Genre

I thought the comparison between language studies and genre studies was very interesting. It is true that the audience's response to any given film or set of films helps to shape and define film categories and refine the rules of cinematic genres in general, the way that a language is shaped by the responses of the people who speak it. It is also true that as with language, communication via film relies on shared knowledge, and it is this shared film knowledge that enables us to group films together and create genres. Yet unlike the rules of language, the rules of cinema can change rapidly, meaning that genres can evolve and new genres can develop as new films and groups of films emerge and become popular.

The three levels of inquiry (characteristics shared by all genre films, characteristics shared by the films within a given genre and characteristics that set one genre film apart) seemed like a useful way of looking at things. I also thought the description of genre as defined by "a network of characters, actions, values and attitudes" was a good one, since location, plot and subject matter are certainly too narrow categories that don't always apply. Additionally I liked the concept of determinate space (where the plot action starts with some kind of entrance and ends with some kind of exit) vs. indeterminate space (where the conflict revolves around the characters trying to find their place in the existing community).

Although I certainly felt as though I understood genre before reading this article, the author brought up many new ways of looking at and understanding it that I would never have thought of.

Film Genre

Genre films can be described colloquially by the typical phrase "I know them when I see them." Films of a particular genre are not identical, but they all have the same feel to them. There are a few reasons for that. They follow any number of conventions that are typical of the genre they can be categorized. The characters may be have certain distinguishable similarities, the setting may be basically the same, the conflicts play out in the same way and come from the same struggles, and the end, as Schatz says, unless otherwise noted, is predictable based on the genre.

The audience has certain expectations based on what is presented to them. If a film is set on the frontier, and the protagonist is John Wayne, the film is a Western and they already have a feeling of how the plot will develop. However, it is not accurate to say "if you've seen one Western, you've seen them all." Genre films abide by the same conventions, but that does not make them the same movie. The directors and crews of genre films can always play with these conventions to make the film different, if only slightly, from another film of the same genre. The inner conflicts and thematic struggles may be the same, the characters may be similar, and the setting can be identical, but the story can always be different. Based on what the audience is given, they will probably know or figure out quickly how the conflicts will be resolved and how the movie will end in general, if not exactly.

The basic idea is that genre films are very accessible. the values discussed in them are easily understood and displayed in obvious ways. An audience will always have a basic understanding of what is going on, and that enables the directors of genre films in a number of ways with the "range of expression" Schatz talks about. In this way, while a film may be typically Western or Horror or Gangster, the director can craft the film in such a way that the audience's idea of a genre film can change, if slightly. This way, over time, conventions may change, expectations may be altered, and the genre can take on new meanings. I think this is a progressive movement because in order to be considered a genre film, the film must represent the genre well, so you cannot set the movie at the OK Corral and then do nothing else that's identified as Western and still call it a Western.

Film Genre vs. Genre Film

I thought this article was interesting because it covered a generally well-known topic but put it in a different perspective. Initially, I was getting confused between the two terms because they can so easily be interchanged. I found myself losing my train of thought forgetting what each was. However, what I gathered from the article is that film genre and genre film are proved to be two different components of film by Schatz. In order to understand what we originally thought to be film genre, I thought Schatz’s analogy of language was interesting and useful. He explains, “As a system, English grammar is not meaningful either historically or in socially specific terms. It is manipulated by a speaker to make meaning. A film genre, conversely, has come into being precisely because of its cultural significance as a meaningful narrative system…a genre film represents an effort to reorganize a familiar, meaningful system in an original way” (693). In other words, although there are static aspects of film, there are elements that allow us to renegotiate the generic guidelines of what we consider to be film genre. One aspect of his argument that I found to be clear and one that I was able to make sense of was his discussion on how film genres are constantly refined depending on the social context or events that were occurring the time the film came out. Different social contexts or technological advances can change how audiences view a film. I was able to understand this point because I related it to Bordwell and Thompson’s definition of symptomatic meaning.

Schatz's Film Genre and the Genre Film

Schatz’s article makes many interesting and valid points about the relationship between film and genre, such as that genre film constitutes an attempt to restructure a “familiar system,” one recognizable and significant to viewers, in an original manner. This and one of Schatz’s other statements—that genre is “a range of expression for filmmakers” and “a range of experience for viewers”—from page 695, made me think of John Carpenter’s Halloween. Although Schatz doesn’t specifically address the horror genre, I think this film fits into his general notion of the layout of genre films’ plot structure, for the most part.

Where Carpenter runs with Schatz’s notion of genre as a “range of expression” is with the ending of the film. It plays with the viewer’s expectations of the horror genre in that it seems to at first provide a resolution in the form of Dr. Loomis’s shooting of the masked murderer and then reveals this “resolution” to be false. The camera at first suggests the killer is dead via a shot of him lying on the ground before revealing that he has disappeared via another shot of the same spot, this time empty. The narrative ends on this note and thus complicates the idea of the celebration of the “well-ordered community” that Schatz maintains the genre film does with its plot structure. 

