Postmodern Film Essaye

Postmodern cinema ironically has a history now. In 1984, Fredric Jameson observed that contemporary culture seemed to be expressing a new form of ‘depthlessness‘ – a concentration on style and ‘surface’. For Jameson these features represented a retreat from the need to supply a univocal narrative closure to the postmodern text, predicated on the fragmentation of.mass culture, the end of a rigidly fixed signifying system, a loosening of binary differences and the emergence of the individual consumer in relation to the reconfiguration of multinational capital.

In the wake of this change, postmodern film criticism has celebrated the vivid intensity of the surface and the multivocal readings ‘against the grain’ that it allows. Recently, however, some critics (such as Steven Connor and Linda Nicholson) have begun to question if this surface, and its intertextual pleasures, is all there is to the postmodern cinematic text. They are asking again what (under)pins the text and if the position of the reader is as ‘free’ as has been claimed by the theorists of relativism. Implicit in these questions is an examination of the contradictions brought about by absolute pluralism – an exploration of the limits imposed by an absence of values.

This wishes to emphasize that the thematic concerns produced within postmodern cinema reveal a very particular set of values. We argue that the scenarios found in many postmodern films express a number of repetitions, particularly around the issues of gender, sexuality and ethnicity, that make the notion of free-floating signification problematic. We wish to question why, in the light of a reflexive critical sophistication towards the strictures of the text, do audience, director, and critic continue to collude, most often pleasurably, in the maintenance of narrative structures which repetitively replay the gains and losses of ‘difference’, albeit in new and mutated forms.


Film theory within the discursive space of critical modernism strove to reveal the work of the text – especially its attempt to position the spectator, to keep the world firmly within the parameters of capitalism and patriarchy and heterosexuality. For directors such as Godard, and critics such as Jean-Louis Comolli and Narboni, the fantasy was to make a film that clearly spoke to and for the proletariat, the colonized and women in a way that did not partake of the bourgeois realist narrative structures characteristic of Hollywood. This desire to contest the text, to make the right film, to suggest that we are positioned in a way that is both collusive and exclusive,yielded up a rich vein of theoretical work. Laura Mulvey, for example, concentrates her earlier work on the cinematic narratives of Hollywood movies of the 1940s and 1950s- a period when American culture was very visibly engaged in negotiating and controlling the ‘monsters’ produced by the Second World War. The most obvious ‘monster’, within popular cinema, was the femme fatale of film noir who, for the transgression of stepping ‘out of her place’, became a woman punished and domesticated by death or marriage, mutating from Joan Crawford to Marilyn Monroe in a relatively short period as the female form was pulled back into the service of reproductive patriarchal relations. Mulvey rightly sees the 1940s and 1950s as paradigmatic of what Hollywood movies are and do.

At the same time, the political and cultural events of May 1968 produced in their wake the disillusion of the organized left, the defeat of the trade union movement and the inexorable marginalization of the working class in terms of a mass politics. These events, however, also allowed for the emergence of single-issue politics and a sensitivity, at least in theory, towards the particular circumstances of individual identity.

In the 1970s, the Vietnam War became a sort of stand-in signifier for discussions of all colonial struggles. In the fallout ensuing from America’s defeat, mainstream cinema audiences began to experience ‘difficult’ films such as Taxi Driverand Apocalypse Now. The conspiracy films which proliferated in the early 1970s such as All the President’sMen, The Conversation and The Parallax View attempted to negotiate the contradictions and paranoias produced by a radical loss of political and national certainty: ‘You mean there’s a CIA inside the CIA?’ Each attempt, however, to uncover ‘the truth’ or to recover some form of normality by exorcizing the demons of a compromised state took the cinema, audience and all, further from ‘safe ground’ – until the phrase ‘there’s no place like home’, spoken once with such reassuring naivety in The Wizard of Oz, began to signify the uncanny rather than apple pie.

The critique of dominant modes of representation, combined with the normalization of ‘the shock of the new’, became a sort of Trojan horse that opened the door of the city to the theoretical and practical work that has had the ‘p’ word applied to it. The work of modern theory requires a critical distance – a position from which it can ‘speak’ in order to judge and value the text. In its critical reflexivity – a mode already latent in critically modernist theory – postmodernism weakens the authority of theory in that it is revealed as a position rather than the position. The loosening of this critical distance has generated a large volume of work around ‘reading the text differently’.

