Voyeurism Here: Film Analysis

“Besides making judgments about space, a viewer projects a stream of hypotheses about such factors as time, causality, character personality and motive, the efficacy of action, exposition, enigmas, plausibility, ethics, metaphors, rhythm, point of view, and much more. In general, a viewer comes to understand scenes by making detailed models of events. What might be termed the “classical” camera stands in for those procedures that have been successful in the past. When a viewer’s confidence in his or her predictions is high (i.e. the viewer’s constructed, mental models are well developed and reasonably supported by evidence), the film achieves a high degree of “reality...” (Branigan, 2013)
People watch; it’s what they do naturally and they enjoy doing it, and according to theorists Linda Williams and Laura Mulvey, it is that visual appetite and the pleasure found in its fulfilment that leads to a natural viewer engagement with the camera, and its ability to observe, in film. This viewer engagement and its companion
Who better illustrates male-dominant superiority of a formidable world force than a legend in evidence of apparatus theory. The use of apparatus theory is further demonstrated in the scene where Schwarzenegger as the powerful spy and outraged father rescues his teen-aged daughter from the hands of the terrorist enemy who dared to try to perpetrate his dastardly deed on American soil. The fact that Schwarzenegger accomplishes the rescue and sends a powerful message to terrorists, and coincidentally to those who would mistreat his family, while flying a nearly soundless Harrier jet is highly political marking of turf – a “pissing” contest, and the United States wins