I've been lurking as the conversation re postmodernism seems to have
disintegrated (or degenerated). Admittedly, I think the question of
postmodernism is immensely, perhaps ineluctably, complicated, but we might
at least begin with a couple clarifying remarks...

First, postmodernism means different things for different arts (cf
architecture, in particular), nor need it be an issue that is decidedly
settled within the context of one art (cf, for instance, my own entry for
cinema in _The Routledge Encyclopedia of Postmodernism_). This doesn't
make the issue any easier, but it begins to suggest why no agreement can
be reached. By the same token, though, can we really define modernism
with respect to cinema? Some are eager to align cinematic modernism with
that of literary high modernism, suggesting (for instance) that the
exploration of montage distinguishes both art forms during the 1920s. On
the other hand, many believe that early, pre-sound, and classical cinema
constitutes a period prior to cinematic modernism, thereby reserving the
term for subsequent periods of pronounced narrative invention,
fragmentation, and self-consciousness.

Personally, I don't see much point in arguing one position or another:
the history of film is rich enough, thankfully, to accommodate both
positions (conceivably, more), and the same thing can certainly be said
with respect to postmodernism. I would, however, like to take issue with
the discussion of Deleuze, which seems particularly ill-informed.

First: Perhaps an argument can be made for Deleuze as a postmodernist
(I've heard Ed O'Neil do as much), but anyone who has read him,
who knows Deleuze's philosophy and (yes) taste, has to admit that his
sensibility is fairly modern; indeed, Deleuze himself virtually never uses
the word "postmodern" and he dismisses the kind of philosophical claims
made by pomo philosophers (Baudrillard in particular). Call Deleuze a
poststructuralist if you want, but not a postmodernist.

Second: The whole question of Deleuze's difficulty is seriously
overstated, in part because people pick up the cinema books as if they're
books "about" cinema. It's been said before but it bears repeating: The
Movement-Image and The  Time-Image are books of philosophy that draw upon
cinema for philosophical ends. This isn't to say that one can't use them,
but they require some work (just as reading Kant's Critique of Judgment
requires and an understanding of the previous two critiques). I think my
own introduction to the books (cf. _The Brain is the Screen: Deleuze and
the Philosophy of Cinema_ [Minnesota: 2000]) sketches a great deal of the
underpinnings of Deleuze's cinema work, and other resources have
already been mentioned. If you don't want to do the work, then fine: I
think we're all willing to talk about other things.

Finally, as others have mentioned, there's a question of what it means to
"be" a postmodernist. Many have done their best to limn the
so-called postmodern condition, but this certainly doesn't make them
postmodernists, or at least suggest that they favor these conditions. At
the very least, postmodernism might mean something that a great many
people have spoken of in a great many contexts, namely, that the
conditions of possibility for thinking, for judging, and determining
knowledge have undergone a kind of sea-change over the last fifty years.
Heidegger (of all people) once wrote that, after WWII, he had lost faith
in the force of the supersensible is history...

Well, I've said enough.

Gregg Flaxman
University of Pennsylvania