FILM GENOLOGY
Film types
Three basic classes
of film types in film studies tradition are film genders (or film disciplines), film
categories and film styles. However, most discussions
revolve around film genres and this is almost exclusively
related to feature films. The author discusses these problems
of classification in detail. Under film genders he understands documentary
film, feature film, scientific and educational film, commercial
film, animated film, experimental film and 3D video games,
that is, virtual reality.
Film genders phenomenon
is examined in a historical manner — from documentary and
feature films by Lumière brothers and scientific impulses
in film making, through problems of film popularity and
rating figures as an indication that film can serve as
a powerful means of propaganda. The author explains the
principles of first moving images as being »characteristic
of animated films« although lacking animated film technology
and the idea of the art film as an alternative to populism
appears only during the 1920s with the appearance of artistic
avant-garde which got the name of experimental
film in
some of its versions. Of course, as the film appeared late
to satisfy the needs for movement recording, so
computer video games appeared late to satisfy the needs
for interactive participation in the world of presentations,
as opposed to the passive, so called, receptive film
style till up to then. The author then examines the
cultural and civilizational stable position of film genders
— in the influences of theatre, literature, photography,
and so on.
However, the author points out that film
branching out is led not only by culturally formed objectives
but also by ways of realization, types of presentation
and discourse appropriate
to them. Fictionality (concretisation of imagined worlds
in animated and feature films) is particularly well developed
via narrative presentation, while description is
especially suitable for documentary films, and the argumentative,
so called, discourse type of presentation is most
suitable for realizing educational and scientific purpose.
Of course, poetic and associative type of presentation is
most suitable for experimental film. This typology, of
course, does not exclude the intervention of different
types of presentation so the author discusses this problem
and the criteria for films gender specialization in full
detail. As opposed to these classifications, there are,
however, film rankings which are means for directing attention
to classification, that is, ranking, and they appear in
specific circumstances that occasionally need classification.
When we go to the cinema sometimes it will be important
for us to know whether the film is in colour or black
and white,
whether it is short or feature film, silent or sound and
so on. Likewise, it will be important for the critic or
theoretician to warn about a certain film being artistic or populist, commercial or non-commercial, filmic or theatrical...These characterizations set
up borders between film categories. Of course, many film
features can become prominent in this kind of classification
so we are obviously dealing with an extremely flexible
classification.
As a rule it is developed through dichotomies (for
example, whether the film is silent, that is, without
sound, or sound; is it animated or live-made),
but it can also be graded, based on the final scale,
for example, on the basis of duration (mini films,
short films, medium-size films, feature films...)
or based on the number of films in the series (for example, mini
series, series, mega-series) and similarly. In all
these cases of categorization it is important for the
criterion to be related to a prominent, theme characteristic
and for other film or films characteristic to be neglected
even if they indicated that these films are contrary
according to another categorization criterion. There
were examples of silent and sound black and white films;
they belonged to different genres and styles. Fertile
categories’ multiplication; possibility to infinitely
multiply categories represents a great advantage, emphasizes
the author. The author categorizes the way in which categories
are recognized and introduced. He emphasizes that there
are observational and discourse
categories; the first are based on the perception
of film characteristics and the second primarily on speculation,
for example oppositions clean — unclean, characteristic/not
characteristic of a film, artistic — non-artistic film.
However, the author dedicated special attention to a
very complex phenomenon of artistic film, discussing
the problem of whether it is dealing with observational
or discourse category. The most interesting feature of
this category is the richness of relations it establishes
with other categories, based on completely different
criteria of distinction.
The author then writes about basic classes
of observational categories. Media categories are
isolated on the basis of basic and rigid characteristics
(silent and sound film; colour and black and white film;
two dimensional and three dimensional films; animated film
and live-made film and so on). Thematic categories are
important because the theme organizes the film as the whole (films
about children, films about minors/teenage films; women films
(films about women); family films, films about friends (buddy-buddy
films); urban films; rural films, and so on. Classification according
to thematic dominant is very common within documentary and educational
films. This kind of classification is even communicationally
more common than classification based on different criteria.
Style
categories are formed on the basis of some consistent,
characteristic, mostly complex experience-related reactions
to films and this is why this type of categories is more
elusive than the previous two types (humour films; tragic
films; sentimental films; realistic films; naturalistic films;
high-concept films; boring films and so on). It should
be minded that these categories do not get mixed up with
genres. Cinematographic categories differ from all
previous, more narrowly filmic categories. These categories
are commercial and non-commercial films; populist and
elitist films; cinema and television films; mainstream and
alternative film; amateur and professional film; state and
independent film; and so on. All these classifications
are derived from social conditions of production.