However, in the sleep of reason marked by the eschewal of textual authority, postmodernism still produces monsters. How does this happen? In the following section, we will argue that postmodernism ‘knows’ the histories outlined above, knows the codes of representation that have become our pleasure, even if it is a pleasure that knows how compromised it is. Hollywood cinema has never been without contradiction, but postmodern cinema plays this contradiction within a frame that works to allow its pleasures, to make visible the contradiction, but still, somehow, manages to ‘tidy it up’ and put the world back in place.

The endlessly circulating commodity of postmodern cinema contains signifying systems that carry with them both the values of capitalism and the contradictory signs of the struggle produced within it. This means that the stories of postmodern cinema are particular stories that work through very particular themes. Now obviously this can be said of any period of history or culture, which is precisely why it must be said about postmodern cinema. The postmodern cinematic market-place is dominated by American products. This domination has consequences both for the form of the American film, and for other national, local and independent cinemas which tend to be absorbed, ignored or marginalized. At the same time, the American film is required to reduce its own cultural specificity in order to satisfy the demand to be ‘global’. So,while the forms, codes, conventions and narrative structure of postmodern cinema possess a strong resemblance to that of the mass-produced cinema of modernity, the need for globalization produces both an intensification of its formal specificities and an allowed and necessary address to difference. We are doubly stressing ‘difference’ here, to refer both to the organization of sexual and ethnic difference within the structure of the text and to the visibility of those representations of difference within the play of the text. Difference is allowed, celebrated and commodified. The cultural politics of difference becomes the cultural commodity of difference. Postmodern cinema celebrates, at surface level, its own exchange and use value. We are told how it was made, how much it cost and what it is about. This is especially true for what, in a sense, is a paradigmatic instance of postmodern cinema, the action film.

In the action film the history and conventions of many Hollywood genres (the western, the thriller, the horror film, the war film, the romance and the family drama) are distilled and intensified to produce a commodity that contains all of the pleasure, all of the pain, and works in as many markets as possible – while never quite eschewing American values. We would argue that these ‘intensifications’ produce the sort of observations made by Jameson and Baudrillard in terms of the intensity of the surface of the postmodern film. They also produce the critical emphasis on the reflexive nature of the postmodern text. The film and its audience, one could say, ‘know their own histories’. The pleasure of the texts consciously spills over into an audience’s knowledge of other films, other performances, other musics. One only has to think of the success of Reservoir Dogsand Pulp Fictionto see the power of these commodities to ‘reference not only social life but, more importantly, all other forms of popular culture. The referent becomes part of the treasure house of signifiers that constitute popular culture. Some theorists, like Baudrillard, extend this line of argument to conclude that the social world ‘outside’ of popular cultural terms has ‘gone away’, cinema can now only refer to other signifiers of popular culture.

Postmodern theory speaks of the end of history, the loss of the referent, the impossibility of critical distance and the celebration of ‘newfound’ difference. However, if you add the first three of these to the last one, then you are forced to ask: ‘What is difference?’ Without history, without reference to the social, without some sense of distance (what one might call an ethics or politics) the notion of difference, itself, is placed under question. It is this tension between the desire to celebrate difference within the commodity form and, at the same time, the need to construct a commodity world without history or social referent, that lets loose the kinds of difference that emerge in postmodern cinema.


The weakening of the grand narratives (Lyotard) releases difference from the tidy shackles of modernism – this does not, however, just mean that previously subjugated others are released into a different, more intense visibility (and one thinks, here, of the continued marginalization  of ‘third’ cinema from Latin America) but also that the ‘old’ binaries themselves mutate towards a more exaggerated, almost parodic, existence or are displaced through the production of new forms of otherness. Gender attributes wander across the old binary divide; Linda Hamilton, in Terminator 2, can have muscles and we can all derive voyeuristic pleasure from Brad Pitt‘s butt in Thelma and Louise. Difference itself becomes a crucial organizer and signifier within the texts of postmodern cinema. In a sense, the transmutation and seeming erosion of ‘modern’ difference allows the absolute of difference to emerge, uncannily, in the gap – a gap within which, if we are ‘allowed’ the pleasure of Linda Hamilton‘s muscles or Brad Pitt‘s butt, we can also begin to sense the enormous cost of these signifiers.

