A working theory of film genre

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content A WORKING THEORY OF FILM GENRE by Margaret M. Byrne Volume I A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Cinema - Television — Critical Studies) May 1988 Copyright 1988 Margaret M. Byrne UMI Number: DP22268 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Published by ProQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP22268 Microform Edition © ProQ uest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK £ f n LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089 m B99S v./ This dissertation, w ritten by Margaret M. Byrne under the direction of h zr. D issertation Committee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of re quirem ents for the degree of D O C TO R OF PH ILOSOPH Y Dean of Graduate Studies September 4, 1987 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE A . . . . . . V d .......... Chairperson TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OVERVIEW......................................................1 Backgrounds -- A Brief Review of Genre Criticism . 4 The Early Years: Genre as Labels to Inform the Public...............................................4 Warshow and Bazin Place Film Genres in Context .............................................. 8 Critic/Historians Begin to Describe Film Genres .............................................. 9 Invention vs Convention: Auteur and Genre . . 12 Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and Filmology............................................. 16 The Current State of Film G en r e................... 21 Statement of the Problem.......................... 24 Purpose of the Study........................................25 Definitions..................................................... 27 Film. ...................................................28 Theory. ................ 29 Genre . 30 Genre Film................................................31 Cataloguing and Classification.....................32 Assumptions..................................................... 32 Method and Procedure........................................33 i i Page The Theory..................................................... 35 Preview of Remaining Chapters.............................38 Summary...........................................................40 CHAPTER 2........................................................54 Preliminaries: Film Theory, Film Form and Film Types...........................................................54 Questions and Issues........................................54 1898 - 1927................................................. 55 Vachel Lindsay: Categories of Film Based on the Camera's Unique Capacities...............57 Alexander Bakshy: Categories of Film Based on the Degree of Spectator Involvement. . . 60 1927 - 1946................................................. 62 Harry Alan Potamkin: Film as F i l m ............63 Film as Social Instrument.......................64 Theorists Begin To Define Categories of Film. 64 Bela Balazs: Types of Film Organized by Filmmaker's Treatment of Film Form/Content. 70 Spottiswode: "Reproduction - Representation - Randomness".......................................73 Rotha: Significant Work in Film Classification.................................... 75 Film Index: Film Classification Assigned by Star..................................................82 Page Kirk Bond: "Cinematic-ness" as a Basis for Film Classification................................85 1946 - 1968................................................... 87 Bazin: Film — Forms of Realism.................. 91 Slavko Vorkapich: "Function” as a Basis of Film Classification................................93 Kracauer: "Inherent Filmic Affinities" as the Basis for Film Classification.............96 Mitry: The Psychology of Forms....................100 1968 - 1986....................................................105 Mast and V. F. Perkins: Focus on Film Forms .108 Filmology: Complementary Directions............116 Concluding Remarks......................................... 118 CHAPTER 3.......................................................134 Key Concepts and Issues in Film Genre..................134 Cataloguing, Classification and Genre..................136 Library of Congress.................................138 The National Film Archive.........................141 UNESCO.................................................... 146 Magyar Filmstudies Archives...................... 148 Belgrade Cultural Centre, Beograd Film Institute............................................150 Status of Film Genre: Criticism Without Theory . .159 Traditional Genre Criticism: Inferred Theory . . .161 i v Page Attempts At Theory Building: Common Traits, Invariant Elements, and Defining Characteristics............................................165 "Shared Trait": Category of Film.................165 Essentialism and the Popular Myth Approaches: Variations on Invariant Elements...............................................168 Defining Characteristics: Traditionalists and Their Successors.............................. 184 The Concept of "World"...................... 185 Borrowed Categories............................189 Intended Audience Reaction.................190 Target Audience. . . .........................192 New Directions: Contextualist Genre Criticism. . .194 Douglas Pye: Clarification of Indefinability.201 Restrictive Marxism: Genre as Status Q u o ........... 204 Alf Louvre: The Theoretical Position of Mediation............................................208 Leland Poague: Post-Contextualism and Generic Hypothesis.............................................. .213 Stephen Neale: Generic "Imaginary Signifier" . . .216 Eclectics of Traditionalism.............................. 220 Film Genre: Function as World Vision........... 221 The Documentary................ 223 The Problem With History.................. .231 The World of War: Crossing Function and Vision With T o p i c................................. 244 v Page The Social Document Film............................248 Biography: The Drama of History.................250 Legendary History: The E p i c ...................... 253 Summary. ....................................................256 CHAPTER 4.......................................................287 Frameworks for a Working Theory.........................287 Problems and Questions....................................288 Film: Medium and Art.................................290 Place of Film Genre and Theories of Classification............................................302 Redefinition: Film Type and Film Form.................303 Film Type.......................................................304 Film Movement................................................. 309 Film Form.......................................................314 Genre and Metagenre........................... 323 Genre as Dynamic: Tradition and Evolution........... 326 Style, Genre, and Vision: Working Assumptions. . .335 Sub-genre and Formula.......................................341 Cycle............................................................ 343 Marginal, Hybrid, and Mixed Films...................... 344 Hierarchy Based On Use/Function.........................346 A Working Model...............................................348 v i Page CHAPTER 5 Summary and Conclusions....................................361 Summar ................................................. 361 Implications for Further Research. . . . . . . . .365 APPENDIX A ....................................................372 APPENDIX B ....................................................401 APPENDIX C ....................................................412 APPENDIX D ....................................................427 APPENDIX E ....................................................431 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................... ,484 LIST OF FIGURES Page Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Figure 1: Vachel Lindsay: Categories of Film . . . 58 Figure 2: Alexander Bakshy: Categories of Film . . 61 Figure 3: Bela Balazs: Continuum for Classsification of Film T y p e s .....................72 Figure 4: Raymond Spottiswode: Classification by Realism ...........................................74 Figure 5: Paul Rotha: Forms of Cinema...................78 Figure 6: Paul Rotha: Purpose of Production. . . . 80 Figure 7: Film Index: Types of Film......................84 Figure 8: Slavko Vorkapich: Functions of Film. . . 94 Figure 9: Siegfried Kracauer: Categories of Film . 97 Figure 10: Jean Mitry: Psychology of Film Forms. .103 Figure 11: V. F. Perkins: Categories of Film . . .114 Chapter 3 Figure 1: Variation on National Film Archive's Form Index...............................................144 Figure 2: Variation on National Film Archive's Formlndex. . . 145 v ii i Page - Figure 3: Hypothetical Reorganization of Beograd Film Institute's Film Genre Schema.............. 158 ! Figure 4: Cawelti's Matrix of Convention- 1 Invention to Form-Formula.......................... 177 l j Figure 5: Hypothetical Hierarchy of Form — Formula j and Convention-Invention Matrices...............178 ! Figure 6: Modes of Vision Within the , Hollywood Narrative.................................. 183 i i | Figure 7: Hypoethetical Schema of i Contextualist Theory of G e n r e .....................198 Figure 8: Hypothetical Relationship of Factual and Documentary Approaches to Function. . . .230 Figure 9: Schematic Overview of Historical Film . 234 Figure 10: Schematic Overview of Legendary History Film............................................ 235 , Figure 11: War Film: Hypothetical Matrix of Function and Vision................................. 247 ! Chapter 4 Figure 1: Film as Media Art...............................293 l Figure 2: Film Medium: Aesthetic and Non-aesthetic U s e ....................................295 j Figure 3: Proposed Placement of Film Genre Theory in Relation to Communication Arts Theories..................................................296 Figure 4: Cataloguing, Classification, and Genre System............................................ 298 1 x Page ! Figure 5: Cataloguing, Classification, and | Genre System (2)....................................... 299 i ! Figure 6: Hierarchy of Categories: j Relation of Film Genre to Other Categories. .305 Figure 7: Hierarchy of Categories: Relation of Film form, Film Type, and ! Film Genre to Film Medium...................... .306 I Figure 8: Hierarchy of Categories: Relation of Film Genre to Film Movements.................312 Figure 9: Types of Film: Fiction Film, Feature ' Film, Fiction Feature Film, Nonfiction ; Film, Short Film....................................... 319 ! Figure 10: Definition of Form............................321 I Figure 11: Tradition: Progression of Paradigms . .329 I l Figure 12: Historical Placement of | Film Noir in Relationship to the Detective Film Metagenre............................332 : Figure 13: Subordinate and Coordinate ! Relationships Between the Hard-Boiled Detective Film and the Film Noir.................335 I Figure 14: Theoretical Foundations: | Form: Historical Traditions.......................349 j Figure 15: Theoretical Frameworks: Form: How Film Is Valued (Used by/ | Functions for) the Audience.......................350 I Figure 16: Genre Theory: A Working M o d e l........... 353 x I I OVERVIEW What is a film genre? For Stanley Cavell, film genre is a medium. For Stuart Kaminsky, film genre is a category of films sharing a sufficient number of motifs so as to be identified as similar. For Edward S. Small, film genre is a "major structural grouping." For Rick (Charles F. Altman, film genre is a popular form of ritualized entertainment, a formulaic product of the studio system established by intention, narrative content, and 1 dialectic structure. Is the spaghetti western a film genre? Are Warner Bros, woman's films? Is Australian New Wave? Are Hitchcock thrillers? Disney cartoons? Newsreels? Are romances? Is noir? What about British "little" comedies? In 1976, Stanley Solomon remarked: . . .what appears to be a genre to one writer becomes a subgenre to another, and what to one is merely a technique 1 or style becomes to another an identi fiable manner of grouping films. In practice, the term genre has an almost unlimited number of valid connotations...2 Rick Altman, in his 1984 article "Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre," voiced a similar concern with the opposite conclusion: What is a genre? Which films are genre films? How do we know to which genre they belong? As fundamental as these questions may seem, they are almost never asked -- let alone answered -- in the field of cinema studies.3 How is it that in 1976 Solomon perceived the field of film genre studies to be populated with numerous valid definitions of film genre and less than a decade later Rick Altman observed that the basic question "What is film genre?" had almost never been asked -- let alone answered? In part the vastly differing perceptions result from problems specific to the study of genre. But they also result from changes in the critical agenda. Certainly, Solomon is justified. Questions regarding film genre have been asked many times with many different, useful responses. The multivarious responses to genre study pose one of the significant dilemmas facing scholars. At the heart of Altman's criticism is the reasonable complaint that there is not a single, clear, 2 comprehensive system of film genre. To belittle American genre studies as having no theoretical base, however, is neither accurate nor useful, as when Altman quips: Why bother to theorize, American pragmatism asks, when there are no problems to solve? We all know a genre when we see one. Scratch only where it itches.4 It is unlikely that this kind of comment results from inaccuracy or misinformation. Altman, like other creators of the new critical agenda, does not recognize genre study as having any underlying theoretical base because the form American pragmatism takes does not resemble European (French) theory. Altman's disdain for American pragmatism reflects filmologic influences begun in 1968, but not yet fully reconciled within film 5 studies. This filmologic bias complicates and detracts from otherwise useful criticism. For example, Altman goes on: Even in this limited pragmatic view, whereby theory is to be avoided at all costs, the time for theory is nevertheless upon us. The clock has struck thirteen; we had best call in the theoreticians. The more genre criticism I read, the more uncertainty I note in the choice or extent of essential critical terms. Often, what appears as hesitation in terminology of a single critic will turn into a clear contradiction when studies by two or more critics are compared.... [Such] uncertainties reflect constitutive weaknesses of current notions of genre.6 7 Presently, there is no "explicit" genre theory. Whether or not the film community believes there exists any genre theory depends in large part upon its i definitions of theory. Altman's comments, for example, i i reveal a failure to acknowledge fully the evaluative ! component in film study. At issue is Altman's opinion j I that there is no "good" genre theory -- an opinion which is widely held. j In its current state, theorizing about the nature of j genre requires more than asking and answering such questions as "What is a film genre?" or "How is it constituted?" Critical/theoretical terms must be defined. The filmologic bias must be disentangled and then reconciled with the filmic, if such questions as "What is a useful (a good) film genre theory?" and "What is genre's critical function within film studies?" are to be addressed. Backgrounds — A^ Brief Review of Genre Criticism The Early Years: Genre as Labels to Inform the Public i In the early years of film criticism, silent i pictures were labelled "western," "romance," "melodrama," "comedy," and so on, in order to inform the audience of what to expect. Early reviews concentrated on narrative elements. In practice, most labels -- such as crime 4 films, serials, adventures, slapstick -- were terms adopted from other media. With the rise of the star system and the studio system, film labels became more specific. Critics identified films by stars, as with "Pearl White" adventures or "Broncho Billy" westerns, by directors, as with D. W. Griffith epics, by producers or studio, as with "Mack Sennett and/or Keystone comedies." The studios, as manufacturers of entertainment, cultivated their markets -- developing identifiable product, while targeting yet trying to broaden their consumer base. By the rise of the golden age of Hollywood, studios and production houses were associated with certain types of films, specific stars, or an identifiable style; examples are MGM's family films, RKO's stylish Rogers/Astaire musicals, Britain's G.P.O. unit documentaries, March of Time newsreels, or Warner's gritty, fast-paced action films. The studios themselves encouraged and used what later came to be the basis for traditional "genre" criticism among their own personnel. Studio publicity departments used "genre" tags when communicating to the public about new releases, just as distribution used genre labels when informing exhibitors of forthcoming product. The "B" movie — from its inception to 5 exhibition, today’s "youth" comedies, and a whole era of television have been conceived and produced in terms of 8 genre/formula. While it is Hollywood which is so often linked with film genres, other film centers were devising their own short hand tagging systems; for example, France's Marcel Pagnol comedies, Japan's Mizoguchi jidai—geki, Germany's Erich Pommer dramas, or Britain's Ealing Studio "little" comedies. Labels developed from industry usage — not from any abstract conceptualization of time, place, or intention. Some labels were internationally similar -- "drama," for example. Other labels, while appearing similar -- even identical -- were in fact based on national sensibilities, as with the historical film. Still other labels were specific to the culture (or sub-culture) — German "street" films, British "gothic horror" films or Japanese "samurai" films. The variety of grounds employed to create new categories of films was myriad, and dependent, it seemed, only upon the taxonomic imagination of the publicist/ reviewer and/or critic. Films were grouped sometimes by narrative elements, sometimes by studio, sometimes by star or director, tone, treatment, intention, target audience, technical or production concerns, idea, and 6 sometimes purely by whimsey. Like Topsy, they just "growed As the body of films increased so did the variety of labels. For example, romances, epics, serials, historical films, military dramas, Yukon pictures, horse burlesques, singing cowboy films, Broncho Billy vehicles, and Indian films were all vaguely associated under the rubric "Western." Genre tags, in the early period, were a clutter of colorful, if often vague and contradictory, labels which did not significantly add to a clearer understanding of film or the film-going experience. Th.e specific problem was not that the reviewers' labels (a la industry usage) were in direct conflict. No one disagreed, for example, that The Iron Horse (1924, U.S.) was a western — nor that it could be considered an epic drama as well as an historical film. The .problem was to emerge later, once genre came to be viewed as a critical/theoretical (evaluative) tool. The foundation for a "scientific" taxonomy was not being established. Certain questions — What constitutes a film genre? How is it constructed? What distinguishes a genre film from some other category of film? -- were not relevant to the industry, and thus were not addressed. Edward S. Small remarked in 1977: Proper classification is essential to the analysis, understanding, and eventual artistic control of the film medium.... Proper classification, in fact, is basic to any hope for clear structural insight....9 For most of its history, the critical posture towards film genre has been a vague humanistic generalization; it has been "synchronic," to use de 10 Saussure's meaning. All film genres, whatever their constructions, co-existed. A system -- that is, patterns of coordination, relation, and subordination -- was not delineated. War show and Bazin Place Film Genres in Context It was not until the late 40s and a series of articles written by Robert Warshow for the Partisan Review that film genre became the object of "serious" 11 consideration. Warshow proposed that film genres were reflections of the American psyche. He further implied that through the study of film genres as a form of popular culture, one could monitor American needs and tastes. Genre was no longer merely a shorthand label used among filmmakers or by industry/reviewers to inform the public. The success of certain film genres acted as feedback to the filmmaker(s) regarding public preferences. 8 French humanist Andre Bazin identified film genres as forms of cinematic language in a series of three articles composing what later was titled "Evolution of the Language of Cinema"; and, in a preface to J.-L. Rieupeyrout ’ s L^e Western o u le cinema par excellence, * Bazin argued that the western film genre’s unrivalled success was due to its combination of myth and cinematic 12 essence. Bazin was not asking why a particular film was financially or critically successful, so much as why some film genres were more appealing than others to the audience. By linking genre with popular taste -- and by seeing genre as a cultural communication system — Warshow and Bazin expanded the use (and value) of genre. From a somewhat haphazard method of "tagging," genre was evolving into both a valued critical tool in film study and a way to monitor society. Critic/Historians Be gin to Describe Film Genres Up until the late 60s film theorists used the notion of genre in much the same way reviewers did. Any explicit theorizing was derived from the external, application of the particular school of thought the critic/theorist endorsed. Thus, humanists tended to describe the artistic (aesthetic) ingenuity of a genre film. Formalists, on the other hand, explained how form 9 13 lent power/value to a particular.(genre) film. (See Chapter 2 for a more complete discussion.) Among film theorists, "film types" and "film form" 14 were more popular topics than was film genre. Vachel Lindsay outlined three categories of film in The Art of the Moving Picture; Eisenstein often referred to film and literary genres, but never addressed genre from a theoretical stance in his ongoing series of essays, later compiled in Film Form and Film Sense. Kracauer's Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality employed genre as "type," but focused most theoretical consideration on the nature of film — not on film 15 genres. It was left to film critics and historians to characterize and to delimit film genres. Early studies included Gilbert Seldes' discussion in The Seven Lively Arts, Paul Rotha's organization of Movie Parade and his history of the Doc umentar y Film, and The Museum of Modern Art’s Film Library program — especially their publication The History of the Motion Pictures by Maurice Bardeche and Robert Brasillach. In addition, many articles by such critic/reviewers as Stephen W. Bush and Louis Reeves Harrison of Moving Picture World provided F5 material for later studies. 10 Genre studies took a variety of forms: -- They described the nature of a group of films, as with Frank Fearing1s discussion of rehabilitation films in "Warriors Return: Normal or Neurotic?" or 17 Edward Jablonski's "Filmusicals . " — They analyzed characteristic patterns of a single group of films, as with Douglas Gallez's 18 "Patterns in Wartime Documentaries." -- They traced themes, characters, and images recurrent in individual film genres, as with Parker Tyler's "Supernaturalism in the Movies," Jack Spears' "The Indian on the Screen," and Jacques Siclier and 19 Andre Labarthe's Imag e de la Science Fiction. — Or, they recounted the history and evolution of a single film genre, as with Jean Domarchi's "Evolution of the Film Musical" and John Weaver's "Destry Rides 20 Again, and Again, and Again." -- Although genre critics often drew from "New Criticism," from formalism, and from cultural criticism, they did not systematically theorize on the nature of genre . With the notable exceptions of the writings of Harry Allan Potamkin and Siegfried Kracauer, few studies linked genres with the sociological or pyschological 21 until the 50s. Then, with the rise of the horror film 11 and the science fiction film genres, psycho-sociological i terms were increasingly applied by film genre critics; examples: John Peter Dyer's articles "All Manner of 22 Fantasies" and "Some Nights of Horror." Critics erflarged their scope to include the experience of the 23 audience/spectator. Invention vs. Convention: Auteur and Genre It was in part the more "systematic" critical method of the auteur policy, and its placement in opposition to genre's "scattered" method, which stimulated the search for a more rigorous approach to film genre study. Initially, film borrowed the literary 24 stance of pitting auteur against genre. In accepting this somewhat artificial conflict, film genre critics became defenders of the studio system, with its 25 collaborative rather than singular vision. In complete opposition to Stanley Cavell's comment "that a movie comes from other movies..." the auteurists 26 defended the value of the "unique." In the following citation Leo Braudy explains the auteurists' dilemma; in so doing he also indirectly exposes the crux of the filmic/filmologic conflict over genre . . The critical understanding of genre films therefore becomes a special case of the problem of understanding films 12 in general. Genre films offend our most common definition of artistic excellence: the uniqueness of the art object, whose value can in part be defined by its desire to be uncaused and unfamiliar, as much as possible unindebted to any tradition, popular or otherwise. The pure image, the clear personal style, the intellectually respectable content are contrasted with the impurities of convention, the repetitions of character and plot. We undervalue their attractions and inner dynamic because there seems to be no critical vocabulary with which to talk about them without condescending, and therefore no aesthetic criteria by which to judge them, no way of understanding why one horror film scares us and another leaves us cold, why one musical is a symphony of style and another a clashing disarray.... Critics have ignored genre films because of their prejudice for the unique.27 The conflict between the two positions seemed to be based on an effort to elevate the value of their respective critical positions. Genre studies became defensive justifications of why genre study "should be" a critical method. One example: All too often the critic or teacher turns to the 'art' film because it is so much easier, not more difficult, to deal with such films. The art film approach assumes the existence of a creative author, and in-depth analysis of the author and his work has been the primary tool of literary education and criticism for several hundred years.... In contrast, the genre 13 approach makes no qualitative judgment.... The genre critic does not castigate society for responding to the popular work; he examines the work to determine why it evokes response.... The roots of genre are not solely in the literary tradition, but in the fabric of existence itself .28 Genre critics justified their devaluation of individual artistic vision by drawing from cultural, mythic, psychological, and structuralist positions. By raising the significance of genre to the universal — by seeing a cycle of genre films as a variation on a universal theme — , genre critics equated genre to popular culture in an attempt to mitigate the auteur 29 policy. In turn, the study of genre suffered under the auteurists' critical elitism. For the most part, auteurists reduced the scope of genre to the golden era of the Hollywood fiction film, eliminating Japanese genre films, nonfiction genres, and art or avant-garde 30 film. For auteurists,' a genre film was valued according to its particular ratio of convention to invention. By determining the elements of a genre, then factoring them out, the "auteur school" critic believed 31 he was left with the auteur's singular vision/style. Such a critical method by itself offered neither generalizability nor comprehensiveness. Stanley Cavell 14 clarifies: The danger is not so much that evidence will be lacking as that there will be evidence for everything and nothing, that theory will not warrant enough confidence to repudiate ill- gathered evidence to test what it tests. Organization by directors' oeuvres is a beginning, but it will include too much and too little; or else 'organization' will only start meaning 'arranged alphabetically by director, ' keeping dumb about the ranking in quality or centrality we assign a given work within an oeuvre, and about the relation of a given oeuvre to the medium that has made place for it . 32 Even as some genre critics continued to entrench themselves in the essentialism of mythic/popular culture criticism, others, like Jim Kitses with his study, Horizons West, were discovering a more dynamic and complementary relationship between auteur and genre. For the most part, however, filmologists , misunderstanding the nature of film and the role of genre within the industry, came to equate genre with subject matter. Edward S. Small accurately described the state of genre criticism in his 1979 article, "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of- Film": In general its [genre study's] mainstay is subject matter (e.g. the western, disaster, horror, musical or war categories) and its great weakness is over subordination (i.e., by and 15 large relegating all productions, at times including nonfiction and experimental works, under the implicit paradigm of the theatrical narrative, the fictive feature.) On the one hand, this results in some very simplistic demarcations, much as one would find in a children's library which featured a section labeled 'sea stories.' On the other hand, this curious emphasis on subject matter over structure results in a tunnel- vision which not only often fails to recognize such robust genres as the experimental film but, perhaps worse, fails to understand them."33 Under the filmologic influence of structuralist auteurism, genre "lost its critical function" (value). Stephen Neale explained: It was structuralist auteurism that put the notion of meaning production on the agenda and programmed the appeal to semiology as the discipline that was to account for the way texts work as signifying structures.... However, together with the displacement away from problems of the 'artist' towards problems of text construction and the issues raised in that context, the concept of genre also lost its critical function in that it became marginalised, no longer located at the 'critical' nexus of the arguments between auteurists and establishment.34 Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and Filmology In 1968 there began the deconstruction and revitalization of film theory and criticism. Structuralism and what the French would label "filmology" provided a cross-fertilization of methods, perspectives, 16 and ideas which would eventually produce a reactionary 35 backlash in post-structuralist materialism. The first wave of structuralism rejected the work of V. F. Perkins; instead, early structuralists reverted to the "essentialist" tradition begun by Bazin and revived the socio-psychological contexts established by Robert Warshow. Popular culture critics took up structuralist methods, applying to film genre study the ideas of structural anthropologist Levi-Strauss and folklorist 36 Vladimir Propp. Themes, plots, patterns, formulas, archetypes, and mythic narratives were explored. Rules of morphology — of evolution and interrelation — were examined . Individual films were valued to the extent the’y revealed universal and predictable, aspects of the genre. When film genres were viewed as mythic narratives, it 37 produced works like Wil Wright's Sixguns and Society. Such a view downplayed any auteurist notions in part because myths as popular "systems" were considered to be 38 "stories that have no teller." Freudian psychoanalytic models also found a place within structuralism. However, the psychoanalytic model devalued genre, pushing structuralism to the extreme position where all films could be reduced to a single core myth. With such a reductive thesis the 17 contributions of psychoanalysis to genre study have as 39 yet been extremely limited. Roger Dadoun's "Fetishism in the Horror Film" was one of the few articles which 40 applied the Freudian model to a film genre. The early works of semiologists applied the principles of structural linguist F. de Saussure. Led by Christian Metz, the semiologists developed a definition of film as a multi-layered communication system of invariant signs. Through a grammar of the film, the genre film was identified by its specific configuration of cinematic (character, decor, camera technique, etc.) and noncinematic codes, as Marc Vernet explained in his 41 article "Genre." Unfortunately, what was initially a valid and exciting application of the structuralist method, when pushed to the extreme, "programmed [genre theory's] virtual disappearance from the critical 4 2 agenda." Before any significant studies of film genre could be produced, the early semiotic principles were abandoned for post-structuralist materialism. Marxist (or what Philip Rosen more accurately 43 labeled "vulgar Marxist" ) film critics used a sort of "dualistic" dialectic, oversimplifying Eisenstein's notions of film as conflict, and stating that artistic practice was social practice — aesthetics equals ethics. Through a critique of the studio system as a social, 18 political, and economic institution maintaining the status quo of bourgeois ideology, vulgar Marxists attacked the auteur concept, redefined film as ideology, and generally dismissed genre films (and with it all interest in film genre) as "non-real." An example of Marxist criticism was Judith W. Hess' article in Jump 44 Cut. One noteworthy exception, which has received little attention, was a 1975 article by Alf Louvre. In his "Notes on a Theory of Genre," he countered vulgar Marxist rhetoric with: Between revolutionary and revolution, indeed between all the categories they seek to unite, come all sorts of mediations that cannot be rhetorically asserted away.... [One] does not solve the problem of the relations between imaginative form and social determinations by simply collapsing the terms together, by saying the imagination and the forms it invents, once free from its by now traditional alienation, is implicitly social, and indeed determines society (which in turn is understood as our collective imagination).45 Louvre proposed a place for genre within Marxist criticism — "a space where the problematic nature of the relation between the imagination and social determination 46 is asserted." Feminist critics adopted a vague and problematic combination of vulgar Marxist, psychoanalytic, and early 19 47 Metzian semiotics. For the feminists, genre films were the patriarchal system's fictional representations intended to repress, demean, and objectify females; an example of feminist criticism was Christine Gledhill's article, "Klute 1: a contemporary film noir and feminist 48 criticism." Reacting to the closed and detached orientation of structural applications, a new brand of theorists — labeled "post-structuralists" — explored the ideology and system of film genres. Dudley Andrew described the shift: Put succinctly, genres are now to be thought of not as changeless structures ordained by some natural or psychological law and destined to repeat themselves to every society; nor are they merely the taxonomic constructs of analysts. They serve a precise function in the overall economy of cinema, an economy involving an industry, a social need for production of messages, a vast number of human subjects, a technology, and a set of signifying practices.49 Where-humanists of the 40s and 50s saw genre as "treasure chests of cultural values," Stephen Heath and what might inappropriately be named "ideologists," "rediscovered" the industrial aspects of film with the important difference that their critical posture was 50 politicized. They' focused on genre's regulative 20 role : Genre is a specific guise of ideology, the visible edge of a vast subterranean implacement determining the various institutions and practices of culture, clandestinely working on the unconscious of spectators.... Genres ... are specific equilibria balancing the desires of subjects and the machinery of the motion picture apparatus.51 The Current State of Film Genre Although structuralism and filmology have not provided a comprehensive theoretical base for genre study, they have expanded the number of frameworks available to genre study. Post-structuralism rediscovered and offered a theoretical base for the 52 industrial aspects of film. The recall to "historicize" film study has been another valuable post structuralist contribution. And yet, with all these fertile .crosscurrents, there has been no attempt to build an explicit, comprehensive theory of film genre. Brian Henderson has indirectly offered one explanation for the lack of a genre theory by pointing out that the field of film study "has not benefited from its various conquests because it has not defined 53 itself." The reasons are even more complicated: — First, the state of film criticism remains disorganized. While the notions of what film is are more 21 numerous than ever and the potential roles of critics and theorists are growing, there is little direction, perspective, or clarity. — Second, the confused state of film theory/criti cism is due in part to a more' fundamental problem: neither traditional film theory nor filmologic theories 54 adequately deal with the complex nature of film. Each in its own way has attempted to force foreign models onto 55 film and film genre in an attempt to understand them. What is needed, however, is analysis and description — not prescription. Although Brian Henderson somewhat overstates the situation, it is generally the case that The field of film study is strewn with uncompleted projects, barely sketched proposals, and undeveloped ideas, with practical work proceeding most often without relation to theory.... In film theory a succesion of systems has left no certain heritage because few jobs have been finished, because practical work is confused by or indifferent to theories, and because a core of film theory has never been defined.56 Since traditional film theory does not address the nature of film adequately, it finds it difficult to incorporate insights from filmology or to reconcile the differences. — Third, the general state of film scholarship is, euphemistically stated, muddled. Borrowed research methods and tools inadequately meet the unique needs of 22 the film scholar. Film library organization is antiquated, thus requiring specially learned skills in order to "get at" the materials. Cultural and ideological differences make an international system of organization virtually impossible. One of the most distressing problems is terminology. With the influx of the rarefied filmologic and post-structuralist jargon, * nonstandard usage has been complicated by misuse, abuse, 57 and elitism. With the heavy influence of semiotics on generic theory over the last two decades, self-conscious critical vocabulary came to be systematically preferred to the now suspect user [film industry] vocabulary.58 -- Last, film genre studies are subject to a generalized problem common to many specializing fields — the lack of priorities. The purpose of so many current studies it seems, as Calvin Pryluck points out, is extrinsic : In reading the literature, I have been struck by the notion that much of our research is like an investigation of whether fat bald men have belly-buttons.... For many people research is something we do to get a degree or get promoted.... Yet if the goal of research is to expand our understanding, then existing knowledge must be connected with new knowledge. Good theory provides this connection.59 23 Statement of Problem Historically, questions of film genre fell to film critics, reviewers, and historians — not to theorists. However, when theorists have described film genres, it has been through indirection. Historians and critics have studied individual genres, but the nature of genre has not been studied in and for itself. Most recently, genre has become the vehicle to support (usually) a filmologic tenet -- that, for example, film genres are Freudian, repress women, or reinforce the status quo. When theoretical concepts have been advanced, they are isolated; they do not appear to build on previously advanced theories of film. A sense of perspective and a sense of history is absent. Old ideas are proposed as if they are new, betraying an unfamiliarity either with film theory or sufficient numbers of films. Precedents have long been established for the study of culture. The study of film genre, as with the study of film, requires an organon of method, classification, philosophy, and theory. What is needed, not only in film genre study but in film study itself, is a process for acquiring systematic knowledge. In the last two decades methods of film study have experienced an extreme oscillation between the highly generalized and overly personalized. Analogies from 24 other media and communication arts may be appropriate. Certainly a sense of relation and interrelation among the communication arts is important. As much as film has borrowed, it has integrated and "made its own." Tracing the evolution of a genre, for example, is valid. But the method is an historical, chronological one -- not a truly scientific one. To over-scientize or to indulge in personal self-reflections does not advance our understanding of film. Analysis, comparison, synthesis, induction, deduction remain valid and valuable systematic methods of knowing. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to propose a working theory of film genre. Its intent is to address the descriptive and theoretical uses of the term, "genre," how film genres are constructed, what film genres' organizational relationships are to other categories of film (film types, film form, cycles of films, or formula films), and other similar kinds of issues. It is for the most part descriptive rather than prescriptive. Its goal is to arrive at simple, consistent operating principles which can clarify yet enrich our understanding of film and film genre. Modeling itself after the example set by Jean Mitry, this study attempts to provide a disciplined yet * 25 flexible approach. In part, its purpose is to find a position somewhere between the bipolarity of traditional and contemporary film theory. It easily acknowledges its roots in humanism yet respects the vitality structuralism and filmology offer. However, contrary to the ideologists, this study assumes practice and theory are interdependent — that: — Practice demonstrates theory through specific example; — Good practice points up flaws in theory, suggesting needed directions for theory and testing the adequacy and practicability of theory; and — Semantics is the carefully articulated use of designated terms; it is a bridge between practice and theory; easily accessible and understandable definitions are fundamental. The proposed theory is based on a desire to formulate a practical system more than a purely logical one. The history of genre-related issues and definitions cannot be ignored if a usable theory is to be produced. The result is that the proposed schema of concepts and terms is at times reductive, and excludes valuable and valid arguments. For example, John Cawelti's and Edward S. Small's proposals to allow a more literary definition of genre to stand preserves 26 consistency, but as Stuart Kaminsky realistically points out: Unfortunately, the term 'genre' in film studies has become so accepted that a clarification at this point seems futile. What is more likely is that usage will result in a change of meaning for the word genre, particularly when the word is applied to film analysis.60 Definitions Discussing definitions is a bit like disentangling nested Chinese boxes. To define an "art form" requires a definition of medium; "format" cannot be understood without an explanation of form; and "genre" is dependent upon "tradition" and "audience expectation." Various and inconsistent meanings have colored such critical terms as "form," "type," "kind," "class," "genre," and "cycle"; only "category" and "sub-category" are relatively neutral, and without obvious theoretical 61 connotations. Over the course of Chapters 2 and 3, for example, it will be seen that "form" evolved from an extremely broad category — virtually equivalent to medium — to a grouping of films as limited as the western. A knowledge of the history of genre-related terms is essential if one is to propose clearer, more specific definitions. From a negative point of view, inconsistency has 27 created confusion. Knowledge seems ephemeral and in flux. From a more positive perspective, film genre theory is very much alive; definitions do not change and evolve when a topic is dead or exhausted. Film- What is film? What are the differences among film, cinema, motion pictures, movies? Need film study encompass all moving images? Is it limited to classics, to the fictional, to the historically noteworthy? Gerald Mast defines these terms nicely, even if common, usage is not so narrow. "... a motion picture is material (film), process (cinema) and form (movies). "62 Film is the material medium of a motion picture as words are the material of literature or sound is of music. Film is not a language. As it is used in this study, film is an umbrella term inclusive of cinema, motion pictures and movies. Cinema is a process imposing an organization and a unity on the material of film. The movies is an example of a filmic (cinematic) art form. Most studies of film genre are in fact studies of the entertainment movie genre. They presuppose that film is limited to Hollywood fiction film. The cinematic process is thus limited as well. 28 A more useful definition of film may come from a description of film's uses, effects, and functions, more 63 specifically in terms of its relation to its audience. This broader definition of film and film genre provides greater perspective and flexibility. It also acknowledges that boundaries between the cinematic and noncinematic are flui-d. Theory- A theory is a construct of the mind; the purpose of theory is to create order from experience. It is not the existence of orderly experience, but rather the need in the mind of the theorist which is the basis of 64 theory. A theory is only as good as it is useful in helping to understand film and film genre. Theories take many forms. For example, traditional genre theory is industry-derived; it is not explicitly articulated as is much European theory. Traditional genre theory is pragmatic in form; it is not self- proclaimed; it cannot be connected to a single author, like Kracauer, or a school of thought such as formalism. Traditional genre theory, for the most part, must be inferred from an analysis not so much of genre criticism as of individual genre histories and/or critical histories . 29 Genr e- There is no universally valid concept for genre. No genre classification is inherently self-evident. Genre is used variously to mean 1) a critical and/or theoretical construct, 2) the process of constructing, and, 3) an entire systematic approach. Genre, as an abstract category, can be defined (more or less usefully) before studying actual examples. On the other hand, genres are constructed from viewing and studying actual films, noting similarities, then grouping together specifically related films. In his article "Genre: Concepts and Applications in Rhetorical Criticism," Walter Fisher clarifies the first two definitions of genre thus: . . .a genre is a category . . . genres are generalizations. As such they are both true and false. They are not natural objects like animals, vegetables, or minerals. They are made by humans out of the mind’s penchant for observing similarities and differences in things, to provide order to understanding.... Genres are constituted through an examination of actual instances.... They are inductive generalizations, not dialectically apprehended noumenal forms.65 For example, the gangster film, as a theoretical construct, differs from the various member films (Little Caesar, Public Enemy (U.S., 1931), Scarface (U.S., 1932) and so on) composing it. 30 Film genre, as used in this study, is the basis for developing a systematic approach to understanding the value of film. Film genre is not restricted to formula; to a location (Hollywood); to a nationality (the United States); to a fixed collection of "sufficient11 elements, such as icon, setting, character, theme, etc. or to universal "mythic" patterns. While all films must be catalogued and classified, not all films are members of film genres. Genres are neither fixed nor pure. Genre is dynamic and evolving. Genre theory/criticism involves the historical evolution of theoretical/critical viewpoints as much as genre works/films/texts themselves. It necessarily involves many factors, including public and critical consensus, and the accumulation of shared, cultural references. It is this definition of genre on which the bulk of this study will focus its attention. Genre film- Another term "genre film" -- not to be confused with film genre — has a specific use and meaning. As Leo Braudy remarks: ... the stereotyped character, the familiar setting, and the happy ending . . . those films that share common characteristics — westerns, musicals, detective films — in short, what have been called genre films.66 31 The genre film is a formulaic product manufactured for a pre-existing audience; the genre film’s content, style, technique, and treatment are predictable 67 (although not necessarily invariant). Genre film typically refers to product of the Hollywood studio system, especially "B" pictures; but the term is equally appropriate to the Japanese and Indian studio (industry) systems where formulaic product also dominates. Cataloguing and Classification- As it is used here, the fundamental difference between cataloguing and classification is that the former is practical and descriptive, the latter descriptive and evaluative. Cataloguing is verifiable; it describes physical properties and some content (topic). Cataloguing is based on apprehended phenomena -- such as material, instrument, technique, production, format, and topic. Classification takes physical properties into account, but it is based on perceived, "shared characteristics," which may or may not be 68 verifiable. Assumptions Genre is a heuristic construct which identifies categories of film. It may also serve as a critical tool for evaluating film. A theory of film genre is not 32 equivalent to a theory of film classification, although such a theory is badly needed. For the purposes of this study, film genre is grounded in a filmic (as opposed to filmologic) definition of film; it assumes film is internally derived; that is, it assumes: a) Film as film -- as opposed to film as language, film as ideology, film as narrative, film as reality or nonreality, etc. b) Film as synthesis -- film is not a collection of pieces of other disciplines — part music, part theatre, part literature, part painting, part dialogue; to use Eisenstein's example, it is not red and blue, but purple and it must be discussed in terms of its "purple-ness." c) Because of film’s synthetic nature,- it naturally gravitates towards a pluralistic — not a dualistic approach. Dualism reduces film to such equations as film is language or its counterpart film is not language; dualism sets up opposition, such as genre vs auteur, rather than genre and auteur. Method and Procedure The methods employed in this study are descriptive, analytical, and theoretical. -- A comprehensive list of "theoretically-oriented" 33 readings dealing with genre theory was compiled. i Setting the scope of a "theoretically-oriented reading" proved troublesome, since at present, there is no corpus of self-proclaimed genre theory to critique. "Theoreticdlly-oriented" is used loosely, because the majority of the readings are at best criticism with some interest in theoretical issues. Appendix D provides a list of the theoretically- oriented readings discussed in Chapter 3. Note that 69 only three authors deal with film genre theory. The majority restrict their discussion to a handful of genre films. To use Altman's analogy, theirs is an "exclusive" position. — The readings alone provide neither a sufficient basis for understanding the complexity of genre concepts, issues, and terminology nor a useful film genre theory. Extensive secondary materials were needed to address issues of hierarchy and the place genre in relationship to other categories of film. It was necessary to disentangle the concept of genre from its use. Genre has intimately influenced and been influenced by goals and imperatives of the critical community. The evolution of that relationship needed to be analyzed and abstracted into a manageable schema. How the critical community relates to genre is a massive 34 j and much-needed undertaking which deserves far greater | attention than it was given in this study. i — Next, the various theoretical positions were ! reviewed. Key concepts and terminology were noted and compared. (Refer to the Glossary of Terms in Appendix E.) Issues were analyzed and clarified. Categories of j j films consistently labeled as film genres were isolated [ and examined. A master list of 100 categories of film labeled "film genres'1 was compiled from various J reference sources. (See Appendix C.) — Once it became clear how genre study evolved to its present state, it was also easier to define the needs and priorities of a useful genre theory. — Finally, a working hypothesis was negotiated between what was perceived as the conflicting goals of genre studies and the historical weight of entrenched usage. The Theory What resulted was a rather natural expansion — much like developmental theory -- from the nature of film itself (its technical/mechanical qualities) to film's complex relationships with the filmmaker(s) , the studio/financiers, the audience/spectator(s) , and the historical context. The readings were organized around 35 seven clusters of issues: 1) f ilm ; 2) filmmaker(s); 3) studio/industry; 4) box office/economics; 5) critical environment; 6) audience/spectator; 7) historical/social/cultural context. The working theory grew out of this same process. The nature and construction of film genres followed the progression of film’s relationship first with itself and then with other areas. Beginning with the inherent technical aspects of the film medium, it became clear that any good genre theory must address the filmmaker’s manipulation of the medium, the economics of financing and box office, the influence/taste/expectations of the audience, the critical perception/evaluation of film genre, as well as the dynamic nature of film genres through time. The working theory, as proposed in this study, can be described as: -- ’’holistic” in that its process is the ordering of elements to produce a perspective of the whole; and, — ’’dynamic" in that the model offers a fluid model for ordering, differentiating, and characterizing 36 70 groups. What is proposed in this study is not a theory of classification, either universal or specific, although it necessarily addresses issues affecting both cataloguing and classification. The scope is limited to film as an art form. "Art form" is intended in its largest sense; that is, categories of film which are commonly considered to have aesthetic intention and organization. This study does not theorize on the nature of media, the relationship of video to film, and the resulting cross-over categories of film. The theory does organize categories of film along a hierarchy, where hierarchy simply means patterns of coordination, relation, and subordination of larger to smaller groupings; hierarchy in no way connotes superior or inferior categories. The hierarchy proceeds from form — the largest category of film — to the smallest category of film — cycle. Each category is viewed as a whole; its construction is not based on either a single, fixed criterion or a complex of several criteria. Recalling Eisenstein's concept of "purple-ness ," categories are conceived in terms of their wholeness -- their "purpleness." The theory is descriptive. It does not force 37 arbitrary logic on inconsistencies. It allows genres to be fluid and problematic. It allows genres to be more inclusive or exclusive as appropriate. It allows genres to be many things simultaneously — just as film is. This is because categories of film are based not only on scholarly endeavor but on popular and critical consensus. The theory proposes that traditionalists' notions of film genre, once explicated, and articulated, do have usefulness — some more so than others. Once the massive muddle of genre history and criticism is sorted through, there is a rich storehouse of ins.ight on the nature of film and the film experience. Film genres, in some respects like life forms, are illogical. They live, die, evolve, generate new species, become extinct -- and then from nowhere surprisingly reappear. But like lif.e forms they are also an endless source of fascination. Preview of Remaining Chapter s Chapter 2 traces film theory, film form, and film types as they relate to questions of film genre. Other methods of classification, which are separate from genre classification but which have been confused with genre concerns, are clarified. The theoretical basis for historical and current assumptions regarding genre is 38 outlined. Ideas significant to the working theory proposed in Chapter 3 are discussed, where appropriate. Chapter 3 begins by reviewing the major international cataloguing/classification systems dealing with genre. The various "inferred" theoretical positions regarding film genre are described. Key concepts are analyzed. Theoretically-oriented readings are discussed where they contribute to an understanding of organizational frameworks or an elucidation of terminology. Significant genre criticism, where it clarifies significant concepts, issues or terminology, is also discussed. Chapter 4 proposes a working model for a theory of film genre, integrating the advantages and significant concepts of each .of the various approaches, both filmic and filmologic, as delineated in Chapter 3. The model, based on a "filmic" (as opposed to filmologic) definition of the nature of film, is descriptive, humanistic (as opposed to materialist), polycentric, dynamic (as opposed to essentialist or structuralist), and holistic/ perspectivist (as opposed to ideologically politicized). Chapter 5 presents a summary and conclusion. Since recommendations for further research are numerous, they have been only briefly outlined rather than discussed at 39 length. The Bibliography includes all works cited, and especially influential selected readings. It does not include reference sources, background materials or the extensive lists of genre criticism and history necessarily consulted in a work of this scope. Appendix A contains a sample of major international film cataloguing/classifying systems. Appendix B is The Beograd Film Institute's summary of rejected film genre systems. Appendix C contains several lists used in developing the working theory. Included is a selective list of 100 film genres, compiled from several major reference sources. Appendix D is a bibliography of the theoretically- oriented studies which served as the basis for the discussion of key concepts in Chapter 3. Accompanying it is a list of film genres derived from the theoretically-oriented readings. Appendix E is a glossary of film genre related terms. Summar y In the same way that a theory of film cannot be reduced to a simple formula, neither can a theory of 40 film genre. Nor can an endeavor of this magnitude be completely resolved in the space of one study. Rather, the purpose here is to begin to lay a stable yet resilient framework for questioning, testing, changing, and confirming film scholars' understanding of film and film genre. 41 NOTES 1. Stanley Cavell, The Wor1d Viewed, Reflections on the Ontology of Film (NY: Viking Press, 1971). See especially The Medium and Media of Film” (pp. 68-73) and "Automatism" (pp. 101-108). Stuart Kaminsky, American Film Genres, Approaches to a _ Critical Theory of Popular Film, A Laurel edition (NY: Dell, 1977). See "Introduction: What is Film Genre?" (pp. 11-22, esp. p. 20). Edward S. Small, "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film," Literature/Film Quarterly, 7, no. 4 ( 1979), p. 292 . Rick (Charles F. ) Altman, "Towards a Theory of Genre Film," Film: Historical- Theoretical Speculations, Film Studies Annual, Part 2 (1977), pp. 31-43. 2. Stanley Solomon, Beyond Formula, American Film Genres (NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1976), p. 2. .... 3. Rick Altman, "Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre," Cinema Journal , 23, no. 3 (Spring 1984), pp. 6-18 . 4. Rick Altman, "Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre," p. 6. 5. Two terms, "American" and "filmologic" need to be clarified. Following Altman's usage, I have also used the term "American" (as opposed to Hollywood or U.S.). American refers to the continental United States, and is used in order to distinguish it from European, Soviet, Third World, or international. For a further explanation of filmology, see Chapter 2, p. 106; or see Christian Metz,. Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, trans . Michael Taylor (NY: Oxford University Press, 1974), p. 90. 6. Rick Altman, "Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre," p. 6. 7. The term "explicit" refers to theory which is 4 2 directly articulated; "explicit" is opposed to "implicit" which means indirect theoretical principles, or ones which must be inferred. Comparable terms are "etic" and "metic." 8. Tom Ryall, "Teaching Through Genre," Screen Education, no. 17 (Winter 1975-1976), pp. 27-30. He explains: "Films are, and have been from the earliest days of Hollywood, produced and marketed as westerns, comedies and so on; in addition, such categories are part and parcel of the film reviewer’s vocabulary, and the popular audience uses such divisions to guide its film viewing." (p. 27). 9. Edward S. Small, "A Note on Genre in Film," Journal of the University Film Association, 29, no. 1 (Winter 19 7 7) , p. 39. 10. See footnote 5 of Edward S. Small's article "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film," pp. 290-299. I find some of this distinction bothersome only because early critics allowed multiple and contradictory categories; they were more than able at "synchronic" methods. However, their synchronicity, because it was not theoretically based, provided neither clarity nor insight. 11. The Partisan Review articles are collected in Robert Warshow, The Immediate Experience (NY: Atheneum, 1970). 12. Andre Bazin, Que-est-ce que le Cinema? (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1958 -- 1965) in 4 volumes. The original three articles: the first for a Venice Festival anniversary booklet, Twenty Years of Film ( 1952); the second "Editing and Its Evolution," Age Nouveau, no. 92 (July 1955); and, third Cahier s du Cinema, no. 7 ( 1950). 13. Dudley Andrew suggests in his chapter on "Valuation" that genre has been a "persistent issue” throughout the history of film theory (from humanism to post-structuralism). Andrew overstates the significance of genre's importance 1) when he says, "Genre...was the battleground on which formalists had to defend their theory of the sanctity of the individual work." (p. 108); and, 2) when he implies that it was the influence of Northrop Frye's Anatomy o f Criticism which led film scholars "to work under the supposition that a genre ought to be a static construct, full of themes, symbols, standard plot devices, and the interrelation of all 43 these." p. 109. Clearly formalist criticism has had a significant influence on concepts of genre, but that influence was not single-minded. See Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory (NY: Oxford University Press, 1984) , pp. 107-132. For a somewhat different position and a good example of the formalist view, see Thomas Sobchack, "Genre Film: A Classical Experience" Literature/Film Quarterly, 3 (Summer, 1975), pp. 196- 207T: 14. "Type," "form,” and other terms will be discussed at length in Chapters 2 and 3. See also Appendix E -- Glossary of Terms. 15. Vachel Lindsay, The Art of the Moving Picture, rev. ed. (NY: Macmillan, 1922); Sergei Eisenstein, The Film Sense A Harvest Book (NY: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1942, 1947) and Film Form, Essays.in Film Theory A Harvest Book (NY: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1949); | Siegfried Kracauer, Theory of Film, The Redemption of Physical Reality (NY: Oxford University Press, 1960“ rpt . 1968~J~. 16. Gilbert Seldes, The Seven Lively Arts (NY: Harper, 1924), Paul Rotha, Movie Parade (London: The Studio Publications, 1936, 1950) and Documentary Film (London: Faber and Faber, 1935). The Museum of Modern Art published a series of program notes which often traced the history and characteristics of a genre along with specific information on the film screenings; for example, three program notes by Iris Barry — "Comedies" (series 2, program 2), "Mystery and Violence" (series 2, program 4), and "The Film and Contemporary History" (series 2, program 3). Maurice Bardeche and Robert Brasillach, The History of the Motion Pictures (NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 1938). For articles by Stephen W. Bush and Louis Reeves Harrison, see the Bibliography. 17. Frank Fearing, "Warriors Return: Normal or Neurotic?" Hollywood Quarterly, 1, no. 1 (October 1945), pp. 97-109. Edward Jablonski, "Filmusicals," Films in Review, 6, no. 2 (February 1955), pp. 56-69. 18. Douglas Gallez, "Patterns in Wartime Documentaries," The Quarterly of Films, Radio and TV, 10, no. 2 (Winter 1955), pp. 125-135": 19. Parker Tyler, "Supernaturalism in the Movies," Theatre Arts, 29, no. 6 (June 1945), pp. 362-366+. Jack Spears, "The Indian on the Screen," Films in Review, 10 44 (January 1959), pp. 18-35. Jacques Siclier and Andre Labarthe, Image de la Science Fiction (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1958). 20. Jean Domarchi, "Evolution of the Film Musical," Cahiers du Cinema, no. 54 (1955), pp. 34-39. John D. Weaver, ''Destry Rides Again, and Again, and Again," Holiday, 34 (August 1963), pp. 77-80, 91. 21. For example, Harry Alan Potamkin, "The Motion Picture Comedy," New World Monthly, 1 (February 1930), pp. 117-121; "The Racketeer Paramount," New Masses, 6 (November 1930), p. 15+; "The Aframerican Cinema," Close Up (London), 5 (August 1929), pp. 107-117; and, "The Year of the Eclipse," Close Up (London), 10 (March 1933), pp. 30-39. Siegfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler: _A Psychological History of the German Film (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947); "Silent Film Comedy," Sight and Sound, 21 (August-September 1951), pp. 31-32; "Hoilywood"rs Terror Films: Do They Reflect an American State of Mind?" Commentary, 2 (August 1946), pp. 132-136; "Conquest of Europe on the Screen: The Nazi Newsreel, 1939-1940," Social Research, 10 (September 1943), pp. 337-357. 22. John Peter Dyer, "All Manner of Fantasies," Films and Filming, 4, no. 9 (June 1958), pp. 13-15+ and "Some Nights of Horror," Films and Filming, 4, no. 10 (July 1958), pp. 13-15+. For examples typical of this sort of criticism see under "Western Audience," (pp. 81-82) in Jack Nachbar, Western Films: An Annotated Critical Bibliography (NY: Garland Pub., 1975), esp. 8.3, 8.6, and 8.15. 23. The term "spectator" has been charged with ideological meaning by filmologists . I prefer to use the term "audience" for several reasons. It is more specific to cinema and the nature of the theatrical experience. Audience includes not only the visual but the aural — and the very tangible experience of being in a theater with other people. Spectator implies a passivity audience does not. I view the audience as an active participant in the film—going experience. 24. Throughout this first chapter and part of Chapter 2, I am deeply indebted to Dudley Andrew's insightful review of modern film concepts. See Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory, p. 119. Andrew correctly describes the auteurists as humanists, but since they were brought up on movies instead of high 45 culture, "they did not feel compelled to extol the great works of the art cinema but rather to reveal the unappreciated films of lesser known directors who, in workmanlike fashion, displayed notable styles, and, through style, consistent world views." See "auteur" in Appendix E — Glossary of Terms for a further discussion with citations. 25. Lawrence Alloway represents well the position of the traditional genre critic: "[The idea of personal responsibility] ... has led to a neglect of the real problems of movies in which collective authorship and diffusion of responsibility are the actual working conditions. To consider movies primarily as unique products of a single controlling individual to the same extent that poems and paintings can be so considered has vitiated a great deal of ambitious film criticism." He counters the auteurist position thus: "The following quote from Paul Mayersberg (4) is typical, 'Lang’s The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse, Renoir's The Testament of Dr. Cordelier, and Hitchcock's Rear Window are three movies which contain in different forms, personal statements about movie making itself. They are the testaments of their creators.' (p. 4). These films may be what Mayersberg states them to be, but his argument is incomplete in the form it is presented. His assumption is that these films are primarily expressive of their directors' personal involvement with their medium. However, the degree of personal expression to be found in these movies can surely only be determined after a consideration of the extent to which these films are iconographically normal or unusual. That is to say, to what extent themes and concepts present in them can be found in the movies by other, and for this purpose, less distinguished, directors. See Lawrence Alloway, "The Iconography of the Movies," Movie, no. 7 (February- March, 1963), pp. 4-6. 26. Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film, p. 7 and see following. 27. Leo Braudy, The World in _a Frame (Garden City, N J : Anchor Press, 19 76) , "p~I TO5 and see discusssion pp. 104-114. . 28. Stuart M. Kaminsky, American Film Genres, Approaches t o a. Critical Theory o f Popular Film, pp. 13- 1 4 ♦ 29. Cycle is defined somewhat differently by 46 traditional genre critics than by popular culture genre critics. See Appendix E — Glossary of Terms. 30. It is ironic, Edward S. Small points out, since j in an "age of auteur concerns" auteur critics have , ignored the experimental film— "typically an , I uncontestable auteur product, often being crafted by | just one or perhaps two artists (their concept, funding, ! | and total production)." See "Literary and Film Genres: , j Toward a Taxonomy of Film," p. 294. i 31. There,are a number of hybrid genre/auteur studies ' only a few of which are: Jim Kitses, Horizons West ; (Bloomington, Indiana and London: Indiana University | Press, 1970); J. A. Bizet, "Le Musical Americain," Cinema j '74 (February 1974), pp. 34-55; and, Thomas Schatz's i section "Douglas Sirk and the Family Melodrama: Hollywood 1 Baroque" in Hollywood Genres, Formulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981) , pp. 245-260. j 32. Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed: Reflections j H2L the Ontology of Film, p. 9. I 33. Edward S. Small, "Literary and Film Genres: ! Toward a Taxonomy of Film," p. 291. ' 34. See Paul Willemen's "Introduction" in Stephen Neale, Genre (Hertford, U.K.: British Film Institute, 1980), p. 2. 35. Rene Wellek’s Arnoldian intelligence describes ' structuralism as "...a bafflingly diverse and even ! contradictory set of doctrines with the most diverse 1 ! philosophical affiliations: the mood of Sartre’s , : existentialism, the techniques of Husserl’s phenomenology, the fanciful pseudo-science of Gaston Bachelard, modern linguistics ultimately derived from Saussure, and sometimes, Marxism or Marxist motifs. It : provides a rich hodgepodge of methods which -- whatever the interest and stimulation afforded may be — suffers , from the constant tendency to direct attention away from what I must consider the central concern of criticism: the analysis and evaluation of a work of art in its integrity." See Discriminations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1958), pp. 353-354. 36. Claude Levi-Strauss, "The Structural Study of J Myth," Journal of American Folklore, (October-December j 1955); Vladimir Propp, Morphology of the Folktale i 47 (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1958). 37. Wil Wright, Six Guns and Society: _A Structural Study of the Western (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975). 38. Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory, p. 78. 39. See Dudley Andrew's discussion of psychoanalytic criticism: Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory, pp. 133-156, esp. p. 140. For the most part, the purpose of psychoanalytic critics seems to be to reveal the unconscious processes at work within the minds of the spectators, characters, directors, etc. through observations of on-screen behavior. Andrew says: "Most characters cannot be readily analyzed. Insofar as their motives can be said to exist at all, they reside in the aesthetic of an author who is not available to discuss them. It is misguided for critics to treat a clearly 'secondary' discourse ... as though it were ... primary datum of the unconscious.” 40. Roger Dadoun, "Fetishism in the Horror Film," Enclitic, 1, no. 2 (1977), pp. 39-63, or Dennis Giles, "Show-making" in Genre: The Musical (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981) pp. 85-101, although neither advances a theoretic understanding of genre. 41. Marc Vernet, "Genre," Film Reader, 3 (1978), pp. 13-17. 42. See Paul Willemen's introductory discussion in Stephen Neale, Genre, pp. 2-3. On the other hand, with a "structuralist-inspired theory of cinema," genre lost its "polemical charge" (auteur vs genre). Willemen explains: "No longer was it a matter of individual versus formula/genre, or of author-within-genre-framework, but of disengaging the various different levels and codes, the various systems of signification at work within any given text or group of texts. The distinctions between such groups were no longer formulated in terms of genres, but in terms of narrative/non-narrative, illusionist/ anti-illusionist, classic/modernist, etc." And it was in part this dichotomous thinking which set up the reductive approaches current in genre study. 43. See Philip Rosen, "'Screen' and the Marxist Project," Quarterly Review of Film Studies, (August 1977), pp. 273-287. ~~ 48 44. Judith W. Hess, "Genre Films and the Status Quo," Jump Cut, no. 1 (May-June 1974), pp. 1, 16, 18. 45. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," Working Papers in Cultural Studies. n.p. : Center for Contemporary Culture Studies, University of Birmingham, 4 (Spring 1975), p. 122. 46. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 122. < For a further discussion of his work, see Chapter 3. j 47. Diana Hume George, in her article 'The Myth of | Mythlessness" footnote 15 (p. 42) Enclitic, 4, no. 2, ' special Feminist issue (Fall 1980) addresses the I problematic alliance between feminism with psychoanalytic ; method — "...the ironies inherent in feminist uses of psychoanalytic data are clear and obvious, while the [ corresponding ironies inherent in feminist uses of ' scientific method are not. Feminism has appropriated the j linguistic assumptions of empirical and behavioral j science without pause or trouble; the popularization of ' the word 'conditioning' in feminist writing is the best example. Anyone who has tried to synthesize 1 psychoanalysis and feminism, on the other hand, is obliged to develop a packaged response to the repeated question: how can you possibly reconcile two such antithetical theories?" 48. Christine Gledhill, "Klute 1: A Contemporary Film Noir and Feminist Criticism," in Women in Film Noir, ed. E. Ann Kaplan (London: BFI, 1978, rev. ed. j 1980). I 49. Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory, p. 110. j The shift post-structuralists consider "new" is more ; likely an integration of the traditionalist position. See Chapter 3 for a further discussion. 50. Robin Wood clarifies some of the recent developments in film criticism's interest in ideology in "Art and Ideology: Notes on Silk Stockings," Film Comment, 11, no. 3 (May-June 1975), pp. 28-31. In it, he questions current usage of the term "ideological" as well as pointing out some of the logical fallacies present in "Marxist" thinking. But, too, he outlines (rather optimistically) "three main phases in the j development of ideological awareness and its effects on criticism...." Although currently the ideologists are not providing particularly useful ways of thinking about film genre theory, in future they may. 49 51. Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory, pp. 112, 114. 52. See Dudley Andrew's discussion (beginning p. 115) in Concepts in Film Theory: "In asserting a total view of the cinematic complex (from the dark caverns of spectator psychology to a global network of socio economics) modern theory had forsaken the enterprise of criticism. How can the study of an individual film be important to anyone who senses the single voice of ideology emanating from every film? Criticism in this context could only be redundant." 53. Brian Henderson, _A Critique of Film Theory (NY: E. P. Dutton, 1980), p. xv. 54. Traditional film theory has tended to deal with technical aspects of the film medium or the independence of film as a form of art. Traditional film theory has not addressed sufficiently the nature of the film-going experience, the interactive nature of film, and the role and function of film. While the industry and history of film were never undervalued, traditional theory did not address these concerns directly. See Chapter '2 for further discussion. On the other hand, filmologic theory, in part because it is grounded in fields other than film, is often too narrow and too diverse to offer the comprehensive perspective so required of a useful film theory. Too narrow a perspective, as with ideological ("politicized") post-structuralism, where ideologists have pitted the standard cinema against a radical type of film they consider "outside" the political system, offers little possibility of reconciliation between film and filmologic studies. See Dudley Andrew's discussion in Concepts in Film Theory, pp. 120-127. For example, he states: "Standard cinema has been homogenized by these theorists for polemical reasons; it has been raised as a rigged backdrop against which they hope to stage their own dramatic event and insert their own values, the revolutionizing of film culture and film spectators." (p. 120). 55. Rick Altman offers one of the best and most recent critiques of the structuralist model in his article, "Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre," esp. pp. 7-8. Of the early structuralists he points out their uncertainty with regard to the relation between history and theory -- "If structuralist critics systematically chose as object of their analysis large 50 groups of popular texts, it was in order to cover over a basic flaw in the semiotic understanding of textual analysis." (p. 7). Of the more recent process- oriented" semioticians — "these theoreticians instead substituted the generic context for the linguistic community, as if the weight of numerous 'similar' texts were sufficient to locate the meaning of a text independently of a specific audience." He thus notes one of the most significant flaws in current genre studies. See Chapter 3 for a further discussion of this point . 56. Brian Henderson, _A Critique of Film Theory, p . xv . 