Clayton George Wickham - final thesis

102
similar way to Freddy vs. Jason, the aim of the visual aesthetic can be attributed to
an attempt to create visceral impact, and filmmaker desire for a kinetic design, in line
with director Marcus Nispel’s earlier films, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
and Frankenstein (2004). This is a potential response to the rising popularity of the
victim-camera movement mentioned in Chapter 2, by utilising a similar aesthetic
without limiting what is seen to a camera within the diegesis. This replicates the
visceral aesthetic of the victim-camera without creating subjective limitations.
Manipulations of the Eye/Camera Model
Direct eye/camera shots are often transparent in their application, clearly
identifying that the shot is coming from the eye position of a character within the
film. When it is not, a film can at least create an implication that there is a character
the viewer is seeing through. However, the model and coding of the eye/camera can
be used to create the same visceral impact of a direct eye/camera shot, while
simultaneously disorienting or creating suspense without the need of another
character. In some cases, it is left ambiguous whether or not a shot is, in fact, an
eye/camera shot, and in other cases, it is made apparent that the device cannot be
trusted to denote character presence. Likewise, eye/camera coding can be used, but
altered from a direct character perspective to either distort or clarify the experience
of the character.
The most complex use of the eye/camera in Friday the 13 th Part 2 are shots
that create a distinct advantage over the audience, which is done through the
viewer’s lack of knowledge of what character they are looking through, or even if
they are witnessing an eye/camera shot at all. The example given by Humphries of
the eye/camera coded shot that is not housed within a character preceding Marcie’s