 |
 |
>There was once an established vocabulary of filmmaking which students >and teachers regarded as foundational--a terminology, in other words, >that was clear and accessible to all who wished to spend time learning >it; and once one had mastered it sufficiently, one could enter safely >and productively into a discussion without fear of being tripped up by >jargon-laced arguments--which is not to say the dialogue was not >difficult and often contentious. // I am not totally relating to what you point as this terminology, nor with the exact dating of it. Raphael's apprentices might have shared a common technology when helping their masters for the pigmenting mix. Now, it's popularised with such Sid Field(?) act-structure, and later Vo lgler and J.W. books, and their translation in French. What matters, may-be, on one lagebraical small level, is the axionomatic between a smaller level and a more industrial one, where industrial means that every person in the cinematographic Industry, can relate to this said terrminology, and when, in the small, multi-circular levels, the importance is laid, each, and back forth, to the completion of each person, singular expression, at will. Fili Houtman/ But I just browsed within your article and found it clear;) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.