Too 'Real?'

In "Film Director's: A Revolution" by Vertov, he explains how until then, film had been limited by the director's through their imperfect human eyes (258). He talks about how "up to today we have coerced the film-camera and made it copy the work of our own eyes" (259) and how, instead, film-makers must realize that "the cinema-eye lives and moves in time and space, apprehends and fixes impressions in quite a different way from that of the human eye" (259). He suggests that film-makers must realize such, and act upon it as viewers do not want to see that which they endure everyday. Instead, they want to "flee from the prose of life" (261). As such, anything relaying 'normal life' should not be shown as would be seen from the human eye. While I agree that viewers regard film as an escape from the everyday routine, I believe that a mixture of both views from the human eye as well as the cinematic eye is best, as it allows the viewer a sort of grounding with which to gain their bearings, so that the viewer can better understand and relate to what is happening on screen. But if Vertov is so intent on distracting the viewer from their everyday lives, then why make "Man with a Movie Camera"? Does the way in which the camera presents the day to day activities create enough of an illusion for Vertov and the viewers that it is no longer counted as 'real'? At what point does it become the 'cinematic eye' in it's purest sense rather than a camera constrained by the human eye?