Genre vs Movement

Genre attempts to cover too many aspects of film over a long period of time to be useful for the detailed examination of any set of film. Cannons are naturally formed in describing movements, yet it is acknowledged that no movement has an exclusive cannon any more than a set beginning or end. The nature of influence over the course of time cannot be so sharply cornered. Thus genre criticism is ultimately doomed to be contradictory as Altman says. This contradiction is easily seen in the criticism of Altman himself. He, like Shatz and the others we’ve read, fall into the trap of the very idea they are criticisng. The terms we use to describe similar films, what they are calling “genre”, fail because the natural tendency is to use any similarity a basis for grouping of films.

Within these critical essays, two examples held on high are Westerns and Musicals. According to Altman, Shatz, and Neale, these are both clearly genres. Yet the aspects of the films grouped that make them a genre are incomparable. A western is a western because its major themes are good vs bad on the edge of civilization. A musical is a musical because it has diagetic music. How can we accept both of these categorizations of film as genres? The definition of “western” as a genre is based on thematic similarities, and any discussion of the role of music is rather arbitrary to its moralistic codes. Yet the definition of “musical” as a genre (from Les Miserables to Hello Dolly) is based entirely on the presence of diagetic music – with overarching consistency of theme or location or time period. The criteria to include or exclude into or from these “genres” are completely unrelated.

Rather than attempt to redefine the method of defining film under definite systems of categorization, I honestly suggest that we attempt to dismantle “genre” as a label to describe our natural attempts at making inter-contextual sense of what we see. I have two ideas of how this will play out in film criticism.

The first is the realization that genre has been a tool used in discussions about film trends that are far more logically defined. Schatz’ divides film into two structural types – those of determinate space and those of indeterminate space. Unlike any notions of genre which overlap greatly or disconnect entirely, these two categories are in opposite to each other. There is not a question he asks of one that he does not ask of the other. He uses the above two “genres” as primary examples of each type his describes, yet one examined aspect of the whole of each is a defining element that places a film categorically. For example, Schatz says that the type of film we typically refer to as a “Musical” falls into the category of determinate space because it usually follows and man and woman adjusting themselves to each other and to the codes of their society. “Westerns” fall into the opposite category – indeterminate space - because it typically involves following a (male) protagonist that follows his own codes rather than the ones of the nearby society. Thus, judged by the same standard, in this case a thematic one of the protagonist relationship to societal codes, there are found to be two different thematic categories for film.

Because we still require a language of theoretic categorization within a historical context to be able to compare and discuss film, I suggest a different terminology. As an art history student, the need for this debate perplexes me. Throughout our class discussion of film noir, I constantly found myself tossing out the idea of “genre” and replacing it with the notion of a “movement.” I believe the reason film noir has such a difficult place falling into the idea of “genre” is because most of the theoretics of genre appear to be based in literature. Seen as a movement, film noir presents no problem whatsoever. Movements or -isms are broken down first by stylistic concerns, then by time period/ historical events, then by location, then by theme. They are almost always a reaction against to previous stylistic constraints and easily admit the influence over multiple other sources. A movement has a cannon but it is one naturally created written specifications from the artists rather than an exterior mold posthumously cast onto the work from a time period. The idea of a movement is much more open to the influencing and cross pollination of ideas than a genre is.

The one aspect of a movement that is questionable when discussing film noir is the fact that movements are always more or less self-defined by a specific group of similarly interested artists. Typically their titles are the inventions of a few people who act both as practicing artists and as theoreticians. Granted a true movement cannot happen within Hollywood film, because the individual voices of directors, screenwriters, and cinematographers are drowned out by the control of those with control over financial support systems. A movement implies a group of individuals with common interests and influences working in similar yet distinct styles. This does exist in film but I’m not sure it can exist in Hollywood film because of the collaborative nature within a film. But the relationship between the auteur and the Hollywood system is a blog of a different color.