The strong version of masculinity, as played out by Schwarzenegger and Stallone in the action movie, embodies a desire for a fixed relation to the symbolic, the world where the law still operates, made less possible by the weakening of the grand narratives that also kept difference in place. Indeed. First Blood(1982) could be argued as a film in which the weight of historical trauma is borne by the body of Stallone, a new and shocking male body soon to be commodified and multiplied in the forms of Schwarzenegger, Van Damme and others. The desire to win a war that had already been lost signified in so many of the Vietnam films can itself be seen as a form of nostalgia for a present that never was. What is important for this essay is the observation that, although these bodies are on one level superhuman, too much, hysterical, they are also suffering, immolated bodies – almost to the point of death. We have become used to suffering male bodies in film genres dependent on male-male relationships, but in the post-Rambo action movies, the ‘buddy’ is absent and it is not homosexuality that is defended against, but psychosis.

This brings us back to Fredric Jameson. In Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late CapitalismJameson uses Lacan‘s definition of schizophrenia – a form of psychosis- as a metaphor to carry his description of the fragmentation of subjectivity and the emergence of an ‘eternal present’ at ‘the end of history’, which he sees at work in the postmodern condition. It is significant, for this essay, that Jameson does two other things. He dismisses the paternal signifier (the guarantee of the law) from his use of the metaphor of schizophrenia, as does postmodernism when it gives up on the Enlightenment project. He also, in two places in his essay, invokes the image of Marilyn Monroe, once as ‘Marilyn Herself, almost as something, someone, that stays in place when all else is fragmented and lost. For Jameson the slide of the signifier is halted by the image of a woman and the difference she represents. In a sense, Jameson performs the same sleight of hand as postmodern cinema, denying a fixing point that should not be there but is.


The contradictions within postmodern cinema’s celebration of difference can be seen in the way that a transmuted otherness emerges within particular narratives. In Predator 2 (1990) Danny Glover moves from the place of ‘black sidekick who usually dies first’ to that of black hero who survives. At the same time as Glover‘s textual liberation from stereotype, however, the predator is constructed as an other that carries signifiers of blackness – its ‘hair’ resembling dreadlocks, its figure that of a hunter or warrior. Similarly, Sigourney Weaver in Aliens (1986) plays the good mother to the alien bad mother – both protecting their children. The latter, however, the hyperbolic feminine, is represented as dripping and oozing and carrying signifiers representing the vaginadentata. The film almost gives itself away when the child ‘mothered’ by Ellen Ripley is given the name ‘Newt’ – a touch of the alien.

Blade Runner(1982) presents the transmutation of difference and otherness in a more complex way, setting humans against cyborgs. One can read the film as one in which the cyborg other reproduces humanity at the point at which the human race has ‘lost it’. However, the emergence of the cyborg, the unhuman, can be read differently. Cinema and other popular cultural forms of the 1980s and 1990s contain either the fantasy of ‘leaving the meat’ (body) or the possibility of a transformation of the body into something more, something different (LawnmowerMan, Nightbreed, Cocoon). The disappearance of the human race is on the agenda in the 1990s- and maybe we should argue that this is nothing more than a coding of the imagined disappearance of white dominance. The union of Rachel and Deckard at the end of Blade Runner, however, speaks of an escape from the misery of the human condition, into a fantasy rural idyll. The twist in the tale – the possibility that the new Adam and Eve are both cyborg, and the certainty that at least one is (something not seen before as anything other than a threat), reveals, perhaps, the depths of contemporary anxiety about the future.


The female corpse is a very insistent signifier in postmodern cinema. In the failure of the text satisfactorily to ‘put things back together’ in the  face of the commodification of difference she/it becomes the currency through which to repay an impossible debt. For example, in BasicInstinct (1992) we are ‘allowed’ to see a strong beautiful woman, Sharon Stone, maybe get away with murder. She is bisexual; getting both the men and the women that she wants. However, in order for her to achieve her end, Michael Douglas and the ice-pick under the bed, the text produces corpses – most notably those of her girlfriend Roxy,a strongly, if conventionally represented, lipstick lesbian with a taste for voyeurism and a female psychiatrist previously ‘contaminated’ by Stone’s seduction.

