Joelle's Q-interview on the master — "Well I’ve never been around them…"
‘Well I’ve never been around them. But I know there’s something wobbled and weird about their vision, supposedly. I think the newer-born they are, the more the wobble. Plus I think a milky blur. Neonatal nystagmus. I don’t know where I heard that term. I don’t remember. It could have been Jim. It could have been the son. What I know about infants personally you could—it may have been an astigmatic lens. I don’t think there’s much doubt the lens was supposed to reproduce an infantile visual field. That’s what you could feel was driving the scene. My face wasn’t important. You never got the sense it was meant to be captured realistically by this lens.’
Context
The theory of the weapon, from the person it was pointed at: the auto-wobble reproduces neonatal nystagmus, "an infantile visual field" — the film addresses its viewer as a newborn looking up at an apologizing mother. And the key inversion, from the most-filmed face in the book: "My face wasn’t important." The lens wasn't there to capture her realistically; the optics, not the actress, were "driving the scene" — the Entertainment's lethality located in the apparatus of seeing rather than in what is seen, which is the wobble-lens restatement of what the P.G.O.A.T. mythology gets wrong. (Her "milky blur" is the same adjective Hal hands the warming viewer-screen in 172, "milky blue aspect like the eye of a dead bird" — noted, not pressed.)