Lev on Creative (Mis)watching (part 1)
NOTE: I didn’t study film theory at college and I’m happy about that. But, especially in this intro post, I might be doing work that’s already been done better. Whatever. Oh, and when I say “movies” I mean films, t.v., digital, fiction, documentary, surveillance footage, etc. It all moves.
All movies are interactive - it’s up to us movie-watchers how much. Different kinds of movie-watching allow for different levels of engagement.
The low level of engagement is “seeing” a movie. It’s based on the false idea that every movie has an intrinsic and concrete meaning. So all we have to do is “get” that meaning, and then like it or not. Because of the one-way relationship between movie and watcher, I call this level “un-creative watching.”
For people who like un-creatively watching movies, the worst thing is “miswatching” a movie. It can happen because the DVD skips, because there’s too much noise in the theater, or because the movie doesn’t mean what it’s expected to (”That comedy wasn’t funny!”). For whatever reason, they don’t get the movie they paid for (with time if not money). So miswatching is a failed transaction. That’s why people who like “seeing” movies are so finicky at the theater.
But, if the meaning of a movie is up to the watcher, then there isn’t one right way to watch it. Done consciously, miswatching enriches the meaning of movies by making our creative control explicit. It allows us to explore new ways that movies can mean things — and so, new meanings.
“Creative (mis)watching” is what I call this high level of engagement. It affirms that movie-watchers are producers, not consumers. Creative (mis)watching is a bit of a weird term, but it’s a very common thing. I can’t imagine someone loving a movie without creatively (mis)watching it.
There are countless kinds of creative (mis)watching; each determines different degrees and kinds of engagement. Over the next three posts, I’ll identify methods of creative (mis)watching and explore how they work. The posts will be organized into
three categories of creative (mis)watching: mentally altering a movie, physically altering a movie, and physically altering yourself watching a movie. In other words, soon we’ll get to all sorts of weird shit. I promise.
Jim! Said on March 20th, 2006 at 1:42 pm quote
Yeah I feel like traditional film theory does not actually get into what you’re talking about here. More pop cultural theory, like the dude who pointed to kids tearing their jeans in the 80s as an example of consumers defining the manner in which they consume — ie rather than simply accepting monolothic ‘culture’ imposed upon them by those in power, individuals in fact, through the manner and method of consumption are able to present oppositional views. I’d go one step further than your estimation, and not set up creative (mis)watching as something opposed to or outside of the passive method of viewing you atart from, and rather I’d see the passive complete enjoyment of a film as yet one other form of creative (mis)watching. Though in retrospect, perhaps your formulation intended a certain irony. word.
LLLLLL Said on March 21st, 2006 at 3:05 pm quote
Yeah, you’re right about straight-watching, done right, being creative. In order to set up my idea, I had to contrast creative (mis)watching against something else.
I’ll be describing different kinds of movie-interacting in the later posts (one this week, promise), that’ll make more clear what I mean by “Creative.”