Silence of the Lambs(1991) reproduces the same pattern. The wonderful Jodie Foster, lesbian icon, wins out, but at the same time the text produces a trail of flayed female corpses. Other films and cultural texts may be called into evidence at this point: River’s Edge(1987) – the female corpse as a thing to be poked with a stick; Manhunter(1986)’ something about the woman’; Blue Velvet (1986) – the abjected, less than perfect body of Isabella Rossellini; Rising Sun(1993) – the digitally encoded and replayed sexual murder of an unnamed woman; TwinPeaks and Murder One– the twin female corpses wrapped in plastic. The intensity of the gaze at the female corpse could be seen as another aspect of the intensification, and loss of distance, in the postmodern text. It is almost like pornography-what is it we are looking at and why? In the films outlined above, a woman’s corpse sutures the narrative producing a double emptying of the female body, a double death; the weight of sexual difference is removed from the body, it becomes a thing, both a blockage and a suture – it makes sense of the narrative, compensates for a femininity ‘out of place’, while making no sense itself. It emerges in the real outside of signification.


At this point, it might also be useful to replay another postmodern characteristic differently. The notion of the ‘eternal present’ has been seen as concomitant with the end of history. However, what one observes when one confronts, particularly, ‘early’ postmodern films is that the present, the contemporary, has become a difficult category, a category in crisis. Some of the most popular films of the early 1980s Terminator,Blade Runner, Alien– involve dystopic representation of a near future, while others attempt a flight into the past of cinema itself (Purple Rose of Cairo, Barton Fink).

By the mid to late 1980s another, more utopian, tendency could be observed within mainstream cinema represented initially through the Oedipal revisionism of Back to the Future (1985) and Peggy Sue gotMarried (1986) in which the world and the American dream are put firmly back into place. The tenderness of the incestuous ‘time-loop paradox’ represented by the love scene in Terminator(1984) is replaced by the horror on the face of Michael J. Fox. Fox when his mother makes a pass at him. It is as if the narrative resolution becomes dependent on the abolition of the limit of time. This abolition also involves a negotiation with death.

Two of the most popular movies of the early 1990s, Field of Dreams(1989) and Ghost (1990) are examples of a whole cluster of films in which death itself is overcome. Ghost, which operates around a dead man, is interesting in that it combines another favourite concern of the 1980s – Wall Street – with the idea of life after death. Justice is only achieved through divine intervention and the spectral colonization of the body of a black woman by a dead white man. Field of Dreamsis a Reaganite fantasy where the unheimlich becomes heimlich (literally German for unhomely and homely – two words used by Freud in his essay The Uncanny, to give a sense of something we thought was safe, homely, turning into something terrifying that we do not recognize, something uncanny). In a devastating series of loops predicated on the near death of a small girl, the film allows a man to ‘have it all’: the house, the wife, the child, the dead father and the entrance fee of twenty dollars. Costner‘s dream is resecured in the present, but only by bypassing the limit term of death. It is also important that the central character is a man, a father, a son and a husband – patriarchy is secured and the dead father placated.

However, in postmodernist cinema, death is not an equalizer and its limit-line becomes an organizer of gender. Thelma and Louise (1991) suffer a very different fate to that of Kevin Costner’s character in Fieldof Dreams. What Thelma and Louise try to avoid is ‘Texas’, a place in this film where women get raped; rape here being constructed as the high point of heterosexual difference. In attempting to ‘go around’ Texas they are caught by the law – in the end, to borrow a phrase from the first series of Star Trek, ‘they attempt to boldly go where no man has gone before’, beyond patriarchy, signification and difference, but they can’t. The image freezes, time goes into reverse. We celebrate their past, not their broken bodies, in a frozen, almost sublime moment at the edge of the collapse of difference.


Postmodernist film is a classification for works that articulate the themes and ideas of postmodernism through the medium of cinema. Postmodernist film attempts to subvert the mainstreamconventions of narrative structure and characterization, and tests the audience's suspension of disbelief.[1][2][3] Typically, such films also break down the cultural divide between high and low art and often upend typical portrayals of gender, race, class, genre, and time with the goal of creating something that does not abide by traditional narrative expression.

