A cineotic sign is produced the moment a film image encounters a concept; and, reciprocally, when a philosophical concept encounters an image. A sign captures, creates, orients and reorients, releases, undermines, problematises thought. Thinking, thinking cinema, can thus begin or end with the image. And the image – for Deleuze – is scalar, something fractal: a frame, shot, sequence, movie, or cycle of films (expressing an event, an idea of a director, cinematographer, actor or actors, a genre, theme, story, questions, problems, and so on). Every cinematographic image is thus complex, a matrix of signs. Any image is composed of many forces, every frame, shot, sequence, film, cycle is composed of all of Deleuze's cineotic signs – more or less. Yet these images are signs vying for domination; where one sign ascends and shapes, corrals, supresses and ungrounds the other signs that surround it. In this way, as an immediate correlate, any image is a singularity. Every frame, shot, sequence, film, cycle describes the ascendancy of a sign, and thus a perspective on the image. Accordingly, Section III – through its 44 short chapters – explores an image of the cinema through one of the signs explicated in Section II and generated in Section I. Each of the films encountered is taken from the period 1995–2015 (the first two decades of the second century of cinema, this period as vital as any in movie history); and each – in its own way – is an exceptional cinematographic event. Necessarily, these encounters will sometimes be fleet of foot – I have, however, attempted to give each exploration as much time, space and thought as is needed for something productive to happen.