Film Genre and Genre Film

I thought that, for the most part, this piece was almost too straightforward. It offered a lot of common knowledge but did provoke me to think a little more about a handful of concepts I hadn't previously considered in depth.

I consider myself a fan of the horror genre. Particularly after watching Halloween last night, I was prompted to think of how Carpenter's classic fit into the notion of a genre film. Halloween is undeniably a staple of the horror genre, featuring its fundamental components (plays on the innate fears of the audience, features an evil terrorizing agent and helpless victim, startles the audience with unexpected physical action). But it also fulfills Schatz's ideas of how "individual genre films seem to have the capacity to affect the genre" (693). Halloween was one of the original "slasher" films and its critical and commercial popularity helped establish a niche in the horror genre for the knife-wielding serial killer. Halloween also helped give rise to the trope of an innocent heroine--for decades following Halloween's release, it was common practice for the teenagers who were depicted as engaging in drugs and sex to be killed off while the more chaste character (usually female) survives.

Schatz mainly focuses on the Western and musical genres, and I would love to hear the rest of the class's perspective on genres we've approached more in class. I realize we determined that film noir was more of a movement than a genre, but I feel like there could be interesting parallels made between the reading and the noir films we watched.

Film Genre And The Genre Film- Thomas Schatz

So far, this was my favorite article to read and increased my knowledge about a concept I thought I knew all about. In Film Genre and the Genre Film, Thomas Schatz does a great job at explaining those two concepts and providing examples to make them more comprehensible. In describing the connection between the two terms Schatz says, “…changes in cultural attitudes, new influential genre films, the economics of the industry, and so forth, continually refine and film genre.” (pg. 691) This shows that film genre is used to describe a broad subject in which one could group together genre films… which are films following the rules of any defined film genre.  To further explain the concept, Schatz uses the analogy of English Grammar and refers back to this analogy throughout the article to reinforce his ideas.  “Our shared knowledge of the rules of any film genre enables us to understand and evaluate individual genre films, just as our shared knowledge of English Grammar enables me to write this sentence and you to interpret it.” (pg. 693) This is a very interesting idea and suggests that in the same way we all have basic knowledge of the English language and can there for communicate with one another, we also all have shared knowledge of what makes a film genre the specific genre it is; allowing us to share a basic interpretation of any given genre film.

Much of the article discusses the importance in understanding that genres are based on its cultural context. Schatz suggests a hypothesis; “the determining identifying feature of a film genre is its cultural context, its community of interrelated character types whose attitudes, values, and actions flesh out dramatic conflicts inherent within that community.” (ph. 695)  He then discusses Hollywood’s ability to orchestrate such genres and says  “a genre, then, represents a range of expression for filmmakers and a range of experience for the viewers.” (pg. 695) Along with cultural context comes the generic characters that make up the different communities. Schatz describes these characters as “the physical embodiment of an attitude, a style, a world view, of a predetermined and essentially cultural posture.” (pg. 696) He uses many examples such as cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, guy or doll and so on. Each character represents basic cultural values that viewers can all understand.

Generic Characters to embody certain cultural values and norms allow us all to identify with the genre and have a shared basic understanding for the context. “…the genre film celebrates our collective sensibilities” (pg. 699) When walking into a genre film such as a western, a comedy, a romance ect… all of the viewers are entering the film with a shared knowledge of what cultural context will be portrayed, we all enter with subconscious understanding before knowing what it is even about. This could be brought back to the grammar example in that we all approach reading an article with the same basic understanding of English grammar which allows us all to read it the same way yet perhaps interpret it uniquely. In the end, Schatz discusses the use of a generic hero in films and the ways in which they are used to mask solving an unsolvable conflict to leave the viewers satisfied.  Schatz did a wonderful job at providing examples to explain what makes up film genre and genre film and how the two concepts are both static and yet open to changes over time.

Eisenstein

I found this reading to be very informative and helpful to my understanding of the impact different editing techniques can have on the viewers understanding of what is going on in a film. While watching the Battle Ship Potemkin it was clear to the class that this was a much choppier film than the previous ones we have watched. I had not yet read Eisenstein’s article so I was unable to identify this as montage editing but after reading the article it all makes more sense. The choppiness of the shots is used to show the different emotions of the many people in the film and the overall impact the events were having on the community as a whole. In the article there are screen shots of the Odessa Steps scene in the Battleship Potemkin. I immediately refer back to this scene when contemplating Eisenstein’s theory because its perfectly captures the use of montage to make the viewer fee anxious and hectic; letting the viewers feel what the characters in the scene were feeling. Montage is not a smooth process and often is used to show such feelings as chaos; this article explained this concept very well.