Although the style and approach tend to be impersonal, the unity of this thesis itself is a result of its entirely personal basic character and nature. The main focus of this thesis is about cinematic image, time and reality; actually, it is about the trinary relations among images, spectators or perceivers, and reality. All of these elements not only help to define the meaning of cinema but also reveal the knowledge of truth.

There are four chapters in this thesis. The main concern in chapter one intends to validate the status of film images in the domain of art form in general. Moreover, it is an indispensable step to set film images free from their original sin or from the shackle of fakery by taking the path from the context of metaphysics. There are three aspects in this chapter: the art form which is constructed by images, the realness of image, and the real images. Each aspect is equally important in reflecting upon the relationship between constructed images and realness in film development.

In chapter two, this thesis concentrates on Gilles Deleuze’s cinematic theory in relation to image and movement. The way that Deleuze interpreted and dealt with the movement in images was to set his focal point on subjectivity of images which hinges on a very distinctive effect of becoming, and he denominated this becoming as “movement-image.” There are three sections in this chapter: section one, juxtaposing Bergson’s three theses of movement with Deleuze’s cinematic theories; section two, focusing on the effective results of four trends of montage which are the organic trend of the American school, the dialectic trend of the Soviet school, the quantitative trend of the pre-war French school and the intensive trend of the German Expressionist school; section three, examining three types of movement-images, to wit, perception-image, affection-image and action-image.

In chapter three, this thesis looks at Deleuze’s cinematic theory in relation to image and time. In order to have the integrated understanding upon the subjectivity of images, Deleuze realized that there is one other kind of significant image, time-image. This chapter is divided into three divisions. The first division tries to explain the representation of reality that is generated by the association of the virtual power of cinematic images does not mean unadulterated fancy or illusion but a projection of the image of the human mind. The second division points out the fact that cinema not only entertains and moves spectators but it also motivates the spectators to thought; therefore, films should be seen as a significant medium because of its power within which the perception or feeling from viewers’ side intertangles with the corresponsive portrayal of cinematic images on the other side. From the third division on, this thesis starts to turn its focal point away from Deleuze’s cinematic theory and tries to blend the notion of reality into the discussion. The thesis suggests that the category of documentary not only can be seen as nonfictional form of direct time-image, but it also provides three new signs of images in terms of reality: mapping-image, reason-image, and judgement-image. Furthermore, documentary interweaves with the act of attention which comes before viewers’ consciousness, and then, the viewers are able to participate in the viewing process actively and make the judgement that the images of documentary are more trustworthy than the fictional images.

In the fourth and also the final chapter, this thesis uses the phenomenological concept of Maurice Merleau-Ponty as the extended foundation in order to seek out the meaning of filmic images from three crucial dimensions: the process of viewing, the essence of objectivity, and the creation of concept. Every separate dimension is equally important and yet interweaves with each other in understanding the ultimate connection between constructed images and the perceptional experience of the spectators. In the first dimension, the thesis dives into the origin of perception, that is, the act of attention which shows that in the searching for the meaning of film images, the answer does not simply rest upon it because, as Merleau-Ponty pointed out, “the result of the act of attention is not to be found in its beginning”. In the second dimension, the thesis focuses on the notion of objective depiction of cinematic images and tries to argue that the essence of objectivity only exists in a conceptual assumption. In the third dimension, the thesis tends to point out that the film images are able to create new concepts just as providing information or knowledge of truth.

莫詒謀，《柏格森的理智與直覺》，台北︰水牛出版社，2001。

德勒茲（Gilles Deleuze），《電影II 時間-影像》， 黃建宏譯，台北︰遠流出版事業股份有限公司，2003。

Andrew, Dudley. “FOREWORD TO THE 2004 EDITION.” WHAT IS CINEMA? VOL.1. Translated by Hugh Gray. London: University of California Press, 2005. pp. ix-xxiv.

Arnheim, Roudolf. FILM AS ART. London: University of California Press, 1957.

Arnheim, Roudolf. ART AND VISUAL PERCEPTION: A Psychology of the Creative eye – The New Version. Revised ed. London: University of California Press, 1974.

Bazin, André. “Cinematic Realism.” The Philosophy of Film: Introductory Text and Readings. Wartenberg, Thomas E. and Angela Curran. Eds. London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2005. pp. 59-69.

Bazin, André. WHAT IS CINEMA? VOL.1. Translated by Hugh Gray. London: University of California Press, 2005.

Bazin, André. WHAT IS CINEMA? VOL.2. Translated by Hugh Gray. London: University of California Press, 2005.

Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. Translated by Arthur Mitchell. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1998.

Bergson, Henri. Matter and Memory. Translated by Nancy Margaret Paul and W. Scott Palmer. New York: Urzone, Inc., 1988.

Bernet, Rudolf. “The Subject in Nature: Reflections on Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception.” MERLEAU-PONTY IN CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVES. Burke, Patrick, Jan Van Der Veken. Eds. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1993. pp. 53-68.

Bogue, Ronald. Deleuze on Cinema. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Bordwell, David. “Foreword.” Point of View in the Cinema: A Theory of Narration and Subjectivity in Classical Film. Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1984. pp. X-XIII.

Bordwell, David., and Kristin Thompson. FILM ART: AN INTRODUCTION. New York : McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2010.

Brewer, Bill. perception & its objects. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Carr, Wildon Herbert. HENRI BERGSON: THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHANGE. New edition revised. London: T.C. &E.C. Jack, Ltd., 1919.