57. See Robert Steele, "The Library Organization of Printed Materials," Society of Cinematologists, 3 (1963)- pp. 45-71, in which on p. 50 he states: Whether scholars and devotees of the film like it or not, despite film's being a new art form that deserves new thought about the classification of its literature, it is going to be fitted into dusty, quixotic, and hamstringing classification systems. Only the mass annihilation of almost all libraries over the nation would clear the way for a more logical and emancipating classification system." See also Robert Gessner, "Cinema and Scholarship," Society of Cinematologists, 3 (1963), pp. 73-80, in which he quotes James Card, Curator of Motion Pictures at George Eastman House: "...The student turns to the film histories and there finds confusion, gossip, and the wildest sort of speculation. He quickly sees that scholarship is no prerequisite to the writing of motion picture history. Adding his own speculations to the general muddle, he often becomes himself an author of film history. His work may bear a new adjective — critical, psychological, or encyclopedic -- but rarely does it present a new historical fact..." while challenging the reader with: "The confusion over fact coupled with the lack of critical standards should be more of a challenge than a discouragement." (p. 74). And see Jerzy Toeplitz, "Film Scholarship: Present and Prospective," Film Quarterly, 16, no. 3 (Spring 1963), pp. 27-37, in which he concludes: "... Enumerating the separate fields of film scholarship, it must be borne in mind that in each of them it is difficult to draw a clear boundary between serious scholarship work and the experimentation and fumblings of amateurs. These boundaries are fluid simply because the fundamental conditions necessary to the development and to the proper prospects of scholarly 51 study on the film are entirely missing or exist only in a few nuclei. Obviously, the principal reason for this is that the branches of film lore are comparatively new. But we would oversimplify the problem if we reduced all questions to the number of years that a branch of science exists. The reasons lie deeper. They arise from the fact that virtually all over the world film studies are conducted in a desultory fashion; the results are not published or codified, there is no exchange of experience, and studies are conducted in an atmosphere of distrust on the part of other sciences toward a subject which frequently defies classification under established academic categories and rules of the game. " (p. 29 ) . 58. Rick Altman, "Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre, " p. 7 . 59. Calvin Pryluck, "There's Nothing So Practical as a Good Theory," AFI Education Newsletter , 5, no. 1 (September-October 198l"5~[ p"I 2 ~ . 60. Stuart M. Kaminsky, American Film Genres, Approaches to <i Critical Theory of Popular Film, p . 19. 61. Terms such as "form," "type," "kind," "class," and so on will be discussed in Chapters 2 and 3. Also see Appendix E — Glossary of Terms. 62. Gerald Hast, Film/Cinema/Movie, _A Theory of Experience (NY: Harper and Row, 1977), p. 15. 63. For example, scientific use is denotative. It aims at a one-to-one correspondence between sign and referent. The sign is transparent, arbitrarily replaced with an equivalent sign. Expressive use, on the contrary, is connotative. The sign draws attention to itself and often builds meaning on its own unique history. (Example: an informational safety film on the workings of a hand gun vs the expressive use of the Winchester '73 in the landmark film of the same title (U.S., 1950). How film is "used" by the audience in relation to its expectation needs further investigation. 64. See Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (NY: Basic Books, 1959). Robert Dubin observes: "This need is characterized as the 'curiosity' of the observer, or scientist-theorist, whose curiosity is satisfied when order is imposed on experience." Robert Dubin, Theory Building (NY: The Free Press, 1969, 52 rev. ed. 1978), pp. 57-58. 65. Walter R. Fisher, "Genre: Concepts and Applications in Rhetorical Criticism," The Western Journal o£ Speech Communication, 44 (Fall 1980), p. 291. 66. Leo Braudy, The World in a_ Frame, p. 104. 67. For a good definition of "genre film," see Thomas Sobchack, "Genre Film: A Classical Experience," pp . 196-204. 68. See in Chapter 2, pp. 135-138 for further clarification of cataloguing examples; also see in Chapter 4 the proposed distinctions between a theory of classification and a theory of film genre. 69. Only three authors address film genre (as opposed to genre film); They are: Paul Rotha in Movie Parade , Antoine Vallet in Les genres du cinema, and Edward S. Small in a book review and his article, "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film." See Chapter 3. 70. The influence of Northrop Frye’s concept of "modes" in his watershed Anatomy of Criticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 195 7) stimulated some scholars like Frank McConnell in Storytelling and My thmaking (NY: Oxford University Press, 1979) to focus on a systematic view of film as a whole rather than to delve into single works. Frye is sometimes described as a structuralist; however, Frye's brand of "structuralism" is dynamic. Unlike that attributed to Levi-Strauss . Dudley Andrew accurately describes Frye's work not as structuralist, but as "genetic." (Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory , p. 79.) Edouard L. de Laurot, in his article, "Towards a Theory of Dynamic Realism," Film Culture, 1, no. 2 (January 1955), pp. 2- 14, provides the basis for the concept of "dynamic" -- "This imposition of human will upon the world of things, whether by judgment or by creation, always begins with man's perception...." This perception takes on different significance "according to the variable context of the historical period." (p. 3). A theory, like any human creation, is tied to its historical context and thus must be periodically reevaluated, if it is to retain its usefulness. 53 PRELIMINARIES: FILM THEORY, FILM FORM, AND FILM TYPES Form is essentially a way of giving emphasis and proportion to truth; when a ’new’ form is found, it is because the changing structure of society has reached a new phase...1 Questions and Issues Film theory can be divided into four periods of activity: 1) 1898 — 1927, or what one might euphemistically call the "prehistory" of film theory; 2) 1927 — 1946, from the advent of sound film to the end of WWII and the rise of Neorealism; 3) 1946 — 1968, a period of major theoretical and critical activity culminating in what has yet to be 2 fully recognized as a ’’crisis;" and, 4) 1968 to the present, or the fragmenting of the previous film theory community accompanied by an openness to transforming influences from fields outside film. From the earliest days of filmmaking, film critics and theorists have concerned themselves consistently with two questions: "What is cinema?" and "What is cinema's place among other fields of study?" While topics surrounding these questions have grown more complex and more sophisticated with each succeeding 54 generation of film enthusiasts, four areas of interest have remained constant: 1) technical/industrial aspects of the film; 2) aesthetic nature of film; 3) function or role of film in society (including the purpose of film); and, 4) popular appeal of film. Genre studies, for the most part, have grown out of an interest in the popular appeal of film. 1898 -- 1927 During the first period of film theory, the f I question "What is cinema?” generated three major controversies. Film circles debated: i 1) whether cinema was a technical apparatus for recording "actualities” or whether it possessed the I capabilities of an expressive art; 2) whether cinema was "movies" (a "low" art), or "motion pictures" (a "high" art); that is, whether cinema, from profit motives, catered to the baser instincts of the public (as Bernard Shaw quipped "You cannot combine the pursuit of money with the pursuit of art"); or, whether every art form initially is dependent upon public support; and, 3) whether the fundamental appeal of cinema lay in 55 its realistic representations, in its storytelling abilities, in its dream-like quality, or in its screen action -- that is, the principles of movement and light. Where the question "What is cinema?" created internal debates among film critics and theorists, the second question "What is cinema’s place among other fields of study?" received the attention of serious art and literary critics. Cinema was labelled an outgrowth of the stage, the music hall, the novel, the poem, the symphony, the pantomime, the visual arts -- both painting and sculpture — , the photograph, the newspaper, and a host of others. Each field claimed (or sometimes disclaimed) possession of the fledgling form as film theorists struggled to separate cinema from its hydra-like parentage. The more cinema mirrored the tastes of society, the ! more cinema was able to affect the continuing interests of that same society. The cinema suddenly found itself within the domain of psychologists, social scientists, and ideologists. As a result of these discussions there surfaced a number of issues regarding: 1) the importance of the screen personality; 2) the definition of film as both autonomous and a "synthesis" of traditional arts (music, literature, painting, etc . ) ; 56 3) the (economic) industry of film; 4) film as the first art form of the "Machine Age" — thus, the first democratic art; and, 5) "cinematic-ness" or the "essence" of the cinema. Vachel Lindsay: Categories of Film Based on the Camera * s Unique Capacities In the 1915 edition of The Art of the Moving Pieture, Vachel Lindsay placed film within the realm of traditional literary/art criticism by proposing as a basis for film criticism three categories of film: 1) the dramatic; 2) the lyric ; and 3) the epic . He called the categories of film "the photoplay of action," "the intimate photoplay," and "the motion picture of splendor." (See figure 1.) Lindsay's application of the philosophical/literary 3 model produced uncommon results. Lindsay linked action films with the spatial principles of sculpture, naming dramatic action films as sculpture-in-motion; the prototype — the out-of-doors "chase" film. For the intimate or lyric films, Lindsay applied the principles of painting — the details of interiors, portraiture, and psychological relationships; films like the many Mary Pickford vehicles, and in general, 57 Figure 1 Vachel Lindsay: Categories of Film DRAMA "Photoplay of Action" characteristics: exteriors spatial principles on-screen movement example: Action "chase" films LYRIC "Intimate Photoplay" characteristics: interiors portraiture psychological relationships example: Interior melodramas EPIC "Motion Picture of Splendor" characteristics: fantastic/other worldly masses of people histories of nations physical grandeur example: Epic films Ln 00 interior dramas were a sort of painting-in-motion. It is the third category which proved most original. Lindsay's redefinition of epic in terms of fantasy, resulted in the notion of filmic "splendor." The basis of the epic splendor form was the camera's capacity for sweeping movements and physical grandeur. It was film's ability to create a world "larger than life." It was film’s ability to take in masses of j i people, the histories of nations, the fantastic and the | other-worldly. The Griffith epics as architecture-in- motion represent the scope and magnitude which Lindsay named splendor. Lindsay recognized that the basis for categorizing films depended upon the camera's unique faculties for "trick" photography, for action, for parallel constructions, for compositions with unique spatial and temporal qualities. The filmmaker's manipulation of certain aspects of the film form created separate worlds -- separate categories each with its own characteristics 4 (that of sculpture, painting, architecture). In 1922, responding to the influx of German Expressionism, Lindsay hailed the new category of film as drawing-in- motion. Only a few years later, writing on the French experimental film, Evelyn Gerstein described four new 59 types of avant-garde films. Gerstein based her categories not so much on the camera’s capacities but on the pictorial aspects of the screen — on the use of 5 line, plane, textures, and contours. Alexander Bakshy: Categories of Film Based on the Degree of Spectator Involvement During this same time period Russian-born British Alexander Bakshy was contributing what are even today some of the most perceptive theoretical essays on film aesthetics. In the "New Art of the Moving Pictures," he pointed out The work of art is something that is endowed with a peculiar life of its own, and that asserts its identity against our effort to grasp and absorb it.... [It] is a form of functioning of the material in which the work of art finds its expression....6 Bakshy categorized film according to three types of drama: 1) the "realist drama," which restricted audience participation to that of observer and ignored the necessity of form (See figure 2.); 2) the "semi-independent" drama, which stimulated the spectator's imagination through style and composition, but which failed to use the dynamic qualities of the medium; and, 3) the "dependent drama," which employed full use 60 Realist Drama restricted audience participation fails to use dynamic qualities of film medium Figure 2 Alexander Bakshy: Categories of Film Semi-Independent Drama stimulates audience's imagination partially uses dynamic qualities of film medium Dependent Drama fully involves audience fully uses dynamic qualities of film medium of the dynamic nature of the medium, thus fully involving the audience. Bakshy’s proposal was important because he did not, like so many who followed him, reduce the value or appeal of film either to its realism (verisimilitude) or 7 to its storytelling abilities. Rather, like Mitry (and later Stanley Cavell) more than two decades later, Bakshy combined psychology and realism. In forming his categories, Bakshy included three elements: 1) the degree of realism in the drama; 2) the filmmaker(s)* use of the medium (minimal to full use); and, 3) the audience's response and degree of involvement with the drama. Bakshy’s idea of audience perception and involvement was precocious. Different from recent "functionalist" theory, Bakshy's approach was rhetorical. His theory defined the appeal of film in terms of the filmmaker's ability to involve the audience 8 through the artistic reworking of the medium. Bakshy empowered neither filmmaker alone nor the nature of the film medium. His thesis was based on the tri-partite relationship of filmmaker, medium, and audience. 1927 — 1946 During the period 1927 — 1946, the different 62 tendencies of the United States and what one might call the Continent (Europe, the United Kingdom, and what is 9 now the Soviet block) became noticeable. The United States was more concerned with the practice of 10 criticism. The Continent was interested in formulating abstract principles based on the practice of f ilmmaking. Harry Alan Potamkin: Film as Film The writings of Harry Alan Potamkin are most representative of the tendencies of the entire period. From 1927 — 1930, Potamkin investigated the aesthetics of film. Influenced by the French avant-garde, Russian Formalism, the "New Criticism" and Alexander Bakshy, Potamkin focused on the internal structure of the film, ignoring the role of the audience and the social effect of film. His indictment against cinema as communication and his assertion that "the thing in itself and not another thing" grounded film as an independent art form defined in terms of its own technical/mechanical characteristics. I From 1930 — 1933 and his untimely death, Potamkin swung in a completely different direction. Writing for the Leftist New Masses, Potamkin's research into the nature of film formed his basis for the ideal film. The 63 earlier suggestion that "the film which does not dwell upon itself, does not realize itself" became "[The ideal film is] where both subject and style [function] in 11 behalf of a [social] idea." Film as Social Instrument Potamkin's writings anticipated general trends. There was a shift from theoretical reassessments of the aesthetic nature-of film to concerns over the social and educational role film played in influencing the masses. The British documentary movement stressed the social responsibility of the filmmaker, film as a tool to stimulate citizenship, and the importance of a "public works" type of sponsorship. The technical craft and principles of filmmaking developed by the Russians were put to work in the Stalinist "social realism" films of the late 30s and 40s. On both sides of the Atlantic "film as social instrument" was the theme dominating the film. Film was redefined in terms of its capacity for realism (verisimilitude). Theorists Begin to Define Categories of Film In the late 20s several major theorists, including scene. Realism and subject matter came to be the "essential" and valued characteristics of 64 Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Bela Balazs, and somewhat later Rudolf Arnheim and Raymond Spottiswode, clarified the relationships among film theory, film form, and film types. Paul Rotha, documentarist and colleague of John Grierson, provided one of the first scholarly descriptions of existing categories of filnjs. Balazs, Arnheim, and Spottiswode addressed the more specific matters of realism and narrativity in terms of film form. Balazs introduced "induction" — or, what might now be labeled the spectator's process of ■ 12 | representation. Eisenstein, Pudovkin, Kuleshov, and others, through their theories of montage, implied categories of films. Balazs and Spottiswode explicitly i described the classification of certain types of, film. In brief , by the mid-30s the Continental theorists had resolved a number of aesthetic issues. The definition of the nature of film was expanded. Film was conceived as a combination of interrelationships: — of-technique (both instrument and the filmmaker's manipulation of the film material), — of audience participation and association with film images (recognition and construction), — of filmmaker(s)' personality and personal expression (including both the concept of style as well as representation), and, 65 -- of historical and cultural influences. Film was thought of as a "multi-layered" expression, a "multiple meaning ideogram" as Eisenstein suggested; film was a synthesis of rhythms, tones, moods, ideas to which the spectator contributed "an * association of ideas, a synthesis of consciousness and 13 imagination...." As such, the film, as a work of art, [ presented ... not only objective reality but the subjective personality of the artist, and this personality includes his way of looking at things, his ideology and the limitations of the period. All this is projected into the picture, even unintentionally.14 To this the spectator brought his own world of experiences and imagination, as Sartre so intelligently 15 outlined less than a decade later. Goethe's dictum that "Art is called art because it is not nature" was rediscovered. Art, as a human-made product, was distinguished from nature. Both art and nature were considered part of reality, but art did not necessarily imitate nature; art was a method of human j 16 approach. For most Continental theorists, truth -- not realism -- was to be valued in film. Only Spottiswode and Rotha's circle, in keeping with the tradition set by Lumiere, openly preferred realism (verisimilitude). For 6 6 Arnheim, who is sometimes mistakenly linked with Expressionism, the point was the filmmaker(s)’ arrangement (version or representation) of the material -- not the realism (verisimilitude) of the objects or ideas in the film. Continental theorists conceived of film art as a complex phenomenon. Although Eisenstein employed terms like "dialectic," "juxtaposition," and "conflict of opposing forces," his approach was hardly dualistic; rather, film was considered a network of juxtapositions/ conflicts. Eisenstein's idea of overtone, Balazs’ identification of polyphonic plays of features on the actor’s face, or Spottiswode's explanation of the multiple, mechanical characteristics of filmmaking excluded the possibility of simplistic equations whereby any film could be reduced to a system of codes. For the early Continental theorists of the late 20s and early 30s, narrative did not define the film medium. Balazs’ position on the subject is fairly representative. According to Balazs, the subject or story could be common to many art forms — the film, the play, the novel. The content, however, was necessarily different from the story simply because of the difference in form. 67 The dialectic interrelation of form and content can be compared with the interrelation of a river and its bed. The water is the content, the river bed the form. Without a doubt it was the water that at one time dug itself this bed — the content created the form. But once the river bed is made it collects the waters of the surrounding countryside and gives them shape. That is, the form shapes the content. The power of mighty floods is required before the waters, over-flowing the old bed, dig an entirely new bed for themselves.17 Influenced by Russian formalism, Balazs redefined content and form in such a way as to disentangle film from centuries of literary debate. In the literary model the poem was defined by its "external" (form) elements (such as meter) and- by its "internal" (content) j elements (such as theme, motif, plot, etc.) Balazs redefined the relationship between form and content in terms of the technical nature of the film medium. By employing methods of literary criticism, would- be "literary-turned-film" critics mistakenly assumed film content to function similarly to literary content. Such an assumption affirmed that the world was a source of raw material available to all art forms. However, as it will be seen, such definitions mired film in overly simplistic equations (and too often overly self- important jargon). Again and again, "literary-turned- film" critics, ignoring Balazs' contribution to film 68 theory, would define film in terms of story 18 (narrative/subject matter). For the Continental theorists, it was the filmmaker(s)' handling of the unique characteristcs of the medium which differentiated film from other art forms. Implicit in their discussions was the presupposition that some approaches were cinematic and others were not. The artist thinks directly in terms of manipulating his resources and materials. His thought is transmuted into direct action, formulated not by formula, but by a form.19 While methods of thought, the inner dialogue, the Joycean stream of consciousness might be common to all the arts, it was the artist thinking directly in the new medium — the film form — who offered a new approach to ! film theory/criticism. In keeping with the formalist tendency, frameworks for organizing types of films were oriented towards: 1) the filmmaker(s)' intention or purpose; 2) the technical characteristics of the films; and/or, j 3) the structural organization of the materials — that is, the structure of the filmmaker(s) ' thought in film. While Eisenstein never treated types of film in the 69 organized and systematic way Balazs, Rotha, or Spottiswode did, he often referred to types of films in terms of their underlying construction, or what he called "composition": -...schemes of composition will have to be sought not so much among the emotions attached to the portrayed thing, but primarily among the emotions attached to the author's relationship to the thing portrayed.2 0 Meaning could not be separated from structure. Meaning 21 was in the organizing principle of film. For t Eisenstein, as for Pudovkin, Kuleshov and others, the various kinds of montage were the bases for the various ; categories of films. i Harry Alan Potamkin took the assumptions of the ! Russian theorists one step further. Potamkin employed v an internal filmic structure to describe categories of films. In his discussion of Carl Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc ( 1928) Potamkin argued that the use of the close-up as an organizing principle established a new 22 category of film. Be la Balazs: Types o f Film Organized by Filmmaker 1s eatment of Film Form/Content Bela Balazs proposed an organization of types of films based on a combination of intention, form-content, and film technique. He developed a continuum with 70 documentary at one end, the absolute film at the other end, and the dramatized fiction film in the middle with this reasoning: ... attempts of the film to emancipate itself from literary content, from the story, began with the statement that this escape from the invented literary story developed in two opposite directions: towards the presentation of naked facts and j the presentation of pure phenomena. On the one hand the intention was to show objects without form, on the other to show form without objects.23 (See figure 3.) Balazs' description of the silent film, I the sound film, and the stereoscopic film did not j suggest that these were separate art forms. When ! discussing the cartoon, the animated film, the puppet I film, or the silhouette film, Balazs' contention was i similar to Eisenstein's — that the filmmaker's I relationship to the film medium was the distinguishing • factor among kinds of films. Referring to puppet films i and animations, Balazs remarked: Good visual stories in which the characters are dolls or drawings are not 'literary,' because the story does not begin with the invention of a plot but with the devising of the shapes of the visual beings who are to act in it . 24 Film form was to be identified by understanding the filmmaker(s)' conceptualizing process. On the surface Spottiswode's theoretical tenet for 71 Figure 3 Bela Balazs: Continuum for Classification of Film Types DOCUMENTARY <--------------- DRAMATIZED FICTION FILM----------------> ABSOLUTE FILM Facts Story Films Pure Phenomena Content Form without Form without content organizing types of films appeared almost identical to that of Balazs. However, underlying Spottiswodefs schema was his assumption that realistic representation 25 was preferable to other kinds of presentation. This bias made Spottiswode’s organization different from that of Balazs’. Spottiswode: "Reproduction--Representation— Randomness” Spottiswode categorized film types using three 1) subject/arrangement; 2) technical properties of the medium; and, j 3) aim/purpose of the film (not filmmaker), i Spottiswode's framework was based on a i reproduction-representation-randomness continuum with the photoplay as reproduction, the documentary as i J representation, and the abstract film as randomness. (See figure 4.) In his description of categories of film, Spottiswode consistently treated production and technical properties of film as criteria for film classification; in the lecture-film "its montage is either arbitrary or adapted only to the exigencies of the spoken commentary," while for the screenplay "the camera is brought into active use, but montage is subordinate to continuity of speech, and effect relies 2 6 on the personality of the actors." 73 Spottiswode: PHOTOPLAY --------------- Reproduction "j ■o Figure 4 Classification by Realism DOCUMENTARY ------------- Representation ABSTRACT FILM Randomness There are two major problems with Spottiswode's categorization of films. The first (as he himself admits) was consistency. Spottiswode did not apply the reproduction-representation-randomness continuum to both subject and arrangement. Extrapolating from his own stated principles, treatment of both subject and arrangement would produce nine — not three -- 27 categories. The second problem with Spottiswode1s proposal was his notion of "randomness." Victor Freeburg would most likely have interpreted Spottiswode1s continuum as 28 | beauty vs ugliness. The question of how the viewer j judged whether a film was randomly organized, or only appeared randomly organized, was not addressed. If 1 Spottiswode had used expressiveness, then at least he t | would have been addressing the debate of art as I reproduction vs art as expression. However, by placing abstract and imagist films under the label "randomness," Spottiswode only revealed his preference for realistic representation (verisimilitude) and documentary films. In effect, then, Spottiswode classified films in terms of their realistic or nonrealistic treatment. Reality, thus, became a "mode" of representation. Rotha: Significant Work in Film Classification Another Britisher, Paul Rotha , maintained a similar 75 though less covert preference for realistic representation. What differed was Rotha's focus on what he called "cinematic essence." Rotha defined film as: ...primarily a dynamic pattern or rhythm... imposed on nature... governed pictorially by the use of light and movement in the creation of visual images and mentally by psychology in the creation of mental images.29 Not unlike Mitry's, Rotha's thesis was a suprising fusion of seeming conflicts: Kracauer's idea of "physical reality" was combined with Arnheim's 30 gestaltism. "Creation of visual images" was a shared I process between the filmmaker and the audience. A I filmmaker's world of imagery was presented in the film, | but to that film the audience brought its own | j psychology/experience. When classifying films, Rotha presented an amazingly balanced perspective, one which addressed Continental theory as well as U. S. criticism. In The Film Til Now, Rotha outlined "branches" of cinema. Rotha used the term "form" equivalently for "category" much in the same way U. S. critics of the art and literary tradition had. Rotha described thirteen "forms" of cinema. Rotha subdivided the cine-fiction film into four subsets: 1) modern comedies, farces, satires, and dramas; 2) unrealistic costume, historical romances and 76 dramas; 3) spectacle films, without apparent decorative motive; and, 4) pure comedies, including slapstick — not drawingroom comedies. (See figure 5.) Although Rotha maintained that his film classification was based on the director's "purpose," just how one determined the purpose of the director was 31 somewhat vague. It seemed from the descriptions of the different "branches" of films that in fact, Rotha meant in part what Spottiswode meant — the 32 filmmaker(s)' treatment of the film material. Rotha's criteria for categorization were more sophisticated. The audience's purpose and perception were indirectly I included. Part of Rotha's classification derived from i how a form of film "functions" for the audience — that is, whether it was a presentation of fiction (entertainment), a presentation of fact (education), or 33 a means of experimentation (fascination). In Movie Parade Rotha: 1) clarified the differences among the fact, fiction, and experimental branches of cinema; and, 2) drew lines between commercial cinema and 34 nationally-subsidized cinema. Rotha's use of the term "purpose" was not simple. The 77 Figure 5 Paul Rotha: Forms of Cinema FILMS OF FICTION-------------------FILMS OF FACT--------- EXPERIMENTAL & ABSTRACT FILMS FORMS OF CINEMA: a) Abstract/Absolute Film b) Cine-poem, or Ballad Film c) Cine-surrealist Film d) Fantasy Film e) Cartoon Film f) Epic Film g) Documentary or Interest Film geographic scientific sociological h) Combined Documentary and Story-Interest Film i) Cine-Eye and Cine-Radio Film j) Cine-Record Film modern fact without story past fact.without story k) Decorative and Art Film 1) Cine-Fiction Film modern comedies, farces, satires, dramas, etc. unrealistic costume and historical romances spectacle films pure comedies, including slapstick m) Musical, Dancing, and Singing Films underlying assumption was that film was two-way communication. It included not only the filmmaker's intention but how the film itself actually functioned, as well as how it was understood by the audience. More interestingly, Rotha's proposition can be abstracted along a continuum with the "purpose" of financial gain at one end of the continuum and no interest in financial gain at the other end; subsidy and self-support figure in the middle. (See figure 6.) The commercial sponsors of the entertainment film still seek to have films made which will, they hope, appeal to the largest number of people in order to amass eventually the biggest return on capital outlay. Thus inevitably themes and subjects are chosen which are believed by precedent to have the most appeal to the adolescent minds that comprise the bulk of filmgoing audiences.35 Directly linked to the filmmaker/promoter’s purpose was the target audience. Rotha's was an economic communications model. The main purpose of the commercial cinema was profit. Products, therefore, were created to appeal to paying consumers who, the promoters hoped, would continue to buy their products. While both commercial and subsidized cinemas have tried to appeal to general audiences, both are limited -- one to popular taste, the other to government policy. Nationa1ly-subsidized cinemas have by necessity catered 79 Financial Gain Figure 6 Paul Rotha: Movie Parade PURPOSE OF PRODUCTION Self-support -------- "Commercial" cinema Hollywood movies Nationally-subsidized cinemas British documentary movement Financial support irrelevant Some Amateur filmmaking to a smaller, more specialized audience. Commercial cinema, like other mass media, found itself with a two pronged strategy — continuing to seek broad—based audiences while developing more and more specialized 36 markets. Rotha's suggestion that purpose in part defined categories of film was sound. That he called these categories "forms" was problematic. The obvious example was his formal differentiation between the Cine-Fiction | ! film and the epic film. (Although it was in no way inconceivable- to have nonfiction films of epic I i proportions, the epic film would seem to be a subset of j i J the Cine-Fiction film — not its equivalent.) Their . j j relationship was clarified in Movie Parade where the ! ! i • epic film was placed as a subset of the film of fiction. ; J < I In Movie Parade Rotha further subdivided the main i categories into "cycles of subjects." In addition, Rotha introduced a number of new categories of film, such as prophecy, the macabre, and the chronicle film. Rotha clarified others, noting for example that fantasy was of an entirely different nature from most types of film and could not be classified in the same way. Although Rotha rarely called any of these categories "genres," his organization was surprisingly similar to that of Hollywood genre critics and historians less than 81 two decades later. In his brief descriptions, Rotha placed German Expressionist films under the macabre. The importance of characterization, the actor, and the star system were discussed under drama. The dialogue and manners of the gangster were pointed out under the cycle of crime films. The film of violence was linked specifically to \ United States culture. And, the role of the publicity ] departments was mentioned under the description and ! definition of the epic film. Paul Rotha's Movie Pa.rade was perhaps the most important early single work on the classification of i film. Its international scope, its comprehensiveness, and its attempts to address important secondary issues marked it as a cornerstone of traditionalist thought on j film genre. I I Film Index: Film Classification Assigned by Star In the U. S. only one work compared with the comprehensiveness of Movie Parade; that was the Museum 37 of Modern Art's Film Index of 1941. Its basic organization was modeled on Movie Parade in that there were three main categories: 1) the fictional film; I 2) the factual film; and, 3) miscellaneous types of film. 82 "Formulated on the basis of thematic content or cinematic form," the twenty-four types of story films each received brief descriptions; the factual and miscellaneous types of films were formulated by presentation/format and technique respectively. (See figure 7.) Interestingly, the term "form" was used as the Continental film theorists had defined it — not in the literary tradition. But "class," "type," and "genre" fell prey to the weight of literary method. Where Rotha only hinted at the significance of the star in classifying films, the Museum’s organization } fully recognized the role of significant personalities I j through its subclassification by actor, director, or ; producer. In its introduction to "Types of Film" it is stated: Where consideration of a film genre seemed inseparable from major consideration of certain key players, directors, or producers vitally associated with its development, separate subclassifications are assigned to these figures. Thus, comedy ... contains Keaton, Charles Chaplin, the Marx Brothers, and Mack Sennet; Fantasy and trick films ... the work of Georges Melies, and Westerns ... G. M. ("Broncho Billy") Anderson, Tom Mix, and William S. Har t ... 38 83 Film THE FICTIONAL FILM ------------- Adaptations (General, drama, fiction, opera, poetry/songs Adventure in distant lands Animal Films Children's Films Comdey (General, Individual Major Comedians) Crime and detective films Drama Fantasy and trick films (General, Individual, Melies) History and biography Indian films Jewish films Melodrama Musical films Negro films . Occupational and milieu films Religious films Romance (Costume, Modern) Serials Religious films Romance— (Costume, Modern) Serials Topical films War films Westerns General, Individual Major Western players) Figure 7 (1941): Types of Film THE FACTUAL FILM --------- Documentary films General Individual Major Documentalists Interest films General Fight/wrestling films Industrial/occupational films Nature and scientific films Miscellaneous Newsreel and Record Films General Individual War record films Travel films General Individual Expeditionary Jungle and wild animal films MISCELLANEOUS FILMS Animated Cartoons General Individual Walt Disney Animated model films Animated silhouette films Experimental films Kirk Bond: "Cinematic-nes.s" as a Basis For Film Classification The journal Experimental Cinema, edited by "little cinema" members Lewis Jacobs and David Platt, was a center of theoretical activity in the U. S. in the mid- to-late 30s. Essays by Barnet Braver-Mass, Kirk Bond, Paul Goodman, and others reasserted the necessity of the "aesthetic mission" of film, while recognizing "the existence of modern science, the analytical powers of the film and the apparent disintegration of the 39 ! contemporary world." Where the majority of film ! j j circles were emphasizing the film spectator and his role | in society, Kirk Bond was writing on the apolitical i i I nature of the motion picture in his essay "Formal 40 I Cinema." In it, Bond proposed that "formal" films j • I fell into three groups: 1) the absolute film; 1 2) the "sensuous film drama, most notably represented by the school of Caligari"; and, j 3) the film-poem, or "action that is rather a pattern in itself than played within a pattern." I Bond's interest was in the classification of films in terms of their "cinematic-ness." Bond's position was similar to Bela Balazs' "form-content" continuum. Bond affirmed, on the one hand, function as a criterion for film classification. On the other hand, Bond reasserted 6 85 the definition of film as "a direct impression made on the senses" — a plastic art whose meaning must be projected through "a temporal continuity." Erwin Panofsky's 1934 article "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures," revised in 1947, summed up the 41 | period of 1926 — 1946. Film art, as uniquely a J ' product of the Machine Age, grew from a technical | invention to an art; "the primordial basis of the I i enjoyment" of the audience was neither subject matter nor aesthetics "but the sheer delight in the fact that things seemed to move, no matter what things they were." j i Film productions of I 1 ! ...success or retribution, | sentiment, sensation, pornography, I and crude humor ... could blossom J forth into genuine history, tragedy I and romance, crime and adventure, and I comedy, as soon as it was realized that they could be transfigured ... not by an artificial injunction of literary values but by the exploitation of the unique and specific possibilities of the new me d i um.42 ! The unique and specific possibilities of the medium were "dynamization of space" and "spatialization of time" — what others more generally had labelled "cinematic-ness." By the end of WWII and the rise of Neorealism, film theorists seemed to have a general, if not always very specific, sense of film as a spatio-temporal art form 86 capable of both reproductive and expressive functions. Classification of films reflected these two tendencies, but still relied heavily upon literary traditions. While the genius of Harry Alan Potamkin suggested a way of classifying films based on the nature of film, his insight was short-lived. A shift towards the "realistic" reawakened definitions of film as communication, film as narrative, and film as social action. What was still required was a theory of film which would address film as film and at the same time ; support a system of film classification. ( * j 1946 — 1968 , In 1946 Maya Deren wrote: If, particularly in film, the flowering of the documentary has almost obscured all else save the 'entertainment' film, it is because the events and accidents of reality are, today, more monstrous, more shocking, than the human imagination is capable of inventing. The war gives rise to incidents which are not only beyond the inventive power of the human imagination, but also beyond its capacity, almost, to believe. In this period, where we are concerned with the unbelievableness of incidents, we require a reportage and a proof of their reality. But the great art expressions will come later, as they always have ; and they will be dedicated, again, to the agony and the experience rather than the incident .43 87 During the period from the end of WWII to the end of the 60s, the orientation of film theorists/critics changed in the following ways: 1) whereas in the 30s and 40s realism was linked to the social function of the cinema, in the 50s and 60s, under the guidance of Bazin and Kracauer, realism ! achieved its own aesthetic; j i 2) questions regarding a definition of "cinematic- ness" became essentialist as with Bazin's famous "What j is the ontology of the film medium?" j 3 ) similar to "New Criticism" in literature, film j I criticism increasingly attempted to judge film not by j overt "subjective values" so much as by whether or not a ! film fulfilled "the essence of the medium"; f . ’ i I 4) in opposition to the essentialist position there grew up a relativist position which suggested that the nature of perception, experience, and context interacted t to make any discussion of "essence" moot; 5) film was defined to be a communicative art, an experiential art, grounded in psychology more than in aesthetics, thus moving from film as aesthetic object to film as a medium of concrete communication; and, 6) the theoretical interest was no longer so much in descriptions of film form as it was in identifying the various functions of the film medium. 88 The writings of Maya Deren foreshadowed and became the theoretical basis for much of the work of the New American Cinema and Film Culture circle. In Deren's essay "Cinema as an Art Form," she observed that two approaches had dominated filmmaking: 1) the commercial fiction entertainment film; and, 44 • 2) the documentary/social reform film. Deren distinguished between communicative vs creative l | film forms, as well as clarifying the difference between I I the experience of reality vs reality itself. ... when we agree that a work of art is, first of all, creative, we ; actually mean that it creates a j | reality and itself constitutes an ! ! experience. The antithesis of such a I creative work is ... merely j communicative expression....45 I j I Deren's distinction between realistic presentation j I (reality as a mode) and reality itself was in keeping with the theoretical tradition of Spottiswode, Rotha, even Eisenstein and Sartre; and, it was remarkably similar to Mitry's later discusssion — with one important difference; Deren arrived at exactly the I , opposite conclusion regarding the nature of film. I For Mitry, cinema, the art of the real, was not 46 necessarily realistic. Mitry insisted that realism ! was not a norm. The realistic work was no more nor less I valuable than another kind of work. There could be no 89 hierarchy of art based on realism. Further, the filmic image was not an image of the world, but only of one aspect of the world. Film was selective perception. Film did not repeat the world; it revealed and reformed the world. As such, film might provide a sense of reality (realistic perceptual cues) 47 but it was not reality. The screen was, on the one hand, a window into perception of another world and, on 48 the other, a frame to order that perception. The spectator's perception of reality was the issue. What for others might simply be labelled "credibility" or "the illusion of the real," for Mitry was the perception process itself. For Mitry, the sense of reality came from the perception and reaction of the spectator. It involved 1) a recognition and identification of the familiar, and 2) a connection and construction (invention) of the personal experience together with the generally familiar. Spinning off from Mitry's concept, slightly more than a decade later, Leo Braudy, in The World in a _ Frame, continued Mitry's discussion of ...films through the way they impose structures of perception upon the audience and how such structures of perception ... reverberate on levels 90 of meaning and subject matter that otherwise have no visual equivalent.4 9 Invention and construction was a process unmeasurable outside oneself, but one which nevertheless existed. While Mitry acknowledged film as an art form, he emphasized film as a communication medium. For Deren, on the other hand, communication was simply one among many functions/characteristics of film. Its primary purpose was still a creative one -- to experiment, to explore. Where Mitry connected film with the beginnings of the novel precisely because he saw both art forms as "ensoi pour autrui," Deren maintained film as "en soi pour soi." She reaffirmed Eisenstein's statement that the artist works directly in the art form. This she labelled the "organic" function of form, ascribing to this function two characteristics: 1) that it be experiential; and, 2) that it be derived from the instrument — that is, the machine be a formative factor. Not until cinema would begin to explore its organic function rather than its function as literary illustration, could cinema begin to operate as an independent art form. Bazin: Film — Forms of Realism Bazin, humanist and essentialist, discriminated 91 among various forms of realism: -- the "documentary realism" of Farrebique (1947), -- the "aesthetic realism" of Citizen Kane (1941), — the "purist realism" of Nanook of the North I (1921), and the "essence" of film — "spatial realism" — a combination of deep-focus photography and sequence shot — as in a film like The 50 Best Years of Our Lives (1946). Neorealism, too,, was a category of film because of its humanistic subject matter and its spatial realism. i Film was no longer a potential subset of painting or theater or music. Film was an equivalent "category"/ ; medium endowed with its own "art form" based on realism. Hans Richter focused the point at issue by asking: | "What are the fundamental aesthetic principles upon which film is built?" and ... to what degree is the camera (film, color, sound, etc.) developed and used to reproduce (any object which appears before the lens) or to j produce (sensations not possible in ! any other art medium)?51 Richter responded to his own question by proposing that the fictional, documentary, and experimental 4 | categories of films were not types of films but separate art forms existing in their own rights much as the novel, the essay, and poetry are .considered separate art 92 forms, yet part of a larger category called literature. The criterion for distinguishing among art forms could no longer be a purely technical one. Psychological, economic, social, and cultural criteria also needed to be considered. i j Aesthetics, Richter continued, should focus on the purpose and function of film. With the discovery of the i "true" purpose and function of film, the film artist would be able to use the raw material of film to greatest advantage -- to create what was truly "cinematic.” What was defined as cinematic was 52 something "not repeatable in any other medium.." S1avko Vorkapich: "Function" as a Basis of Film Classification ; Slavko Vorkapich, in his insightful article, j "Toward True Cinema," implied four categories of film I | based on the functions of film: | 1) the recording function; 2) the creative use of recording; 3) the recording of the creative and imaginative; and , 4) the purely creative function which discovers and 53 explores. (See figure 8.) One of the problems with this organization was the i assumption that function was not related to the 93 Figure 8 Slavko Vorkapich: Functions of Film Recording Function ----- Creative Use Recording Purely Creative of of the Recording Creative spectator's perception of the film. The pure recording function can reveal information, cause discovery on the part of the spectator, or explore the capabilities of the film medium, as with time-lapse "scientific" films. While Arthur Lennig1s article, "The Sense of Form in Cinema," seemed to be little more than a rehashing of the old form vs content debate, his definition of the 54 "raw material of film" was of interest. Lennig wrote that there had been two approaches to filmmaking: j 1) the formal — where order was imposed on the i material; and, 2) the organic — where the material provided the j f o r m . | The one produced an abstract or stylized visual i content as with German Expressionism; the other achieved form through editing as with the films of Gance, i t Griffith, Eisenstein, or Pudovkin. What was important here was the decisive shift from defining the "raw material" of film as subject matter to defining the raw material of film in terms of the tools and techniques of filmmaking. It is this same definition, in combination with a strict bias towards realism, which formed the j j film classifications in Kracauer1s Theory of Film, 55 Redemption of Physical Reality. 95 Kracauer: "Inherent Filmic Affinities” as the Basis For Film Classification” By his organization Kracauer suggested a hierarchy of categories with medium as the most comprehensive, and under it type, form, genre, sub-genre, and variety. (See figure 9.) Kracauer's classification by genre came to be accepted as the standard by most U.S. genre critics in the 60s and 70s. Kracauer grounded his classification system on a 56 definition of film medium. Like photography, film's inherent affinities were for the raw material of physical nature. How effectively the filmic essence was exploited became the foundation for further categories. For Kracauer there were two main types of films: 1) the non-story film, including most experimental films and all films of fact; and, 2) the story film. Under the experimental non-story film, Kracauer discussed avant-garde films in terms of intentions; from this came films derived from the peculiarities of the camera (the unfamiliar or the very small), sequences of rhythm and movement, invented shapes and imagery, or the projection of inward visions. While Kracauer noted that the experimentalists often used nature in the raw, their "formative aspirations” restricted film to the tyranny of art. For Kracauer "... the artist's freedom [was] 96 Figure 9 Kracauer: Categories of Film MEDIUM Painting Non-story film Experimental Films Films of fact Newsreel Films on Art Documentary TYPES OF FILM FILM FORM GENRES OF FILM SUB-GENRES OF FILM Travelogues Scientific films Instructional films Film--- Story Photography Film 57 the filmmaker's constraint." Under the other type of non-story film, the film of fact, Kracauer designated three genres: 1) the newsreel; 2) the documentary (including the subgenres travelogues, scientific films, instructional films, etc . ) ; and, 3) films on art . In describing the various films of fact, Kracauer used 1 ) trends, and , 2) "characteristics" (specific to each genre) as While not stated explicitly, Kracauer also used subject matter and the stated purpose of the filmmaker as distinguishing criteria. When discussing the documentary, Kracauer relied on structural and formal elements; for example, Kracauer described In the Street 58 as employing "the form of the matter-of-fact account." For the film on art Kracauer briefly traced the development of the film genre while detailing the look — composition, camera movement, three-dimensionality, etc. Under the theatrical story, Kracauer restated that form and content were intertwined, that such terms as 98 "comedy," "melodrama," or "tragedy" could refer to content or form ambiguously. He then proceeded to l "break down ... story types according to differences in 59 form." Story types were constructed from their I "inherent affinities" for film, that is the revealing of j reality. . i i The uncinematic story types included the theatrical 1 i t story in the tradition of the film d'art — literary and I theatrical adaptations, Broadway hits, vaudeville, and | attempts at culture. Films preoccupied with the I intrigue more than the exploration of the real world all j fell into the category of uncinematic story types. On ; the other hand, films "engrossed in physical existence," ; I like those of the Neorealists, could be labelled j i supremely cinematic. Clearly, Kracauer was using his definition of "cinematic-ness" as the primary criterion l for the classification of film types. ! The difficulty with Kracauer's position is obvious. Once realism as a norm was refuted (as Mitry, a fellow realist, did), then Kracauer's whole system of classification crumbled. Likewise, the appeal of Bazin's essentialist position faded as a result of Mitry's brilliant argumentation and undeniable scholarship. 1 99 Mitry: The Psychology of Forms Mitry, in his watershed work, L 'esthetique e t psychologie du cinema, separated the plot (1'intrigue) and the subject (le sujet), pointing out that for most people — and even most critics — the subject was the 60 plot; this was an error. Further, most people believed that it was the story which had meaning while the form was simply a means of communication; again Mitry took issue with this viewpoint, and in so doing j i echoed the postulates of Bela Balazs some twenty years earlier. i I I ' ! f.ike Eisenstein and Maya Deren, Mitry held that film began with an "intention vague"; however, for the j spectator it was the form which evoked the idea; for the ' i ! spectator it was a gestalt, much as Arnheim envisioned; ! I the spectator thought of the film as a whole. It was this gestalt, this "qualite majorante," a sort of | underlying sense or informing principle which needed to be discovered. By separating and analyzing content and form, Marxist and bourgeois realist critics alike fell prey to the same naive idealism as those claiming to 61 have discovered cinema's pure essence. Rather, what needed to be examined was the spectator's relationship to the film. Meaning, t according to Mitry, was derived from relationships and 100 contexts. The spectator tried to decipher what was suggested (the connotative) even more than what was perceived (the denotative). Meaning thus was necessarily imprecise and ambiguous since the spectator believed he understood when in fact he may only have been following the plot, or when the meaning simply 62 j escaped him. The spectator’s interest then was not in the story told, but rather in what was expressed; that is, the subject. What held the audience was a process of i discovery more than a presentation of what was already I discovered. The spectator was concerned not with ’'what” but with ’’how." Film was not placed in a world, but was 1 ~~ — — — — - I a _ world . Film was a mediated experience — mediated by j the filmmaker(s) and mediated by the spectator. While Mitry provided perhaps the most comprehensive, authoritative, and well-thought-out philosophy of film to date, his theory of film fell prey j to two biases: 1) his preference for the real; and, 2) his focus on the narrative film. Mitry's position was pluralistic, seeking a synthesis of many seemingly conflicting theories. At the same time, Mitry aligned himself with Bazin and the realist tradition when viewing film as asymptotic of reality. 101 Mitry outlined three film forms: 1) a theoretic space-time realism, as with Dreyer1s Jeanne d ' Ar c or Bresson's Pickpocket, one which retained significant details without trying to recreate the historical place; * 2) a real space-time, coming out of a "real" social experience, as with the films of the Neorealists; and, 3) real space-time relationships among things which may or may not have been familiar (and therefore appear | untrue), as with the symphonie films or works of Dziga ! Vertov. (See figure 10.) Mitry's organization'was based on "real" j relationships: on telling a story that evoked t j associations; on establishing real relationships of i 1 facts; or, on constructing real relationships among real or non-real things. If, by organizing film forms around the real, Mitry meant that both filmmakers and spectators living in the f world could only understand and interpret films in terms of the world and their experience of it, then Mitry was hardly a continuation of the realist tradition of Bazin and Kracauer. Rather, he was more of the phenomenological tradition of Husserl and Henri Agel. Unfortunately, the writings of Mitry do not make one interpretation clearer than the other. 102 Jean Audience Space-Time ---- Rea 1i sm (Real things; real or nonreal relationships) significant realistic details without any attempt to recreate historical place examples : Dreyer ' s Jeanne d 1 Arc Bresson ' s Pickpocket Figure 10 Mitry: Psychology of Film Forms Familiarity as a Sense of Realism Real ---------- Space-Time (Real things within real relationships) derived from a real social experience examples: Neorealist films De Sica's Umberto D Real Space-Time Relationships (Real or nonreal things within real relationships) real relationships among things which may or may not be familiar (hence seem true) examples: "Symphonie" fantasy film work of Dziga Vertov Mitry appeared to be infuenced by both realist and phenomenological traditions. As a result, Mitry provided theoretical foundations for what might be called the psychology of film forms. Mitry laid the groundwork for a useful method of film classification based on the study of the structures and processes of 63 | conceptualization. During the period 1946 — 1968 three issues were o i j particular concern: 1) distinctions among realism, reality, and the real ; 2) conceptions of the role of narrativity; and, 3) substitution of "essentialism" for a more relativistic and pluralistic approach to film theory. Where in the 30s and 40s usage of terms like "form," "type," and "genre" was often confused and inconsistent, in the 50s and 60s usage became more specific and consistent. Literary terminology was gradually assimilated and transformed into a language I i more specific to film. By the end of the 60s theorists were less interested in the technical aspects of film and more curious as to how film functioned, how it created i meaning, and how it affected an audience. Theorists studied the intentions of films and filmmakers- They shifted focus from what film _is to what film does. Too, film theorists became self-conscious, reflecting upon their own methods of research, analysis, interpretation, and theory-building. Regardless of Kracauer's somewhat questionable conclusions, he did set a precedent by founding his classification of films on a I theory of the nature and material of film. The most important theorist of the period was unquestionably Jean Mitry. The wealth of ideas, the subtlety of thought, the breadth of knowledge, the ability to synthesize and clarify seemingly disparate notions — these qualities marked the excellence of his works. Ironically, as is so often the case with an i i insightful thinker, Mitry became the source of many of the ideas of the current generation of film critics/ l ! theorists while at the same time the symbol for the end of an era. 1968 -- 1986 In 1968 a young linguist much influenced by Mitry's ideas, published Essais sur la signification au cinema, a series of articles through which he proposed a method and a conceptual framework for studying how film 64 communicates meaning to an audience. The linguist was 105 Christian Metz and his semiotics of cinema proved a critical point in the nature and methods of film study. Where Mitry, himself a filmmaker, was the supreme humanist, a Renaissance scientist seeking to provide an expansive and enriching view of film, Metz was the rationalist in an Age of Reformation, reducing, scientizing, imposing order on cinema with the assumption that it was a logical, predictable 65 phenomenon. In his Essais... Metz outlined four historical ways i of approaching the cinema: 1) film criticism; 2) film history; ! 3) film theory; and, j j 4) filmology — what Metz termed ... the scientific study conducted from outside by psychologists, , psychiatrists, aestheticians , sociologists, educators, and biologists. Their status, and their procedures, place them outside the institution: It is the cinematographic fact rather than the cinema, the filmic fact rather than the film, which they consider. Theirs is a fruitful point of view. Filmology and the theory of film complement each other.66 Metz's distinction between the film critic/historian/ theorists and the filmologists is j important in understanding the course film study has 106 taken recently. The former represents the traditional, historical position. It is this former position which has provided the bulk of genre studies, whether descriptive, critical or theoretical. Their interest is in film genre itself. They are "insiders”; as such, their bias is towards the cinema in and for itself. ! The latter — the filmologists -- as Metz has described them, represent fields "outside" film. Their topics and interests do not come out of either the 67 nature or history of cinema. Their concern, for I example, has not tended to be for film genre itself, but rather for what film genre can reveal to them about their own field — about women in society, about the i structuring of texts, or how by means of film, ideology j is disseminated. ! Metz's positive vision of complementation may still come to pass during succeeding periods of film studies. I However, for the period from 1968 through the 80s, there has been more of a schism than a mutually beneficial 68 exchange. This has affected theory-building for genre. Stephen Neale remarks: Increasingly, structuralism and j semiotics focused either on the j single, individual text, or on the general principles of signification and the politics of signifying practices, thereby effectively excluding the priority of the specification and analysis of genre.... 69 Mast and V. F. Perkins: Focus on Film Forms In the 70s and 80s film form, film types, and film genre continued to fall primarily within the domain of film scholars — not filmologists. V. F. Perkins and Mast theorized on ontological questions, staying within the boundaries established by previous U.S. theorists. I Leo Braudy, in his theoretical criticism, began to bridge and unify the various, disparate positions. Mast clarified relationships among definitions of | medium, form, language, and recording process: i Movies are a specific form of cinema. Others could be defined in lengths other than two hours (+), structural assumptions other than narrative, 1 different commercial bases, and j * different audience relationships. Cinema is a specific kind of j recording on film (others would be variations on still, or single-frame, photography). And film is the most general term that contains the other two. Although it may have seemed I paradoxical to argue that there could be motion pictures without pictures (without photography), rest assured that there has never been a film without film.* The three terms ! reflect the fact that a motion picture is material (film), process (cinema), and form (movie).70 : Mast, V. F. Perkins, and Leo Braudy all agreed that theory thus far had overconsidered material and process. Insufficient attention had been given to cinema's many forms. Perkins' view was that: ... we can evolve useful criteria only for specific types of film not for the cinema.... A theory of film which claims universal validity must provide either an exhaustive catalogue of film forms or a description of the medium in such general terms as to offer minimal guidance to the appreciation of any movie . 71 Perkins' goal was limited. The purpose of film theory and criticism was the understanding and appreciation of i "movies." While hardly a theorist, either of film or film I j genre, Edward S. Small offered a timely caution against j the "tunnel-vision" of limiting film to movies and ] reducing the "whole endeavor of categorical separation, i [and] the arrangement of boundaries ... [to] the 'royal I 72 j road' of cinema, theatrical-narrative features...." I j Reaffirming what Balazs, Spottiswode, and Rotha i called "types," Small offered three new categories — the television advertising commercial, the theatrical | trailer, and the cartoon. The validity of the categories can easily be argued; for example, should I material "made for" television be included under a 73 discussion of film form? More importantly, however, Small broke the "holy three" pattern of fact, fiction, and miscellaneous; like Stanley Cavell, Small allowed 109 for new forms of film. Proposing the integration of "structural strategies of older literary genre," he countered against classification by subject matter, ... its great weakness [being] ... oversubordination (i.e., by and large relegating all productions, at times including nonfiction and experimental- works, under the implicit paradigm of the theatrical narrative, the fictive feature).... Far more insightful and instructive would be distinctions comparable to those which separate the novel from, say narrative poetry, or the epic from a lyric poem.74 j Small sketched six categories: 1) the fictive narrative feature; 2) the actuality film — "variously described by j such alternate (though not always synonymous) labels as i nonfiction, documentary, and factual film ... distinct l | because of a number of technostructural characteristics j ...[and]... the very concept of actuality." Sub-types include: newsreel, educational/industrial film, travelogue, contemporary ethnographic (observational and l participational), and classic documentary; 3) the experimental film — "which also evidences diverse labels such as art, avant-garde, undergrouond, | visionary, expanded cinema, etc.)"; subsets are Dada, | Surreal, Psychodrama, Minimalist, and Structuralist; i 4) the television advertising commercial; 110 5) the theatrical trailer; and, 75 6) the cartoon. In fact, his construction was based on more than structure; the organization of his categories was characterized by a gestalt thinking which includes length (the ten to thirty second length of the television ad), goals (advertisement of theatrical trailer), and aesthetic parameters (the cartoon). He explains: The fictive feature, the documentary, j and the experimental film — each I manifests different aesthetic rules j and restrictions, each addresses j different cinematic problems and | goals, and each is remarkably distinct....76 As Small himself stated, his ideas are as yet : undeveloped, requiring further study. j | It was Leo Braudy, who in his text The World in a Frame, not only complemented both Small's and Perkins' , positions, but offered more developed guidelines. i Braudy expanded Mitry's ideas on spectator I | participation. He turned the concept of "world" to a J more practical use by relating it to genre. He j ■ accomplished this while cutting through and eliminating I 77 j Mitry's preference for realism. J Braudy proposed a variation on "reception" film theory -- "what films are like in the experience of the 111 audience and how they achieve those effects." He defined three central elements of the film experience: ...its visual and aural form, its context of social myth and reality, and its psychological relations to the individuals in its audience.79 Braudy's thesis was based on the potential of technique to become meaning — that is, to present 80 objects to create "a world." Filmmaker and audience alike participated in creating the shared world of the film. | The meaning of objects in the world often depends on the system of invisible connection we have chosen to explain them.81 And it was this shared cultural knowledge which 82 j explained how "We all know a genre when we see one." J In keeping with his "receptive theory," Braudy | extended the role of the theorist/critic to j ...describe the continuities and new varieties of artistic wholeness film has created, to discover the many worlds possible in films, how they are distinguished and how they cohere.83 As such, Braudy's position offered one of the most informed and flexible for genre study. j Perkins' theory of forms unfortunately remained mired in issues of realism, but he did address the 112 importance of context. He states: ...the claims we can make for a comedy by Howard Hawks will not yield the ammunition for use against an Ingmar Bergman allegory, because they belong to types almost as distinct as cartoon and documentary.84 In much the same way Bakshy spoke of each form as ; establishing its own possibilities and limitations, J Perkins held that "the most significant limitations are ! j those of the form rather than of the medium." The case i is the same with types of film, and one can infer that i he would have a similar opinion for smaller categories • of film as well. (See figure 11.) Perkins' position was not dissimilar to that of i t I I philosopher Stanley Cavell's definition of medium. Just j | 1 j as jazz and rock were more "new media" than subsets of ! j music, so each cycle of movies was a separate medium ! (genre). Cavell's definition of "cycle" was different I ! from that of film traditionalists, but the notion that a group of films — whether named form, type, cycle or genre -- be considered separate was worth .85 : consideration. Cavell's position offered flexibility. He expanded i Panofsky's proposal regarding the "inherent possibilities possessed by each art." Cavell maintained that each art, each medium, created its own possibilities by simply doing "what works." As such, Figure 11 V. F. Perkins: Categories of Film Realist ------------- Photographic Narrative Traditional Aesthetic presentation of truth with minimal human intervention examples: documentary presentation of a fictional reality that is created in order to be recorded examples: fiction films presentation of filmmaker's concept of an ideal image examples: cartoon fantasy film the aesthetic possibilities of a medium were not givens, but were awaiting discovery. According to Cavell, the nature of Modernist Art, and by analogy, the nature of t film, was evolving. As our values and perceptions evolve and change, so does the nature of cinema and its various forms. The I I question "What is cinema?" can never be answered j I finally. Rather, it will be asked and answered by each j generation of film students. j I I For this generation a more significant question j ! 1 seems to be one asked by Mast: Can cinema be defined in t such way as to exclude no legitimate form of cinema? J The task then becomes not to prescribe the nature of J cinema and describe only those forms which reinforce the 1 i prescription. Instead, the task is to describe the many j j forms cinema takes and to notice what this reveals. The difficulty of such a task must not be I underestimated. Mast explains: I I This cinematic process of recording j and projecting sequential images on i film, juxtaposed with recorded sounds, does not have clear-cut categories of uses, effects, and devices but a spectrum of shades of usage that imperceptibly fade and melt into one another. An educational film does not differ from a movie (which, in turn, does not differ from an animated cartoon or abstract piece of cinema design) by being a fundamentally different thing, but in applying the same 115 'languages' and devices in differing combinations and proportions. Is Nanook of the North more like The March of Time (because it is a nonfiction film and conveys information) or more like Citizen Kane (because it is beautiful and affecting)? Is Disney's Song of the ! South more like Citizen Kane (because it tells a story about living characters) or more like his own Fantasia (because he shot it one i frame atf a time, as in animation) or more like Stan Brakhage's masturbatory mood piece, Flesh of Morning (because it is experimentally rebellious and rejects narrative structure ) ?86 The values and perceptions of each generation contribute { 1 j to the ways films are grouped and organized. Where one j generation classifies films in terms of subject or i narrative, another generation classifies films in terms | of filmmaker(s) or the filmmaker(s)' treatment of the j film material. For the current generation, film j classification needs to integrate both the tradition of I film theory and the potential contributions of filmologists . I Filmo1ogy: Complementary Directions Filmology has not addressed film form or film types theoretically. However, it has explored ideas which need to be addressed for their potential value. Dudley Andrew reviews and clarifies recent filmological 87 propositions in his Concepts in Film Theory. 116 Three areas are of interest. They are: 1) Perceptual psychology -- especially representation and figuration; i 2) Structuralism -- semiotics and narratology (narrative structure); and, 3) Hermeneutics, with its more integrated approach to connotation, referentiality, and interpretation. "X* There was considerable critical and theoretical activity I j throughout the 70s. Unfortunately, it did not provide a j constructive, clarifying influence. Taking a broad view ; » I J I of the past twenty years, what can be said is that j theoretical interests have shifted. i I 1) The concept of filmic "essence" is no longer useful in theory construction; as V. F. Perkins remarked, "Standards of judgement cannot be appropriate to a medium as such but only to particular ways of 88 exploiting its opportunities." Fu.nc tionalism has | replaced essentialism. | 2) Film is considered a hybrid experience made up f j of numerous other arts and media; that is, film is like j language as it is like dance and music, but it is not a linguistic system; and, continuing to eliminate all but the uniquely "cinematic" is to be ignorant of the nature of film as a hybrid phenomenon; film cannot be broken 117 down into smaller, fixed units in the way a language system can. 3) There is less interest in describing objectively (scientifically) the characteristics of film than there is a desire to explore the value of film for society. There is a re-valuing of "interpretation" in the tradition of what Dudley Andrew calls hermeneutics; 4) Issues of realism, narrativity, film meaning (the relations between denotation and connotation), figuration, identification, and signification continue to be discussed with greater fervor but little comprehensive or clarifying vision. I 5) Film theory and criticism have come full cycle j and are once again being "historicized." There seems to I • be an increasing tendency to describe films and relationships in terms of what is appropriate to the j context. i Concluding Remarks Over the last seven decades films have been ' labelled in various ways: 1) by the degree of audience participation; 2) by literary, aesthetic, and nonfilm j models; 3) by technical characteristics; 4) by the purpose of the film; 5) by the intentions of the I filmmaker(s); 6) by subject matter; 7) by content; 8) by 118 compositional structure; 9) by length; 10) by "cinematic-ness"; 11) by the filmmaker(s)* treatment; 12) by personalities -- by stars, producers, directors, etc.; 13) by audience associations; 14) by realism; 15) by function; 16) by the organizing principle or "qualite majorante"; 17) by a kind of psychological interaction between filmmaker(s) and audience; 18) by commercial bases; 19) by usage; 20) by the spatio-temporal characteristics of the film medium; 21) by narrative; and, 22) by any number of variations of the above. And yet, with all of these various efforts at organizing films, no theory to order film forms and film types has been developed. What is clear is that the definition of film is intimately connected with the ways films are ordered and vice versa. Further, the development of systematic approaches to films are dependent upon the perceptions and values of the individual theorist and his/her generation of film colleagues. Film form, film theory, and film types are terms often connected with and confused with genre. This brief survey has attempted to clarify their development and usage in relation to genre. In Chapter 3 significant concepts and approaches to film genre will be discussed. 119 NOTES 1. Meyer Levin, ,1The Candid Cameraman," Esquire, 9, 107 (January 1938), p. 177. 2. T. S. Kuhn's notions of the "paradigm," the nature of the "scientific community" and methods of communication, when applied to the film theory/criticism community, provide a way of thinking about the dramatic changes at the end of the 60s and the 70s. It appears that in the first years of filmmaking, the film community was a merger of parts of previously separate communities — art, literature, theater, business, engineering, etc. although critics came primarily from the humanities and performing arts. During the next several decades a paradigm evolved. In. general there were shared commitments to certain beliefs, applications of similar methods (although perhaps with different results), shared values, and a process for training novice critics in ways of seeing. This community revolved around the Hollywood commercial (studio) film. While the influx of nonfilm people in the late 60s may not constitute what Kuhn labels a "revolution" it does resemble what he calls a "crisis." What is characteristic of the present situation is two communities -- the insiders, the Hollywood film community, and the outsiders, the filmologists. As such, they are "like the members of different language- culture communities." (p. 205). See Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution 2nd ed. , enlarged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). For an intelligent point of view from a somewhat different perspective, see Chapter 1 of Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory (NY: Oxford University Press, 1984). Also Edward B. Lowry, "Filmology: Establishing a Problematic for Film Study in France 1946-1955," Diss. University of Texas 1982. 3. For a succinct review of the evolution of the literary model, see Chapter 17 "Literary Genres" in Rene Wellek and Austin Warren, Theory of Literature (NY: Harcourt, Brace, 1956). For further readings, see in Bibliography under the names: John W. H. Atkins, Irving Babbit, James J. Donohue, Irwin Ehrenpreis, Paul Hernadi, Earl Miner, Eliseo Vivas, and Rene Wellek. 4. The concept of "world" will be dealt with more fully in Chapter 3. See Nelson Goodman, Ways of Worldmaking (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1978). Through his categories of film, Lindsay offers a view similar to that of "world" — a view which does not reduce classification of film to the enumeration of static signs or codes. Lindsay's categories are open enough to I complement this idea which became popular among genre l critics in the 50s; popular, for example, was the idea of "the world of the Western." 5. Evelyn Gerstein, "Four Films of New Types," ! Theatre Arts Monthly, 11 (1927), pp. 295-298. I 6. Alexander Bakshy, "The New Art of the Moving j Pictures," Theatre Arts Mont hiy, 1 1 ( 1927), p. 279. 7. See Alexander Bakshy, "The Road to Art in the Motion Picture,” Theatre Arts Monthly, 11 (1927), pp. 457-458. For Bakshy: ”7. .technique, based upon a I ) sophisticated knowledge of the medium, might provide j aesthetic pleasure divorced from any considerations of I theme or subject matter." In other words, Bakshy was ! ' paving the way for films to be valued for reasons other i than for their realism or their storytelling abilities I -- as did Leo Braudy some fifty years later in The World in a_ Frame (Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press, 1976). Also see Myron Osborn Lounsbury's discussion of Bakshy in The Origins of American Film Criticism 1909 — 1939 (NY: j Arno Press, 1973), pp. 174-179. j 8. Also see footnote 33. For a good analysis of functionalism's relation to gestaltism, see Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory, pp. 26-28; see also Arthur Danto, "Moving Pictures," Quarterly Review of ! Film Studies, 4, no. 1 (Winter 1979). I 9. While there was certainly a thriving film industry in at least Japan and India, there is little ! work in translation. The result is that any survey of j literature is dominated by Western thought — unfortunately. The term "continental" is used to acknowledge that no survey can accurately be called "international" -- at least not at the time of this 1 writing. 