Buddhism, Cinema, and the Ontological Crisis: A Critical Examination of Victor Fan's <i>Cinema Illuminating Reality</i>

CINEMA ILLUMINATING REALITY: MEDIA PHILOSOPHY THROUGH BUDDHISM. By Victor Fan. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2022. Pp. xii + 312. US$120.00 (cloth); US$30.00 (paper); US$30.00 (ebook). Victor Fan's Cinema Illuminating Reality: Media Philosophy through Buddhism presents an ambitious and interdisciplinary exploration of the relationship between Buddhist philosophy and cinema, aiming to address what he sees as an ontological crisis in the digital age. Fan argues that contemporary cinema, shaped by digital technologies and surveillance systems, has disrupted traditional understandings of perception and consciousness. He contends that existing European philosophical frameworks, such as those proposed by Gilles Deleuze and Gilbert Simondon, fall short of addressing this crisis. To bridge this gap, Fan introduces Buddhist concepts, particularly dependent origination and mindfulness, as tools to rethink the relationship between technicity and consciousness in film. He proposes that a more mindful engagement with cinema—what he terms the insight-image—can foster greater awareness of our interdependent relationship with media and, in turn, lead to ethical and social transformation. Fan's thesis is rooted in a deeply personal narrative, as presented in the preface, where he recounts his reflections during a period of hospitalization following major surgery. While this autobiographical approach adds a human dimension to his academic work, it also raises concerns regarding the clarity and rigor of his insights, as moments of personal struggle may not always be the most lucid for intellectual breakthroughs. Furthermore, his overarching goals for the book often take on an evangelical tone, suggesting that adopting his proposed Buddhist framework could lead to a form of liberation from the inherent violence of cinema. This approach, while intellectually engaging, may risk alienating readers who are looking for a more balanced and pragmatic analysis rather than an ideological call to action. Fan identifies an ontological crisis in digital cinema, arguing that technological advancements—such as social media, biometric surveillance, and the rise of algorithm-driven media—have disrupted traditional understandings of perception and consciousness. He asserts that these developments blur the boundaries between human experience and technological mediation, creating a fundamental shift in how reality is constructed and experienced. According to Fan, the crisis arises from an overreliance on European philosophical frameworks, which he believes fail to adequately address the dynamic interrelationship between human consciousness and cinematic technicity. To resolve this crisis, he turns to Buddhist philosophy, proposing that its emphasis on relationality and interdependence offers a more effective framework for understanding the evolving nature of media and perception. Central to Fan's theoretical approach is the concept of the substrate-form divide, a philosophical problem that he argues has haunted philosophy and media theory. Traditionally, this divide refers to the distinction between the material foundation (substrate) of media—such as film stock or digital code—and the perceptual and conceptual experiences (form) that media generate. Fan contends that media theories, particularly those of Deleuze and Simondon, inadequately address this divide because they remain rooted in dualistic thinking. To bridge this gap, Fan applies Buddhist concepts such as dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda), which posits that all phenomena arise and cease in dependence on other conditions, with no inherent, independent existence. By framing media and perception as interdependent processes, Fan argues that cinema should be understood not as a separate entity from consciousness but as an evolving, relational phenomenon that shapes and is shaped by its audience in a continual process of becoming. The Buddhist concept of dependent origination and interdependent relationships plays a crucial role in Fan's framework, serving as the foundation for his proposed solution to the ontological crisis. He suggests that recognizing the interdependent nature of cinema—its ability to influence and be influenced by social, political, and individual forces—enables a more ethical and mindful engagement with media. Fan's idea of the insight-image, inspired by Buddhist mindfulness practices, aims to cultivate a deeper awareness of the ways in which film conditions human perception and action, potentially leading to more conscious and responsible media consumption. While Fan's application of Buddhist concepts to media theory is intellectually ambitious and offers a novel perspective, his premise faces significant challenges. A key critique is whether philosophical solutions, whether rooted in Buddhist thought or not, are