#1 This essay primarily faces a serious difficulty: to explore and study a literary style as the postmodernism is, in a cinematography defined as a small nation’s cinematography – namely, a cinematography with a modest year film production, or more accurate, with a obscure opus of films for a working material. And, in order to gain any results on the esthetic structure with an acceptable balance between the theoretical and analytical material, the working “devices” are quite a few. We can incline toward the essay form and to reduce the theory aspects, or to extend (unnaturally) the corpus of the films that presumably incline towards the postmodernism aesthetics. At the start, I must say that I’m against the over-extensive research of the films, out of the frames of their natural and actual characteristics. It always leads an unnecessary confusion within the terminology of the theoretical and poetical models and conventions, and it makes it much more difficult the work of the following researchers – in the future. So, we are going to analyze the postmodernism here upon a very few film deeds that we will pronounce as an explicitly postmodern, and we’ll mention, only fragmentarily and “by the way” – some other film works that include within itself some forms of postmodern characteristics.
#2 The nomenclature “small nation cinematography” (I would add: poor nation cinematography) that means one or two films per year (and sometimes even less), makes any kind of a research, especially this one we enterprise. In a situation when all authors, simultaneously posses the creative potential, and in a situation when the practical conditions (the cultural politics and authorities itself) govern and divide (more or less just) the material and financial means required for making a film, it’s difficult for an author to create any kind of a regular personal opus of films, with all means required for it: all of the phases and sub-phases, with the thorough research and organization of the exchange and application of any poetic experience – more or less spontaneous – around any aesthetic form. And because of it, there exists a large disproportion within the category of time – as a chronological determinant (to create and develop an individual poetics and to make a concrete opus) and as a creative determinant (the process of creation, fluctuation, experimentation etc.). So, that’s why this text can’t be anything else (for this time being) than a sketch-portrait useful for some future researches, when the postmodern film opus will be in a more adequate amount for a real research. Also, it wouldn’t be a surprise if that doesn’t happen at all, because of the discrepancy between the world film development and the domestic film production conditions, and between the esthetical needs of the domestic audience and the real material possibilities of the domestic cinematography. Even now, talking of postmodernism in the film art, as in the other arts anyway, here is “by-gone” thing already.