Every Chinese term must know which French concept it speaks for

For Deleuze, an image is not merely a representation copied from a prior object; in the Bergsonian basis of the cinema books, matter is the aggregate of images.

It does not mean merely that the picture moves, nor is it a period label for old cinema; it names how movement and sensory-motor linkage organize images.

Slow motion, long takes, waiting, flashbacks, or a theme of time are not sufficient; analysis must show which temporal relation begins to organize movement, editing, or sound and image.

Direct does not mean unedited, real-time, or motionless, and the actual–virtual crystal is not the sole form of direct time.

It is not synonymous with a subjective shot; it concerns how selection, centers, and viewpoints emerge within the universe of images.

An affection-image is not simply expressive acting; face, close-up, or any-space-whatever must carry power-quality rather than merely communicate psychology.

Bodily movement alone does not make an action-image; the issue is whether action can still carry a situation toward a resolvable new situation.

The schema’s crisis is not physical immobility but the failure of what is seen and heard to extend naturally into an action adequate to the situation.

Pure does not mean uncontaminated form or contemplative beauty; it means the optical or auditory situation is no longer exhausted by an extension into action.

An opsign is the sign of a pure optical situation, not simply a striking composition, and it cannot alone classify an entire film as time-image cinema.

Voice-over, noise, or silence becomes a sonsign only when it ceases to function merely as a cue for action and acquires relations of its own.

It is a local extension in Cinema 2 chapter 1 and does not occur in the conclusion section’s recapitulation chain; it should not be forced into a universal opsign/sonsign/tactisign triad.

The seer is not a stock figure who stares, observes, or lacks will; incapacity must produce intensified perception or witnessing.

Ruins, empty shots, or abstract sets do not qualify automatically; space must lose the stable coordinates and total continuity required by action.

The actual is not the uniquely real side; actual and virtual both belong to the real and relate through ongoing actualization and virtualization.

The virtual is neither false nor a preformed possibility awaiting realization; it is a fully real field of differential relations capable of actualization.

This real is not automatically Lacan’s Real and must not be conflated with documentary fact, objective truth, or the actual.

Do not treat the virtual as a menu of alternative futures or actualization as selecting and realizing a pre-existing option.

Actualization does not copy a complete blueprint into reality; it differentiates virtual relations and creates form while resolving a problem.

Duration is not slowness, length, or the subjective feeling that time drags; it is qualitative change whose moments interpenetrate and cannot be divided into homogeneous units without loss.

It is not a completely preserved personal archive, a collective-unconscious storehouse, or a visible flashback.

A recollection-image can remain sensory-motor; a flashback that merely fills a causal gap does not automatically produce a direct time-image.

The conclusion explicitly places the mnemosign within an indirect presentation that is still surpassed; flashback or recollection alone cannot diagnose a time-image.

Through relaxed perception and enlarged circuits, an onirosign remains within an indirect presentation of time; saying a film feels dreamlike is not conceptual evidence.

Mirrors, reflections, dreams, plays-within-plays, or factual/fictional juxtaposition are insufficient; analysis must demonstrate a minimal circuit in which actual and virtual facets exchange without becoming identical.

Hyalosigne is a technical term in Deleuze’s cinematic taxonomy, not a generic label for transparent, glass, or reflective images.

A zone of indiscernibility does not mean truth and falsity are the same; actual/virtual and limpid/opaque remain differentiated while exchanging positions.

Sheets of past are not a number of flashbacks; the whole past coexists at different degrees of contraction, and recollection selects and actualizes a sheet.

It is not ordinary simultaneity in parallel narration but a set of individually valid, mutually incompossible presents no longer subordinated to one continuous present.

It is not a clock, date caption, or temporal theme. The conclusion distinguishes temporal order (sheets/peaks) from temporal series (genesign); these are not two mandatory linear stages.

Genesign names the second kind of time-sign, temporal series. It is not an independent upgrade after ‘chronosign II’, nor does every instance of becoming constitute a genesign.