sufficient to address the deeply entrenched technological and capitalist forces that shape digital cinema. The crisis Fan identifies is not merely an epistemological or ontological one but is also driven by economic interests, corporate control, and regulatory policies that shape how media is produced and consumed. Fan's approach, while providing valuable insights into perception and consciousness, may fall short in offering concrete strategies for addressing the systemic issues of power and profit that underlie the digital media landscape. Additionally, his reliance on abstract philosophical concepts risks alienating those seeking more pragmatic solutions to media-related challenges, making his proposed framework difficult to implement beyond academic discourse. In Chapter One, Fan establishes the foundation for his exploration of the ontological crisis in digital cinema by engaging with the philosophical frameworks of Gilles Deleuze, Gilbert Simondon, and Buddhist thought. He argues that contemporary digital technologies—ranging from social media to biometric surveillance—have fundamentally altered how cinema is produced, distributed, and consumed. Drawing on Deleuze's concepts of the movement-image and time-image, Fan suggests that traditional cinematic frameworks, which once maintained a direct relationship between image and reality, have been disrupted by the fragmented, algorithm-driven nature of digital media. Simondon's theory of individuation is also central to Fan's argument, as it provides a way of understanding how technological processes continuously reshape human consciousness and perception. Fan brings these ideas into dialogue with Buddhist philosophy, particularly the doctrine of dependent origination, which he posits as a more effective conceptual tool for understanding the fluid and interdependent relationship between cinema and consciousness in the digital age. Fan's diagnosis of the ontological crisis in cinema aligns with broader academic discussions on the impact of digital media on perception, particularly those that address concerns of disembodiment, surveillance, and algorithmic control. Scholars such as Lev Manovich and Thomas Elsaesser have explored similar themes, focusing on how digital technologies have transformed the nature of cinematic representation and audience engagement. However, Fan diverges from these perspectives by framing the crisis primarily as a philosophical problem rather than a technological or economic one. While Manovich and Elsaesser examine the structural and industrial shifts in digital media, Fan's focus remains on the conceptual and perceptual implications, arguing that non-Buddhist philosophical frameworks are insufficient for fully grasping the evolving nature of cinema. A key critique of Fan's diagnosis is whether his emphasis on philosophical solutions overlooks the economic and structural factors driving the crisis. The digital transformation of cinema is deeply intertwined with corporate interests, data commodification, and algorithmic governance, which shape not only the aesthetics of digital media but also its accessibility and cultural influence. By framing the crisis primarily through ontological and epistemological lenses, Fan risks downplaying the material realities of media production and distribution, which are driven by profit motives and regulatory frameworks rather than philosophical constructs. While his engagement with Buddhist thought provides a refreshing perspective, it may not adequately address the more pressing concerns of economic exploitation, media consolidation, and audience manipulation that underpin the digital media landscape. Thus, while Fan's analysis offers valuable insights into the perceptual shifts occurring in digital cinema, his approach may be limited in its ability to offer tangible solutions to the systemic challenges facing the industry today. In Chapter Two, Fan introduces the concept of the karma-image, using Yogācāra philosophy to explore the relationship between cinematic perception and karmic causality. He draws parallels between the way cinema conditions audiences' perception and the Yogācāra understanding of how consciousness constructs reality through habitual tendencies and mental imprints (vāsanās). Fan argues that cinematic experiences are not passive but rather actively shape and are shaped by the viewer's cognitive and affective responses, much like the karmic process in Buddhist thought. Through this lens, he suggests that films operate as a form of karmic conditioning, reinforcing particular modes of perception and behavior over time. This perspective challenges traditional notions of spectatorship by framing cinematic engagement as a dynamic, interdependent process rather than a simple act of consumption. Fan's use of Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, two key figures in the Yogācāra school, is central to his analysis of how films construct and reinforce perceptual habits. He draws on Asaṅga's