Rewindability

We have this one shot where we zoom into Ben's bleeding finger. At its normal speeded-up speed it looks pretty good. Slow it down too much and it looks dumb because you can see the bad makeup job on Ben's bleeding finger. I've been wondering if watching movies on DVDs changes viewers' expectations? At one time, I think it was easier to get away with certain things because an image would whizz by on a theater screen and you wouldn't be able to look at it closely. You always hear about Verna Fields and the editing sleight of hand she did while cutting Jaws. Apparently, she used a lot of misdirection to get shots working together—you know the kind of thing where an action in one part of the frame is misdirecting you from viewing the other part of the frame which is mismatching. But now, with DVDs and the ability to stop, rewind and examine, I wonder two things. First, is there any expectation that films ought to work on the rewind level—so you can stop at any point and the film should still hold up? Two, is there some way to exploit rewindability? For example, perhaps we ought to make really dense films that function on the viewing level, but also function on the re-viewing level where you can leisurely examine dense or quickly moving imagery. So the film functions as a narrative but also functions as a kind of object or document suspended in time.