Virtual Reality: A funder’s perspective

What motivates foundations to support emerging storytelling technologies? We asked Diana Barrett of the Fledgling Fund—our partners and supporters in producing Immerse—to reflect on her own practice.

Frame rates, lower fidelity vs. high stability, videogrammatry, positioning. It’s remarkable how many new words are associated with virtual reality (VR) and how quickly the field is moving.

Here at my desk I have both a basic Google Cardboard and a new-and-improved version, as well as the Samsung Gear. As I write and review proposals, I often glance at the assortment and wonder what my desk will look like five — even two — years from now.

People often ask me how as a funder in the social issue documentary space we are thinking about these new forms and new technologies. It is a great question but doesn’t really have an easy answer. At the very least, we’re trying to understand the terms and the definitions.

Many projects grouped under the umbrella of “virtual reality” are in fact 360 videos, shot with various degrees of sophistication and very different than VR that is built on a gaming platform. At some level that is semantics but still an important distinction, I think.

What I have found more helpful to think about is the degree of immersion that each project provides, remembering that we’ve all been immersed, to various degrees, in experiences that transport us to another way of being and feeling. Sometimes this immersion can be decidedly low tech: a book, music or a traditional film. However, putting on a headset can take this feeling, this sense of departure and re-entering, to the next degree.

For some VR experiences, we see in a way that is truly new: We can look up and around and in back of us. In others, we have agency; we can affect what is being shown, moving objects, walking towards others to get a closer look. In projects such as Tree, which Fledgling supported and which premiered at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival, we have the illusion of becoming an object, of being a tree. We can begin to imagine what it might feel like to burst through the jungle floor and then the canopy above us. Notes on Blindness allows us to begin to experience how it feels to become blind, navigating through a dark space using our sense of hearing.

Where is this going?

It is easy to see how this technology or set of technologies would be extraordinarily useful in medicine, particularly in surgery where 3D printing can be combined with VR to build a simulated brain—better to practice on that item first! But using these technologies to truly tell a story is still rare. We still demand a story arc and it has been difficult to achieve that in a few short minutes.

To date, much of what has been done is experiential, narratives are rare. But that too will change as equipment catches up with imagination and as budgets become more reasonable. In general, we see this technology allowing us to break away from the traditional rectangle so familiar to film viewers. The linearity also so familiar to us will be altered, and we will become part of the experience. Just as video cameras have come down in price, so the cameras able to shoot in 360 video and the necessary post-production have become more affordable. We will be seeing more projects shot with a combination of cameras, with varying degrees of skill. But without a gaming engine, little true agency exists. You may be able to see that object above your head but you cannot change its position.

The terrain is rolling. The New York Times made a significant statement with it’s 100 million Cardboards in 2015 and is now doing a “Daily 360,” bite-sized videos that allow viewers to experience “wrap around video” without added equipment. A range of newsrooms are using this technology to attract, and hopefully retain viewers. The landscape is changing from day to day. Rumors of what might come can paralyze both storytellers and funders, with perfection becoming the enemy of the good.

Equipment and access matter when it comes to immersive experiences. Watching a piece on a Vive or even on a Samsung Gear is only one experience; it becomes totally different when you see it on a phone. Yet this phone can be the great equalizer. Contrary to what we might have thought, sales of VR Gear have not done as well as expected; the audience is drawn to the tool most easily available — the cell phone — and is willing to skip the complex and gratifying experience of the Vive. Multi-platforms become key, such as web VR. We are generally able to live with what Brian Chirls, CTO of Datavized, calls “graceful degradation,” a decrease in quality with a gain in accessibility.

Augmented Reality (AR), the addition of data and images to what is already real, may in fact grow far more quickly. In a sense scanning barcodes on products or in a museum is a kind of AR that we are already familiar with.

Why does it matter?

At Fledgling we have an eye towards the impact of stories in whatever form. Can they engage us in meaningful ways that lead to some change in our attitudes and behaviors? And with VR, I am fascinated by the effect that this technology has on the brain.

We hear the term “empathy” a great deal. This seems to be the catchword of choice. But, I’m not at all convinced that a VR project can increase empathy, which is a complex emotion, not easily or quickly elicited. In fact, research suggests that children who spend lots of time with technology have a reduced quotient of empathy. I suspect that no one medium increases empathy; it must be elicited over time using a range of stimuli. Different stories engage the brain in different ways and considerably more research is needed to inform production. I also believe that how you are affected by story remains highly individual and personal.

The very first VR piece I saw was The Enemy, (originally incubated at the MIT Open Documentary Lab), a collaboration between Ben Khelifa and Fox Harrell, which depicts two soldiers, one Israeli and one Palestinian. I was totally engaged and fascinated by the technology. But, I recognize this was the first piece I saw. I wonder if it would have the same effect now. Would I be more critical, less moved? That is impossible to know.

