Exploring the Ways Cinematography Affects Viewers’ Perceived Empathy towards Onscreen Characters

Open access


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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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.

  • Dalle Vacche Angela 2009. ‘Chiaroscuro: Caravaggio Bazin Storaro’. – Senses of Cinema 53. http://sensesofcinema.com/2009/feature-articles/chiaroscuro-caravaggio-bazin-storaro/ (1 November 2016).

  • Davis Mark H. 1980. ‘A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy’. – JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology 10 85.

  • Ferber Susanne; Humphrey Keith G.; Vilis Tutis 2005. ‘Segregation and Persistence of Form in the Lateral Occipital Complex’. – Neuropsychologia 43 1 41–51.

  • Gallese Vittorio 2009. ‘Mirror Neurons Embodied Simulation and the Neural Basis of Social Identification’. – Psychoanalytic Dialogues 19 5 519–536.

  • Greenhouse Samuel W.; Geisser Seymour 1959. ‘On Methods in the Analysis of Profile Data’. – Psychometrika 24 2 95–112.

  • Han Shihui; Jiang Yi; Humphreys Glyn W.; Zhou Tiangang; Cai Peng 2005. ‘Distinct Neural Substrates for the Perception of Real and Virtual Visual Worlds’. – Neuroimage 24 3 928–935.

  • Hardy Robert 2015. ‘A Primer on Practical Lights: How Practicals Can Make Your Cinematography Come to Life’. – No Film School 2 July. http://nofilmschool.com/2015/07/practical-light-primer-how-practical-lighting-bring-cinematography-to-life (3 November 2016).

  • 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.

  • Lombard Matthew; Ditton Theresa B. 1997. ‘At the Heart of It All: The Concept of Presence’. – Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 3 2. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1997.tb00072.x/full (3 November 2016).

  • Marko Bobby 2014. ‘Helpful Ways for Cinemato-graphers to Get a Grip on Lighting: Part 2’. – Provideo Coalition 8 August. http://www.provideocoalition.com/helpful-ways-for-cinematographers-to-get-a-grip-on-lighting-part-2/#sthash.7TfvrlJ0.dpuf (1 November 2016).

  • O’Hara Ryan Patrick 2010. ‘Why We Need Light: Shape & Depth’. – Dvxuser 18 August. http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?220459-RPO-s-Why-We-Need-Light-Article-Series (3 November 2016).

  • 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.

  • Shutter Angle 2012. ‘Creating Depth Part 1: Introduction DOF Deep Staging Resolution’. – Shutter Angle 24 November. http://www.shutterangle.com/2012/creating-depth-dof-deep-staging-resolution/ (3 November 2016)

  • Stam Robert; Burgoyne Robert; Flitterman-Lewis Sandy 1992. New Vocabularies in Film Semiotics. London New York: Routledge.

  • Sutherland Ainsley 2016. ‘The Limits of Virtual Reality: Debugging the Empathy Machine’. – Docubase: MIT Open Documentary Lab. http://docubase.mit.edu/lab/case-studies/the-limits-of-virtual-reality-debugging-the-empathy-machine/ (15 March 2016).

  • 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.

Gesamte Zeit Letztes Jahr Letzte 30 Tage
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 855 409 26
PDF Downloads 394 235 30