121 10. See Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory. In his first chapter "The State of Film Theory," Dudley Andrew points out that "it is symptomatic of the humanities that dominant film theory has not only neglected empirical studies of all sorts but has erected a rationale for this neglect.... All in all, the film theory born in the world of the humanities has been one based on the efficacy and import of metaphors about the film phenomenon.... The humanities approach to film theory has, in other words, developed a tradition that is virtually self-sufficient." (p. 9). What is ! interesting here is that in the 20s and 30s, although the orientation of UiS. criticism/theory was strongly humanistic, it was the Continental theorists who were attempting a less "self-sufficient" approach. It was not until Metz and the attempt to "scientize" film study by means of semiotics, that film theory re-engaged j metaphor as a way of theorizing. I j 11. The writings of Harry Alan Potamkin have been collected in Lewis Jacobs, ed., The Compound Cinema, The Film Writing o.f Harry Alan Potamkin (NY: Teacher's College Press, 1977). See especially Jacobs' I "Introduction" pp. xxv — xliii. I | 12. Paul Rotha, Movie Parade (London: Studio ! Publications, 1936, rev. ed. 1950). Bela Balazs , Theory of the Film (NY: Dover, 1970), p. 126. | 13. See Eisenstein, The Film Sense A Harvest Book (NY: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1942, 1947), pp. 30-36 as well as his essay "Form and Content: Practice," pp. 157-216, and Film Form, Essays in Film Theory A Harvest Book (NY: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1949). The quote is j from Bela Balazs, Theor y o f the F ilm, Character and ' Growth of a_ New Art (NY: Arno Press & The New York i Times, 1927), p. 53. 14. Balazs, Theory of Film, p. 89. , 15. Sartre maintains that imagination is one kind of mental activity. To move into the imaginary is to move into another world while accepting the "absence" of a complete reality. For example, film has many "realistic" perceptual cues; however, it is the ! "absence" of other cues which informs us of the difference between an image of reality and reality itself. See Jean-Paul Sartre, Psychology of the Imagination (Seacaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1948), esp. Chapter 2. 16. Balazs, Theory of the Film, p. 260. 17. Balazs, Theory of the Film, p. 257 . j 18. A significant exception to this trend is the work of Thomas Sobchack. In his article "Genre Film: A Classical Experience," he builds on Balazs’ theory by defining not reality but "the body of stories as the 'material' out of which the 'content' of a genre film can be made." The "material" of the world does not mean actuality, but rather "the newspapers, television, and the movies themselves." (p. 197). 19. Eisenstein, The Film Sense, p. 215. 20. Eisenstein, Film Form, p. 153. Some years later, in the mid-50s, Godard separated films by i distinguishing between montage and mise-en-scene when he I described various editing constructions. See Jean-Luc Godard, Godard on Godard, trans. Tom Milne (NY: Viking, 1972), esp. "Montage, Mon Beau Souci 21. Interestingly, modern film theory is ' rediscovering what Eisenstein pointed out decades ago. [ Metz has shifted from the equation film is language to j his more recent position that film is a set of "practices" (much like the concept of "conventions") j that are handed down; where at one point Metz attempted | to separate and dissect meaning from structure, it seems ; clear that coding connotation is no longer a particularly fruitful effort. Leo Braudy offers an interesting insight on the relation between Eisenstein1s montage theory, its misunderstanding by filmologists, and Metz's overly-narrow focus: "the analytical and j destructive cataloguing of motif draws critical support from the theory of montage, which asserted that meaning grew from the separation and juxtaposition of images, the discontinuous space that was to be filled in by the I intelligence of the spectators. By diverting attention away from the continuity of a film to. separate images, montage theory often minimized content in favor of abstract aesthetics and thereby eluded ideological censorship, introducing a pseudo-scientific language for | film rather than one based on the audience's j experience." Leo Braudy, The World in ja Frame, p . 41. ! 22. Unfortunately, Potamkin, like other theorists of his era, categorized films in order to evaluate them. 123 Potamkin distinguished for example between Dreyer's "filmic" use of the camera as opposed to Hollywood's misuse, a style which disguised the presence of the filmmaker and the film medium. The point, however, that based on "filmic use," these are two different categories of film, is important. See Lewis Jacobs, ed., The Compound Cinema, The Film Writing of Harry Alan Potamkin. 23. Balazs, Theory of Film, p. 174. 24. Balazs, Theory of Film, p. 187. 25. Spottiswode's use of the term "representation" has none of the connotation modern perceptual psychology has ascribed to it. Where modern theory means a filmmaker's "version" of his world, Spottiswode simply meant (realistic) "depiction." 26. Raymond Spottiswode, A_ Grammar of the Film, An Analysis of Film Technique (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1950), p. 52. See also I Chapter VII "Categories of the Film." j 27. 1) random subject matter randomly treated; 2) ! random subject matter representatively treated; 3) random subject matter reproduced; 4) representative subject matter randomly treated; 5) representative 1 subject matter representatively treated; 6) I representative subject matter reproduced; 7) pure ; reality randomly treated; 8) pure reality I representatively treated; 9) pure reality reproduced. ! 28. See Victor Freeburg, Pictorial Beauty on the Screen (NY: Macmillan Co., 1923). 29. See Paul Rotha, The Film Til Now (NY: Jonathan Cape and Harrison Smith, 1930), pp. 241-253. i 30. As Dudley Andrew accurately remarks in his second chapter "Perception" in Concepts in Film Theory (pp. 19-36) only "two positions have been available throughout the era of classical film theory: the realist and the Gestaltist." (p. 19). Where Mitry's psychology is more gestaltist than realist to the extent that he insists on the constructive more than the perceptive function of the eye, Rotha1s position includes the constructive, but emphasizes the perceptive function. But like Mitry, Rotha's position can easily accept the "functionalism" of recent theory which retains aspects 124 of both realism and gestaltism. 31. See Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, p. 7, where he explains: "From an historical point of view, the easiest way would still have been to divide the world’s cinema into nationalities. But this sort of thing has been done before and presents a very limited summary. It does not reveal, for example, the cycles of subjects which are so typical of commercial cinema. The chief objection...is the difficulty of classification. It is impossible to avoid the overlap which occurs between sections: from slapstick comedy into fantasy, from j romantic period films into serious historical reconstructions.... As in so much of cinema, the real distinction lies in the purpose of the director...” 32. As Rotha explains more fully in his discussion of drama: ”... the dramatic film is the root of the i fictional branch of the cinema. The various kinds of acted film ... grow out like branches from this central trunk and take on the characteristics their makers want them to possess — comedy, melodrama, slapstick, romance. ' I These are all branches of what has now come’ to be called j j drama, the reenactment of the human stories in such a way J j as to hold the interest and excite the susceptibilities ! | of a reader or an assembled audience in a theatre or | ' cinema." Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, p. 92. Rotha1s j i "branches" are remarkably similar to Northrop Frye's j "modes of fictional presentation." j | 33. For a discussion of "functionalism," explaining | its relation to gestaltism, see D. W. Hamlyn , The j Psychology of Perception (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957) . The act of seeing is considered an acquired j skill. "Seeing" itself can be categorized and sub categorized (searching, scrutinizing, recognizing, gazing, etc.). There is an obvious correlation here — namely connecting "scrutinizing" with factual films (for information), "recognizing" oneself in fictional stories, etc. Functionalism as a basis of film classification I needs further research and thought. 1 34. The distinction between commercial cinema and subsidized, although unstated, seems almost formal; that i is, "movies" (commercial cinema) is a different form of cinema than subsidized cinema in much the same way ad illustrations differ from fine art illustrations. Their technique is similar, but their purpose is not. 35. Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, p. 6. 125 36. Unfortunately, Rotha never expanded his economics into a model. Genre critics and theorists have virtually ignored the active role specialized audiences have played in generating film genres. Rotha uses as example the emerging adolescent audience. (The revised edition publication date was 1950.) But it is well-known that the. segmentation of the film audience has changed over time. Presumably, the changing "mix" affects the I respective "mix" of film productions. Even the j filmological studies have centered on the audience as j receptor (the experience or perception of the spectator) more than effecter. From the beginnings of the film industry, box-office has been the barometer of consumer preferences. Box-office successes have commonly generated the go-ahead to manufacture more of the same formula. Groups of these formula films have often formed j film genres or at least sub-genres. In practice, box- ; office and film genre seem to be interdependent. And j 1 yet, oddly, there are few historical or theoretic studies j ; clarifying the relationship of film genre to box-office i I or film genre to an active audience. In his article | , "Audiences, Urban Geography, and the History of the 1 American Film,” Velvet Light Trap, 19 (Spring 1983), pp. J i 23-29, Douglas Montgomery points out the difficulty of ■ ■ discovering the relationship between audience . ] | characteristics and popular film while warning against j i methods of "reverse extrapolation." (See esp. p. 29.) ; , I I • | 37. Harold Leonard, ed., The Film Index, The Film | j a_s Art a reprint edition (NY: Museum of Modern Art, j [ 1941; rpt. Arno Press, 1966). I 38. Harold Leonard, ed., The Film Index, The Film as Art, p. 283. j 39. See in Lounsbury, The Origins of American Film | I Criticism, pp. 249-271, esp. 256. I 40. Kirk Bond, "Formal Cinema," in Introduction to the Art of the Movies, ed. Lewis Jacobs (NY: The Noonday Press, 1 W 0 T 7 - P p ' . ' 209-217 . 41. Erwin Panofsky, "Style and Medium in the Motion ! Pictures," in Film Theory and Criticism, Introductory Readings, eds. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen (NY: Oxford University Press, 1979). ! 42. Erwin Panofsky, "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures," p. 246. Stanley Cavell in The World Viewed 126 clarifies some of the issues surrounding Panofsky's now famous definition -- "the unique and specific possibilities of the new medium." Cavell's point is that "the aesthetic possibilities of the medium are not givens .... The first successful movies-- i.e., the first moving pictures accepted as motion pictures — were not applications of a medium that was defined by given possibilities, but the creation of a_ medium by their giving significance to specific possibilities. Only the art itself can discover its possibilities, and the discovery of a new possibility is the discovery of a new medium..." (pp. 31-32, and see pp. 29-34). For a different, but complementary position on the relationship of art and technology, in particular the cultural effects from the mechanical reproduction of art, see Walter Benjamin, Illuminations (NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968). 43. Maya Deren, "Cinema as an Art Form," in Introduction to the Art of the Movies, ed. Lewis Jacobs. 44. Maya Deren, "Cinema as an Art Form," in Introduction to the Art of the Movies, ed. Lewis Jacobs, p-! 256. 45. Maya Deren, "Cinema as an Art Form," in Introduction to the Art of the Movies, ed. Lewis Jacobs, p. 255. 46. "...le cinema, ’1 1 art du reel' n'est pas necessairement realiste." See in section "Realisme et Realite" in Jean Mitry, Esthetique et psychologie du cinema, les Formes (Paris: Editions universitaires, 1965), II, pp. 406-436. 47. See discussion in Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontlogy of Film (NY: Viking Press, 1971), pp. 16-25. In reinterpeting the realism of Panofsky and Bazin, Cavell clarifies definitions, while, like Mitry, linking the photographic affinity for film with the audience's experience of it. Thus: "'Physical reality as such,' taken literally, is not correct: that phrase better fits the specialized pleasures of tableaux vivant s , or formal gardens, of minimal art. What Panofsky and Bazin have in mind is that the basis of the medium of movies is photographic, and that a photograph is of reality or nature. If to this we add that the medium is one in which the photographic image is projected and gathered on a screen, our question becomes: What happens to reality 127 when it is projected and screened?.... That it is reality that we have to, deal with or some mode of depicting it, [we may] find surprising confirmation in the way movies are remembered, and misremembered." (p. 16) . 48. Jean Mitry, Esthetique et psychologie du cinema, I; see chapter 31. 49. Leo Braudy, The World in a Frame, p. 46. 50. This outline is derived not only from Bazin's What is Cinema?, in particular his "Defense of Rossellini," blit also from Dudley Andrew's discussion of Bazin in The Major Film Theories, pp. 134-178. i 51. Hans Richter, "The Film as an Original Art ; Form," in Introduction to the Art of the Movies, ed. I Lewis Jacobs, pp. 282-283. i : 52. Hans Richter, "The Film as an Original Art Form," in Introduction to the Art of the Movies, ed. ; Lewis Jacobs, p. 287. | 53. Slavko Vorkapich, "Toward True Cinema," Film ■ , Culture, no. 19 (March 1959). I ' ! 54. Arthur Lennig , "The Sense of Form in Cinema," I ■ Film Culture, 38 (Fall 1965), pp. 47-53. j i ’ i ! 55. Siegfried Kracauer, Theory of Film, The | ' Redemption of Physical Reality (Oxford: Oxford ! | University Press, 1960, rpt. 1968), p. 192. ! 56. Kracauer is probably the first important j theorist to talk about film as a medium — not an art. For Kracauer, media formed a continuum with painting at one end and photography at the other; film was next to photography as one of the least "elusive" of media. To differentiate among media the criteria Kracauer employed were: 1) the filmmaker's approach or treatment of the material; 2) the peculiar affinities/characteristics of the material; and, 3) the appeals to the audience. From ; this position Kracauer could dismiss animation as j | graphic art and minimize discussions of the Hollywood fiction film. When, at one point, Kracauer stated that content should take precedence over form, he was not j using these terms in the traditional sense. Content i meant the raw material of nature. All but the ideal form, the found story — a narrative form based on common, everyday experience — did not effectively make use of the film medium. 5 7. Kracauer, Theory of Film, p . 203. 58. Kracauer, Theory of Film, p. 213. What this "form of the matter-of-fact account" was, was unclear. In fact, Kracauer often refers without explanation to many unarticulated principles and concepts which seem to ! act as a foundation for much of this theory. 59. Kracauer, Theory of Film, p. 215. It is difficult to know what to do with a statement like: "Musicals reflect the dialectic relation between the story film and the non-story film without ever trying to resolve it." 60. Jean Mitry, Esthetique et psychologie du cinema (Paris: Editions universitaires, vol. 1 1963, vol. 2 1965) . I 61. Even Metz and many semiologists found I themselves locked into the classic form/content debate. See Dudley Andrew’s discussion in Concepts in Film I Theory, pp. 71-74. j 62. Relating Metz’s position and that of Mitry, j Mitry would say that organizing principles may be comparative (analogic) or implicative (associative), t The rapports between the denotative and connotative provide the basis for understanding how meaning works in film. Cinema is like language precisely because it does not use real objects, but only images of objects — connotative abstractions. And yet, it is a "langue," a communicative system, not a "langage," a linguistic I sytem. Since it is not a linguistic system, applying j the analogy of Saussurean grammar to film is off track. 63. Leo Braudy in The World in a _ Frame is perhaps the closest successor to Mitry. Since Braudy's work is more critical than theoretic, his ideas are addressed more fully in Chapter 3. 64. Included in Christian Metz, Film Language, _A Semiotics of the Cinema, trans. Michael Taylor (NY: Oxford University Press, 1974). i 65. Of course, Metz and semioticians quickly discovered that a grammar of the cinema was not possible. See Metz’s "The Cinema: Language or Language 129 System,” in Film Language pp. 31-91. Also see Dudley Andrew's discussion in Concepts in Film Theory, p.68. 66. Christian Metz, Film Language, A_ Semiotics of the Cinema, p. 90. 67. In describing the history of semiotics and cinema, Umberto Eco outlined four phases of development; these phases seem to apply equally well to filmology. See Umberto Eco, A_ Theory of Semiotics (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1976). If so, then filmologists are finally beginning to catch up to where film theorists like Bazin and Mitry were in the mid-50s and early 60s. They have moved through the development of film theory; from definitions of film as "something else" to the recognition of the complexity of the film phenomenon to the study of the techniques and materials of filmmaking finally to at least an acceptance that it is important to look at the nature of film and its ! relationship to the audience. The filmologists' cry to "historicize" their work is an indication of some reconciliation on their part to find value in the ! traditional positions. j 68. Unfortunately, as a result of the filmologists ; ("outsiders") and film people's ("insiders") i fundamentally different purposes, the last decade has seen the development of a schism in which the | "outsiders" disdain the methods of the "insiders," and ; in turn the "insiders" find the works of the "outsiders" laden with jargon, obscurantist, simplistic, inaccurate, or simply meaningless. See Dudley Andrew's discussion of "metaphor" in Concept s in Film Theory, p. 9. A method common to "outsiders" is to take one film, one "text" and from a study of it derive generalizations about the nature of film. This kind of study is foreign to "insiders." The combination of the assumption that film is logical and predictable (a notion most ; "insiders" would disdain) and the "outsiders'" unfamiliarity with the history of film have not earned them much credibility among "insiders." The "outsiders," on the other hand, have ignored or dismissed past critical, historical, and theoretical studies as "unscientific." 69. Stephen Neale, Genre (U.K.: British Film Institute, 1980), p. 5. 70. Gerald Mast, Film/Cinema/Movie, A_ Theor y of : Experience (NY: Harper and Row, 1977), pp. 14-15. 71. V. F. Perkins, Film as Film (Harraondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972), p. 59. 72. Edward S. Small, "A Note on Genre in Film," Journal of the University Film Association, 29, no. 1 (Winter 1977), p. 39. 73. Small makes a brief reference to the need for a metacategory in his more developed article, "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film," Literature/Film Quarterly, 7, no. 4 (1979), p. 294; for further discussion see Chapter 4 where a category including both television and film, named "moving picture arts," is proposed. 74. Edward S. Small. "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film," p. 291. 75. Edward S. Small, "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film," pp. 292-296. 76. Edward S. Small, "A Note on Genre in Film," p. 39 . 77. Leo Braudy, The World in a^ F r ame. Perhaps Braudy's most important contribution regarding realism is that he provides an intelligent argument for eliminating it as a "style," a "treatment," or a "category" of film. He states: "Films are not more real than other arts, nor should their realism be taken for granted." (p. 24). Braudy provides a cogent argument for separating realism from the technique of filmmaking. "Representational art in this way always re-creates the world around us as a new form of visual organization.... If we can forget for a moment the claims that movies are more 'real' than any other art and consider that the world of objects contained in each film is chosen and transformed in context, just as are all artistic materials..." (p. 23). He explains more specifically: "Realism in literature and painting can refer to either method or subject matter or both. But circumstantial realism in films is hardly ever a methodological choice; if anything, the filmmaker must choose to do otherwise. To call films realistic is similar to calling painting two-dimensional; realism is a necessary characteristic that the whole art grapples with, rather than a particular approach that an artist chooses or disdains according to his cultural moment and his individual will. If realism is to have any use as a critical term, 131 it must be purged of any implication of moral superiority and aesthetic finality, and take its place as a description of a certain range of possibility in artistic construction, which includes subject matter as well as form, history as well as aesthetics." (p. 33). A similar, although not as fully developed, position was offered twenty years earlier by Edouard L. de Laurot in his article, "Towards a Theory of Dynamic Realism," Film Culture, 1, no. 2 (January 1955), pp. 2-14 where he states: "...if reality is the world perceived and transformed by man, it will vary with the subjectivity j of the individual and, what is more important, with the I intersubjectivity of a society, milieu or culture, and it is thus, in the deepest sense, bound up with history.... That is why it is essential at each epoch I to establish the historical dimension of perceived reality." (p . 3) . I | 78. Leo Braudy, The World in a. Frame, p. 8. j 79. Leo Braudy, Th e World, in a. Frame, p. 17. | 80. On this point, the fundamental difference. I between Mast and Braudy is that Mast connects technique ' with use, whereas Braudy maintains that technique 1 produces a "world." Braudy states: "Films can be assorted according to their use of montage, their camera j style, their status as products of a particular national | school, their subject matter, their place in the career : of a particular director, and many other variables. But the most characteristic element in any film is the way j it presents all its objects — animate as well as [ inanimate." Leo Braudy, The World in a _ F r ame , p. 37. 1 j 81. Leo Braudy, The World in a Frame, p. 65. 82. Refer to p. 2 of Chapter 1 — footnote 4. 83. Leo Braudy, The World in a Frame, p. 10. ^ — _ ' 84. V. F. Perkins, Film as Film, p. 62. Perkins continues to define film and forms of film in terms of the traditional realist bias. He outlines three t tendencies: 1) the realist, which "gives it the power to j 'possess' the real world by capturing its appearance; it included the "most rigorous forms of documentary, which aim to present the truth about an event with the minimum of human intervention between the real object and its film image"; 2) the traditional aesthetic, which "permits the presentation of an ideal image, ordered by 132 the filmmaker's will and imagination"; it included "the abstract, cartoon or fantasy film which presents a totally controlled vision"; and, 3) "the photographic narrative film occupies a compromise position where a fictional ’reality1 is created in order to be recorded." Not unlike those of Kracauer1s, Perkins' categories emphasized the filmmaker(s)' treatment of the raw material more than the nature of the raw material of reality itself. 85. Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed, Reflections on the Ontology of Film (TTYT Viking Press, 1971) . See ""Types: Cycles as Genres," pp. 29-37. Cavell's ideas will be further discussed in Chapter 3. 86. Gerald Mast, Film/Cinema/Movie, p. 23. 87. Dudley Andrew, Concepts in Film Theory — see his chapters on representation, narrative structure, figuration, and interpretation. 88. V. F. Perkins, Film as Film, p. 59. 133 KEY CONCEPTS AND ISSUES IN FILM GENRE How can I define a genre before I know on which works to base the definition, yet how can I know on which works to base the definition before I have defined the genre?l This is the central paradox around which genre critics, theorists, and historians have gathered. The critical context in which the theorist operates -- his/her assumptions, methods, and interpretation/ valuation — determines how each addresses the above question. With each new theorist/critic, issues have been refocused and boundaries reset. Rephrased into question form, the key film genre issues can be simplified to: 1) classification and film genre — Should every film be grouped with other similar films? Are a theory of film genre and a theory of film classification necessarily equivalent? If not, what are the differences and limits of classification and film genre? 2) hierarchy -- What is the hierarchical relation — subordination and coordination among more broadly and more narrowly defined categories of film — types, kinds, cycles, genres, and other genre-related. 134 groupings? 3) the nature of existing film genres -- How are film genres currently described? Are they similarly delimited, or must each be defined individually? 4) construction — How are categories of film constructed? Are categories constructed similarly? Which criteria are useful for constructing categories of film? Which are for defining film genres? Is it useful to mix criteria? If so, to what extent and under what circumstances? 5) fixity and purity -- Do all categories of film need to be structured so that they are "fixed" — that is, stable and invariant? Do categories need to be defined so as to be "pure" — does that purity tend towards exclusivity or inclusivity? 6) role of the audience — What is the appeal of film genres, of individual films belonging to film genres? How does the audience experience film genres? What is the role of audience expectation? To what extent does the audience define categories of film? a§enda for genre studies — What is the value of genre study? What function does it serve within film studies? What is the role of the genre critic? What are the goals of film genre theory and criticism? 135 Cataloguing, Classification and Genre As it is used here, the fundamental difference between cataloguing and classification is that one is practical and descriptive, the other descriptive and evaluative. Cataloguing is verifiable; it describes physical properties and some content — usually restricted to topic -- not content in the formalist sense. Cataloguing is based on apprehended phenomena -- material, instrument, technique, production, format, and topic. Classification takes physical properties into account, but it is based on perceived, "shared characteristics," which may or may not be verifiable. Cataloguing (descriptive classification) can characterize a film: 1) by date of production or date of release (reissue, remake, rerelease, etc). 2) by country of production or country of release. 3) by production company or production personnel (studio, producer, director, screenwriter, cinematographer, actors, etc.) 4) by the film's physical (material) properties: By length (number of reels or footage): a) short (1 or 2 reels); b) television 1/2 hour, 1 or 2 hours; c) feature, or full-length (3 or more reels) ; d) series. By width: a) less than 16 mm; 136 b) 16 mm; c ) 35 mm; d) 7 0 mm. By screen shape/size: a) standar d ; b) cinemascope; c) television format; d ) other . By stock: a ) color ; b) black and white; c) with or without tinting/toning ; d) with or without sound. 5) by its technical process: a) by camera technique — i) live action - continuous; ii) animated - single-frame; iii) mixed live action and animation. b) by editing technique -- i) compilation; ii ) standard. 6) by format: a) single feature-length program; b) anthology; c) omnibus; d) continuations/serials (limited and nonlimited); e) series (magazine format, news, educational, etc . ) ; f) clips, outtakes, trailers (relationship to another title ) . 7) by its commercial base, its financial sponsorship. 8) by its box office, budget/cost, profit/loss. 9) by its source material — based on a novel, stage play, biography, current event, news item, 137 etc. 10) by general topic — on geography, on sociology, on sports, on religion, etc. Obviously, there are many more examples where classification is descriptive -- not evaluative. For all intents and purposes, the descriptors are fixed. For the most part, cataloguers are similar in that: 1) their stated purpose is practical and without any attempt at a theoretical base; 2) they operate on the assumption that all films can fit into some sort of orderly system; and, 3) they openly acknowledge problems of terminology. Currently, the systems which affect a theory of film genre combine cataloguing and classification; the proposed systems are those of: 1) the Library of Congress; 2) the National Film Archive; 3) UNESCO; 4) Magyar Filmstudies Archives (Filmtudomanyi Intezet es Filmarchivum) ; 5) Belgrade Cultural Centre, Beograd Film Institute . Library of Congress Of the five systems discussed here, the U.S. Library of Congress (LC) scheme is the most conservative 138 in that it restricts itself primarily to cataloguing. The LC ' s guidelines are geared to a system of practical description involving physical and topical characteristics. See Appendix A, 1A. The LC cataloguing system has concentrated on i national needs. By integrating the international j organization of International Federation of Film Archives (FIAF - Federation International des Archives i du Film) with the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR), the motion picture division has more recently I attempted to make the national system more compatible ; with international and Third World concerns. I Both sets of rules represent complex ; solutions to the complex problems of [ organizing complex materials, the j final aim of which is to make possible j the orderly collection, maintenance, preservation, and use of these materials by researchers from a wide variety of backgrounds.... We j recognize the generalizations for ' what they are -- an attempt to deal j simply with questions which are not | simple .... 2 i I The motion picture division uses three subfields — i format, content, and technique. Although the organization is relatively simple, there are problems. The lists of designators are very limited. The strong Western bias is far from integrating Third World and socialist categories of film. 139 Definitions of content are unclear. For example, "films for children" is listed under fiction, but "films by children" is listed under nonfiction, as if children do not make fiction films. LC1s basic organization may be too simplistic. By splitting content into fiction and nonfiction, LC is . » * left with the awkward situation of having to place 1 j surrealistic-experimental under fiction, and I i experimental film under nonfiction. If "Dance" is left | under nonfiction, then how is The Red Shoes (U.K., 1948) ! i catalogued — under "Fables, Myths, Legends," "Drama," | or "Musical"? i i i A very minor point is LC1s presentation of j i > j technique. While the repetition of technique ; I I descriptors for both fiction and nonfiction clarifies j their position that technique is not a basis for I category formation, it appears redundant. Since all I techniques described are subcategories of single-frame I (animation), a caveat assuming photographed performance, ■ unless otherwise stated, would suffice. | The Nitrate Control Inventory System employs a genre list. See Appendix A, IB. It is clear from the j following instruction that although genre is not j defined, it is also not equated with topic or theme. 140 The list below is an authority list; do not use any variations or add any terms.... Do not select a genre term unless you have viewed the film or are reasonably certain of the film's content.3 While the organization is hardly comprehensive, it appears that cataloguers understand the complexity genre presents. Films cannot be classified by genre from physical properties or topic alone. The screening process is essential, because it provides "content" information. The screening process will prove to be, in fact, one of the greatest practical stumbling blocks to valid film genre classification. As Kaminsky has remarked: One of the problems of dealing with genre is that to make essential generalizations which have any meaning, one must have seen enough films to make speculation valid.A The National Film Archive The National Film Archive (part of the British Film Institute) employs what it calls a form index. (Its treatment index was eliminated in its revised version.) See Appendix A, 2. The idea of going directly to a listing of forms, rather than first splitting into fiction and nonfiction "branches," is potentially useful; it provides a flexible structure, while allowing for the growth of new 1A1 forms. But overall, the drawbacks of the National Film Archive's form index outweigh any advantages. I Although labeled "form” index, in fact what is meant by the term is unclear. The classification does not follow historical definitions of form; nor does it I j redefine form with a narrower but more consistent ) 5 scope. "Continuations," a format which crosses over both fiction and fact, is placed on an equal level with t "Drama," a fiction category, and "Detective," a much \ more limited grouping. The National Film Archive's use i of "form" does not improve present concepts of form. j Even more significant a problem, however, is the organizational structure itself. For example, various I types of animation are included under the fiction/ 1 nonfiction group as if by its nature the animation j I technique guides content in a consistently predictable way. The proposed structure does not support experience since animation can be used in almost every sort of film except perhaps an actuality film, record film, or some 6 variation on direct film. As LC has already exemplified, animation is a technique, not a basis for genre classification. Pursuing Stanley Cavell's concept, it may prove valuable to explore animation as a separate medium, but under current usage, mixing technique with other criteria is 142 not fruitful. Edward S. Small, in 1977, is clear: . . . errors in levels of abstraction can only result in obscure or inaccurate coordination and subordination of important structures, and muddy thinking at best. Until animation, for example, is seen as technique (of stop-action or single framing) that is employed by all genres (fictive features, documentaries, experimental films, ; television commercials), it will be ; difficult to research for students and , teachers alike. The brief UPA, Disney , or Warner Bros, cartoon may well 1 exemplify a genre, but animation per se does not; the present application of the term 'genre' to animation only obscures distinctions essential to the ; progress of film scholar ship . 7 | I Technique, like country of origin, could have been j specified after establishing a consistent listing of f forms, as LC does. Figure 1 is a hypothetical scheme of j how this might work. Or, technique could have been set j up at the first level, organized by mechanical character into continuous (1ive-action) and single-frame | I (animation). Figure 2 shows how this arrangement might work, although it does not deal with subcategories of j animation (pixillation, puppet, silhouette, etc.). However, to create a structure as the National Film Archive does, where the relationship between subject matter and technique is random, only produces a i hodgepodge where "animal as hero" films are on an equivalent level with animation, and crime films are on I 143 J Figure 1 (Hypothetical sample variation on National Film Archive's form index, employing technique and country of origin as subcategories of what the National Film Archive labels "forms." Refer to Appendix A, 2.) FICTION: Adventure General Animated By country of origin Live-action By country of origin Jungle adventure Animated By country of origin Live-action By country of origin Legends, myths, etc. Animated By country of origin Live-action By country of origin NONFICTION: Instructional/Educational Animated By country of origin Live-action By country of origin FICTION/NONFICTION: Amateur General Animat e d By country of origin Live-action By country of origin Children (made by) Animated By country of origin Live-action By country of origin Clubs and societies Animat ed By country of origin Live-action By country of origin 144 Figure 2 (Hypothetical sample variation on National Film Archive's form index, employing technique or country of origin at the first level of categorization. Refer to Appendix A, 2.) TECHNIQUE: LIVE-ACTION FICTION: Adventur e Genera 1 By country of origin Jungle adventure By country of origin Legends, myths, etc. By country of origin NONFICTION: Actuality By country of origin Instructional/Educational By country of origin FICTION/NONFICTION: Amateur General By country of origin Children (made by) By country of origin Clubs and societies By country of origin ANIMATION FICTION: Adventure General By country of origin Jungle adventure By country of origin Legends, myths, etc. By country of origin NONFICTION: Instructional/Educational By country of origin FICTION/NONFICTION: Amateur General By country of origin Children (made by) By country of origin Clubs and societies By country of origin 145 a par with both drama films and historical movements. While to some extent all boundaries, in science or art, are arbitrary, serious consequences come with improper hierarchies and confusion regarding differences of degree and kind . 8 Such a system has value neither theoretically nor UNESCO UNESCO uses a single, dominant defining characteristic to classify films. In abstract, although not in practice, it is reminiscent of Mitry's ideas. The defining characteristics include purpose (function), subject matter, format, and treatment. See Appendix A, 3. UNESCO's scheme is too brief and too simple to offer any meaningful insight for theorists and critics. Although it includes the "Factual" and "Fictional" films, it does not include the "Absolute" film and thus 9 is not working from a pre-established theoretical base. UNESCO appears to use the term "type" simply to mean a category . UNESCO's primary contribution is that it counterpoints the heavy emphasis on fictional film typical of most classification systems. UNESCO's system has a very broadly based definition of film in which the 146 fiction film plays only a small part. One of the important organizing principles offered is the elimination of technique and historical movements as useful bases for "typing" films. The problem technique created for the National Film Archive is absent in UNESCO's proposal. Whether a training film is animated or not, it remains a training film. Historical movements, such as Neorealism or Expressionism, are also removed and thus no longer in conflict with other categories such as fiction. Eliminating film "movements" as a useful means of constituting film genre offers solutions to many of the problems not only 10 cataloguers but theorists and critics have had. Unfortunately, UNESCO's emphasis on the factual and nonfiction types of films disfavors experimental and what have been traditionally labeled "art" films. While the categories are generally more equivalent than those offered by the National Film Archive, the underlying construction is unclear. "Record," "Instructional," and "Training" types of films are listed equivalently with "Factual" and "Newsreel." Are record films not factual, are training films not instructional? One might argue that the newsreel is a factual sub-category of the anthology format, but UNESCO makes no such statement. 147 At the most basic level, critics concerned with issues of film categorization believe, by examining certain broad categories of film, they will learn both about the categories themselves and the films existing ' i within them. At least two of the articulated goals of a system of film categorization seem to be: 1) to place an individual film within a category and 2) to place the , 11 work in relation to other works within the category. UNESCO's proposal does not accomplish this goal. Magyar Filmstudies Archives : I The Magyar (Hungarian) Filmstudies Archives set as their aim: ... to reveal and define analytically all the films [they] have examined and described — primarily the nonfiction films, newsreels, film- magazines, as well as fiction films that contain scenes of documentary significance . 12 ! They rejected using the "headword" system when they realized "how much the headwords depended upon the subjective choice of definitions of classifiers, thus leading to illogicality and uncertainty." They also rejected the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), finding it too complex. They finally combined a simplified version of the UDC with "the code system of the Hungarian Central Bureau of Statistics based upon 13 the International Standard Industrial Classification." 148 (For the simplified UDC, see Appendix A, 4 and examples.) ! The Magyar Filmstudies Archives' idea to use the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) system as basis for film classification was probably a reasonable 14 notion. In general, one might hypothesize that all j j factual films on psychology, law, geography, j f * j ethnography, history would fall under and ".9." j Fiction films and most Hollywood feature films would come under ".8." In abstract, the biggest problem area j l would concern ".7" — separating "films on art" from : | experimental "art" films. For purposes of cataloguing, | ! | ■ such a hypothetical system might prove to be quite practical. But this is not at all what the Magyar i Filmstudies Archives proposed. | I Their system mixes fact and fiction in a manner so [ pointedly political it results in confusion for, the Westerner. For example, it is not films on the subject of psychology — but psychological drama which has been j assigned "A.l," since psychology falls under ".1" in the j UDC. Does The Snake Pit (U.S., 1949) come under "A.l" j because it has "documentary value," or is it "A.7" * because it is an "entertainment" film? Simplification of the UDC meant cutting politically questionable (Western) material. There is no "A. 2 " i 149 presumably because, as a Soviet block country, there is no religion or theology; there is no "A.4," one guesses, because there are no films on languages or linguistics; and there is no "A.8" because film is not literature. The "filming of literature" falls under "fantasy" according to the Magyar Filmstudies Archives. The Magyar Filmstudies' scheme is fascinating in that its perspective is so strongly focused on the nonfiction film. Certainly no Western genre study lists, as subcategories of "Entertainment," instructional entertainment, or entertaining reportage. It appears that "common sense" logic is not only the product of historical, but of cultural and of political tradition as well. It thus becomes difficult for a Westerner to critique, let alone integrate, non-Western 15 conceptualization. What is needed is mammoth — to — reclassify culture from an international perspective. Belgrade Cultural Centre , Beograd Film Institute One of the first broad-based classification systems was completed in 1964 by The Beograd Film Institute. It was entitled Film Genres . Its purpose was to fix "a complete and all embracing series of terms for the 16 genres already in existence...." See Appendix A, 5. The method was unique and must today be considered 150 the first with a "scientific" (as opposed to metaphoric) approach. The study was conducted by a committee who first submitted a number of proposals for variations of film classification. The proposals were then evaluated for their practicality, flexibility, completeness, and logic. The various proposals were sent to film professionals for their comments. A dialogue between the committee and the film professionals ensued in which they attempted to address such common problems as: 1) the variety and mixture of criteria used in the construction of film genres; 2) the nature of existing film genres; 3) the difference between animated and photographed films; 4) the place of "free theme" films; and, 5) the relations among concepts of category, kind, and genre. What resulted from the committee's findings was a two-part system: Film genres are established according to four different criteria, arranged in two groups: the first embraces criteria of structure and technique, and the second those of aim and theme.17 Genres determined by structure/technique included the documentary, the fiction film, the cartoon, and the silhouette film but not free theme film. Examples 151 constructed by aim/theme included the newsreel, the 18 magazine film, western, trailer, and free theme film. Additional qualifiers called "supplementary marks" i completed the definition. They included: animated, photographed performance, adaptation, anthology, 19 omnibus, for children, etc. (See Appendix A, 5B.) | Furthermore, the compilers defined an extensive list of terms in "Instructions for Use." "Structure" i j ... in the phenomenological sense/ is \ J either the authentic living or dead j world in front of the camera with its j j reconstructed variations/ one among j I them - the play of the actors/, or j I the preliminary artificially created ] worlds subsequently registered by the } i camera/ drawing, objects, puppets or | I anything similar/,20 ; i j One infers that live-action, fiction, documentary and ! cell animation are structures. What is a live-action j j structure? Is it live-action (as in direct cinema) vs photographed performance? In fact, the question "What is a film's structure?" is not really answered. Does j ! I j the reference to "puppets" imply somehow that a puppet l j film might have its own unique structure, as Bela Balazs i 2 1 j suggested? A cartoon by definition uses the animation I technique, but does it not also have qualities i I distinctly different from either fiction or nonfiction : structures? "Technique" is defined as I ... starting with mechanical factors - whether the film is photographed by the normal work of the camera, by specific technical actions at shooting, or whether the action of 1 photographing is neglected j altogether . 2 2 j Live-action ("normal work"), single-frame (animation), ■ ! | ; and what currently comes under the aegis of direct j ! cinema ("action of photographing is neglected") are the I t I | ! three film techniques outlined. They appear similar to V. F. Perkins1 organization by treatment, where l I i animation represents the most mediation by filmmaker, ; I J [ ^ direct cinema the least mediation, and dramatic fiction j | film the median. The scheme appears to suffer from the j | i ; same kind of bias Perkins' organization had. Treatment { I 23 | I is confused with technique. : I i j The use of "aim" and "theme" is also problematic. I | "Aim" is a particularly charged concept. Historically a ! 1 source of debate, it has often been used interchangeably with intention and purpose. All three terms have been widely used as criteria in describing film genres, j "Aim," is here defined as I ... determining the reasons for the existence of some genres/ the advertising film exists with the i purpose, of advertising some ! merchandise. . . . 24 Does "aim" refer to the filmmaker’s intention, or to the 153 purpose of the film -- whether stated or actualized? Is there a fixed number of aims? To list the trailer and the advertising film separately implies two different aims. Under close inspection, the categories listed under aim would seem to be based on other criteria — namely, format, structure, and content. Interestingly, many of the categories of film commonly labeled as genres, such as horror, thriller, or western are placed under "theme." Structure is not a differentiating criterion — a position affirmed by Small: ... the western, the musical, the i horror film, the crime film, the j detective film and the war film. Structurally, these 'types' are ! rather much alike, their differences | mainly subject differences.25 i • j Topic is probably the most pervasive criterion employed j by cataloguers and classifiers when defining the limits ! of film genres. It is also one of the most highly and least satisfactory. According to the Beograd Film Institute's proposal, j war films can be both "fictional war film" and i "documentary war film" when structure is combined with J i theme; or, "war film using collage" when collage technique is combined with theme. How one classifies a World War II newsreel is unclear. The problem is usage. 154 Even when topic is combined with structure or technique (treatment) the resulting categories prove far too general. The value of the system the Beograd Film Institute proposed is more in its demonstration of what does not 26 work rather than in what it suggests might work. As was its stated purpose, it is an "exclusively practical means" rather than a theoretical system. By not addressing certain fundamental questions, the Beograd Institute undercut its own work. Their purpose was to organize existing categories of film — presumably to clarify and to understand — but clarity and understanding of what? The question was neither asked nor answered; the result is that the "accepted" version is as arbitrary as the many "rejected" versions the Beograd Institute developed. By attempting to simplify the labels, the compilers avoided hierarchical relationships. Their reasoning is explained thus: Obviously, any of these criteria can serve as separate bases for dividing the whole realm of film activities into genres. But such a system - for this would be already a system of general film classification - would rest upon the hierarchical relation of terms among themselves/the term "documentary" determined by structure, would be divided into "industrial",, ethnographic", etc., and these same genres - or some of 155 them - would recur in the category of the fiction film, a broader division being determined by one criterion, and a narrower by the other/. In that case a term, selected to describe the genre completely, would be based upon all four criteria, and would therefore be bulky and practically inapplicable, because even in the simplest cases it would contain four words at least.27 By attempting to collapse a description of a genre into less than four words, they produced a simple, but useless system. Indeed, any criterion can serve as a basis for categorization, but not categorization useful to genre theorists and critics. To describe a film, according to the Beograd Film Institute schema, one chooses either structure or technique and either aim or theme. But try to classify, for example, Lotte Reininger's The Adventures of Prince Achmed (Germany, 1923-26). How does one choose between the criteria of structure and technique? Is the film more a narrative, fiction film, or more a silhouette 1 f i lm ? A similar problem occurs when choosing between aim and theme. Is Berlin: die Sinfonie der Grosstadt (Germany, 1927) a report film, film poem, abstract film? What about the commonly held label -- "cross-sectional" film? Does Vigo's A_ Propos de Nice (France, 1930) aim at reportage or social satire? Is the aim propaganda or the theme war when classifying Frank Capra's Why We F i gh t series (U.S., 1942-1945)? Isolating the four proposed criteria helps to demonstrate the problem. i (See figure 3.) The confusion comes not from structure or technique j — even assuming, for the moment, that there are only 1 two structures, and that technique is a defining j criterion (which it is not). The problem is that "aim" 1 and "theme" do not describe the listed components. j Travelogue and newsreel are not aims any more than magazine or melodrama are themes. A single film, let alone a whole category of films, ! cannot be described by the kind of system proposed by the Beograd Film Institute. It is not a question of finally discovering the one "right" criterion or the one j i j "right" combination of criteria. As much as this might simplify the cataloguer's task, classifying films cannot be approached in the same manner as classifying parts of , speech . The discrimination of categories is a process of i abstracting and conceptualization. Good abstract concept-building cannot reduce a whole grouping of films 29 to a single characteristic. The kind of thinking j | Edward S. Small exhibits is a recurrent error. He 1 157 Figure 3 (Hypothetical reorganization of Beograd Film Institute's Film Genre scheme,28 isolating each criterion.) structure techni que aim theme documentary fiction film cartoon graphic puppet silhouet te collage film w/ models newsreel report propaganda advertising trailer scientific re search educational cultural travelogue free theme magazine scientific- research popular science industrial on economics on art nature ethnographic social psychological melodrama biographical historical war film adventure criminal spy film thriller western phantasy sci ence fiction horror legend fairy tale fable burlesque comedy parody satire music film opera operetta musical ballet film poem f ilm critic abstract film quotes Werner Heisenberg thus: 'The essence of abstraction consists in singling out one feature, which, in contrast to all other properties, is considered to be particularly important.'3 Genre classification is indeed very large-scale concept- formation...30 Discovering the "right" criterion/criteria is a red herring. Ultimately, such a strategy leaves more questions than it answers. Status of Film Genre : Criticism Without Theory There is no comprehensive, extant theory of film genre. Nor are there easily identifiable theoretical paths. One might try to force genre studies into "sensible" analytical categories -- the traditionalists, for example, into thematic, the popular culture/mythic group into archetypal, the filmologists into structuralist or essentialist, the documentarists into functional, the eclectics into phenomenologic. For a brief moment, one might be deluded into believing that at last clarity and understanding had been bestowed upon this tangled web of film genre and its study. Even in the best of all possible worlds, neither film genres nor studies about them can usefully be purified and objectified to logical, culture-free, unified 31 paradigms. Briefly, there are a few scattered bits of 159 inconsistent, theoretical criticism. A short article, "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film," by Edward S. Small, proposes some literary analogies and thoughts, but has no theoretical foundation. Kracauer's ideas on genre are extremely limited by his concept of realism. Alf Louvre's "Notes on a Theory of Genre," is grounded theoretically and offers substantial ideas, but there is no direction as to any sort of practical appplication. Paul Rotha's tour de force, the mammoth Movie Parade, which attempts to organize major categories of film internationally, poses the opposite problem: practical application without theory; unfortunately, the guidelines explaining how they are constructed are at times contradictory or must be inferred. The most complete study, in terms of both theoretical base and practical applications, is Antoine Vallet's 1963 text, Le s Genres du Ci nema; but, what begins as a functionalist approach rapidly deteriorates into vaguely eclectic traditionalism; to critique his approach properly one would have to rewrite his book 32 first . The temptation, of course, is to clean the slate and construct what a functionalist theory of film genre should be, what a thematic or an archetypal theory of film genre should be, and so on, and then compare and 160 contrast these. That would produce a proper critique of significant concepts affecting film genre theory. And — obviously, the task of forcing logic on the necessarily illogical nature of cultural modes of communication is incongruous, if not impossible. Traditionalist Genre Criticism: Inferred Theory | ... a genre is ... a tradition with a ! life of its own.33 ; I 1 j Traditionalist genre "theory", that is, industry- j j derived theory based on genre as a "tradition," may be 5 j described as "pragmatic" and "mimetic" (as opposed to ' [ 34 : t structural or expressive). It is descriptive, ; : i | prescriptive, pluralistic, asymmetric. It must be ; t 1 i inferred from industry usage. It lacks any overridingly i I I t consistent, systematic and articulated method. ; I As an "institutional imperative," it is built on i j usage and critical consensus; thus, it coerces and in [ ' I turn is coerced by its own tradition. As Stuart f i Kaminsky remarks: I ! t Those who use the term [theory of I genre] usually mean that in film ! broad forms of popular expression are identifiable, each with a specific tradition. They also indicate that | the works are related, and that this j relationship is worth examining. It I has been assumed that, by examining I these broad forms, Westerns, gangster i films, art films, costume dramas, war I films, we can gain some knowledge | 161 L about the films which exist within them. Generally, this is where any discussion of genre ends.35 Traditionalist genre "theory" is best exemplified in the many historical surveys and critical histories of individual genres. At the nexus of traditionalist genre theory is the idea that genre is an historically evolving phenomenon. In fact, this is the key factor distinguishing traditionalist from other (essentialist, realist, mythic, structuralist) approaches to genre theory: the valuation of history -- the valuation of tradition. Abstracted, and examined collectively, traditionalist genre theory concerns itself with the following issues/ questions: Sources: What is the derivation (the geneology) of the film genre under study? What are its sources in other media? What are its precursors in film? "Firsts": Which is the first film to be identified as initiating the film genre in question? Does it act as a paradigm (template) for succeeding examples in the genre? Pivotal films: (Sometimes labeled "prototypic" or "cornerstone" films) Which films have had such a significant effect on the genre that they have directed or re-directed the course of the genre in some way? 162 Classic films: Which films exemplify the genre at its best? Hybrid films: Are there films which display the these films play with regard to the genre under study? Parameters: What are the general limiting characteristics of the genre under study? Key Players: Who are the significant stars, directors, producers, writers, studios, designers and/or other technical staff/personnel to influence the development of the specific genre? Production : Are there technically formative factors? If so, what are they? In what ways do they limit or shape the genre? Budget: Does budget act as a formative factor on the genre? Is so, to what extent? National/Cultural Variations: In what ways has one culture/nationality brought its own vision/ sensibilities to the genre? Which films have had cross- cultural influences? How have national/cultural sources, key players, budget, or other factors affected the variations of the genre? Audience/Marketplace: In what ways and to what extent have filmmakers adapted the genre to perceived audience needs or marketplace demands? of more than one genre? What role do 163 Cross-media influences: In what ways and to what extent have other communication arts and/or mass media affected the genre? Vitality: In terms of popularity/box-office and thus sheer numbers of films produced, when has the genre been its most and least successful? Appeal; What is the appeal of the genre? Is appeal specific to a particular segment of the audience? Why? Evolution; How has the genre changed? In what ways has the genre regenerated itself, spawned new genres, sub—genres or cycles of films? How have social themes (context) affected the changes in the core issues of the i genre? Future; Has the genre survived? How are current examples a reflection of the genre's tradition? What is 36 the genre's future? The greatest single drawback of traditionalist genre theory is the lack of any overall scheme. (As Focillon remarked, "In default of systematizing the 37 arts, we can try to classify them." ) Thus, the parts are "classified" but without a view to the whole. Sub genres and cycles are defined before placing genres in relation to other categories by kind and degree. The western is not placed in relation to documentary, to melodrama, to the war film. Rules are applied 164 inconsistently and with tunnel-vision. Each genre is built primarily in isolation, more in relation to itself than any comprehensive system, and apparently idiosyncratically. At temp ts At Theory-Building; Common Traits, Invariant Elements and Defining Characteristics In very simple terms, there are three conceptual approaches to film genre theory-building; each is based on one of the following: 1) "shared trait"; 2) "invariant" element; and, 3) "defining" (limiting) characteristic. The first approach is similar to methods already discussed under cataloguing. Films are grouped by one or several common traits. They can range from films of an historical movement — such as Italian Neo-Realism or British Free Cinema, to films featuring a star — such as Alec Guinness, Toshiro Mifune or Bette Davis, or to films centering on a topic — such as religion, violence, or politics, and so on. While the "shared trait" approach has only been discussed in terms of cataloguing and classifying in this study, it is in 38 fact, pervasive in film criticism. "Shared Trait": Category of Film To differentiate the critical concepts involved in 165 the three methods of category-building, it is important to name them. Marc Vernet, in his article, "Genre,” has labeled any category of films which share a common , 39 trait, "class." The term "class" is relatively neutral. The only other theorist to use the term — j I I more specifically but somewhat ambiguously -- is Paul ! ' j Rotha. (See Glossary of Terms.) I j In keeping with both the formalists and the realist ! I I bias, Rotha first divided all film into three branches: j 1) films of fiction; 2) films of fact; and 3) I j 40 j j experimental and animated films. Under the fictional I ! branch of film, Rotha outlined eight "classes" of film: 1 j i I 1) Adventure/ Melodrama; 2) Comedy; 3) Romance; 4) j ! Historical/Chronicle; 5) Fantasy; 6) Shakespeare; 7) 1 41 | j Drama; and, 8) Epic. Under the factual branch, Rotha outlined five "classes": 1) newsreel, record and i ! i magazine films; 2) travel films; 3) instructional films; | I 4) documentary films; and 5) documentary films of World j | War II. I Rotha's "classes" of film are strikingly similar to ! j what in literature are thought of as modes, what Antoine I Vallet, in Les Genres du Cinema, terms "modes de ' j i j vision," what Frank McConnell, in his Storytelling and My thmaking, calls "worlds," and what countless others 42 1 have labeled genres. Melodrama, for example, has been considered a mode, a theme, a world view, a vision (point of view), a class of films, and a genre. It has been confusing to the point that David Morse in his article, "Aspects of Melodrama," writes: j | In general, melodrama is a term of little critical value; it has been so ' corrupted in common usage that to give it a more specific field of reference is a task which almost I verges on the impossible.43 j I The situation is hardly different for the many j i j | other terms which refer to categories of film based on j > shared traits. Comedy, romance, adventure, action — at j ! ' I I one point or another in their life times have been I | considered genres. And yet, these terms and their usage j must be clarified before any significant theoretical : work in film genre can proceed. ! ! What does the genre theorist need in order to I l ! clarify the relationships of groups of film? Is it more i j useful to have a term which, for example, indicates the I I | ! theoretical orientation — whether it is thematic, j I | j archetypal, functionalist? Different orientations have j i I j tried to force names on categories of films; and, in | i general the resultant all-embracing categories have been j j too abstract to be of any real use. What Kaminsky j criticizes in the crime film as a genre is equally ! applicable to the crime film as a "class" of film. i I 167 A study of the 'crime film,1 for example, will yield a number of valid generalizations, but the breadth of work within this category is so great that it is impossible to form any valid tentative conclusions about such a genre. Therefore, the 'crime film' is too broad to be considered as a workable genre. Any actual comparison of Louis Malle's Frantic and Gordon Douglas' The Detective is limited, if not impossible.... A narrowing of definition, however, not only limits the scope of works to be examined (and, in so doing, limits the number of films necessary for valid tentative conclusions) but also makes the examination more manageable.44 Perhaps it is more effective to have terms which both: 1) address the needs of theory-building; and, 2) cross theoretical orientations, thus acting as a common language for all theory-building. The result would be a term "x" which would mean what Vernet means by "class." The term used equivalently in this study is "category." There would also be a term "y," or terms "w, y, and z" which would name categories of differing kind and 45 degree. Essentialism and the Popular Myth Approaches: Variations on Invariant Elements The second approach attempts to "fix" categories of film. It is based on genre defined by one or more "invariant" elements -- that is, stable, irreducible characteristics. The essentialist, mythic and popular culture approaches are well-known examples. In general, although traditionalists have been influenced by concepts of "ideal type" and myth, they do not tend to fall within this point of view simply because they see both genres and their characteristics as evolving — not invariant. The essentialist position is best represented by Andre Bazin. His theory of film, as discussed in Chapter 2, defines the nature of film in terms of a discernible "essence." Grounded in essentialist theory, the comparable position on genre attempts to derive the pure or ideal essence of a genre. In "Evolution of the Western," Bazin falls prey to what Andrew Tudor calls 46 the "empirical dilemma." Bazin proposes the concept of evolution in terms of "successive aesthetic periods," of which the classic stage produces the ideal or perfect combination of "essential" elements. Douglas Pye explains how the purpose of this approach ... is to construct a paradigm, an ideal type, or to select an ideal form from the history of the genre, against which to judge individual works. Both Robert Warshow and Andre Bazin do this for the Western -- locating, in Bazin's words, fa point of classical perfection' and so imposing on the genre a model of development to perfection followed by decadence.47 The "ideal type" model, as literary studies have 169 already proven, is overly-rigid. Despite Bazin's creation of the "superwestern," this concept is not flexible enough to be generalizable; it does not allow for revitalization or new directions within a genre. Myron Lounsbury, in The Origins of American Film Criticism 1909 -- 1939, places William Troy of the Nation as the first to identify symbols and interpret 48 genre films in terms of myth. It was Robert Warshow's seminal 1954 article on "The Westerner," however, which sparked filmologists from popular culture, folk lore, myth, and psychology to begin to theorize about film and 49 genre. In 1969, John G. Cawelti's article, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature" triggered a period of genre studies devoted to exploring the western and gangster films as highly 50 conventionalized, cultural formulae. "Popular myth" studies have resulted in four trends: 1) they have developed a structuralist method, as in Wil Wright's Six Guns and Society: _A Structural Study of the Western; 2) others, such as Stuart Kaminsky's American Film Genres and Stanley Solomon's Beyond Formula, American Film Genres have maintained a framework complementary to the traditionalist position; 3) still others, for example, Frank McConnell's The Spoken Seen and Stor ytelling and Mythmaking have applied 170 concepts of archetype and modes, and last, 4) Thomas Schatz's Hollywood Genre s, Formulas, F ilmmaki na » and the Studio System, has balanced structuralism and popular 51 culture with an auteurist approach. In general, all of these studies, which for purposes of simplicity, will be labeled "popular myth," have assumed the extremely limited definition of film as popular (Hollywood) narrative. Their scope has been confined to the classic narrative film, although a more recent trend has considered generic transformation and 52 cross-cultural influence. Their primary interest has been in explaining the spectator-film dynamic, or rehashing T. S. Eliot's tradition-and-individual talent not ion . Very briefly, the popular myth approach assumes the narrative film to be a symbolic product; as a symbolic product, the source of its images (archetypes) are not a result so much of the filmmaker(s) but rather the "collective unconscious" of human experience. Genre analysis cannot show how men think in genres so much as how genres operate in men's minds without their being 53 aware of the fact. It is the appearance of archetypes — of primordial images — or of archetypal situations in film which explains the powerful impact and particular appeal of certain films or film genres. The filmmaker as 171 master planner, . . . deals, for his raw materials, not so much in plot, character, or visual j effects — the shibboleths of I conventional criticism — as in the | sheer possibilities that generic norms ... that is, in many-times-told tales.”54 1 Thus, the western's lasting appeal is due to its "mythic” elements. I The central questions of the popular myth approach , have been: "Why does a particular film appeal to us?" "What makes it memorable?" "What does this tell us about ourselves?" In general, their concern has focused ; on the the cultural/ mythic function genre films (and 55 I occasionally film genre) serve. , Warshow's response to the core question has become j the thrust of most "popular myth" studies. Warshow states: . . . the spectator derives his pleasure from the appreciation of ! minor variations within the working | out of a pre-established order.56 j The resultant body of criticism has taken up a host of i issues related to: 1) the role of the "spectator," 2) the nature of "spectator pleasure," 3) how the spectator "derives pleasure," 4) what the "variations" are, and 5) what the "pre-established order" is. I Perhaps what is most important about the "popular myth" approach is that it aims to abstract some portion 172 i of film to the point of making very broad connections — defining universal issues regarding the human condition. It attempts to look at what is driving and motivating a culture — what its visions and concerns are — by examining recurrent themes, icons, and/or the pre- established order of a particular form of popular film. Unfortunately, while it seeks universalisms, the j I I extreme narrowness of an archetypal definition of film i necessarily limits its usefulness as any basis for a j theory of film genre. For example, although Richard | ! \ Collins is an auteurist, his definition of genre is ! i ■ archetypal. Collins does not use structure, theme, or f iconography — elements common to the popular myth ! ; i | approach. Instead Collins defines genre, in this case I ; the western, in terms of "recurrent situations": j j During the long history of the genre, ! ! directors have selected a repertoire l of situations, antimonies and motifs from the mass of material available in the history of the American ! ; frontier. It seems to me that it is < in this repertoire of action, situations, that the genre can be i said to exist.57 While the traditionalist may agree that there exist repeated key situations, he does not define genre in * I terms of any one component. Collins continues: ! T i ! it is m the formulation of a repertoire of key situations that recur again and again in films, and to I lesser extent in Western ~ fiction, that the distinct nature of the genre is located.58 The single greatest drawback with the archetypal i approach is precisely its strength. It universalizes. The problem occurs when the critic confuses description I with differentiation. Collins describes the western's j "key situations" as if they distinguish it from other j ! i genres: : ! The gunfight, drifters from a * defeated south, confrontations of ! cavalry and Indians, ambushes, ; ! gambling, cattle drives and railway j ' building are all familiar to those j ; who have become addicted to the ! j vicarious experience of Western life ! in the cinema. With rare exceptions ! > these situations and events are j | unparalled elsewhere.... 59 | i i ' The sword duel in the swashbuckler or the swordfight in I the Samurai film are as key as the gunfight. Drifters j I I — the displaced ronin — are as common to the samurai ■ I I ; film -- perhaps more so — than the western. They are i | becoming a key element in the surreal "holocaust" films ! i r coming out of Australia. Confrontations of cavalry and i ! Indians -- or confrontations of British and East I Indians, or the Foreign Legion and Arab hordes — there is little difference. Ambushes are certainly as common j to the war film as the western. Collins/ argument is groundless, probably because his final argument is really the superiority of the auteur approach as a means of film criticism. I I Given that its current orientation iimits itself to narrative film, the archetypal, or the popular myth approach, rules out the possibility of a comprehensive, generalizable system of film genre. Nevertheless, it i does offer a number of concepts which do have merit. First, John G. Cawelti’s discussion and explanation ! ! of the term, "formula," can prove useful, with ! I • | I modification. Cawelti strictly defines "formula": it is i i I I based on an archetypal situation, defined by plot, ; ! I j character, and setting; most importantly, however, this j 1 archetypal situation serves as a framework to reflect I | ; conflicts, values, and interests of the culture. [ i Cawelti explains: i ; I A formula is a conventional system ! i for structuring cultural products. ' { It can be distinguished from form j j which is an invented system of | | organization.60 ] i 1 j Using auteurist definitions of convention and invention, j J Cawelti connects the film with its audience through i j recognizable "conventions": ! | ... conventions are elements which are known to both the creator and his audience beforehand — they consist of things like favorite plots, I stereotyped characters, accepted ) ideas, commonly known metaphors and I other linguistic devices, etc.61 I I Without overly reducing the role of the filmmaker, I 175 I Cawelti allows for creative invention: ... inventions, on the other hand, are elements which are uniquely imagined by the creator such as new , kinds of characters, ideas, or linguistic forms.62 He scales convention to invention, allowing genre and 1 j auteur to be complementary. Convention provides ! stability, invention growth. Figure 4 is a hypothetical j 1 J scheme of how Cawelti's continua of form and formula, I convention and invention intersect. Figure 5 is a j I ; | further hypothesis of a potential hierarchy these j matrices suggest. j ; Whether or not Cawelti intended to connect culture I i ! and history, he has offered a category of film which, ! I under further examination, defines its own history. For I \ ; example, Cawelti goes on: I i j ... the gunfighter Western of the 1950's is importantly different from i the cowboy romances of Owen Wister | and Zane Grey....63 ; ! j While the definition of genre as myth does not work * (although western as myth might) Cawelti's thoughts on i the nature of genre are valuable; he states: i I Genre, in the sense of tragedy, comedy, romance, etc., seems to be I based on a difference between basic attitudes or feelings about life.64 t Cawelti's reference is to narrative film, but it is i I generalizable; it directly supports Vallet's "modes of 176 Figure 4 Cawelti's Matrix Relating Convention-Invention Continuum to Form-Formula Continuum Form Convention Invention Formula 178 Figure 5 Hypothetical Hierarchy Based on Form-Formula and Convention-Invention Matrices Form I Informational form Documentary j form j Narrative form Experimental form Painleve's Shrimps Convention Army training films Flaherty 1s 1 Nanook of the North | I i Resnais1 Last Year at Marienbad March of Time series i i i i I i Formula Tom Mix cowboy flick I vens' Rain patterned computer graphic f i lms Invention vision." Furthermore, Cawelti develops the usefulness of "mode" to film genre study by invoking Northrop Frye's concept that "genres embody fundamental archetypal patterns reflecting stages of the human life 65 cycle...." Frye's ideas suggest thoughts on the nature and workings of the evolution of narrative genres certainly, but potentially all film genre. Cawelti explains : One can almost make out a life-cycle characteristic of genres as they move from an initial period of articulation and discovery, through a phase of conscious self-awareness on the part of both creators and audiences, to a time when the generic patterns have become so well-known that people become tired of their predictability.66 Or, rather than exhaustion, alternatives are that the genre: 1) renews itself; 2) hybridizes, lending sources and vitality to another genre; or 3) spawns a new genre . Frank McConnell has applied Frye's model to the western film genre, but it has ramifications far broader than the Hollywood narrative. It helps to elucidate what Vallet names "modes of vision." In Storytelling and Mythmaking McConnel explains "mode" in terms of "world vision." The first mode, epic, is a tale of beginnings. The hero is king, founder, originator, a god-like man no 179 longer among the gods; he is Adam fallen; he is mysterious and powerful, but without a strong I psychological dimension; he is Alexander Nevsky. j In the second mode, romance, the story concerns the 1 process of civilizing the new nation. The hero is less ; than the king, but greater than the common man. He is the knight, the marshall, the gladiator, the noble - swashbuckler, the samurai warrior, the ethical soldier j ■ I 1 with his code of decency and honor. He is the keeper * and protector of humanity. He is Robin Hood. j ; In the third mode, melodrama, the focus is on the ! 1 j dilemma of struggle. The hero can assert no real power I i ^ ; ' over his environment; at best, he must strive to J j understand it. He is the "conscious agent" who sees the ; "dirty" side of man -- his sin, and struggles to ! reestablish his vision of the original order. He is the j the private eye, the disillusioned solider, the aging i cowboy, the displaced samurai, the hard-boiled ! ! i j detective. He is Sam Spade. I j In the fourth mode, satire, scornful i | disillusionment reigns. The hero, impotent and ! I embittered, exists in a chaotic, lawless society. He ! | can neither make the law, enforce it, nor refer to it. I t ! There is no law. Anarchic and paranoiac, he collapses into his own private world of self. He can only attempt to keep faith with himself. He is the loner, the madman, the Messiah, the fool. He is Groucho Marx, j Jacques Tati, Woody Allen, "the little Tramp." The last mode is that of rebirth and transformation i in which, through faith in the world of self, the hero j gains inner strength to establish a new order, a new I I law, to create a beginning., i i McConnel's application of modes — the matrix of j protagonist and his world — works best for narrative j ! I * genres concerned with individuation. I. C. Jarvie, in | ' i j his article "The Western-and Gangster Film: The ; Sociology of Some Myths," develops categories remarkably : : 67 I ! similar to those of McConnel. Clarifying their use, I Jarvie points out: j I : t ; Films, like popular fiction in any j j medium, can, for different purposes, ; I be grouped into various kinds of categories, all of them overlapping, and none more than a convenience ... 