What Do We See In Film?

Abstract

Here are two obvious and widely known facts about one way films are made. First, many films are made by a process that involves two levels of representation. Actors, with the aid of sets, props, and perhaps some live special effects, act out the events the film seeks to narrate. (Call those events the story told.) And the complex events involving the actors, sets, props, and the like are themselves recorded photographically. (Call the events recorded the events filmed.) Since photographic recording and acting (supplemented by sets, special effects, and so forth) are both forms of representation, the film, or at least each of the sequences of which it is composed, is thus, in origin, the representation of a representation. It is a photographic representation of a set of events, the events filmed, that themselves represent other events, the story told. Since the latter representation clearly bears strong points of contact with that found in theater, we may as well call it theatrical representation. (That is not to assume that there aren't important differences between the two.) Let's call movies made in this way two‐tier films. Second, the lower tier of representation here, the representation of the story told by the events filmed, is often illusionistic. The events filmed represent the story told by presenting the appearance of the latter. More precisely, someone watching the events filmed from the point of view of the camera would have visual and auditory experiences matching those she would have before the events in the story themselves. Perhaps illusion, so defined, is more aspiration than reality for many films. Certainly it is not always even aspiration: some films refuse to attempt illusion at this level. But that it is often at least an aspiration is the only way to make sense of the tremendous care taken, in much film making, to get the sets and costumes right, to act convincingly, and to ensure that items of studio equipment, such as sound booms, are not visible in the filmed scene. What is the significance of the fact that the theatrical representation in many two‐tier films is illusionistic? What consequences does it have for our experience of cinema, and what, if any, for the aesthetics of film? Section I describes two experiences of film. We often experience films so as to reflect how they were made, seeing in them actors and sets, standing for characters and events. But sometimes, I argue, we cease to be aware of theatrical representations, and simply see in the movie the story it tells. That we can be blind to theatrical representation in this way is thanks to its illusionistic nature. Section II then explains why this second experience matters. Acknowledging its existence allows us to recognize something important in common between two‐tier films and movies made by other means. It thereby provides the foundation for a common (though partial) aesthetic of film, whatever the means of production. Nor is this the only significance the second experience enjoys. Sections III and IV describe a further experience to which it opens the door. If, sometimes, all we see in films is the stories they tell, then, since films are seen as photographs, we might also experience them as photographic records of the narrated events. That would be an aesthetically striking phenomenon that film is uniquely well placed to support. Although I am cautious about whether this in fact occurs, it provides another possible consequence, one promising to be of considerable importance, of theatrical illusion in two‐tier film. Cinema is a pictorial art. Whatever else it involves (sound, narrative structures, and the like), it involves pictures. More, those pictures are fundamental to what cinema represents. What a film represents is almost always in part a matter of what it depicts, and what it depicts cannot be reduced to what it represents in other ways. Where there are pictures, there is seeing‐in. In grasping what pictures depict, we see those things in them. What is seeing‐in? That question has generated a good deal of debate.1 For our purposes, we only need the following, relatively uncontroversial, claims. Seeing‐in is a visual experience. It has a distinctive phenomenology, one setting it apart from, for instance, seeing things in the flesh, or visualizing them. Its distinctiveness lies in its involving simultaneous awareness of two kinds of thing. When seeing things in pictures we are in some sense aware of those things. But we are also aware of the surface before us. Indeed, the first awareness is dependent on the second. for instance, if I see a in a I be aware both of of the that this of it is and this and of of something the I am aware of of the before as a in some way aware of whatever it is it represents. watching a I am aware of a also aware of the and events the film before I see those and events in the on the cinema is and if pictures what we see in More what we see in the of films that are our experience of a film the of its We see in the pictures before us the events filmed, the story told. For instance, in The we see on a a for That we see films in this way is by our to to the of the we see the in the before we can have sense of But we see as such and such a we can have of what is to We often see films in this we always The is that our experience does not the of representation in the film. The between levels the of events filmed we simply see in the film the story told. in experience this of seeing‐in? It is important that the question our experience of film. It is obvious that some see in a film more than the story that film made. a there is and all film is a matter of by the films this like our two‐tier to the of our cinema, what would a from this the so of how two‐tier films are made, would not be in a to experience them in the way there is to that would to see at all in them. would see in the is the story told. is clearly The question is whether it is a of experience we in It is at this point that we might to make of the fact that much theatrical representation in film is illusionistic. cinema for the and a of the of pictures other pictures. IV the of for instance, depicts a of one to the of pictorial is in our experience of the We see the and in it we see another in which in we see we in the we see the in which we see is a special of seeing‐in. In we see in a something that represents something In this second of representation is what if the is illusionistic? pictures are those from the about visual experiences matching the experience of seeing the for instance, a of depicts at least seen in as if it is we an of this illusionistic instance, by our