teachings to argue that cinema, like consciousness, generates experiences through layers of perception that are filtered through preexisting cognitive frameworks. Vasubandhu's analysis of the eight consciousnesses, particularly the ālaya-vijñāna (storehouse consciousness), is employed to explain how cinematic images plant seeds in the mind, influencing future perceptions and reinforcing karmic cycles. Fan uses these concepts to argue that films can either perpetuate conditioned ways of seeing or, if engaged mindfully, disrupt these patterns and lead to new insights. This approach repositions cinema as a medium not only of representation but also of transformation, with the potential to reshape how audiences engage with reality itself. While Fan's integration of Yogācāra philosophy offers an innovative perspective on spectatorship, his argument's complexity and theoretical density pose significant challenges to accessibility. His reliance on intricate Buddhist concepts, layered with references to Deleuzean film theory, creates a steep learning curve for readers unfamiliar with these philosophical traditions. Unlike other works on Buddhism and film, such as Sharon A. Suh's (2015) Silver Screen Buddha, which applies Buddhist principles more accessible to contemporary cinema, Fan's work demands a high level of prior knowledge and theoretical engagement. Furthermore, compared to books like Green's (2013) Buddhism Goes to the Movies or Buddhism and American Cinema edited by Whalen-Bridge and Storhoff (2014), which focus on identifying Buddhist themes within popular films, Fan's approach is far more abstract and philosophical. In Chapter Three, Victor Fan introduces the insight-image, positioning it as an evolution of Deleuze's time-image, but with a distinctive focus on the Buddhist notion of mindfulness and awareness. Deleuze's time-image challenges traditional sensory-motor linkages in cinema, emphasizing fragmented and nonlinear temporalities that invite the viewer to engage in contemplation rather than action. Fan builds upon this concept by arguing that the insight-image goes beyond passive contemplation to actively foster a heightened state of awareness, which he aligns with Buddhist meditative practices. He asserts that this mode of cinematic experience can cultivate a deeper understanding of interdependence and impermanence, moving beyond Deleuze's philosophical framework to offer a transformative, ethical engagement with media. This claim finds a counterpart in Francisca Cho's work (2017), which further suggests that enlightenment may be achieved through watching movies if viewers develop the appropriate mindset. Despite the potential parallels between Fan's insight-image and Zen Buddhist thought, particularly Dōgen's concept of Uji (Time Being), Fan does not directly engage with this connection. Dōgen's Uji suggests that time and being are inseparable and that each moment fully embodies the totality of existence. This idea could provide a rich comparative lens through which to view Fan's argument, as both emphasize the relational and process-oriented nature of time and perception. However, Fan's omission of this connection leaves his analysis somewhat incomplete, as Zen philosophy offers a more experientially grounded approach to time that could have complemented his theoretical exploration. A critical evaluation of Fan's synthesis of Buddhist and Deleuzean concepts raises questions about whether his framework is genuinely illuminating or somewhat forced. While his attempt to merge these distinct philosophical traditions is ambitious, the alignment between Deleuze's largely European, postmodern framework and the Buddhist notion of insight can feel tenuous at times. Deleuze's time-image is rooted in a critique of classical narrative cinema and metaphysics, whereas Buddhist insight is fundamentally soteriological, aimed at liberation from suffering. Fan's effort to bridge these perspectives risks oversimplifying the distinct epistemological goals of each tradition. Furthermore, the intricate philosophical layering in his analysis may obscure rather than clarify his arguments, making it challenging for readers to fully grasp the practical significance of the insight-image. In Chapter Four, Fan introduces the concept of cinema ecology, framing it through the lens of relational thinking based on the four brahmavihāras—benevolence (mettā/maitrī), compassion (karuṇā), empathetic joy (muditā), and equanimity (upekkhā/upekṣā). He argues that these Buddhist virtues provide a framework for understanding cinema as an interconnected system of relationships between filmmakers, audiences, and sociopolitical structures. By incorporating the brahmavihāras, Fan presents an ethical model for engaging with film, suggesting that mindful spectatorship can foster empathy, ethical responsibility, and a deeper awareness of interdependence within the media environment. He proposes that adopting this relational approach can help dismantle