The author than explains the complex problem
of film styles;
while previous classifications had an objective to establish
sufficient number of general criteria that should make
it possible to estimate whether any film belongs to that
type or not regardless of its undeniable individuality and
necessary difference from other films and regardless
of social and cultural variations that films belonging
to the observed type undergo and that allow to determine
their social individuality and uniqueness. However, film
individuality is also of great importance and our
perceptional (as well as broader receptional) relation
to the film will largely depend on style — identity.
Type kinships based on individuality, identity, singularity are
called style-kinships and based on them a special class
of film styles is
formed. According to the type of identity, that is, according
to the type of examples to which identity
establishing is related, the author isolates an individual style (style
of an individual film, style of a singled out part of the
film or style of a sufficiently separable aspect of an individual
film), afterwards, a personal style of a series
of films that can be linked to the identifiable producer
(author’s or director’s style; actor’s or actress’ style;
cameraman’s style; script-writer’s style; and so
on) or group or global style (artistic/style-linked/movements;
style streams, directions and tendencies; »home« (producer’s)
style; regional style; style period; aspectual styles.
Of course, the author explains each of these types of classification.
He points out that within each of these style classes and
between classes themselves there is a special kind of coordination
— styles on each level are isolated on the basis of their
mutually sufficient difference. For example, director’s
style presupposes sufficient difference in relation with
other directors’ styles. This can also be applied with
respect to other style levels — for individual films and
for other group styles.
On the other hand, style types
are coordinated based on the principle of hierarchy. For
example, the identity of an individual film can be regulated
with the identity of the author’s style of a director,
director’s work can fit into some artistic movement or
stream of style, and style-movement can at the same time
belong to the whole hierarchically coordinated group of
style-classes.
In conclusion, after describing different
types of classification the author points out that we are
talking about types that can be linked, that is, types
that determine one another conditioning the complexity
of our whole type-relation to the film. For example, the
category opposition silence/soundness about
equally draws the line between the whole film field and
distinguishes two types of films and serves for determining
film periods in terms of style and category — the period of silent
film and the period of sound film. The categorical
opposition action-related/psychology-related film
can serve as a dimension, by which we measure every feature
film and every part of the film regardless of the genre,
but this categorical opposition can present a criterion
for determining supra-genres, that is, it can serve for
the classification of existing genres into supra-genre
types and so on. The duality of categories, their independent
applicability to direct film classification, as well
as their applicability to the sole process of creating
other types of classification, makes them extremely useful,
together with the purposes mentioned and implied hereto,
also for metaphoric and explanatory transmission. Description
of style is most commonly reduced to description of symptoms (that
is, characteristics that can influence identity perception)
and every focusing on individual symptom, characteristic,
first of all intensifies sensitivity to it, increases
the capacity to identify this symptom, and by this it
»isolates« it up to a certain point enabling the perception
of this symptom in other films — »produces« a category
distinction applicable to all films of a certain style,
but not only of a certain style but of all other films.
The procedure of category generalization with its transfer
to the areas where these generalizations did not originate
from, develops also in relation to disciplinary and genre
characteristics.
It can also be mentioned, the author points
out, that almost each style class is characterized by a
special structure of relations with other type classes,
that is, a specific presence or absence of certain disciplines,
genres and categories within a given style. For example,
primitive style is characterized by a relatively rough
branching of disciplines which is not necessarily accompanied
by the spectator’s awareness about the total range of disciplinary
differences. So spectators do not have to perceive differences
between documentary and feature films spontaneously. In
order to perceive them they have to be accentuated. At
that time educative film did not differ from documentary
film apart from the context of presentation. So disciplinary
branching in early primitive film is still not standardized,
that is, having ad hoc standardizations. On the other hand,
classic film is characterized by clear and meta-communicational
differentiation and hierarchy of disciplines.
At the end it is pointed out that all these
variations, changes and alterability in regulation of certain
types and their interrelations not only fail to annul the
importance of classification but strengthen it. Flexibility
and the state of being submissive to alterability of differences
of type indicate their evolutional adaptability and their
necessary presence indicates their importance: as much
as we are sometimes insecure upon making classifications,
as much as we oppose to them, we keep resorting to them
and considering their constant revision important.
Hrvoje Turkoviæ |