experience of the be seeing‐in? we see in the another in which in we see the in a on we may be to see the for what it But our might as We in other simply see in the The is that illusionistic pictures, seen in the flesh, are not seen as pictures. Since our experience of them the experience we would have before whatever they depict, we not experience them as pictures, as those the that we illusionistic pictures, the is the of the is not we see the for what it We see something in that But since the is and since illusionistic pictures not to be as pictures, what we see in the not the whatever it is that represents. Cinema does not the of illusionistic it is made by events that themselves those events not represent the theatrical representation they to the as a than representation But the points made for for other forms of seeing‐in. In two‐tier the representation of the story told by the events filmed is often illusionistic. It is so in the sense as is illusionistic. When it that cinema are of those illusionistic theatrical representations, our experience of those the Seeing‐in so that what we see in the is simply whatever the What we see in the cinema before us be more than the story told. Let's to get about the of this have both and The are a matter of what the representation the latter other the of the its its and its a that in represents a Its its by its a and its in this way its the we can on and seeing‐in. a a representation of some The a is to see in or she see in of a is to see only in to see in so by seeing in or she not see in of one to see in the the of some representation, and one not to see such as much to films as to pictures. pictures of for a and on the themselves. are those experiences that those we would have before whatever they Since what is if we were aware of in seeing the representation, it would not be illusionistic. illusionistic are those for which it is to see to the of representations, it is illusionistic the of which has a strong to cinema is made by illusionistic of the story it a on our seeing in the film the story told. That is in film, illusion seeing‐in. are in First, only a on seeing‐in. The fact that the of illusionistic representation that of that we in fact see in films the story told. is it is what further to of a to a for our seeing films in this Second, only in the does not see the of the representation. It does not that those be to the if that means that cannot to see them. Indeed, for those what of us about the means of of it is to see the of the events we need is to our of how films are made. We to what is before us as the photographic representation of a of events that themselves In we make visible to the of those events. For instance, in The a before we only we see how to that We can between and on how we our we in and out of are at The is not that we are to seeing‐in. It is that we are not always in fact that experience. to us to see for to the theatrical representation in two‐tier film need not illusion, a film way to is to a representation that is illusionistic. The illusionistic of that representation not only its to also it to see those in an of that representation. But this is not the only way to if the representation to be it has be if those are not in the that are in can be in a of is one cinema It might to a in a is not a matter of things the the as a might be a of that For instance, the between the that opens might have filmed many the the of each or In some the actors the characters need not even have two of the be in In such as it is not that the experience of someone the events filmed from the points of view by the camera would that of someone the events For the latter is a some or the a of a of In what the illusion are of the representation. to is or from this is a of the two representations, not of what they the the on the But not in the film. does someone so seeing some of the theatrical would see in the film acting out has out the filmed or even before the latter is not something the the film represents theatrical in such a way as to the that them from illusionistic. is even the filmed events in some of an illusionistic representation of the story told. to is one in many other clearly visible in the studio may in the The may seen in the flesh, for a seen might be out or in the as the which the actors with a to the In of illusion in the theatrical representation need be to seeing‐in. this make the of illusion only to That would be In all it would be at all to as a the filmed may not be in it they some would to and this is the of illusion in cinema, on this It is not at the of photographic representation. I have not that the on the cinema are illusionistic. point have I that our experience of those that we would have before events. I have not that we movies we always experience what is before us as pictures. illusion, at lies in the representation of the story told by the events It is to the lower tier in two‐tier film, that of theatrical representation. That illusion has consequences for how we experience not the that we to see the before us as the pictures they I the of those see cinema as the illusion that events are before We to see the events filmed the events of the story told. We are at pictures, and so our experience of those events is only seeing them in the before us. then, does the illusion in experience of two‐tier film? For all so the is in two‐tier film is a of the of the not of our experience of When we are blind to a of the making, that that it made by a theatrical representation of the story told. But illusion more than it involves And our experience does not the We see the as made in some way other than it for need not about how the movie made. there is illusion in the making, and that illusion does have consequences for it does not that experience it matter whether In Sections III and I a possible of this if it would be of and would be the in that opens the way to In this I one way in which might be of further phenomenon it I with the that that we experience a of films in the are to make films. two‐tier film only be seen the we would experience it from movies made by other means. how we see the are made by not theatrical representations, pictorial we see them that In watching the we see of pictures. Perhaps for see we we see in is and and pictures the aid of photographic recording of other Here the of of the is not something experience we are not from seeing pictures in a We might a for one made by We might then in what we to be photographic a of events filmed that themselves represent a story told. this is it is not that a is generated is to us to see in it the events it And the the the it is to see them other way