Film Analysis: The Concept of Film Genre - Literature review Example

Student Name Professor Course Code Date Film Studies Essay: The Concept of Film Genre Introduction The concept of film genre is important to film-makers, critics, audiences and media theorists. It has both practical and academic applications since films are classified by genre from the screenwriting stage (i.e. the screenwriter takes a particular approach based on the genre he/she aims for), cataloguing in the film store, as well as how they impact on cultural history and social climate. Much formal examination has been conducted on the categorization of films from various perspectives or view-points, as well as how such categorization shapes the audiences’ understanding of films as texts. Indeed, there is much commercial interest on how people classify and decide to watch movies. Access to such knowledge provides an important asset for the initial stages of marketing a movie (Cook 9; Neale 29, 322). Nonetheless, the concept of film genre is not as definite or clear as the discussion above may imply. According to Altman, the concept of genre when applied to film gets much more complex (5). While the producers may have a clear genre in mind, the audiences- placed in varying contexts- may understand the same movie (the text) differently and thus classify it in various genres. In other words, genre is understood from the film industry’s point of view (what genre the industry means it to be) and the audience based on the text. This paper aims to explore these varying dimensions of understanding film genre. Discussion There are several definitions of the term ‘genre’. In more simple terms, genre is a type or category. Winston (13) sums up the definition as a set of forms, patterns, structures or styles which transcend individual texts or films and shapes how a film-maker constructs a film and how the audience understand it. By the term ‘transcend’, Winston (13) implies that the concept of genre helps the audience to move away from merely seeing a film as a transparent representation of reality, but also to evaluate the extent to which it (the film) conforms to or deviates from the codes or rules of a given genre. This eventually informs the marketing and distribution of the film. Basically, there are two main approaches to understanding film genre: descriptive approach and functional approach (Wilson 4). Descriptive Approach: This is the most straightforward approach. It involves designating a film under a particular category, or as an example of an established type. In this respect, one perceives the film to be sharing certain attributes or aspects (including visual style, structure and theme) with some films under the same group/category, and analysis is conducted comparatively. Thus, this approach to film categorization relies greatly on genre paradigms, i.e. readily identifiable film elements, e.g. location, costume, plot content, shot transitions, character archetypes (Wilson 5). This approach therefore involves categorizing many films into a few groups. On the basis of how the boundaries of genres are drawn, one film can fall under several varying genres at the same time. Sometimes, argues Wilson (5), this approach over-emphasizes the stylistic or formal qualities of a film. In the process, it fails to consider how the meaning and impact of the film may change in time, or when viewed/watched by different audiences. Functional Approach: Under this approach, the genre film is viewed as a collection of expressions/representations of contemporary life that strike a chord that resonates with audiences. In other words, the repetitions of patterns in genre films represent repetition of key social questions that demand answers as a projection of shared social experiences. The questions could be: what or the possibilities we find frightening (e.g. horror films); what we consider criminal, and what social morality boundaries must we not cross (e.g. gangster films); what morality is (e.g. melodramas); what acceptance and belonging is (e.g. romantic comedies; and the alien or/and the future (e.g. science fiction), amongst others (Wilson 6). Since these questions get repeated every now and then, even as values change, Wilson (7) believes genre films can then be viewed as a product of the prevailing socio-historic context, and watching them is thus a cultural ritual in which hegemonic values are assessed and examined, and ultimately either reinforced or shifted. However, none of these approaches is exclusive (Browne 7). Infact, they can be said to too neat or ‘too good to be true’ and provide an easy solution that is not exactly practical in real analysis. These approaches overlook the aspects of sub-genres and genre hybrids, which then present more challenge to analysing genres. The recognition of these two aspects brings in yet another approach to understanding film genre which combines both descriptive and functional approaches, i.e. a film is viewed both as part of paradigmatic set, and as a product of space of time. Sub genres result from the fact that film genres constantly mutate and evolve, and thus cross conventional genre boundaries. Wilson (8), for instance, notes how the recent global financial crisis has resulted in subgenre films based on the recession, e.g. Drag Me To Hell (a horror film by Sam Raimi), Capitalism: A Love Story (a documentary by Michael Moore), etc. Genre Hybrids result from shifting cinema forms, e.g. plots (Wilson 8). As Winston (11) agrees, isolating films and designating genres still remains a big challenge. One obvious reason for the difficulty in assigning genre is the multi-faceted character of genre. It can be viewed from the perspective of the industry and the accompanying infrastructure, the traditions of aesthetics, the broader socio-cultural context that inspires it and it also serves, as well as from the understanding and response of the audience (Neal 322). These view points hardly agree. Infact, even the evaluation of audiences may reveal differences in how they interpret and understand a film and thus decide its genre. For the industry, genre is a necessity. It is a tool for classifying films in an attempt to “organize audiences” (Neal, 17), and thus market films. But also, the industry may create innovations within conventional genres. Neal 19) refers to this as the process through which “genres are continually… destroyed, reconstituted and defined”. The movies discussed below show the difficulties in defining genre and the reasons for such difficulties. The Host by Joon ho Bong (2006) The Host is one of the movies in which one can see the difficulty in classifying movies in genres. The director, Joon ho Gong is known for his tendencies to mix genres and atmospheres to an extent that it is not possible to decide that his movies belong to any particular genre(s). In an interview with V.V.E (6), at the 2011 Festival De Cannes events, Joon ho Bong explains that he has never consciously sets out to mix genres and atmospheres. The movies simply come out as they do. Perhaps, he theorizes, his productions are