Overview of postmodernism[edit]

Postmodernism is a complex paradigm of different philosophies and artistic styles. The movement emerged as a reaction to high modernism.[4]Modernism is a paradigm of thought and viewing the world characterized in specific ways that postmodernism reacted against. Modernism was interested in master and meta narratives of history of a teleological nature.[5] Proponents of modernism suggested that sociopolitical and cultural progress was inevitable and important for society and art.[5][6] Ideas of cultural unity (i.e. the narrative of the West or something similar) and the hierarchies of values of class that go along with such a conception of the world is another marker of modernism.[4] In particular, modernism insisted upon a divide between "low" forms of art and "high" forms of art (creating more value judgments and hierarchies).[4][6] This dichotomy is particularly focused on the divide between official culture and popular culture.[4] Lastly but, by no means comprehensively, there was a faith in the "real" and the future and knowledge and the competence of expertise that pervades modernism. At heart, it contained a confidence about the world and humankind's place in it.[4]

Postmodernism attempts to subvert and resist and differ from the preoccupations of modernism across many fields (music, history, art, cinema, etc.). Postmodernism emerged in a time not defined by war or revolution but rather by media culture.[1] Unlike modernism, postmodernism does not have faith in master narratives of history or culture or even the self as an autonomous subject.[1][4][6] Rather postmodernism is interested in contradiction, fragmentation, and instability.[1] Postmodernism is often focused on the destruction of hierarchies and boundaries. The mixing of different times and periods or styles of art that might be viewed as "high" or "low" is a common practice in postmodern work.[1][2][3] This practice is referred to as pastiche.[1] Postmodernism takes a deeply subjective view of the world and identity and art, positing that an endless process of signification and signs is where any "meaning" lies.[7][8] Consequently, postmodernism demonstrates what it perceives as a fractured world, time, and art.

Specific elements[edit]

Postmodernist film – similar to postmodernism as a whole – is a reaction to the modernist works of its field, and to their tendencies. Modernist cinema, "explored and exposed the formal concerns of the medium by placing them at the forefront of consciousness. Modernist cinema questions and made visible the meaning-production practices of film."[9] The auteur theory and idea of an author producing a work from his singular vision guided the concerns of modernist film. "To investigate the transparency of the image is modernist but to undermine its reference to reality is to engage with the aesthetics of postmodernism."[6][10] The modernist film has more faith in the author, the individual, and the accessibility of reality itself than the postmodernist film.

Postmodernism is in many ways interested in the liminal space that would be typically ignored by more modernist or traditionally narrative offerings. The idea is that the meaning is often generated most productively through the spaces and transitions and collisions between words and moments and images. Henri Bergson writes in his book Creative Evolution, "The obscurity is cleared up, the contradiction vanishes, as soon as we place ourselves along the transition, in order to distinguish states in it by making cross cuts therein in thoughts. The reason is that there is more in the transition than the series of states, that is to say, the possible cuts--more in the movement than the series of position, that is to say, the possible stops."[11] The thrust of this argument is that the spaces between the words or the cuts in a film create just as much meaning as the words or scenes themselves.

Postmodernist film is often separated from modernist cinema and traditional narrative film by three key characteristics. One of them is an extensive use of homage or pastiche,[9] resulting from the fact that postmodern filmmakers are open to blending many disparate genres and tones within the same film. The second element is meta-reference or self-reflexivity, highlighting the construction and relation of the image to other images in media and not to any kind of external reality.[9] A self-referential film calls the viewer's attention – either through characters' knowledge of their own fictional nature, or through visuals – that the movie itself is only a movie. This is sometimes achieved by emphasizing the unnatural look of an image which seems contrived. Another technique used to achieve meta-reference is the use of intertextuality, in which the film's characters reference or discuss other works of fiction. Additionally, many postmodern films tell stories that unfold out of chronological order, deconstructing or fragmenting time so as to, once again, highlight the fact that what is appearing on screen is constructed. A third common element is a bridging of the gap between highbrow and lowbrow activities and artistic styles[2][3][9] – e.g., a parody of Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling in which Adam is reaching for a McDonald's burger rather than the hand of God. This would exemplify the fusion of high and low because Michelangelo is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all painters, whereas fast food is commonly named among the lowbrow elements of modern society.

The use of homage and pastiche can, in and of itself, result in a fusion of high and low. For this reason, homage is sometimes accompanied by characters' value judgments as to the worth and cultural value of the works being parodied, ensuring the viewer understands whether the thing being referenced is considered highbrow or lowbrow.