hierarchical and exploitative power structures that dominate contemporary media practices. Fan's critique of media power structures builds on this relational perspective, challenging the conventional ways in which media reinforce asymmetrical relationships between creators and audiences. He argues that contemporary media technologies, shaped by corporate interests and surveillance mechanisms, perpetuate a form of “violence” that conditions viewers into passive consumers rather than active participants in shaping their media experiences. By applying the concept of relationality drawn from Buddhist thought, Fan advocates for a more ethical and interconnected approach to cinema—one that acknowledges the mutual responsibilities and influences between all participants in the cinematic process. His discussion engages with critical media theorists such as Vivian Sobchack, William and to explore how new media technologies blur the between and questions about how power within the digital media landscape. However, a critical with Fan's approach in the potential of Buddhist concepts to media theory. While the offer an ethical in Buddhist their direct application to cinema and media may the of power and economic structures that shape the Fan's emphasis on relational while valuable in a mindful engagement with media, risks the structural as and regulatory to the of the media landscape. Additionally, his reliance on Deleuzean concepts, such as technicity and may their to within his Buddhist framework, leading to an of Deleuze's ideas that does not always with their philosophical Furthermore, Fan's of other work, particularly that of Sobchack, raises questions about whether his theoretical synthesis fully the practical concerns they approach to media the experience of the while Fan's to spectatorship in more abstract and conceptual This shift in emphasis may obscure the tangible ways in which audiences with media on a potentially making Fan's feel from while Chapter offers a of cinema through a Buddhist ethical lens, it to these ideas within the practical realities of the contemporary media environment. In Chapter Fan European of Buddhist aesthetics in cinema, arguing that they often on He contends that and Buddhist aesthetics with such as and a meditative with like and Fan challenges this that Buddhist aesthetics be to or narrative but should be understood as a broader philosophical engagement with themes such as impermanence, and He that Buddhist aesthetics are rooted in the viewer's engagement with the film rather than in for a more and understanding of how Buddhist ideas in cinema. A key of Fan's in this is his of what he as that have shaped the on Buddhist cinema. He argues that these obscure the of Buddhist and fail to for the and cultural of Buddhist traditions. By the focus from to the and relational of cinema, Fan to how Buddhist aesthetics are in film from this is Fan's engagement with Deleuze, ideas a significant role in shaping the theoretical This omission is as Deleuze's exploration of time and perception could have a valuable to Fan's critique of for a synthesis of and Buddhist perspectives on A significant critique of this concerns whether it within the broader goals of the the Fan constructs a theoretical framework that aims to address the ontological crisis in cinema through Buddhist concepts of interdependence and However, Chapter focus on critique somewhat from this central While the offers an of how Buddhist aesthetics have been of it does not to Fan's overarching about media consciousness and it like a exploration that could have from greater integration with the discussions on technicity and perception. Fan an to his critique of aesthetics with his broader about the potential of cinema, the to how this the philosophical and ethical In the the his central claim that cinema, engaged with mindfully, has the potential to as a relational and ethical that can our perception of the He argues that the medium of film is not merely a passive of reality but an active in shaping our consciousness through its interdependent relationship with and human By applying Buddhist principles such as dependent origination and mindfulness, Fan suggests that cinema can cultivate a heightened awareness of the interconnected nature of viewers to engage with media in a way that ethical and critical He cinema as a where relationality can be challenging the passive model that contemporary digital While Fan's reinforce the overarching philosophical the to which each these and Two, which focus on the ontological crisis in digital media and the concept of the karma-image, provide a theoretical foundation for his by framing cinema as a process that conditions perception much like karmic causality. discussions with his by emphasizing potential to shape and consciousness. However, as the book particularly in and the focus shifts to more discussions of relational thinking and while valuable in their not always to the broader of the ontological crisis