deceive me

The idea of a redesign of the on-screen/around-screen space interaction is probably then most stimulating point of the lovely Egoyan vs Cardiff conversation (and maybe Foucault hidden behind a plant as an interested voyeur). Two things struck me in this long exchange.
The first is that is no surprise that a director like Atom Egoyan could be excited and so intimately close to Janet Cardiff's work, and "The Paradise Institute" in particular, for he always tried to deal with deceptive perception and the forcing of the screen, in his movies. His idea of deception, of hidden truths, is the same drive (digging deeply into human nature and behaviors) that moves Cardiff's work, in the sense of fooling the spectator, making him/her feel the presence of other fake selves around him/her. Thoe presences alter, move, develop a narrative that revolves around impulses, reactions, noise (in its widest meaning).
Here, the identity Egoyan-Cardiff reaches its highest peak.
If we had to encapsulate this as a foucaultian scheme, we would end up seeing "The Paradise Institute" room as a real heterotopia, because of its being a deceptive rectangle, with its two-dimensional screen, on which we watch a three-dimensional story (projected), surrounded and broken by a three-dimensional sound that keeps grabbing us back into our former reality.
Many sites, here, are in conjunction; a big mirror (auditive mirror) challenges us to an exhausting confrontation made of whispers and ringtones and laughters.
But, another layer of this work is maybe subtler but still extremely curious.
What happens onto the visual apparatus of this work?
Which story has been told to us, on screen?
If the focus is, as we might imagine, on the deception of perception (and the test of its endurance), the idea of filmmaking, of lighting, of cinematography/videography as a secondary means kicks in. What are the composition, the framing, the drama of the images telling us, if not the very story of their creation?
If they've been conceived, planned, and shot as a second layer (and still be effective), what is all this telling us about imagemaking?