(COAST, the insertion of the sound in the cinema, p.16). Great theoreticians of the cinema? amongst them the name of Sigfried Kracauer? they follow this line, that measures the cinema according to imagtico criterion. ' ' For they (the theoreticians), to speak on the cinematographic language in its pure state would be to deal with imagem' ' (ALTMAN, 1985, p.52). As it was said, this would be in an attempt of dissociar the cinema of the theater, since the first experiences of the said cinema were very related when making teatral. The disdain of many to the presence of the sound in the cinema was followed from there. But, as it indicates Coast: ' ' He is almost unnecessary to say that a battle against the wrong target was that one. To be fought villain would not have to be the sound in the films, and yes the teatral use of the voice, that due to its onipresena in the first said films North American was taken not as one of the constituent elements of the substance sonorous of the films, but confused with the totality of this matria' ' (COAST, the insertion of the sound in the cinema, p.16) it is not only the fight against the teatralidade that explains the priority of image on the sound.
As it indicates Coast, Marshall McLuhan already said on the superiority of the vision in the comunicacionais processes of the society occidental person, in its relation dialectic with another one of the directions, the hearing. What it says is that, in an initial period of training of the civilization, the hearing was the main one of the directions therefore for it was made possible the communication between the people. With the sprouting of the phonetic alphabet, the priority of the verbal communication if saw wounded, favoring the symbol visual. McLuhan says that with the advent of the written alphabet, ' occurs inevitable; ' reduction of the paper of the directions of the sound, the tato, the palate in any culture letrada' ' (in COAST, the insertion of the sound in the cinema, p.4).