Fan The of engagement with the economic and structural factors influencing media, the omission of key theoretical figures such as Deleuze in suggests a from the Fan's to engage deeply with contemporary or media policies leaves a in the to pressing issues such as media commodification, and surveillance While his philosophical approach offers a valuable critique of media consciousness, it does not fully address the social and that influence digital evolving landscape. a the book more like an intellectual than a call to action, its with and who to influence the future of media in Despite these Fan's work offers a dialogue that could as a foundation for further interdisciplinary philosophy, media and digital His emphasis on relational thinking and ethical spectatorship challenges conventional understandings of media and provides a rich conceptual framework for in the role of cinema in shaping consciousness. upon Fan's ideas by incorporating and analysis to a more for mindful media engagement in an interconnected Cinema Illuminating within the of Buddhism and film by offering a philosophical approach that to cinema through Buddhist thought. Unlike works in this that focus primarily on of Buddhist within films, Fan's to bridge Buddhist and media theory, positioning cinema as an active process of consciousness rather than a passive representation of Buddhist His work challenges conventional notions of Buddhist aesthetics and presents a more dynamic, interdependent relationship between film and cinema with the Buddhist notion of dependent This Fan's book as an ambitious theoretical one that in focus and accessibility from other works on Buddhism and film. In to other books in the Fan's work a far more abstract and philosophical Buddhism Goes to the Movies a more accessible and practical framework, popular films and identifying Buddhist themes and within presents Buddhism in an way for a using films as a tool for ethical rather than as a medium for ontological Buddhism and American Cinema how Buddhist ideas within and independent American films, their cultural and of these works are more with the ways in which Buddhism is and understood within cinematic while Fan's book beyond representation to argue for a fundamental of how cinema as a for Buddhist and perception, similar to Suh's This not only Fan's ambitious but also the of his accessibility and practical compared to more Fan's attempt to Buddhist philosophy to critique and address the ontological crisis of digital cinema also a of philosophical that have to social of which have to tangible the critical theory aimed to the ideological forces in media and a more Despite their intellectual their impact on broader media and transformation as economic and forces to shape cultural consumption. and film have to and power structures within media but have often from entrenched cultural and economic Fan's work, while offering a novel perspective, faces similar challenges in terms of as the systemic issues he as corporate and technological to be through philosophical Victor Fan's Cinema Illuminating for its intellectual and interdisciplinary approach, Buddhist philosophy, media theory, and film in a way that challenges conventional academic Fan's work is particularly for its effort to cinema as a relational and ethical offering an perspective on spectatorship that concepts such as dependent origination and His ability to engage with philosophical from Deleuzean thought to a of that the book as a significant to the theoretical on cinema. The theoretical rigor and philosophical provide insights that can further academic into the relationship between film, perception, and consciousness. However, its the accessibility remains a major Fan's theoretical and reliance on philosophical frameworks it challenging for readers who are not in both Buddhist thought and contemporary film theory. The abstract discussions often concrete or practical that could help bridge the between theory and media engagement. This it difficult for the book to beyond academic audiences, its broader Additionally, while Fan's analysis is his to theoretical perspectives always can and the clarity of his The audience that most from this book and in Buddhist film theory, and media who are in new philosophical to cinematic perception. engaged in interdisciplinary that philosophy and media also Fan's work particularly those seeking to perspectives into film However, media or those seeking a more to Buddhist perspectives on cinema may struggle with the complexity and abstract future and potential a more balanced engagement with the forces shaping cinema, in to the ontological concerns he could the to contemporary media challenges. Additionally, a work aimed at a broader offering a more accessible of his ideas with practical insights for film viewers and could the impact beyond academic while Cinema Illuminating offers a and novel perspective, its could be through a of its insights and a greater emphasis on practical that is its