The spectator in the film-maker: re-framing filmology through creative film-making practices

ABSTRACT

The relationship between film-makers who create and spectators who judge film is the focal point of this paper. It examines theoretically how these two positions co-exist inside a film-maker that can be supported through critical and conceptual creative practice frameworks. By drawing on filmology, an early film studies area of scholarship, original film theory elements will be re-framed. For example, the filmic terms ‘diegesis’ and ‘spectator’ are central to film theory and pedagogy but ‘creator’, ‘afilmic’, ‘profilmic’, ‘screenic’ and ‘filmographic’ are not frequently used. A re-framing of the filmology suggests another way for the film-maker and spectator to co-exist as a filmic agent who produces creative practices through film-making structures and production contexts. Spectatorship provides one component of the knowledge, skill and practice required for a film-maker to work creatively in a system. Other systemic components that co-exist with spectatorship are the practical, logistical and networking skills required to conceptualize, finance, execute and distribute a film. The Systems View of Creative Practice provides one theoretical explanation where the filmic agent can hold knowledge of both film-making and spectating that enables them to make decisions inside temporal filmic structures.

KEYWORDS:

• Film-making
• creative practice
• screen production
• spectator
• creativity
• film studies

View correction statement:

Corrigendum

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Susan Kerrigan is Head of Discipline of Communication and Senior Lecturer, University of Newcastle where she teaches screen production in the Bachelor of Communication. Susan is an Australian Research Council (ARC) Scholar and has published in international journals and has presented internationally at film production and media arts conferences on creative documentary practice and Creative Industries.

Notes

1 ‘Rhythm and Unanimity’ allowed Souriau to test audience’s responses to the reception of a film using psychological and sociological methods, examining the audience’s collective reaction to filmic time and their individual interior time. There were some flaws in Souriau’s approach to this experiment as scientific method was not his strength.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council’s ‘Creativity and Cultural Production in the Hunter: an applied ethnographic study of new entrepreneurial systems in the creative industries’ grant [LP130100348].