Lastly, contradictions of all sorts – whether it be in visual technique, characters' morals, or other things – are crucial to postmodernism, and the two are in many cases irreconcilable. Any theory of postmodern film would have to be comfortable with paradoxes or contradictions of ideas and their articulation.[2][8]

Specific postmodern examples[edit]

Blade Runner[edit]

Ridley Scott's Blade Runner might be the best known postmodernist film.[9] Ridley Scott's 1982 film is about a future dystopia where "replicants" (human cyborgs) have been invented and are deemed dangerous enough to hunt down when they escape. There is tremendous effacement of boundaries between genres and cultures and styles that are generally more separate along with the fusion of disparate styles and times that is a common trope in postmodernist cinema. "The futuristic set and action mingle with drab 1940s clothes and offices, punk rock hairstyles, pop Egyptian style and oriental culture. The population is singularly multicultural and the language they speak is agglomeration of English, Japanese, German and Spanish. The film alludes to the private eye genre of Raymond Chandler and the characteristics of film noir as well as Biblicalmotifs and images."[2][9] Here is a demonstration of the mixing of cultures and boundaries and styles of art. The film is playing with time (the various types of clothes) and culture and genre by mixing them all together to create the world of the film. The fusion of noir and science-fiction is another example of the film deconstructing cinema and genre. This is an embodiment of the postmodern tendency to destroy boundaries and genres into a self-reflexive product. "The postmodern aesthetic of Blade Runner is thus the result of recycling, fusion of levels, discontinuous signifiers, explosion of boundaries, and erosion. The disconnected temporality of the replicants and the pastiche of the city are all an effect of a postmodern, postindustrial condition: wearing out, waste."[12]

Pulp Fiction[edit]

Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction is another example of a postmodernist film.[13][14][15] The film tells the interweaving stories of gangsters, a boxer, and robbers. The film breaks down chronological time and demonstrates a particular fascination with intertextuality: bringing in texts from both traditionally "high" and "low" realms of art.[1][2] This foregrounding of media places the self as "a loose, transitory combination of media consumption choices."[1][3]Pulp Fiction fractures time (by the use of asynchronous time lines) and by using styles of prior decades and combining them together in the movie.[1] By focusing on intertextuality and the subjectivity of time, Pulp Fiction demonstrates the postmodern obsession with signs and subjective perspective as the exclusive location of anything resembling meaning.

Other examples[edit]

Aside from the aforementioned Blade Runner and Pulp Fiction, postmodern cinema includes films such as:


External links[edit]

  1. ^ abcdefghiSusan Hopkins (Spring 1995). "Generation Pulp". Youth Studies Australia. 14 (3): 14–19. 
  2. ^ abcdefgLaurent Kretzschmar (July 2002). "Is Cinema Renewing Itself?". Film-Philosophy. 6 (15). 
  3. ^ abcdLinda Hutcheon (January 19, 1998). "Irony, Nostalgia, and the Postmodern". University of Toronto English Library. 
  4. ^ abcdefFrederic Jameson, Postmodernism and Consumer Society(PDF), George Mason University 
  5. ^ abMartin Irvine. "The Postmodern, Postmodernism, Postmodernity: Approached to Po-Mo". Georgetown University. 
  6. ^ abcdDragan Milovanovic. "Dueling Paradigms: Modernist v. Postmodern Thought". American Society of Criminology. 
  7. ^"Postmodern Allegory and David Lynch's Wild at Heart" Critical Art: A South-North Journal of Cultural and Media Studies; 1995, Vol. 9 Issue 1 by Cyndy Hendershot
  8. ^ abMary Alemany-Galway (2002). A Postmodern Cinema. Kent, England: Scarecrow Press. 
  9. ^ abcdefBeginning Postmodernism, Manchester University Press: 1999 by Tim Woods
  10. ^"Reading the Postmodern Image: A Cognitive Mapping," Screen: 31, 4 (Winter 1990) by Tony Wilson
  11. ^Creative Evolution
  12. ^"Ramble City: Postmodernism and Blade Runner" October, 41 (1987) by Giuliana Bruno
  13. ^Tincknell, Estella (2006). "The Soundtrack Movie, Nostalgia and Consumption", in Film's Musical Moments, ed. Ian Conrich and Estella Tincknell (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). ISBN 0-7486-2344-2
  14. ^King, Geoff (2002). Film Comedy (London: Wallflower Press). ISBN 1-903364-35-3
  15. ^Wood, James (November 12, 1994). The Guardian.
  16. ^"Fight Club and the Post-Modern Dilemma of Mankind". Retrieved 2012-01-19. 

One thought on “Postmodern Film Essaye

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *