The ways of naming, accepting, questioning, perceiving, classifying, rejecting "reality" and the "reality" itself (even this doesn't make sense at all) are highly open to question. Many different research fields are attracted to this particular topic and specifically, visual studies, in terms of both theory and practice, is one of the major areas that are concerned with "how reality is created" ? By the development of technology, the photorealistic sense of creating makes it way to beyond-life realism. With the help of artificial and supernatural features of films, questioning reality becomes one of the highlighted tools of filmmakers and spectators. However, instead of pointing out how spectacular the concept of reality is, focusing the necessity and meaningfulness behind questioning it may present us a new aspect of this discussion.
As mentioned in Thomas Elsaesser's article, "reality checking" is one of the the mental activities that we are get involved while we're playing films. Without depending on the genre, we are mostly able to be a part of the plot and by this way, the constructed reality of the film is reflected in our minds. In this way, we become able to internalize and actualize the film's reality, which depends on our own subjective perception, whether in mind or in action. New generation of media and consumerism mostly allows us to actualize it by creating a by-products of films, producing DVD editions, decorate our desktops etc.. But the confusing part is if we can really actualize the reality what is given in the film by creating our own reality system, or those these things are separate from each other. I wonder what Elsaesser really meant by saying "reality check" and what he tended to compare with what. For me, by many ways, questioning reality is a bit paradoxical, but still it may work to connect us with films, mostly puzzling ones. Questioning what is real or what is not can be considered as a brain-storming activity and in general, it's possible to do this by means of unconventional mind-game films.
For my very personal point of view, Haneke is the best director who has impressive examples of puzzle films (Caché, Funny Games) in such an unconventional way. His way of playing with our conscious and conscience mostly, amaze me with all its' illusionary connection with reality. His characters haunted by things that mostly they trust in, for instance, in Caché his conscience is the leading character's enemy, and in Funny games, the family is haunted by the concept of secure life and their definition of security. However, he did not choose to show these inner ghosts explicitly, instead he attributes these mental ghosts to a more concrete, more "real" agents. Haneke uses his camera and features of editing, which are the prominent components of his films, as a remote control and he play with us. There are several examples that Elsaesser repeated through his very informative article and his organized way of categorizing mind-game films are enlightening, but still, another conceptions about these types of films are possible for me. If the mind-game films are about confusing our minds, introduced us with other possible worlds, minds and realities, for example, can we consider Woody Allen as a director, whose films cover the major characteristics of mind-game films ? Although the way we progress his storytelling style and the overall impact of his films are too different from what Trier, Jonze or Fincher make with their films, is it possible to mention a distinct boundary between them ?
I also want to put an emphasis on a term that Elsaesser used in his article, as "possible worlds". Mind-game films completely embrace this idea with its concept about various forms of "possibility". One of the most common approach to creating different possible words or possible ways to defining reality, is to use particular pathologies. The author choose to call them as "productive pathologies" because these pathologies may serve to construct another perspective and again, may help them to attain some meaningful resolutions to gain new types of knowledge or to create different way of interaction with the world. However, pathology itself, is highly open to debate because what we define today as pathology is defined by American Psychiatric Assosiation (APA). They create a kind of Bible, as named DSM-IV (5th edition is coming up with "possible pathologies" on 2013) and it labels even natural worries as pathology, so I'm not sure what we mean by pathology can be really considered as pathology. So within these conditions, making a reality check wouldn't be clear enough to have a conclusion about the terms fiction and reality, even the meaning lay behind this questions are not based on something meaningful. But anyways, the process itself is worth to experience and as far as I got introduced with different paths of mystery, through any kind of mind-game film, I felt that the way I think about certain subjects had significantly changed and lastly, seeing this change and being a part of this kind of thrill is such a joy.
Defne Kırmızı