Abstract

Two confusions have vitiated recent philosophical discussions about filmmaking: the presumption of Nöel Carroll that discrimination entails essentialism and the presumption of both Carroll and Gregory Currie that we cannot be seeing what we commonly speak of seeing when seeing 'fictional things' things by means of movies, monsters like King Kong in particular, for our responses differ from what they would have been had we been in the presence of the things that we are encountering. Fortunately, neither of the confusions need bother us nor need we persist with the authors in misdescribing how we encounter things seen by means of movies.