Carroll, Noël. Engaging the Moving Image. London: Yale University Press, 2003.

Carroll, Noël. THE PHILOSOPHY OF MOTION PICTURES. London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2008.

Casebier, Allan. FILM and PHENOMENOLOGY: Toward a Realist Theory of Cinematic Representation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Crary, Jonathan. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle, and Modern Culture. London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2000.

Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983.

Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 2: The Time-Image. Translated by Hugh Tomlinson and Robert Galeta. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985.

Eisenstein, S.M. Eisenstein VOLUME 2 Towards a Theory of Montage. Glenny, Michael and Richard Taylor. Eds. Translated by Michael Glenny. London: British Film Institute, 1991.

Eisenstein, S.M. SERGEI EISENSTEIN Film Form ESSAY IN FILM THEORY. Edited and Translated by Jay Leyda. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1949.

Figal, Günter. “Merleau-Ponty and Cézanne on Painting.” Merleau-Ponty at the Limits of Art, Religion, and Perception. Semonovitch, Kascha and Neal DeRoo. Eds. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2012. pp. 30-40.

Flaxman, Gregory. “Introduction.” The Brain Is the Screen. Ed. London: University of Minnesota Press, 1986. pp. 1-57.

Goldstein, Rebecca. Incompleteness. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005.

Gombrich, Ernest H.. ART AND ILLUSION: A STUDY IN THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PICTORIAL PRPRESENTATION. Revised ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Gombrich, Ernest H., Hochberg, Julian., Black, Max. art, perception, and reality. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.

Gray, Hugh. “INTRODUCTION.” WHAT IS CINEMA? VOL.1. Translated by Hugh Gray. London: University of California Press, 2005. pp. 1-8.

Grünbaum, Adolf. “THE MEANING OF TIME.” BASIC ISSURS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF TIME. Freeman, Eugene and Wilfrid Sellars. Eds. La Salle: The Open Court Publishing Co., 1971. pp. 195-228.

Guerlac, Suzanne. THINKING IN TIME: AN INTRODICTION TO HENRI BERGSON. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2006.

Hochberg, Julian. “the representation of things and people.” art, perception, and reality. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972. pp. 47-94.

Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. Revised and second ed by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1978.

Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Guyer, Paul. University of Pennsylvania and Allen W. Wood Yale University Eds. London: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Kellner, Douglas. “New Taiwan Cinema in the 80s.” Jump Cut 42 (1998): 101-115.

Kosso, Peter. APPEARANCE AND REALITY: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Kovács, András Bálint. “The Film History of Thought.” The Brain Is the Screen. Ed. London: University of Minnesota Press, 1986. pp. 153-170.

Lloyd, Genevieve. Being in Time: Selves and narrators in philosophy and literature. London: Routledge, 1993.

Marks, Laura U.. “Signs of the Time: Deleuze, Peirce, and the Documentary Image.” The Brain Is the Screen. Ed. London: University of Minnesota Press, 1986. pp. 193-214.

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. PHENOMENOLOGY OF PERCEPTION. Translated by Colin Smith. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Morin, Edgar. The Cinema Or The Imaginary Man. Translated by Lorraine Mortimer. London: University of Minnesota Press, 2005.

Nowell-Smith, Geoffery. “Eisenstein on Montage.” Eisenstein VOLUME 2 Towards a Theory of Montage. Glenny, Michael and Richard Taylor. Eds. Translated by Michael Glenny. London: British Film Institute, 1991. pp. xiii-xvi.

Pappas, Nickolas. Routledge Philosophy GuideBook to Plato and the Republic. London: Routledge, 1995.

Plato. Plato The Republic. Translated by R. E. Allen. Yale University Press, 2006.

Rawson, Philip. ART AND TIME. Edited by Piers Rawson. Madison•Teaneck : Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2005.

Rice, Daryl, H. A GUIDE TO PLATO’S REPUBLIC. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Rivera, Joseph, Theodore R. Sarbin. Eds. Believed-In Imaginings: The Narrative Construction of Reality. Washington: the American Psychological Association, 1998.

Rodowick, David Norman. THE VIRTUAL LIFE OF FILM. London: Harvard University Press, 2007.

Rundle, Bede. Time, Space, and Metaphysics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Scheibe, Karl E.. “REPLICAS, IMITATIONS, AND THE QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY.” Believed-In Imaginings: The Narrative Construction of Reality. Washington: the American Psychological Association, 1998. pp.47-69.

Schindler, D. C. Plato’s Critique of Impure Reason: On Goodness and Truth in the Republic. The Catholic University of America Press, 2008.

Scott, John. A MATTER OF RECORD: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990.

Sorabji, Richard. ARISTOTLE ON MEMORY. Second Edition. The University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Walker, Ralph C. S.. “Bradley’s Theory of Truth.” Appearance versus Reality: NEW ESSAYS ON BRADLEY’S METAPHYSICS. Guy Stock Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. pp. 93-109.

Willats, John. ART AND REPRESENTATION: New Principles in the Analysis of Pictures. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

Yoshimoto, Mitsuhiro. KUROSAWA: Film Studies and Japanese Cinema. Duke University Press, 2000.

Zourabichvili, François. “The Eye of Montage: Dziga Vertov and Bergsonian Materialism.” The Brain Is the Screen. Ed. London: University of Minnesota Press, 1986. pp. 141-149.