Jump cuts, black frames, or discontinuity are not automatically irrational; the adjacent series must cease to be deducible through perception, causality, or totalization.

An interstice is not missing information or a puzzle awaiting completion; it can be a positive relation through which the work refuses organic totality.

Asynchrony, voice-over, or displaced sound are merely technical phenomena; disjunction requires autonomous sound and visual series that can no longer be reunited in one visible event.

It does not mean everything is false, facts do not matter, the narrator is merely unreliable, or fabrication is licensed; the concept cannot cancel responsibility to facts.

Twist endings, lying characters, or multiple viewpoints may still be judged by a final truth; falsifying narration begins when the position of adjudication itself enters the series of metamorphosis.

It is neither a mental picture nor a work expressing an idea. The cinema-seminar image-pensée / 思想—影像 is related but not equivalent, and is therefore cross-linked as a distinct corpus record rather than stored as an alias.

Philosophical dialogue, complex plotting, or intelligent characters do not automatically make a noosign; thought must be forced by image-relations, bodies, or gaps.

Subtitles, pages, or data on screen do not automatically make a lectosign; readability must transform relations among images and the act of viewing.

Affect is neither any intense emotion nor a mystical energy measurable apart from bodies, situations, and relations.

A percept is neither a perceived object nor a viewer’s private impression; with affects it forms a bloc of sensation capable of standing on its own.

Difference is not merely a distinction between ready-made objects or a slogan for diversity; it is a genetic relation producing objects, identities, and series.

Deleuzian repetition is not the return of the identical; analysis must identify which conditions, intensities, or differential relations change with each return.

A multiplicity is not a collection of many individuals, cultural pluralism, or mere complexity; its dimensions and nature change with its relations and divisions.

A singularity is not eccentric personality, celebrity, or technological spectacle but an impersonal event-point where a field changes direction, converges, or forks.

It is neither the accumulation of empirical data nor the simple opposite of Kantian transcendental philosophy; transcendental names conditions immanent to the genesis of experience.

Immanence does not mean a closed, self-sufficient little world or the denial of an outside; it refuses a transcendent subject, value, or truth that governs the field in advance.

An assemblage is not a parts list, stable system, or instrument controlled by a central subject; analysis must specify connections, expressive and material faces, and what the arrangement produces.

Rhizome is not a universal metaphor for the internet, nonlinearity, or decentralization; its principles also include heterogeneous connection, multiplicity, asignifying rupture, mapping, and opposition to tracing.

Becoming is not imitation, identification, evolution, or the result of A turning into B; it is an asymmetrical process in which terms change through a relation of proximity.

A territory may be spatial, rhythmic, role-based, or institutional; territorialization is not inherently oppressive, nor deterritorialization inherently liberating.

Deterritorialization always has specific speeds, thresholds, and risks of reterritorialization; transgression, mobility, innovation, or resistance is not automatically positive.

It is not a simple return to the prior state; reterritorialization occurs at new positions and scales and may be carried out by apparent innovation or rebellion.

It is not an organless organism, bodily destruction, or unlimited freedom but an experiment with imposed organization; Deleuze and Guattari repeatedly warn that it can become empty, cancerous, or deadly.

Desiring-production does not mean every wish can be realized and does not abolish lack, suffering, prohibition, or responsibility; it changes the analytical starting point.

A line of flight is not avoidance, travel, or a rebellious pose; it may create new connections, but may also lead to self-destruction, fascist capture, or rapid reterritorialization.

A refrain is more than a repeated melody or motif; analysis must trace how it establishes a center from chaos, organizes a territory, and then carries that territory toward the cosmos or a line of flight.

寓构 is a house choice, not the sole established Chinese translation; the concept does not license arbitrary storytelling, replacing facts with myth, or suspending documentary ethics.

It is not optimism, religious conversion, or belief that the world is already good; belief becomes necessary precisely after action schemata break and the world becomes intolerable.