and film. is made by not of the events it the events themselves. In this we what we see to be a photographic of events that But the story to be and the to be a of those events, does not the fact that what we see in those is simply the story told. What we see in forms of film is the stories they we were to see two‐tier film in a we would experience it from films made by other means. If, in we view two‐tier film, this is We at least the are right, films of all kinds in the might this be we experience of and is a in our of them. to that and for instance, us things is that we experience the two in ways. we were to have experiences of films made by would be on how they us the That would be may be important differences between what is by films made there is something in common they and two‐tier film, or the latter and are not aesthetically to the that are and and or and the of something be in to this We need to more for to the fact that all films in some sense and that we experience them as But the common in as as this in film only by it with other such as theater, and even the if we with a of experience common to films of origin, not found We then have the foundation for an aesthetic that to a of to in other That common and so that is what I the of this point is even to what the aesthetic on that common experience might for the I that at its would the of film as a way of a story in pictures. It is a way of a story by the pictures in which she the events that the Let's be to the First, the is not that films of us only the things. Perhaps there are differences between what is by two‐tier and The is as well as differences between films of in of the they there are also The of is that it what those might And that the if we experience of two‐tier film, is not that we are to we since and are in the we would be with a fundamental film. one would two‐tier film, only to seeing‐in. the other would films made in other almost always only seen in the the that experience our aesthetic would then have to one of what two‐tier film and a for what is by all the on us a of that is not Second, the is not that is the only aesthetically experience film from with the it us to the tier of theatrical representation, and to such as the of the is clearly of to the aesthetics of film. aesthetics of film and a for both forms of seeing‐in. But more than that our of the significance of the For part of that can be seen to in the way film the means by at other it a that to us the acting and other of the theatrical representation, and the fact that that representation has filmed, the of the by which is In this experience of two‐tier film is like our with many forms of It the means by which of that what they and us to reflect on in it those this of why an important It is with the fact much two‐tier film some does The for the of with films that are both two‐tier and illusionistic the as I have from the not all two‐tier cinema involves illusionistic theatrical representation. In the we that illusion not for to What is not whether one would have the illusion of seeing the story told if watching the events filmed, whether what one in the movie of those events. But even some two‐tier films to are means by which the might be to the two‐tier The acting or sets might be in a That might that they are more than acting and The film might in for to the the by which it is made. of that to the film the or the the that the might be as the acting is so as to to or a sound by the only visible to the a scene. And then there is the of actors so that it is to see them for the they are than as the characters they to In all cinema can illusion it seeks to or the for illusion of the theatrical representation visible in the film. The be that be if not before some two‐tier films. does not the for the significance of seeing‐in. if much film, or to the fact that much does might the in an aesthetics of cinema The to something common to all film, or to other aesthetic the aesthetic in that is it does not to all film, and it only some of what is by the film to which it does The only that some aesthetically might be found films of and not found the of to those films in which it does and to be of for the significance of be with how it there is at least one that this In the of the I to that also does The of might the way to a further experience of pictures so as to two of seeing‐in. We experience from pictures such as and Although there are of what is special about our experience of photographs, there is more whatever it it that experience a distinctive aesthetic perhaps of for instance, two about that are so that to see the to see the it represents. But that by way of to is that we experience as us in contact with its that of the the or the an other things a of those would have of what is distinctive of photographic experience. that in our on of the than of the representation that are what one in a one to be And some that not to reflect reality us for We can that we experience in a distinctive one that at least to be of aesthetic what it might The point is that whatever for to The first of this is to our experience of two‐tier films. In seeing them as a photographic of the events filmed, we are in a to have photographic experience of those events. We in the way to to the and the of the sets, or we our to those or our by how the filmed events to and so Whatever the of photographic we experience the filmed events in that for instance, in watching the from The in which the a from the on the with we have this special experience at as the and as the of another opens is that we have photographic experience of the story told. Where is I have what we see in the film of the is the events the story it then, if we have photographic experience at it can only be at the story told. at those we not see in pictures the events Here is a more of the what we see in two‐tier films is the story told. those we see those films as a a in a the might be or and the as then has photographic experience of the scene. In watching two‐tier we have photographic experience of the story told. We can call the experience in photographic experience. we have photographic experience of film, this would be an aesthetically fact about Although not on what photographic experience in it is if there is such a it with or or the reality the is a of that distinctive to those view them. be as of two‐tier as of our experience of cinema is so that we have photographic experience of the events filmed, is this that of other But if we have photographic then cinema something We would then to in whatever

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 31 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.