Genre

“Genre movies have comprised the bulk of film practice, the iceberg of film history beneath the visible tip that in the past has commonly been understood as film art.”

Barry Keith Grant, Introduction to Film Genre Reader

Introduction

Genre is generally understood as a means of neatly categorising films under the labels of science fiction, action, melodrama, horror etc. This is a good basis from which to start a study of genre but it is a lot more complex than this!

It is important to realise that looking at a film in terms of its genre, is only one way of analysing film texts, hence why we call it ‘genre theory’. Some analysts prefer to look at films as the product of an auteur. Put simply, auteur theory looks at films as the product of an individual with a personal vision stamped upon them, whereas genre theory views films as a communal product, driven by studio and market demand.

The Cinema Book (pub. BFI, Ed. Pam Cook & Mieke Bernink) gives a thorough history of genre criticism (Pf 137), detailing the introduction of genre theory in the 1960s. Clearly we can see generic codes and conventions operating from the start of the century but it was only in the 1960s that it was identified by critics. Before this time, films were viewed in two main ways: either as the work of an auteur or as social documents (which seems quite limiting from our modern perspective).

So why do filmmakers make films which can often fit neatly into defined groups?

Genre is a means of organising the production and marketing of a film. It allows filmmakers to identify and fulfil ‘audience expectation’. Before any film is made, finance has to be raised; it is easier for a filmmaker to sell and/or justify the making of their film if they have established trends to prove the popularity of the kind of film they want to make. If a film has been successful at the box office, it suggests there is an audience wanting to watch that ‘type’ of film, and more films of that ‘type’ will be made until the audience loses interest or moves on. (A more in depth look at the Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and 40s would help here.) For example, in Hollywood in the 1930s, audiences were consuming gangster films by the dozen. This genre had several years of huge popularity, making stars of actors such as James Cagney and Edward G Robinson. By the 1940s, the audience had begun to tire of films within this particular genre and new genres predominated, most notably film noir and
the musical. (Possibly the audience’s desire had been saturated or perhaps their response was due to the changing social climate – there is much more to explore here.) Of course, that wasn’t the end of the gangster film. There have been several peaks for the genre since then when clusters of films have been made e.g. 1970s The Godfather, Scarface, Mean Streets, 1990s – Goodfellas, Donnie Brasco, A Bronx Tale etc. Which brings us to an important aspect of genre theory…

The Paradoxical Nature of Genre

At first glance, genres seem to be very neat categories, separated into distinct groups. However, genres depend on their ability to change or adapt in order to survive. As mentioned before, genres emerged as a way of predicting and fulfilling audience expectation – giving the public what they want. There is another aspect to this though. Think about it yourself. When you go the cinema you know what kind of film you want to watch, for example, if you like horror films you will go the cinema expecting to see a dark, suspense filled film with considerable shock value. If the film gives you what you expect you will go away gratified, if it doesn’t, you will go away disappointed. Although you know more or less what you are expecting from a horror film, you would not be gratified if the film you watched was almost exactly the same as the last one you saw. You want familiar conventions but with a new element or twist; you would not be on the edge of your seat if the killer/monster always jumped out of the same place. So genres need to combine familiarity with innovation. If genres do not adapt over time, they will die out. Maybe to reappear at a later date with a new element. A good example of this would be the ‘western’. Let’s use this as a case study….

Case Study: The Western

The western is a genre that has long held fascination for a film audience, partly because of its ‘mythical’ context. Because it is set in the past, in isolated places removed from the rules and laws of modern society, it allows filmmakers to explore moral and social ambiguities without reference to contemporary issues. In the original westerns, a fight between forces of good and evil would inevitably ensue, the heroic cowboy being ultimately victorious and the audience’s faith in humanity restored. However, the western has experienced a series of changes, adaptations and revivals in its cinematic history.

During the 1920s-30s , a vast amount of westerns were made, many in a formulaic way, and it was considered one of the most predominant cinematic genres. Alan Lovell (as cited in The Cinema Book) identified four principal elements which contributed to the form of the genre:

These were the ‘premise’ from which westerns were developed and from which all subsequent westerns have emerged.

In 1939, Stagecoach (dir. John Ford) was released. This is often cited as the first ‘modern western’ – a significant development in the growth of the genre – presumably because of our sympathies for an outlaw protagonist and a prostitute he befriends. After this came a slew of films directed by John Ford and/or starring John Wayne, building on similar themes and flawed characters, most notably My Darling Clementine (1946) and The Searchers (1956), in which Wayne plays a violent outsider bent on revenge against the Indians who have abducted his niece. This period also saw the introduction of more ’stylised’ westerns, for example Johnny Guitar (1954) and High Noon (1952). This period has often been cited as the ‘classical’ period of the western and, inevitably, after such a peak, the genre was facing a downward spiral in the late 1950’s- early 1960s. A new injection of life came about in the mid 1960s with the emergence of the ’spaghetti western’, a name coined because of the films’ Italian producers, most notably the directors Sergio Leone and Sergio Corbucci, and usually starring Clint Eastwood, e.g. A Fistful of Dollars (1964) and its sequels. In these films, the villains were usually Mexican bandits, the hero was a much less romantic, much more violent loner, travelling from town to town. The films were also significantly more graphic in content, in keeping with social change and relaxing of censorship. In 1969, Sam Peckinpah directed The Wild Bunch, rewriting the western from the perspective of the marginalised outlaws rather than the law abiding settlers. The film is clearly and dramatically influenced by the violence and instability presented by the Vietnam War at the time.

The late 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s saw a dearth of westerns. The genre lacked appeal to contemporary audiences and other genres, such as horror and science fiction had cornered the youth market, with their more immediate gratifications. (Particularly in the age of VCRs.)
However, towards the end of this period, there were tentative moves towards making ‘new’ westerns. In 1988, Young Guns was released, combining the key conventions of a western with the ‘bratpack’ of young actors who were popular at the time, including a very modern popular soundtrack. In 1990, Dances With Wolves was Kevin Costner’s attempt to make the western politically correct, casting Native Americans (Indians) in a much more positive light.

Very soon, even the white male hero – central to any western- was being displaced with ‘black westerns’ like Posse and ‘feminist westerns’ like Bad Girls and The Quick and the Dead. In 1992, Clint Eastwood turned director as well as actor, in Unforgiven, this time using the genre to present a political allegory, commenting on the American government in office at the time. You can probably think of other innovative reworkings of the genre since then.

This is by no means an exhaustive history but gives a clear indication of how one genre has had to change in order to survive.

What are the defining conventions of a genre?

For a genre to become established, certain conventions need to become identifiable in the general consciousness of the audience. The following factors should be analysed to identify familiar conventions or aspects of innovation – narrative structure, themes, characters (protagonists, central, minor and stock characters), locations, iconography, use of lighting and other stylistic elements, use of specific actors/directors, music, language codes, dress codes, camera angles/editing style. For example, Baz Luhrmann’s editing in Romeo and Juliet (1997) makes the audience aware within seconds that this is no run-of-the-mill period drama, despite the use of the original Shakespearean language.

Summary

Genres function according to sets of rules and conventions, which govern their capacity and range. They respond to these rules and conventions by developing formulas and patterns. Over time, these formulas and patterns may acquire not only typical, but even archetypal force, dominating ways of seeing, and of representing, the world about us. Genre study analyses the systems of convention whereby genres establish recognisable patterns of repetition. It also, importantly, aims to understand that genres are not simply ‘closed’, but partly ‘open’ systems, which need to stay the same in order to survive, and also, for precisely the same reason, need to retain the possibility of change and innovation. Genres have patterns of fixity, as well as patterns of change.