> Moreover, a camera is so heavily biased -- the camera does not
 > "capture
 > everything": it frames a very narrow angle, forcing our attention,
 > manipulating us to notice certain details, to see through a
 > character's eyes,
 > or not, to look far, to look close, to pan away. The camera does not
 > naively
 > open a window onto a pre-existant world. It creates that world. We
 > cannot
 > escape it. Noone is immune.
 
I must agree with you in the fact that a director can manipulate the camera
very well.  This is reality, and there are many films that can attest to that.
However, we also have to account for what we perceive as right and wrong, true
and false.
 
For instance, say that I am testifying for a murder trial.  As I describe the
events, you form in your own head what I must have been seeing.  I can biase
the facts as much as I want, but the picture I see in my mind's eye is not
nearly the same as the vision you have created. This may work for such
superficial emotions as happy, sad, etc.  But what about the emotions that
filmmaking is supposed to show that we never knew existed.  No filmmaker can
make every single audience member see what s/he sees, but it gets pretty damn
close!
 
Also, the beauty of film is that everyone can verify these superficial
emotions.  "The car is red."  "Yes, the car is red."  Anyone watching the frame
would agree to that, but what about questions like "Is he feeling remorse?"
The director can surely push his opinion down our throats with dizzy camera
movements, etc., but it is still up to us, and the facts we have gathered to
make that final judgement.
 
Matthew
<[log in to unmask]>
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]