merely results of the vast pool of images from his love for and studies of films. The difficulty in classifying The Host under one particular genre can be seen in a number of its reviews. One particular internet review by Alan (3), for instance, carries most of the contemporary film genre-adjectives. While the movie is seen mostly as belonging to the science fiction genre, it also bears the marks of a ‘blockbuster’; not only does it have a big cast, but was also a big-budget movie. Equally, the movie is also noted to bear a degree of political-environmental subtext, as well as socio-political criticism on matters such as familial relationships, which also justify the temptation to classify it as a melodrama. The film is essentially the story of Gang-du’s search for and effort to rescue his daughter who has been taken by a monster. To find their way to the child, the father and his family (father, sister and brother), must break the normal social conventions, which may be a literal or symbolic representation of Ho Bong’s own tradition-breaking style and new Korean political, social and economic wave. They seek help from those mostly sidelined by society. In its entirety, the movie well catalogues the sequence of events that, literally and metaphorically, re-unite a family (Alan 7). Indeed, each of these visible yet varying genres are inspired by different aspects. The first aspect is the audience (Garcelan & Fernandez 15). With the prominence of globalization today, The Host, like other Korean films, seeks to win the hearts of the global audiences. In this respect, Ho Bong apparently adopts Hollywood standards to guess and classify the global audience. Still, the Ho Bong still retains certain elements that suit the Korean audience, especially the family melodrama. As far as the Korean film industry goes, there are a group of directors who have focused on genre films that- to varying degrees- break the traditional rules of genre. They opt to enrich genre cinema (such as horror, suspense, comedy, cinema noir, etc) with their own thoughts, narrative tendencies and techniques, and aesthetics to create hybrid films (Garcelan & Fernandez 21). The Host, in this regard, becomes a hybrid of, perhaps, the melodrama. Ho Bong, as already mentioned, becomes experimental so that ‘genre’ is not a conclusive notion, but one that is defined by other factors, such as the contextual backdrop that informs the critic, theorist or audience. Ultimately, understanding the elements of film in The Host, defining its hybrid character (i.e. pointing out the constituent genres) depends on how one understands, interprets and responds to the text(s) that ultimately build it. Gun Crazy by Joseph H. Lewis (1950) In a nutshell, Gun Crazy is the story of an erotic love of and obsession with guns, and a rather deadly sexual tension and attraction between Annie Laurie Starr and Bart Tare. The two characters are described as a viciously trigger-happy sharp-shooting couple (Dirk 1; Kahil 3). From the moment they meet, they can’t keep their hands off each other or their guns and are soon out on a shooting and robbery spree that ultimately leads to their deaths. Indeed, this is a version of the story of Bonnie and Clyde. Basically, the film a B-movie is a low-budget sub-genre of the Western genre which famous in the 1950s. B-movies were famous for their mild sex scenes (i.e. probably ‘mild’ by today’s standards). Gun Crazy, argues Covino, also follows this trend, but also differs in several ways. According to Keser (17), although the film is not the first to tell the story of lovers in crime, it is notably the first of such films to explain criminality as a sexual release. In this respect, therefore, the film broke the conventions of Hollywood. In agreement Keser aptly notes that the film, with “its profane energy (ruptured) Hollywood’s conventions’ (17). A bank robbery is not merely that, but an erotic act. In this regard, many critics have wondered if the movie was meant as a social statement. The relationship between Bart and Laurie openly defies society with its explicit thrill-hungry self-indulgence (Keser 18; Nevins 6). Notably, Laurie, in a marriage scene, only promises she will try hard to be good. Indeed, Laurie unsettles the traditional gender roles. She decides she has been around all her life and promises to start kicking back. All the while, except for a courtroom scene at the beginning of the movie, Lewis mostly refrains from pointing a finger: “sentimentalize the characters and moralize over their actions” (Keser 18). Lewis throws the ball to the audiences’ court, and every one is left to assign the film his/her own genre tag as he/she dims fit. Generally, it is hard to decide if the film is a romance, detective, comedy or tragedy, or other kind of movie. The trick is that the film cannot be categorized as of any particular genre because it has a little of many other genres, despite itself being a sub-genre. Conclusion As this paper has showed, genre is defined from the point of view the film industry, the text and the audience. However, again as this paper has shown, even any one of these aspects do not provide a conclusive answer to defining a genre. For instance, not all audiences view a film the same way. The debate on the definition and determination of genres may never be fully concluded, especially in an increasingly dynamic contemporary world. Ultimately though, the traditional genres still remain, and provide the basis upon which arising sub-genres and hybrid genres are defined and understood. Works Cited Alan. “Review: Host, The (2006).” Heroic Cinema. Heroic Cinema, 8 July 2007. Web. 27 June 2012 Altman, Rick. Film/Genre. London: BFI, 1999. Print Browne, Nick (ed.). Refiguring American Film Genres: Theory and History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Print Cook, David A. A History of Narrative Film. New York: W.W. Norton, 1996. Print Covino, Michael. “Gun Crazy.” East Bay Express, 26 July 1991. Print Dirks, Tim. “Gun Crazy.” Filmsite. Filmsite, n.d. Web, 27 June 2012. Nevins, Francis M. Joseph H. Lewis: Overview, Interview and Filmography. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, 1998. Print Garcelán, Enrique & Fernández, Gloria. “Korean Cinema In Ten Notes.” University of Buenos Aires. University of Buenos Aires, n.d. Web, 27 June 2012. Kahil, Habib. “Gun Crazy Analysis - A Dominant Femme Fatale, an Erotic Love and Obsession With Guns.” WriteWork. WriteWork, 6 May 2008. Web, 27 June 2012 Keser, Robert. “Joseph H. Lewis.” Senses of Cinema, Senses of Cinema, 5 November 2006. Web, 27 June 2012 Neale, Steve (ed.). Genre and Contemporary Hollywood. London: British Film Institute, 2002. Print Neale, Steven. Genre and Hollywood. London: Routledge, 2000. Print Joon Ho Bong. Interview by V.V.E. “Interview with Boon Joon Ho.” Festival De Cannes. Festival De Cannes, May 2011. Web, 27 June 2012 Wilson, Karina. “Film Genre.” Mediaknowall. Mediaknowall, n.d. Web, 27 June 2012 Winston, Wheeler D. (ed.). Film genre 2000: New Critical Essays. Albany : State University of New York Press, 2000. Print Read More

