Oh, btw, I totally disagree that a lot of people would disagree and be angered. And I agree that Spielberg would never intentionally do such a thing. Not too recently I was talking with a few friends, and I tried to discuss with them the difference between a two shot of a conversation with a woman and a man, versus the same conversation but cut back forth between each other. But most of my friends just said they could care less about stupid things like that. I mean they even love "The Usual Suspects", even though it has a shot at the beginning that leads you to believe that Kevin Spacey's character as the limp dude is hiding behind that stack of crates, but you realize later that he wasn't. We find out that he was lying throughout the film, and that even the director was lying to his audience. The worst sin ever! And somewhere else in these boards I saw the point that someone said that sound effects or something like that were just as important as the shot or something. Imagine telling that to Erich von Stroheim when he was doing "Greed" or Chaplin when he was doing "The Gold Rush". Films are the same when they had sound as when they didn't. But of course my friends would say that they are different. My lunactic ranting is about that I feel, at least around me, that most people don't understand or care to understand the aesthetics of film. And then I guess that that's what we're arguing about. This is going nowhere so I think I'll quit my ranting. And besides, I shouldn't bring other people into a discussion if he/she isn't here to support his/her own views.