Positioned at the intersection of film studies, neuroaesthetics, and philosophy, the project aims to empirically and philosophically explore Deleuzian cinematic images and  Pisters’s neuro-image concept and its potential successors. It addresses critical theoretical debates, tests philosophical models through a light application of neuroaesthetics, and considers the ethical implications of contemporary media practices. Ultimately, this research seeks to contribute practical insights to evolving cinematic images and semiotics, and explore the screen arts industry in ethical experiences in cinema through influencing policy and creative practice.  

A recent history

Since the pandemic, cinema has rebounded, but the market has bifurcated. Global streaming is drifting toward niche content while theatrical release is concentrating around high-awareness, IP-driven spectacle. Streamers have cut back on commissioning original scripts in a post– “peak TV” push for profitability, and most films still struggle to recoup costs (only ~36% did so in one large sample). At the same time, total screen engagement has expanded—more screens and more viewing hours—so audiences watch more at home while still attending theatres for premium experiences. A key tension is that audiences say they want more authentic, substantive stories, yet their streaming choices are heavily shaped by algorithmic personalisation that can make “user control” partly illusory. In summary, screen hours are up, algorithms shape choice, audiences want meaningful work, cinematic ethics matter. 

Film-philosophy and cognitive neuroscience

Film-philosophy and cognitive neuroscience are converging to offer new insights into how cinema affects and reflects the human mind. Gilles Deleuze’s influential film philosophy[1] introduced the movement-image (classical, action-driven cinema) and the time-image (post-war, contemplative cinema) to describe how films organise time, movement, and our perception of these elements. In the digital age, scholars suggest we are entering a new paradigm beyond Deleuze’s original two primary ‘images’. There is a “neuro-image” concept that posits that contemporary viewers no longer merely see through characters’ eyes (as brokered by the auteur), but move through characters’ brains and mental landscapes (Pisters, 2023). By bridging Deleuzian philosophy with neuroscience/neuro-aesthetics (LeGrand, 2024) and digital media[2] theory (Earnshaw, 2018), this researcher aims to explore how modern screen culture engages the brain, evokes affect, and shapes thought, and in particular, ethics[3].  This project wishes to describe a framework[4] that auteurs can access so that their  “cinema can provide a way of creating a new brain for ourselves, opening up new ways of thinking and feeling against the dogmatic images of thought and clichés of cultural representation that sap our ‘belief in the world’” (Sinnerbrink, 2008).

• [1] Gilles Deleuze’s Cinema 1: The Movement-Image (1983) and Cinema 2: The Time-Image (1985) are commonly discussed within the field of film theory; however, they are more accurately classified as philosophical works or “film philosophy” rather than traditional film theory.
• [2] This researcher uses the terms ‘digital media’, ‘cinema’ as broad definition terms of mediums that encompass and distribute 21^st century storytelling.
• [3] Stanley Cavell's work highlights the importance of popular cinema and television series in shaping viewers' moral and ethical understanding, arguing that these forms of media provide significant moral education by integrating into everyday life and fostering self-transformation. (Laugier 2021)
• [4] Or perhaps a ‘scaffold’ that is backed by theory and evidence

Theoretical Frameworks

This project will build on Deleuzian film-philosophy (especially the idea that “the brain is the screen” in Deleuze’s work[1]) and integrate insights from neuroscience and digital media theory. Pisters’ work ties Deleuze and Guattari’s ideas (e.g. the brain as an ever-changing process) to contemporary brain-centric narratives and the “assemblages[2]” of globalised screen culture. This framework considers how networked digital screens (smartphones, VR, etc.) produce an interconnected “neuroscreen” environment , blurring boundaries between individual minds and media networks[3].

[1] The brain is unity. The brain is the screen. I don't believe that linguistics and psychoanalysis offer a great deal to the cinema. On the contrary, the biology of the brain—molecular biology—does. Thought is molecular. (The Brain Is the Screen, 2000)

[2] From the French – agencement -(Nail, 2024)

[3] An imperative that any work done, to advance the understanding of the cinema, and the brain, should accept the broader definition of mediums other than traditional linear screen narrative, however, I should point out here that if I am primarily, and possibly will only be, dealing with long form narrative cinema