68 | j Modes are not exclusive. They are fluid; they can j | overlap and collide. Within a single film, set in the ; future world of space, in Star Wars (U.S., 1977) for J example, there is the king — Obi-Wan Kenobi; the knight -- Luke Skywalker and potentially the founder of a new order; the common man as discoverer of a greater order I — Han Solo; and, the heroic fool — R2D2. Within a developed genre, such as the western — 181 within the "world" of the West, the "life cycle" is clear: from John Wayne as the frontiersman in Red River (U.S., 1948), to marshall Henry Fonda in My Darling Clementine (U.S., 1946), to the lone sheriff, Gary Cooper, in High Noon (U.S., 1952), to the fool, Dustin Hoffman, in Little Big Man (U.S., 1970) finally to lone renewer of the faith, Jason Robards, in Battle of Cable Hogue (U.S. , 1970). Mode of vision crosses the worlds of genres. In the dirty city, he is Philip Marlowe in The Big Sleep (U.S., 1946); in the world of boxing, he is Robert Ryan in The Set Up (U.S., 1949); he is war-torn Gregory Peck in Pork Chop Hill (U.S., 1959); in small-town U.S.A. he is Kevin McCarthy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers (U.S., 1956); or he is Michael Caine in The Iper ess File (U.S., 1965) in the world of international espionage. See figure 6 for a hypothetical matrix of how mode of vision might work within the narrative structure. Although popular culture is oriented towards Hollywood narrative, mode clearly has value for narrative outside the Hollywood system. And, while McConnell's (Frye's) modes are restricted to narrative, there are other visions — the poetic, the comic, the scientific — which are appropriate to film genres other than the Hollywood narrative. Figure 6 Modes of Vision Within the Hollywood Narrative King --- (Epic ) I l Knight --- (Romance) I I i Pawn --------- (Melodrama) J i I Fool -------- (Satire) I I I Revolutionary I I I t World of — — — i John Wayne in Red River i I Henry Fonda in My Darling Clementine i i Gary Cooper - in High Noon I I I Dustin Hoffman in Little Big Man I i I Jason Robards in Battle of Cable Hogue i l t t The West - — I I I .Philip Marlowe in The Big Sleep I I I I I ■The Dirty City I I I 183 The popular mythic approach is not sufficient as a foundation for film genre theory. It provides connections rather than distinctions. Traditionalist Edward Buscombe explains: Not only do these [archetypes] appear in other genres besides the Western; they exist in films which can scarcely be classified into any genres, and what is more, they occur in other forms of art besides the cinema. What we need is a way of looking at a genre which can make clear what is distinctive about it and how its outer and inner forms relate.69 The popular mythic (archetypal) approach provides supportive material. If generalized to include all film genres (including non-narrative), the popular culture approach could be one of the richest sources for understanding the value of film genre in terms of culture. Defining Characteristics: Traditionalists and Their Successors Most traditionalist studies fall under the last approach. Traditionalists group genres by "recognizably similar traits." At the root of traditionalist thinking is the notion that correct understanding and definition (including classification) is dependent upon historical and contextual knowledge. To oversimplify somewhat, there are three ideas central to the "defining characteristics" approach: 1) there must be present in an individual film a majority of features which are considered standard to- the category; similarly, there must be absent from the film what Kendall Walton has labeled "contra-standard" 70 qualit ies; 2) it is assumed that the filmmaker(s) intends, or at least expects, the audience to perceive the film as belonging to a particular category, or tradition; the conventions of a tradition are shared; and, 3) the category is either recognizable to the culture at large as being part of, or building on a 71 tradition, or its category is easily "discoverable." Thus, since defining characteristics act as limiting criteria both by their presence and absence, most critical and theoretical disagreement revolves around the number and configuration of defining characteristics. Which defining characteristics are to be used? What are the limitations (scope) of the defining characteristics? Are they specific to only one genre or generalizable? How are they configured? How fixed do they remain over time? Traditionalists tend to construct the majority of genres non-exclusively in one or a combination of the 185 following ways — by 1) environment or "world"; 2) subsumption from other fields; 3) intended (expected) audience reaction; 72 4) target audience. The Concept of "World" Stanley Cavell, in The World Viewed , Reflections on the Ontology of Film, over-values levels of categories more than most traditionalists when he defines film as 73 "a succession of automatic world projections." But his point is well-taken and certainly within the traditionalist framework that a film or group of films is a series of "worlds" shared by audience and 74 filmmaker. Thus, the Western "world" derives from the historical-legendary period during the "building" of the Western frontier of the United States; the gangster, the cop, the hard-boiled detective are pulled from contemporary urbanization -- the "dirty" city; the horror film is the nightmare world of our worst fears and dreams; the war film is based on the battleground itself and the repercussions of war on society; and, the samurai film comes from a feudalistic and post- feudalistic Japanese society. "World" is a relatively new term to traditionalist 186 genre studies, not achieving recognized critical usage until Leo Braudy's World in a Frame and Stanley 75 Solomon's Beyond Formula. Earlier traditionalists, such as Edward Buscombe, focused on what were termed I "setting," "motif," and "iconography." Iconography in particular, received severe criticism and is less used j | as a significant defining characteristic. In fact, what ; j Buscombe has called "visual conventions" derive from a I i ' ! i ; social, temporal and geographic environment; in the i i western, for example, they include: 1) the setting; 2) ! clothes; 3) tools of the trade; A) horses; and 5) I 76 : j miscellaneous physical objects. ^ i While auteurist Richard Collins disagrees with \ j Buscombe on more fundamental issues, and he focuses more ! I on genre as an archetypal "repertoire of key j | situations," Buscombe and .Collins are more in agreement I than disagreement that genre is j ... contingent on the film being set I in a particular physical and temporal j context. Westerns are about the American frontier — a shifting geographical and temporal location — ■ and the close iconographical identity ! I of many of the films comes from their j setting in a post civil war context .... 7 7 ] Where the mythic position (for example, Wil Wright) 1 I would define the western in terms of structure, the ( traditionalist sees the nature of genre in terms of 187 78 conventions contributing to a tradition. Although Andrew Tudor may be exaggerating to prove a point, his description falls within the scope of traditionalism when he states that genre is: ... a conception existing in the culture of any particular group or society; it is not a way in which a critic classifies films for methodological purposes, but the much looser way in which an audience classifies films.79 More accurately, critics and audience contribute to the consensus; part of the genre critic's job is to articulate audience understanding; and, audience perception is culturally-bound. In theory this should mean (or one should at least suspect) that genres are culture-specific, but in practice genres are not so restricted . Another difference between the popular mythic and the traditionalist approaches is that theme and motif are viewed as archetypal by the former and topical by the latter. A traditionalist critic, such as Lawrence Alloway, maintains that film is an inherently "quick- dating medium." It is not appropriate to "freeze" films 80 into works of "permanent value." Traditionalists do not value the "fixity" or "purity" of genre. It is clear from his article, "The Iconography of the Movies," that Alloway assumes the filmmaker is 188 working with and building on audience expectations. Specifically, he recommends charting the film cycle because it "explores a basic situation repeatedly, but from different angles and with accumulating references." This accumulation of references ; ... provides the audience with a ! flexible, continuing convention and a j body of expectations and knowledge on 1 which the filmmaker can count.81 Borrowed Categories ! Whether narrative or non-narrative, many genres i | have their source and take their name from a category i i originally borrowed from a field other than film. i I Examples are numerous: musical comedy, vaudeville, j gothic romance, news, information. (In one sense, most I narrative film is adaptation.) i [ The traditionalist’s view of how a genre is j constructed can shift focus. This shifting of focus j tends to be tied to the traditionalist's view of the l | medium. Thus, the early western — the cowboy romance ; — was more linked to its source in the popular literature of Zane Grey and Owen Wister. Much of the J critical terminology — also borrowed — was employed by I j genre critics to focus on the narrative and thematic i aspects of the genre. As the western developed its own filmic identity, in for example, the westerns of John I 189 Ford or Howard Hawks, the genre tended to be linked less with its literary source and more with filmic concepts i — with the "world" of the Western frontier, or even John Ford’s "western world." j I The traditionalist often describes the source of : I I j the genre in other fields, but rarely uses it as more | | than a secondary characteristic. In general, the j j ! concept of "world" is flexible enough to encompass many ! | i | of the categories originally derived from other fields, i t such as musical comedy, or constructed by intention, | j ; such as horror . 1 ■ I I ■ L i ! Intended Audience Reaction , The third kind of construction is based on a | f ^ specific, intended result. There is a clear purpose to ! i | j evoke a response in the audience: to horrify (the horror j ! and terror films), to thrill (the suspense-thriller), to j I ‘ I j arouse sexually (erotica or porno films), to provoke to I 82 ! action (motivation film), and so on. Little work has j I j been done in this area, primarily because most genre i criticism focuses on the western as the paradigm for j concepts in genre theory. I i Commonly the early traditionalists, for example, linked horror with German Expressionism — the unreal atmosphere of dream and poetry. Paul Rotha, in Movie 190 Parade, connected Expressionism with the world of the macabre — "the world outside of normal experience," 83 under Fantasy. Horror films were broken down by 84 theme, plot, protagonist, and so on. Horror was a subset of the supernatural and the fantastic. If a film has anything to do with the supernatural, cults, monsters, mad scientists, graveyards, old castles, or uncharted islands it is classified as a work of horror, while films not dealing with such particulars are apt to be classified as something else. 85 More recently, the focus has shifted. Stanley Solomon has defined the horror film in terms of its intention — "as a genre the horror film seeks to 86 recreate the imaginative life of nightmare." D. L. White and Stuart Kaminsky have also focused on the intended effect upon the audience. D. L. White points out that: ... a film such as Frankenheimer's The Manchurian Candidate (1962) that has none of the traditional surface characteristics and gimmicks of the horror film, or Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), with its obvious elements of humor, become something profoundly hideous and shocking.87 He goes on to state that what ... is needed is not a generic framework based on subject matter alone, but one based on emotional intent and effect.88 Traditionalists are moving towards defining the nature 191 of horror, in particular its psychological and sociological effects, and how it fulfills audience nee d s. Target Audience The last sort of construction is based on a target audience. These groups of films come under "Films made for..." They include children's film, black film, the woman's film, the youth picture, the training film. Some might be better termed meta—genres, since they act as catch-alls containing the equivalent of several genres and /or categories of film. The Film Index explains its classification of children's films as . . . designed to embrace two categories: (1) films designed primarily for child audiences and (2) films featuring children as protagonists. Films made from fairy tales and children's books are included . 89 Chldren's film can also mean film made by children, but the most common usage by the film production industry involves three concepts: 1) made for a child audience; 2) concerning a child's "make-believe" world; and, 3) the child as protagonist. While children's film is sometimes termed a genre by traditionalists, and it is very commonly listed as a genre among cataloguers and in reference texts, cultural variations are significant 192 enough that this usage must be seriously questioned. The same concerns are true of black film, the woman's film and so on. "Negro" (black) films are defined as a category by The Film Index — as ... material on fictional films with Negro themes, together with general discussions of the Negro in film, ; Negro players, and the filmic ; j possibilities of Negro life.90’ ; ! ; Thomas Cripps clearly names black film a genre, ! i expanding the definition to include economic and j ! production aspects. But based on his definition, black | film is not a genre. It is, like radical film, at its ! I ! I most*limited definition a category; more likely, it is a ! form; and, by its ideological aspiration, it is an j | J independent industry. According to Cripps, black film ; 1 I » I is | I | ... those motion pictures made for j 1 theater distribution that have a j black producer, director, and writer, or black performers; that speak to black audiences or, incidentally, to white audiences possessed of i I preternatural curiosity, j attentiveness, or sensibility toward 1 racial matters; and that emerge from ; self-conscious intentions, whether j artistic or political, to illuminate the Afro-American experience.91 i I ! The woman's film is organized similarly to children's ! I film. It is deliberately produced to appeal to a female ! i i audience; in general it concerns the world of women's i issues; it is most often characterized by a female I protagonist; its intention is to provoke a specific i j emotional response — usually self-pity — from its predominantly female audience. The West German, I j Japanese, and Indian film industries also have a ! | flourishing woman's film, but no study has yet linked 1 the category of the woman's film from an international j perspective; feminist film, on the other hand, often ! muddied with the woman's film, is more similar to black I < I film in that it has ideological aspirations. Clearly more study is needed to clarify terminology and | 92 relationships. I New Directions: Contextualist Genre Criticism | The misconception is to think of a genre as essentially definable and therefore of genre criticism as in j need of defining criteria.93 i A new breed of genre critic emerged in the early i j 70s. He was pragmatic, flexible, probably an academic, i and most distinctively, professed a polycentric approach I to genre. His contributions were twofold: 1) he kept the notion of genre alive in an age when traditionalists, like the Golden Age of Hollywood, were fading under the pressure from the influx of filmologists; and, 2) he promoted and popularized a way of thinking 194 about genre central to which were the notions of "context" and "appropriateness." As Barry K. Grant insisted: Surely it is true that in film criticism, as in the best criticism of any medium, anything and everything is grist for the mill.94 The new contextualist genre critic worked from ideas developed by formalists and traditionalists, although 95 rarely recognized them as such. Influenced by structuralism and contemporary literary concerns especially narrativity, he saw the value of genre criticism in terms of its ability to provide a "systematic method of comprehending the history of 96 cinema." Two issues distinguished the contextualist from the traditionalist. The contextualist 1) selectively limited the definition of genre; and 2) he articulated his approach as polycentric. For example, Tom Ryall proposed that: ... we should reserve the title, 'genre', for certain types of films and deny it to others. The Western and gangster types of films certainly constitute genres, while social dramas do not. To refer to social dramas as a genre does no more than collect a number of disparate though loosely related films under a suitable heading, while to say that Westerns constitute a genre implies a number of internal relationships between the various constituents of 195 the genre (the individual films), and a controlling relationship between the film-maker, the genre and the audience.97 That is, the contextualist separated what Marc Vernet has called a "class" of films, and what in this study is named simply a "category," from the term "film genre." Recall that the traditionalist had inconsistently practiced the difference, but had in no way articulated this distinction. Moreover, the traditionalist ordered genres by "defining characteristics," whereas the contextualist’s definition of genre was far more variable. The contextualist genre critic was initially an outsider, who had no particular vested interest in either auteurism or the studio system. He saw both as valid: ... [the genre approach] should not be considered mutually exclusive of the auteur theory nor, more importantly, should it become sterile by neglecting the experience of film viewing.98 The western, for example, was defined by Tom Ryall in terms of a tradition of subject matter, thematic preoccupations, and iconographical continuity. To this "given," the director brought his vision, the audience its expectations. Ryall ' s definition was grounded in the old tri-partite relationships of filmmaker, film, 196 and audience. The basic triangle was then floated in a variable socio-historical context; and, the whole film 99 experience influenced the resulting relationships. See figure 7 for a hypothetical schema of how Ryall or Grant might have begun to develop a theory. Instead, however, the contextualist position did not favor a widely-applicable definition of genre. On the contrary, the contextualist critic found the rapidly expanding critical approaches filmology offered to be a sort of smorgasbord of options. Stuart H. Kaminsky's Ame r i can Film Genre s was one of the early examples of this "mix-and-match" approach. He outlined a psychological approach for the horror genre, a socio cultural approach for "violence" films, star criticism for comedy, and so on. Barry Grant, as editor of the first important anthology of wide-ranging critical appproaches to genre, included mythic, socio-cultural, Marxist, archetypal, aesthetic, feminist, psychoanalytic, narrative and others in his Film Genre : Theor y and Cri tici sm . Grant's definition of genre was not merely flexible; it was perhaps better described as "mutable"; genre film was tied to socio-historical context(s) and various elements (filmmaker, audience perception, critical approach) 197 Figure 7 Hypothetical Schema of a Contextualist Theory of Genre Film F ilmmaker(s) Audience \ Film Filmmaker(s) Audience Film Film Film F ilmmaker(s) Audience 198 within the socio-historical context(s): ... genres are amazingly adaptable, and filmmakers are constantly reworking them to speak to contemporary issues... Rather than prescribing or directing the course of genre criticism, Grant suggested that ... the critic can only follow, attempting to explain the new permutations.100 The contextualist critic did not directly offer theory. For example, he did not propose how context could affect perception -- nor how audience and/or critic re- identify, or re-define a category of films as a film genre. At best, he offered examples he hoped could be abstracted into a critical theory. He did not offer particularly new ideas. Psychological analysis had long been associated with horror pictures, just as star criticism had with comedy. Indeed, most of the contextualist critic's ideas had already been addressed, and with greater sophistication and perspective by theorists such as Kracauer, Balazs, Spottiswode, Potamkin, Eisenstein, and Mitry. Rather, the contextualist critic's contribution was an attitude — a pragmatic, polycentric approach to genre criticism. He offered a flexibility badly needed during a decade when genre and auteur were at odds, and when filmological dogmatism and prescriptive thinking 199 were pitting themselves against not only auteurism but the scattered forces of traditionalism. The result of the contextualist's polycentric approach had a ripple | effect, making all but the most entrenched structuralists and ideologists at least reconsider 101 j dialogue. | Not surprisingly, the contextualist opposed both the "essentialist" criticism of Bazin and Warshow, and j any overly-rigid or monistic interpretation of a I filmological approach. Tom Ryall criticized the "ideal" j approach as leading "to an unduly prescriptive form of j criticism." Grant warned against criticism resulting in a catalogue of characteristics. Douglas Pye found both ' the empiricist and the essentialist to misrepresent the i | complexity of genre. In addition, he found the | ! traditionalist's use of "defining characteristics" to be ! 102 ! overly simplistic and narrow. j The contextualist proposed that the film-going j experience serve as the basis for a film's placement ! with other films. More important than whether or not an individual film met the "checklist" of criteria was the ! audience’s understanding/ experience of the film. A film, for example, might fulfill all the "listed" j requirements of science fiction and yet its value (its ! cultural meaning) would place it with social-conscious/ sociological films. The film experience must be part of 103 the evaluation of genre films. Thus, the contextualist genre critic articulated a middle-ground position between the filmic and filmologic, the insiders and outsiders. The drawbacks to contextualism, nevertheless, are ! I several: 1) its scope is severely limited to only the | I I most popular Hollywood narrative genre films — and not j the nature of film; 2) because films and film genres are j I i : i evaluated on a film by film basis, generalizabi1 ity is | I lacking; thus, 3) by its definition it cannot fulfill ; I i its purpose — to develop a systematic method of ' l j understanding film history, since generalizability is a J • I j necessarycomponentofasystem. i j Douglas Pye: Clarification of Indefinability One of the most important articles to result from the contextualist approach was written by Douglas Pye. I While his single article was aimed at responding to j I criticism leveled by Andrew Tudor, Pye's ideas verged on the theoretical and certainly have had theoretical l I j consequences. S o . ' ' ' Pye invoked Northrop Frye when specifying the major problems confronting genre study. The difficulties seem to be of two main kinds: of methodology, finding \ l 201 adequate grounds for genre definition and isolating suitable criteria, and related problems of applying genre notions, however defined, to the study of individual works.104 Andrew Tudor, among others, had criticized genre as a fundamentally unsound method. Tudor considered the two most well-known approaches — the idealist/essentialist (which suffer from the empirical dilemma) and the cultural consensus — to be unsatisfactory. But Pye successfully addressed the problem, clarifying the limits and value of genre as a method. Classification can proceed as a tentative, empirical process, initially based on consensus, intuition or observation, with hypotheses about the nature of genre subject to revision or reformulation in the light of experience and experiment. In fact terms like 'definition' and 'classification', which seem almost unavoidable in genre criticism, are probably misleading: they suggest a greater precision of method than is in fact possible, and also tend to imply that genre criticism exists to establish boundaries.105 Pye then proposed a resolution to the conflict by specifying the primary goals of genre criticism. It seems more likely ... that genre criticism should concern itself with identifying tendencies within generic traditions and placing individual, works in relation to these.106 Working within several frameworks, including archetypal myth, Frye's modes and cycle of heroes, and narrativity, 202 Pye began to lay the groundwork for a more stable concept for genre. Pye proposed a definition based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's concept of "uses" and E. H. I j Gombrich's discussion of "family resemblances" — recognition through the "intersection" of narrowly j i I defined "contexts": i I i ) The recognition of works as belonging ] to a specific genre may be seen as I the result of a similar process — ; the intersection of a range of ! categories, the interplay of which i ; generates meaning within a context \ I narrow enough for recognition of the : ■ genre to take place but wide enough j to allow enormous individual j variation. If the categories are j : thought of as involving conventions ! of various kinds, it is easy to see , ' why exhaustive classification of j generic elements is impossible.107 < ’ ' j Douglas Pye s article was published in 1975. Except for j ! minimal discussion of genre and history, curiously Pye i | did not further develop theoretical frameworks for j 108 I | genre. Stephen Neale later explained the apparent I I "lack of productivity" by insightful genre critics such ; i | as Douglas Pye and Tom Ryall: j I ...[The "new" approach to genre : growing out of contextualism] I coincided with the introduction of structuralism and semiotics into ! Britain, and, indeed to some extent ! referred to and drew upon its j concepts. Increasingly, structuralism and semiotics focused either on the single, individual text, or on the general principles of < 203 signification and the politics of signifying practices, thereby effectively excluding the priority of the specification and analysis of genre and genres. Moreover, structuralism and semiotics together with Althusserian and post- Althusserian Marxism, which contributed fundamentally to the transformation of the analysis of the cinema through its insistence on the importance of theory, its critique of empiricism and sociology, its insistence on the importance of ideology within the sphere of the social formation and through the general political impetus it gave to film culture, served to problematise the conceptual field within which the work of the genre critics was located.109 Restrictive Marxism; Genre as Status Quo With the exception of Alf Louvre's "Notes on a Theory of Genre," in general, the Marxist approach neither addressed nor contributed to any of the significant issues historically associated with film genre. The Marxist definition of genre was extremely narrow, limited usually to the Hollywood genre film, and then often to but a handful of (rarely defined) categories — the western, horror, musical, gangster, and sometimes science fiction. The purposes of the Marxist approach were: 1) to place genre in terms of its production by the society/culture; 2) to explain or to illustrate how the production industry is ideologically based, 3) to 204 demonstrate how cultural products have ideological purpose and consequence, and presumably 4) to motivate the passive members of society to resist any cultural oppression and to take a positive course of action. In her article in Jump Cut, Judith Hess quoted from T. W. Adorno’s The Culture Industry thus: i I The ideas of order that [the culture [ industry] inculcates are always those of the status quo.... Pretending to be the guide for the helpless and deceitfully presenting to them conflicts that they must perforce confuse with their own, the culture industry does not resolve these conflicts except in appearance — its ’solutions' would be impossible for them to use to resolve their conflicts in their own lives.110 Judith Hess' article, "Genre Films and the Status Quo" was typical of the consensus Marxist position on genre film. She stated that genre film is "nostalgic," possessing three significant characteristics: First, these films never deal directly with present social and political problems; second, all of them are set in the non-present.... Third, the society in which the , action takes place is very simple and I doesnotfunctionasa dramatic force j in the films — it exists as a l backdrop .... 111 j The Marxist approach to genre film accepted concepts j from structuralism, from mythic/ archetypal criticism, J j and at times psychoanalytic theory where they helped to I L 205 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i ferret out the unconscious anxieties of society or to explain the relationship of society to its cultural products. For example, Hess hypothesized that genre films were essentially "bread and circuses" — "drugged popcorn." The power and appeal of genre films came from their ability to pacify the audience's anxieties. These films came into being and were financially successful because they temporarily relieved the fears aroused by a recognition of social and political conflicts; they helped to discourage any action which might otherwise follow upon the pressure generated by living with these conflicts.112 Hess' aim was ideologic — not heuristic; it was to provide examples of how the genre films under study function to reaffirm the status quo: The genre films focus on four major conflicts. The western centers on the violent act and ascertains when, if ever, it becomes morally right. The horror film attempts to resolve the disparities between two contradictory ways of problem solving, one based on rationality, the other based on faith, an irrational commitment to certain traditional beliefs. The science fiction films provide a solution to the problems presented by intrusion, i.e., they tell us how to deal with what may be called 'the other.' Gangster films resolve the contradictory feelings of fear and desire which are aroused by attempts to achieve financial and social success.113 Cultural critic Jean-Loup Bourget took issue with the 206 restrictve approach to status quo in his article, "Social Implications in the Hollywood Genres." With regard to genre film’s "escapist" fare, Bourget proposed that there was an implicit sub-text which was in fact critical of the status quo: Thus the freedom of the Hollywood director is not measured by what he can openly do within the Hollywood system, but rather by what he can imply about American society in general and about.the Hollywood system in particular.114 Currently, there seem to be two trends which address the issue of "status quo" — the "restrictive" and the "socio-cultura1." The Marxist approach, in its present state, remains "restrictive." The major limitations of the ideologic approach were the oversimplification of complex issues and the narrowness of scope of the definition of genre. Genre was not, in fact, examined; it was simply a rhetorical device to promote an ideologic premise. Hess in no way advanced our knowledge of genre. She simply used genre to restate what was common knowledge — that certain genre films "... assist in the maintenance of the 115 existing political structure." Furthermore, she characterized the audience as so passive as to exclude such significant concepts as "world making," "representation," or "imaginary 207 construction.” The Marxist position so focused on either the critique of individual texts, or reduced I itself, as with Hess' article, to the obvious that it castrated its own potential usefulness. This is most j unfortunate. I I ^ ^ Louvre: The Theoretical Position of Mediation j | The exception to the restrictive trend in Marxist j | j j genre criticism was a lone article by Alf Louvre. His I purposes were several: ; 1) to place film genre in relation to filmmaker, ' I ) \ ■ film, audience, socio-historical context, and production , ! industry; i 2) to "sketch a theory of genre that will define j i the relative autonomy of the art-work and its special J determinations, a theory, in other words, that will i 116 allow the problematic nature of that relation." j 3) to address the theoretical schism between I imaginative form and its social determinants. j I 4) to propose a place of mediation between the two ; I J schools of thought: the one which defines art as a special, displaced, professional discipline; and, the other which maintains culture directs art. ! Louvre's position, as he stated it, 9 I ... [is] between revolutionary and I revolution.... Indeed between all the ■ 208 categories they seek to unite, come all sorts of mediations that cannot be rhetorically asserted away.117 He was appropriately critical of the restrictive approach. . . . one does not solve the problem of the relations between imaginative form and social determinations by simply collapsing the terms together, by saying the imagination and the forms it invents, once free from its by now traditional alienation, is implicitly social, and indeed determines society (which in turn is understood as our collective imagination).... Just how much freedom the imaginative form has in relation to its social context, how far formal innovations can influence social innovation are precisely the questions at issue, and once again case rather than explain the problems whose solution their case presupposes. 118 Louvre distinguished between formalist and "cultural" criticism in relation to the popular arts: formalist criticism ... understands genre as a means of making technical distinctions between objects in a set field on the basis of formal constitution... ... stresses genre as a product determined by extra-technical, extra- formal considerations — so 'thriller' , 'musical' , 'romance' and 'pop' are seen as market commodities (just as in Lukacs and Gorky, certain artistic forms are seen as directly determined by the social milieu).119 these theorists plead a whereas "cultural" criticism 209 In particular, Louvre pointed out a very significant connection between formalist and revolutionary, between restrictive Marxist and cultural critic. According to Louvre, common to both was . . . the fixed nature of the relations posited between imaginative form and social determination. Formalists and i j liberators share a belief in the , autonomy of the imaginative form; I reflexive Marxists and conventional cultural sociologists a belief in the ! determining force of socio-economic : structures and their supportive j philosophies .... 120 j i This fixity was the central block to a useful theory of | * genre. In its place, Louvre proposed mediation. j I There is a space between theories of I j the autonomy of form and theories of j its absolute determination, between i theories that make the artist central i i and her or his work normal, and those j | that make him marginal and his work j : special — a space where the I i problematic nature of the relation | between the imagination and social I determination is asserted.121 j I Where historically the conflict had focused on high | t art vs popular art, on profit-based economics vs ! sponsorship, or on auteur vs studio system, Louvre made clear that any of these dichotomies effectively ; i i i precluded a recognition, and thus the potential . [ i i j j examination of genre and its various relations. ; Instead, Louvre proposed a beginning theory of film 210 genre in which there was: 1) "a definition of the term [genre] that reorients 'it, allowing it to cross barriers between arbitrary formal classifications, and that shows no inherent necessity for genre to be reducable to commodity or 122 'inevitable expression1...." (Genre is not determined by style, plot, characterization, or any other similar "internal" characteristic.) and, 2) a "lived relation between the producer and consumer of the art-work...." That is, genre was defined in terms of a filmmaker-audience relationship; 123 it "embodies the social relations of production...." More specifically, he ... [attempts] to explode the preconceptions of former, more literary, relations (involving the artist as individual genius, the art work as magical entity and the audience as dutifully disciplined and passive receivers) . 124 3) a description of the formation of particular genres — their genesis and relation to the culture as a 125 whole ; and, 4) a model presenting the possibilities and limitations of "radical generic innovation." Louvre's model, in its present state, is but a beginning. Practical explanation and example are needed for clarification. In applying his example, one must be 211 cautious not to prescribe direction for future artists and audiences, thus disallowing the very "problematic" nature of genre about which Louvre so insightfully I 1 theorized. : * I Louvre's third point on the "formation" of genres | ! was seminal in its insight and potential generalizability I i J | as a principle of genre. Louvre focused on process ■ j I | rather than product. Louvre stated: j | I The moment of public recognition of ! an art-work as belonging to a 'genre' ; I is in fact the moment of ! consolidation.... j : i | Louvre appeared to define genre formation not merely in ^ | terms of audience expectation, but audience recognition. ! I : Louvre provided the concept of "discoverability" with a j I i i theoretical base. Furthermore, i i i ... [this consolidation] in its turn ] 'fixes' that genre, makes it more ! mechanical, increases the likelihood , of it becoming a commodity only i marginally different from those in j J the general economic sphere. It is j this consolidating — and therefore ’ conservative — response to established relations of productions, in fact, that underlies the ; j predominantly commercial manufacture 1 I of thrillers, romances and pop: a ! : manufacture so predominant that it becomes, precisely a business. The production mechanism — filmmakers inside or outside ! of the studio system — responded to the recognition- I consolidation process, and "commercialized" it, turned it 212 ^ into a business... i ... [which] leads to critics responding to the idea of genre only as a particular, fixed, rather than ' problematic category -- quite simply as co-extensive with commodity.126 The critical community named and articulated categories, I reinforcing their "fixed” rather than their "problematic" i nature. The audience, however, relied on identification and recognition. This, in fact, was where genre theory j i needed to redirect its focus. Leland Poague: Post-Contextualism and Generic Hypothesis i Leland Poague, in his 1978 article, "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," while working from i | the contextualist position, clearly reaffirmed the validity of genre as an essential tool in film study. Poague's basic definition of genre was similar to Pye's. j Genre was based on ... ’family resemblances' loose enough to be flexible but conceptually specific enough to be useful.... [a] place where a group of specific aesthetic conventions or conceptual categories intersect.... [and are] powerful enough ... to generate an almost infinite range of meanings and associations without bursting the conceptual bonds that hold the genre together.*....127 More specifically, Poague asserted two rules regarding film and genre: 1) what he called "contextual displacement" — a 213 mental function involving the audience’s ability to "foreground" or "background" information -- the mental i process which devalued the literal for the "literary" j (whether literature or film) for purposes of vicarious 1 experience; and, ! i 2) E. D. Hirsch’s "rule of the generic hypothesis" ! — Hirsch's thesis concerning the audience’s ability to "anticipate the whole." By way of explanation Poague i ! quoted Hirsch: i : i j ... 'the speaker or listener must ' I have an anticipated sense of the I | whole by virtue of which the t ! presentlyexperiencedwordsare j understood in their capacity as parts I | functioning in a whole. '128 Poague explained that meaning was 'structure dependent.' j ! i I Although Poague's abstraction and application of Hirsch's ; j ideas referred to narrative film, the concept was ! generalizable beyond narrative. The filmmaker and | audience shared a common knowledge of interpretive rules. i | ] This allowed the audience to complete the film by virtue ! j of interpretive "conventions." I i Applying Hirsch's thoughts, Poague suggested that * 'type conventions' must be at work, governing how meaning ! ' i and interpretation function. Because of shared > j interpretive rules and "type conventions," the audience ! I could anticipate the whole. It was by virtue of the 214 shared sets of expectations between filmmaker and audience that genre was acknowledged. As an audience, ... we cannot properly interpret a given cinematic image ... without i some sense of the images that are likely to follow and the probable relationships among them. We must therefore posit a 'type' of meaning structure from the beginning — and this 'generic hypothesis' will govern , our interpretation of succeeding images until such time as it is possible or necessary to refine or replace our initial intuitive generic guess.129 Poague's discussion of "linguistic knowledge" was nearly equivalent to the way in which Louvre linked i "consolidation" with audience "recognition" and what the ! traditionalist considered "discoverable." The nature of the mental process was such that it was capable of abstracting and hypothesizing novel categories. j Constructing new categories was not necessarily based on i memory or repeated, direct experience with previous ; examples. Rather, it involved ... a knowledge of interpretive rules (e.g. nominalization) and conceptual categories (e.g., past, present), not merely a memory of [the] ... previously encountered or uttered.130 Poague argued that genre was a mental category as innate to humans as "sentence," "noun," or "literature." This innate ability allowed humans to "perform fairly complex j mental operations without any necessarily conscious 215 1 31 knowledge of their doing so." Poague's purpose was to shift the focus away from how genres are generated and named to explaining "co existence" in genre. Specifically, Poague proposed that far from dismissing genre, auteur "refined" genre. What was needed was further investigation of what he called ; t "auteurist genres," since the greater the sophistication . and narrowness of category, often the "more powerful the 132 i genre, [and] the less general its applicability...." • I Stephen Neale: Generic "Imaginary Signifier" Like restrictive Marxism, Stephen Neale’s monograph, Genre was more an example of missed opportunities than of \ any insightful contribution to the study of genre. Neale ! ! i did not claim to theorize comprehensively on genre — J i simply to set out "a sketch" of what a theory could look t like and the sorts of problems it should address. According to Willemen's introduction, Stephen Neale's I monograph "turns on the consideration of signification in I 133 terms of modes of address and discursive strategies." But Genre was far more an embroidering of the basic principles of Metz's essay "The Imaginary Signifier," than it was a model for genre theory. I Neale set as goals: 1) "to relocate ... to rework, I replace and to a large extent transform the basic terms and concepts used in and promoted" ... [by a discussion i i 216 | of genre criticism]; 2) to provide "a critique of the work of genre critics," and, 3) to set forth certain t 1 "reformulations" of ideology. ! ... This set of reformulations and transformations bears on the notion of cinema as a ... a social institutionl34 j In fact, Neale translated many ideas from genre study I i | into filmological jargon. But new language, (in all ; I • ! j deference to S. I. Hayakawa), in and of itself, does not j [ necessarily bring useful ideas. Neale's "critique" was ; j limited to the writings of Tom Ryall, Jim Kitses, Colin j ! McArthur, and Edward Buscombe, as if no genre work of any ' significance preceded them. And, his "reformulation" was i - i \ little more than locating genre within Metzian film ; j theory. : Neale made two points worth consideration. First, ! he began to refine the concept of "family resemblances," ! I ; j although he made no reference to it and appeared to be j i unaware of the concept. t j Generic specificity is a question not ! of particular and exclusive element, j ! however defined, but of exclusive and I particular combinations and | articulations of elements, of the ! I exclusive and particular weight given ! in any one genre to elements which in j fact it shares with other genres.135 I | His second point insisted that "personal vision" was I moot. 217 The discussion of 'personal vision, world view, individual style’ is appropriate and acceptable within the i field of high culture but not within \ the field of popular culture simply because the production conditions pertaining in the latter are marked ■ by certain constraints. Among those constraints are the conventions of genre and certain forms of dramatic j narrative, which act to mediate between the artist's self and the audience he/she addresses.136 i Upon an initial reading of this statement one imagines ; his reference was to formulaic genre films. This was not : j I I unreasonable since the scope of Genre seemed to be i I I ! limited to genre film, although it was not so restricted ! ! ; as Judith Hess's article. On closer inspection, Neale j ' i j was referring to all film — all film being popular, as j i opposed to high culture. Even archetypal and mythic ; ! critics have not called into question the basic premise , of the dynamic between invention and convention, between 137 | individual talent and tradition. ^ j Neale's Genre was more a collection of either j obvious statements, rewritten in the new jargon, or i I [ statements which off-handedly dismissed significant j i \ theoretical principles. For example, Neale never refuted j l ; T. S. Eliot, never explained his own position, and never j ( ! gave any real direction as to how to think about the j invention-convention dynamic. I | With the jargon cleared away, Neale's statements 218 were simplistic: human beings are social beings subject to a variety of social pressures. Cinema is a social institution — it is subject to societal influences just as all forms of art are subject to societal pressures and influences; no one and no art is free of these societal influences. A discussion of genre must include these influences, these ’’pressures of modality,’’ particularly j the ideological and economic conditions. Genre's own I 138 ' ; history (tradition) influences itself. That is, genre ! 1 I J was a system — or, more accurately, a process of j I systematization. ! I : The limitations of Neale's work were: ' !. : i > I 1) the scope was restricted to genre film — not j ( f , film genre; far better if he had differentiated between a ' | fictional discourse and ’’socially defined" discourse i f j (certain non-fiction documentary films). This would have I 139 < been useful. | 2) Like other genre critics before him, Neale's , i I ; description of genres did not differentiate them. His ! ; construction appeared to be the standard "defining ! j characteristics" approach, but it did not define; thus, ! thriller, for example, "is specified ... [by] the 140 generation of suspense as its core strategy." In the 141 j same way, in comedy "the mode of affect is laughter.” i Neither genres nor their relations to other categories of 219 film were distinguished. For example, he referred to noir as a sub-genre, but it is unclear from the text whether it was a sub-genre of the thriller or the detective genre. At another time he considered noir a 142 genre. 1 I ! 3) As is typical of so many filmologists, Genre was j J novelty of style without innovation of thought. The j interesting thoughts all came from Metz — not Neale; he i did not even expand upon Metz's ideas so to enlarge or to j : clarify either our knowledge of genre, or the ideas of : 143 f Metz . ! j ■ Psychoanalysis, unfortunately had not yet produced ! i ; the point of growth that Alf Louvre represented for [ Marxism. A critique of Metz's essay in terms of its ' 144 | ■ usefulness for genre study is still needed. I ' * i ; Eclectics of Traditionalism ! i " I Two readings, Antoine Va1let's Les genres du cinema i i and Paul Rotha s Movie Parade, deserve attention — in . j part because they worked out a hierarchy of genres, cycles and categories of film — and, in part because of their approach. Theirs is a polycentric perspective, i * That is, they constructed genres variously, yet remained ' i j | compatible within traditionalism. ; Both are "older" studies. Vallet's work was 220 published in 1963, Rotha's in 1950. Their contributions lay not in their individual treatment of the more standard genres, such as the western, horror, or film j noir, but rather in how they approached the expanding range and relation of genres. i I Film Genre: Function as World Vision Vallet's position was eclectic. His reference to ] ' the other arts — to painting, photography, music, literature — was reminiscent of Vachel Lindsay. Vallet i spoke of the "art form" of film, how shape and substance j could not be separated. He employed "mode" in a way ; ! vaguely similar to Northrop Frye. His use of "vision" j . reminded one of Pudovkin's "filmic space" or Langer's l * "architectonic" present. He was most aptly placed, ■ 1 » \ i j however, in the "realist" tradition of Andre Bazin, the ; I j British documentarists, and Jean Mitry — that is, he I I I , favored film's realistic capabilities, yet acknowledged j I that film was an audio-visual system, with specific i j \ ! "uses" involving the reshaping of actuality to ! communicate with an audience. j i Les genres du cinema was not comprehensive. It was j i . ; j intended as a guide — a text to aid in the understanding 1 I and appreciation of a select number of genres in terms of t related arts. The film genres nevertheless were l j numerous, ranging from documentary to science fiction 145 f i lm . Vallet defined film in terms of its functions/uses for society: it served man in three ways: 1) it was descriptive (le monde exterieur); 2) it provided psychological analysis (le monde interieur); and, 3) it recounted events (narrative) (les 146 evenements). In order to study genres, Vallet proposed that one begin with the filmmaker(s)' unique vision, his world point of view, and the attitude the filmmaker takes when confronted with his subject. This produced neither "fixed" nor discrete categories, but instead potentially overlapping "modes of vision": 1) the explorer, exemplified by Painleve's Shrimps (France, 1930); 2) the realistic detail of Rouquier's Farrebique (France, 1946); 3) the tragic of Bunuel's Los Olvidados (Mexico, 1950) ; 4) the comic of Tati’s M . Hulot’s Holiday (France, 1952) ; 5) the epic, as in Eisenstein’s Alexander Nevsky (Russia , 1938) ; 6) the poetic of Flaherty's Louisiana Story (U.S. , 222 1948); and, 7) the philosophic of De Sica's Umberto _D (Italy, 1955) . Thus, Kazan's direction of Steinbeck's script Viva i Zapata! (U.S., 1952) for example, was a tragic, epic, and : 147 philosophic vision of events in the life of Zapata. The enumeration both of functions and of "visions" > produced an x-y axis which was a useful theoretical foundation. , Vallet's use of modes seemed conceptually similar to ; I the archetypal method espoused by Northrop Frye and Frank I 148 i j McConnell. His combining "vision" and "world" offered ' I ‘ ( I what may be a more "expandable" framework; unfortunately, j i ! he did not develop it sufficiently to provide a practical ; i ; ! organization for genre study. , i i I i i I | ! The Documentary I j Vallet's method of understanding the construction ■ 1 j of the documentary was to ask: "What is the ! j I documentarist’s purpose?" The response ordered the categories and sub-categories of documentary. The purpose of the documentarist was to discover, to describe, to witness, to document the natural world j ! I around him. Documentarists were adventurers filming expeditions, reporting, traveling, recording. The 223 documentarist's vision of the world produced at least three sub-categories: 1) the human condition documentary; 2) direct experience of actuality recording/ reportage; and, 3) social theme documentary. But the documentary also served as a research film; it seemed to capture the world with its spectacular vistas of mountains, of oceans, the poetry of the seasons, of cities and provinces, or of foreign lands; it showed the natural habits of animals -- mammals, sea creatures, exotica; it portrayed the labor of humankind — the actor, the cowboy, the steelworker; it recounted expeditions to the ends of the earth; or, it simply told 149 of the human condition. Erik Barnouw's Documentary, A_ History of the Non- Fiction Film was similarly organized. The filmmaker(s)1 vision/ purpose as he worked with "reality" oriented the sub-categories. Even his titles for these groups of films — documentarist as explorer, reporter, painter, advocate, bugler, prosecutor, poet, chronicler, promoter, observer, catalyst, guerrilla -- clearly indicated the focus of Barnouw's attention. Within each of these roles, the documentarist created films which then functioned -- to educate, to demonstrate, to open the audience to new "worlds" (not necessarily in the physical sense) unseen/ unexperienced by them. And, as Barnouw stated, "None of these functions can be neatly 150 separated.'1 I Rotha's writings on documentary were similarly J grounded. In The Film Til Now he described the Why We i I Fight series as: , ‘ “ L " " I j ... orientation films designed to J explain to soldiers the causes and j progress of the war up to America’s j entry into it.151 I i , And of Colonel Leonard Spigelgass’s Screen Magazine — i . I | The purpose was to recreate the G.I. : world on the screen as G.I.’s saw it _ ! J and thereby gain their trust in this ' ; particular form of news-narration.152 The form, format, the technique developed, the dramatic j ! construction resulted from, for example, in the Why We 1 I Fight series, the filmmaker j i j ... [being] forced back upon the J j basic resources of the film medium; ! j theeditingprincipleemergedasthe 1 definitive factor in the conception ; and execution of every film. Capra, ! with his instinctive command of I editing, created the basic form of the Why We Fight series, a complex ; ' elaboration of the March of Time j j pattern of interpreted events.153 . j | Of Screen Magazine The technical experiment involved was a refinement upon the ideas of Dziga- ! Vertov and the experiments of the j Volksfilmverband in Berlin in the j late twenties, but ... achieved poetic and dramatic as well as ideological power.154 The concept of documentary, although complex, was 155 relatively clear. In part the reason may have been because major documentarists articulated their "manifesto." In addition, while it spawned new "documentary-like" groups of films, the theoretical underpinnings remained very much as John Grierson and Paul Rotha originally outlined them. The documentary was defined in terms of: 1) its initial appeal to the audience (how it functioned for the audience); 2) the camera's "ability to record ... pictorial description"; 3) the documentarist's purpose — the "creative treatment of reality"; 4) the resulting techniques to produce the documentarist's vision; 5) its commercial base — its financing and funding; and, 6) channels of distribution 156 to the audience. Without digressing into an in-depth study of the documentary, the general consensus of writings on documentary supported the basic organization outlined by Vallet. Individual films could be placed non-exclusively within traditions. Thus, Flaherty's Nanook of the North (U.S., 1922), Walter Ruttman's Berlin: Symphonie of a _ City (Germany, 1927), or Grierson's Dr if ter s (U.K., 1927) could be compared because of their shared poetic vision; yet Nanook... was of the first sub-category, exploring the human condition; Berlin... was organized around the direct experience of actuality; and, Drifters fell under i 157 j the last category — social advocacy. Within the realm and scope of documentary, Vallet’s I proposed organization seemed to work. The non- exclusivity of categories, however, proposed certain problems. First, it required a sophisticated knowledge of the history of documentary. Also, documentary was not ] ! placed in relation to other "factual” categories of film, ! i ! ] such as the record/ actuality film, the newsreel, or the I ! j nonfiction film. 1 I | Rotha separated documentary from "interest” and ! : "story” films in his now classic, Documentary Film, but ’ j the boundaries were inexact. Capra's Why We Fight was a ' documentary newsreel, but the ; ; i ■ j ... ordinary twice-a-week newsreel has little in common with the j characteristics of the documentary ; I film except that they both go to j ! actuality for their raw material.158 I i A film's documentary quality, thus, could not be judged I ! I | by examining only the artifact itself. The uninitiated/ [ i i I untrained could not discriminate easily, j The goals of the cataloguer and genre theorist did j | not complement one another . Where the cataloguer sought j simple, easily discernible labels, genre classification I sought an understanding which necessarily involved I discrimination among relationships — contextual, historical, evolving relationships. ! Richard Barsam in Nonfiction Film, pointed out that: i All documentaries are nonfiction films, but not all nonfiction films are documentaries.159 | He clarified the distinction between the documentary | ' approach and the factual approach thus: ; i ... documentary films are concerned j I with facts and opinion, and factual films are generally concerned with i ! only the facts. ...160 j I A more significant problem arose when the critical , I j theorist attempted to place sub-categories of the ( . documentary and the nonfiction film in relation to one | j another. Barsam defined types of nonfiction film thus: j I Nonfiction film includes documentary ! itself; factual film; travel films; i j educational, training, or classroom | ! films; newsreels, and animated or 1 cartoon films.161 • I ; j Rotha in Movie Parade wrote: | : The film of fact is an all-embracing ; I term for the newsreel and record ! film, the instructional film and ^ documentary proper.162 | Neither organization was informed by a theoretically- i I I I i based principle. The travel film, for example, was seen j I ] as a visual record to inform groups of people about each | other. Was the travel film, thus, a sub-category of the I record film, the informational film, or some hybrid? With consideration to the newsreel, both Rotha and Barsam placed newsreel as a sub-category of the film of fact. What is a newsreel? Is it technique, format, form, tradition, category of film — or all of the above? Vallet gave no definition. However, abstracting Vallet's concept of function and what is already known about j technique and format, it would appear that a newsreel i uses the compilation technique — editing together i i _ t actuality news footage. (By analogy a chronicle film ; i I i uses the compilation technique for archive footage.) The | j documentary newsreel is likely to use a dramatic ; I j : structure, for a propagandist purpose, where the I | * "ordinary" newsreel does not. I ; Varieties of newsreel can be described, but what i ! i ' their relations are to each other and to other j I ( categories of film is unclear. What is needed here is | I | to take Vallet's concept of function and develop it in ) j terms of the various potential sub-categories relating l j to documentary and nonfiction film. Figure 8 is a roughly sketched hypothetical example of what this might 163 1 o o k like. ; • i One of the goals of genre theory needs to be the I gradual reassessment of theoretical/critical terms used in the definitions of categories and sub-categories of ! 229 Figure 8 FUNCTION t Documentary Approach — ----{ — — Factual Approach I DESCRIPTIVE FUNCTION -------‘---- t 1 I Interest I I t Actuality j I I F ilm-r ec or d ! Travel I Nature I Science PEDAGOGIC FUNCTION J----- I Instructional Training I i I Documentary Human condition Direct experience Social advocacy PROPAGANDIST FUNCTION I I I i l INTERIOR ANALYSIS FUNCTION I i I "NARRATIVE” FUNCTION I I 1 The newsreel (including chronicle) and cine-magazine are formats; animation is a technique. 230 film. In some cases, as in the terms "format" or "structure," the meanings might be expanded; if, for example, we redefine format to involve the structuring of content (not topic) as well as physical elements (length), newsreel is then best described as anthology is ! — a format, just as cine-magazine or feature are formats. The concept of newsreel as a format is a more 1 accurate description since the newsreel crosses a variety ; of film categories. ^ i In other cases, for example "branch," the term might I be redefined, to fill the void left by such terms as j fact, fiction, and nonfiction. Valuation of these terms > has been undermined by the re-evaluation of realism as a I | theoretical base for film. Documentary, for example, has its source in fact, but by definition cannot be j considered factual. As all-inclusive categories, fact, j fiction, and nonfiction have lost much of their usefulness. The Problem With History... ... Naming ... often affects the way in which the object is perceived in the present and recollected in the future.164 Where Vallet's organization of the documentary was complex but relatively clear , the relationships among history, historical legend, romance, epic, melodrama and 231 adventure were not so well ordered. For documentary, construction of categories was based on Vallet's combining and recombining three elements: 1) function; 2) "modes of vision," and, 3) three basic sub-types. This same organization breaks down under "narrative" function, and history. Part of the problem stems from the fact that Vallet defined neither history nor narrative. Is history a form in and of itself? Is history a sub-category of narrative? If so, then how is the distinction made between "pure" history (the "use" of history) and dramatic narrative (the "use" of fiction) in an historical setting? The Japanese organize their genres into two branches: 1) contemporary; and, 2) historical. This seems to be a fairly simple and practical approach. It eliminates any confusion whether one is in any way trying to re-create or tell history. The term "historical" has little to do with functioning as an historian. As Dennis Giles points out, the problem is "naming." There is no reason why a certain grouping of films should or should not be named in a particular way other than the tradition of naming it such. If we all agree that the "historical" film, in fact means a spectacular costume drama set in the past — that historical film is an all-encompassing category 232 ranging from Robin Hood (U.S., 1922) to Gandhi (U.K.- India, 1982), then it only involves the agreement of 165 naming . However, more than consensus may be required. A critical or theoretical paradigm — one which is both 166 "indicative and imperative," may be necessary. As Giles explains, in the case of documentary the term is derived from docere — to teach. What is the equivalent term for history which involves the narrative of factual, past events? How is the name "historical" best employed? Part of the problem stems from the fact that Vallet did not clarify the dramatic function from other functions. The concept "to dramatize" or "to fictionalize" was not included in Vallet's schema of function. The underlying theoretical construction was unclear. See figures 9 and 10 for a schematic overview of Vallet's organization of the historical film and legendary history film. Under the first — history — Vallet created four major categories: 1) distant history -- the spectacular ; 2) recent history — films about the World Wars; 3) social document history; and, 4) historical biography. Vallet then described and delimited sub-categories, 233 Figure 9 Schematic Overview of Historical Film History 1) distant history -- (conducive to spectacle) Wyler’s Ben Hur (U.S., 1959) - Bib1i ca1 Samson and Delilah (U.S., 1949) - Roman history Quo Vadis? (U.S., 1951) 2) recent history -- (conducive to "grandiose” subjects — the tragic, the psychological) - grand spectacle — Guns of Navarone (U.S., 1961) - psychological — Mort en Fraude (France, 1957) - constructed from news documents/footage — Mein Kamp f (Sweden, 1961) 3) social document — (portrait of conditions and milieu, exposing social problems) How Green Was My Valley (U.S. , 1941) - Realistic treatment of social conditions: Bitter Rice (Italy, 1950) - The "worlds71 of: - boxing — Robson's The Harder They Fall (U.S., 1956), - journalism -- The Big Carnival (U.S., 1951) - media/publicity -- A Face in the Crowd (U.S., 1957) - "Study" of a specific case Bicycle Thief (Italy, 1949) - Both psychological and social treatment Come Back Afrika (U.S., 1959) - Sadly ironic treatment on subject of youth The 400 Blows (France, 1959) 4) Biographical film — (narrative events of a well- known personage) Monsieur Vincent (France, 1948) - with epic quality - "memoirs" structure - biographical novel - reconstructed from journals - short, constructed from historical documents - living, celebrated person - from archive materials 234 Figure 10 Schematic Overview of Legendary History Film Legendary History 1) The Epic -- epic vision of heroic adventure - Napoleon (France, 1924) - Admiral Nakhimov of Pudovkin (USSR, 1946) - Alexander Nevsky of Eisenstein (USSR, 1938) - Viva Zapata! (U.S. , 1952) 2) The Western — following Bazin and Rieupeyrout - Evolution of the western: i) western documentary (1903-1910) Life of a _ Cowboy ii) period of the great producers (1910-1920) Griffith's Birth of si Nation and The Battle Ince's Battle of Gettysburg iii) silent era (1920-1930) Last of the Mohicans ( 1922) The Covered Wagon (1923) iv) sound era (1930-1939) Billy the Kid (1930) Texas Rangers (1936) v) during and just after the war psychological — The Westerner (1949) The Ox-bow Incident (1943) traditional — The Searchers, Rio Grande female western — Johnny Guitar pro-Indian — Broken Arrow psychological, romantic documentary — Cowboy (1958) spectacular — The Big Country (1958) historical canvas — Alamo (1960) - Themes of the western (grouped by cycle) birth of a nation search for gold frontier cross-country man and beast the Secession Indian wars typical men of the West - World of the western -- characters, settings, situations, icons, mythology, ethic - Style of the western -- lyric, suspenseful, the wild gallop, clouds of dust, plains of wind and sun 235 based on "vision"; these he also named "genres"; he did not use "sub-genre." Vallet used the first sub-category — distant history — to distinguish between "spectacle" and the "epic" vision; but the distinction was lost. Spectacle, conducive to distant history, was characterized by big budget, big screen, sumptuous decor and costumes — all the most modern film techniques; it was juicy anecdotes — often trivialized highlights of 167 history; it was grandiloquence without substance. Raymond Durgnat, in his article, "Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic" supported Vallet's distinction, pointing out that the trade usage of "epic" was based not on historical/ literary arts definitions, but on budget. Although Durgnat referred to the category he outlined as "epic," it was similar to Vallet's "distant history" spectacular. Vallet noted that Gone With the Wind (U.S., 1939), for example, was not an epic; it was a relatively intimate drama that simply cost a lot of money to 168 make . Part of the problem is that each critic has had a different name for a generally similar body of works. Accurate naming is important. It helps to articulate relationships. Perceptions and understanding of our world -- our concept of what history is, for example -- is often based on familiar categories. These categories 236 169 shape and are shaped by expectations. In abstract, Rotha, Vallet, and Durgnat all followed a similar definition of epic. Vallet characterized the epic vision as larger than life; it concerned the survival of nations. In the epic vision, death was not cruel, but a gloriously beautiful and noble sacrifice for the founding of a city, a nation. Durgnat quoted the concise OED: "’a poem of any form, embodying a nation's conception of its past history.'" There were "...two epic essentials: a sense of heroism, and a sense of 170 history." But this would certainly seem to connect numerous western films both with legendary history and with epic. History — especially national history -- is a shared cultural concept. As Durgnat astutely noted: History is international now, and Communists and Americans alike see their own history in that of other nations (Spartacus). There is even the epic of history-yet-to-be (in intention, at least, Things To Come).171 Under Vallet's category of "distant history" spectacle, he broke out two sub-categories: 1) Biblical, as in Samson and Delilah (Austria, 1922 or U.S., 1949), and 2) Roman history, as in Cabiria (Ita1y , 1912-1914). What was more commonly labeled the "spectacular" film, was sub-divided as history often was — by chronological 237 17 2 period. Vallet maintained this organization. Durgnat organized his discussion by both nationality and history; he included the early Italian "historicle," with its very specific formulae and conventions. Vallet did not explain the "historical" film's relation to other categories — the religious film, for example, or other possible categories of costume drama. Is religion a theme, a topic, a category, a genre? Are all costume dramas necessarily historical, or necessarily characterized by spectacle? The category of adaptations, such as Quo Vadis? (U.S., 1924 or 1951), appeared to be one of the sub-categories of the distant history spectacle, but Vallet was not specific; thus, it can not be generalized that adaptation was a sub-set; and, if so, of which category of films? Vallet pointed out that the "distant history" spectaculars were without epic vision, but he never explained which vision(s) did drive the distant history spectacle. One of his sub-categories under recent 173 history was "grand spectacle." Logically then, "spectacular" was an unnamed addition to Vallet's list of "visions." This is appropriate, too, since film history is studded with personalities such as De Mille's, whose purpose was more showmanship and spectacle than the 174 narration of history. 238 Rotha, in Movie Parade, described a similar category as "period pieces," but he more accurately related them to "Romance" — not history. The absence of the "romantic" mode of vision in Vallet's list of visions would seem to betray Vallet's realist bias. But then it would also seem that a realist would advocate a stricter definition of history. Rotha's assessment seems correct -- spectaculars draw more on romantic, historical novels than on history itself. ("It is more difficult to treat the past realistically than the present...") Maintaining Vallet's concept of function, one proposal might be that narrative have at least two sub categories: history and drama. Where true historical films are more concerned with the factual events of history, spectaculars are more concerned with the colorful dramatization of history. The characters and stories are taken "from the pages of history." History is used, but it is not history. It is a blending. The narration of events within a subject area has a different purpose and function than the dramatization of a subject. Categories organized by topic must be distinguished from categories constructed by function. Does history act as a topic, a function, or simply a source, as adaptations of literature and theater arts do? 239 Rotha was one of the few critics whose work was informed by a definition of history. Unfortunately, I Rotha complicated his discussion of period pieces by ^ including the "older Douglas Fairbanks1 costume romances,1’ such as Robin Hood (U.S., 1922), and The Black Pirate (U.S., 1926). Regarding these, Rotha remarked: j ... no one bothered about history I when faced with Fairbanks, and this is true of most of these films, where | ... it is the appeal of the star : which counts far more than the appeal of the story or the period.175 One of the stated goals of genre theory is to understand the relationships among films. How is one to ; connect and compare, or differentiate such films as Robin Hood (U.S., 1922), Cabiria (Italy, 1912-1914), Quo Vadis? (U.S., 1951), Cecil B. De Mille's Ten Commandments (U.S., 1924), La_ Marseillaise (France, 1937), Griffith's Birth of ja Nation (U.S., 1914), Eisenstein’s Potemkin (USSR, 1925), or Gone With the Wind (U.S., 1939)? Rotha was no clearer than Vallet. Gone With the Wind, The Ten Commandments, and Quo Vadis? were placed with Robin Hood (U.S., 1922), The Black Pirate (U.S., 1926) and Oliver Twist (U.K., 1947-1948) under "Period Romance." Cabiria and L ei Marseilleise were linked with Lubitsch's Anna Boleyn (Germany, 1920), Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible (USSR, 1944), and 240 Dreyer's The Day of Wrath (Denmark, 1944) under "Historical and Chronicle." Potemkin and Birth of ja ! j Nation were connected with Kameradschaft (Germany, 1931) ' and Cimarron (U.S., 1930) under "Epic." Rotha's i , organization made as much or as little sense as naming I Gone With the Wind an epic or Anna Boleyn a period i j romance. The logic was inconsistent. There has been and continues to be general j agreement that, for example, Samson and Delilah and Quo I Vadis? belong in the same general category, which for I ; the moment will be named "costume dramas"; whether j costume dramas are more appropriately placed under I history or romance, there is no consensus. Without the i j perspective such a decision might bring, it is impossible to organize the sub-categories of costume i | dramas. I A reasonable process for unraveling this scattered j assortment of films crossing epic, history, romance, I adventure, and spectacular might be to find the point of consensus. Analyze sources and functions. Then, work i out a schema of relationships. In the process, redefine terms. Rotha's more limited definition of history is preferable to Vallet's, but it may not be specific enough. Historical films are "serious attempts to film 241 historical episodes...” According to Rotha, true i historical films were rare, the majority being romantic dramatizations. An historical film Rotha named was Renoir's L_a Marseillaise (France, 1937); it j ... is a genuine attempt to i ! reconstruct a phase of the French | Revolution as if a documentary film ' • unit had accompanied a group of j ; revolutionary volunteers from ! I Marseilles to Paris.176 ; | ! j Under Rotha’s. conceptual organization, the j historical film was related more to documentary and the j I j , film of fact. One could hypothesize that Rotha would j | consider Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers (Italy-Algiers, | i | 1967) as an historical film, although.typically it has ; ' i been labeled a docudrama. One might suggest then, that ! * - I i ; ‘ the "historical moments" in, but not throughout the ! j entire film, Birth of a _ Nation (U.S.,1914), be 1 | ; described as "historical." ■ Rotha asserted that: i j The most assiduous producers of historical films have been the j Russians. Their early silent : classics were mostly in the epic ■ class, like Griffith's Birth of a Nation (1914), but ... Soviet j producers have turned to reconstructing the lives of historical individuals seen against the background of a revolution emerging, as it seems, over the j centuries from the times of Alexander ] Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible and Peter \ the Great.177 Without launching into a debate as to the limits and nature of what is and is not history, Eisenstein and other Soviet filmmakers, such as Pudovkin, might reasonably be likened to Thomas Carlyle. An historian ] to one era, castigated for inaccuracy (as in The French Revolution) by another 'era, Carlyle emerged rather as a great illuminator, a master of style, a philosopher- I I dramatist. Time and context remold opinion. , Combining Rotha’s more narrow definition of ; historical film with modes of vision, one can j hypothesize a series of categories: 1) historical film with epic vision; 2) historical film with romantic vision; 3) historical film with tragic vision, and so j on.- Unfortunately, there may not be enough truly historical films to make such an organization useful. | The Japanese organization, when applied to Western j organization, place as sub-categories all films set in i j the past. The results, although interesting, do not prove useful. Musicals, for example, despite Judith Hess’ declamation, are only one of many categories which I j have both historical (Gigi, U.S., 1958) and contemporary ( the Town, U.S., 1950) settings. Where this organization provides stability for Japanese categories 178 of film, it is impractical at an international level. 