Wow, that article is a real product of its time (1975). As for being an easy read, that depends on how much tolerance you have for the academic butchery of language. This sort of writing shares a lot in common with the worst kind of art commentary. Speculative overanalysis is often tedious; Freud might even have called it masturbatory.
Originally Posted by stinkyprofessor
In any event, still photography and cinema are very different media, but the range of effects (from oppressive, through tacky, to beautiful) that are capable of being achieved by each are evident to just about anyone from simply looking at a wide range of work.