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.
|