The main area of critique when analysing the post-cinematic form is the claim that indexical media has the best ability to show reality. This is argued for two main reasons. Firstly, its physicality and secondly, its filmmaking techniques. Academics claim the physicality of the 35mm film enables a tether to the real world as the film is something which can be held. Alongside this, the techniques take their time with establishing various elements of a scene. For example, the 180° rule establishing space. It is often argued that this style of filmmaking is the best at showing reality due to the lack of ability to manipulate It in any way. Similarly, how a depth of emotion is enabled.

This is in stark contrast with digital where it is argued that none of these happen. The film exists on a computer with no tether to the physical world and the techniques don’t take the time to meaningfully establish any parts of a scene. Therefore, it gets critiqued as being superficial and sensationalist. The later advances of CGI, green screen etc as manipulators of reality only further compounding these ideas instead of being viewed as valuable supra-narrative engagement.    

My issue with these arguments is the viewing of reality in one way, optically and on that basis, claiming indexical media as the best portrayal. Cinema of the early 20^th century only engages the scent of sight so how can we claim that’s the best representation when the lived experience is a multi-sensory one? It places limitations on what can be viewed as reality when only looking at it through one lens. Consequently, making it be seen as simply an illusion of what we wish life could be.  Therefore, one could claim the multi-sensory engagement of the post-cinema era is better placed to showcase reality and also be more meaningful as a result.

Minnie Crawford