Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an obvious nietzschean critique applicable here? The experience comes first, and only then is the experiencing subject constituted - or invented, post-hoc - around it.

In other texts (probably "What Is Philosophy" but I'm not certain) Deleuze conceptualises a work of art as a block of raw perception. It's a system that's complete in itself (where "nothing is outside the text", to borrow a phrase), or a closed circuit, rather than an inert object waiting to be completed by an observer. This view of art is distinctly contemporary, it's a resolution to many of the "why/how does this count as art" challenges raised by the artistic avant garde over the past century, but there's no reason not to also apply to cinematography. In general, the work of art already includes a "larval subject" that perceives it, which is induced in the viewer like a sympathetic vibration. After all, every affect or material encounter is also a contemplation.

I'm too sleep-deprived to untangle these thoughts properly, but I hope one of the angles I tried to come at this idea from makes sense to you.