ABOUT GENRE IN GENERAL
When Is a Film Generic? — A »Worldmaking« Theory of Genre
Genre is a category that is
applied to a set of feature films. The task of a general
theory of genre is to find conditions that have to be fulfilled
for a feature film to be sorted into a particular category.
Traditional approach to these conditions was to look for
the common features that connect films that were felt to
belong to the same genre, be it iconographic features,
common events, or the same sequential formula. Though treated
as a kind of stereotypes, firm and obligatory, these features
proved to be empirically too varied, changeable, non-necessary
in a particular genre film. However, variations in iconographic
features, motives and formulas were felt as non-accidental.
They
were mostly just different (»normal«, or just »probable«)
aspects of the particular world presented (»imagined«)
in the film. E.g. empty landscape with a lonely rider,
mainly horse transportation, small and improvised towns,
particular means of survival (farming, cattle breading,
prospecting, hunting, trading, plundering...), lack of
»law« over the vast regions of country, high probability
of firearm conflict, etc. — these are all just different
aspects of the same historical region — North American
West (of the »same world«). Each individual Western film
can thematize different aspects of the same world, using
a different set of »iconographic« elements, different set
of »typical actions« and different »sequences«, though
still quite characteristic of this world. There is something
deeply convincing in the idea that films of particular
genre are presenting us with a specific type of (imagined)
world, and that each individual film within genre is actually
exploring different facets of the world, or different kinds
of world. Thus, when we start watching a particular genre
film, we are observationally »entering« into its world,
trying to see what kind of a world it is, what aspects
of that world are made prominent, and what are the specific
life requirements in the presented aspects of the world
etc. Each film in a genre is »elaborating« somewhat different
facets of the world (e.g. Western), or elaborating somewhat
different variety of world (e.g. SF, historical films)
— and that gives to genre films a Chomskian-like feature
of generativity.
Since we can imagine an immense number
of world-varieties, the nontrivial question for this »worldmaking
theory of genre« is: which worlds out of an immense number
of imaginable worlds have a chance to become genre-generative?
A possible answer is: those worlds that are more intriguing.
More intriguing are, first and foremost, those imagined
worlds that are more distanced (different) from our routine
(default) beliefs about our »life-world« (such are, e.g.,
historical and fantastic worlds).
Secondly, more intriguing
are those films that present an opposition (a clash) between
a »normal« world and a deviant, alternative one. Such a
clash is typically introduced by a story pattern (fabula):
an assumed background world of normative »normality« is
critically disturbed, and the disturbance points to a more
general possibility of an alternatively ordered world,
which threatens the »normal« one. The disturbance has a
two-way thematization effect: it focuses the attention
on the general alternative possibilities, and at the same
time it foregrounds those background norms that were violated.
This intensifies not only the informational value of both
worlds, but it intensifies problem-solving orientation
of viewers, together with their emotionally coloured viewing
motivation.
The type of disturbance, judged by the nature
of violated norm, is a powerful criterion for genre differentiation.
E.g. narrative concentration on violation of »anti-criminal«
norms of civil life is consequential in articulating crime
films (these systematically present conflicts between a
»normal world of civil security« and a »world of crime«
which globally threatens the former).
Concentration on
the appearance of biologically impossible creatures in
horror films brings out the possibility of the two worlds
in fatal clash: the world of common biological laws routinely
validated in everyday life, and the »other world« where
such laws are not valid any more, this other world governed
by unknown, but human life threatening laws, etc. Since
all this »world-production« and »world-multiplication«
is taking place on the imaginative level, on a »world-representation«
level (world modelling level), what is challenged are at
the same time our routine »typification« procedures (Schutz)
in dealing with our common world. Now, in some genres not
only scenic events but also their visual/aural presentations
(vistas) do the »violating job«: that is often the case
with comedies (so called »sight gags« in distinction with
»situational gags«; cf. the starting gag in Chaplin’s Immigrant,
which is described by Arnheim in Film as Art). The manipulation
of »visual perspective« on scenic events (diegetic world)
through framing and editing is mostly such that it intensifies
the intrigue of events themselves, and though not necessarily
»specific« to particular genre, they are nevertheless justifiably
taken as genre-constitutive because they contribute to
the generically essential attitude-forming aspect of narrative
world-making.
Of course, this account of imaginative generative
basis for genre differentiation is not sufficient to explain
existing genres: genres are social institutions, they are
built not only through imaginative »power« of world-making
film representations, but also by social-communicative
life that surrounds them and factor them into a social
phenomena. This aspect of »world-making theory of genre«
has yet to be developed. However, one thing can be asserted
with a conviction: there would be no social elaboration
of »genre patterns« if they did not posses an initial imaginative
power over the minds of film-viewers, regardless of whether
this imaginative power was socially »utilized« (»generified«)
or not.
Hrvoje Turkoviæ |
