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.