"Thus, for contemporary man the representation of reality by film is incomporably more significant than that of the painter, since it offers,.......an aspect of reality which is free from all equipment." -p.8

This idea that film is capable of representing reality is, for starters, false. I believe this is why the wave of avant-gardists came along; to show the limitation as well as the strengths of film. They showed us the camera is capable of manipulating what it sees.

Does a paint brush constitute equipment but a camera not. A camera does not capture the 'universal reality'; it conveys a highly subjective and unique (as we see with the photos of photographers with a 'distinctive eye') temporary juxtaposition of objects- mise-en-scene. The way in which these objects are assembled together and interpreted cannot be recreated without incorporating the workings of the mind. Conversely, painting can, when done well, succeed in portraying the workings of the painters mind far more accurately than a camera can that of the photographers mind. This is why filmmakers such as Dziga Vertov [A Man with a Movie Camera], Chris Marker [Sans Soleil- about a camera man], Jean-Luc Godard [History of Cinema] etc.. incorporate the medium of film and the camera's lens between reality and capturer as a factor in their films. The camera must be acknowledged before we can go on to consider what is shown to us from it. The lens is an added factor in the equation of reality-to-viewer. Whereas a painter has nothing in the way of his reality and his conveyance it (the canvas) except his/her own hands.