In the history of cinematography there is a noticeable tradition to deliberately highlight the elements that accentuate space and spatiality in the shots. At the same time, there is also a contrary tradition, i.e. the conscious reduction of spatiality with the help of artistic tools in order to evoke a feeling of alienation. In this article I will argue that it is highly likely that the visual reinforcement of depth has become one of a cinematographer’s most frequently used tools, because it plays an important role in the audience’s perceived empathy towards onscreen characters. Since the practices of art-making – e.g. cinematography – represent a way that the empirical experience accumulated in professional practices reflects underlying neural processes, this article will first draw upon evidence from the common tenets of cinematography and reflect on how these correspond to the respective phenomena in human perception and cognition. The second part of the article examines the theory of the para-dramatic and eso-dramatic factors established by Gal Raz and Talma Hendler as it applies to cinematography; thereby suggesting possibilities for broadening the theoretical foundations of the twofold division of the causes for the viewers’ empathetic responses. The article will also introduce the results from a pilot experiment. However, I will not argue that the rendering of cinematographic space and drawing attention to certain areas are superior tools for creating filmic empathy. I will rather point out that they are often used by cinematographers when they want to create an immersive experience, and therefore, there is reason to believe that a connection exists between emotional empathy and the usage of these cinematographic tools.
Andréasson, Per 2010. Emotional Empathy, Facial Reactions, and Facial Feedback. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Social Sciences 58. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.
Berliner, Todd; Cohen, Dale J. 2011. ‘The Illusion of Continuity: Active Perception and the Classical Editing System’. – Journal of Film and Video 63, 1, 44–63.
Bickart, Kevin C.; Dickerson, Bradford C.; Barrett, Lisa Feldman 2014. ‘The Amygdala as a Hub in Brain Networks That Support Social Life’. – Neuropsychologia 63, 235–248.
Bradley, Margaret M.; Lang, Peter J. 1994. ‘Measuring Emotion: Self-Assessment Manikin and the Semantic Differential’. – Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 25, 1, 49–59.
Brown, Blain 2013. Cinematography: Theory and Practice: Image Making for Cinematographers and Directors. New York, London: Focal Press.
Heider, Fritz; Simmel, Marianne 1944. ‘An Experimental Study in Apparent Behavior’. – The American Journal of Psychology 57, 243–259.
Hillis, Argye E. 2014. ‘Inability to Empathize: Brain Lesions That Disrupt Sharing and Understanding Another’s Emotions’. – Brain 137, 4, 981–997.
Hurlemann, René; Patin, Alexandra; Onur, Oezguer A.; Cohen, Michael X.; Baumgartner, Tobias; Metzler, Sarah; Dziobek, Isabel; Gallinat, Juergen; Wagner, Michael; Maier, Wolfgang; Kendrick, Keith M. 2010. ‘Oxytocin Enhances Amygdala-Dependent, Socially Reinforced Learning and Emotional Empathy in Humans’. – The Journal of Neuroscience 30, 14, 4999–5007.
Kilner, James M.; Paulignan, Y.; Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne 2003. ‘An Interference Effect of Observed Biological Movement on Action’. – Current Biology 13, 6, 522–525.
Lang, Peter J. 1980. ‘Behavioral Treatment and Bio-behavioral Assessment: Computer Applications’. – Joseph B. Sidowski, James Harding Johnson, Thomas Arthur Williams (eds.), Technology in Mental Health Care Delivery Systems. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 119–l37.
Lessiter, Jane; Freeman, Jonathan; Keogh, Edmund; Davidoff, Jules 2001. ‘A Cross-Media Presence Questionnaire: The ITC-Sense of Presence Inventory’. – Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 10, 3, 282–297.
Ousdal, Olga Therese; Specht, Karsten; Server, Andres; Andreassen, Ole A.; Dolan, Ray J.; Jensen, Jimmy 2014. ‘The Human Amygdala Encodes Value and Space During Decision Making’. – Neuroimage 101, 712–719.
Perani, D.; Fazio, F.; Borghese, N. A.; Tettamanti, M.; Ferrari, S.; Decety, J.; Gilardi, M. 2001. ‘Different Brain Correlates for Watching Real and Virtual Hand Actions’. – Neuroimage 14, 3, 749–758.
Ramachandran, V. S.; Hirstein, William 1999. ‘The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience’. – Journal of Consciousness Studies 6, 6–7, 15–51.
Raz, Gal; Hendler, Talma 2014. ‘Forking Cinematic Paths to the Self: Neurocinematically Informed Model of Empathy in Motion Pictures’. – Projections: The Journal for Movies and Mind 8, 2, 89–114.
van Boxtel, Anton 2010. ‘Facial EMG as a Tool for Inferring Affective States’. – Proceedings of Measuring Behavior, 104–108.
Zaki, Jamil; Ochsner, Kevin N. 2012. ‘The Neuroscience of Empathy: Progress, Pitfalls and Promise’. – Nature Neuroscience 15, 5, 675–680.
Zillmann, Dolf 2013. ‘Empathy: Affect from Bearing Witness to the Emotions of Others’. – Jennings Bryant, Dolf Zillmann (eds.), Responding to the Screen: Reception and Reaction Processes. New York, London: Routledge, 135–168.