Third Cinema as a Window of Vulnerability

I find the sense of vulnerability of "windows" resonant in the Third Cinema.

In the text "Windows: of Vulnerability," Keenan describes a house of a particular film as an object of vulnerability, imposed by the lighting, scenes, camera, etc. While Keenan's idea stems from the humanist window, it is certainly applicable on a much broader term, such as a form of signification - the Third Cinema itself.

Third Cinema is a different form of language, or a mode of production, that is created in the context of "struggle" of neocolonization. While it strives to serve a certain function - such as to bespeak the desire of national liberation -, to what extent is it a complete picture, a reliable source for understanding the situation? Consider that the Third Cinema's role parallels to that of "window" in a sense that it provides a view of interior to the outsider.  Then, (in Keenan's words,) "when a window 'gives a light [donner de la lumiere],' what happens? What is the force of the gift, and what arrives with this light?" (Keenan, 125)


Consider the following ideas on "windows":

"...what if the opening of the aperture that allows sight were to become uncontrollable, if the regulated light that makes seeing possible were to overexpose the interior? ... the opening risks the more violent opening of the distinction between inside and outside, private and public, self and other." (Keenan, 124) "the excess of windows both opens the house to surveillance from the exterior and allows interior scenes to be shot with all the brightness of the open sun."

"Human knowledge stems from the gaze, and the window perhaps even more than the mirror gives form to this tenacious ideologeme." (Keenan, 126)

How do we come to realize the ultimate reality, as opposed to the one introduced through Third Cinema that is in the end a kind of a filter or a representation? What ensues - when one "gives light or let the gaze pass through?" (Keenan, 127) According to Rosen, "the third a cultural code, the embodiment of a sociocultural function. ... connotes a public act, hence the performative, theatrical, proclamatory nature of speaking in Ceddo." (Rosen, 730) As said above, the window can hold a stronger signification - a product/ created image through a filter - to disseminate knowledge to the audience. However, how do we, as a spectator, perceive the message, when the depicted scenes are of "the performative, theatrical, proclamatory nature of speaking?"   I just attended a reception of an art exhibit titled "A Varried Terrain" in Providence.  In dealing with the role of human beings/ individuals situated in an ever changing environmental/ industrial community in the age of globalization, the show suggests to the audience that the community, when exposed to stimulation, faces the necessity of change.  What position do the subjects of the Third Cinema take, for example the community depicted in Ceddo? By being captured in the scenes, their struggles are shown but coincidentally they become an object of a representational image. Then what does the Third Cinema become, fulfilling its purpose but with issues that ensue subsequently? A window through which the inner world is shown, and yet because of such accessibility it takes a nature of vulnerability?