As funders, we are challenged. The technology is new and rapidly changing. Costs are high and impact is not proven or fully understood. As a small funder, the challenge is greater. Do we get involved, and if so, where is the most effective leverage point? The breadth of experiences is enormous, the possibilities seemingly endless. And, I think at this stage in the field’s evolution, there needs to be a comfort level with risk and uncertainty.

How to decide?

At Fledgling, we have determined that the best approach for us is to continue to explore, to ask questions, to talk to makers, researchers, technologists, and other funders in an effort to better understand the field, the work, the potential impact and the funding needs. But, importantly, we have also decided to do some strategic funding in the space — because we believe that there is potential with this technology and that, at this point, storytellers need the space to experiment and see how they can push the field forward in innovative ways.

That being said, given where we sit, as funders interested in using documentary storytelling to help move the needle on big social issues, we do have a set of criteria or screens that we use in our decisionmaking:

The Story: Fledgling sees visual storytelling as a lever to improve the lives of the most vulnerable. We look for compelling, authentic, and timely stories that add a new perspective or new information to a critical social issue.
The Approach: As we all know, there are many ways to tell a story and we are always questioning “why this approach?“ Can the story be told more easily using traditional methods, or a mix of methods? Transmedia documentaries, immersive essays, interactive projects using both photography and video, all of these are effective. A fundamental issue for us is that the producers make the case that using an immersive VR experience is justified and adds something unique. I often view projects shot in 360 that frankly do not add a great deal to the theme being explored. Just because you can turn your head and see the surroundings does not necessarily add to the experience.
User Experience: This is related to the approach but distinct in my mind. I think about whether the viewer already has some understanding of the issue? Counterintuitively, I think it’s easier to appreciate a story if you have some familiarity with the subject. We can at least intellectually understand what being blind involves, we can imagine being in a rain forest. Adding to this life experience through immersive technologies can be remarkably effective.
Role of our Funding: Virtual Reality is often expensive to create. Can the expense and the steep learning curve be justified? Another key question for us is: When in the process do we fund? At Fledgling we generally fund late in the cycle of a long-form film because our emphasis has been on outreach and engagement. That also allows us to get a good sense of the project, of its “watchability” and possible impact. In the world of immersive technology, it’s difficult to fund at the same stage. And, in fact, it is sometimes more effective to fund the basic model or demo to provide enough of the sense of what the final project will look like. In other cases, we have provided end money to help close the gap. We have decided at this point not to think of it at a specific stage of funding, but instead to look at each project individually and determine whether our funding will move a project to the next stage.
Value to the Field: Individual projects not only have the potential to contribute to social change but also can contribute to the documentary storytelling field. We consider what lessons a project can offer to others who are working with new forms and the team’s commitment to sharing what they have learned.
Distribution and Reach: The distribution channels and platforms for many emerging forms of storytelling, such as VR and AR, are still unclear. However, we understand that in order to lay the foundation for social change, stories and projects must reach the key players in the social change process — whether policymakers, corporate leaders or grassroots activists. We look for those projects that have the potential to reach and engage audiences important to moving an issue forward.

Given the evolving and rapidly changing nature of this field, these criteria will continue to evolve. And, while it is an exciting time to be working in this space, it remains a complex field that is not fully defined. There is both skepticism and excitement around the technology and real challenges with distribution and reach. And, as always, there is a need for funding that allows social issue storytellers to experiment and innovate and there is great value creating opportunities for collaboration, dialogue and brainstorming among makers, funders, academics, activists and others. And, in fact, that why we are supporting Immerse.

Perhaps thinking collaboratively from the onset could induce more funders to enter the arena. Collaboration can help reduce costs for individual organizations, add new perspectives and valuable insights, and leverage expertise.

Across the Line, a VR experience about abortion access, is a good example of this. Nonny de La Pena of Emblematic Group, Brad Lichenstein of 371 Productions and Jeff Fitzsimmons of Custom Reality services worked with Planned Parenthood (Executive Producer) to develop this project. Subsequently, after release, the Sea Change Program, an organization focused on reducing stigma about abortion, evaluated the impact of the piece on those who went through the experience. Fledgling supported this latter research. This is the kind of project that brings together multiple stakeholders at different points in the process is important and makes a lot of sense for a small funder.

No matter what device next crosses my desk, Fledgling will continue to explore, strategically fund and look for opportunities to partner with others in order to maximize learning, spur new thinking and build opportunities for collaboration across projects and sectors.

Immerse is an initiative of Tribeca Film Institute, MIT Open DocLab and The Fledgling Fund. Learn more about our vision for the project here.