Disrupted Expectations 3: Setting the Scene

Disrupted Expectations 3: Setting the Scene is incomprehensible in every respect. There is very little in the piece which can be understood, never mind enjoyed. Besides this, it also proves to be morally reprehensible and ideologically concerning. Through various rooms the subject/filmmaker wanders back and forth in a suit mumbling to himself. - This is the entire film. It all takes place in what appears to be either a warehouse or a torn-apart flat. The camera never moves, but occasionally we will cut to a different part of the unsettling location.

Statements such as “those who deserve to be oppressed” leaves a person disgusted. It’s utter gibberish. His tone, it would seem, attempts to be that of an evil mastermind; although it’s clearly improvised – consistently stumbling on everything said or simply standing in bizarre silence – coming across as drunk. You may think this sounds enjoyable in a kind of observational way... it’s not, it’s upsetting.

So, how could a viewer even marginally accept what they are watching? Well, perhaps if the shots were nicely composed or in focus and we could hear what he was saying with some level of consistency, it might be quite amusing to behold in a depressing sort of way. What the filmmaker may wish to achieve is an essay which concisely outlines his ideas, or even a conversation with another individual. It is none of these things.

Allow me to outline some of the mildly amusing moments: you could argue that the more he flails about, the more dynamic the viewing experience becomes – he does this pretty consistently. At minute 49:50, he starts to describe a creased sheet as looking like “a big smile”, he runs around a bit more and imitates said smile – quite amusing. He, on occasion, throws out words like “subjective” or “piece of art” or “culture” or “social environment” which you can’t help finding slightly interesting during the out-of-body experience that is observing (not watching) this thing. Oh, and at minute 53:27, he starts cleaning his shoes.

The random terms he uses does in fact illuminate what is most interesting about the picture: what is the nature of art? - and, more specifically, at what point within a creative process can one consider something to be a work of art? Upon watching Disrupted Expectations 3: Setting the Scene, you’re stumped regarding this question. For instance, I can only wonder how much of it we’re supposed to take seriously!

On IMDB (the platform on which it’s currently playing) the description reads as follows: “The Research Director runs The Institute. It deals with mind powers. It has an Art Gallery. It is a scam. It is a front for gunrunning. He supports art and culture as tools of war. He is a cynic.” - I am not aware of who wrote this, although they’ve done an expert job at distilling the evils and ridiculousness of the film. Whilst we should not take what we see on film at face value, it’s obvious what this is...

He clearly just enjoys talking to himself while wearing a suit, which is all lovely and good and I do not wish to judge (I myself love a suit and a good chat); but I do not recommend anyone watch this film, although it is nevertheless available on the internet for all to see, I believe.

As a viewer, one can only hope that the following entry offers up something you can either watch or hear with any clarity, and, perhaps, a magnificent reveal that this exercise has all been an elaborate hoax aiming to provocatively deconstruct the nature of the spectator’s experience.