243 The World o£ War: Crossing Function and Vision with Topic Vallet's second sub-category under "History" was film on the subject of recent war. Although he placed the topic of the World Wars under "History," his approach was not historical. There have been two common approaches to films on war: 1) chronological, and, 2) (limiting) "defining criteria"; neither of these has been sufficient. Stanley Solomon, in Beyond Formula, explains: The vast scope of the subject precludes definitions based on action, characterization, theme, place, or tone; indeed, the portrayal of war in film cannot readily be perceived in terms of any generic patterns.179 Although Solomon violated his own statement, his chapter on the war film, when discussed in conjunction with Vallet's concept of function and vision, becomes interesting. What emerged in both is the concept of "world." Vallet sub-divided the war film: 1) by exterior world and vision -- the heroic, spectacular film; 2) by interior world -- the psychological drama; and , 3) by technique — the film compiled from war news 244 footage. Examples included in the first sub-category were The Guns of Navarone (U.S., 1961) or The Longest Day (U.S., 1962); examples of the second sub-category: Attack! (U.S., 1956), Bitter Victory (U.S., 1957), and Mort en Fraude (France, 1957); the last sub-category included examples such as, Mein Kampf (Sweden, 1960) and The Life of Adolph Hitler (U.K., 1962). Solomon united such disparate films as Gone With the Wind (U.S., 1939), Casablanca (U.S., 1942), The Great Dictator (U.S., 1940), and All Quiet On the Western Front (U.S., 1930) under a world where ... [there is an] assumption of belligerency among peoples and an atmosphere of impending or existing military action ... undoubtedly constant and relevant elements of these films and the various other categories of the genre.180 Solomon’s discussion was geared to the Hollywood fiction war film, but his comments prove applicable to a larger cross-cultural category: In the war film, the generalized situation of war or impending war creates the need for, first, a generalized attitude of opposition and, ultimately, a specific response that affirms the commitment to the ’right’ side at great personal r i sk.181 Initially, Solomon's premise supported Vallet's concept of function and vision. Solomon's first two sub- 245 categories were propaganda (pro-war) and "anti-war" (ignoring Godard’s quip that an anti-war film was still a war film). With these two categories, it was understood that one group of films functioned to affirm j ; or re-affirm the rightness of a war, the other to | j question or to deny the validity of a war. j I ' What Vallet called vision, Solomon termed | j I j attitudes. In fact, Solomon labeled war an "attitudinal i | genre." Unfortunately, Solomon did not develop his I premise. Instead his categories deteriorated into groups of films, inconsistently organized by setting ' i ("War in the Air" or "War as Background"), by the i effects of war on characters ("Victims of War," or j "Exiles and Isolated Heroes"), or by a vaguely defined ; i pattern ("Spies and Secret Agents"). ; t ! Hypothesizing from his premise lead to a l | potentially useful matrix of function and attitude. i j (See figure 11.) For example, under a propagandist ; I ' | j function of anti-war, the comic-satiric vision produces ! such films as Dr. Strangelove (U.K., 1964) or The Great I Dictator (U.S., 1940), the tragic vision -- All Quiet on j the Western Front (U.S., 1930) or The Dawn Patrol (U.S., j | 1930), and so on with other functions and other visions. J The comic vision alone has numerous sub-categories t ! i | irony, satire, and so on. Joris Iven’s Spanish Earth 246 • Figure 11 War Film: Hypothetical Matrix of Function and Vision "Black" Ironic Epic Romantic ! Tragic Propagandist Function Anti-war f I comedy — — -Dr. Strangelove (U.K., 1964) t M.A.S.H. (U.S., 1970) ( Pro-War I Closely Watched Trains (Czech, 1966) Apocalypse Now (U.S., 1979) / 1 Fires On The Plain (Japan, 1959) Alexander Nevsky (USSR, 1938) I The Dirty Dozen (U.S., 1968) 1 Kanal (Poland, 1956) 247 (U.S., 1937) is certainly realistic, yet it has the same kind of hauntingly tragic-poetic quality of Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc (France, 1928). Is the driving vision of Spanish Earth realistic, tragic-poetic, or both? Obviously, the concept of "vision" suffers from issues similar to those of genre. Reduction to a single term often oversimplifies the film experience. The Social Document Film Vallet's third sub-category, still under "History," was that of the "social document" genre. Also named "social consciousness" film, Vallet described it as a portrait of conditions and milieu, intended to expose social problems. The classic example given was John Ford's How Green Was My Valley (U.S., 1941). Again, consistency in Vallet's organization was lacking: he broke down sub-categories by: 1) vision -- the realistic vision of Bitter Rice (Italy, 1950); the sociological vision of Lionel Rogosin's Come Back Afrika (U.S., 1959); the sadly ironic vision of The 400 Blows (France, 1959); the poetic vision of Pather Panchali (India, 1955); 2) "world" — of boxing, as in Robson's The Harder They Fall (U.S., 1956), of journalism in The Big Carnival (U.S., 1951), of publicity in _A Face in the Crowd, (U.S., 1957); and, 248 3) a case history, or character study, as in Bicycle Thief (Italy, 1949) or Umberto D (Itlay, 182 1955). What is a case history? Is it format, form, sub genre, structure? How is it constructed? There is a theoretical base established for vision and world, but not case history. Rotha, in Movie Parade, defined what he called the sociological film in terms of intention and treatment, and linked them to documentary cinema; he characterized them thus: . . . the intention is to use the personal experiences of the characters involved to develop interests which are at least as much public as private, or social as psychological. In some cases the characters matter less than the argument, and the film may deviate or decline into direct propaganda for this or that political philosophy. Other films attack or expose social institutions like the school and the forms of judicial or industrial practice; others portray The few writings which have studied the social consciousness, or social problem, film have tended to group them, occasionally by movement, but more often chronologically or by topic; for example, racial discrimination, as in Crossfire (U.S., 1947); the grim realistically the state of a c ommunity, like some post-war films from Italy and Germany.183 249 life of street women, as in Pabst's The Joyless Street (Germany, 1925); the impersonal mechanization of modern life in The Crowd (U.S., 1928), mob rule, as in Fury (U.S., 1936), or, the system of justice, as in They 184 Won’t Forget (U.S., 1937). So little work of any significance has been done on this category of "social consciousness" films that it is difficult to determine what is most useful. The social document film complements the paradigm of the documentary, but the other variations are not so clear. In order to disentangle the various categories, one might beging by refining purpose and/or function. Sub categories might include: to motivate to action, to educate, to sensitize to a social problem, to describe a social problem. The concept of vision remains equally operative, whether it is Vidor's tragic vision in The Crowd (U.S., 1928), Chaplin's tragicomic vision in Modern Times (U.S., 1936), or Lang's futuristic dystopia of Metropolis (Germany, 1926). Biography: The Drama of History Consensus, what little'there is, supports Vallet’s placement of the biographical film as a subset of 185 history. Vallet defined the biographical, the last of his sub-categories, as the events in the life of a 250 well-known personage, such as St. Vincent in Maurice Cloche's Monsieur Vincent (France, 1948). Surprisingly, Vallet's organization of biography was not subject to the same problems as his concept of history. He made clear that biography has an historical base, but was more like a novel. It told of dramatic incidents. Its purpose, thus, was not so much biography as the dramatization of biography. Common practice breaks down biography by topic, such as biography of musicians, biography of artists, 186 biography of political figures. Vallet did not order biography in this manner. The discrepancy between the two positions poses an obvious dilemma: -is, for example, musical biography a sub-category of biography, a sub-category of the music film or a hybrid? Vallet sub-divided the biography film equivalently by : 1) vision: the epic vision of Abel Gance's Napoleon (France, 1924), or Pudovkin's Admiral Nakhimov (USSR, 1946); 2) structure: the "memoirs" structure of Keys To the Kingdom (U.S., 1944) and Goodbye, Mr. Chips (U.K. , 1969); the structure which is reconstructed from journals, as in George Stevens' Diary of Anne Frank (U.S., 1958); the dramatic incident structure, as in 251 Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc (France, 1928); and, 3) format, using the interview as a means to portray a living, celebrated person. Vallet also identified a lesser genre of short films. It included films depicting living celebrities, such as Le: mystere Picasso (France, 1958), or constructed from historical documents, such as Le Grand Melies (France, 1956), or compiled from archive materials, as in The Life of Adolph Hitler (U.K., 187 1962). How is one to differentiate a documentary treatment of Hitler's life, from a chronicle of Hitler's life, from a melodramatic dramatization of Hitler's life? Vallet's scheme did not address this concern. Is a biographical structure fundamentally different from a dramatic narrative? If as strict a definition of history is applied to biography, then where does drama begin and biography end -- with Henry King's Jesse James (U.S., 1939), Frend's Scott of the Antarctic (U.K. , 1948), Wyler's Funny Girl (U.S., 1968), Shaffner's Patton (U.S., 1970), or Donskoi's trilogy of Maxim Gorki (USSR, 1938)? To what extent does critical evaluation come into play? Funny Gir1 , for example, is a bad biography, but a good musical; and so, it is classified as a musical . 252 Legendary History: the Epic Both Rotha and Vallet appear to agree that epic vision is separate from the epic film, although neither discussed the difference in any detail. Although not articulated, it is important to understand that many terms function in several capacities. This "multi purpose" aspect of genre terminology is one of the primary (and perhaps inevitable) causes of confusion in genre criticism and theory. Adventure, suspense, romance, epic, comedy, satire, action are only a few common examples of terms with multiple uses and meanings. Rotha created a separate category for epic equal in kind and degree to historical. Vallet's discussion of the epic film, on the other hand, comes under what might be translated as legendary history. This he placed on a par with history and documentary. Following Bazin and Rieupeyrout, Vallet also placed the western under the 188 genre of legendary history. Commonly "epic" has been used to mean "expensive," "spectacular" or "action-packed," with the stress on action, but in fact, as Durgnat has pointed out: It is almost impossible for any two critics to agree on which films are epics and which aren't, for epic stature depends on a certain emotional and moral weight; and 253 different spectators' minds work in different ways, give weight to different things.189 Few films, according to both Rotha and Vallet, merited the name epic film. An epic film was defined by Vallet as epic treatment of an heroic adventure; examples: Abel Gance's Napoleon (France, 1924), and Pudovkin's Admiral Nakhimov (USSR, 1946),- but the best example by far — Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky (USSR, 1938). Typically, the structure of the epic film revolved around large forces in conflict — fields of armies, man against the force of nature, nations against nations. The characters were types — heroes; they were not developed. Rotha's definition of epic was more broadly based; it included Griffith's Birth of a_ Nation (U.S., 1914) and Rossellini's Paisan (Italy, 1946). The only film on which the two agreed was Eisenstein's Battleship Po temkin (USSR, 1925). In fact, Rotha's definition of the epic film seemed to be dramatic narrative, placed in an historical setting and with epic vision. On the other hand, Italian "spectacles," or as they are sometimes called "costume epics" (as in the Hercules films), were epics of individual warriors. It was this aspect of epic and spectacle which help link it to the 254 American western and the Japanese jidai-geki. But it was vision which acted as connective tissue, not the concept of a meta-category, at least as presently defined . While "epic" has had many and confusing uses, Durgnat1s suggestion remains reasonable, and potentially generalizable. to other similar terms. The concept of "epic" as a category of films, is foreign to modern times — just as another category might be foreign to a culture or nationality. The human scale has changed; and artistic standards support drama which focuses on psychology, motivation, and characterization. David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia is of epic proportions, grand in scale, a story set against the fate of nations, but it is foremost a portrait of one man. The way in which a culture or society identifies a film must be included in the naming of categories or genres. While this brief discussion of Vallet and Rotha has only focused on documentary and history, hopefully it demonstrates how both men have attempted to address issues of hierarchy, of relationships of categories of similar kind and degree. Clearly they have only skimmed the surface, even as this discussion of them has. More importantly, however, was their willingness to tackle the whole of film. It is through this sort of 255 organization that the student of genre can begin to gain a "holistic" perspective. Summary This brief survey has attempted to review genre theory literature and key concepts significant to building a system of genre. Clearly, genre study is bulky and unwieldy. In part, this is because it remains without both a consistent theoretical base and a sense of perspective. Much of the confusion surrounding the term "genre" results from: 1) inappropriately mixing descriptive, analytic, critical, and theoretical approaches; 2) mistakenly equating the processes of hypothesis, definition, and construction; and, 3) inadequate hypothesis of theoretical frameworks, definition of terms and bases of genre construction. To summarize briefly, it has been learned that: -- Genre is not essentially definable. — Genres have been constructed variously. — Genres are evolving. Genre is a process of systematization. -- Genres are not usefully constructed from a single defining feature; there is no one "right" criterion. 256 — There are no unequivocally pure genres. -- Genre construction is not necessarily fixed; it can shift from a monistic to a polycentric focus. — Neither film genres nor studies about them can be abstracted and'/or objectified to culture-free, unified paradigms. -- One of the failings of genre study is that it has been dominated by a Western rather than an international perspective. -- Genres are not limited to narrative fiction. — Genres are constructed in four fundamental ways: by one or a combination of: "shared trait," "invariant element," "defining characteristic(s), " and an eclectic composite of mode and use, vaguely similar to what E. H. Gombrich has named "family resemblances." — The bulk of genre criticism has attempted to describe individual genres, the primary focus being on genre films, in particular the western. The western has been inaccurately used as a universal paradigm. — Traditionalist genre theory, (Hollywood) industry-derived, is grounded in historical and critical surveys of individual genres. Its focus is on the construction of specific genres without a theoretical view of the whole. Traditionalists tend to construct genres non- 257 exclusively by: 1) world; 2) intended (expected) audience reaction; 3) target audience; and 4) subsumption from other fields. — Genre is not the way in which a critic classifies films so much as the way in which an audience perceives films. Genre is a shared set of cultural assumptions. — Genre becomes genre only when it is recognized and responded to as such. The recognition- "consolidation" process requires further study. — The bonds holding a genre together are loose, flexible margins. — Conventions are cumulative — not static. -- Genre is defined not merely in terms of audience expectation but what Leland Poague has proposed as "contextual displacement" and what E. D. Hirsch has named "generic hypothesis." — Filmmaker and audience share a common knowledge of interpretive rules which allow the audience to complete the film by virtue of interpretive conventions. — Auteur and genre are complementary — not opposing — approaches. Auteur refines genre. — The popular mythic (archetypal) approach, although presently restricted to narrative, has value for nonnarrative and nonfiction categories of film. 258 — Marrying the concepts of "mode,*1 "vision," and "world" offers a flexible and useful framework for film genre. — The work begun by Vallet to differentiate and define vision, function, and purpose in terms of categories and genres of films requires more investigation. — Comic, tragic, melodramatic, epic, poetic, philosophic, romantic and other similar terms describe vision; they do not form film genres. — Function, like vision, crosses genres. Narration and dramatization are different functions, with different purposes. — The goals of film classification are different from the goals of film genre study. — The primary goals of genre theory are: 1) to develop genre as a systematic method of comprehending the cinema; such a system should allow both the placement of an individual film within a category, and the placement (through both differentiation and connection) of the work in relation to other works within the category, 2) to reassess and to clarify terminology, and 3) to explain the power and appeal of film genres. — Much descriptive information, while useful in 259 cataloguing or classification, is inappropriate as a basis for film genre construction. For example, a review of cataloguing/classification literature has revealed the following characteristics are not meaningful bases for film genre construction: production date, production place, production personnel, budget, profitability, source, material (physical) characteristics, technique, format, structure, and historical movement. To illustrate further, film groups such as the following would not be considered film genres.: silent film, Brazilian film, John Ford films, independent film, blockbusters, "B" films, adaptations, color films, animations, newsreels, fiction film and neorealist films. Nor is genre determined by any one or combination of "internal" elements such as plot, setting, characterization, style, pattern and so on. — Topic is a valid designator for cataloguing and classification; topic (and theme) are insufficient for a system of genre . -- The fiction-nonfiction division of films is no longer useful. -- The agenda for genre studies is mixed. The traditionalist position has receded, in part subsumed by contextua1ist genre critics; filmologists have been more aggressive in their output, but neither filmologist nor 260 contextualist has produced a "mediated” theoretical position. The "translation game" between insiders and outsiders continues with lack of meaningful productivity. — With the exceptions of Antoine Vallet and Paul Rotha, film genre critics and theorists have studiously avoided concerns of hierarchy. This is perhaps the single area which needs the most work. — More critical concepts, such as Vernet's "class" need to be defined to facilitate the examination of hierarchy. — An adequate and respected method for gen^e study is needed. Too often theory-building and genre construction proceed without examination of sufficient numbers of films to make generalization, and thus genre construction, meaningful. Despite the many inadequacies of method, the field of genre study remains fertile ground and the cross currents of various critical approaches have and continue to enrich it. From what has been learned from the review of key concepts, it is the goal of Chapter 4 to pull these guidelines together to form a foundation which reflects a synthesis as well as accommodation to current thoughts and practices in film genre study. 261 NOTES 1. Paul Hernadi, Beyond Genre: New Directions in Literary Classification (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972), p. 2, quoting Gunther Muller. See also E. D. Hirsch, The Aims of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976) and, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967). 2. Memorandum dated May 23, 1978 to Paul Spehr, Acting Head, MPS, from Harriet Harrison, Wendy White, Motion Picture Section; Subject: Response to Question: "Explain briefly why AACR II is not suitable for cataloging in film archives." 3. Nitrate Control Inventory System Guidelines, "Screen 1 - Title Record," n.d., p. 7. 4. Stuart M. Kaminsky, Amer ican Film Genres , Approaches to _a Critical Theory of Popular Film, A Laurel edition, (NY: Dell, 1977), p. 12. 5. See Chapter 2, and "form" in the Glossary of Terms. 6. The Beograd Film Institute rejected a similar organization where content and technique were put on the same level. See Appendix B, First Variation. Also recall from Chapter 2, especially the work of V. F. Perkins, that film theory has rejected the "form- content," "style-subject," "technique-raw material" dichotomies. 7. Edward S. Small, "A Note on Genre in Film," Journa1 of the University Film Association, 29, no. 1 (Winter 1977), p. 40. 8. Edward S. Small, "A Note on Genre in Film," p. 39. 9. See Chapter 2, esp. under Bela Balazs and the 262 Film Index’s definition of "type" of film; see "type" in the Glossary of Terms. 10. This does not mean films are not usefully grouped into an historical movement, or that films are not to be linked by their sharing of similar technique. But in terms of a system or theory of film genre, organization by technique or historical movement has caused more problems than it has resolved. Also, identification of a film technique is a simpler task than delimiting an historical movement. Technique is verifiable. So is format (anthology, omnibus, feature). The LC motion picture division is set up this way, although in effect, cataloguers use the work itself. However, definition of an historical movement, such as cinema verite or poetic naturalism, is subject to problems as complicated as those of film genre. See Chapter 4 and the Glossary of Terms in Appendix E. 11. For a specific citation, see Stuart M. Kaminsky, American Film Genres, Approaches to _a Critical Theory of Popular Film, p . 17. 12. Filmarchivum Magyar Filmtudomanyi Intezet, "Summary Working Methodology of Filmography," p. 1. 13. Filmarchivum Magyar Filmtudomanyi Intezet, "Summary Working Methodology of Filmography," p. 1. 14. Briefly, the UDC is: ".1": philosophy, metaphysics, logic, ethics, psychology; ".2": religion, theology; ".3": social sciences, law, education; ".4” : philology, languages; ".5": pure science — mathematics, natural sciences; ".6": applied science — medicine, technology; ".7": the "arts" — graphic and plastic, architecture, photography, sports; ".8": literature -- including fiction; and ".9": geography, biography, history . 15. The reference is to Heidegger's notion of what is and what is not self-evident — that the natural, in fact, is always historical. Clearly, the repercussions from examining the Magyar system — that the political- cultural bias must be addressed — affects more than film genre classification -- and will be dealt with further in Chapter 4. 16. Beograd Film Institute, Film Genres, An Essay in Terminology and Determination of Film Genres, p. 1. See Appendix B. 263 17. Beograd Film Institute, Film Genres, p . 6. 18. Beograd Film Institute, F ilm Genres, p . 12+. 19. Beograd Film Institute, Film Genres , p . 16+ . 20 . Beograd Film Institute, Film Genres, p . 20. 21. . P Bela Balazs , . 187. Theory of the Film (NY: Dover, 22. Beograd Film Institute, Film Genres , p. 20. 23. Recall from 1the discussion of V. F. Perkins Chapter 2 that the degree of human intervention/control of the medium (highly controlled (animation) vs direct cinema (no control)) is based on a realist bias. There is no basis for believing that the animated Gumbie cartoons are more highly "controlled" than The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Germany, 1921) or the highly edited "Odessa steps" sequence in Potamkin (USSR, 1925) simply because one is photographed one frame at a time and the other photographed continuously. It may be valid to develop a continuum based on the degree of human mediation, but single vs continuous photography is not the determining element. Such a continuum disregards the nature of filmmaking — editing, lighting, scene design, costuming -- all of these aspects of filmmaking involve human intervention. 24. Beograd Film Institute, Film Genres , p. 20. 25. Edward S. Small, "A Note on Genre in Film," 39. 26. See Annex 1, "A Short Survey of Basic Variations Rejected by the Commission in Its Work," Beograd Film Institute, Film Genres in Appendix B. Rejected were: 1) a hierarchical approach based on content and technique with uppermost general category, next kind, and lowest genre; 2) a system of divisions with content, technique, and "creative treatment" as criteria; 3) a system of divisions with fiction, factual, animated, and free theme as criteria; 4) a similar two-part system of divisions using treatment/ technique and content/structure; and, 5) a system of division by techniques — animation, photographed performance, puppet film, and content/ structure. 27. Beograd Film Institute, Film Genres, p. 20. 264 28. Beograd Film Institute, Film Genres, p. 3. 29. The naming of an isolated characteristic as a theoretical basis should in no way be confused with Mitry's concept of "predominating characteristic" (qualite majorante) or, for example, John Dewey’s concept of experience. For Mitry and Dewey an experience has a "completeness" — a unity, a dominant quality — which pervades the whole. The naming refers not to an aspect, but to the whole. The experiencing of a film (and potentially film genre) is experienced as a whole. The first is a taxonomic, external position; Mitry and Dewey’s view is based on an internally- hypothesized — human — experience of art. 30. Edward S. Small, "A Note on- Genre in Film," p. 40, footnote 3: Werner Heisenberg, Across the Frontiers (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), p. 71. 31. Film genre theorists have much to learn from folklorists. A particularly useful chapter is "AnaiLytical Categories and Ethnic Genres," (pp. 27 5-301) in Dan Ben-Amos, Folklore Genres (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976), where he points out how folklorists in their quest to systematize folklore confused analytical categories constructed for their classification with the folklore itself -- a cultural mode of communication. "In the process, however, we transformed traditional genres from cultural categories of communication into scientific concepts. We approached them as if they were not dependent upon cultural expression and perception, but autonomous entities which consisted of exclusive inherent qualities of their own, as if they were not relative divisions in a totality of an oral tradition, but absolute forms." (pp. 275-276). The result was failure. 32. Edward S. Small, "A Note on Genre in Film"; Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," Working Papers in Cultural Studies. N.P.: Center for Contemporary Culture Studies, University of Birmingham, no. 4, (Spring 1975), pp. 121133; Paul Rotha, Movie Parade (London: The Studio Publications, 1936, rev. 1950); Antoine Vallet, Les Genres du Cinema (Paris: Editions Ligel, 1963). 33. Edward Buscombe, in his article, "The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema," Screen, 11, no. 2 (March- April 1970), p. 37. 265 34. Using Hernadi's refinement of Meyer H. Abrams' suggestions, one can hypothesize four bases for theories of film genre: 1) similar mental attitudes of filmmakers; 2) similar effects of films on the audience; 3) technical/ structural characteristics of the medium; and, 4) similar subject matter. Hernadi labels these expressive, pragmatic, structural, and mimetic, and points out that extreme adherence to any of these four basic approaches leads to four typical critical errors: the Intentional Fallacy, the Affective Fallacy, dogmatic formalism, or preoccupation with message .and subject matter rather than the whole. 35. Stuart M. Kaminsky, American Film Genres , Approaches to a_ Critical Theory of Popular Film, p. 11. 36. For example, key players of the horror genre include Bela Lugosi, Boris Karloff, and the Hammer studios; John Ford's stable of characters are key players in the western. Technical factors -- lighting, make-up, special effects -- are extremely important to horror, science fiction, as costumes and set decor are to spectaculars or period pieces. Budget is part of the definition of the epic film, just as horror films have been predominantly B pictures for most of their history, and so on. Good examples of historical genre studies which address these issues include: Ivan Butler, The War Film (NY: A. S. Barnes, 1974); Carlos Clarens, An Illustrated History of the Horror Film (NY: Capricorn, 1967); David Pirie, A_ Heritage of Horror , The English Gothic Cinema, 1946-197 2 (London: Gordon Fraser Gallery, 1973); William K. Everson, The Detective in Film (Secaucus, N. J.: The Citadel Press, 1972); Brian Davis, The Thriller, The Suspense Film From 1946 (London: Studio Vista, 1973); George Fenin, and William K. Everson, The Westerns: From Silents to Cinerama (NY: The Orion Press, 1962), and "The European Western," Film Culture , no. 20 ( 1959), pp. 59-71; Colin McArthur"! ""The Roots of the Western," Cinema (UK), (October 1969), pp. 11-17 and Underworld USA (NY: Viking Press, 1972); John Russell Taylor, and Arthur Jackson, The Hollywood Musical (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1971); Richard Whitehall, "Orime, Inc. : A Three-Part Dossier on the American Gangster Film," Films and Filming, 10, no. 4 (January 1964), pp. 7-12, "Part Two: G-Men and Gangsters," Films and Filming, 10, no. 5 (February 1964), pp. 17-22, and "Part Three: Public Enemies," Films and Filming , 10, no. 6 (March 1964), pp. 39-44; and much of the work of John Peter Dyer, as in "A Man's World," Films and Filming, 5, no. 8 (May 1959), pp. 13-15 (See bibliography"}-! 266 37. Henri Focillon, The Life of Forms in Art, trans. Charles Beecher Hogan and George Kubler ("New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942), p. 19. 38. Most reference texts are organized in this fashion; for example, indices: Harold Leonard, ed., The Film Index, The Film as Art (NY: Museum of Modern Art, 1941; rpt. Arno Press, 1966), John C. and Lana Gerlach, eds., The Critical Index (NY: Teacher's College Press, 1974), The International Index to Film Periodicals (1972 - 1979); film histories, such as Gerald Mast's A Short History of the Movie s (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1971), and Charles Higham's The Art of the American Film (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1973), or guidebooks, such as Ronald Gottesman and Harry M. Geduld's, Guidebook to Film (NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1972). 39. Marc Vernet, "Genre," Film Reader, 3 (1978), p. 14 . 40. Rotha's realist bias comes out in his distinction between fiction and fact. However, his position is not rigid; he states in Movie Parade: "The cinema, like the novel and the drama, must be judged by intention and achievement, and no final boundaries can be drawn between fact and fiction. Throughout the short history of the film, the fictional branch has contributed most notably to the truthful study of human character and environment. It has taken advantage of the quality of 'photographic truth' to make the actual presentation of landscape and cities, ships and railways, deserts and mountains create the atmosphere of realism in the better sense of that term. Frequently critics have spoken of the poetic reaism of such films as JLe Jour se leve or Br ief Encounter, meaning possibly the understanding of human emotion which exact observation of character and place can achieve when illuminated by imagination and sensitiveness of feeling." (p. 8). 41. It can be inferred that Rotha defines "class" as a sub-category of branch yet a meta-category for film genres. Thus, it must be inferred also that eight fictional and five nonfictiona.l sub-categories listed above are classes of film. Rotha's organization of Adventure and Melodrama, Comedy, Romance, Fantasy, and Drama are all classes of film which have sub classifications. Further, the inference is, for example, that westerns, crime and gangster films, 267 adventure films, and Films About World War I are all subsets of the class Adventure and Melodrama. Film genres appear to be a sub-classification of "class." 42. Northrop Frye delineates a continuum of kinds of fiction in Anatomy of Criticism, Four Essays (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973), pp. 33-34: 1) myth — the story of a divine being; 2) romance (also legend, folk tale, marchen) -- the hero of romance is "superior in degree to other men and to his environment ... but who is himself identified as a human being." He "moves in a world in which the ordinary laws of nature are slightly suspended: prodigies of courage and endurance, unnatural to us, are natural to him ..." 3) high mimetic mode (epic and tragedy) — "the hero is [a leader] superior in degree to other men but not to his natural environment ... He has authority, passions, and powers of expression far greater than ours, but what he does is subject both to social criticism and to the order of nature." 4) low mimetic mode (realistic fiction and comedy) -- the protagonist is "superior neither to other men nor to his environment ... [he/she] is one of us; we respond to sense of his common humanity, and demand ... the same canons of probability that we find in our own experience." 5) ironic mode — the protagonist is "inferior in power or intelligence to ourselves, so that we have the sense of looking down on a scene of ... frustration or absurdity ..." See also Antoine Vallet, Les Genres du Cinema, p. 10. The modes of vision include the realist, the tragic, the comic, the epic, the poetic, and the philosophical. Frank McConnell, Storytelling and Mythmaking, Images from Film and Literature (NY: Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 12-15. Gerald Mast’s concept of "comic climate” seems very similar to "world." It involves a comic environment, who is in the comic environment, and the results. Mast also emphasizes the relationship between the filmmaker and his audience. See The Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies (Indianapolis and NY: Bobbs- Merrill, 1973). 43. David Morse, "Aspects of Melodrama," Monogram, 4 ( 1972), p. 16. 5---- 44. Stuart M. Kaminsky, American Film Genres, Approaches to a Critical Theory of Popular Film, pp. 18- i9. ~ 45. For example, there are many traits which, if assigned specific critical meaning, could be used as 268 bases for differentiating categories of film; only a few of these which have been used both as "shared traits" and "defining characteristics" include (singly or any various combinations): 1) purpose/function; 2) form; 3) intention/ aim; 4) story/ narrative; 5) technique; 6) character; 7) plot; 8) setting/ milieu; 9) audience; 10) attitude; 11) tone; 12) icon; 13) style; 14) budget; 15) pattern; 16) treatment; 17) symbol/archetype; 18) structure; 19) theme; and 20) subject matter. See Glossary of Terms for definitions. 46. Andre Bazin, "The Evolution of the Western," in Movies and Methods, ed. Bill Nichols (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), pp. 150-157. 47. Douglas Pye, "Genre and Movies," Movie, 20 (Spring 1975), p. 30. A number of critics have been particularly critical of this sort of Neo-Aristotelian "ideal type" approach. See, for example Tom Ryall, "The Notion of Genre," Screen, 11, no. 2 (March-April 1970), pp. 24-25, where he states that it leads to "an unduly prescriptive form of criticism." (p. 24). 48. Myron Osborn Lounsbury, The Origins of American Film Criticism 1909 — 1939 (NY: Arno Press, 1973), p. 375 . 49. The popular culture/mythic approach is derived from four primary sources: 1) Vladimir Propp and the folklorists; see Vladimir Propp, Morphology of the Folk Tale (Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1968); 2) Northrop Frye, esp. his concept of modes, 3) depth psychology and Jung’s notions of archetype and the collective unconscious; see Carl G. Jung, ed. Man and His Symbols (NY: Doubleday, Garden City, 1964); and 4) Claude Levi-Strauss1 approach towards structuralism in The Raw and the Cooked: Introduction to a_ Science of Mythology (Evanston: Harper and Row, 1964), and his seminal article, "The Structural Study of Myth," Journal of American Folklore, 78, no. 270 (October-December 1955), pp. 428-444; also, see Tsvetan Todorov's The Fantastic : Structural Approach to a_ Literary Genre (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970). For a good, brief discussion of the popular culture/myth view of genre, see Appendix D, 2. 50. Robert Warshow, "Movie Chronicle: The Westerner," in Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Criticism (NY: Oxford University Press, 19 7 9), pp. 469-487. Also see Warshow's collected 269 writings in The Immediate Experience (NY: Atheneum, 1970). John G. Cawelti, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature." Journal of Popular Culture 3, no. 3 (Winter 1969), pp. 381-390. Examples of the "popular myth" approach include: John G. Cawelti’s The Six-Gun Mystique (Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Popular Press, 1971); Wil Wright's Six Guns and Society: _A Structural Study of the Western (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); and, Thomas Schatz's Hollywood Genres, Formulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System (Philadelphia: Temple University Press , 1981) . 51. Wil Wright, Six Guns and Society: _A Structural Study of the Western ; Stuart Kaminsky, American Film Genres, Approaches to a_ Critical Theory of Popular Film, and "Little Caesar and Its Place in the Gangster Film Genre," Journal of Popular Film, 1, no. 3 (Summer 1972), pp. 209-227; Stanley J. Solomon, Beyond Formula, American Film Genres (NY: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1976); Frank McConnell, The Spoken Seen: Film and the Romantic Imagination (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1976)7and Storytelling and My thmaking; Thomas Schatz, Hollywood Genres , F ormulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System, also his "Structural Influence New Directions in Film Genre Study," Quarterly Review of Film Studies, (August, 1977), pp. 302326. Thomas Sobchak's work, for example, "Genre Film: A Classical Experience," Literature/Film Quarterly, 3 (Summer 1975), pp. 196-204 might be included because it is constructed from "invariant" elements; his position seems to be a combination of essentialist and mythic, but addresses many of the concerns of the Traditionalist; the difficulty lies in the scope which is restricted to Hollywood genre films. For a further discussion, see in glossary under "Genre Film." 52. John G. Cawelti, "Chinatown and Generic Transformation in Recent American Films," in Film Theory and Criticism 2nd ed., eds. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen (NY: Oxford, 1979), p. 578; also, Stuart M. Kaminsky, "Once Upon a Time in Italy: The Italian Western Beyond Leone," Velvet Light Trap, 12, (Spring 1974). d d . 31-33 . 53. Frank McConnell, in Th e Spoken Seen : F ilm and the Romantic Imagination, gives one of the best descriptions of the structuralist attitude: "Claude Levi- Strauss, in the 'overture' to his study The Raw and the 270 Cooked; ’Mythological analysis has not, and cannot have, as its aim to show how men think.... I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men’s minds without their being aware of the fact.' If we substitute 'genre' for 'myth' in this passage, we get a fair idea of where the structuralist critique of literature and film tends.... [Forms] of narrative art may be viewed as creating their own masterpieces — operating in men's minds — with a kind of trans- or super-personal determinism which exceeds factors like individual genius or creativity." (p. 125). 54. Frank McConnell, in The Spoken Seen : Film and the Romantic Imagination, p. 125. 55. Warshow's premise was actually based on a combination of the themes and stars of film genres, as Harris Dientsfrey so well explains in his article, "Hitch Your Genre to a Star," Film Culture , 34 (Fall 1964) pp. 35-37. Occasional studies, such as Geoff Mayer's, "Formula and Genre, Myths and Patterns," Australian Journal of Screen Theory, 4 ( 1978), pp. 59- 65, demonstrate similarity of narrative patterns across genres (prison and western films), but usually narrative patterns are assumed to be universal — "mythic." For background reading in the popular culture arts, see Bernard Rosenberg and David Manning White, eds. Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America (NY: The Free Press, 1964) . 56. Robert Warshow's article, "Movie Chronicle: The Westerner," in Film Theor y and Criticism, eds. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen, p. 480. 57. Richard Collins, "Genre: A Reply to Ed Buscombe," Screen, 11, nos. 4-5 (August-September , 1970), pp. 69-70. 58. Richard Collins, "Genre: A Reply to Ed Buscombe," p . 70. 59. Richard Collins, "Genre: A Reply to Ed Buscombe," p. 70. 60. John G. Cawelti, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature," p. 386. 61. John G. Cawelti, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature," p. 385. 271 62. John G. Cawelti, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature," p. 385. 63. John G. Cawelti, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature," p. 387. 64. John G. Cawelti, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature," p. 387. Also, pp. 384 and following for a general discussion of genre. 65. John G. Cawelti, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature," p. 387. 66. John G. Cawelti, "Chinatown and Generic Transformation in Recent American Films," in Film Theory and Criticism, eds. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen, p. 578. 67. I. C. Jarvie, "The Western and Gangster Film: The Sociology of Some Myths," in Movies and Society, ed. Bill Nichols (NY: Basic Books, 1970), suggests five basic categories remarkably similar to McConnel's (Frye's) cycle of heroes: 1) those who explored; 2) openers of the frontier; 3) coming of the law; 4) the law in action; and, 5) psychology of man in conflict trying to assert himself within a dying tradition. 68. I. C. Jarvie, "The Western and Gangster Film: The Sociology of Some Myths," in Movies and Society, ed. Bill Nichols. 69. Edward Buscombe, "The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema," reprint from Screen, 11, no. 2 (March- April 1970), in Film Genre: Theory and Criticism, ed. Barry Grant, (Metuchen, N.J. and London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1977), p. 32. 70. Kendall Walton, in "Categories of Art," Philosophical Review (July 1970), introduced the very useful concepts of "standard," "contra-standard," and "variable" to aesthetics. Although he defends the intentionalist position, (function and use serve film genre study better), more importantly his article links classification with a knowledge, of certain historical facts. Marc Vernet echoes Walton's ideas when discussing the absence and presence of characteristics in his article, "Genre." 71. "Discoverable" — that is, through critical and theoretical study, there is a framework previously 272 established to name the new entity. For example, when Polanski's Chinatown (U.S., 1974) was released, critics labeled it a "color noir." They adapted and built on a previously established category of film — noir. 72. Occasionally categories and sub-categories are organized by technique (animation), by subject matter (political films), by intention (propaganda), by historical movement (German Expressionist films), and by style (Warner Brothers' cartoons), but there is little consistency, and it is far more common among reviewers than critics. These categories are not commonly labeled "genres." 73. Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed, Reflections on the Ontology of Film (NY: Viking Press, 1971), pp. 72-73. Cavell falls more in line with Traditionalists because of his views on tradition and the filmmaker- audience relationship. He varies somewhat from Traditionalism because of two concepts: 1) over valuation, where he defines a cycle as a genre and a genre as a medium (p. 36); and, 2) "automatism" — where the film artist seeks "what works" first — not the conventions of the form. While no Traditionalist specifies or insists that convention supercedes effectiveness in the filmmaking process, the concept distinguishes Cavell. See "world" in Glossary of Terms. Nelson Goodman, in Ways of Worldmaking (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1978), theorizes that there is no primary "real" world which we subsequently subject to various types of representation. Rather, it makes for more sense to speak of "multiple worlds which individuals and groups construct and live within." (p. 38). Whatever organizes our sense of that world provides us with "referents." Referents can be icons, visual conventions, and so on — whatever the audience recognizes and identifies as familiar to that world. 74. For example, regarding Hitchcock's Psycho and the audience's anxious reaction as Vera Miles goes into the cellar -- Buscombe notes that Hitchcock uses "we," speaking of the audience in very familiar terms: "The process through which we take the audience, you see, it's rather like taking them through the haunted house at the fairground..." And of the audience's reaction: "....It seems more likely that our conscious reaction to the scene owes more to our having assimilated them through an exposure to the tradition of the genre." (p. 34) in Edward Buscombe, "The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema." 273 75. The concept of "world" actually comes from Jean Mitry. See discussion in Chapter 2. Leo Braudy, The World in a Frame (Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press, 1976); Stanley J. Solomon, Beyond Formula, American Film Genres. 76. Edward Buscombe, "The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema," pp. 27-29. Colin McArthur follows a similar line of argument in Underworld USA (NY: Viking Press, 1972), esp. chapter 2, entitled, ^ h e Iconography of the Gangster Film." 77. Richard Collins, "Genre: A Reply to Ed Buscombe," pp. 68-69. 78. The Traditionalist, for example Ed Buscombe, maintains: "The artist brings to the genre his own concerns, techniques and capacities — in the widest sense, his style — but receives from the genre a formal pattern which directs and disciplines his work." (p. 34) in "The.Idea of Genre in the American Cinema." The popular mythic critic Wil Wright, in Sixguns and Society, _A Structural Study of the Western (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975) connects society at large with popular myths. See particularly his introduction on "The Myth and the Method," where he maintains that because myth is such a deeply rooted cultural experience "...models of experience offered by a myth therefore contain in their deepest meanings the classifications, interpretations, and inconsistencies that a particular society imposes on the individual’s understanding of the world." (p. 12). Wright defines myth almost formalistically as 1) an abstract structure, with 2) symbolic content, (p. 11). 79. Andrew Tudor, "Genre," in Genre: Theory and Criticism, ed. Barry Grant, p. 21. 80. Lawrence Alloway, "The Iconography of the Movies," Movie, no. 7 (February-March 1963), p. 6. 81. Lawrence Alloway, "The Iconography of the Movies , " p . 6 . 82. Andrew Tudor, "Genre" in Genre: Theory and Criticism, ed . Barry Grant, presents a combination of the popular mythic and Traditionalist -- neither one of which he finds more useful than the auteur approach; nevertheless, he outlines two types of genre 274 construction: 1) by attributes, as in the western and gangster films -- as Jim Kitses does — by a thematic, flexible structure, with archetypal elements, and, 2) by intention — that is, to horrify as in the horror film. For an article focusing more on the psychology of the audience for itself than as a basis of genre theory, see M. F. Norden's "Toward A Theory of Audience Response To Suspenseful Films," Journal of the University Film Association, 32, nos. 1-2 (Winter-Spring 1980), pp. 71- 77 . 83. Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, p. 86. More recently, cataloguers and reference works have begun to make a distinction between the Fantasy Film and the Fantastic. The dark side -- Horror and the Supernatural fall within the domain of the Fantastic; the Fantasy film is restricted to the light side, as in Heaven Can Wait (U.S., 1943, 1978). See Glossary of Terms. 84. Peter John Dyer, in two articles "All Manner of Fantasies," and "Some Nights of Horror," Films and Filming 4, no. 9 (June 1958) pp. 13-15 and 4, no. 10 (July 1958) pp. 13-15, organizes horror by such themes as: split personality and its variations (including the technological personality or the robot), men destroyed by love, superpower s/superego, and so on. Sub-genres of the horror films include monster movies, mad-scientist fantasies, the undead, and haunted house films. 85. D. L. White, "The Poetics of Horror: More Than Meets the Eye," in Film Genre: Theory and Criticism, ed. Barry Grant, p. 125. 86. See Stanley Solomon, Beyond Formula, American Film Genres, pp. 112-155. 87. D. L. White, "The Poetics of Horror: More Than Meets the Eye," in Film Genre: Theory and Criticism, ed. Barry Grant, p. 125. Also see Stuart M. Kaminsky 1s chapter on psychological considerations of the horror film where he defines it in terms of a cathartic nightmare, in American Film Genres. 88. D. L. White, "The Poetics of Horror: More Than Meets the Eye," in Film Genre : Theory and Criticism, ed. Barry Grant, p. 129. 89. The Film Index, p. 342. See "Children’s film" in Glossary of Terms. 275 90. The Film Index, p. 473. 91. Thomas Cripps, Black Film As Genre (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1979), p. 3. 92. See Molly Haskell, From. Reverence t o Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies (London: New English Library, 1973) and Joanne L. Yeck, "The Woman's Film At Warner Brothers, 1935-1950," Diss. USC, 1982. Definitions of the woman's film have been and continue to be overly absorbed in Hollywood narrative. The Japanese have sub-classified the home drama extensively — the mother, film, or haha-mono, the wife film, or tsuma-mono, the self-sacrificing heroine, or kachusha- mono, and so on. This organization needs to be further studied and related to U.S., European, and Indian film. 93. Douglas Pye, "Genre and Movies," p. 30. 94. Barry K. Grant, "From Film Genre to Film Experience," Paunch, nos. 42-43, (December 1975), p. 125. Also see his article "Prolegomena to a Contextualistic Genre Criticism," Paunch, nos. 53-54 (January 1980), pp. 138-147. 95. Reference to the Traditionalists is indirect primarily because the contextualist critic does not acknowledge that there were any theoretical informing principles, articulated or not, before Robert Warshow and Andre Bazin in the 50s. For example, Barry K. Grant's article, "Film Comedy of the Thirties and the American Comic Tradition," West Virginia Philological Papers, 26 (August 1980), pp. 21-19, or Steve Seidman's Comedian Comedy: A_ Tradition in Hollywood Film, Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1981. But it is more than simply the concept of "tradition." Critics like Tom Ryall, for example, use virtually all the traditionalist language and concepts and yet approach it with a contextualist's attitude. See his article, "The Notion of Genre," pp. 22-32. 96. Barry K. Grant, "From Film Genre to Film Experience," p. 123. 97. Tom Ryall, "The Notion of Genre," p. 23. 98. Barry K. Grant, "From Film Genre to Film Experience," p. 134. See also his "Tradition and the Individual Talent: Poetry in the Genre Film," in Narrative St rategies: Original Essays in' Film and Prose 276 Fiction, eds. Syndy M. Conger and Janice R. Welsch (Macomb: Western Illinois University Press, 1981). 99. See also Tom Ryall's article, "Teaching Through Genre," Screen, 11, no. 2 (March-April 1970), pp. 22-32, esp. p. 23. The underpinnings of contextualism are very similar to what Julia LeSage and Charles Kleinhans developed a couple years later (Ryall's work was 1969- 1970, LeSage and Kleinhans 1973-1974) in what they named "A Systematic Approach to Audience Response to Film." It is essentially a standard communications model, but allowing for different "contexts" — what LeSage calls "milieu" — for filmmaker and for audience. See Julia LeSage’s article "Feminist Film Criticism: Theory and Practice," in Women and Film, 1, nos. 5-6 (1974), pp. 12-18, esp. pp. 13-1 100. Barry K. Grant, "Introduction," in Film Genre: Theory and Criticism, p. 3. 101. Colin McArthur, in Underworld USA, provides only one of the many good examples of flexibility and multiple approaches. He combines a traditionalist approach of seeing Hollywood film as an economically- based cultural product, understanding that genre is a means by which the U.S. can talk to itself about itself, and yet he stresses formal structures and relates the icons of the gangster film to semiotics. 102. Tom Ryall, "The Notion of Genre," p. 24. See Barry K. Grant, "From Film Genre to Film Experience"; and, Douglas Pye, "Genre and Movies," pp. 29-43. The purpose of Douglas Pye's article is to analyze the methods used in genre study. Pye thus explains the essentialist (Bazin) and the traditionalist: "The assumptions criticised here are made by two of the commonest approaches to genre. One is to construct a paradigm, an ideal type, or to select an ideal form from the history of the genre, against which to judge individual works." (p. 30) and, "The other approach is to search for defining characteristics in the common denominators, of individual examples, which can result both in placing too great emphasis on the selected characteristics and in creating too narrow a model of genre." (pp. 29-30). Countering, Pye proposes: "A much more flexible model than either of these is required, avoiding the rigidity of the first and the crudity of the second, and allowing a polycentric framework rather than the monistic ones that are false to the complexity of literary and cinematic forms." (p. 30). 277 103. See Barry K. Grant's article, "From Film Genre to Film Experience." 104. Douglas Pye , "Genre and Movie," P . 29. 105 . Douglas Pye , "Genre an d Movie," P . 29. 106. Douglas Pye , "Genre and Movie," P . 29. 107 . Douglas Pye, . "Genre and Movie , " P . 32. 108 . Douglas Pye, "Genre and History: Fort and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," Movie, 25 (Winter 1977-1978), pp. 1-11. 109. Stephen Neale, Genre (Hertford, U.K.: British Film Institute, 1980) p. 5. 110. Judith W. Hess, "Genre Films and the Status Quo," Jump Cut, no. 1 (May-June 1974), p. 1. As comparison, see Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre." 111. Judith W. Hess, "Genre Films and the Status Quo," p. 1. 112. Judith W. Hess, "Genre Films and the Status Quo , " p . 1. 113. Judith W. Hess, "Genre Films and the Status Quo , " p . 1. 114. Jean-Loup Bourget, "Social Implications in the Hollywood Genres," in Film Genre: Theory and Criticism, ed. Barry Grant, p. 70. See entire article for further discussion. 115. Judith W. Hess, "Genre Films and the Status Quo , " p . 18. 116. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 123. 117. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 122 . 118. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 122 . 278 119. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 122. 120. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 122. 121. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 122. * 122. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 123. 123. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 124. ' 124. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 129. 125. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," p. 123. 126. Alf Louvre, "Notes on a Theory of Genre," pp. 12 5-126. 127. Leland A. Poague, "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," Literature/Film Quarterly, 4, no. 2 (Spring 1978), pp. 152-161. The concept of "family resemblances" is familiar to the philosophy of aesthetics. For a particularly good article, see Haig Khatchadourian's "Family Resemblances and the Classification of Works of Art," in Journal of Aesthetics, (1968), pp. 79-90. 128. Leland A. Poague, "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," p. 154, his fn 6, quoting from E. D. Hirsch, Jr., Validity in Interpretation, p. 82. 129. Leland A. Poague, "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," pp. 154-155. 130. Leland A..Poague, "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," p. 156. 131. Leland A. Poague, "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," p. 157. 132. Leland A. Poague, "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," p. 160. 133. Stephen Neale, Genre, p. 4 279 134. Stephen Neale, Genre, pp. 5-6 135. Stephen Neale, Genre, pp. 22—23. 136. Neale continues with this line of thinking, as if the discovery of cinema as economically based wipes out the influence of the individual talent: "...Such constraints exist only because of the specific economic conditions of production, distribution and exhibition within the commercial cinema and of the size and heterogeneity of the audience involved, and hence because of the pressure on the one hand to facilitate 'communication' and on the other hand to maximise the profitability of capital assets and to repeat the formulae marking previous financial successes...." (in Genre, p . 10) . 137. Neale states: "All forms of signification and meaning entail pressure: no subject is transcendent of such pressure or in control of its various modalities, hence no subject is in a position simply to operate these forms, whatever the conditions of production and consumption, whatever the form of economic relations within which production and consumption take place." (in Genre, p. 10). And, his reference is to all film: "...no artist -- and, indeed, no audience, no individual spectator or reader — is free, and this applies equally to the abstract expressionist painter, to the lyric poet working in his/her own home or studio, to the experimental film maker working only in 8 mm and to the Hollywood director." (p. 10). But the studio system and the traditionalist have always grounded film in economics. This is not some new information which might warrant re-examination of the role of personal vision. 138. See Genre, p. 10 for an elitist version of the same . 139. Stephen Neale, Genre, p. 37. 140. Stephen Neale, Genre, p. 29. Neale already stated on p. 26 that suspense was not an exclusive characteristic: "Suspense is not, of course, exclusive to the detective genre, but it is nonetheless essential to it, tying in as it does with a narrative structured around the investigation of the principle of narrative disorder itself in the sense that the enigma is a mystery, an 'incoherence' functioning as the trigger for a story, which, as it unfolds, eliminates the enigma and 280 comes to an end when its disorder has been abolished." He says little more than that suspense acts as a unifying narrative structure for among other genres, the detective film. 141. Stephen Neale, Genre, p. 29. 142. Stephen Neale, Genre, p. 49. 143. For example, Neale quotes from Metz's "The Imaginary Signifier": "'The cinematic institution is not just the cinema industry (which works to fill cinemas, not to empty them), it is also the mental machinery -- another industry — which spectators 'accustomed to the cinema' have internalized historically and which has adapted them to the consumption of films.'1, in Genre, p. 19. Neale goes on:" Not only a set of economic practices or meaningful products, cinema is also a constantly fluctuating series of signifying processes, a 'machine' for the production of meanings and positions, or rather positionings for meaning: a machine for the regulation of the orders of subjectivity. Genres are components in this 'machine'... a fundamental part of the cinema's 'mental machinery'." (Genre, p. 19). Metz, of course, is always interesting; and, by quoting Metz, Neale places himself within a theoretical context; however, his summary of Metz once again deteriorates into the obvious — to: "...genres are not to be seen as forms of textual codifications, but as systems of orientations, expectations and conventions that circulate between industry, text and subject." (p. 19). In fact, by the end of the monograph he will corrrect this position — genres are not systems — they are "processes of systematisation" (p. 51), which is, in fact, a more correct statement. 144. And, one must also refer to Jean-Louis Baudry's essay on "Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematogrphic Apparatus," trans. Alan Williams, Film Quarterly, 28, no. 2 (1974-1975), pp. 39-47. Very briefly, Metz's essay on The Imaginary Signifier, trans. Alfred Guzzetti et al. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981), analogizes that the spectator -- through the illusion of movement — organizes film units into a unity — a whole. This is simple enough. The problem is far more with Metz's analogy with the screen not as window and world, but as mirror. While this may work for the fictional mode, it is highly debatable whether in fact it works for all film. Metz's point is that the technical apparatus, located at the back of the 281 spectator's head is where the focus of all his fantasy is. Further, that this fantasy is a sort of regressed hallucination -- some primal wish in which the spectator as child is master and possessor of his universe. Viewing film is a primitive narcissistic pleasure, a sort of mass daydreaming by the preconscious. It is highly unlikely that filmmaker-theorists such as Rotha or Grierson, Eisenstein or Pudovkin, would define the documentary film in quite this way. It may well be that Metz and his followers experience film similarly to unconscious children, but it is highly debatable and empirically unprovable that the rest of the world does. 145. The genres Vallet covers are: the documentary; the historical film -- the spectacular, "world wars" film, social document, and biographical film; legendary history -- the epic and the western; the adventure film -- real and fiction -- the crime film, gangster, police document, film noir, horror film, and science fiction; psychological film — drama and melodrama; comedy — satire, caricature, burlesque, American comedy, Vaudeville, musical comedy, British comedy; poetic film -- poetic realism, fantasy; film on art; and animation. 146. Antoine Vallet, Le s Genres du Cinema, .pp. 7-8. 147. Antoine Vallet, Les Genres du Cinema, pp. 10- 12 . 148. Northrop Frye, Anatomy o f Cr iticism, Four Essays; Frank McConnell, Storytelling and Mythmaking, Images from Film and Literature. 149. Antoine Vallet, Les Genres du Cinema, pp. 24- 26 . 150. Erik Barnouw, Documentary, A. History of the Non-Fiction Film (NY: Oxford University Press, 1977), p. 30. 151. Paul Rotha, The Film Til Now, _A Survey of World Cinema (London: Vision Press and Mayflower Publishing Company, 1960), p. 461. 152. Paul Rotha, The Film Til Now, A Survey of World Cinema, p. 464. 153. Paul Rotha, The Film Til Now, A_ Survey o f World Cinema, pp. 461-462. 282 154. Paul Rotha, The Film Til Now, A Survey of World Cinema, p. 464. 155. The emphasis is on relatively — as compared to the changing definitions and relative placement of such concepts as form, type, and genre. Certainly there has been abuse of the term documentary; see, for example, pp. 1-3 in Richard Meran Barsam, Nonfiction Film; A_ Critical History (NY: E. P. Dutton, 1973). 156. See Chapters 1 and 2, but esp. pp. 75-79 in Paul Rotha's Documentary (NY: Hastings House, 1970); also Chapter 1 in Richard Meran Barsam, Nonfiction Film: _A Critical History. 157. As reference readings on the general definition and scope of documentary, see H. Forsyth Hardy, ed., Grierson on Documentary (London: Faber and Faber, 1966); Basil Wright, The Use of the Film (London: Bodley Head, 1948); Thorold Dickinson and Catherine de la Roche, Soviet Cinema (London: Falcon Press, 1948); Thorold Dickinson, _A Discover of Cinema (London: Oxford University Press, 1971); The Factual Film, Report of the Arts Enquiry (London: Oxford University Press, 1947); Jacobs Lewis, ed., The Documentary Tradition: from Nanook to Woodstock (NY: Hopkinson and Blake, 19 71) . 158. Paul Rotha, Documentary, p. 88. 159. Richard Meran Barsam, Nonfiction Film: A Critical History, p . 1 . 160 Critical . Richard History, Meran p . 6 . Barsam, Nonfiction Film: 161 . Richard Meran Barsam, Nonf iction Film: Critical History, p. 10. 162. Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, p. 124. 163. To pursue Vallet's premise further requires in-depth research and discussion beyond the scope of this study. 164. William H. Bossart, "Form and Meaning in the Visual Arts," British Journal of Aesthetics, 6 (July 1966), pp. 259-271. 165. Dennis Giles, "The Name Documentary: A Preface to Genre Study," Film Reader, 3, (1978), pp. 18-23. p. 283 19 . 166. Dennis Giles, "The Name Documentary; A Preface to Genre Study," p. 22. 167. Vallet quotes Nobecourt: "Seul est recree 11 aspect superficiel, pittoresque, anecdotique de l'histoire. L'ame des temps revolus, les passions qui l'ont agitee, les espoirs qui l'ont soulevee n ’y apparaissent que d'une facon simpliste et schematisee: decadence romaine, heroisme des martyrs..." Antoine Vallet, Les Genres du Cinema, p. 48. 168. Raymond Durgnat, "Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic," in Film Genre ; Theory and Criticism, ed. Barry Grant, p. 110. 169. There has been significant research done in the area of perception and naming. See particularly such classic works as M. D. Vernon, The Psychology of Perception (London: Penguin Books, 1962); E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion (London: Phaidon, 1960); and, Eliseo Vivas, "A Definition of Esthetic Experience," Journal of Philosophy, 34 ( 1937), pp. 628-634. 170. Raymond Durgnat, "Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic," p. 108. Rudolf Arnheim quotes Goethe, "The epic poem preferably describes man as he acts outwardly: battles, travels, any kind of enterprise that requires some sensuous breadth." (Recall Vachel Lindsay’s category for epic.) Arnheim also characterizes epic film as static, but has a large enough concept of epic to indicate that documentary film can be epic. See Arnheim's article, "Epic and Dramatic Film," Film Culture, 3, no. 1 (1957), pp. 9-10. 171. Raymond Durgnat, "Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic , " p . 108 . 172. See, for example, the National Film Archive in Appendix A, 2, under "Historical." It must be remembered that the majority of traditional genre critics do not use the term "historical film except, at times, in reference to the early Italian historical films. Hollywood critics have no delusions that there is any attempt to recount history. These are "spectaculars" first and foremost. 173. Antoine Vallet, Les Genres du Cinema, p. 49. 284 174. Regardless of his "public relations" statement in Cecil B. De Mille, "Forget Spectacle — It's the Story That Counts," Films and Filming, 3, no. 1 (October 1956), p. 7. 175. Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, p. 60. 176. Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, P • 74. 177. Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, P • 74. 178. An exception to this is the Japanese "contemporary drama." 179. Stanley Solomon, Beyond Formula, American Film Genres, p. 242. 180. Stanley Solomon, Beyond Formula, American' Film Genres, p. 242. 181. Stanley Solomon, Beyond Formula, American Film Genres, p. 245. 182. Antoine Vallet, Les Genres du Cinema, pp. 51- 52. 183. Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, p. 106. 184. See Jim Purdy, The Hollywood Social Problem Film (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981); David M. White and Richard Averson , The Celluloid Weapon (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972). Furthermore, there are countless examples of films initially classified with one group of films only later to be classified with another. No doubt director Pabst thought he was making a personal drama, possibly a sociological film; only later did it become clear that Joyless Street is best grouped with Germany's "street" films. If, for example, there is no way to distinguish among melodrama, drama, the crime film, the prison film, the social commentary film, and the "snatched from the headlines" story, how can The Big House be placed within a filmic principle of order? It cannot. In the same way, if The Big House was made in a time when dramas and melodramas were not separate and when crime films, prison films," and social commentary films were not separate, then classification must be flexible enough to name and rename The Big House as is appropriate. 185. See Joseph Freeman, "Biographical Films," 285 Theater Arts, 25 (December 1941), pp. 900-906; Cecile Starr Boyajian, "Film Portraits," Film Library Quarterly, 3, no. 3 (Summer 1970), pp. 11-15; "List of Historical-Biographical Films, 1912-1936," World Film News, 1, no. 10 (March 1937), pp. 10-11; Edward Connor, "The Composer on the Screen," Fi1ms In Review, 7 (April 1956), pp. 164-170; Rudolf Arnheim is one of the few exceptions in that he places biography under epic -- "a noteworthy variety of the epic is the biography" in "Epic and Dramatic Film," p. 10. 186. Typical is the example in Beyond Formula, American Film Genres, where Solomon lists as a sub category of the musical genre, the musical biography (p. 66) . 187. Antoine Vallet, Les Genres du Cinema, pp. 53- 55. 188. Antoine Vallet, Les Genres du Cinema, pp. 64- 66. He also cites "L'univers du western71 by Roger Fressoz in Radio-Cinema. 189. Raymond Durgnat, "Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic," pp. 109-110. 286 A WORKING THEORY OF FILM GENRE by Margaret M. Byrne Volume II A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Cinema - Television — Critical Studies) May 1988 Copyright 1988 Margaret M. Byrne UMI Number: DP22268 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, th ese will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. GMnariatton Publishing UMI DP22268 Published by ProQ uest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQ uest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United S tates Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 -1 3 4 6 FRAMEWORKS FOR A WORKING THEORY "The institution of theory is always hermeneutic, always bound to context and to the texts of the past rewritten for the present.... But this work of rewriting, because it is a writing, becomes at the same time part of the institution it changes and permits us in our turn to interpret it.l To build a theory of film genre, at least four areas need to be addressed: 1) terminology: clarify and re-define currently familiar terminology, and develop new terminology; 2) hierarchy: re-order and re-define hierarchical relationships among film genre and other categories affecting film genre; 3) guidelines: describe and explain current assumptions guiding definition and constitution of genre's operating principles; and, 4) practice: establish a process of consistent, practical working methods for building frameworks to study the nature of film genre. | i All these tasks are interdependent; no one can be accomplished separately from, or without consideration for the others. i I I I | i n . D . ,-Cm1 t e l ms 287 Problems and Questions Two previously stated goals of film genre theory/ criticism include: 1) to be able t_o place either an individual film or a film genre within a larger order, and, 2) by its placement to gain knowledge of its nature and relationship to other films and/or categories of film. These remain valid goals when considered within a theoretical context. All too often the desire to place a film within a tradition deteriorates into relegating a film to an inappropriate tradition simply for the sake of placement. Films are not pieces of a puzzle; they do not all fit into some grand scheme. To understand what sort of conceptual groundwork is needed to build a useful theory, let us examine three very specific examples: information film, super-8 home movies, and record films. All three categories have been considered film genres. But are they? What is their relationship, one to another? What is their placement within the larger scheme? The review of genre concepts in Chapter 3 helps to a small extent. From it, we know that super-8 describes a technique, like animation; and, technique is not the basis for the construction of a film genre. We also suspect that "information" and "record" may describe purpose, function, and/or use. (Information 288 - —, , i films disseminate information; record films simply record events.) It is unclear, however, what the relationship is between the information film and the record film — is the record film, for example, a subset of the information film? How are we to make that determination? We must be concerned simultaneously with 1) abstract definition and hypothesis; 2) naming; 3) construction as it currently exists, and always 4) a view towards the whole. One can guess that the information film category is significantly larger than that of either the record film or super-8 home movies. To what extent should the size and manageability of a category impinge on defining limitations? The literature does not address these questions — except to say that film genres should be manageable; specific frameworks for decision-making are lacking. As we begin to untangle the issues here, we are left with more questions than answers, and with a greater need for research and description than for casual hypothesis. An initial review reveals at least two main areas of confusion. Reshaped in question form, they are: 1) What roles are purpose, function and use to have in building a system of film genre? At what level should they affect category-building? and, 289j 2) What is film genre theory's relationship to theories of a) universal classification, b) art, c) communication, d) media, and e) media arts? How is film to be defined in terms of, and differentiated from art form, communication, and medium? Film: Medium and Art At present, there is neither terminology nor a conceptual organization to differentiate theories of "universal" classification from theories of communication arts and /or media arts classification. This problem may seem removed from the issues of film genre theory, but it is not. In its early history, for example, cinema and still photography might well have been organized by a would-be Vachel Lindsay or Iris Barry as individual art forms, on a par with painting, sculpture, architecture, or drawing. Until the 70s, art form and medium were often used equivalently in descriptions of film. Even considering Cavell's and Langer's contributions, there remained significant gaps in practical critical terminology regarding the definitions of both "medium" and "art form." Without here developing a theory of medium, it can be said that medium has come to mean more than its material base, more than its technical limitations; it now also involves its uses, its functions, its form of presentation, and all the resulting ramifications. "Art form" is no longer appropriate nor sufficient as a term 2 equivalent to film medium. Yet, the function of film as j art has a long-standing tradition and must be addressed t theoretically. A medium is a means of conveying, communicating, and/or expressing "something." As Gerald Mast has already pointed out in his definition: film is the medium of both still photography and cinema just as print is the medium of the paperback, newspaper, magazine, and book. To reiterate, the term "film" can refer to both the material medium (celluloid) as well as the communication medium (social institution). Furthermore, with "film," as with "book," for example, the term continues to mean an art medium, where expression is considered equivalent 3 to, and not a subset of, communication. We can make the assumption that all human expression, regardless of intention or form, is communication; thus, all film is necessarily a subset of 4 communication. However, for purposes of this study, it is far more important that film be distinguished from, rather than subsumed by, other disciplines. For example, cinema and still photography, like multi (mixed) media are separate sub- or hybrid 291 categories of the film medium; each has its own technical and/or aesthetic imperatives. It is aesthetic intention and organization which establishes an art form. Defining aesthetic and technical imperatives immediately helps to differentiate issues of art and medium at a practical level. What are the aesthetic and technical imperatives of the record film, or the information film? Does the record film have aesthetic intention, or by definition, does such intention preclude membership? If we dismiss the meaningless assumption that all human endeavor has aesthetic intention (merely by its existence), then the record film is an example of a "non-art" film. It uses the film medium; it has technical imperatives; it communicates; its purpose is not art; in the majority of instances it does not function as art, nor is it used as art. The same cannot be said of the information film. Tentatively then, we can say that the record film is not a subset of the information film; each belongs to a separate order . With clearer definitions of film medium and art form, some of the conceptual confusion which historically was carried over to genre study can now be resolved. Film as an art form i s a_ sub-category of film as a_ medium. See figure 1 . 292 293 Figure 1 Film As Media Art MEDIA (Theory of Media) (COMMUNICATION) MEDIA ---- (Theory of Communication Media) (Technical Imperatives) ART FORM (Theory of Art Forms) (Technical/Aesthetic Imperatives) (COMMUNICATION) MEDIA ART (Theory of Communication Art -- communication medium and art form) MOVING PICTURE MEDIA (Video, Film, Mixed) (Theory of Moving Picture Media) , MOVING PICTURE MEDIA ART , (Video, Film, Mixed) (Theory of Moving Picture Art) i l FILM (CINEMA) AS MEDIUM (Theory of Film Medium) Record Film FILM (CINEMA) AS MEDIA ART (Theory of Film Art) Informational Film We can identify some of the areas where theoretical frameworks and definitions are needed. At this point the areas are still undifferentiated. Placement and ordering is tentative. Technical imperatives are separated from art and aesthetic intention. Media are further differentiated into those ruled primarily by technical issues, and those ruled by both technical and aesthetic concerns. Types of media are separated -- for example, static three dimensional media from kinetic three- dimensional media — or, graphic arts from kinetic (moving) picture arts. These categories are further broken down by their function/use/purpose. (For purposes I j of this discussion) we can hypothesize two categories: 1) film as a technical medium without aesthetic use and/or intention; and, 2) film as a technical medium with aesthetic use and/or intention. Continuing this line of logic, record film falls under I the former, informational film under the latter. See figures 2 and 3. Super-8 requires re-definition. In effect, aesthetic intention establishes the most fundamental level of ordering, the role of what at this point we can leave as the undifferentiated umbrella concept -- "intention-purpose-function-use . ” 294 Figure 2 Film Medium: Aesthetic and Non-aesthetic Use Film as Technical Medium Record film Film Without Aesthetic Use or Intention Information film Film With Aesthetic Use or Intention 295 296 Figure 3 Proposed Placement of Film Genre Theory in Relation to Communication Arts Theories ART -- NON-ART I THEORY ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF COMMUNICATION ARTS r Media: Sound Print Paint Film Video — -J j Photography Moving Pictures ____________________I_____ r THEORY OF UNIVERSAL CLASSIFICATION OF MOVING PICTURES (all categories of moving pictures — basis for cataloguing) Moving Picture Arts Moving Picture - Other I THEORY ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF MOVING PICTURE ARTS Film (Cinema) Video I THEORY ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF FILM (CINEMA) ARTS I THEORY ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF FILM FORM THEORY ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF FILM GENRE All this may seem very obvious, but no working, practical application has resulted. The subordinate relationship of art form to medium provides a basis for proposing a constructive relationship among the following scholarly tools/methods: i j 1 ) cataloguing, 2) classification, and 3) genre system. That is, processes are related in that cataloguing is the most basic, genre the most sophisticated. A vertical scale can be hypothesized where cataloguing is primarily concerned with physical observation and description; systematization, on the other hand, involves a process of evaluation grounded only partially in information resulting from cataloguing. Classification lies between the two. See figures 4 and 5. With a knowledge of this conceptual substructure, it becomes possible to disentangle the often confusing manner in which categories and types of film have been constructed. There needs to be a universal theory — an overview and pratica for developing a process for cataloguing, classification, and genre system. Which categories of film, for example, are not subsets of film as an art form? films made by amateurs or made by children, ephemeral film made for research purposes, or 297 Figure 4 Cataloguing, Classification and Genre System A GENRE SYSTEM (organization and construction of categories based on complex concept-building and contextual evaluation, such as "world," tradition, intended effect, and so on. CLASSIFICATION (organization and construction of categories -based on observation, interpretation, and minimal evaluation, such as historical period, visual style, and auteur.) CATALOGUING (organization and construction of categories based on observation of physical properties: such.as technique, length, format, and so on.) Figure 5 Cataloguing, Classification and Genre System GENRE SYSTEM (organization and construction of categories based on complex concept-building and contextual evaluation) By form: Documentary feature Experimental short ! By genre: Hollywood western Japanese monster CLASSIFICATION (organization and construction of categories based on observation, interpretation, and minimal evaluation) Examples: I By historical movement: j Social realism | Neo-realism I By style: ! Surrealistic Expressionistic ! ! CATALOGUING ! I (organization and construction of categories based on observation of physical properties: Examples: By number of reels: Shorts Features By technique: Live-action Animation 1 299 industrial espionage clips -- do such categories of film fall within a domain other than film as an art form? What are the boundaries of such categories? Are they all non exclusive? Certainly some informational film has recognizable aesthetic organization, but does the entire category of informational film fall under film as art form rather than film as non-art form? Should the informational film be redefined so as to be a subset exclusively of film as an art form? How is it that "home" movies are not generally considered worthy of classification as an ! ! art form but examples of Lumiere's record films are? ] What is the underlying principle on which this decision i j is based? These and similar questions fall within the I scope of a theory of "universal" classification for film (cinema) as a medium. It is clear from the discussion in Chapters 2 and 3 that institutional imperatives -- whether critical, cultural, social, or historical — affect and in turn are affected by the formation and naming of categories of film. Numerous "devalued" groups of films are slipping through the cracks between the "significant" floor boards of the Hollywood fiction film and the documentary . The same kinds of questions which have been 300 — — 1 directed towards film genre in this study need to be posed for categories of film which are currently not considered part of the subset "art form" (media art). It is proposed that such questions, while not within the scope of this study, be addressed under one of several other needed theories, such as a theory of "universal" film classification, or a theory of classification of 5 moving picture (film-video) media. While there is much theoretical activity on the general nature of media, there is not the equivalent of comparative literature for the "modern" (commercial, electronic), communication arts. Each field operates more independently than inter-dependently. Critical terms often have different usages and meanings within and among fields, as students of popular culture have pointed out repeatedly. Similar critical terms are applied in the aesthetic evaluation and appreciation but not the hierarchical organization across media. Critics may use the same terms -- unity, beauty, fulfillment of the artist's intention, the informing idea, and so on — but each medium develops as an art form when it achieves its aesthetic through an organization specific to itself. Development of a comparable organizational terminology is much overdue. 