The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience/Vivian Sobchack responds

[...]in a more general sense, it seems questionable to propose, within film theory, concepts of the subject and its experience that claim, or at least imply, universal validity (i.e., as within and outside the cinema). [...]the frame-that "invisible" trace of the activity of the film's seeing-actualizes both the film's operational and deliberate desire to see and to show, to perceive and express-at its "highest level," actualizing through the reflective vision the deliberative intentionality that transforms the operative and signifying experience of consciousness into the signification of conscious experience (135). First of all, the book is hardly a metaphysics; it is grounded in a materialism that Stadler ignores completely, given that he nowhere acknowledges my lengthy insistence on the material differences between human embodiment and cinematic embodiment, as well as the intentional similarities of their common projects in the film experience: that is, the fact that in that experience both spectator and film perceive and express the world in an organizing and organized presentation and representation. [...]the following chapter, called "Film's Body," deals with a phenomenological description of the technologically embodied vision of the film, a vision sufficiently modeled on the human lived-body to manifest, however differently materialized, the visible, visual, and motor behavior of an intentional subject (however anonymously and transparently perceived).