This isn’t about this post, sorry. But I have a question. Did you write a review about that three hour French film you mentioned a couple weeks ago? I’d love to honestly read what critics like about it. I watched, and skimmed, it, and wonder why it was voted The Best Movie of All Time. I just don’t get it. But I would really like to know because obviously I’m missing something.
The phenomenon you describe (which I've written about as "productive confusion") still persists on TV. In recent years, I've seen felt it on SEVERANCE, STATION ELEVEN, WATCHMEN, RESERVATION DOGS, and KIDDING - all of which are among the best TV in the last 5 years!
We had a phrase for the "I don't know what I'm watching" phenomenon when I was producing and directing live theatre: "Imaginative involvement." It's analogous to what occurs in speech when one's conversation partner lowers their voice. One leans in to hear better, but crucially, one increases and intensifies one's attention.
There is a set of conditions that accompanies the phenomenon of imaginative involvement, and most of them have to do with skill of execution and trust, as a basis for continuing the involvement. It's a bit of a tightrope to walk: The skill level indicates that the writers and performers are being deliberate in risking confusion. The (consequent?) trust allows for a number of possibilities to be simultaneous in the audience member. At this point, audience members have moved to the level of "imaginative participants", and in a live setting, can affect the performance they are witnessing) In holding these possibilities, the audience is actually using more of themselves (b/c of their conscious and unconscious responses to each possibility), and--if the writing and direction are skillful- come out with more of themselves than they originally brought to the theatre when they walked in. When the tipping point of numbers of audience members engaging in the imaginative act is reached, it affects the actors positively.
This isn’t about this post, sorry. But I have a question. Did you write a review about that three hour French film you mentioned a couple weeks ago? I’d love to honestly read what critics like about it. I watched, and skimmed, it, and wonder why it was voted The Best Movie of All Time. I just don’t get it. But I would really like to know because obviously I’m missing something.
Thanks!
The phenomenon you describe (which I've written about as "productive confusion") still persists on TV. In recent years, I've seen felt it on SEVERANCE, STATION ELEVEN, WATCHMEN, RESERVATION DOGS, and KIDDING - all of which are among the best TV in the last 5 years!
Hmm, I would agree with one of those.
Absolutely on For All Mankind. A very high quality soap opera… in space!
We had a phrase for the "I don't know what I'm watching" phenomenon when I was producing and directing live theatre: "Imaginative involvement." It's analogous to what occurs in speech when one's conversation partner lowers their voice. One leans in to hear better, but crucially, one increases and intensifies one's attention.
There is a set of conditions that accompanies the phenomenon of imaginative involvement, and most of them have to do with skill of execution and trust, as a basis for continuing the involvement. It's a bit of a tightrope to walk: The skill level indicates that the writers and performers are being deliberate in risking confusion. The (consequent?) trust allows for a number of possibilities to be simultaneous in the audience member. At this point, audience members have moved to the level of "imaginative participants", and in a live setting, can affect the performance they are witnessing) In holding these possibilities, the audience is actually using more of themselves (b/c of their conscious and unconscious responses to each possibility), and--if the writing and direction are skillful- come out with more of themselves than they originally brought to the theatre when they walked in. When the tipping point of numbers of audience members engaging in the imaginative act is reached, it affects the actors positively.