Basically, there are two main approaches to understanding film genre: descriptive approach and functional approach (Wilson 4). Descriptive Approach: This is the most straightforward approach. It involves designating a film under a particular category, or as an example of an established type. In this respect, one perceives the film to be sharing certain attributes or aspects (including visual style, structure and theme) with some films under the same group/category, and analysis is conducted comparatively.

Thus, this approach to film categorization relies greatly on genre paradigms, i.e. readily identifiable film elements, e.g. location, costume, plot content, shot transitions, character archetypes (Wilson 5). This approach therefore involves categorizing many films into a few groups. On the basis of how the boundaries of genres are drawn, one film can fall under several varying genres at the same time. Sometimes, argues Wilson (5), this approach over-emphasizes the stylistic or formal qualities of a film.

In the process, it fails to consider how the meaning and impact of the film may change in time, or when viewed/watched by different audiences. Functional Approach: Under this approach, the genre film is viewed as a collection of expressions/representations of contemporary life that strike a chord that resonates with audiences. In other words, the repetitions of patterns in genre films represent repetition of key social questions that demand answers as a projection of shared social experiences.

The questions could be: what or the possibilities we find frightening (e.g. horror films); what we consider criminal, and what social morality boundaries must we not cross (e.g. gangster films); what morality is (e.g. melodramas); what acceptance and belonging is (e.g. romantic comedies; and the alien or/and the future (e.g. science fiction), amongst others (Wilson 6). Since these questions get repeated every now and then, even as values change, Wilson (7) believes genre films can then be viewed as a product of the prevailing socio-historic context, and watching them is thus a cultural ritual in which hegemonic values are assessed and examined, and ultimately either reinforced or shifted.

However, none of these approaches is exclusive (Browne 7). Infact, they can be said to too neat or ‘too good to be true’ and provide an easy solution that is not exactly practical in real analysis. These approaches overlook the aspects of sub-genres and genre hybrids, which then present more challenge to analysing genres. The recognition of these two aspects brings in yet another approach to understanding film genre which combines both descriptive and functional approaches, i.e. a film is viewed both as part of paradigmatic set, and as a product of space of time.

Sub genres result from the fact that film genres constantly mutate and evolve, and thus cross conventional genre boundaries. Wilson (8), for instance, notes how the recent global financial crisis has resulted in subgenre films based on the recession, e.g. Drag Me To Hell (a horror film by Sam Raimi), Capitalism: A Love Story (a documentary by Michael Moore), etc. Genre Hybrids result from shifting cinema forms, e.g. plots (Wilson 8). As Winston (11) agrees, isolating films and designating genres still remains a big challenge.

One obvious reason for the difficulty in assigning genre is the multi-faceted character of genre. It can be viewed from the perspective of the industry and the accompanying infrastructure, the traditions of aesthetics, the broader socio-cultural context that inspires it and it also serves, as well as from the understanding and response of the audience (Neal 322). These view points hardly agree. Infact, even the evaluation of audiences may reveal differences in how they interpret and understand a film and thus decide its genre.

For the industry, genre is a necessity. It is a tool for classifying films in an attempt to “organize audiences” (Neal, 17), and thus market films.

Read More