There's a right way to watch a movie? This is just more grist to my mill: you want to change the people until they satisfactorily interpret something whose value is somehow independent. The idea that there is a competent viewer and an incompetent viewer is one that can only have been sold to you by the same person who received your film school fees.
P.S. a movie is not a 'text'.
Agree with kc wholeheartedly and also take issue with "interpretation." I am not arguing for "correct interpretation" (I am in fact "against" it in Sontag's sense) as I think that argument degrades art into text in the literal sense and grist for the content mill. There are subjective, affective responses which are the whole reason we engage with art, BUT art is also an object, one which can be misunderstood or selectively "interpreted." We are allowed and encouraged our emotional responses, but we mustn't let those emotions override our ability to understand, to connect with the artist as they wish to be seen, the text they which to express. Certainly an artist can fail to connect in a way that is on them and certainly this is more difficult in cinema of all mediums. But when we engage in this way, attuned to our subjectivity
and the artist's, with the best artists we are transported or reborn, as is intended by the masters of the medium and laid out by the best critics. There may not be a correct way to watch a film, but generally agreed upon are the most rewarding ways to watch a film.
