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.