This essay analyzes the influence of surrealism on Bazin and Barthes to argue that their commitment to photographic realism is more accurately described as an investment in surrealism. This revised take on the work of Bazin and Barthes is tested against notions of cinema in the age of new media by examining The Sweet Hereafter within an "intermediated" context. In "The Myth of Total Cinema" (1946), film theorist André Bazin writes, "Every new development added to the cinema must, paradoxically, take it nearer and nearer to its origins. In short, cinema has not yet been invented!" 1 In "The Third Meaning" (1970), cultural semiotician Roland Barthes states, "Forced to develop in a civilization of the signified, it is not surprising that (despite the incalculable number of films in the world) the filmic should still be rare. .. so much so that it could be said that as yet the film does not exist." 2 Although Bazin's "cinema" and Barthes's "filmic" are not equivalent terms, the similarities between these declarations suggest a neglected trajectory in film theory this essay seeks to trace: pursuing surrealism's influence on Bazin and Barthes in order to illuminate how their shared commitment to the realism of the photographic image, so often misunderstood as a naïvely literalist stance, is much more accurately described as an investment in surrealism. In the essay's second half, this revised take on Bazin and Barthes will be tested against our current desire to understand cinema's role in the digital age of new media. By examining The Sweet Hereafter as an intermediated text characterized by modes of spectatorship brought to the fore in the new media erathat is, as a text that exists for spectators between the media forms of Russell Banks's 1991 source novel, Atom Egoyan's 1997 film adaptation, and New Line Home Video's 1998 DVD-I will demonstrate how today's possibilities for intermediated spectatorship demand that we revisit yesterday's surrealist visions of "enlarged" cinematic spectatorship.