301 Place of Film Genre and Theories of Classification Several levels of organizational theory are needed: 1) theory on the classification of communication arts; 2) theory on the universal classification of moving I picture (film-video) media; 3) theory on the classification of moving picture (film-video) media arts; and, 4) theory on the classification of film (cinema) forms. The relationship of the above named theories is one of narrowing scope. While the purpose of this study l does not include development of any of the above theories named, it is important to understand the subordinate relationship of a theory of film genre. Review figure 3. As film genre has been defined in this study, its placement is directly under the classification of film forms -- not a theory of "moving" picture arts nor a theory of universal classification. Film, as it is discussed in this study, is a media art; it is both film medium and art form. Film has been able to assimilate and transform elements of other media/ arts. Genre system, as it is discussed in this study, is limited to film as an art, but there is no reason why a similar conceptual organization will not 302 work for a much broader definition of film as both art and non-art. Redefinition ; Film Type and Film Form Employing the umbrella concept of "purpose- ! function-use" as a theoretical lynch pin, frameworks for a genre theory can now be constructed. Key to this genre theory is the filmmaker’s conceptualizing process — how the film is conceived and produced in order to fulfill the various perceived needs-uses, how in turn the film then functions. It is proposed that the concepts ’’film type," "film ; form," and "film genre" be redefined more specifically; I further, that a new term, "metagenre," be created in order to account for similar genres across cultures. Film type: a category of films encompassing all conceivable collections of films joined together by [ a single or group of common traits/ characteristics, whether it be narrative content, budget, critical acclaim, star, visual style, intention, technique, nationality, director's orientation, and so on, or some new concern not yet articulated. Film form: a category of films based on: 1) filmmaker(s)' conceptualization process; 2) economic base; 3) presentation; and, 4) audience relationship. Film metagenre: a sub-category of film form, based on the concept of "world," resemblance and/or tradition, intended effect, and/or target audience. Film genre: a sub-category of film form, based on the same concept as metagenre, but with limited contextual and cultural scope. 303 Film sub-genre: a sub-category of film genre, based on the same concept as genre, but with more narrowly defined construction. Film cycle: a sub-category of either a genre or a sub-genre, it explores a situation of topical interest and is limited to a specific time period (usually 2 to 7 years). See figures 6 and 7. I Film Type A "type” of film is a neutral term like category, with the difference that it is limited to groups of films with aesthetic organization and intention. ''Aesthetic” is interpreted in its broadest sense. Thus, i the primary distinction between "category" and "type" is I I scope. All fiction film, documentary, informational and experimental film as well as many sub-categories of nonfiction film have aesthetic intention and organization; categories of archive and record films, by definition, do not. Both the fiction film and sub-categories of the record film are "categories" of film, but of the two, only the fiction film may also be named a "type" of film. Currently, there is no counterpart term for categories of film which clearly do not fall within the realm of film as art form. Presumably, a theory on the universal classification of moving picture (film-video) media would address this need. 304 Figure 6 Hierarchy of Categories: Relation of Film Genre to Other Categories MEDIUM MOVING PICTURE ART (Film-video media) FILM (CINEMA) CATEGORIES OF FILM TYPES OF FILM FORMS OF FILM (Example s) Entertainment feature Experimental short METAGENRES OF FILM (Examp weste hor r o GENRES OF FILM (Example s) Hollywood western Japanese monster SUB-GENRES OF FILM CYCLES OF FILM V 305 Figure 7 Hierarchy of Categories: Relation of Film Form Film Type and Film Genre to Film Medium MEDIUM Examples: film; video; paint; sound; print. - Film Medium - Examples: still photography; film; mixed media. MOVING PICTURE ART (Film-video media) Examples: Film (cinema) art; video art; mixed media art. FILM (CINEMA) ART TYPES OF FILM (CINEMA) (The equivalent of category of film; based on a single or several characteristics; scope is limited to film as an art form -- not film medium.) Examples: fiction film, theatrical adaptation FORMS OF FILM (CINEMA) (Organized by economic base, presentation, audience relationship, and filmmaker(s)’ conceptualization) Examples: documentary feature, experimental short METAGENRES OF FILM (CINEMA) (Organized by "world," intended effect, tradition/resemblance, audience.) Examples: horror, gangster GENRES OF FILM (CINEMA) (Culture and context-specific meta genres) Examples: Hollywood gangster, Japanese monster Recall that Kracauer had used "type" to distinguish between story and non-story films. However, because he used story to evaluate whether some groups of film exploited their true "filmic" nature, his organizational structure was tied to his realist bias. When film was no longer defined in terms of realism, "type" lost its theoretical function and reverted to the generic meaning of any group of films. It is proposed that "type" be re-assigned a theoretical use. A single, shared characteristic such as topic, filmmaker's intention, technique, format, key j I player, budget, or narrative device can constitute a type of film. For example, both adaptation and animation may be termed types of film. Construction is based on the common characteristic of technique. Anthology, newsreel, and cine-magazine films are types of film; they are grouped by sharing a similar format. Star vehicles, such as John Wayne, Toshiro Mifune, or Alec Guinness films, are types of films. Star vehicles are a type of film. "Type" does not define any hierarchical relationship. Thus, naming animation as a type of film and Hanna Barbera cartoons a sub-genre does not imply that the latter is necessarily a sub-category of the former. No specific organizational relationship is 307 implied by the term type, while very specific limitations guide the use of "form," "metagenre," "genre,” "sub-genre," and "cycle." To clarify further, not only is the fiction film a type of film, but so are many of its sub-categories, such as the action drama, interior drama, or what Rotha names "branches," such as Comedy, Romance, Drama, or Epic. "Type" is not limited by context, culture, size, nature, or manner of construction. The purpose in expanding, re-using, and specifying the term "type" is to provide the theorist with a sort of "holding" category. From the readings in Chapter 3, it is obvious that many terms and categories of film are problematic. Epic, comedy, romance, and drama are examples. It is not the purpose of this study to define epic films so much as to create frameworks to address the problem of epic films. Naming as specifically as possible allows more accurate communication among film critics and theorists. Far more research is required to define epic films fully, but epic films can now be named. Given the limited research we have, epic films are not a form, metagenre, or genre of films. They are a type of film. Epic, the splendor of "architecture-in-motion" is more likely analogous to "tragic" than to the Hollywood gangster film. Epic is more appropriately discussed in terms of vision, mode, or style. By naming a group of films as a type, it is communicated that this is a loose collection of films falling within the umbrella concept of art (film as media art). It is unspecific, merely sharing one or more commonly recognized characteristics. It may require more study or more examples (produced films). Once specific, recognizable patterns emerge, the category of film may be more appropriately named a form, genre, and so on. A type of film, because its members are changing constantly, j tends to be more fluid than other, more narrowly defined categories of film. i Film Movement Based on the above definition of type, it is accurate, although not particularly useful, to name the collection of films produced by a film movement both a category and/ or a type of film. In fact, except for the time limitation, most movements produce types of films often resembling forms of film. Much confusion in terminology has resulted. Briefly, a film movement is characterized by a group of filmmakers with a unifying philosophic motive; they usually work in the same form and often the same genre; they produce films within a specific, 309 identifiable historic period; their vision often results in a notable and distinct style which then may produce significant repercussions across several types, forms, and genres of film. Examples of film movements include Free Cinema, Italian Neo-Realism, Surrealism, Expressionism, and Soviet social realism. Movements can come from within film, as with Italian Neo-Realism, or they can begin in one of the other arts, as with Surrealism. Movements can generate other movements and no subordinate relationship is necessarily implied. It is important to distinguish among participants of I the film movement, the style associated with it, and various groupings of films vaguely or specifically related to that film movement. Surrealism, for example, was a film movement within what is sometimes labeled French "avant-garde" film, roughly from 1916 to 1930, in France and Germany, and dominated by visual and graphic artists. Film examples include Germaine Dulac's The Seashell and the Clergyman (France, 1926), Salvador Dali and Luis Bunuel's Un Chien Andalou (France, 1928), and their L 1 age d ' or (France, 1930). All three films may be labeled "surrealist" films. As products of the surrealist movement, they share a similarity of: 1) vision, 2) appeal to the audience (how 310 it functions for the audience); 3) purpose -- to shock, to tease, to experiment with the irrational logic of dream; 4) the resulting production techniques, such as juxtaposition of symbolic imagery to produce the surrealist's fantastic vision; 5) economic base -- one similar to financing in the fine arts, that is, one which includes both private financing and alternative funding (as opposed to mainstream studio product); and, 6) the resulting alternative channels of distribution to the audience. In order to be labeled "surrealist films," that is, films coming out of the surrealist film i movement, they must possess all of the above-named characteristics. To clarify, surrealist films are a category of film because they share one or more traits; surrealist films are a type of film because they are characterized by aesthetic intention and organization. If the surrealist movement had continued to generate and regenerate film product, it might have developed a surrealist form of film; although surrealistic films have continued to be produced, there is only the most minimal suggestion at this point that a recognizable film form has developed. See figure 8. Documentary, on the other hand, a name with several 311 Figure 8 Hierarchy of Categories: Relation of Film Genre to Film Movements MEDIUM MOVING PICTURE ART (Film-video media) FILM (CINEMA) TYPES OF FILM (CINEMA) FILM MOVEMENTS: united by a common philosophic motive among a group of filmmakers, often working in the same form and same genre, who produce within a specific historic period, and usually with repercussions across several categories and genres of film. Examples: Free Cinema Neo-Realism Surrealism FORMS OF FILM (CINEMA) organized by filmmaker(s)' conceptualization, economic base, form of presentation, and audience relationship. Examples : Entertainment film Experimental short film Experimental feature (mainstream distribution) FILM GENRES SUB-GENRES CYCLES 312 meanings, is a film movement, film form, and film style. The British documentary movement of the early 1930s developed and grew to international proportions. Such films as Robert Flaherty’s Industrial Britain (U.K., 1932), Basil Wright's Song of Ceylon (U.K., 1935), or Alberto Cavalcanti’s Coalface (U.K., 1936) generated interest and continued film production because at some level the documentary form tapped into, among others, a public need. In terms of its theoretical characteristics, the documentary is virtually identical to surrealist film, with one significant exception: when the surrealist film movement ended, so did most production of surrealist films; although one can arbitrarily place the end of the British documentary movement somewhere near 1937 when Grierson left the GPO Film unit, documentary film production in no way ended; on the contrary, it 6 proliferated. The style developed by a film movement constitutes a type of film (unless or until a form develops). Examples of ’'surrealistic" films (films characterized by a surrealistic visual style) include Fellini’s _8 1/2 (Italy, 1963), Bergman's Persona (Sweden, 1966), Altman's Three Women (U.S., 1967), Resnais' Last Year at Marienbad (France, 1962), and Kubrick's Clockwork Orange (U.K., 1971). Many films, such as Hitchcock's Spellbound (U.S., 1945) and Polanski's Rosemary's Baby (U.S., 1968) have sequences characterized by a surrealistic style. A style crosses nationalities, cultures, time periods, economic bases, forms and genres. While it is certainly useful to recognize the significant influence the surrealist film movement has had by creating a surrealistic visual style, style is not sufficient to constitute a film form, or any of its sub-categories. Following what has been outlined above, the expressionist film movement can be distinguished from expressionistic films — - a type of film characterized by an expressionistic visual style; Currently there is no expressionist film form. To illustrate the different terminology, we can say that The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Germany, 1919) is an expressionist film, whereas Fritz Lang's M (Germany, 1931) and a number of sequences from such Orson Welles' films as Citizen Kane (U.S., 1940) and Lady From Shanghai (U.S., 1947) may be described as having an.expressionistic style. Film Form Bela Balazs and Eisenstein's thinking remains insightful: they suggested that film form can be identified by understanding the filmmaker(s)' conceptualizing process. ...visual stories ... [are] ... not 'literary,* ... the story does not begin with the invention of a plot but with the devising of the ... visual.... 7 The filmmaker(s)* conceptualizing process is as different from the literary process as it is different from the process of musical composition. Kracauer suggested this same thought but developed it along realist lines. Just as the literary artist does not tend to dichotomize form and content, but rather conceives of a whole (he knows he wants to write a short story about and/or in order to "x"), so does the film artist. Thus, the film artist wants to make a documentary, an experimental film, or short about and/or in order to "x." More often than not, he conceptualizes and creates fully aware of the elements that go into the "making" of his work from conception to exhibition. Just as a sculptor conceives with the medium of stone or wood or metal, already in mind, so does the filmmaker. Whether it is Stan Brakhage or Warner Bros., the conceptualization process includes such questions as: What materials do I need to make this film? What are the technical production issues? How much will it cost? 315 Who will pay for it? Who will see it? Under what circumstances? Which distribution channel? What am I 9 trying to accomplish and which form will serve me best? Marxist and so-called revolutionary theorists have at times claimed to be "outside" any commercial base. While they acknowledge an economic and ideological foundation, their purpose seems to be to "sever cinema from its ideological function." This is impossible. Cinema cannot be severed from ideology — dominant or other. One ideological position is simply replaced with another. Jean-Louis Comolli and Jean Narboni's partial I I definition of film is so obvious it is perhaps a truism, but one worth restating because it reaffirms film's economic base: What is a film? On the one hand it is a particular product, manufactured within a given system of economic relations, and involving labour (which appears to the capitalist as money) to produce — a condition to which even 'independent' film-makers and the 'new cinema' are subject — assembling a certain number of workers for this purpose (even the director, whether he is Moullet or Oury, is in the last analysis only a film worker). It becomes transformed into a commodity, possessing exchange value, which is realized by the sale of tickets and contracts, and governed by the laws of the market. On the other hand, as a result of being a material product of the system, it is also an ideological product of the system...10 316 It is proposed that form be defined in terms of: 1) economic base; and 2) filmmaker(s)’ conceptualization process, which necessarily involves both the form of presentation and the relationship with the audience. It is this definition of form on which it is proposed that a theory of film genre be based. Filmmaker(s)' conceptualization process does not mean simply aim, intention, or purpose. Like the concept of "encoder," "filmmaker" is an all-encompassing term. It is not useful to dissect the conceptualization process. It is far more likely the filmmaker, like the audience, envisions the product as a whole — that he simply understands the film in terms of a tradition or 7 history. Whether commercially-based (profit-motivated) film, or noncommercially-based, a tradition develops when the product achieves success in its purpose. Discussion of a film’s purpose, its uses, and how it functions for the audience are valuable concepts for constituting forms of films. The commercial, fiction feature, sometimes called "entertainment film," for example, is a form of film — not simply a sub-category of the feature film. This is because the entertainment film determines its own aesthetic; its economic base and its form of 317 presentation are both unique to itself, as is its purpose/ function/use by the audience. On all four basic points the entertainment film distinguishes ! j itself. The feature film does not; at present, it is I I little more than a type of film sharing format as a common characteristic. , Disney's Dumbo (U.S., 1941), De Sica's The Garden j o_f the Finzi-Continis (Italy, 1971), Hamer's Kind Hearts and Coronets (U.K., 1949) and Kurosawa's Throne I | f ! _ £ . Blood (Japan, 1957) are all members of the i entertainment film form. Eisenstein's The General Line (USSR, 1929) and Paul Fejos' The Last Moment (U.S., 1927), are feature films, but they are not part of the ( entertainment film form. See figure 9. r Examples of forms of film include "entertainment" short, "previews of coming attractions" trailer, advertisement film, public service announcement, | 1 interest film, training film, industrial film, or ! travelogue. In each example, differentiation comes from l four aspects: economic base, conceptualization, I I presentation, and its purpose/relation in terms of the | audience. j To clarify further, the fiction feature film is a type, not a form. Based on this study's definition of 318 Figure 9 TYPES OF FILM: fiction film, feature film, fiction feature film, nonfiction film, short film FORMS OF FILM Entertainment (commercial fiction feature) film Examples: Dumbo (U.S., 1941) The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (Italy, 1971) Kind Hearts and Coronets (U.K., 1949) Throne of Blood (Japan, 1957) Entertainment short (commercial fiction) Experimental feature Examples: The Last Moment (U.S., 1927) L 1 age d'or (France, 1930) Documentary feature (distributed commercially) Examples: The General Line (USSR, 1929) Hearts and Minds (U.S., 1974) "Previews of coming attractions" trailer Advertisement Public Service Announcement Industrial Travelogue Interest Training 319 film as economically-based, the difference between a profit-motivated and a government-subsidized fiction feature is viewed as significant. Not only is there a different economic base, but this in turn affects the filmmaker(s)’ conceptualization, the resulting relation between filmmaker and audience, and the form of presentation. But economic base as sole criterion is insufficient. The role of the audience must be an integral part of the theoretical definition. How does the filmmaker(s)1 production process adjust to meet the needs and/or expectations of the audience? Even though there is overlapping, each form has a readily identifiable though non-exclusive purpose/function: documentary is propagandistic, the experimental film expresses and explores, the training film is didactic (specifically towards skills-building), the 8 entertainment film tells fictionalized stories. See figure 10. And clearly no single term accurately describes a function; with consensus and usage, meaning is built. The feature film is not a form. The entertainment film is. The entertainment film is in a feature format; it has a commercial base; it is conceived and produced 320 Figure 10 Definition of Form FORM -- defined by: 1) Economic base: Examples: Commercial (mainstream and alternative) Government-subsidized Private financing 2) Conceptualization Examples are myriad, as diverse as the possible film forms. 3) Form of presentation Examples: Mainstream commercial theatrical presentation Alternative theatrical presentation Private presentation Non-theatrical presentation Distribution: Examples: Mainstream commercial distribution Alternative commercial distribution Alternative underground distribution Limited distribution Private distribution 4) Purpose/function for audience Examples: Persuade Teach Move to action Disseminate information Train/build skills Explore/Experiment Express Tell stories Describe 321 to be processed through mainstream commercial channels of distribution, and it is conceived as entertainment- fiction. The entertainment film form is a different form of film than the feature fiction film which is government-subsidized, is conceived and produced in order to persuade the audience of a particular doctrine, is conceived with both mainstream and alternative channels of distribution, is conceived as didactic/propagandistic fiction. The practical result of this distinction at the level of form is that Battle of the Bulge (U.S., 1965) and Lawrence of Arabia (U.K. , 1962) belong to one form while Potemkin (USSR, 1925) and Alexander Nevsky (USSR, 1938) belong to an entirely different form. Employing all four criteria expands the definition and theoretical function of the term "form.” The historically accepted "big three" forms -- the documentary, the fiction film, and either animation, the experimental film, or miscellaneous -- never illustrated the stated definitions of form. (See Chapter 2.) Nor was the definition flexible enough to expand as the number and types of film developed. (Although it shifted and replaced examples, film theory never expanded the number of film forms beyond three, for example. ) 322 It is important to remember that there are no sharp boundaries among film forms -- among, for example, the entertainment (feature) film form and the experimental feature which is distributed through mainstream channels. The boundary between Resnais' Last Year at Marienbad (France, 1962) and Bunuel and Dali's L 'age d'or (France, 1930) is inexact. In "marginal" forms, one relies on flexibility and a gestalt — a seeing the whole. The sarnie principle applies to film genres. Genre and Metagenre The review of key concepts in Chapter 3 demonstrated that there have been a variety of uses for the term genre. In general, however, it can be said that genre is not defined by any one criterion or any one set of criteria , as either necessary or sufficient i for naming a _ collection o f films as a_ genre. In addition, the theoretical basis for genre lies in the definition of film as a_ media art. And, as already reviewed in Chapter 3, and discussed above, hybrid and cross-over media, such as photography, mixed media, and video, need to be clearly distinguished from the uses and categories of film (cinema) itself. Defining margins and marginal categories can help to clarify the place of film among the media arts. Currently, the various forms of film (as defined 323 above) are sub-divided into genres without consideration for national or cultural influences. It is proposed that this position be modified to respect cultural differences. Culture-specific vision limits us and our concepts of film and genre. The new term proposed is "metagenre" — that is, a sub-category of form sharing similar genres. From a review of materials in both Chapters 2 and 3, we can say that construction by characteristics more appropriate to cataloguing such as subject matter, format, or technique are not valuable to a theory of 9 film genre. Further, it can be inferred from a review of genre histories and criticism that film genres are presently constituted in four useful ways. (See Chapter 3. ) Three means of constructing genre come from traditionalists. They are: 1) the concept of tradition; 2) the target audience; and 3) the intended effect. The fourth way of constituting film genres complements traditionalist and non-traditionalist positions; it is the concept of "world." All four constructions assume genre to have form (where form means a very general (abstract) but recognizable organization). A theory of film genre developed exclusively around one kind of construction is simpler but is ultimately 324 no less problematic. One might, for example, attempt to redefine the horror film and the children's film exclusively in terms of "world" — the "world of the horrific," and the "whimsical world of a child's imagination" -- thus eliminating construction by intended effect. Since so little work has been done on the concept of "intended effect," a streamlining strategy becomes appealing. To do so, however, implies that the western and the gangster film genres are constructed similarly to the horror film and the children's film. Present literature and analysis do not support this position. Whether "intended effect" t I | and "target audience" are names which most accurately I describe these manners of construction is debatable, but i the issue itself is not; film genres are constructed variously — not singularly. "Tradition" has received attention from several critical approaches/ positions. There is no substantial, theoretical work done on "intended effect" It It It 325 and "target audience/ relationship with audience." is thus very difficult to put forth more than the vaguest of hypotheses regarding these two ways of constructing film genre. In contrast, there is the concept of "world." crosses and is compatible with various criticisms. has been developed both outside and within the discipline of film art. It has created theoretical bridges rather than barriers. While it is not all- encompassing, the concept of "world’' has gained increasing validity not only as a way to understand film genre, but as a paradigm to approach theory-building. Genre as Dynamic: Tradition and Evolution A discussion of tradition assumes a knowledge of the rise and evolution of film genres. Tradition presupposes both history and evolution. There can be no such thing as the western, the gangster, or the musical comedy film. Tradition is built through creative modification by great filmmakers and the stability provided by a consistently successful product. Within a tradition what we actually have is a collection of films, of varying number, but with a recognizably specific set of "resemblances." A tradition encompasses different historical periods, filmmakers, film audiences, film movements, often exhibiting both continuity and discontinuity, similarities and differences. As Gerald Mast so accurately described, at times it may be that two films of different traditions have more in common that two 10 films of the same tradition. While our sense of 326 purity may feel somewhat violated, such concepts as "purity," "fixity," or "essence" are contrary and inappropriate to ja definition of tradition — to a definition of genre. At its most reductive level, a study of genre is not merely a study of the collections of films specific names have come to represent; a study of genre is the descriptive use of those names. From, for example, the discussion of epic in Chapter 3, it should be clear that usage changes. In practice, a _ study of film genre is a^ study of the meaning of the name and naming process involved in, for example, the term "epic." Whether it is Italian historical epic, epic spectacular, epic vision of David Lean, or silent epic, there is no fixed set of formal features common and sufficient to define all of these types of films as a film genre. While there is a_ single term "epic" used, it in no way represents the notion that a _ single, formal feature is sufficient to define these various collections of films. This is a fundamental principle of the film genre theory here proposed. Even Marc Vernet’s reworking of the conceptual relationship of "presence" and "absence" assumes that a fixed set of characteristics can eventually — with presumably enough time and effort — be derived. That 327 is, Vernet's theoretical (structuralist-semiotic) position assumes fixity. Structuralism undermines tradition when it assumes fixity. The concepts of "presence" and "absence" when connected with fixity, as Vernet does and Sartre does not, undermines tradition. The concept of "resemblance" -- of generally recognizable, generally associated features — is more compatible with the idea of tradition. Both are dynamic — not fixed. Thus, no specific feature is absolutely necessary for the constitution of a _ film genre. No weapon has to be fired for a film to be labeled a war film, for example. Characteristics generally associated with a particular film genre are those which, over the course of time, have gained consensus and acceptance — are "uncontested" -- and thus form a "paradigm." This idea of "paradigm" has been misunderstood as i the "essence," the "template," the "ideal," or the "core" of the constitution of a film genre. A paradigm should be fluid; it evolves. Tradition can be thought of as a progression of paradigms. By illustration, see figure 11. In its initial phase, a genre may have a cluster of seven recognizable features; at a later stage the cluster has changed; they are not the same seven features; the features are not 328 329 Figure 11 TRADITION (Progression of Paradigms) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8 2 3 4 9 6 7 8 9 10 4 12 6 14 8 9 10 11 12 '.13 14 | Clusters of recognizable features can evolve and change to the extent that no | single feature is fixed over the history and evolution of a genre. i and can not be fixed. What is recognizable is the evolution of the paradigm. The dynamic evolution of a paradigm, unfortunately, often makes for a complex naming process. This is, I believe, the single greatest challenge to genre critics and theorists. Enforcing fixity, however, leads neither to clarity nor to an understanding of film genre. To illustrate, take a problematic type of film which has been a source of much study, much confusion, and much debate — the film noir . One of the important characteristics of film genre is that as a _ film genre builds and expands its tradition, it may evolve through several different categories, as for example, film noir has . In fact, film noir has moved through many types of film, from film movement to film cycle. It has not, of course, developed to a metagenre or film form, since it remains a product of Hollywood. The transition from one type to another is dependent upon the intersection of three elements — of 1) production — a growing body of films; 2) the naming process of the critic/theorist; and these within 3) a specific context/time frame — history. To clarify by specific example, look at John Huston's The Maltese Falcon (U.S., 1941) -- the 330 ! acknowledged "first" significant film of the film noir J genre. This uncontested, successful, "classic" film is | obviously a member of many types of films, such as i t ' Dashiell Hammett adaptations, Humphrey Bogart films, crime films, private eye films, murder mystery films, love story films, and so on. It is exclusively a member ! ' of the entertainment film form (as opposed to some other j film form). But it is not exclusive to film noir. Although it initiated film noir, it is a member of more ■ than one genre — at minimum the Hollywood detective film and film noir. Another common characteristic of I film genre is that "first fi1ms" and "classic fi1ms" are most often synthetic; they belong to more than one genre♦ During its initial phase, most of the first noir films followed the hard-boiled detective film. At that I point in time, a critic might have labeled film noir not a film genre but either 1) a cycle of the hard-boiled r ! detective sub-genre or 2) a type of film having the 1 ; possibility to form a sub-genre of the detective film on a par with the hard-boiled detective film. See figure 12 for the historical relationship of noir to the Hard- ! boiled Detective sub-genre. As a cycle, noir was riding the coattails of the first box-office success. It explored the themes set 331 Figure 12 Historical Placement of Film Noir in Relationship to the Detective Film Metagenre ENTERTAINMENT FILM FORM DETECTIVE FILM (METAGENRE) j i i I r— .......... Genres — ■ ........ ■■■--« ! 1 I I | French Hollywood Japanese , Detective film Detective film Detective film Sub-genres Hard-boiled (Noir - 2) Detective Cycles Cycle of Hard-boiled Detective (1941-1946) (Noir - 1) 332 out by such writers as James M. Cain, Dashiell Hammett, and Raymond Chandler; in 1948 a critic might have accurately described the cycle as extending from 1941 to 1946. Examples included: Murder, My Sweet (U.S., 1944), The Blue Dahlia (U.S., 1946), and The Big Sleep (U.S., 1946). However, once noir began to evolve beyond the Hard- boiled detective film, as with Double Indemnity (U.S., 1944) and it began to enrich the world of the hard- boiled detective with a labyrinthian world of crime and passion, it necessarily established itself as more than a cycle. It evolved from the exploration of a specific situation to a recognizable world. At that point, what was a cycle of films had the potential to expand to a sub-genre or genre. The burden was on the critic to recognize the growth and evolution of noir, and in turn to re-evaluate, and to re-name it accordingly. In 1948 it would have been difficult to determine whether noir was going to be a sub-genre of the Hollywood detective film, or develop into its own genre. With historical perspective, the critic can see definable patterns. For example, variations on the hard-boiled detective film continued through to as late as Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly (U.S., 1955) and a valid case can certainly be made for Polanski's Chinatown (U.S., 1974). The blending of the hard-boiled detective and noir was not merely a cycle, but was a sub-genre of the Hollywood noir genre. In fact, from a current perspective, it would seem that noir is as much a sub-set of the Hard-boiled detective sub-genre as the Hard-boiled detective film is a sub-genre of noir. Figure 13 illustrates the relations among the Hollywood detective genre, the hard- boiled detective sub-genre, the film noir, and the hard- boiled detective noir cycle from 1941 to 1946. The years 1944 to 1946-1947 are the transition period when film noir developed from a cycle to what in this study is named a genre. The cycle could have evolved just as easily to sub-genre, however. The pivotal film marking that transition, as already stated, was Double Indemnity (U.S., 1944). If production had stopped there, noir would probably be seen as a sub genre. But other key films continued to set new directions for growth -- films such as Gun Crazy (U.S., 1949) , Out o f the Past (U.S., 1947), and D ♦0.A. (U.S. , 1950) . From these brief paragraphs, it is clear that the task of naming is difficult. At this point only issues of cycle, genre, and sub-genre have been noted. Types of film, such as noir, epic, melodrama, or comedy are 334 Figure 13 Subordinate and Coordinate Relationships Between the Hard-boiled Detective Film and the Film Noir Hollywood Detective Genre Hard-boiled Detective I Sub-genre Noir Hard-boiled Detective ' Noir 3 35 problematic because they involve not only the evolution through sub-categories within a form, but also because they cross over to categories outside their own form. By definition, film noir could have been accurately described as a film movement. The lack of an articulated philosophic motive makes proof somewhat difficult, but there was a body of filmmakers producing films with a unity of vision. And out of this came what is known as a noir visual style. The film noir movement died. What remains is a recognizable visual style and a somewhat limping genre. I Occasional noir films emerge, such as Chinatown (U.S., 1974) and Body Heat (U.S., 1981), but the growth and flowering of the genre occurred in the late 40s and early 50s. Part of the concept of evolution is that genres die. The dilemma facing the genre critic is complex. Which films are to be associated with the genre, which with the movement, which with noir as a sub-genre of the detective genre, which with the 1941-1946 cycle of the hard-boiled detective film, which with the noir visual style? There must be overlapping. A single film can be part of any one or all of the potential clustering within the concept of noir. When our theoretical terms are clear and we understand the difference, for example, 336 between a movement and a genre in abstract, then noir is not complicated with confusion; it is complex, undoubtedly, but like pointilism clear and rich. Further, it is important to distinguish between a I J film genre and the several types of films often associated with but outside the genre. While all films are members of some category of film, not all films are members of ja film genre . Clarifying boundaries and associated types of films helps t.o define a genre. Examples of associated types of films include: those which are "precursors," those which share similar i characteristics -- perhaps a style, but are not members of the film genre, and those which are "marginal" or "mixed." A great film, an acknowledged classic, often initiates a film genre. In the case of film noir, the acknowledged classic is John Houston's The Maltese Falcon (U.S., 1939). All films made prior to the pivotal classic -- to Little Caesar (U.S., 1930) for the gangster, to I_t Happened One Night (U.S., 1934) for the screwball comedy, to Broadway Melody (U.S. , 1929) for the musical — are precursors. Thus, Murnau's Vampyr (Germany, 1932) and D. W. Griffith's Musketeers of Pig Alley (U.S., 1912) are appropriate to a discussion of sources and evolution, but they remain precursors; they 337 are members of various types of films — not members, for example respectively of the film noir or the gangster genre. Film noir genre grew from the blending of several sources: from the visual styles of German Expressionism and French poetic realism; from other film genres -- Warner’s gritty gangster films, other film types — I movies of crime and passion; and from other media arts, in particular the popular mystery novels of the Black Mask school, more often called "Hard-Boiled Detective" l or "tough-guy" novels. Although film noir can be traced in part to German Expressionism or gangster films, this does not make film noir a subset of either. Genres i often have their source in other genres or types without being sub-genres or sub-sets. Like so many genres, the birth of the film noir was the intersection of several elements — visual and narrative sources, key players, technical advancement, and so on. It is also, like Cavell's idiosyncratic definition of medium, a creation and exploitation of possibilities. Style, Genre and Vision: Working Assumptions The terms "treatment," "vision," "style," and "world," need to be redefined more specifically in terms of genre. It is proposed that the primary difference 338 among them be one of scope. Treatment refers to a single filmmaker or key player’s manipulation of as little as one film. Vision, on the other hand, involves a filmmaker or key player and a body of his works. Genre (as constructed by "world") and style both involve a body of films and filmmakers. Thus, one might discuss Capra's treatment of fantasy in It's _A Wonderful Life (U.S., 1946), Capra's vision throughout the course of his career, the noir visual style he employed in both It's _A Wonderful Life and Meet John Doe (U.S., 1941), even the nightmare world he created through the use of noir style. But the Frank Capra "comedy-noir-social consciousness" blending is not a sub-genre of noir. Furthermore, It's A. Wonderful Life and Meet John Doe are not within the noir genre or one I of its sub-genres. Capra has a vision which creates a distinct world i — one which, if co-created with other filmmakers, could potentially have formed a sub-genre of noir. As such, these two films are gifted with Capra's vision. They do not form the basis for "world" as a construct for a genre or sub-genre. _A genre and/or a _ sub-genre is a _ body of films produced by a_ body of filmmakers. By the definition set up in this study, neither John Ford nor Frank Capra nor any one filmmaker's films 339 compose a genre or sub-genre. The concept of "world," by definition, is larger than any one auteur’s vision. The situation is similar for the concept of style. Although style has had several uses and meanings — the Ophuls style, the Selznick style, the Marlon Brando style — it is proposed here that style be kept more on a par with genre. A more specific definition is preferred. Rather, examples of style would be the documentary style, the surrealistic style, the noir style. A style is linked with a film movement, not an individual. To clarify by example, Jacques Tourneur's Out of the Past (U.S. , 1947) expands the world of noir and is a member of the genre, and more specifically part of the "crime and passion" with a "femme fatale" sub-genre; Siodmak's The Spiral Staircase (U.S., 1945) is a suspense-thriller in the noir style; and, Capra's Meet John Doe (U.S., 1941) has darkly-treated sequences much influenced by the noir style. A genre alone is not a source for style — in other words, a western style, a gangster style, or if epic formed a genre, an epic style. To reiterate, style means the unified vision of a body of filmmaker(s). Thus, a studio can produce one or several styles; so can a culture or sub-culture. Sub-genre and Formula Historically, sub-genres were organized as variously as genre — based on plot, setting, mythic archetype, characters, historical periods, stars, filmmaker(s), and more. Traditionalist genre histories most often defined a genre not in terms of characteristics and construction, but by stringing together a collection of so-called "trends,” "sub-categories," and "variations." Recall from Chapter 3 that popular mythic critics, such as John G. Cawelti proposed, that formula replace genre, making the concept of sub-genre moot. Such has been the theoretical basis for sub-genre. It is proposed here that sub—genre be constructed and defined with consistency in terms of its "parent" genre and that formula be defined as any fixed set of characteristics. For example, with regard to sub-genre, if the Hollywood Western is constructed in terms of "world," then its sub-genres must reflect this same construction; if the Hollywood horror genre is constructed both by intended effect and world, then horror sub—genres can be constructed based on any variation of either or both criteria; if a military training film is constructed based on target audience and intended effect, then its sub-genres are similarly constructed. 341 Sub-genre and formula do not have interchangeable meanings, although they may overlap. As a term, "formula" has been most commonly associated with the narrative elements (plot, characters, setting, lines of action) of the entertainment film form. This is an unnecessarily narrow usage. For other film forms, like the documentary or the industrial film, a set of similar characteristics has been more likely to be termed a "pattern." But most forms, except perhaps the experimental film form, have definable formulas. As part j I of the agenda for genre studies, formulas from film forms | other than the entertainment film must be studied, j analyzed, and delineated. Although Cawelti's narrow definition of formula as ! narrative is disputed, his notion that formula is | cultural is not. Preserving this aspect of formula while at the same time maintaining the hierarchy proposed in this study, thus places formula, like sub-genre, as a category subordinate to genre. To clarify by example, look at the Hollywood western. The "B" western, the 50s gunslinger western, and the early singing cowboy romances have been called sub-genres. They are not. The "B" western is a type of film; the 50s gunslinger western is a formula; and the singing cowboy romance is a hybrid. Most sub-categories, 342 t when constructed from narrative elements, the revenge story, for example, are formulas — not sub-genres. An example of a sub-genre of the Hollywood western is the world of the cavalry outpost during the Indian wars, or the California gold rush. A ’’world" contains many stories; a narrative formula is only one. Cycle At present, there is no obvious reason to re-define I "cycle." Thus far, it has been used exclusively to refer to members of the entertainment film form. One option might be to expand its use to other film forms, as with the term "formula." As already discussed above under evolution, and as defined by Lawrence Alloway, a cycle is a group of films which "explores a basic situation repeatedly, but from different angles and with accumulating references"; a cycle is connected to topical themes, thus historically limited to a time-frame reflecting audience interest (usually two to seven years). An example of a cycle within the Hollywood western is the Weapon-western (1950- 1952) — Winchester 73 (U.S., 1950), Colt 45 (U.S., 1950), Springfield Rifle (U.S., 1952), Only the Valiant (U.S., 1951), and The Battle o f Apache Pass (U.S. , 14 1952). Once a cycle extends beyond a very specific and 343 limited time-frame, it verges on either a sub-genre or a perhaps a hybrid film of some sort. Cycles are not constructed in the same way as sub-genres, although at a specific point in time in the evolution of a genre a cycle and a sub-genre may overlap and be virtually identical. A cycle is often, although not exclusively, formulaic. Because both cycle and formula can center on narrative elements, they may refer to the same group of films. Like genre and sub-genre, a cycle is created by a body of filmmakers. Thus, even if John Ford or Fritz Lang or Joseph Von Sternberg explores the same thematic situation within the same genre, and within a two to seven year period, this is not a cycle of films. In the same way, even if Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers make a group of similar films within a restricted time frame, this does not make a cycle. The Astaire-Rogers musicals do, however, create a formula. Marginal, Hybrid and Mixed Films One of the observations one must remark upon in charting the genesis and evolution of a genre is the presence of certain types of films which relate to but do not fall within the definitions of form or genre. Two terms, which remain problematic, have been applied to 344 these types of films. They are '’hybrid" and "mixed." Neither term has been used with regularity. They tend to be used interchangeably. Both have tended to mean a crossing, or composite of two genres or sub genres. Johnny Guitar (U.S., 1954), for example, has been labeled a western-woman's film, Crossfire (U.S., 1947) a social-consciousness-noir, or Battle of Algiers (Italy-Algeria, 1967) a docudrama. In one sense, most films and most genres are hybrid, in that they are not "pure." That is, a film is synthetic. A tentative distinction one might pose is that hybrid refers to a more unified whole, while mixed refers to a less integrated collection of parts. In making such a distinction, the obvious concern is the potential confusion the notion of unity implies. It is preferable to free genre terminology as much as possible of traditional notions of evaluation. Nevertheless , there are a significant number of I films which: 1) fall around the edges of a genre; 2) bridge more than one genre; and/or 3) mix important elements (and sometimes theoretical criteria) of more than one genre. Rather than simply naming these "types" of films, it might be more useful to assign them specific terms. "Marginal," "hybrid," and "mixed" are respectively proposed as working terms. A great deal 345 more research is needed since this study did not examine these types of films in any depth. Hierarchy Based On Use/ Function If we look to the history of the film medium, there are two acknowledged traditions out of which film has evolved: that of Lumiere and that of Melies. These two traditions co-exist in all their contradiction and complementarity. The Lumiere tradition involves using film as a record — capturing the ambiguities of life realistically. Lumiere was the first to place the camera so that action could be recorded and stories enacted. Melies, on the other hand, was a magician and a technician concerned with the tricks of entertainment. From these two traditions film theory hypothesized a number of continua. In particular, realist film theory associated Lumiere with fact and reality, Melies with fantasy and abstraction. Realist film theory further connected the concept of realism with the degree of human intervention. Recording actualites, as Lumiere did, involved the least amount of human intervention and was most valued, while Melies* contrivances were devalued because of over-manipulation of the medium. V. F. Perkins re-iterates the extent to which realist film theory had pushed definitions of form; he states that at 346 one end of the continuum were ...forms of documentary, which aim to present the truth about an event with the minimum of human intervention between the real object and its film image; at the other end lies the abstract, cartoon or fantasy film which presents a totally controlled vision.15 The realist bias had mixed categories of fact and fiction with the concepts of form and formative manipulation. It is this realist bias which has had a stranglehold on the concept of form, and in part that of genre. Where film studies have begun to take genre and make it "their own," form has been limited to narrow historical definitions. Rather than a continuum, it is proposed that form be redefined in terms of function and use. In the realist theoretical models, form ranged from j the "unformed" record/factual film to the "formed" abstract film. The genre critic and theorist was in the awkward situation of having to place genres along this continuum. The documentary found itself in an unlikely and inaccurate position near the record film, while fantasy and animated children's films were linked with the experimental and absolute films. Hybrid and mixed films, such as the "city symphony" films, for example, which did not easily affirm the organization of the realist continuum were simply not addressed. Understanding film in terms of the Melies and 347 Lumiere traditions remains valid. It is the interpretation which must change. From another perspective, it might be suggested that from the Lumiere tradition several forms of film emerged — the record film, the interest film, the story film. From the Melies tradition still other forms of film were generated — the experimental film, the entertainment fiction film. If form is redefined in terms of how it functions for the audience and the culture, then there is not a continuum ! of a limited number of forms. Instead, there is a potentially unlimited number of relatively independent forms. See figures 14 and 15. I t How does film function for the audience, for the culture? Does it inform, illustrate, dramatize, fictionalize, teach, train, advertise, motivate, inspire, humor? The fact-fiction continuum is far too limiting. It is thus proposed that an examination of how categories, types and forms of film function for the audience (its value to the audience) is a far more interesting direction to take genre studies, and that the agenda for genre studies be re-directed towards the culture's uses and relationship to genre. A Working Model; Genre as Process In his theoretical notes, Alf Louvre has already 348 Figure 14 Theoretical Foundations Form: Historical Traditions i i Lumi ere Melies Record film i I Experimental film Entertainment fiction film Interest film i i f i r True Life Narratives Historical Chronicle Fictionaal . narrative Documentary Docudrama 349 Figure 15 Theoretical Frameworks Form: How Film Is Valued (Used by/Functions for) the Audience NOT A LIMITED (LINEAR) CONTINUUM RECORDING REALITY (FACT) 1 CREATIVE TREATMENT OF REALITY (FICTION) RATHER INDEPENDENT AND/OR INTERDEPENDENT, MULTIPLE USES Expressin Recordkeepin Illustrating Describing Storytelling Teaching Discovering Motivatin to Action 350 j argued that it is no longer useful to define genre in terms of its formal characteristics -- in terms of filmmaker as genius, film as "magical entity," and audience as "disciplined and passive receivers." Rather, genre is dialogue; it is a "lived" relationship. The audience is an active member of the genre process. If we simplify the genre process, it can be broken down into several steps: — Initially, the filmmaker(s) wants to make a film. As he goes through the conceptualization process, various decisions are made regarding the formal (as re defined in this study) characteristics of the film. Part of that conceptualization process assumes that the filmmaker conceives his new film in terms of a shared tradition. The filmmaker then makes the film and distributes it to his audience. -- At this point, as the audience is about to enter the film experience, it may, as E. D. Hirsch and Leland Poague have suggested, operate from a "generic" or perhaps more accurately a "formal" hypothesis. That is, the audience expects a specific kind of film experience based on its own background and knowledge. The film then functions for the audience in a specific way. This function is further tied to the 351 audience's process of expectation and fulfillment — what Louvre calls recognition and consolidation. At the most reductive level, if the film functions successfully for the audience, then the film is judged to be a success. How the audience communicates to the filmmaker(s) that the film was a success depends upon the form of the film. — A successful film becomes a model, thus initiating, reaffirming, and/or redirecting a tradition. , See figure 16. To clarify further by example, a filmmaker wants to ! make a training film. By the nature and tradition of what a training film is, the filmmaker knows that for the film to be "successful," it must build specific skills in i a prescribed audience. The filmmaker designs his training film in terms of his knowledge of tradition. This may entail duplication, expansion or denial of what have come to be considered successful formulas, and/or patterns; it necessarily involves the filmmaker(s) ' reaction to the tradition, however. Part of the tradition from which the filmmaker is working establishes such factors as the film's budgetary constraints, how the film is to be made, common production techniques, available distribution channels, where and under what conditions the film is to be screened. The filmmaker knows something of his audience 3 5 2 Ti gure 16 Genre Theory: Working Model Changing historical/social/cultural context Changing critical environment Box office/Economics Paradigm of Tradition I I I filmmaker(s) conception “ film Sb audience Formal / Characteristics 353 and designs his training film with them in mind. The experienced film audience shares this tradition with the filmmaker. The cultural environment provides cues for the audience. The audience’s film experience is not limited to a set number of minutes before a movie screen. Preview information, the place and manner of exhibition, the individual or shared social experience all contribute to this notion of tradition. Distribution and exhibition of a training film are very different from a cinemascope entertainment‘spectacular. A training film may be viewed in isolation in a small cubicle; the common training film provides a social experience quite apart from that of an entertainment film. The question of function is not limited to whether or not the film proved effective for the audience. It is not a question of whether or not the film fulfilled its purpose or function. The focus regards how the audience uses various categories and forms of film to fulfill its perceived needs. A film tradition is necessarily tied to the culture. The genesis, variations, health and decay of a form or a genre reflect the concerns of a society. To reorganize a genre system in terms of function and use is to refocus the priorities of genre study. What is the underlying motivation for creating a system of genre? Is it simply to work out a neat and logical set of terms to describe the cultural chaos known as film genres? Yes, in part. Genre, as a naming tool, must be clearly and conceptually organized. But equally important, genre as a process for naming has cultural meaning. Cavell's definition of genre as medium no longer appears quite so idiosyncratic. Indeed, genre is a cultural medium through which filmmakers and society communicate. The study of genre is in part the study of culture. Summar y The working theory as proposed in this chapter is tentative. It has attempted to: re-define and clarify organizational and conceptual terminology, hypothesize guidelines as to the nature and process of genre, and to explain various coordinate and subordinate relations among categories of film. To have value, a theory of genre must be worked and re-worked by the film community at large. The purpose of this working theory, thus, was not to provide an exhaustive list of re-definitions of problematic categories of films. It was not intended, for example, as a study of either epic or the informational film. The aim was to re—define and clarify key naming tools, such 355 as form, type, formula, and sub-genre. A new term, metagenre, was proposed in order to bridge and to resolve cultural differences among fundamentally similar categories of film. The working theory proposes that genre be based on a re-definition and use of the term form. Form is defined I in terms of use and function; it is no longer useful to , i confine form to a realist fact-fiction continuum. Genre is no longer defined by any one criterion or any one set of fixed criteria. Not all films are members of a film genre. Genres are constituted in four ways; by tradition, relation to audience, intended effect, and J world. Genres are constructed variously — not j monistically. Genre is dynamic; it evolves, often | i through several different theoretical categories. This is probably the single greatest cause of confusion in genre studies. Genre requires a sophisticated knowledge of the history of film. To reduce genre to a cataloguing [ I or classificatory tool is to gut what can become a significant means for understanding one of society's important cultural media. 356 NOTES 1. Dudley Andrew, in Concepts in Film Theory, (pp. 131-132) also states: "Not a governing discourse outside history and films, theory is exactly the process of rewriting our historical moment through films. Like genre, like the institution of the movies itself, film theory is a stable site crossed by continual re- evaluation. In its own way and in its own time film theory re-evaluates (revalues) the life of textuality, the power and function of texts." 2. The lack of more specifically-defined terminology reflects the lack of conceptual organization. For example, there is no critical term to distinguish between two art forms sharing the same medium — cinema and still photography. Nor is there terminology to describe two different media sharing a similar (though not identical) communication system -- cinema and video. Despite the significant contributions of semiology, current terminology does not address adequately the difference of material — the film medium — from language system -- coded, connotative signs. 3. Students of communication unequivocally view film as a subset of communication. However, students of film are not so adamant. Film departments across the U.S. exemplify the confusion; some operate under Theater Arts, others undfer Performing Arts, Fine Arts, or Literature and Languages, still others under "TV, Radio, and Film," Audio-Visual, Broadcasting, or Communications; a few are independent. Knowing the history of film and its multiple parentage helps to explain the continuing confusion, but it does not help us to place film. 4. In a similar fashion, we can assume all human endeavor is art; thus film is art. This sort of naive generalization, however, whether or not it is true, is not helpful. 5. A metacategory to include yet separate film from video is here named "moving picture" media and/or art. Video is not a subset of film — nor film a subset of video. A fairly strong case has been made that the medium by its very nature changes the material. The transference of the western, for example, from film to television wrought changes in technique, production, story and characters to name but a few. See Kathryn C. Esselman's article, "When the Cowboy Stopped Kissing His Horse," in Journal of Popular Culture, 6 (Fall 1972), j pp. 337-49, and Horace Newcomb, TV: The Most Popular Art . j Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1974. A i theory of classification of moving arts needs to include t film-video crossover issues such as, after-theatrical markets, films made for television, for cable, filmed 1 television programs, or videos shot with the purposes of 1 theatrical release. Television advertisements, for ! example, shot in film, but presented on television, fall within the scope of moving picture arts. Saturday ! morning animated cartoons, shot in film, but produced in , a television format, is another category more appropriately discussed under moving picture arts rather l than cinematic arts. By the nature of their technical j and aesthetic imperatives, film (cinema) and video ! involve distinctly different audience experiences. The 1 difference results in part from presentation. Film ; (cinema) is, for the most part, exhibited: a) j theatrically; and b) non-theatrically. Video is ( presented primarily by way of television. I | 6. Recall from Chapter 3 that documentary is defined j in terms of: 1) its initial appeal to the audience (how I it functions for the audience); 2) the camera's "ability i to record ... pictorial description"; 3) the | documentarist's purpose — the "creative treatment of reality"; 4) the resulting techniques to produce the \ documentarist's vision; 5) its commercial base -- its financing and funding; and, 6) channels of distribution to the audience. The statement that the surrealist movement "ended" does not mean its influence ended, or even that one or two significant surrealist filmmakers, such as Bunuel, did not continue to produce. 7. Bela Balazs, Theory of Film, p. 187. 8. Of course, one aspect of the conceptualizing process can be allowing the idea to "write itself," the image to "paint itself," so to speak. The process may or may not be deliberate. When deliberate, it is the experimental conceptualizing process of which Maya Deren speaks. It is also similar to the direct cinema and free 358 cinema processes where the filmmaker allows the situation or experience to "direct" the course of the film. But even this conceptualizing process is recognizable to audiences. In its own way, it too, is based on tradition. 9. Jean-Louis Comolli, and Jean Norboni, "Cinema/ Ideology/ Criticism." Screen 13, no. 1 (1972): reprinted in Screen Reader I, 2-12. It is also a truism that: "Because every film is part of the economic system it is also a part of the ideological system, ..." This does not mean, however, that ideology provides the most useful sort of organization for film genres. Jean-Loup Bourget refutes the very superficial and typical view — for example, "What the camera in fact registers is the vague, unformulated, untheorized, unthought-out world of the dominant ideology." 10. "Understand" can mean follow the tradition, work within the tradition, react to the tradition., attempt to undercut the tradition, or de-construct the tradition, but it necessarily implies that the filmmaker must in some way address tradition. 11. The use of the name "entertainment" involves more than the purpose to entertain; after all, many forms of film purport to entertain -- the interest film, for example; but entertainment is not the interest film's dominating use. The fundamental aspect of the "entertainment" film, and it is not reflected in the name, involves its fictionalized storytelling aspect. Storytelling does not mean plot, characters, or dialogue. 12. See the review of cataloguing "systems" in Chapter 3. Briefly, the following criteria are not the bases for either film form or film genre; they may be the bases for types of films (as noted in parentheses): a) by format, such as feature, cine-magazine , anthology; b) by physical characteristics: by length (short films), by aspect ratio (cinemascope), by stock (color), by sound or the lack of it (silent film), and so; c) by technique: various categories of animation (silhouette, puppets, etc), compilation (chronicle), and adaptation (Shakespeare); d) by channels of distribution: mainstream, independent, underground; e) By studio: Toho, Ealing, Disney; f) by key player: by star, director, producer; g) by filmmaker(s ) ' motive (to change opinion), purpose (to incite to war), or intention/aim (to portray the truth); h) by audience experience — how the film functions to educate, provoke to action, to entertain. 359 13. As quoted in Chapter 2, see footnote 86, Gerald Mast, Film/Cinema/Movie, p. 23. 14. See Lawrence Alloway's essay, "The Iconography of the Movies," Movie, no. 7 (FebruaryMarch, 1963), pp. 46 . 15. V. F. Perkins, Film As Film, p. 60. 360 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical- pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable, or poem unlimited... Polonius, II, 2, Hamle t Summary What is a film genre? A review of the literature suggests that there are numerous definitions, deriving from both filmic and filmologic models. Realist, formalist, Marxist, Freudian, structural, linguistic, ideological, popular mythic — each has contributed significant insights, and each has ultimately failed as a method of organization. The error has been consistently the attempt to force film into a logical, pre-conceived model. Film no longer needs the authority of another discipline to have value. There is present in the history of film the basis for organizing film genres. It is not so necessary to seek models outside of film as it is to reinterpret and re-evaluate what is already known. Rethinking and re analyzing historical, theoretical issues reveals concepts of form and genre which are compatible with and organic to film studies. The history of theories of film and form have led to an expansion and evolution of what was originally a very 361 simple model. The tri-partite relationship of filmmaker -film-audience attracted other elements, then focused and refocused interest on the varying relationships among the elements. With the addition of each new element, the film model was enriched, but was also more susceptible to i confusion. The elements forming the basis for a working j 1 film model presently include: film, filmmaker(s), studio/industry environment, economic base, critical/theoretical environment, audience, and i historical/ cultural context. All of the above elements j have been addressed and integrated into the working model j ! forgenre. i The working theory proposed in this study is tentative. It provides frameworks and a way of thinking about genre. It is not an exhaustive list of forms and j genres. Nor is it an attempt to explain fully the numerous problematic categories of film. Rather, it is an attempt to: 1) re-define organizational and conceptual terminology; 2) explain hierarchical relationships; and, 3) describe general characteristics of genre. Above all, it is an attempt to provide perspective and direction. The working theory may be described as "holistic," "polycentric," and "dynamic." It is based on a model which values how genre functions for the audience, and how in turn genre acts as not merely a naming tool, but 362 as a means of cultural communication. Specifically, genre is grounded in a re-definition of form where form is constituted by: 1) its economic base; and 2) the filmmaker(s)' conceptualizing process. This conceptualizing process takes into account not only the shape and form of the film itself, but technical production, exhibition, distribution, and the audience experiencing it. Neither form nor genre are, nor can they be, based on either a single criterion, such as structure, or a complex of criteria -- icons, settings, motifs, patterns -- that is, of parts without a vision of the whole. In reviewing the literature, interestingly enough, there are very few groups of films which are consistently labeled as film genres. The Western is one, the Gangster film another. Although not unanimous, the general concensus is that the Musical, Horror film, Hard-boiled Detective, Science Fiction film, War film, and Screwball Comedy are also film genres. Most categories and types of film, however, remain problematic. There is almost no agreement regarding epic, romance, comedy, or melodrama. Indeed, there are few categories of film which have not at some point in their cataloguing/ critical career been labeled film genres. There are numerous explanations for this state of 363 critical and theoretical confusion. The lack of system, of perspective, of a methodology, the value conflicts of "insiders” and "outsiders," the evolution of meaning, abuse and misuse of terminology are only a few of the reasons. Much of the confusion can be disentangled, as Chapters 2 and 3 attempt. Genre criticism and genre histories are numerous; yet, genre theory is virtually non-existent. In fact, I I genre criticism and history have tended to operate i without theory, from inferred theory, or at times from a j l base in realist or formal film theory. The result has been much activity, without accompanying clarity. In terms of theoretical development, traditionalists have operated with some consistency. However, they have been without priorities. In particular, there has been no theoretical work done in the areas of target audience i and intended effect. When faced with "insider"- "outsider" language (translation) conflicts, indirection and the lack of an agenda, issues have only been confused further. Useful dialogue thus has been minimized. In terms of construction of film genres, the contributions of filmologists ("outsiders") have been minimal. While they have infused a wealth of ideas into film study, their extremely narrow interest in the Hollywood genre film has limited the usefulness of their 364 work in terras of film genre theory. Like traditionalists, they lack perspective. As defined here, genre is constituted in four manners: by tradition, intended effect, audience, and /or world. Tradition and "world" are most developed as theoretical concepts. Each has received attention from several critical positions. I "Intended effect" and "target audience/ relationship with | audience" suffer from the worst limitations of the j traditionalist's approach; there is no substantial, theoretical work done in these areas. It' is thus very difficult to put forth more than the vaguest of hypotheses regarding these two manners of constructing film genre. i I Implications for Further Research ! i The work done in the preceding pages is little more than a glancing of a sparrow's wing. The study of genre remains unmined, waiting. The work required to pull genre study together into a comprehensive and clearly organized field of theory and criticism will take years of hypothesizing, testing, re testing, and re-evaluating. There are, however, a few areas which demand immediate attention. These areas impact fundamental theory-building. To outline briefly, a few of the more significant areas requiring attention 365 include : (1) In the first few pages of Chapter 4, a whole collection of needed theories of classification was outlined. While genre system is neither a cataloguing nor a classification system, several universal theories encompassing issues of cataloguing and classification are needed to clarify the margins of genre issues. They include : a) theory on the classification of communication arts; b) theory on the universal classification of moving picture (film-video) media; c) theory on the classification of moving picture (film-video) media arts; and, d) theory on the classification of film (cinema) forms. (2) A number of categories and types of film have proven problematic. The informational film, the epic, the historical film, and what are labeld "modes" by Northrop Frye. Modes have been associated with narrative categories, but modes need to be reviewed in terms of all categories of film — not simply those members of the entertainment film form. (3) Under the discussion of tradition and evolution in Chapter 4, it was suggested that genres evolve through 366 multiple categories. Genres can thus be named variously over the course of their development. Categories which are presently seen as problematic, when examined with this principle in mind, become complex but understandable . (4) Although animation was tentatively named a type of film constructed by technique, the question deserves further study; in particular, the question needs to be asked whether or not animation is a medium equivalent to still photography, or mixed media; if so, then does animation have its own separate sub-categories, types and genres? (5) One of the greatest limitations in trying to pull together the literature in order to analyze and synthesize ideas was the lack of adequate research tools. The confusion over naming and terminology is a researcher's nightmare. There is little consistency among research tools, with each index or handbook organizing forms, types, and genres differently. (6) The lack of rigorous scholastic method so apparent in film studies, is perhaps the single largest stumbling block to genre studies. It is essential that genre critics and theorists recall that genre is not merely Hollywood narrative and icons; technical, aesthetic, and economic imperatives must be included in 367 any sort of meaningful description of genre. (7) While a number of both filmic and filmologic approaches have provided valuable insights to genre studies, these various "perspectives" have not been defined explicitly. The psychoanalytic approach, the Marxist approach, the archetypal approach, and so on, explicated in terms of genre, can be a rich storehouse for genre theorists. (8) Very little work has been done to reclassify culture, let alone film genres, from an international experience. Yet, clearly film is an international medium and needs to be addressed as such. Furthermore, the different cultural perspectives impact filmmaking, films, film audiences, and the film experience. An overview of film genre from an international perspective is crucial before very much more work can proceed. (9) Donald Richie has suggested that the content of the Japanese film is not radically different from that of films in other countries. He has pointed out that the average Japanese period-film has an equivalent in the American Western, that the Japanese home drama is similar to France's — that both Stella Dallas and Rene Clement's Gervaise are Japanese haha-mono. The main difference is merely the Japanese filmmaker's attitude towards his audience, the singular way in which both tend to think of 368 the film product. But this difference, which Richie minimizes, is extremely significant. A theory of genre must be able both to connect and to differentiate Stella Dallas, Gervaise and haha-mono. The concepts of metagenre and genre attempt to address this problem, but they need extensive research and support in the form of specific examples from international film. (10) Each of the components and its relation to the other components of the working model needs to be further developed. For example, the relation between box-office and genre needs to be charted. It would seem that box- office and film genres are interrelated. In what ways they are interrelated and to what extent they are interdependent is an area which requires further study. Box-office and profitability have gone hand-in-hand with cycles of films. The silent adventure serials, the 30s Woman's film, the Japanese sci-fi/horror flicks in the early 50s — these cannot be reduced to the vision of a single director, the power of a studio, the significance of a popular writer, or the magnetism of a star performer. The economic relationship of profitability and popularity in film genres needs to be explored. Furthermore, it is important to understand from both an historical and theoretic position in what ways box-office helps to generate new film genres or at least sub-genres. 369 Similarly, the various channels of distribution and the effect on the audience's viewing experience needs to be examined and related to forms and genres of film. A number of new forms of film were proposed in Chapter 4, but greater knowledge of the audience's film experience will surely reveal many more. (11) Throughout this study, the need for more specific terminology with more precise meaning has been pointed out repeatedly. One example is that currently, there is no term for categories of film which clearly do not fall within the realm of film as art form. There is no equivalent for "type," "form," or "genre," where film is not defined in terms of aesthetic organization and intention. Presumably, a theory on the universal address this need. (12) Last, and perhaps most obvious, two critica bases for genre construction — "intended effect" and "target audience" — require extensive, in-depth research . Genre is a rich and complex study. At times, the study of genre has seemed more frustrating than illuminating. Although genre was borrowed from other of moving picture (film-video) media would 370 fields, film studies has made genre its own. Genre now reflects the very nature of film. Like film, genre is omniverous, synthetic, mixed, incomprehensible, mutable, dynamic. Genre is core to film studies. It is the "yellow brick road" by which we can dialogue and reflect on human society. Genre, like film, is a window and a mirror to ourselves. APPENDIX A The following appendix contains outline summaries of the general cataloguing and classification systems of: 1) Library of Congress (Washington, D. C., U.S.A.); 2) National Film Archive (part of the British Film I Institute, London, England); ( | 3) UNESCO (Paris, France); I 4) Magyar Filmstudies Archive (Budapest, Hungary); 5) Belgrade Cultural Centre and Beograd Film Institute ! , (Belgrade, Yugoslavia); ' j i I One of the current and significant issues which j • becomes very apparent in reviewing these classification systems is the absence of nonwestern categories of film I (all the Japanese genres, for example). Also note the j lack of standardized terminology and organizing principles. In most standard cataloguing systems the primary defining characteristic for film genre is still content. In general, films are broadly categorized by: — content (subject matter); ) -- technique (puppetry, animation, pixillation); — fiction or nonfiction; — format (feature-length, trailer, serial, series); — nationality (country of origin); and/or i -- structure (underlying organizing principle); — a dominant defining characteristic (any one or 372 combination of the above, including purpose, function, and treatment). Classification remains geared to print media, thus the emphasis on subject matter. There is of course no theoretical foundation. The purpose of the classification has been pragmatic. The result is that film genres are found at the broadest, most encompassing levels as well as at the narrowest of sub-categories. 373 1. