Although it’s only part of the article, I found this story from the New Scientist fascinating. It’s about the discovery of a transitional form between fish and amphibians. While I must admit I am very amused by the mental image of a walking fish, flolloping along the ground (perhaps being chased by me in defiant to complete the pythonesque picture) I am amazed at the same time. Could Darwin have known that his theory would be proved so forcefully? Probably not.

For my part, I am an artist not a scientist, although I like to keep myself informed. Filmic analysis is not a science since the creation of film is an art. Yet at the moment I am convinced that, at the level of the shot, film can be dealt with in a roughly scientific paradigm. We learn from Metz that film is not a language, so I am happy to throw the linguistic paradigm out, but semiotics still remains. [I’m going in circles with this stuff right now].

Ho hum. At least filmic analysis is less messy than digging for fossils, even if there is not yet a central governing framework, like evolution, behind it.

Note I say ‘yet’.