural memory studies: An international and interdisciplinary handbook (pp. 389–398). Walter de Gruyter.
15.
ErllA. (2009). Remembering across time, space, and cultures: Premediation, remediation and the “Indian Mutiny”. In ErllA.RigneyA. (Eds.), Mediation, remediation and the dynamics of cultural memory (pp. 109–138). Walter de Gruyter.
16.
ErllA. (2011). Memory in culture. Trans by YoungS. B.. Palgrave Macmillan.
EyermanR. (2019). Memory, trauma and identity. Palgrave Macmillan.
19.
FongT.MakW. (2022). The effects of internet-based storytelling programs (amazing adventure against stigma) in reducing mental illness stigma with mediation by interactivity and stigma content: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(8), Article e37973. https://doi.org/10.2196/37973
20.
FroshP. (2018). The mouse, the screen and the holocaust witness: Interface aesthetics and moral response. New Media and Society, 20(1), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816663480
21.
GallowayD.McAlpineK. B.HarrisP. (2007). From Michael Moore to JKF reloaded: Towards a working model of interactive documentary. Journal of Media Practice, 8(3), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1386/jmpr.8.3.325_1
22.
GaudenziS. (2013). The living documentary: From representing reality to co-creating reality in digital interactive documentary. Goldsmiths, University of London. [Thesis].
23.
GaudenziS. (2017). User Experience versus author Experience: Lessons learned from the UX series. In AstonJ.GaudenziS.RoseM. (Eds.), I-Docs: The evolving practices of interactive documentary (pp. 117–128). Wallflower Press.
HightC. (2014). Shooting, edit, share: Cultural software and user-generated documentary practice. In NashK.HightC.SummerhayesC. (Eds.), New media ecologies: Emerging platforms, practices and discourses (pp. 219–236). Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
HudsonD.ZimmermanP. (2015). Thinking through digital media: Transnational environments and locative places. Plagrave Macmillan.
31.
KaesA. (1992). From Hitler to Heimat: The return of history as film. Harvard University Press.
32.
KinderM. (2002). Hot spots, avatars and narrative fields forever: Brunel’s legacy for new digital media and interactive database narrative. Film Quarterly, 55(4), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1525/fq.2002.55.4.2
33.
KressG.van LeeuwenT. (1996). Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. Routledge.
34.
LaubD. (2000). Zeugnis ablegen oder Schwierigkeiten des Zuhörens. In BaerU. (Ed.), Niemand zeugt fur den Zeugen’ Erinnerungskultur und historische Verantwortung nach der Shoah (pp. 68–83). Suhrkamp.
ManovichL. (2002). The language of new media. MIT Press.
37.
NalsJ. (2018). The difficulty of eliciting empathy in documentary. In BryllaC.KramerM. (Eds.), Cognitive theory and documentary film (pp. 135–148). Palgrave Macmillan.
O’FlynnS. (2012). Documentary’s metamorphic form: Webdoc, interactive, transmedia, participatory and beyond. Studies in Documentary Film, 6(2), 141–157. https://doi.org/10.1386/sdf.6.2.141_1
42.
PecicZ. (2016). Shamans and nativism: Postcolonial trauma in spirits’ homecoming and manshin: Ten thousand spirits. Journal of Japanese and Korean Cinema, 12(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17564905.2020.1745459
43.
PeraR.VigliaG. (2016). Exploring how video digital storytelling builds relationship experiences. Psychology and Marketing, 33(12), 1142–1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20951
RortyR. (1993). Human rights, rationality, and sentimentality. In ShuteS.HurleyS. (Eds.), On human rights (pp. 111–134). Basic Books.
47.
RothaP. (1936). Documentary film. Faber.
48.
Ruff-O’HerneJ. (1994). Fifty years of silence. Editions Tom Thompson.
49.
SandersW. (2022). Interactive documentary and ethics: Toward an ethics of representativeness. In HjortM.NannicelliT. (Eds.), A companion to motion pictures and public value (pp. 130–147). John Wiley & Sons.
50.
SantayanaG. (2011[1905]). The life of reason or the phases of human progress, introduction and reason in common sense, (Vol. VII), Book One. MIT Press.
51.
SmelserN. (2004). Psychological trauma and cultural trauma. In AlexanderJ.C.EyermanR.GiesenB.SmelserN. J.SztompkaP. (Eds.), Cultural trauma and collective identity (pp. 31–59). University of California Press.
52.
SohC. (2000). From imperial gifts to sex slaves: Theorizing symbolic representations of the ‘comfort women’. Social Science Japan Journal, 3(1), 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1093/ssjj/3.1.59
SvenssonM. (2017). Digitally enabled engagement and witnessing: The sichuan earthquake on independent documentary film. Studies in Documentary Film, 11(3), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/17503280.2017.1338370
TorchinL. (2012). Creating the witness: Documenting genocide on film, video and the internet. University of Minnesota Press.
57.
UricchioW. (2017). Things to come: The possible futures of documentary ... from a historical perspective. In AstonJ.GaudenziS.RoseM. (Eds.), I-Docs: The evolving practices of interactive documentary (pp. 191–205). Wallflower Press.
WoodsE. (2019). Cultural trauma: Ron Eyerman and the founding of a new research paradigm. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 7(2), 260–274. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-019-00071-0
