SCREEN-L Archives

November 1993

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
BRIAN TAVES <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 16 Nov 1993 17:37:17 GMT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
          To  put  my  two  cent's worth in--as Kent Brockman says  on  THE
          SIMPSONS (to bring  in  all  the recent ScreenL strands)--I think
          the  postmodernism debate  has  underlined  some  very  important
          points  and  strains  in approaching film  studies.  There  is  a
          tendency to  teach  and  study  the canon, the  great  works  and
          auteurs, and to become absorbed in the seeming importance of  our
          own  time.  This sometimes overlooks  some  of  the  context  and
          precedents of  not  only  the  silents  but  other various  early
          traditions. As  an  incipient archivist--I feel  humble  in  this
          respect  when colleagues count  their  service  in  decades,  not
          merely years--my tendency is to not only examine certain texts in
          depth, but  to look at  as  many pictures, and  as  many types of
          pictures,  as  possible,  whether celebrated  or undiscovered (of
          course, the archivist's situation enhances this possibility). One
          can  take  a  more  moderate position  than  has  sometimes  been
          propounded or  flailed  as  a  straw  man--I wouldn't accept  the
          contention that EVERYTHING was done  in  the silent days. On  the
          other hand, in addition to the afore-mentioned Keaton and others,
          I  would counter that another example for  those celebrating more
          recent "innovations" and some of the names Gloria mentioned would
          recall Godard's tribute to Monogram. Many  1930s  and  40s  films
          from poverty row, sub-sub-Monogram, are worthy rivals  to  Godard
          in  their  style.  The  prolific  work  of  Richard  Talmadge  is
          astonishing  in  its  degree  of  self-conscious  referentiality,
          satire, and pastiche of  a variety of Hollywood genres and  their
          filmmaking techniques as practiced. Or  to  offer another example
          and  make  a probably gratuitous remark, I  would hold Micheaux's
          technique up  to Godard's anytime. This merely in response to one
          of Gloria's statements, to  point  out  that  when  talking about
          early films we're not simply talking dead white males. I  hope no
          one  takes offence, especially Gloria (whom  I've  been trying to
          write  but  my system here refuses to  get  the message through.)
          Whether  many  such   B  filmmakers  were  as  self-conscious  is
          uncertain, although certainly some,  like Micheaux  and Talmadge,
          were.  At  any rate, the point  I'm trying to  get across is  the
          importance of  the broad perspective, and context, and  to  agree
          most emphatically with  the  view  that  whether postmodernism or
          otherwise, many  of  the achievments we  often rush  to herald as
          "new"   are  either  old,   or  developments  that  clearly  have
          precedents in earlier work,  often traditions that  are neglected
          or  undiscovered,  and   should   be   remembered.  Forgive   the
          preachment. Hope no one is offended.
          Brian Taves, Motion Picture Division
          Library of Congress
                                 Tavesmail.loc.gov
          P.S.   My  opinions  may   or   may   not  reflect  the  Library.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2