Therefore, Di Pietro (2002) also affirms that he is for concession of the provisory immission in the ownership the legislator establishes, beyond the allegation of urgency, the previous deposit of determined amount (DL 3,365/41, art. 15). It also establishes that the setting of this value must in accordance with be made art. 685 of the CPC, that foresees the necessity of court appraisal of the expropriated good. In accordance with DNIT (2006), the STJ already seated jurisprudence in the direction of that only the caption of art. 15 were accepted for the Federal Constitution of 1988, fixing, that for provisory emission in the ownership the production of judicial finding of provisory evaluation is indispensable, in order to make sure it justice of the indemnity.

However, the STF is located in the completely opposing direction, in old decisions that more perhaps do not reflect the current positioning of the same. It is perceived, affirms I castrate (2002), that the STJ it attends reason. First because the norm Constitutional it assures the right to the perception of an indemnity joust, and that, therefore, to reflect the real value of the damage suffered for the expropriated one, it must be the value of market of the good and not that one fixed unilaterally for the Public Power for mere fiscal effect. As I castrate (2002), with this, wants if it considers that the withdrawal of the ownership means the exhaustion of the proper expression of the property right, wants if it faces ownership and property as right autonomous worker in one another understanding of the situation the joust indemnity is estimated previous for withdrawal of the ownership. The evaluation that must be effected, according to Steps (1982), only exhibits the adjetivao of provisory in reason of the circumstance of the urgency with that it is made, accurately for attendance of the urgency, that is estimated legal for the provisory immission in the ownership.

The truth is that these quarrels had passed far from the great majority of the population, that, since the beginning, if saw fascinated with the technological newness that was offered to it (not to be on the question of the language in the countries of not-English language on which we will treat more ahead). Also, it is interesting to notice as the fact of the cinema confused some critics if to become each more popular time with the use of the sound. As if it wanted to keep certain ' ' aura artstica' ' of the cinema that would not be allowed of being enjoyed by any one. Of another side, some critics feared the opposite exactly: that the popularity of the cinema fell on account of the problem of the language. Until then the films they were universal therefore were not seen limited by the barrier of the language. In one of the numbers of the Cinearte magazine, one another Brazilian magazine on cinema of the time, is written: ' ' The popularity of the cinema comes exactly of being the equally understandable, accessible film to all the peoples () in the day where we will have the said film, this popularity will tend desaparecer' ' (cinearte, 19 of September of 1928, p.3).

She is necessary to understand that at this time the great majority of the films shown in Brazil (and also in the world) was American, that already they had dominated the market international after world to war i. From there the concern with what it went to happen when the films started to be said. Some turn in this the great chance alavancar the national industry, that walked so weak. It did not happen. The American cinema beside the point was fincado to lose its space. the technological abyss between the national and American production if made marcante in the first experiences with the sonorous one in Brazil.