How can a viewer so believe in a film when they, all the time, know that the world and story of the film is fiction and fantasy? The power of cinema comes in its power to duplicate the real world, the world we know. Cinema is able to show us the world we live our lives in, but it goes beyond that; it is also capable of manipulation- unlike many other arts, which can simply observe and record with minimal manipulation. It is manipulation that sparks interest in the world, as portrayed in film. If there

The point of view shot offers a viewer something familiar from their own life and experiences, making it easier for them to interpret the world of the film in relation to the real world which they inhabit, thus accepting the cinematic representation of the world as accurate. Sobchack asks, "What else is a film if not 'an expression of experience by experience?'" (Sobchack 36). He later seems to answer this, saying, "...Most of the descriptions and reflections of classical and contemporary film theory have not fully addressed the cinema as life expressing life, as experience expressing experience. Nor have they explored the mutual possession of this experience of perception and its expression by filmmaker, film, and spectator- all viewers viewing, engaged as participants in dynamically and directionally reversible acts that reflexively and reflectively constitute the perception of expression and the expression of perception" (Sobchack 38). The world of a film reflects the real world; thus the characters of a film reflect the people in the real world and relate to the world of a film, which they inhabit, just as people relate to the real world, which they inhabit. So, in a way, not only does the point of view shot, which is a film's representation of people's perceptions of the real world as characters' perceptions of the filmic world, help the viewer relate to the character, but it also relates the character to the viewer, even if the viewer is not yet in a relation with the character. Basically, the character reflects the person even before the person has begun to relate to the character, meaning that the relation pre-exists the viewer in some way. The relationship is two-ways, and not only on the part of the viewer.

Psychoanalysis was also criticised, as it did not address the importance of social change "such as when cultural conflict might reveal weaknesses in the dominant culture." (Creed, 87). It was argued that film needs to be studied closely in its relationship with history and society rather than studied in relation to the unconscious and subjectivity. This is an interesting point when one establishes the fact that the psychoanalytic film approach was strongly influenced by theory's of Freud, specifically the Oedipus complex and castration anxiety.

In R. Wood's The American Nightmare, it is proposed that horror films of the sixty's and seventy's possess certain characterist

Political activists claim that the psychoanalytic approach to film does not provide any guide-lines on how the individual might resist the workings of an ideology that appeared to dictate completely the formation of subjectivity as split and fractured. Not all individuals are locked into roles determined by the way subjectivity is formed. Psychoanalysis has also been rejected by cognitivists, the latter's status within cultural studies is not so clear as cultural critics frequently utilise areas of psychoanalytic theory.

Central to the effects of Cronenburg's films is of his wish to smash the norms that oppress us and which our moral conditioning teaches us to rev

Some common words found in the essay are:
, Sight Sound, Film Comment, Age Cronenburg, Vaughan I'm, Crash Central, Crash I'm, JG Ballard, American Nightmare, Elias Koteas, real world, world film, watching film, creed 87, real world inhabit, psychoanalytic film, human body, world story, relate character, realise watching, gaze filmmaker,
Approximate Word count = 2076
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)