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (U.S.A.) CATEGORIES OF FILMS (Categories are determined by use of three designators: format, content, and technique.) Different FORMATS: Fiction : Features — 3 or more reels Short features — 1 or 2 reels Telefilms — features for TV Theatrical serials TV entertainment or dramatic series Other TV films Trailer Nonfiction: | Factual j Newsfilm j TV series I TV news I TV other | Trailer i CONTENT descriptors: i Fiction | Adventure ( Biographical Children, films for Comedy Detective-criminal-mystery Drama Erotica Fables, myths, legends Fantasy Historical Horror-suspense-thriller Musical Political Psychological Religious Science fiction Sociological Sports Spy 374 Surrealistic-experimental War Western Nonfiction Advertising Art Dance Experimental Films by children Films by students Historical documentary Industrial Instructional-educational Language-literature Music Nature. Political documentary Promotional Propaganda Public service i Religious j Scientific j Social documentary I Sports j Technological I Travelogue I TECHNIQUE descriptors: Fiction Cartoon Puppet film Model film Silhouette film Computer animation Graphic filim Collage film Pixillation film Nonfiction Cartoon Puppet film Model film Silhouette film Computer animation Graphic animation Collage film Pixillation film 375 SCREEN - TITLE RECORD -- NITRATE CONTROL INVENTORY SYSTEM GENRE Genre This field has 35 characters. The list below is an authority list; do not use any variations or add any terms. Separate each term with a space. Do not select a genre term unless you have viewed the film or are reasonably certain of the film's content. Genre Terms: Adventure Adver tising Animal Film Animation • Art Biographical Black Film Children's Film Corned y Compilation Crime Dance Documentary Drama Educational Erotica Ethnographic Experimental Fantasy Historical Horror Industrial Legend Music Musical Nature Film News f ilm Novelty Promotional Psychological Religious Science Fiction Science Screen Test Serial 376 Sports Spy Suspense Travelog Unedited Footage Vaudeville Views War Film Western 2. NATIONAL FILM ARCHIVE (BFI) FORM INDEX (The form index is divided into two parts: by fiction and nonfiction; then sub-divided by country of origin. Those categories marked with an * are included from the older, unrevised system.) FICTION: Adventure General Jungle adventure Legends, Myths, etc. Animal As hero in feature films Children Produced for children Comedy General Dome stic Farce Romantic ^Continuations: Serials Crime General Gangster as Hero Police as Hero Spy as Hero ^Detective and Thriller Drama: General Domes tic Melodrama Psychological Romantic Sociological (politics, race problems, drugs, etc.) Epic 378 Fantasy Historical General Prehistoric B.C.-Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Jewish civilizations, etc. -100 A.D. 100-1900 A.D. 1900-1999 A.D. Horror Musical: General Ballet Jazz Opera, straight performances Science Fiction Sex War General World War 1 World War 2 Ireland (Eire) Korea Sino-Japanese Vietnam Western NONFICTION: Brief Descriptions Actuality reportage Compilation ' " ‘Continuations: "'Cinemagazines Documentary having some socio logical theme or message 379 Instructional/Educational: ^Research teaching of any kind industrial or professional training — ap prentices, medi cal students, etc . Interest: treating a factual subject in a popular manner Propaganda: ^Advertising Trailer short film type Travelogue FICTION/NONFICTION: Amateur General Children (made by) \ Clubs and societies Students Animation General Cartoon Computer Diagram Drawing on film Models (mostly inanimate objects for nonfiction) Puppets (mostly animate objects for fiction) Silhouette Still image and moving lens Trick Experimental Movements General Expressionist Free Cinema Neorealist Realist Surrealist 380 ^TREATMENT INDEX (Treatment has a somewhat peculiar usage here, being a combination of technique and format; it is sub-divided by country of origin and date. Under the revisions, this section was eliminated.) Compilation Experimental: Abstract Avant-Garde Sound: Hand-drawn sound Stereophonic Television Three-Dimensional and Wide Screen Stereoscopic wide screen 381 3. UNESCO (Paris, France) TYPES OF FILMS (One' dominant defining characteristic is used to determine type of film; characteristics include: purpose, subject matter, format, treatment, and function.) Factual: Record: Documentary: Informat ion: Instructional: Training : Research: Demonstration: Descriptive: A factual film lays emphasis upon the events with which it deals. Film in which phenomenon are registered or represented as they normally occur. Film utilizing material, actual or reconstructed, drawn from real life and based on a sociological reference. Factual film of typical life and scenes, principally of interest value, not necessarily instructional. A film to aid the acquisition of knowledge. A film designed to help in acquiring a technique for a specific purpose. A film made for the better observation of phenomenon on which research is being carried out. Film representing phenomenon arranged specifically for the camera. A descriptive film presents a group of facts in a coherent form, but without showing the group's relation to, or interaction with', groups exterior, to itself. Interpretative: Film used to interpret scientific facts to a lay audience. Integrational: An integrational film presents a group of facts and shows how they may be interrelated to form a complete item of knowledge. 382 Actuality: Newsreel: Cine-magazine: Compilation: Historical: Fictional: Biographical: Motivation: Film recording an actual event or events events without acting, special posing, or reconstruction. Actuality film of current events. Short film composed of several diverse items of topical or general interest, after the manner of a printed magazine. Film composed essentially of individual films or extracts from films, each forming a separate and distinct contribution but which, as parts of a planned whole, make up an entity. A film made to reconstruct or to describe events of a past era. A fictional film illustrates certain facts or ideas by the use of imaginary people or things. A biographical film lays emphasis upon the relations of a particular person or persons, living or dead, to a particular set of events. A motivation film is one which encourages, inspires or recommends a particular course of action. 383 4. MAGYAR FILMSTUDIES ARCHIVES (Hungary) GENRE OR FILM CATEGORIES IN CURRENT USE LONG AND SHORT FICTION FILMS Psychological drama Society: sociology, work, profession, ethnography, etc . Natural sciences: Expeditions, discoveries Animal films, etc. Arts History of film, styles, compilations, trailers Entertainment films Adventure films: crime films, espionage, horror films, westerns, science fiction, films for youth and children Fantasy: comedy films, slapstick, satire, filming of literary works, filmed theater Musical: ballet, classical music, opera, light opera, musical comedy, variety show Biographical films: geography, travelogs , history, history of past centuries ANIMATED FILMS Cartoons Puppet Films 384 DOCUMENTARIES/NONFICTION FILMS Newsreels Magazine Films Reportage Documentaries Scientific Films: films on art, industrial films, agriculture, health, etc., didactic or popular science films Compilations ADVERTISING FILMS * * # EXAMPLES 1. Fiction films adventure films anti-war films serial films family films fascist films TV films TV plays film comedies film satires horror films American Indian films children's films war films filmed literature comedies fairy tales musical films: ballet film, concert, musical, opera, light opera, show, hits 2. Documentary film propaganda films anti-war films TV reportage fascist documentaries film portraits 385 film reportage war films sport films 3. Popular Science film sex education films expedition films experimental films research films cultural films utopian films sport films 4. Films on Topical Subjects newsreels discussions interviews commentaries short reportage sports statements 5. Instructional films sex education films school films 6. Entertainment instructional entertainment entertaining reportage shows public performances quiz sessions hit parades 7. Advertising films 8. Animated films puppets folding tricks puppet films silhouette films cartoons 386 5A. BELGRADE CULTURAL CENTRE (Belgrade, Yugoslavia) GENRES OF FILMS History Geography Science and Technology Mathematics Physics and Chemistry Biology Medicine Other categories Culture and Arts Literature Painting and Sculpture Music Theatre, Film, Television Museums and Libraries Ethnography and Folklore Social and Political films Industry and Mining Mining Metallurgy Electrical Equipment Industry Wood and timber Industry Other categories Agriculture Farming Livestock Raising Hunting and Fishing Veterinary Silviculture Tourist Trade Hygiene and National Health Hygienic and Technical Protection at Work, Civil Defense Calisthenics and Sports Transportation 387 Technical Instructional Films Cartoons and Puppet Films Short Fiction Films Feature Fiction Films 388 5B. BEOGRAD FILM INSTITUTE (Belgrade, Yugoslavia) (As specified in its introduction, the method is purely practical, the purpose being to fix "a complete and allembracing series of terms for the genres already in existence. Categories are established according to four different criteria, arranged in two groups: 1) structure and technique, 2) aim and theme.) FILM GENRES Structure and Technique documentary fiction film cartoon graphic film puppet film silhouette film collage film with models Aim and Theme newsreel magazine report propaganda film advertising film trailer scientific-research popular science educational film cultural film industrial film film on economics film on art nature film travelogue ethnographic film social film psychological film melodrama biographical film historical film war film adventure film criminal film spy film thriller western phantasy film science fiction horror film legend fairy tale fable burlesque comedy parody 389 satire music film opera operetta musical ballet film poem film critic abstract film free theme film SUPPLEMENTARY MARKS: /animated/ /trick/ /with animals/ /photographed performance/ /archives/ / adaptation/ /anthology/ /omnibus/ /serial/ /experimental/ /school/ /amateur/ /for children/ /TV/ FILM GENRE TERMINOLOGY (by structure and technique) Documentary: "presents and explains facts of real life, preserving their authentic character by either registering them authentically, or presenting them as already registered in the form of some document/photograph , newspaper, art work, manuscript, etc./. Examples: March of Time, Every Man A King; Moi, un noir ; Chronique d 'un ete; Radium; Steps of the Ballet; Forest Murmurs; Film and Critic No. 2 - The Overlanders; Berlin, Symphonie Einer Grosstadt; Sagaj, Sovet; Esquimo Glace; L'Hyas; La feerie des automates; Caller' Herrin'; Der Storch; Making a Mural." 390 Fiction Film: ! Cartoon: Graphic Film: Puppet Film: l i Silhouette Film: Collage: Film With Models: "as a rule, interprets some action by means of live creatures/men or animals/. Examples: trailer of The Greatest Show on Earth; Les Francais chez vous; Peyton Place; Scarface; Dracula; Les aventures des pieds- nickeles; Oklahoma; Le poison d'or; La coquille et le clergyman." is a film where drawn or painted figures, shapes or lines, photographically recorded on the film, move thanks to the animation technique. Examples: Weg Zum Nachbarn; Man in Space; Fly About the House; Inspektor se Vraca Kuci; Pikolo; Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; Johann Mouse; Diagonalsymphonie." is "the animation of figures, shapes or lines is being achieved by drawing or painting directly upon the film surface. Examples: Pen Point Percussion; Blinkity Blank; Begone Dull Care; The Colour Box." where "puppets and similar figures are being put into motion by means of special techniques. Examples: Sen Noci Svjatojanske; Bajaja; Inspirace." "animates pictures made of cut-out, projected or in some other way formed silhouettes. Examples: Die Abenteur des Prinzen Achmed; La nuit sur le mont chauve; Retour a la raison." "is a film animating cut out parts of still photographs, draings or paintings. Examples: Do It Yourself Cartoon Kit; Labyrinth." "presents objects in motion, regardless of the technique of animation. Example: Ztarcena Varta." i 391 j 1 (by aim and theme) Newsreel: j Magazine: Report: Propaganda Film: Advertising Film: j Trailer : Scientific Research Film: "a documentary collection of short film news items on actual events of current interest from all aspects of life. Examples: Fox Movietone News; Pathe Journal.*' "consists predominantly of news or reports of general or special interest, often united by a common theme, released in series, and having magaine publications as their model. Example: March of Time - Every Man A King. "is a more elaborate documentary survey of some event or phenomenon presented by means of personal observations of the reporter. Examples: Jungle Patrol, The Primary; The Nine Hundred. "serves for the propagation of social, political and economic goals and achievements, whether using the techniques of the documentaries, the fiction films, the cartoons or any other type of film. Examples: Weg Zum Nachbahn; Voz Vcik; Sagaj Soviet. "is used for direct propaganda of certain goods or services; it can be made in any existing technique. Examples: Esquimo Glace; Renault." "is a short film serving to advertise some other, usually longer documentary, fiction, cartoon or similar film; it consists, mostly, of extracts from them. Examples: trailer Peter Pan; vorspann Der Tiger Von Eschanapur; trailer Louisiana Story." "registers the results of scientific research with the purpose of the advancement of a branch of science; it is designed for experts as a document on a certain phenomenon. Examples: 392 Popular Science: Educational Film: Cultural Film: Industrial Film: Film on Economics: Film on Art: Film on Nature: L 1Hyppocampe; L'flyas." "explains scientific phenomena or achievements; designed for a general audience, it is made as a documentary, a cartoon or in any other form. Examples: Our Friend the Atom; Der Storch; Gift of the Green; Echynococosis." "treats, mostly in instructive manner, various scientific themes, with the purpose of serving as a means of systematic or supplementary teaching; it can be produced in any technique. Examples: Keppler and His Work; A for Atom; Uranium." "explains, regardless of its form, some elementary facts of the most different realms of life in a popular and instructive way, with the aim of contributing to the broadening of the knowledge of the audience. Examples: Man In Space; Mosquito; Healthy Water." "which is dominantly documentary in character, shows industrial production processes. Examples: Pipeline; Birth of a Jeep." "is, most often, a documentary presenting economic phenomena and problems. Examples: Antarctic Whalehunt; PTT; Drifters." "presents the life work or the working methods of some painter or sculptor, or analyses descriptively one or more works of art, most often in the form of a documentary. Examples: Van Gogh; Le Mystere Picasso; Making a Mural; Cantiche delle Creature." "is a documentary presentation of the beauties of nature and of the life in it. Examples: The African Lion; Prowlers of the Everglades." 393 Travelogue: Ethnographical Film: Social Film: Psychological Film: Melodrama: Biographical Film: Historical Film: "describes parts of the world, countries and towns from the viewpoint of the travelling reporter, which is the reason for its predominantly documentary form. Examples: Caribbean; The White Continent; Conquest of Everest; Captain Scott's Last Journey." "describes the life and customs of various peoples and regions. Examples: Moi, un noir; Daybreak in Udi; Nanouk of the North." "can be a fiction, documentary or any other film which exposes some social situation, depicting it as cause of individual or collective destinies. Examples: Ladri di Biciclette; Peyton Place; Cistoe Nebo; Rocco e i suoi fratelli." "treats, primarily, the psychological moods and emotional changes the personalities are going through. Examples: Smultronstallet; Le crime et le chatiment; The Heiress." "is characterized by the stress laid upon action or emotion, while the behaviour of its characters does not result from their nature and psychology but from a grossly constructed action set forth in advance. Examples: L'Ombra; Forsterkristl, Halalos Tavezs." "has a story based upon biographical elements of some important personality, with the freely treated facts of his life; it appears, mostly as a fiction film, although other forms are not excluded. Examples: The Story of Louis Pasteur; Van Gogh; Akademik Ivan Pavlov; Lust For Life; La symphonie fantastique." "presents some historical events, 394 War Film: Adventure Film: Criminal Film: Spy Film: Thriller: W e s t e r n : freely interpreting facts and bringing to life the spirit and the atmosphere of a given perod, sometimes in the form of a spectacle and by varying techniques. Examples: Austerlitz; Lenin v. 1918 Godu; Ulisse; The Vikings; D-Day to Paris." "treats war events on the front or behind the enemy lines, and can be produced in any technique. Examples: To Hell and Back; Halls of Montezuma; La traversee de Paris; Zdaj Menja; Okinawa; Stalingradskaja Bi'tva." where "the protagonists go through dangerous and dramatic situations full of unexpected changes, often in exotic settings; any technique can be used. Examples: Tarzan Finds A Son; The Elephant Walk; The Red Pirate; The Corsican Brothers; Kon Tiki; Among the Headhunters." "deals with different kinds of criminal activities and the struggle to detect the criminals in a thrilling and dramatic action. Examples: Scarface; Maigret tend un piege; Dial M for Murder. "deals with war and peace-time spy stories. Examples: Mata Hari; Gibraltar; The Man Who Never Was." "has its action based upon elements of suspense deriving from a natural, but veiled course of events. Examples: The Birds; Gaslight; Shadow of a Doubt; The Trouble With Harry." "recounts the life at the time of settlement and stabilization of the so-called Wild West in the United States of America and is usually full of life and dynamic action; it can be produced by varying techniques. Examples: The Gunfight at O.K. Corral; High Noon; Wichita; My Darling Clementine; Arie Prerie." Phantasy Film: Science Fiction: Horror Film: Legend Film: Fairy Tale: Fable: "is not based upon any possible or imaginable events of real life, but is characterized by fantastic events, and is the fruit of sheer fantasy; it is usually produced as a fiction film, but also as a cartoon or in any other technique. Examples: La nuit fantastique; Dead of Night; Metropolis; La beaute du diable; Alice In Wonderland; Fantasia." "deals with the fictional adventures of heroes in conflict with the inhabitants of till now unknown worlds or with supernatural monsters with whom they come in contact by means of imaginary and fantastic scientific achievements; it is usually a fiction film, but it can appear in any other technique. Examples: Journey to the Centre of the Earth; Godzilla; War of the Worlds." "is based on a horrific story. Examples: Frankenstein; Dracula; Et mourir de plaisir." "is a poetic film story, presented as a fiction film, cartoon or by some other technique, describing some event of the past preserved in the traditional beliefs of the people. Examples: Die Niebelungen; La coronna di Ferro; Jungfrukallan." "is a film with a fictitious story and queer, supernatural creatures, objects, animals, mostly borrowed from the beliefs of the people; it appears as a fiction film, cartoon or in some other technique. Examples: Kamenij Cvetok; Tom Thumb; The Sleeping Beauty; Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs; Peter Pan; The Wizard of Oz." "is a story with a moral attached; its characters are humanized animals, regardless of the technique by which they are shown. Examples: Une fee pas 396 Burlesque: Comedy: Parody: Satire: Music Film: I i i Opera: Operetta: comme les autres; Lisa i Drozd." "is a piece of film buffonery based upon exaggerated humorous events and upon rough, violent and mostly cheap humour; it appears in all techniques. Examples: L'Arroseur arrose; Max et le quinquina; The Gangster; One a.m.; Our Hospitality; Les aventures des pieds- nickeles; Helzapoppin." "deals with humorous characters, features and situations, regardless of the technique used. Examples: Le silence est d'or; Volpone; Pane, Amore e....; Pan Prokouk Vinalescem." "is a film imitating in a comical or mocking manner some artistic or other work and caricaturing its principle features; it can appear in all techniques. Examples: L ’homme a 1 1 impermeable; Carmen; Son of the Paleface; Arie Prerie." "sharply ridicules human and social vices and abuses, and appears as a fiction film, cartoon or some other type of film. Examples: Mon oncle; Clochemerle ." "is a production with vocal and instrumental soloists and groups appearing in what is otherwise a dramatic or comic plot; it is produced in all techniques. Examples: Orchestra Wives; Paris chante toujours; Johann Mouse; Young Man With A Horn; Muzikanti; Instruments of the Orchestra." "has a story composed exclusively of vocal and instrumental means. Examples: Rigoletto; Aida; Eugen Onegin." "is a film with light music and, usually, light plot in which songs and dialogues interchanges as its integral parts. Examples: Oklahoma; 397 i Musical: The Merry Widow; Die Fledermaus." where "show and dance performances or spectacles with musical accompaniment dominate the plot; it can be produced in all techniques. Examples: Band Wagon; An American In Paris; Orphans’ Benefit. " Ballet Film: Film Poem: Film Critic: "builds its plot entirely or partially by means of ballet dancing, and appears in various techniques. Examples: Romeo i Dzulieta; Labudoe Ozero; The Red Shoes; The Moor's Pavane; Skeleton Dance." "is a film which in any given form raises its theme to the level of poetic stylization, providing the phenomena of real life or fiction with the sense of lyric symbols or organizing them into a poetic and harmonious structure. Examples: The Forest Murmurs; Concerto Gymnastico; Le ballon rouge; Le poisson d'or; The Old Mill." "deals with the critical analysis of some other cinematographic work. Examples: Film and Critic No. 1 - Great Expectations; Film and Critic No. 2 - The Overlanders. Abstract Film: Free Theme Film: "presents photographed or drawn features and lines in the form of pure abstractions, organizing them into a special harmonious interplay. Examples: Begone Dull Care; The Colour Box; Diagonalsymphonie." "is a film/produced by any technique/ the story or aim of which cannot be covered by any of the above mentioned definitions. Examples: La coquille et le clergyman; Un chien andalou." ("To each category, the following supplementary grades can be added to form a more complete definition or to provide some special information about the 398 characteristics of a film work, directly or indirectly connected with a given category") /Animated/ /Trick/ /With Animals/ "a film exposing some ideas or action, giving life to dead nature by the specific film procedure of shooting "frame by frame"; most often, this is a cartoon, graphic film, puppet film, film with silhouettes and objects or a collage. Examples: Pikolo; Inspektor se Vraca Kuci; Snow White and the Seven dwarfs; Diagonalsymphonie; Inspirace; La nuit sur le mont chauve; Ztracena Vatra; Labyrinth." "a film in which the procedure of "skipping" some stages of movement, registered on the film photographically, by drawing or by means of any other technique, is used. Examples: Love Thy Neighbour; Two Bagatelles; Hon Hop." "a fiction film in which animals act instead of human beings, most often in the form of personification. Example: Une fee pas comme les autres." /Photographed Performance/ /Archives/ /Adaptation/ /Anthology/ "a film in which the film technique is used exclusively for reproduction of some original theatre, circus, TV or any other performance. Examples: Der Rosenkavalier; Mat* Mutter Courage." "a film compiled from parts of other films, incorporated in a new thematic and stylistic entity and thus representing an independent film work. Examples: Why We Fight; Mein Kampf." "an adaptation of some literary or theatrical work for film. Examples: Voskressenie; The Young Lions; Le rouge et le noir ; Porgy and Bess; Alice In Wonderland." "a film /belonging to any technique/ composed of several complete films or their parts, each retaining its 399 independence and simultaneously forming a logical whole with the others. Examples: Cinema Italia - No. I. II Cinema muto; Film and Reality." /Omnibus/ "a fiction film, a documentary or any other film composed of several stories, i.e. entities, each of them having its theoretical or logical unity, and usually connected with others by its theme, dominative motive or some other common characteristic. Examples: Les sept peches capitaux; Retour a la vie; Paisa; The Story of Three Loves; Boccacio 70." /Serial/ /Experimental/ /School/ "film shot and distributed in parts, each one succeeding theother, similar to the correspondig publications appearing as serials. Examples: Bouridan; Fantomas; Brick Bradford." "a film whose main reason for existing is the search after a means of film expression in order to produce new psychological or artistic effects. Examples: Retour a la raison; Emak Bakia; Anticipation of the Night." "a film shot by students of a film school or course as an exercise or examination work. Example: Dwaj Ludie z Szafa." /Amateur/ /For Children/ "a film shot by nonprofessionals or made with noncommercial aims. Examples: in giorno. Krug; Emmigranti; Di giorno M "a film marked out by its form and content for children. Examples: Bush Christmas; Tom and Jerry; Ferda Mravenec ." /TV/ "a film shot primarily for presentation on TV or by its forms of expression adapted to this medium. Examples: Expedition; Laramie; Dr. Kildare; Dennis the Menace; Encyclopaedia Britannica." 400 APPENDIX B Here included are excerpts from Annex 1 of the Beograd Film Institute committee's short survey of the basic variations which were rejected. The introduction states: The material is published by the Commission as a documentation for the future work of those who would like to tackle this problem and who, with the help of this material, may avoid the Commission's errors, (p. 1) FIRST VARIATION CLASSIFICATION KIND GENRE FICTION FILM: dramatic film: social drama psychological drama historical film biographical film adventure film criminal film spy film western phantasy film science-fic- tion 401 comic film: musical: ANIMATED FILM: multiplication f ilm: painted film: film collage: FACTUAL FILM: documentary: scientific film: propaganda film: horror film fairy tale film farce film burlesque film satire film comedy music film opera operetta ballet film musical show cartoon puppet film silhouette film film w/ models graphic film collage documentary scient if ic- research film popular science film educational f i lm social-propa- ganda film political film 402 cultural film trailer report film: film report film magazine newsreel film critic: film critic SUPPLEMENTARY (QUALIFYING) CHARACTERISTICS Omnibus, anthology, montage film, serial, photographed performance, adaptation, experimental film, film for children, film with animals, school film, amateur film spectacle. Reasons for Rejection "...the genres of the fiction and factual film arrived at by the criterion of content were brought on the same level as the genres of the animated film systemized by technical criterion, (p. 3) 403 SECOND VARIATION I. (division of films according to content) FICTION FILM genre: social drama psychological drama melodrama biographical film historical film adventure filim criminal film spy film western war film phantasy film science-fiction horror film legend fairy tale burlesque parody satire c ome dy music musical show ballet film operetta opera FACTUAL FILM II. (division of films according to technique) ANIMATED FILM genre: cartoon puppets silhouettes models genre: documentary scientific research scientific film film collage popular-science film educational film cultural film propaganda film advertising film trailer graphic film III . (division of films according to creative treatment) FREE THEME FILM genre: experimental f i 1m 404 film critic newsreel film magazine film report SUPPLEMENTARY (QUALIFYING) CHARACTERISTICS Anthology, omnibus, serial, archives, school, amateur, TV, for children, with animals, adaptation, photographed I performance, trick Reason for Rejection In this variation the Commission "separated the genre of animated film and formed a special genre of experimental film.... [However, it did not] solve the basic and most difficult problem of the mixing of criteria. One of the essential shortcomings of this scheme is the impossibility of consistently combining the genres of animated film, divided according to technical criteria with the genres of fiction or factual film, divided according to the criterion of content. According, the Commission drew the basic conclusion about the necessity to create a category of 'photographed' films, ie films with photographed action happening spontaneously or directed according to a screen play." (pp. 6-7) 405 THIRD VARIATION genre: FICTION FILM: social drama psychological drama melodrama biographical historical war adventure criminal spy western fiction science-fiction horror legend fairy tale burlesque come dy parody satire musi c opoeretta l opera musical show ballet genre: FACTUAL FILM documentary scientific-research popular science educational cultural propaganda advertising trailer newsreel magazine report film critic genre : genre : ANIMATED FILM: cartoon graphic collage trick puppet marionet te shadow film silhouette film film w/ models 406 FREE THEME FILM film poem irrational absolute abstract Reason for Rejection "This is an attempt of the Commission to classify films with a free theme, which cannot be included in any other film genre. Ths scheme was rejected due to the repeated impossibility of coombining genres divided according to different criteria/content and technique." (p • 9) I FOURTH VARIATION Technique genre: STAGED: Treatment fiction Structure genre: NARRATIVE: film w/ animals marionette DIRECT: ANIMATED: film w/ shadows direct cartoon collage FACTUAL puppet silhouette film w/ models Content social drama psychologi cal drama melodrama bio gr aphi- cal historical war adventure criminal spy western phantasy science- f ic tion horror legend fairy tale fable burlesque corned y parody satire music opera operetta musical show ballet documentary science- research popular science educational cultural propaganda advertising trailer newsreel magazine report 408 GRAPHIC: graphic FREE THEME film critic FILM: film poem irrational absolute abstract SUPPLEMENTARY (QUALIFYING) CHARACTERISTICS Silent, tinted, with gramophone records, in colour, stereoscopic, wide screen, cinemascope, Vistavision, Cinerama, with stereophonic sound, stop-trick, adaptation, photogrpahed performance, serial, anthology, omnibus, archives, school, TV, amateur, experimental, for children. Reasons for Rejection "The division of films was based on two criteria: those of treatment-technique and content-structure. This has, nevertheless, created new problems due to some new terms which have complicated the system and made it impractical, and also due to the appearance of a consistent and theoretically justified new division according to the treatment. In addition, the combination of several categories of techniques/e.g. grouped in the genre of animated film/with the category of feature film was theoretically untenable..." (p. 11) 409 FIFTH VARIATION PHOTOGRAPHED: FICTION FACTUAL treatment social drama psychological drama melodrama biographical historical war adventure criminal spy western phantasy science fiction horror legend fairy tale fable burlesque come dy parody satire music opera operetta musical show ballet ANIMATED: marionet te film w/ shadows cartoon collage puppet treatment silhouette film w/ models graphic SUPPLEMENTARY (QUALIFYING) CHARACTERISTICS Silent, sound, in colour, for children, experimental, TV school, amateur, omnibus, anthology, adaptation, photo documentary scientific-research popular science educational cultural propaganda advertising trailer content newsreel maga zine report film critic 410 graphed performance, serial, tinted, wide screen, stereo scopic, cinemascope, Vistavision, Cinerama, with stereo phonic sound, with gramophone records, stop-trick. Reasons for Rejection "...due to the illogicalities of the system... some genres simply cannot be divided into the categories imposed by this scheme..." (p. 13) The division of photographed (continuous) vs. a-nimation (single-frame) works; it is the "factual-fiction" and "treatment" areas that do not. APPENDIX C SAMPLE LIST OF CATEGORIES OF FILMS (Films are a selective cross-section of film categories based on The Film Index, A_ Short History of the Movies, The Critical Index, The New Film Index, and categories listed in Appendix AT) 1. Abstract 2. Action drama 3. Actuality 4. Adaptation 5. Adventure 6 . Advertising 7. Agriculture 8. Amateur 9. "Angry Young 10. Animal as he: 11. Art 12. Avant-garde 13. "B" film 14. Black film 15. Biographical 1 6 . Car toon 17 . Chase h-1 00 • Children ' s 19. Chronicle 412 20. Cinemagazine .21. Comedy 22. Compilation 23. Costume drama 24. Crime 25. Detective 26. Documentary 27. Domestic Drama 28. Educational 29. Epic 30. Ethnographic 31. Experimental j 32. Fantasy 33. Farce 34. Filmed theater 35. Film noir 36. Folk tales and sagas 37 . Form film 38. Gangster 39. Gendai-geki 40. Geographical 41. Historical 42. Horror 43. Hygiene and national health 44. Industrial 413 45. Instructional 46. Interest 47. Jidai-geki 48. J ungle 49. ''Little'1 comedy 50. Made by children 51 . Made for television 52. Melodrama 53. Musical 54. Musical ballet 55. Musical opera 56. Mythological 57 . Nature 58 . Newspaper 59. Newsreel 60. Observer-documentary 61 . Omnibus 62 . Parody 63. Poetic 64. Police as hero 65 . Political 66 . Porno 67. Prison 68. Propaganda 69 . Psychological 414 70. Public Service 71 . Race relations 72. Record 73. Religious 74. Remakes 75.. Romantic comedy 76. Romantic drama 77 . Science 78. Science Fiction 79. Screwball comedy 80 . Serial 81 . Series 82 . Shomin-geki 83. Social realist 84. Sociological 85 . Spaghetti western 86. Sports 87. Spy as hero 88. "Street" films 89. Structural film 90. Swashbuckler 91. "Symphonie" 92. Thriller 93. Trailer 94. Travelogue 415 95. Underground 96. War 97. Western 98. "White telephone" 99. "Woman's" £i1m 100. Youth I I I I 1 | i 416 SAMPLE.LIST OF CATEGORIES OF FILMS WITH EXAMPLES Abstract — requires further research to label Square Dance (McClaren, Canada) Fantasia (Disney, U.S., 1941) Action drama — a category of films centering around action; sub-categories include Kung-Fu genre. Actuality -- a form of film; also a category known as "actualites" — examples of the latter include Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory (France, 1895), Arrival of a train (France, 1895). Adaptation -- a technique, used as a basis for a category of films: Theater Adaptation (O'Neil): The Iceman Cometh (Frankenheimer, U.S.A., 1973) Long~T)ay1 s Journey Into Night (Lumet, U.S.A., 1963) (Shakespeare): Henry V_ (Olivier, U.K., 1944) Romeo and Juliet (Franco Zeffirelli, U.rTZltaly, 1966) Novel Adaptation (Dickens): Great Expectations (Lean, U.K., 1946) Oliver Twist (Lean, U.K., 1948) ( Hamme tt") The Thin Man (W. S. Van Dyke, U.S.A., 1933) The Maltese Falcon (Huston, U.S.A., 1941) Dance Adaptation Romeo and Juliet (Czinner, U.K., 1966) Adventure — a trait shared among many categories of f ilm. Advertising — a form of media, crossing both film and video Agriculture — a topic, a category of film instructional films on agriculture, interest films on agriculture training film in agriculture techniques Amateur — status of filmmaker, a category of film 417 9. 10. 1 1. 12 . 13. 14. 15. 16. 17 . 18. 19 . 20 . "Angry Young Man" — a sub-category of British working class film. Room At The Top (Clayton, U.K., 1959) Animal as hero — a problematic category, which needs to be clarified and possibly redefined to a metagenre Lassie Come Home (U.S., 1942) Flipper (U.S., 1963) Art — fiction or nonfiction category of film requires further research to label Le Sang d’un Poete (Cocteau, France, 1930) Avant-garde — requires further research to label The Seashell and the Clergyman (France, 1926) Un Chien Andalou (France,1928) "B" film — a category of films based on budget, and intended distribution; a formulaic second feature Black film — a problematic category, possibly an independent form of cinema Biographical — a fiction or nonfiction category of film; requires further research to label Juarez (Dieterle, U.S., 1949) Cartoon — category of film organized around one animation technique — cel animation Gertie the Dinosaur (U.S., 1919) Chase — convention, found in such films as: It’s Mad Mad Mad Mad World (U.S., 1963) Le Million (France, 19301 Children’s -- category of films geared to children's taste, centering on concerns of a child's world, or with a child as protagonist The Red Balloon (France, 1955) Chronicle — category using compilation technique Paris 1900 (France, 1947) Rabindranath Tagore (India, 1961) Hiroshima-Nagasaki, August 1945 (U.S., 1972) Cinemagazine -- a format 418 21 . 2 2 . 23. 24. 25. Comedy -- a problematic category — a mode, a vision, a world, an attitude or treatment — not a genre requires further research to label Sub-categories: Crazy Comedy: You Can't Take It With You (U.S., 1938) Screwball Comedy: Bringing Up Baby (U.S., 1938) Zany Comedy: Duck Soup (U.S., 1933) Gadget Comedy: It's a Gift (U.S., 1935) Satire/Black Comedy: Dr. St rangelove (U.S., 1963) Slapstick Comedy: Abbot and Costello Meet Frankenstein (U.S., : ----- Social Comedy: . Meet John Doe (U.S., 1941) Compilation — a technique which has served as the i basis for categories of films, edited primarily I from archives (chronicle), old news footage j (newsreel), kinestasis of still photographs (as yet unnamed) Paris 1900 (France, 1947) Why We Fight (U.S., 1942-1945) City of Gold (Canada, 1957) Costume drama — a category of film characterized by lavish costumes, sets, and production, usually with an historical setting Marie Antoinette (W. S. Van Dyke, U.S., 1938) Cleopatra (Mankiewicz, U.S., 1963) Crime -- a category of films having in common a story which centers on the commission of a crime; sub categories include Police films and Detective films . Detective — a film metagenre based on the world of the detective and the detective as protagonist Detective Story (Wyler, U.S., 1951) 419 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31 . 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Documentary — a form of film involving the propagandistic treatment of reality Nanook of the North (U.S., 1922) Berlin: Symphonie of a City (Germany, 1927) Why We Fight (U.S., 1942-1945) Domestic Drama — also known as family melodrama, it is a category of fiction film, a subset of the entertainment form, set in the interior world of the home. Educational -- a category of film having as its purpose the education (instruction/enlightenment) of the audience. Epic -- a problematic category — a mode, a vision, and with the potential to be defined as a style Ethnographic — a form of film; requires further research to label accurately. Experimental — a form of film; requires further research to label accurately. Fantasy — a category of films based on an unrealistic or fanciful premise. Sub-categories include the Legend, Fairy Tale and Comic Ghost genres. Horror comes under the "Fantastic.” Requires further research to label accurately. Farce -- a sub-category of comedy Filmed theater — a technique of adaptation Film noir — a problematic type of film— a style, an historical movement, and a hybrid film genre Folk tales and sagas — a category of films based on adaptation. They do not form a metagenre or genre of films. Form film — a sub-category of experimental film, but neither a metagenre nor genre Gangster — both a metagenre of film and a Hollywood film genre Little Caesar (Mervyn LeRoy, U.S., 1930) Scar face (Hawks, U.S., 1932) 420 Gendai-geki (Contemporary life drama) -- a category of Japanese film considered a metagenre Genres: haha-mono (the "mother" picture -- the suffering sacrifices to be a mother), Mother (Naruse, Japan, 1952 tsuma-mono (the "wife" picture — the difficulties of marriage and loss of individuality for women), o-namida chodai eiga ("tears-please films" or "weepies" ) , nansensu-mono (farcical comedies), sports-mono (judo, karate, wrestling pictures), shakai-mono (social genre), Record of a Living Being (Kurosawa, Japan, 1955) gangster movies Black River (Kobayashi, Japan, 1957) monster movies Godzilla, King of the Monsters (Morse, Japan, 1956) youth pictures Teenager's Sex Manual (Shima, Japan, 1950) Geographical — a category of films organized by topic interest films on geography training films on geography Historical -- refers to both fiction and nonfiction categories; it is problematic with reference to the fictional category of films Horror -- both a metagenre and a Hollywood film genre; requires research and re-definition Frankenstein (Whale, U.S., 1931) Hygiene and national health -- a topic instructional films on hygiene/ national health, interest films on hygiene and national health training films in hygiene and national health techniques 421 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51 . 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57 . 58. 5 9 . Industrial -- a form of film involving the dissemination of information about industry; Instructional — a form of film specifically having the purpose of instruction and employing instructional techniques Interest — requires further research for more accurate labeling Jidai-geki — a Japanese film meta-genre Samurai (Inagaki, Japan, 1954) Jungle -- like a metagenre or genre, defined by "world" of the jungle; requires re-definition "Little" comedy — British sub-genre Made by children — a category of film based on the status of the filmmaker Made for television — a category of film based on format and the channel of distribution Melodrama -- a problematic category — a mode, a vision, an attitude, a treatment. Musical — a sub-category of the Music film, a metagenre, and various film genres including a Hollywood film genre Musical ballet — a sub-category of the Music film Musical opera — a sub-category of the Music film Mythological -- a category of Indian film — usually a period piece — characterized by lavish costumes, sets, and production Nature -- a category of film based on topic; requires further research for more accurate labeling Newspaper -- a format, possibly a problematic category of film Newsreel — a format, possibly a problematic category, or style of film 422 60. 61 . 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71 . 72. Observer—documentary — a metagenre Omnibus — a format; several short films each self- contained and produced separately, with its own director Boccaccio ^70 (Visconti, Fellini, and De Sica The Seven Capital Sins (Godard, Chabrol, Demy, Vadim, De Broca, Molinaro, Dhomme directed) Parody — a sub-category of comedy Poetic — a filmmaker(s)’ mode of vision, or style I Police as hero — a metagenre, constructed by ' "world" I Political — both a topic and with redefinition, \ probably an independent form of cinema Porno -- also erotic film -- a category of film defined by its purpose to arouse sexually its audience. I Prison — both a metagenre and a Hollywood film genre based on the world of prisons, or with a con as protagonist I The Big House (U.S., 1930) j I Propaganda — a category of film with intended I purpose of propagating of a specific doctrine or practice; requires further research. j Psychological — both a fiction and nonfiction ! category of film based on topic. May be redefined to the world of psychiatry, with psychiatrist or psychiatric patient as protagonist Public Service — a form of film Race relations — a topic interest films on race relations factual films on race relations narrative fiction film on race relations Record -- a category of film defined by its purpose to archive — to film as a document or record of an event or body of information 423 73. 74. 75. 76. 77 . 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85 . 86 . 87 . Religious — either a topic; or, a category of films organized around the topic of religion Biblical: Sign of the Cross (DeMille, U.S.A., 1932) Remakes — category of film Romantic comedy — sub-category of comedy Teams : Hepburn/Tracy Pat and Mike (George Cukor, U.S.A. , 1952) Roman tic d rama — category of film | Science -- topic as the basis of film category i film-records of scientific activity j instructional films on science, I interest films on science Science Fiction — both a metagenre and a Hollywood film genre Screwball comedy — a Hollywood film genre Bringing Up Baby (U.S. ,1938) j Serial -- a format j Series — a format I i Shomin-geki (middle class comedy) — Japanese film genre, a sub-category of gendai-geki I Was Born But ... (Ozu, Japan, 1932) Social realist — a category based on an historical movement Sociological -- a topic Spaghetti western — a film genre Sports -- a category of films; with re-definition, possibly a metagenre; requires research Boxing The Set-Up (Robert Wise, U.S.A., 1949) Spy as hero -- a metagenre of films The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (Martin Ritt, “U7S7ATt~r?631------------------ 424 88. "Street" films -- a cycle of German social realist dramas 89. Structural film — a metagenre 90. Swashbuckler — both a metagenre and a Hollywood film genre 91. "Symphonie" — a sub-genre 92. Thriller — a problematic category of film which is probably a metagenre ' 93. Trailer — a form of film I I I 94. Travelogue -- a metagenre of film 95. Underground — a form of film j 96. War — both a fiction and nonfiction category of film [ 97. Western — both a metagenre and a Hollywood film genre 98. "White telephone" — an Italian film genre 99. "Woman's" film — a problematic category of film 100. Youth — a problematic category of film, requiring further research 425 "TOP TEN" LIST OF FILM GENRES (Based on the readi categories of film attention, and were genre theorists.) ngs reviewed in Cha most often received specifically named ter, the following theoretical film genres by 1. WESTERNS 2. HORROR 3. MUSICAL 4. GANGSTER 5. THRILLER 6 . SCIENCE FICTION 7. DETECTIVE 8. WAR 9. SCREWBALL COMEDY 10. NOIR 426 APPENDIX D GENRE "THEORY" READINGS *A (Al) Alloway, Lawrence. "The Iconography of the Movies." Movie, no. 7 (FebruaryMarch, 1963), pp. 46. (A2) Altman, Charles F. "Towards a Theory of Film Genre." Film: Historical-Theoretical Speculations (The 1977 Film Studies Annual: Pt 2). (A3) Altman, Rick, ed. Genre; The Musical, A^ Reader . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul” 1981. (A4) ------------ . "Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre." Cinema Journal, 23, no. 3 (Spring 1984), pp. 6-18 . *B (Bl) Braudy, Leo. The World in a_ Frame. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press, 1976. (B2) Buscombe, Edward. "The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema." Screen, 11, no. 2 (March-April 1970). -------- *C (Cl) Cavell, Stanley. The World V i ewed, Reflect ions on the Ontology of Film. NY: Viking Press, 1971. (C2) Cawelti, John G. "Chinatown and Generic Transformation in Recent American Films." Film Theor y and Criticism, 2nd ed. , eds. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen. NY: Oxford, 1979, pp. 559-579. (C3) Cawelti, John G. "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature." Journal of Popular Culture 3, no. 3 (winter 1969), pp. 381-390. (C4) Collins, Richard. "Genre: A Reply to Ed Buscombe." Screen , 11, nos. 4-5 (August-September, 1970), pp. 66-75. 427 *D (Dl) Damico, James. "Film Noir: A Modest Proposal." Film Reader, 3 (1978), pp. 48-57. (D2) De Laurot, Edouard L. "Towards A Theory of Dynamic Realism." Film Culture, 1, no. 1 (January 1955) pp. 2-14 . *E (El) Easthope, Antony. "Notes on Genre." Screen Education, nos. 32, 33 (Autumn-Winter 1979/1980), pp'7 39-44'. *G (Gl) Grant, Barry K., ed. Film Genre: Theory and Criticism. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1977. (G2) -------- --- . "Prolegomena to a Contextualistic Genre Criticism." Paunch, nos. 53-54, (January 1980), pp. 138-147. (G3) -------------. "Tradition and the Individual Talent: Poetry in the Genre Film." Narrative Strategies : Original Essays in Film and Prose Fiction. eds. Syndy M. Conger and Janice R. Welsch. Macomb: Western Illinois University Press, 1981. ■ ; : "H (HI) Hess, Judith W. "Genre Films and the Status Quo." Jump Cut, no. 1 (May-June 1974), pp. 1, 16, 18. *K (Kl) Kaminsky, Stuart M. American Film Genres, Approaches to si Critical Theory of Popular Film. A Laurel edition. NY: Dell, 1977. " : : 'L (LI) Louvre, Alf. "Notes on a Theory of Genre." Working Paper s in Cultural Studies. N.P.: Center for Contemporary Culture Studies, University of Birmingham, no. 4, (Spring 1975), pp. 121133. *M 428 (Ml) McConnell, Frank. The Spoken Seen , Film and the Romantic Imagination. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Universit y Press, HT76. (Nl) Neale, Stephen. Genre. Hertford, U.K.: British Film Institute, 1980. (PI) Petlewski, Paul. "Complication of Narrative in the Genre Film." Film Criticism. 4, No. 1 (Fall 1979), pp. 18-24. (P2) Poague, Leland A. "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach." Literature/Film Quarterly . 4, No. 2 (Spring 1978), pp. 152-161 . (P3) Pye, Douglas. "Genre and Movies." Movie no. 20 (Spring 1975), pp. 29-43. (Rl) Rotha, Paul. The Film Til Now. NY: Jonathan Cape and Harrison Smith, 193(IT (R2) -------------. Movie Parade. London: The Studio Publications, 1936. (R4) Ryall, Tom. "The Notion of Genre." Screen, 11, no. 2, (March-April 1970) pp. 22-32. (R5) --------------. "Teaching Through Genre." Screen Education, no. 17 (Winter 1975-1976), pp. 27-30. (52) Schatz, Thomas. Hollywood Genres , Formulas, F ilmmaking, and the Studio System. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1981. (53) . "Structural Influence New Directions in Film Genre Study." Quar terly Review o f Film Studies, (August, 1977), pp. 302326. (S5) Small, Edward S. "A Note on Genre in Film." Journal of the University Film Association, 29 , no . 1 (Winter 1977)” pp. 39-40. 429 (56 ) ------ . "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film." Literature/Film Quarterly, 7, no. 4 (1979), pp. 290-299. (57) Sobchack, Thomas. "Genre Films: A Classical Experience." Literature/film Quarterly, (Summer 1975), pp. 196-204. (58) Solomon, Stanley J. Beyond Formula: American Film Genres. NY: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1976. (Tl) Tudor, Andrew. "Genre: Theory and Mispractice in Film Criticism." Screen, 11, no. 6 (1970), pp. 33- 43. (from his Theories of Film. NY: Viking, 1974.) *V (2) (VI) Vallet, Antoine. Les Genres du Cinema, Paris: Ligel, 1963. (V 2) Vernet, Marc. "Genre." Film Reader, 3 ( 1978) pp. 13-17. *W, X, Y, Z (1) (Wl) Wood, Robin. "Ideology, Genre, Auteur." Film Comment, 13, no. 1 (Januar y-Febr uar y , 1977")~» pp • 46-51. 430 APPENDIX E GLOSSARY OF GENRE-RELATED TERMS Abstract film: a form of film, sometimes called an "absolute" film; it is considered a "pure" cinema of visual (shape and color) rhythms set to music, having no representational significance. In The Art of the Film (NY: Collier Books Edition, 1970) Ernest Lindgren states: "Film in which the relationship between the shots is entirely formal and non-representational; an absolute film." (p. 298). Examples include Fernand Leger's Le Ba1let Mecanique (France, 1924), Hans Richter’s Vormittagsspuk (Germany, 1928), Len Lye's Rainbow Dance (U.K., 1936) or V. Eggeling's Symphonie Diagonale (Germany, ,1917-1920). See Iris Barry’s article, "Designs for an Abstract Film: A Pre-war Experiment," in Art In Our Time (NY: Museum of Modern Art, 1939), pp. 367-368; Robert Fairthorne’s "Abstract Films and the Mathematicians," in Film Art (London), 3 (Autumn 1936), pp. 19-20; L. Saalschutz, "Mechanisms of Cinema," Close Up (London) 5 (September 1929), p. 194; S. John Woods, "Abstract Film," Film Art (London), 3, no. 7 (1936), pp. 11-16; John Halas and Roger Manvell, Art in Movement: New Directions in Animation (London: Studio Vista, 1970) and Design in Motion (London: Studio Vista, 1962). Action drama: a type of film, usually associated with the entertainment film, having a dramatic narrative structure and centering around an action (as opposed to an interior-psychological drama); it is specific neither to a culture nor a period of history; it is often associated with the man's picture; as yet there is insufficient critical and theoretical work to substantiate it as more than a category or type. An example of a metagenre which is also an action drama is the martial arts film. Actuality: also known as a record film, it is often associated with the "factual" film. It is a recording of actual event(s) without acting, special posing, editing or any sort of reconstruction. Based on the French "actualites," 431 such as Lumiere's Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory (France, 1895) or Arrival of a Train at the Station (France, 1895). The actuality film is very short, usually being one long take. "...short scenes of everyday people and events -- unmanipulated activity of more or less general interest...[providing ] glimpses of contemporary life, brief in length and artless in their staging, structure, and composition...." (pp. 4-5) in Raymond Fielding's, The American Newsreel: 1911- 196 7 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 197 2) . Tn ^Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film," Literature/Film Quarterly, 7, no. 4 (1979), pp. 292-293, Small defines the actuality film in the largest sense, placing it equivalently with Rotha's film of fact — [the actuality film is] "variously described by such alternate (though not always synonymous) labels as nonfiction, documentary, and factual film ... distinct because of a number of technostructural characteristics ...[and]... the very concept of actuality." The actuality film is always and strictly factual; contrary to Small's position, actualities may form the basis for certain sub-categories of the documentary, but actuality is not equivalent to documentary. For Small, sub-categories include: newsreel, educational/industrial film, travelogue, contemporary ethnographic (observational and participational) , and classic documentary." The subject requires further study; however, a more specific definition, preserving the historical concept, will probably prove more useful in the long term. See Chapter 4 where it is suggested that the record or actuality films be placed outside the scope of film as an art form, and thus film genre as defined in this study. Adaptation: "a technique of changing a story, novel, play, poem, and so on, so that it becomes suitable for filming. Many feature films are adaptations." is the definition given in Harry Geduld and Ronald Gottesman's Guidebook to Film: An 11-in-1 Reference (NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 19 7 3), p~ 1 '51 Like animation, also a technique, it has been named a genre; it is not. It is simply a characteristic; source; it is neither a form nor a metagenre, and because of the diversity, not a very useful basis for constructing a type of film. Nevertheless, 432 The Film Index has a large category under the fiction film labeled "Adaptations." They are defined as "films whose principal significance consists in their derivation from standard works of literature.... [The] four subclassifications concern themselves with the specific adaptation of drama, fiction, opera, and poetry and song...." However, The Film Index classifies adaptations elsewhere "I:onsidered by reason of content or j cinematic form to be more representative of other j film genres..." (p. 284). I ! Adventure: a term with multiple meanings and uses; it is a characteristic, as well as a type of film characterized by 1) exotic locations (the unfamiliar); 2) high production value (although not necessarily big budget); and, 3) action in response to some kind of a risky (life-threatening) undertaking. Adventure forms neither a metagenre nor a genre of films. It is based on a characteristic common to a number of genres (also metagenres and sub-genres) — both fictional and nonfictional — such as Swashbucklers, Foreign Legion films, Travel films, Jungle films and many I War films, Westerns, Historical Epics, and even ! Sci-Fi fi1ms. Aim: a conjectural course of action. "Purpose," "aim," ; and "intention" are three terms which have been | used interchangeably with different meanings. In | general, however, "intention" and "aim" refer to the filmmaker's plans — more than the film product. One might say the difference between aim/intention and purpose is the difference between I pre-production and final print. (It is difficult, for example, to know the intention or aim of the filmmaker without a personal interview with him/her.) See also intention and purpose. Amateur film: a category of films organized by the status of the filmmaker as an amateur (as opposed to a professional). Neither a genre nor a form. It is more likely to be characterized by lower budget and less technical sophistication. For example, Robert Florey's Life and Death of a Hollywood Extra (U.S., 1928) was a 13-minute film made at the cost of $97.00 which achieved some 433 critical success. Amateur film is often, but not restricted to the experimental form. Angry Young Man Films: a cycle of British working class films in the late 50s and early 60s. Gerald Mast in his _A Short History of the Movies describes the cycle as a focus on a common man reacting to his j surroundings -- bitter, brutal, angry, tough. 1 These heroes of the films, traditionally labeled | 'angry young men,' inevitably react in one of two ways to the working-class prisons of their lives: they try to grab some of the swag of the upper- class life for themselves, or, failing that, they break things." (p. 415) Example: Jack Clayton's Room at the Top ( 1959). Animation: a technique of photographing a single frame at a time. Animation is a type — not a genre, sub-genre, or form of films. Categories and/or sub-categories of the animation technique include: cell animation (cartoon), puppets, models, computer graphics, pixillation, kinestasis, painting on film, rotoscope, etc. See Roger Manvell, ed. j "Animation" in The International Encyclopedia of : Film (NY: Crown Publishers, 1972), pp. 63-74. Anthology: a format collecting several shorter films together, under a unifying theme and title; fiction sub-categories include omnibus, which is a feature- length presentation; an example of a factual sub category is the newsreel which is a collection of news clips. Archetype: an original or ideal pattern of a fundamental structure from which copies are made. In Anatomy of Criticism, Four Essays (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 197 3), Northrop Frye defines archetype as: "...an image, which recurs often enough...to be recognizable as an element of one's ... experience as a whole." p. 365. (1) Carl Jung raises archetype to a culturally understood level — See Carl G. Jung, ed., Man and His Symbols (NY: Doubleday, Garden City, 1964). (2) Stuart Kaminsky defines archetype as "manifestations in image, dialogue, or character recognizable as basic symbolic elements of a culture's experience as a whole." See in American Film Genres, Approaches to ,a Critical Theory of Popular Film , A Laurel edition 434 (NY: Dell, 1977, p. 20). Also see Jim Kitses' introduction, "Ideology and Archetype" in Horizons West (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969). Art film: a type of film, used to mean either: (1) a factual program on the subject of visual arts; or (2) any type of film with the purpose of producing "fine art." Audience Expectations: usually refers to a shared set of genre conventions or referents the film audience has come to associate with a genre or category of films. Over the course of genre criticism, it has moved from a secondary position to one of primary importance. Andrew Tudor, for example, defines genre in terms of audience expectations; see p. 147 in Theories of Film. Leland A. Poague, in his article , "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," Literature/ Film Quarterly, 4, no. 2 (Spring 1978), pp. 152-161, explains: "Tudor goes on to argue that the genre notion is only interesting when used to describe audience expectations: genre has very little to do, for Tudor, with characteristics of films but rather it serves to describe 'conceptions held by certain groups about certain films." (p. 152) Also see Tudor's article, "Genre" in Film Genre : Theory and Criticism, ed. Barry Grant, p. 21. Charles Eidsvik, continuing this same line of thinking, although from a more popular and not theoretically- based position, maintains that the audience knows the kind of film it is going to see even before it enters the theater. Eidsvik states: "Genre provides categories for structuring anticipations. Often genre is established by a film's title and advertisements. Jaws announced its genre with its title and ads picturing a toothy shark." (p. 62). He goes on: "Genre simply lets a viewer know what to expect, and which mental sets are appropriate to an imaginary experience." (p. 64). .Although he does not state it as such, Eidsvik connects audience expectation with the concept of tradition: "Anticipations, once established, serve as a built- in reference system, allowing film makers to work, and viewers to see, in terms of relatively formulaic 'shorthand' cues that aid communication." (p . 62) , Cine-literacy: Film Among the Arts (NY: 435 Random House, 1978), pp 62-71. Also see Charles (Rick) Altman, "Towards a Theory of Film Genre," Film: Historical-Theoretical Speculat ions (The 1977 Film Studies Annual: Pt 2), pp. 31-43. Auteur: Andrew Sarris' "translation" of Francois Truffaut and other French New Wave filmmakers' "Politique des auteurs." See Andrew Sarris' article, "Notes on the Auteur Theory," in Film Culture (Winter 1962-1963), pp. 6-9. Examples of uauteurs" include: Federico Fellini, Antonio Antonioni, Luis Bunuel, Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock, Jean Cocteau, Jean Renoir, Carl Dreyer, Yasujiro Ozu, Kenji Mizoguchi, Satyajit Ray. Leo Braudy offers an alternative concept to auteur — one which works better within the framework of traditional genre studies. It is that of "autor": j "we must look at the film's entire effect, and that entire effect, whether rightly or wrongly, is in the hands of the director, who must coordinate the contributions of the scriptwriter, the cameraman, and the stars. ('Auteur' has been used by critics who would like to give sole credit to the director, invoking the analogy with writing and praising especially those directors who write their own i scripts. But perhaps the Spanish "autor" would be a better word, with its implication of the head of a company or the manager of a group, like the actor-managers ('autores') of the sixteenth century"), Leo Braudy, The World in a_ Frame (Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press, 1976), (p. 45). Braudy is critical, perhaps overstating the auteurist position: "In auteur theory, genre directors with large popular audiences become transformed into embattled Romantic artists trying to establish their personal visions in the face of an assembly- line commercialism. Frank Capra has pointed out the opposite possibility: in the days of big studio monopoly, there was a great deal of freedom to experiment because every film had guaranteed distribution, whereas now, with increased independent production, films have become more uniform and compromised, because each has to justify itself financially." (p. 108). Also see pp. 104-114 for a more complete discussion. In Stanley Cavell's The World Viewed, (see pp. 7-13) "The auteur emphasis turns us away from an 436 aesthetic proposition even more unnoticeable in its obviousness — that movies come from other movies. Each of the arts knows of this self-generation, however primitive our understanding remains about the relation between tradition and the individual talent." (p.7). Lawrence Alloway in "The Iconography of the Movies." Movie , no. 7 (February March, 1963), pp. 4-6 supports Caveil’s position, stating that the meaning of any single movie requires reference, not only to the ’artist' who made it but to that movie's predecessors in the same genre (some of which were certainly made by other directors). "The meaning of a single movie is inseparable from the larger pattern of content- analysis of other movies. And the point is, that this knowledge, of concepts and themes, is the common property of the regular audience of the movies" (p. 5). See also Peter Graham, ed., The New Wave (London: Seeker and Warburg, 1968). Auteurism fell into considerable disfavor in the 70s and has only been revived since its association with post-structuralism. See John Caughie, ed., Theories o f Authorship : A Reader, (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, British Film Institute, 1981). Leland A. Poague, in "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," Literature/ Film Quarterly , 4, no. 2 (Spring 197 8"J^ pp. 152-1TTL proposes that auteur studies did not dismiss genre, but rather "refined" it. The relationship between genre and auteur is far more complex than the old literary dichotomies. Auteur is a subset of genre, "...the real dilemma of genre [is]... the more powerful the genre, the less general its applicability ..." he thus proposes "auteurist genres." Furthermore, "...given the fact that ... cinematic genres are co-extensive and hierarchical, however, some genres being less familiar and more powerful than others, it is incumbent upon film scholars [to begin to define specific generic terms]." (p. 160). Avant-garde: (1) sometimes used equivalently and incorrectly to mean an abstract, structural, or any experimental film; (2) more appropriately, it refers to a group of filmmakers working in the very specific historical period, roughly 1916-1930, in France and Germany, and dominated by Dadaist and Surrealist art movements. Examples include 437 i Germaine Dulac's The Seashell and the Clergyman (France, 1926) and Luis Bunuel's Un Chien Andalou (France, 1928); and, (3) it can refer simply to "modern,’1 the front (advance) guard, noncommercial visionary filmmakers operating "on the cutting edge." "B" picture: the "second" feature, usually low—budget, on an entertainment film program. William K. Everson defines "B" pictures as "films made to a set pattern, usually six to eight a year, each studio featuring a given star or stars in series which all have their own format and almost identical running times." See "The 'B* Western," The American Film Heritage, Ed. Kathleen Karr, et a1. (Washington, D. C.: Acropolis Books, 1972), pp. 48-51; Alex Gordon, "Trivia," Cinema, 5, no. 1 (1969), pp. 34-37. Also, Todd McCarthy and Charles Flynn, eds., Kings of the- ?B’s (NY: E. P. Dutton, 1975). Black film: is a problematic type of films. Thomas Cripps and Theresa Styles would define it as a genre, but if in fact, it has its own economic base, ideological goals and a clearly defined audience, as defined by this study, it cannot be labeled a genre. It is more equivalent to either a form of film or independent cinema. It is more similar to feminist film than the Woman's film, for example. Traditionally, Black film has been defined by its target audience; it thus has involved three concepts: 1) made specifically for a Black audience; 2) the subject matter concerns issues of interest to Blacks, and the "world" of Blacks; and/or, 3) the protagonist is Black. "Negro" films are defined as a category by The Film Index — by "...material on fictional films with Negro themes, together with general discussions of the Negro in film, Negro players, and the filmic possibilities of Negro life." (p. 473). Thomas Cripps correctly expands this definition to include economic and production aspects. He states that Black film is "...those motion pictures made for theater distribution that have a black producer, director, and writer, or black performers; that speak to black audiences or, incidentally, to white audiences possessed of preternatural curiosity, attentiveness, or sensibility toward racial 438 matters; and that emerge from self-conscious intentions, whether artistic or political, to illuminate the Afro-American experience." (p. 3), in Thomas Cripps, Black Film As Genre (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1979). See also, Teresa Styles, _A Study of the Black Film in Determining the Validity of It as a Genre. Thesis. Chicago: Northwestern University, T973. Biographical film: a type of film; a fictional or nonfictional account of an individual's life, usually a well-known figure. The Biographical film category is usually associated with history. Warner Bros, produced a series of formulaic, fictionalized biographies in the 1930s and 1940s featuring such stars as Paul Muni in The Story o f Louis Pasteur (U.S., 1935), The Life of Emile Zola (U.S., 1937), and Juarez (U.S., 1939). With further critical and theoretical attention, there may exist sub-categories which would be more usefully labeled as film metagenres, genres, sub genres, or cycles of film. For more on biographical films, see Joseph Freeman, "Biographical Films," Theater Arts, 25 (December 1941), pp. 900-906; Cecile Starr Boyajian, "Film Portraits," Film Library Quarterly, 3, no. 3 (Summer 1970T"i pp. 11-15; ’’List of Historical- Biographical Films, 1912-1936," World Film News, 1, no. 10 (March 1937), pp. 10-11. Boxing film: also known as "fight" films, the term refers to two separate types of film; 1) it is an entertainment film genre, defined most often by the gritty "world" of prize fighting, and 2) a sub genre of the factual sports news films. It is also listed as a sub-category of "occupational" films by The Film Index. Examples of the first type include The Champ (U.S., 1931), The Harder They Fall (U.S., 1956) , The Set-Up (U.S., 1949) and more recently Rocky (U.S., 1976). See Nora Sayre's "Winning the Weepstakes: The Problems of American Sports Movies," in Barry Grant, ed., Film Genre: Theory and Criticism, pp. 184-189. As a nonfiction category of boxing films, it includes interest, and news films of prize fights and wrestling matches. In 1912 the Sims Act prohibited the interstate 439 traffic in prize-fight films, thus reducing their production. Branch of film; historically the largest category of films. Formalists such as Balazs and Spottiswode laid the foundation. Rotha made the best use of "branch," labeling films of fact, films of fiction, and experimental animated films as branches of cinema. See Chapter 2. With the devaluation of realism as a definition of film, the concepts of fact and fiction have been somewhat marginalized, requiring redefinition of "branch." Cartoon: an animation sub-category employing cel drawings/ paintings. It is neither a form nor a metagenre. Examples include Gertie the Dinosaur (U.S., 1919) or Steamboat Willie (U.S., 1928) . See Roger Manvell, "Giving Life to the Fantastic -- A History of the Cartoon Film," Films and Filming, 3, no. 2 (November 1956), pp. 80-85. Category of film: a neutral term used to group together films sharing one or more characteristics. They may be constituted by significant or insignificant characteristics, by large or small — by technique, by subject matter, by director, by star — but they do not have a formally defined or critical basis in terms of film genre as outlined in this study. Chase film: a type of film in which the story concentrates on a pursuit which becomes the driving action, as in such films as It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World (U.S., 1963) and Le Million (France, 193077“ Chase is a convention common to many genres. Also, see Donald W. McCaffrey's article on different types of chase vehicles, in "The Evolution of the Chase in Silent Screen Comedy," Journal of the Society of Cinematologists, 4 ( 19 64) , pp. 1-8. Children's film: a problematic category of films; there are two common usages: 1) a film, either fictional or nonfictional, intended primarily for a child (below the age of 12) audience; 2) a film, again either fictional or nonfictional, with a child as protagonist, usually for a "G" (family) rated audience. Children's films are characterized by comedy, action, and qualities of a child's world (animism, for example). What is meant by 440 ’’children’s" film differs considerably from culture to culture. For further reading, see such articles as: B.F.I.'s "Films for Children," Sight and Sound , 5, no. 20 (Winter 1935-1936), pp. 128-129; Janet Hill's "Children’s Films," Sight and Sound, 21 (April-June 1952), pp. 179-181+; or, Mary Field’s "Children's Taste in Films," Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television, 11, no I (Fall 1956 ~ J ~ , pT 28+. Chronicle: also historic chronicle. A sub-category of films based on the compilation technique. It is constructed from historical archive footage. Examples: Paris 1900 (France, 1947), Rabindranath Tagore (India, 1961), and Hiroshima-Nagasaki, August 1945 (U.S., 1972). See pp. 198-206 in Erik Barnouw, Documentary, A_ History of the Non-Fiction Film (NY: Oxford University Press, 1977). Cine-magazine: a format using the compilation technique to edit together newsreel footage, unified by topic and/or theme; examples include the U.S.'s March of j Time series and the U.K.'s Thi s Modern Age series . I Class of film: a category of films. Historically, a "class' was smaller than a "branch," but larger than a film genre. In Paul Rotha's organization, for example, Comedy, Romance, and Drama qualify as classes of film. In his 1978 article, Marc Vernet redefines the term "class" in the way this study employs the term category: "Cinematic production can be catalogued by collecting under the same category films which possess among themselves one or several common traits. One would in this way obtain categories of films defined by one or several characteristics. These could range from films featuring a particular actor (the films of A. Delon) to films produced in a certain period and country (Italian neo-realism, the French New Wave)." See "Genre," Film Reader, 3 (1978), p. 13. Classic narrative: a structure with a sequence of "a beginning and ending description of one situation with a middle statement that explains a change in that situation. It is through the logic of this sequence that a narrative 'makes sense,’ tells a story rather than giving a list of events. More specifically, the narrative sequence provides the 441 rules by which characters are created and the conflicts are resolved in a story.” Wil Wright, Sixguns and Society , _A Structural Study of the Western (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1975). Under a structuralist view when the narrative is mythic, "...the characters represent social types of principles in a structure of oppositions, then the narrative structure offers a model of social action by presenting identifiable social types and showing how they interact. The receivers of the myth learn how to act by recognizing their own situation in it and observing how it is resolved." (p. 186). Cornedy: used variously, it is a mode, a vision, and a problematic type of film. It is neither a form of film nor a metagenre, although numerous sub categories can be constructed as metagenres are, based on "world" — the comic climate, and on the intended audience effect — to amuse. The popular myth and archetypal genre critics tend to define comedy in terms of mode or world vision. Complementing this position is that of the stylists and auteur critics who define comedy as a kind of treatment. Traditionalists often borrow the term comedy wholesale from other media, without investigating the change the film medium creates. Gerald Mast, who has traditionalist leanings, but is more prescriptive and eclectic, outlines eight comic plots — a thesis which is highly debatable. More importantly, he defines comedy in terms of what he calls "comic climate." This involves a comic environment, characters peopling the comic environment and what then results. The concept of comedy seems to be more useful when seen as a mode, vision, or treatment. That is, it is not so much the material as it is the filmmaker’s conceptualization and handling of the material. In very general terms, comedy involves juxtaposition and trivialization. Comic manipulation of he material by the filmmaker signals the audience how to respond. The filmmaker-audience relationship is crucial to the success of comedy. When further clarified/described by a second modifier, sub categories of comedy become recognizable as metagenres, genres and sub-genres. Examples include: the metagenre "crazy" comedy, as in You Can’t Take It With You (U.S., 1938); the Hollywood 442 screwball comedy genre: It Happened One Night (U.S., 1934); the Zany comedy — Duck Soup (U.S., 1933); and, the Hollywood romantic comedy team sub genre: Woman of the Year (U.S., 1941). Compilation: used in two ways: the preferred: (1) based I on a technique editing previously shot (news, actualities, archives, stills) material. Employed most often in factual films such as newsreels, chronicle films, documentaries, but also formal films such as Robert Breer's Blazes (U.S., 1958). Harris Elder argues for compilation as a sub category of the documentary film genre. While he proposes interesting ideas, they lack sufficient theoretical grounding. See Harris Elder's thesis: The Compilation Film: Principles and Potentials of _a Documentary Genre , Oklahoma State University, 1976. Also, though not preferred, to mean anthology or composite film — (2) composed of either individual films or extracts from films, each forming a separate contribution but which contribute as parts to a planned whole. Films using kinestasis may form a sub-category of compilation, until there is sufficient interest for it to generate its own category. Composite film: a type of feature-length film, usually j an entertainment film, and frequently an adaptation i whose construction is based on putting together two or more separate stories, often by the same author. Example: Quartet (U.K., 1949) -- four short stories of Somerset Maughm, adapted for the screen. Content: is used in the "formalist" sense, not as the equivalent of raw material, narrative, story, subject matter, plot, or topic. Convention: "... are elements which are known to both the creator and his audience beforehand — they consist of things like favorite plots, stereotyped characters, accepted ideas, commonly known metaphors and other linguistic devices, etc." according to John G. Cawelti, in "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature," Journal of Popular Culture, 3, no. 3 (Winter 1969), p. 385. Conventions can be specific to a genre (Some twenty-six conventions are described in "A Western A-B-C," by Bob Baker, D. J. Badder, et al. 443 Klnema, no. 3 (Autumn 1971), pp. 20-34.); or, to a culture (See David Bordwell's article "Happily Ever After, Part Two" where he points out that the "happy ending" is specific only to Hollywood.) Stanley Cavell, The WorId Viewed, p. 15: "The movie’s ease within its assumptions and achievements — its conventions remaining convenient for so much of its life, remaining convincing and fertile without self-questioning — is central to its pleasure for us.* Edward Buscombe supports this same position: "The conventions of the genre are known and recognized by the audience, and such recognition is in itself a pleasure." (p. 35) in "The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema," Screen, 11, no. 2 (March-April 1970); see futher, pp. 33-45. Convention is often one of the primary components defining genre, whether from an archetypal, traditionalist, contextualist, or functionalist approach. Convention is defined by Douglas Pye as the "...inherited features accumulat[ing ] meaning and associations through repeated use and becom[ing] the basis of those relationship between artist and audience... See pp. 29-30 in Douglas Pye, "Genre and Movies," Movie , no. 20 (Spring 1975). The concept of "type conventions," as borrowed from E. D. Hirsch, is useful. Leland A. Poague, in "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach," Literature/Film Quarterly, 4, No. 2 (Spring 1978), pp. 152-161, develops his concept of "generic hypothesis" by applying Hirsch's thought that 'type conventions’ governing how meaning and interpretation function in film genre. The audience, because of shared interpretive rules and structured type conventions anticipates the whole. Thus, it by virtue of the shared sets of expectations between filmmaker and audience that genre is viable. As an audience "we cannot properly interpret a given cinematic image ... without some sense of the images that are likely to follow and the probable relationships among them. We must therefore posit a ’type’ of meaning structure from the beginning -- and this 'generic hypothesis' will govern our interpretation of succeeding images until such time as it is possible or necessary to refine or replace our initial intuitive generic guess." (pp. 154-155). 444 Costume Drama: a problematic type of entertainment film in which the cast appears dressed in elaborate and colorful costumes. It is often set in the past, although contemporary costume dramas also exist. The term is sometimes confused with period romance, historical film, and spectacular. Crime film; a problematic type of film based on topic; it is not a metagenre of films; its main focus centers on illegal actions; includes such fictional metagenres as gangster, detective, and police as well as nonfictional, informational, news types focusing on crime. Of it Stuart Kaminsky writes: "A study of the ’crime film1...will yield a number of valid generalizations, but the breadth of work within this category is so great that it is impossible to form any valid tentative conclusions about such a genre. Therefore, the 'crime film' is too broad to be considered as a workable genre. Any actual comparison of Louis Malle's Frantic and Gordon Douglas' The Detective is limited, if not impossible." Stuart M. Kaminsky, American Film Genres , Approaches to a _ Critical Theory of Popular Film, pp. 18-19. Also see Carlos Clarens effort to organize crime films generated by the Hollywood gangster genre, in his, Crime Movies, An Illustrated History , The Story of the Gangster Genre in Film From D . W . Griffith to The Godfather and Beyond (NY: W. W. Norton and Co., 1980). Custard-Pie Comedy: a sub-genre of slapstick comedy, often of the Mack Sennett variety where humor was derived from the throwing of a "custard pie". Cycle: a group of films which "explores a basic situation repeatedly, but from different angles and with accumulating references"; a cycle is connected to topical themes, thus historically limited to a time-frame reflecting audience interest (usually two to seven years); a cycle may be charted through identification of themes or iconographic elements. "Almost no work has been done in charting film cycles." Alloway states, while recommending that critics take up the aesthetic of a typical film. An example of a cycle is the Weapon-western (1950- 1952) "which included Winchester 73, Golt 45, Springfield Rifle, Only the Valiant (Gatling gun), and The Battle of Apache Pass (cannon)." Alloway 445 also proposes that a star may have an "iconographical profile" which is connected to topical themes. See Lawrence Alloway's essay, "The Iconography of the Movies," Movie, no. 7 (February March, 1963), pp. 4-6. Stanley Cavell, in The World Viewed, Reflections on the Ontology of Film CNT: VTking Press, 1971), pushes categories to a larger level: "... a cycle is a genre (prison movies, Civil War movies, horror movies, etc.; and a genre is a medium." (p. 36). However, Cavell's idiosyncratic definition is not compatible with cycle as it is defined in this study. See also, Arthur Rosenheimer*s article, "You Make Your Movies," Sight and Sound, 16, no. 62 (Summer 1947), pp. 58—59; for a good break down of cycles of the Hollywood film noir genre, see Paul Schrader's article, "Notes on Film Noir," Film Comment , 8, no. 1 (Spring 1972), pp. 8-13. Dance fi1m: either fiction or nonfiction type of film focusing on the subject of dance. See Larry Trexler, "Dance Magazine rs 1st Annual Directory of Dance Films," Dance Magazine, 34 (February 1960) pp. 32-34 ff; D. D. Livingston's "1965 Directory of Dance Films," Dance Magazine 39 (September 1965), pp. 58-78ff; Arthur Knight, et al., "Cine-Dance," Dance Perspectives, 30 (Summer 1967), pp. 4-51. Although it lacks a strong theoretical base and is not comprehensive, Peggy Wallace's thesis, _A Critical Analysis of Four Classifications of Dance Film, Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1967, begins to break down the Dance film into sub-categories. Demonstration: a type of film organized by a technique where phenomena are arranged specifically for the camera. It is frequently used in films on the subject of science. For example, use of the microscope in the Shell Film Unit's Malaria (U.K., 1939). Detective: also named Private Eye, a metagenre constructed from the "world" of the detective. The detective film also refers to genres and sub genres; for example, the term is interchanged with the Hollywood detective film, as if the French and British do not have their own genre; it is sometimes used equivalently for the "Hard-boiled" 446 detective film, which is a sub-genre of the Hollywood detective genre. It has been suggested that the "private eye" movie may be a sub-genre. See M. LeSueur, "Private Eye: Second Golden Age," Journal of Popular Film and Television, 7, no. 2 (1979), pp. 181-189. Discussion: a format, usually of nonfiction film, in j which a conversation — with questions and exchange — takes place among several individuals. Documentary: a form of film. Defined by UNESCO as utilizing material, actual or reconstructed, drawn from real life and based on sociological reference." See Appendix A, 3. Originally from the French "documentaires," it is based on the filmmaker(s)' belief in the camera's ability to reproduce "reality" faithfully. Documentary is listed under "Genres" in The International Index to Film Periodicals , is a sub-category of Non- Fiction films in The New Film Index, and has separate entries in The Critical Index and The Film Literature Index. See Rotha's classic text j Documentary Film NY: Hastings House, 1970, where he differentiates nonfiction film (interest, lecture, and travelogues, etc) from the documentary which approaches its subject from a creative or dramatic point of view. See also, Roy Paul Madsen's fine article, "The Classic Documentary Film," in The Impact of Film: How Ideas Are Communicated Through Cinema and Television, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1973, pp. 317-340. For additional readings, see in Bibliography under H. Forsyth Hardy, Thorold Dickinson, and Basil Wright. Economics: a topic; nonfiction category of film centering on the subject of economics -- the production, distribution and consumption of wealth. Educational film: a nonfiction category of film on the topic of education, its process and-system. See "Instructional film" for nonfiction films with the purpose of educating the film viewer. Epic: a problematic term with multiple meanings and usages. It has strong roots in classical and literary definitions; distinguished by characters of a higher type, a large scale, action has no time or geographical limits, and multiple plot 447 structure. Rudolf Arnheim quotes Goethe, "The epic poem preferably describes man as he acts outwardly: battles, travels, any kind of enterprise that requires some sensuous breadth." (Recall Vachel Lindsay's category for epic.) Arnheim also characterizes epic film as static, but has a large enough concept of epic to indicate that documentary film can be epic. See Rudolf Arnheim's article, "Epic and Dramatic Film," Film Culture, 3, no. 1 ( 1957), pp. 9-10; Raymond Dur gnat, "Epic , Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic," in Ed. Barry Grant, Film Genre: Theory and Criticism, p. 110. Similar to other problematic categories of film, such as Comedy, Romance, and Tragedy, it may prove most usefully defined as a vision rather than a type or form of film. It requires further study to determine whether it can be useful (1) as a film meta-genre or genre; (2) as a category; (3) as a mode. Ethnographic: a documentary film metagenre. "...Any film which seeks to reveal one society to another," is the definition given by David MacDougall in "Prospects of the Ethnographic Film," in Bill Nichols, ed., Movies and Methods, pp. 135-150. Examples include The Hunters (U.S., 1958) and Dead Birds (U.S., 1961). One might say that the first ethnographic film was Flaherty's Nanook (U.S., 1922). Also see Jay Ruby, "Toward an Anthropological Cinema," Film Comment 7, no. 1 (Spring 1971), pp. 35-40. Experimental film: a type of film, sometimes named art, visionary, or underground film. Its purpose is to explore, to express, and/or to experiment; sub categories such as the experimental feature or the experimental short constitute forms of film. Edward S. Small uses the broadest definition of experimental film in his article, "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film." He says of the experimental film — "[it] also evidences diverse labels such as art, avant-garde, underground, visionary, expanded cinema, etc.)"; he considers subsets Dada, Surreal, Psychodrama, Minimalist, and Structuralist film (pp. 293-294). None of these types of films composes a metagenre or genre, however. Expressionism: 1) German expressionism, 1919-1932, highly stylized art movement in Germany; examples 448 are Cabinet o f Dr . Caligari (Germany, 1919). See Lotte Eisner's The Haunted Screen; 2) an "expressionistiP visual style is one in which inner feelings are objectified. Expressive Realism; an historical movement in Russia, roughly 1925 - 1930, characterized by dynamic editing and Eisenstein's theory of montage. Fact and Fiction: troublesome distinction common in film studies, based on the attempts by proponents of realist theory to prove the value of film primarily as a realistic recording medium. For example, actualities are perhaps the closest film comes to recording an event; it may also be a news item which then may or may not have acted as a basis for a newsreel or cinemagazine films. Lumiere is considered to be father of the "factual" tradition; however, simultaneously George Melies exploited the appeal of the actualities by "re-creating" significant news events, such as "The Assassination of President McKinley," "The Sinking of the Maine," or "The Coronation of Edward VII." These fictional dramatizations have often been placed with factual films when they need to be addressed as being of a different nature. Fantasy: a type of entertainment film based on the world of imagination and fancy; in the New Film Index fantasy falls somewhere under "Science FTction, Supernaturalism, Horror;" three types -- fantasy film, fantastic films, and science fiction films — are created by The International Index to Films . The Library of Congress includes legends, myths, fables, and fairy tales as sub-categories of fantasy. To distinguish among the fairy tale, the fantasy and the folk tale — the fairy tale takes for granted the existence of magical elements or beings in this (an actual) world; in fantasy magical realms exist, but the tale's characters must somehow find a means of transport to them; and a folk tale is a story with legendary aspects and tending to be regional in character. Fixity: a concept in which the theorist constructs film genres based on fixed, invariant characteristics. He seeks to stabilize genres into defined territories with articulated boundaries. Rather 449 than readjusting the definition and limits of the genre with the variations produced by new film examples, his tendency is simply to create new categories or film genres. For example, film noir can only be black and white. Therefore, Chinatown cannot be a film noir; although it might be named a "color film noir." The essentialists, idealists, archetypal, and popular myth approaches all tend to prefer "fixed" notions of film genre while the contextualists and traditionalists, for example, do not. Fixity is often associated with the concept of "purity." See under "Purity." Form: "...that arrangement which makes the parts of a whole out of a plurality of elements and thereby structures the latter into a distinct object." For a good, succinct discussion, see pp. 2-4 in Etienne Gilson’s Forms and Substances in the Arts, trans. Salvator Attanasio, NY: Charles Scribner ' s sons, 1966. It is the aesthetic organization of the materials of reality — all existing in other modes and media. Form cannot be separated from content without overly reducing the work of art. Historically, form meant the visible, external, often physically apprehendable characteristics. The formalists redefined the concepts so that "the aesthetic effect of a work of art does not reside in what is commonly called its content .... the content implies some elements of form" Wellek and Warren, Theory of Literature, p. 128. Nearly every major film theorist has addressed the concept and resultant issues of film form. See Chapter 2 for further discussion. Film genres, such as the western and the musical have unfortunately been labeled separate art forms. For examples of formal analyses with parallels in history of fine arts refer to the works of the Russian formalists, and to I. A. Richards in his Practical Criticism, London: 1929, NY: 1955.) Also see W. P. Ker, Form and Style in Poetry, London, 1928 especially pp. *53 -104 and pp. 137-45; C. La Driere, "Form," in Dictionary of World Literature, p. 250 ff; and, Henri Focillon's The Life of Forms in Art, trans. Charles Beecher Hogan and George Kubler, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942. Form of film: based in part on the historical concept of form, it is used in this study to identify groups 450 of film based on their function and use by the audience. Form is constructed from a distinctive conceptualization process, form of presentation, commercial/financial basis, certain physical properties, such as length, and techno-structural characteristics resulting from the conceptualization process. Format: used in two ways: 1) to refer to the aspect ratio of width to height on film; and, 2) the arrangement of the presentation. It is sometimes confused with structure and technique. It is infrequently used as a defining characteristic in cataloguing. As a descriptive classifier it is useful, but not for defining genres. Examples include: anthology, cine—magazine, omnibus, feature . Formula: 1) a fixed set of characteristics; 2) a predictable and prescribed set of narrative elements (plot, characters, setting, lines of action). '...formula ... is cultural; it represents the way in which a culture has embodied both mythical archetypes and its own preoccupations in narrative form." (p. 387). Cawelti distinguishes formula from form: "A formula is a conventional system for structuring cultural products. It can be distinguished from form which is an invented system of organization. Popular culture filmologists have suggested that the term "formula" replace "genre," in order to allow the broader literary definition of genre to stand. See John Cawelti, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popu 1 a r Literature." The Journal of Popular Culture, 3, no. 3 (Winter 1969) pp. 381-390. Cawelti differentiates formula from genre in terms of their cultural functions: "Formulas, however, are much more specific: Westerns must have a certain kind of setting, a particular cast of characters, and follow a limited number of lines of action.... This greater specificity of plot, character, and setting reflects a more limited framework of interest, values, and tensions that relate to culture rather than to the generic nature of man." (p. 388). For Cawelti, formula is culture- specific, not only within nations but within historical periods; for example, "the gunfighter Western of the 1950's is importantly different from 451 the cowboy romances of Owen Wister and Zane Grey..." (p. 387) However, as Stuart Kaminsky so realistically points out in American Film Genres , Approaches to a_ Critical Theory of Popular Film, p. 19, usage will more likely preserve-a filmic meaning for the term genre. See Chapter 3 for a further discussion of "formula." Free Cinema; a brief movement of the mid-50s begun by British documentarists Lindsay Anderson, Karel Reisz, and others, but not restricted to the U.K. "Free" refers to the financial base, their aim being to observe rather than to promote — enactments of real persons in plotless scenes of daily life. Examples include Lindsay Anderson's () Dreamland (U.K., 1953), Lionel Rogosin’s 0n_ the Bowery (U.S., 1956), and Paragraph Zero (Poland, 1956). See the discussion of Free Cinema in Alan Lovell and Jim Hillier, Studies in Documentary, NY: Viking, 1972, pp. 133-1 73"! Function: Antoine Vallet in Les genres du cinema outlines three functions: 1) psychological; 2) descriptive; and 3) narrative. Other functions include: 1) deictic (demonstrative, illustrative); 2) expressive; 3) phatic (binding relationships). Slavko Vorkapxch, in "Toward True Cinema,"(53) outlined four functions of film: 1) the recording function; 2) the creative use of recording; 3) the recording of the creative and imaginative; and, 4) the purely creative function which discovers and explores. Genre: (1) as used in this study, defined as a sub category of film form, based on the same concept as metagenre, but with limited contextual and cultural scope. See Chapter 4 under "Genre and Metagenre." (2) a 'category, kind, or form of film distinguished by subject matter, theme, or techniques' listing more than seventy-five nonexclusive genres, both fiction and nonfiction, in An Illustrated Glossary of Film Terms by Harry M. Geduld and Ronald Gottesman. (3) "A body, group, or category of similar works; this similarity being defined as the sharing of a sufficient number of motifs so that we can identify works which properly fall within a particular kind or style of film," (p. 20) in American Film Genres , Approaches to a _ 452 Critical Theory of Popular Film by Stuart M. Kaminsky. (4) John G. Cawelti, in "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature," takes up Northrop Frye's concepts — "genres embody fundamental archetypal patterns reflecting stages of the human life cycle ... genre can be defined as a structural pattern which embodies a universal life pattern or myth.... Genre, in the sense of tragedy, comedy, romance, etc., seems to be based on a difference between basic attitudes or feelings about life." (p. 387); the main drawback of genre as myth is that it is thus so universal "that it hardly serves to differentiate one story from another." (p. 388). (5) Edward Buscombe, in "The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema," Screen, 11, no. 2 (March-April 1970), pp. 33-45 defines genre in terms of the presence of formal elements: for example, in the Western, they include 1) the setting; 2) clothes; 3) tools of the trade; 4) horses; 5) physical objects; thus, genre is determined by the nature of its conventions which are shared by filmmaker and audience; Buscombe opposes the exclusive use of the auteur approach, saying that genres predate directors and, "a genre is not a mere collection of dead images waiting for a director to animate it, but a tradition with a life of its own." (p. 37). (6) Harris Dientsfrey, in "Hitch Your Genre To A Star," Film Culture, 34 (Fall 1964), pp. 35-37, favors a more flexible, "unformulated" definition; genres derive their force and appeal from the relationship between the movie and its public; more specifically, he names themes, but his concept of themes taps into both archetypal situations and the power of actors/stars . (7) Andrew Tudor, in his chapter on genre and auteur in his Theories of Film, NY: Viking, 1974 reprinted as "Genre," in Barry Grant, ed. Genre : Film Theory and Criticism pp. 16-23, places genre within a sociaT7 psychological context: "Genre notions -- except the special case of arbitrary definition -- are not critics' classifications made for special puposes; they are sets of cultural conventions. Genre is what we collectively believe it to be." (p. 19) "... it is [formulated in the much looser] way in which an audience classifies films." (p. 21). (8) Douglas Pye, in "Genre and Movies," invokes E. H. Gombrich and Ludwig Wittgenstein: both argue a notion of 453 "family resemblances" loose enough "to be flexible but conceptually specific enough to be useful. Thus, while no single 'western* will employ every convention or serve as a perfect model for the genre, the generic term 'western* will remain valid for indicating that place where a group of specific aesthetic conventions or conceptual categories intersect. That such conventions exist for particular genres is empirically verifiable... and the system of such conventions ... is powerful enough ... to generate an almost infinite range of meanings and associations without bursting the conceptual bonds that hold the genre together." (pp. 152-153.) (9) Charles Eidsvik takes one of the broadest definitions of genre: "Insofar as films do establish their 'kind* unambiguously, all films are generic." (p. 62). He also links genres with nationality quoting Ray L. Birdwhistel1, Kinesics and Context (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970), pp. 54-55. "Often the nationality of a film functions generically, too." See pp. 62-71 in Cineliteracy: Film Among the Arts. Also see Chapter Genre construction: as defined in this study, film genres are constructed in 4 manners: by 1) the concept of "world," 2) resemblance and/or tradition, 3) intended effect, or 4) target audience. See Chapters 3 and 4. Andrew Tudor, in his chapter on genre and auteur in his Theories of Film, NY: Viking, 1974 reprinted as "Genre," irT Barry Grant, ed. Genre : F ilm Theory and Criticism pp. 16-23, outlines two types of genre construction: 1) by attributes — as in the Western and the Gangster -- as Jim Kitses does with a thematic, flexible structure, with archetypal elements and, 2) by intention — that is, to horrify as in the horror film, or to thrill as in the thriller. Genre film: not to be confused with film genre. A genre film is more equivalent to genre painting in that it is a formulaic product of a studio system, Hollywood or other. Perhaps one of the best discussions is by Thomas Sobchack in "Genre Film: A Classical Experience," Literature/Film Quarterly, 3 (Summer 1975), pp. 196-204. Sobchack defines the genre film as "bound by a strict set of 454 conventions, tacitly agreed upon by filmmaker and audience, the genre film provides the experience of an ordered world [where] ... the plot is fixed, the characters defined, the ending satisfyingly predictable." (p. 196) "... the genre film is not realistic, because it is so blatantly dramatic." (p. 196) "It has been condescendingly treated by many critics for its failure to be relevant to contemporary issues, philosophies, and aesthetics. Yet the truth of the matter is that the genre film lives up to the guiding principle of its Classical origins: 'there is nothing new under the sun,' and truth with a capital *T' is to be found in imitating the past.... Thus originality, unique subject matter, and a resemblance to actual life are denigrated as values, while conformity, adherence to previous models, and a preoccupation with stylistic and formal matters are held to be the criteria for artistic excellence." (p. 196). "[The genre film's] sole justification for existence is to make concrete and perceivable the configurations inherent in its ideal form." It is characterized by consistency of motifs, plots, settings and characters; it is the same story that has been told before and will be told again. "The body of stories is, to use Balazs terms, the 'material' out of which the 'content' of a genre film can be made. And it is a strictly delimited area other films may have the whole of life experience to choose from, but the genre film must be made from certain well known and immediately recognizable plots — plots usually dealing with melodramatic incidents in which obvious villains and heroes portray the basic conflict of good versus evil." (p. 197) The rules of the genre film involve imitation, source usually in pulp literature or popular media,' an insistence on the "familiar." "Other fiction films are not genre films precisely because they do the opposite; they go out of their way to be original, unique, and novel." (p. 198) Citizen Kane is not a genre film. "Although there is a detective (the reporter) and a mystery (What's Rosebud?), it would be difficult to make a case for Citizen Kane as a detective or mystery genre film. Though it has certain generic elements, they are not prominent, nor are they the sole justification for the creation of the film. On the other hand, Sherlock Holmes' films, the Thin 455 Man Series, Charlie Chan movies, etc. exist primarily to flesh out the idea of the detective story on film. They exist as variations on the motif of sleuthing. 'Who Dun it?' is the primary question raised and answered by these movies. No matter how rich a gold mine of interpretation one may find in The Maltese Falcon, for example, the basic question dealt with is still 'Who Dun it?' not 'Who am I?' or 'What is the discrepancy between what a man appears to be and what he really is?' This is not to say that something of the latter question is not raised by Sam Spade's character, but certainly the film does not invite the general audience to take the question seriously, even if critics do." (p. 198) Gangster : a metagenre constructed from the "world" of the protagonist as gangster. Sub-categories include the classic Hollywood gangster genre, the French gangster film, and the Japanese gangster movie . Gendai-geki; a Japanese film genre of contemporary life; that is, it has a setting "contemporaneous with the time of filming," (p. 1) explains Joseph L. Anderson in "Japanese Swordfighters and American Gunfighters," in Cinema Journal, 12, no. 2 (Spring 1973), pp. 1-21. He terms both gendai-geki and jidai-geki "mega-genres." "In their most conventional aspects, gendai-geki and jidai-geki represent in film the two opposing philosophic tendencies found in other Japanese dramatic forms. This is the division between drama of acceptance and of protest." (p. 7) Joseph L. Anderson and Donald Richie, in The Japanese Film, NY: Grove Press, 1960, list sub-genres as shomin-geki (middle class comedy), haha-mono (the "mother" picture — the suffering sacrifices to be a mother), tsuma- mono (the "wife" picture — the difficulties of marriage and loss of individuality for women), o- namida chodai eiga ("tears-please films" or "weepies"), the nansensu-mono (farcical comedies), the sports-mono (judo, karate, wrestling pictures), shakai-mono (social genre), gangster movies, and youth pictures. See pp. 318-326ff. One might also add Japanese monster movies of the 50s. 456 German 11 street" f i 1ms : a subcategory, possibly a sub genre of German realist film; Gerald Mast, in A_ Short History of the Movies, describes them thus: "[they] consistently use the word street in their titles: Karl Grune's The Street (1923), Bruno Rahn’s Tragedy of the Street (1927). They consistently use the unifying locale of the street as a means of tying together diverse kinds and classes of people and diverse kinds of human activities. In a sense, the street films can be seen as related to the street sections of The Last Laugh in which the porter walks between his home and the hotel — the many people he meets on the street, their attitudes, their aspirations, their successes and failures. The street becomes a microcosm for society as a whole." (p. 174) The "street" films used an expressionist treatment of subjective, psychological feelings, mixed with realist settings and detailed observation of gestures and facial expressions. Examples include: Pabst's Joyless Street (Germany, 1925) and Joe May’s Asphalt (Germany, 1929). Hard-Boiled Detective: a sub-genre of the Hollywood Detective film. See Detective film. Hierarchy: coordination and subordination by kind and degree from larger, more encompassing categories to smaller, more specifically defined groupings. Historical film: a problematic type of film, dramatizing past events. See also costume drama and epic. See in Paul Rotha, Movie Parade, p. 74-77, where he defines the historical film as "serious attempts to film historical episodes..." According to Rotha, true historical films are rare, the majority being romantic dramatizations. An historical film Rotha names is Renoir's La Marseillaise (France, 1937); it "...is a genuine attempt to reconstruct a phase of the French Revolution as if a documentary film unit had accompanied a group of revolutionary volunteers from Marseilles to Paris." (p. 74) Under Rotha's conceptual organization, the historical film is related more to documentary and the film of fact. Thus, the "historical moments" in, but not the entire film, Birth of a_ Nation (U.S., 1914), can be described as "historical." The broadest and least desirable definition is in 457 Harry Geduld, and Ronald Gottesman, Guidebook to Film: An 11-in-l Reference, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973: "deals with a historical subject whether factual or fictionalized; e.g. Cromwell (1970) is an historical film that deals with a factual subject; Captain Horatio Hornblower (1951) is an historical film that deals with a fictional character involved in quasi-historical events." (p. 79). The majority of traditional genre critics do not use the term "historical film" except in reference to the early Italian historical films. Hollywood critics have no delusions that there is any attempt to recount history. These are "spectaculars" first and foremost. See "spectacular." History: a topic; a category of nonfiction film presenting an account of past events. Horror : both a metagenre, and a sub-category of nonfiction film examining the history of the horror fiction genre. As a metagenre it is constructed from a horrifying "world" and from an intended effect upon the audience — that is, to horrify. Hybrid film: a theoretical concept and category of film which represents a synthesis of two or more genres of f i1ms. Icon: "certain photographed objects, costumes and places composing the visible surface of a genre film which creates economically the context and milieu, the field of action on which the plot will unravel itself. Over a period of use in many films, these visual elements have become encrusted with shared meanings, so that dialogue and camera can concentrate on revealing the twists and turns of the plot. Iconography, like familiar plot situations and stereotypical characters, provides a shorthand of mutually recognizable communications that neither filmmaker nor audience need ponder: the jungle is treacherous, the castle that towers darkly over the village is sinister, the flat horizon of the desert is unyielding.... the icons of genre films serve to remind the viewer of the internal consistency and familiarity of the characters and places in the film." Thomas Sobchack, "Film Genre: A Classical Experience" 458 Literature/Film Quarterly 3 (Summer, 1975) p. 199. Also, see Lawrence Alloway1s article "The Iconography of the Movies." Movie, no. 7 (FebruaryMarch, 1963), pp. 46 where he criticizes auteurism for the neglect of the iconographical approach and emphasizes that most films have... an iconographical interest outside of aesthetic concerns. Alloway insists that "... iconography is not to be isolated from other aspects of film making." See p. 4. Also see Alloway’s chapter on "Iconography" in Violent America: The Movies, 1946- 1964, New York, Museum of Modern Art, 1971. Colin McArthur, in 'the Iconography of the Gangster Film," his chapter 2 in Underworld USA, relates . icons to casting; he defines icons as "patterns of visual imagery, of recurrent objects and figures in dynamic relationship"; these he divides into 3 categories: 1) "those surrounding the physical presence, attributes and dress of the actors and the characters they play"; 2) "those emanating from the milieux within which the characters operate"; and, 3) "those connected with the technology at the characters’ disposal." Examples of icons are: 1) voyeuristic electronic devices in the FBI movies; 2) blunt guns and fast cars in the Gangster movies; 3) horses in the Western. A traditionalist, McArthur maintains that icons are not static, but in constant flux and evolving. Imitation: a concept borrowed from fine arts. Until just after the turn of the century art criticism was deeply rooted in the conviction that the aim of fine art was the "imitation" of natural forms; that is, "good" art was descriptive imitation -- the production of verisimilitude. In film theory, imitation has become a springboard concept for much of realist film theory. For example, a core question of realist film theory involves whether film imitates, produces, or reproduces reality. It is Thomas Sobchack's contention that the genre film is constructed by imitation of other films, for example, not reality. "Genre films are "Imitations of fictions" (p. 197). "They are made in imitation not of life but of other films." Thomas Sobchack in "Genre Film: A Classical Experience," Literature/ Film Quarterly, 3 (Summer 1975), pp. 196-204. 459 Independent American cinema: has "four vague but recognizable ’""genres’: the formal, the social- satirical, the sexual, and the perceptual- psychological." Gerald Mast, _A Short Histor y of the Movies, p. 497. Industrial: it is tentatively proposed in this study that the industrial film and the interest film make up two separate film forms. Historically, however, the industrial film has been considered a sub category of the interest film. It is defined by The Film Index as factual films concerned principally with industrial organizations or processes, including manufacturing, operations, working conditions, and daily work life scenes. Information: a category of factual film related to the interest film Instruct ional f ilm: a category of film designed to teach or aid in learning. Paul Rotha, in Movie Parade, says: "The instructional film has one main object, the clarification of its subject." He compares the instructional film to a school textbook or a technical manual. Rotha cites several dozen examples, including Basil Wright's The Be ginning of History (U.K., 1946) and Henri Storck’s Rubens (Belgium, 1948). Intention: The filmmaker(s)' intention or purpose is one of the frameworks used for organizing categories of film by form. Employed by Balazs and Spottiswode, the greatest problem with this organizing principle is that only in rare circumstances can the critic/theorist know a filmmaker's intention. Film production involving more than one filmmaker obviously complicates the issue because of multiple intentions. Even if intention is replaced with intended effect, as a theoretic base, it does not prove generalizable when ordering an entire classification system. See "aim" and "purpose." Interest: listed as one of the four major types of factual film by The Film Index, it is a category of films dealing with a factual subject in a popular manner. The Film Index defines the interest film as: "...characterized by an informational, novelty, or instructional approach..." (p. 583). 460 Subclassifications include: "fight" and "wrestling" films, industrial, occupational films, nature, and scientific films. Interview: question and answer format, usually in a i face-to-face conversation, and often used, although not restricted to nonfiction film. Examples include Shirley Clarke’s Portrait of Jason (U.S. , 1967) which is not face-to-face, but is nonfictional (cinema verite) and Dinner With Andre (U.S., 1981) which is face-to-face and fictional . Inventions: as opposed to conventions, are "... elements which are uniquely imagined by the creator such as new kinds of characters, ideas, or linguistic forms." in John G. Cawelti's article, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature." Journal of Popular Culture 3, no. 3 (Winter 1969), p . 385. Isms: Constructivism, Dadaism, Expressionism, Formalism, ! Modernism, Neorealism, Socialist Realism, j Surrealism — movements within the arts which i crossed into film, as opposed to movements which grew up naturally from film, for example, Neorealism, Cinema Verite, or Free Cinema. Jidai-geki: Joseph L. Anderson defines jidai-geki as follows: "...is not the equivalent of such general English language terms as historical drama, costume drama, or period drama. It primarily refers to films set in the latter part of the Tokugawa era, from the early 1600’s to 1867. Stories with earlier historical settings are also jidai-geki but these are rare. The proper period of the jidai- geki ends with the beginning of the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Jidai-geki plots usually center on swordsmen of fictional, legendary, or actual historical origin." (p. 1) See his article, "Japanese Swordfighters and American Gunfighters," where he also explains the cultural differences between the Western and jidai-geki. Translating from Western film organization, it would seem that the jidai-geki, like the Western, is based on the concept of "world." 461 Kung-fu movies: a metagenre placed in the martial arts world of Kung-fu, centering on a fictional action drama, and produced by several cultures, including the U.S., China, and Hong Kong. Magazine or Cine—magazine: a format, most often employed in short nonfiction films, in the manner of a printed magazine; it is composed of several diverse items of topical or general interest. Material: the "raw matter". Bela Balazs, in his Theory of Film gives the term a meaning specific to film theory. It is the "material" out of which the content of a genre film is formed. This "material" is interpreted as actuality by "realists"; or, the "material" may simply refer to an extant body of shared stories recognizable to filmmaker(s) and audience, (as with Thomas Sobchack, "Genre Film: A Classical Experience." p. 197.) Medical: either fiction or nonfiction category of film focusing on the practice of medicine; as a fiction category it is similar to other "occupational" categories; as a nonfiction category, it includes training, informational, instructional, and record f i1ms. Melodrama: a problematic type of film variously defined as (" 1 ) a mode; (2) a vision; (3) a treatment; (4) a metagenre. Jean-Loup Bourget places melodrama in opposition to tragedy: "in melodrama, Fate is not metaphysical, but social or political. Thus melodrama is bourgeois tragedy, dependent upon an awareness of the existence of society." (p. 66) in Social Implications in the Hollywood Genres," in Barry Grant, ed. Film Genre: Theory and Criticism. See Raymond Durgnat's article" "Ways of Melodrama," Sight and Sound, v. 21, no. 1 (August-September 1951), pp. 34-40. The Critical Index lists "melodrama" under "Themes . '* §"ee also Geoffrey Nowell-Smith's article "Minnelli and Melodrama," Screen (Summer 1977); Thomas Elsaesser's article "Tales of Sound and Fury: Observations on the Family Melodrama," Monogram no. 4 (1972). See also Peter Brooks' The Melodrama ti c Imagination , New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976, and Frank R a h i 11's The World of Melodrama, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1967. 462 Historically, melodrama was not considered so much as a genre (metagenre) of films so much as it was a narrative structure and a vision. It was a point of view that could be shared both by men’s "action" film and women's "sentimental" films. Unfortunately, the term "melodrama" has acquired conflicting and varied meanings to the point where its usefulnes as a pedagogical tool is questioned. In the early days of film, melodrama was equivalent to tragicomedy. Its moral theme was consistent — punishment for the villain, happiness for the hero. The structure of events progressed more through contrivance than coincidence. The characters were static for the most part — types inherited from literature and drama: the diabolically clever villain who pursued the innocently lovely heroine who in turn was rescued by the brave and manly hero who was of course accompanied by his lovable, comic sidekick. The sequence of events was thrilling, sensational — full of adventure and suspense. A number of film genres still fall completely within this early concept of melodrama. Swashbucklers and their variations, for example, are melodramatic. So are the "hero" movies, such as the Hercules cycle of films, or those set in the mythic, ancient world. One might make an argument for monster movies, science fiction, and mystery thrillers as melodrama. Certainly, vampire films, the Flash Gordon series, or Hitchcock's British thrillers easily qualify. But over the years the meaning of melodrama has changed radically — and with an undermining effect. Thomas Schatz explains: "As the Hollywood cinema and its narrative forms developed, though, and borrowed elements from pulp fiction, radio serials, romantic ballads, and other forms of popular romantic fiction, the term 'romantic melodrama' assumed a more specialized meaning. Generally speaking, 'melodrama' was applied to popular romances that depicted a virtuous individual (usually a woman) or couple (usually lovers) victimized by repressive and inequitable social circumstances , particularly those involving marriage, ocupation, and the nuclear family. It is easy to understand how the transformation took place. On the surface it would appear that the diabolical villain was replaced by repressive social mores. Certainly, Griffith's Broken Blossoms , Frank Borzage's _A Farewell To 463 Arras, and Ophul's Letter to an Unknown Woman are filled more with pathos than tragedy, plotted more with contrivance than coincidence, and have their share of morally innocent victims, but they are not in any sense tragicomedy. Antoine Vallet considers melodrama as a "world view"; he distinguishes between the tragic vision and the melodramatic vision thus: "Melodrama ... is like drama gutted of substance, ... where ... the people and the events are conventional. Melodrama often boasts of incarnating the great problems of humanity and the struggles of the soul; but love and hate are mere abstractions ... [the world of melodrama] is simple and rigidly black and white: the Good and the Bad confront each other in a struggle whose outcome is clear; what is satisfied is a sense of justice. Human, social, and family problems are set up and forthrightly resolved ..." Thomas Schatz seems to label melodrama a genre. Schatz carves out a group of films he calls "50s melodrama," noting as examples Nicholas Ray’s Rebel Without <a Cause , George Steven's Giant and Richard Brooks Cat on a_ Hot Tin Roof. Schatz focuses on Family Melodrama, basing the genre on what he calls "its interrelated family of characters, its repressive small-town milieu, and its preoccupation with America's sociosexual mores." In practice, the term melodrama is today far from what either Rotha or Vallet meant by it, and requires continued study. Metagenre: as defined in this study, it is a sub category of film form, sharing several genres cross-culturally and/or cross-nationally; like genre it is constituted by 1) "world," 2) resemblance and/or tradition, 3) intended effect, or 4) audience relationship. See Chapter 4 under "Genre and Metagenre." Modes: In his seminal essay on a theory of modes, Northrop Frye describes the continuum of kinds of fiction as: 1) myth — the story of a divine being; 2) romance (also legend, folk tale, marchen) -- the hero of romance is "superior in degree to other men and to his environment ... but who is himself identified as a human being." He "moves in a world in which the ordinary laws of nature are slightly suspended: prodigies of courage and endurance, 464 unnatural to us, are natural to him ..." 3) high mimetic mode (epic and tragedy) — "the hero is [a leader] superior in degree to other men but not to his natural environment ... He has authority, passions, and powers of expression far greater than ours, but what he does is subject both to social criticism and to the order of nature." 4) low mimetic mode (realistic fiction and comedy) -- the protagonist is "superior neither to other men nor to his environment ... [he/she] is one of us; we respond to a sense of his common humanity, and demand ... the same canons of probability that we find in our own experience." 5) ironic mode -- the protagonist is "inferior in power or intelligence to ourselves, so that we have the sense of looking down on a scene of ... frustration or absurdity ..." Several authors have applied Frye's modes to film genres, including: Larry KcMurtry of the Western in: "Cowboys, Movies, Myths and Cadillacs: Realism in the Western," in Man and the Movies , ed. W. R. Robinson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967, pp. 46-52; Frank McConnell has applied Frye's concepts. Legend and folktale are in the realm of fantasy; high mimetic is epic; low mimetic is most comedy, domestic tragedy, psycho-sociological drama, and melodrama; and ironic mode includes sub-categories of comedy like satire. The concept of mode provides a comparative scale for classifying fiction film. It involves the weightiness or lightness of the conditions, the moral rightness or wrongness of the conflict, the power of the hero, and the hero's relationship to the audience. Although never specifically defined as such, the filmic (as opposed to literary) modes are visions which involve tone (weightiness), moral attitude, and the degree of realism. Extending his basic organization somewhat would create a continuum of modes ranging from the tragic to ironic. Such an arrangement would prove more useful in film genre study . Monster movies: a genre of the horror film; for example, Japanese monster movies. Mo tif: a borrowed musical term, in film it used to mean a distinctive feature or element, repeated throughout the composition of a single film or body 465 of films. (1) "A dominant, generally recurring idea or dramatization designed, in most cases, to enhance the theme or themes of the director. Such motifs may be peculiar to the director, writer, or cameraman of a particular work but, more often, are common to related works in the same medium." in Stuart Kaminsky's American Film Genres, Approaches to a_ Critical Theory of Popular Film, p. 20. Example: betrayal by a female. (2) Leo Braudy defines motif in terms of context; he warns against "motif criticism," pointing out that a motif detached from context and used to support a speculation may be wrong. The unity of a visual method determines the selection and elaboration of motifs. Examples of motifs: Lang's closed doors, Bergman's islands, Hitchcock's stairwells, Renoir's rivers, Rossellini's trees — all lead us back to the basic aesthetic of their films, if the motifs are treated as indicative rather than definitive." (p. 40) Marc Vernet, in "Genre," supports these definitions: "In the classical Hollywood cinema motifs cross repeatedly from genre to genre." He gives as an example of motif "...The explicit comparison of women to cats connects screwball comedy (Bringing Up Baby), horror film (Cat People), melodrama (Rampage), and psychological thriller (Marnie)." (p. 47). Other citations include, J. A. Place and L. S. Peterson's article "Some Visual Motifs in Film Noir." In Movies and Met ho ds. Ed. Bill Nichols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 197 6; "No Way Out, Existential Motifs in the Film Noir," Sight and Sound 45, no. 4 (August 1976), pp. 212-217. Motivation : an aim of the filmmaker(s) or purpose of a film. As yet, there is not sufficient usage or critical consensus to name it as a class of films. It is described by UNESCO as a film "which encourages, inspires or recommends a particular course of action." See Appendix A, 3. Motivation is clearly an aspect of education and propaganda. Music: both a nonfiction category of film focusing on the subject of music and a category of fiction films; genres classified under music film include the musical, the ballet film, the opera, operetta, musical biography. 466 Mythological: period costume dramas often based on Indian folklore and legend. Although it requires critical investigation, the mythological is probably a genre, the Indian version of the mythological, a sub-genre. The mythological is a good example of how cultural and regional differences affect audience expectations, and thus in turn category building. Narrative: an account with a beginning, middle, and end. "Narratives explain change.... A narrative is a temporal account of a sequence of events related by similarity of topic and by a relationship of explanation, or causality." Wil Wright, Sixguns and Society, p. 192. See his chapter Methodological Epilogue." Also see classic narrative. Narrative traditions can be characterized in a number of ways; by: linearity, psychological involvement, dramatic and temporal- spatial unity, illusionism, and so on -- See Thomas Elsaesser, Monogram no. 1 (1971). Nature : a nonfiction category of film concentrating on wildlife, plant or wilderness topics. News Film: defined by Raymond Fielding as "individual motion picture sequences which pictured newsworthy events and personalities. News films were released as separate and isolated motion picture attractions.... Unlike the newsreel, they had no fixed schedule of release and presented only a single topic." (p. 4) in Raymond Fielding's, The Arnerican Newsreel: 1911-1967 . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972. The news film is a metagenre. Newsreel: a type of film employing a compilation technique to edit together "news" and "interest" footage. Raymond Fielding defines it as: "a ten- minute potpourri of motion picture news footage, released twice a week to motion picture theaters throughout the country.... from 1911 to 1967....it provided predominantly photographic news coverage.... often shallow, trivial, and even fraudulent.... of people, events, wonders, and horrors." (pp. 3-4). See Raymond Fielding's, The American Newsreel: 1911-1967. But newsreel is a 467 format which crosses fiction (Citizen Kane) and nonfiction (Gaumont British News -- Arrest of a Suffragette — U.K., 1913) genres/ categories. For "Newsreel" as a radical U.S. movement, see Revolutionary cinema. Noir: a film genre, visual, style, and likely an historical movement; it has been confused and maligned; even in the most recent publications, the arguments continues as to whether it is a genre, a movement, or a visual style. It is labeled a sub category of "Realism" according to The Critical Index, of historical periods (1940-1949) and (1950- 1959) according to the Retrospective Index to Film Periodicals, a genre according to The International Index to film Periodicals, and not even mentioned in The New Film Index. Film Noir is most often defined as a genre, employing convoluted plots to explore dark passions against alienating backdrops. Nonfiction: Currently, it is considered to be either j (1) a branch of film, according to Paul Rotha and many other realist film theorists; or, (2) one of the two major divisions of film, the other being fiction. See Richard Meran Barsam, Nonfiction Film; A Critical History (NY: E. P. Dutton) 1973. The fiction-nonfiction distinction has been the foundation for much genre theory and criticism. It is recommended in this study that function/use is a more valid basis for organizing groups of films; further, that fiction and nonfiction be retained as de'scriptors, but not as qualifiers. Omni bus: a format collecting three or more short films into one feature-length film; the shorter films are produced and directed as if independently, although the financing is not separate. Examples include: Boccaccio * 70, 3 films directed respectively by Visconti, Fellini, and De Sica; and, The Seven Capital Sins, an anthology of seven short films, directed by Godard, Chabrol, Demy, Vadim, De Broca, Molinaro, and Dhomme. Paradigm: often equated with "essence," "template," "ideal," or "core," it is here re-defined as a set of "resemblances" generally associated with a 468 particular film genre which, over the course of time, have gained consensus and acceptance and are "uncontested." Pivotal film: a key film which marks a turning point, transition, or spinoff of a new type of film such as a sub-genre or cycle. Pivotal films are often but not necessarily box-office successes or classics. Examples include The Cat and the Canary for the horror film, Stagecoach (U.S., 1939) for the Western, or Double Indemnity for film noir (U.S., 1944). Plot: a planned sequence of actions. Mody C. Boatwright outlines seven basic "Western" plots in "The Formula in Cowboy Fiction and Drama." Western Folklore, 28 (April 1969), pp. 136-145; Frank Gruber in The Pulp Jungle, Los Angeles: Sherbourne Press, 1967, pp. 183-186 also enumerates seven Western plots; needless to say, they are not identical. P. A. Soderbergh describes various plot patterns in the Hollywood War film in "Aux Armes! The Rise of the Hollywood War Film, 1916-1930," South Atlantic Quarterly, 65 (Autumn 1966) pp. 509- 522. In fact, the plots from both western and war films are appropriate to other "male action" oriented genres as well, confirming that plot is not sufficient as a defining criterion for a genre. Prison film: a metagenre, based on the "world" of prison life. Examples include: The Big House, Maedchen in Uniform. Private Eye film: See Detective film. Propaganda film: a type of film organized by purpose and possibly the filmmaker(s)' conceptualization. Its purposes are either to: 1) disseminate a particular doctrine or practice, and or 2) provoke an audience response (action, change in belief systems, and so on). Without in-depth study of the international propaganda film, it is premature to label it a film form; however, it is very likely that the propaganda film or some sub-cat eg ory does compose a film form. Public Affairs: current ideas and issues on socio political topic concerning the welfare of the public. 469 Purity: an historical issue discussed by traditionalists, humanists, and essentialists. It was used as an evaluative tool to characterize the "ideal" and/or prototypic example of a film genre. The more pure, the better. Critics sought the purest example of a Western, a Gangster film, and so on. Interest in purity has faded with the essentialist and humanist positions. Eidsvik, although not a stated traditionalist, represents the traditionalist position fairly well when he states in Cine-literacy: Film Among the Arts: "A films’s genre can be pure"1 -- as, for example, Little Caesar is a pure gangster film, containing everything we expect in a cops-and-robbers movie with a gangster as a protagonist. Rarely, however, is genre unmixed: the conflicting expectations inherent in hybrid genres help raise interest levels.... The Sting is both gangster and comedy." (p. 64) In fact, film production tends to be more interested in "putting a little of everything" into a film to make it more appealing to a broader audience. Thus, concepts of purity are no longer as appropriate to discussions of contemporary f ilmmaking. Purpose: "the intended effect." Unless specified as the filmmaker's purpose, it usually refers to the purpose of the film. In Movie Parade, Rotha uses purpose to mean presentation and/or how the film functions; it is on this notion of "purpose" that he bases his film categories (which he calls "forms"). Film purposes include: 1) to record information (archiving); 2) to inform; 3) to teach; 4) to stimulate interest; 5) to persuade; 6) to propagandize; 7) to affirm or reaffirm an audience's beliefs, values, opinions; 8) to entertain; 9) to explore (experiment); and, 10) to comment — to express an opinion. Expression can also include catharsis for both filmmaker and audience; the purpose can be phatic (the binding of relationships). In practice it is generally agreed that the purpose of a film can be determined by a critic through close filmic analysis. Realism: "Realism in literature and painting can refer to either method or subject matter or both. But 470 circumstantial realism in films is hardly ever a methodological choice; if anything, the filmmaker must choose to do otherwise. To call films realistic is similar to calling painting two- dimensional; realism is a necessary characteristic that the whole art grapples with, rather than a particular approach that an artist chooses or disdains according to his cultural moment and his individual will. If realism is to have any use as a critical term, it must be purged of any implication of moral superiority and aesthetic finality, and take its place as a description of a certain range of possibility in artistic construction, which includes subject matter as well as form, history as well as aesthetics.” (p.33) Leo Braudy, The World in a. Frame , Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press, 1976. Record film: a nonfiction category of film in which phenomenon are registered or filmed as they actually occur, without reconstruction. Religious: nonfiction category of film concerning the topic of moral codes of belief and systems of wor ship. Research: an aim of the filmmaker(s) or purpose of the film. Although it is defined as a category of films by UNESCO as "a film made for the better observation of phenomenon on which research is being carried out" there is as yet insufficient description of the form the category of films presently takes. See Appendix A, 3. Resemblance: generally recognizable, generally associated features compatible with the idea of tradition. Revolutionary: a form of film characterized by its theoretical position of engaging in changing social relations through the tool of film production. They define themselves in part through opposition to the "pleasure-principle" of entertainment film, espousing instead "shock" and confrontation principles. Historical movements associated with the general position of revolutionary cinema include "cinema engage," "cinema novo," "Newsreel," 471 "Workers' Film," and "Third Cinema." Sometimes known as "radical cinema," it ranges from a more narrowly political definition to a broader socio cultural approach including, for example, psycho- sexual politics (as in the works of Wilhelm Reich and Dusan Makavejev). For "mainstream" revolutionary film, however, see Fernando Solanas, Octavio Getino, "Toward a Third Cinema," Cineaste , 4, no. 3 (Winter 1970-1971), pp. 1-10; Yve"s De Laurot, "Production as the Praxis of Revolutionary film: The Concrete Stages of Realization -- Part One," Cineaste, 4, no. 2 (Fall 1970), pp. 2-17, and "Composing as the Praxis of Revolution: The Third World and the U.S. A. — the Concrete Stages of Realization: Part Two, " Cineaste, 4, no. 3 (Winter 1970-1971), pp. 15-24; also, "Yves De Laurot Defines Cinema Engage," Cineaste 3, no. 4 (Spring 1970), pp. 2-15; and, Leo Braudy's "Newsreel: A Report," Film Quarterly, 22, no. 2 (Winter 1968- 1969),pp. 48-51. Samurai: see jidai-geki. Satire: defined variously: (1)■filmmaker's treatment of the material, (2) mode; it does not compose a genre. Leo Braudy in The Wor Id in ja F r ame. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press, 1976 defines satire in terms of "open" and "closed" films. He also distinguishes between comic and tragic satire. "The coherence of a film, its effort to represent a continuous and consistent world.... Satire in film demands an agreement about limits.... Film satire is therefore very different from, say, musicals or science fiction films. Those films say 'accept my world and its standards totally or don't accept them at all. It is irrelevant to apply the criterion of recognizable reality to what's going on here.' ... film satire constantly asks the viewer to compare what's going on with a recognizable reality." (p. 59) See pp. 59-65 on satire, both tragic and comic. Sc ience: nonfiction type of film; sub-categories include nature films, medical films, technology films. Science Fiction: a metagenre of the entertainment film in which facts and theories of contemporary science 472 are imaginatively constructed into a story often set in the future. It has been suggested that it is a sub-category of fantasy. The Critical Index places science fiction under what it calls "Supernatural. " Screwball comedy: a Hollywood genre centering on a couple, as in I_t Happened One Night , or Howard Hawks’ Bringing Up Baby or it can also be used to include both the first definition plus what is sometimes considered "zany" comedy as in William Thomaier’s article, "Early Sound Comedy," Films In Review, 9 (May 1958) pp. 254-262. Serial : a type of film constructed by format — usually dramatic; a group of films with a dramatic story line continued from episode to episode. It can be conceived either 1) with an unlimited number of ' episodes; or, 2) with a limited number of episodes i as with. See Raymond William Stedman, The Serials. I Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971. I ' Series : a format; group of films usually related to one another; may be limited or unlimited. Shomin-geki: a Japanese film genre, a sub-category of the gendai-geki. It is described as "...films about the life of the common people, particularly the lower middle-class..." in The Japanese Film, NY: Grove Press, 1960, p. 96. Shimazu, Gosho, and Ozu have specialized in this genre. Examples include Wife! Be Like a_ Rose (Japan, 1935), I_ Was Born, But . . . (Japan, 1932 ) . Soap Opera: a type of films — a serial drama usually dealing with domestic themes; may include nonfiction categories of film on the topic of soap operas. Social Documentary: a nonfiction sub-category of documentary organized around a social issue or problem in society. May include reconstructed as well as actual footage. Social Problem: fiction and nonfiction categories of film. Sometimes called "message" films, "sociological," and "social issue" films. They are 473 most often organized by theme (racial prejudice, insanity, alcoholism, juvenile delinquency, political corruption, and so on), as in Charles Higham and Joel Greenberg's Hollywood in the Forties, NY: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1968, or David Manning White, and Richard Averson, The Celluloid Weapon, Boston: Beacon Press, 1972. But as H. J. Gans points out, in his article, "The Rise of the Problem-Film: An Analysis of Changes in Hollywood Films and the American Audience," Social Problems, 11, no. 4 (1964), pp. 327-335, the construction is more likely based on target audience. For a listing which includes short and nonfiction films, see Patricia Peyton, ed. , Reel Change: _A Guide To Social Issue Films. San Francisco: The Film Fund, 1979. See also Jim Purdy, The Hollywood Social Problem Film (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981). Sources: one of the identified criteria of traditionalist genre criticism. Discussion in Chapter 3. Examples include: Bruce Cook's dissertation, Science Fiction and Film: _A Study of the Interaction of Science, Science Fiction Literature and the Growth of Science. Diss. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1976. Among traditionalists, for example, a genre is often described and named based on its source. Identifying sources has theoretical repercussions in that naming the source often justifies connecting two categories of film. In Heritage of Horror author David Pirie begins his history of British horror films with a discussion of the genre's literary roots in Gothic Romance. Carlos Clarens sources the horror genre to legend, myth, and doppelgangers. Clarens does not take an overly narrow position, also including the illustrations that accompanied the penny dreadfuls, journalism, popular culture — whatever explored the dark side of the human mind. By establishing roots in other fields the Traditionalist has attempted to "work backwards" to discover a theoretical premise — for example, that on the family tree of horror, the horror genre is an offspring of romantic novels — not journalism. It has been recommended in this study that source be a descriptor — not a qualifier. Film's relationship to other studies is inadequate as a theoretical premise. 474 Spaghetti western: a European/Italian genre. See Mike Wallington and Chris Frayling, "The Italian Western," Cinema (Cambridge) nos. 6-7 (August 1970), pp. 31-38; Christopher Frayling, Spaghetti Westerns: Cowboys and Europeans from Karl May to Sergio Leone. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981 . Sports: fiction and nonfiction types of film organized around the topic and/or world of professional sports. It is neither a form nor a genre. Some sub-categories of the fictional film, however, such as boxing films, race car driving films, or kung-fu films qualify as film genres. Spy: a fiction type of films centering on espionage, or with a spy as protagonist. Spectator: a term which has been charged with filmological connotation, involving the passive identification of the film-goer with the power of the film image. See Dudley Andrew's select bibliography in his Concepts in Film Theory, pp. 225-226, especially Christian Metz' seminal essay, "The Fiction Film and Its Spectator," in The Imaginary Signifier, pp. 99-148. Sub-genre: a sub-category of genre, similarly constructed. Like genre, sub-genre has been variously constructed and is as much a source of confusion as genre is. Although he does not label them as such, the "anti-Western," for example, may be a sub-genre. See Jack Nachbar's discussion in "Riding Shotgun: The Scattered Formula in contemporary Western Movies," The Film Journal, 2, no. 4. William K. Everson considers the "B" western a sub-genre, assuming budget may be in part a basis for categorization. See his article "The 'B' Western" in The American Film Heritage. Subject matter: also named topic. It is probably the most pervasive criterion used and misused in the defining of film genres. It is clear from both Chapters 2 and 3 that subject matter does not differentiate or help to differentiate film forms or film genres. At best, it is a cataloguing tool. An entertainment film, a documentary, an 475 experimental — that, is, a form of film may be about anything whatsoever; it may evoke any sort of mood, emotion, atmosphere, create any kind of imagery, or express any idea, theme or point of view without ceasing to be an entertainment film, a documentary, an experimental film — that is without in any way affecting film form. Suspense: a narrative structural element which can form the basis for a type of film, not to be confused with the Suspense-thriller. Ian Cameron in Adventure in the Movies explains: "Suspense will emerge from delay in fulfilling the spectator’s desires or expectations or in resolving his fears. There are very few [fiction] film genres from which it is largely absent. The musical, which offers most of its rewards on a non-narrative level, is one... The most primitive cinematic structure built around suspense is the action climax ..." (p. 57) See Gordon Gow's Suspense in the Cinema (NY: A.S. Barnes, 1968). Stephen Neale, in Genre, suggests that suspense acts as a unifying narrative structure for among other genres, the Hollywood detective film. (p. 29). Neale already stated on p. 26 that suspense was not an exclusive characteristic: "Suspense is not, of course, exclusive to the detective genre, but it is nonetheless essential to it, tying in as it does with a narrative structured around the investigation of the principle of narrative disorder itself in the sense that the enigma is a mystery, an ’incoherence’ functioning as the trigger for a story, which, as it unfolds, eliminates the enigma and comes to an end when its disorder has been abolished." Suspense-Thriller: a metagenre constructed by intended effect. Hitchcock’s classic definition of suspense explains that at its simplest, suspense involves a situation dangerous' to the character on screen. It is a situation in which the audience has more information than the character in danger. It is a situation which creates in the audience a "longing to warn the characters on the screen." Suspense is as likely to be comic as with Harry Langdon's Tr amp, Tramp, Tramp, melodramatic as with Fritz Lang 1 s M, or psychologically dramatic as with 476 Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. A predominance of suspense is not what defines the Suspense-Thriller metagenre. It is far more specific. Defining characteristics of the Suspense-Thriller include: 1) a narrative structure revolving around peril and rescue; 2) a structure which constantly builds tension; 3) an "innocent" isolated in an environment of "latent menace"; 4) everyday realism verging on the fantastic; and, 5) an audience who is given more information (often through cross-cutting) than the protagonist has. Truffaut's interview with Hitchcock articulated many of the unwritten rules of suspense, while explaining the difference between effective and ineffective suspense. Just as there is a difference between adventure and suspense, the same is likely true of suspense and "thrill." The problem is that insufficient critical attention has clarified this difference. There are thrilling moments in movies — the chase scene in Bullit or The French Connection — that are not suspenseful in the classic definition. Many adventure films are thrilling and yet the adventure film is not a sub-category of the the thriller any more than the thriller is a sub-set of the adventure film. Swashbuckler: probably a metagenre. Generally a men's action picture, involving a romantic hero, often a legendary figure. With critical and theoreteical investigation, the swashbuckler should emerge as an important type of film crossing nationalities and historical periods. Symbol: an object used to represent something else. In the Western film genre, for example, the "good guy" is identified by his symbolic white hat or white horse (as in the Lone Ranger). There are both universal symbols (male and femals organs) and culture-specific symbols (colors in Western vs Asian cultures). Film symbols derive their meaning from context. The popular Culture critics have employed a very broad, but potentially useful definition of symbol. It is used, for example, as one of the defining characteristics of genre films (not necessarily film genre) according to Charles F. (Rick) Altman in his article, "Towards a Theory of Film Genre." Film: Historical-Theoretical 477 Speculations (The 1977 Film Studies Annual: Pt 2), pp. 31-43, especially p. 40. For Altman, actions have symbolic meaning: in the Western the building of a railroad is a symbolic enterprise, King Kong's fondling Faye Rae has symbolic sexual meaning, John Wayne and Walter Brennan, set in the majesty of Monument Valley, become symbols of the American heritage. Leo Braudy warns critics against "symbol hunting" thus: "The interpretive weight on any one object (at one extreme, to make it symbolic) interplays with the continuous reality, the collection of objects in time, that defines the film. In film nothing exists in itself, only in the way it is used, whether it be a river by Renoir, a crucifix by Bunuel , a gun by Lang, a car by Penn, or a beach by Bergman. Literary symbol hunters often become confused and confusing when they talk about films because they think of their discoveries as isolated things, copses of meaning in a landscape of exposition. But the surrounding world is a necessary part of the meaning of any film object or action." (p. 42) Freudian criticism has been particularly subject to "symbol hunting." For a discussion of film symbols, see Leo Braudy, The World in a_ Frame. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press, 1976, pp. 37-44 where he explains that, "’Symbol’ in a literary and pictorial sense does not begin to describe the kind of unfocused precision that significant and seemingly insignificant objects have in a film. (p. 40) Film examples: In Fritz Lang's Metropolis the huge city machine turns into a giant mouth symbolizing the swallowing/eating of the workers. For an expanded and more appropriate use of symbol for genre study, see Braudy's section entitled, "The Shaping Eye and the Recalcitrant Object." Technique: is defined by the Beograd Institute as ''starting with mechanical factors - whether the film is photographed by the normal work of the camera, by specific technical actions at shooting, or whether the action of photographing is neglected altogether." Examples: live-action ("normal work"), single-frame (animation), and what currently comes under the aegis of direct cinema ("action of photographing is neglected"). 478 Technology: nonfiction category of film focusing on the subject of applied science and technological advances . Theme: underlying idea of a film. (1) "A basic conceptual or intellectual premise underlying a specific work or body or works." in Stuart M. Kaminsky, American Film Genres, Approaches to a _ Critical Theory of Popular Film, p. 20. (2) The Beograd Film Institute defined it as topic or subject, but used theme equivalently for motif or pattern. See Appendices A and B. (3) John G. Cawelti defines a theme to be "... any prominent element or characteristic of a group of works which seems to have some relevance to a social or cultural problem." (p. 383) in his article, "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature." | Thriller : a type of film constructed by intended effect. The thriller is merely a generic term for narratives in which suspense plays a dominant r ole . Topical Theme: an underlying idea which is of interest because of contemporary social, historical, or cultural merit. Examples: in the 50s include brainwashing and momism; in the 60s drugs and civil rights; in the 70s narcissism, the "new woman," and so on. Tragedy: a problematic category similar to Romance, Comdey, Epic, and Satire. Modernism has further confounded the issues. Philosophers from Aristotle to Nietzsche have offered theories of tragedy; yet, it does not appear to have an easily defined place in film studies. Historically, tragedy was defined as serious drama, usually based on heroic legend and arousing pity and fear; it concerned the high born and was necessarily characterized by dignity. A loose equivalent — its modern counterpart — might be labeled "serious drama." Thus, some literary theorists suggest that Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman" and Tennessee Williams' "A Streetcar Named Desire" are modern tragedies; others, more interested in retaining the historical definitions, maintain 479 that modern man is too insignificant, too "ordinary" for real tragedy. The ordinary, bourgeois drama falls within the realm of melodrama — not tragedy. A more useful analogy may be Frye’s modes where tragedy is related to high mimetic. As a result, a tragic vision or a tragic world view may be more appropriate to a study of genre than any body of films labeled tragedies. Where genre critics have attempted to organize and constitute genres based on literary definitions (Romance, Tragedy, Comedy) this is no longer appropriate to film genre studies. Further study is required to determine how vision, treatment, and mode may be most useful to genre studies. Trailer: also named "Previews of coming attractions" trailer. A form of film. Training: a nonfiction category of films designed to help in acquiring a technique or skill for a specific purpose. Travelogue: a metagenre of the interest film, it depicts a traveler's view of life in a particular geographic area. Part of the standard Hollywood movie fare during the Golden Age was the Fitzpatrick travelogue. Type: a theoretical term used by Balazs, Spottiswode, and Rotha, and Kracauer, it is re-defined here as a category of films encompassing all conceivable collections of films joined together by a single or group of common traits/characteristics, whether it be narrative content, budget, critical acclaim, star, visual style, intention, technique, nationality, director's orientation, etcetera, or some new concern not yet articulated. A "type" of film is a neutral term like category, with the difference that it is limited to groups of films with aesthetic organization and intention. "Aesthetic" is interpreted in its broadest sense. Thus, the primary distinction between "category" and "type" is scope. Kracauer used "type" to distinguish between story and non-story films. However, because he used story to evaluate whether some groups of film exploited their true "filmic" 480 nature, his organizational structure was tied to his realist bias. When film was no longer defined in terms of realism, "type" lost its theoretical function and reverted to the generic meaning of any group of films. A single, shared characteristic such as topic, filmmaker's intention, technique, format, key player, budget, or narrative device can constitute a type of film. For example, both adaptation and animation may be termed types of film. Construction is based on the common characteristic of technique. Anthology, newsreel, and cine-magazine films are types of film; they are grouped by sharing a similar format. Star vehicles, an auteur s body of works, and an auteur's contribution to a genre are all types of films. Type Convention: see convention. War: both fiction and nonfiction types of film focusing on an account of armed conflicts between nations. Western: (1) Hollywood fiction film genre par excellence; when used to include international variations, it may be considered a metagenre; (2) nonfiction category examining western fiction film genre. See in Bibliography under the following authors: John Cawelti, William K. Everson, Philip French, and particularly Jack Nachbar, ed., Focus on the Western (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice- Hall, Inc., 1974), and his Western Fi1ms: An Annotated Critical Bibliography, (NY: Garland Publications, 1975) . "Wife" film: a sub-genre of Japanese woman's film. Woman's film: a problematic metagenre. Traditionally, it has been defined by its target audience — it is deliberately produced to appeal to a female audience; in general it concerns the world of women's issues; it is most often characterized by a female protagonist; its intention is to provoke a specific emotional response — usually self-pity — from its predominantly female audience. The West German, Japanese and Indian film industries have also the woman's film, but no study has yet linked women's concerns from an international perspective; 481 clearly more study is needed to clarify terminology and relationships. See Molly Haskell, From Reverence to Rape : The Treatment of Women in the Movies London: New English Library, 1973 and Joanne L. Yeck, Th e Woman 1s Film At Warner Brother s , 193 5- 1950, Unpublished dissertation, USC, 1982. World: one of the bases for constituting metagenres. A succinct definition is given by Rene Wellek and Austin Warren in their Theory of Literature NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1956, p. 236: "the interlocking of plot, atmosphere, and characters — the ’metaphysical quality’ (viewed as the world view which emerges from the work, not the view didactically stated by the author within or without the work).” Stanley Cavell, in The World Viewed defines film as "a succession of automatic world projections.” thus linking film with the tradition of genres. (See pp. 72-73.) The concept of world is discussed extensively by Leo Braudy in The Wor1d in a_ Frame. Also see Nelson Goodman, Ways of Worldmaking, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1978. Goodman, theorizes that there is no primary "real" world which we subsequently subject to various types of representation. Rather, it makes for more sense to speak of "multiple worlds which individuals and groups construct and live within." (p. 38) The "world" is objects, feelings, associations — whatever organizes our sense of that world -- provides us with "referents" so that we feel familiar with that world or some portion of it. This portion is our "version" — what is called "representation." Goodman’s premise is similar to Balazs' "current of induction"; that is, every film is individual to the extent that every spectator constructs an entire filmic representation; the spectator's relation to the various types of movies, his constructions, or representations may depend upon his purpose. Thus, Sartre’s idea that genres are a function of the imagination. Referents can be icons, visual conventions, and so on — whatever the audience recognizes and identifies as familiar to its construct or shared construct of world. 482 - - - - - - - - - - - - J Youth film: refers to two types of films: (1) a metagenre having youth as its target audience; and (2) a type of film with a youth as the protagonist It may form a metagenre. See Ruth M. Goldstein, The Screen Image of Youth, Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1980. BIBLIOGRAPHY A Ackerman, Robert J. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Amherst: U. of Massachusetts Press, 197(TI Agel, Henri. Poetique du Cinema, Manifeste Essentialiste. Beziers, France: Editions du Signe et Henri Agel, 1973. Allombert, G. et al. "Le melodrame." Image et Son, 336 (February 1979), pp. 32-50. Alloway, Lawrence. "The Iconography of the Movies." Movie, no. 7 (February-March 1963), pp. 46. -------------. Violent America: The Movies 194 6-1964. NY The Museum of Modern Art, 1971. Almendarez, Valentin, et al., eds. Film Reader, 3 (February 1978). Altman, Charles F. "The American Film Musical: Paradigmatic Structure and Mediatory Function." Wide Angle, 2, no. 2 (January 1978), pp. 10-17. -------------. "Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre Cinema Journal, 23, no. 3 (Spring 1984), pp. 6-18. -------------. "Towards a Theory of Film Genre." Film: Historical-Theoretical Speculations. The 1977 Film Studies Annual: Pt 2, pp. 31-43. Altman, Rick, ed. Genre: The Musical, A Reader. London Routledge & Kegan Paul, T981. Anderson, Joseph L. and Donald Richie. The Japanese Film. NY: Grove Press, 1960. -------------• "Japanese Swordfighters and American Gunfighters." Cinema Journal, 12 (Spring 1973), pp. 1- 21 . 484 ---------------- "When the Twain Meet: Hollywood’s Remake of The Seven Samurai." Film Quarterly, 15 (Spring 1962), pp. 55-58. Anderson, R. "The Role of the Western Film Genre in Industry Competition, 1907-1911." Journal of the University Film Association, 31, no. 2 (Spring 1979), pp. 19-27. Andrew, Dudley. Concepts in Film Theory. NY: Oxford University Press, 1984. -------------. The Major Film Theories: An Introduction. NY: Oxford University Press, 1976. Anonymous, "List of Historical-Biographical Films, 1912- 1936," World Film News, 1, no. 10 (March 1937), pp. 10-11. Appel, Alfred. Nabakov's Dark Cinema. NY: Oxford University Press, 1974. I -------------. "The End of the Road: Dark Cinema and Lolita." Film Comment, 10, no. 5 (September-October 1974), pp. 25-31. Arnheim, Rudolf. "Epic and Dramatic Film." Film Culture, 3, no. 1 (1957), pp. 9-10. Atkins, John W. H. Li terary Criticism in Antiquit y. Cambridge (England): The University Press, 1934. B Babbit, Irving. The New Laokoon: An Essay on the Confusion of the Arts. NY: Houghton Mifflin, 1910. Baker, Bob, D. J. Badder, et al. "A Western A-B-C." Ki nema, no. 3 (Autumn 1971), pp. 20-34. Bakshy, Alexander. "The New Art of the Moving Pictures." Theatre Arts Month1y , 11 (April 1927), pp. 277-282 -------------. "The Road to Art in the Motion Picture." Theatre Arts Monthly, 11 (June 1927), pp. 457-458. Balazs, Bela. Theory of the Film, Character and Growth of a New Art. NY: Dover, 1970. 485 Barnouw, Erik. Documentary: _A History of the Non-Fiction Film. NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. Barnouw, Erik and S. Krishnaswamy. Indian Film. NY: Columbia University Press, 1963. Bardeche, Maurice, and Robert Brasillach. The History of the Motion Pictures. NY: The Museum of Modern Art, 1938. Barry, Iris. "Comedies." Program notes for Museum of Modern Art. Series 2, Program 2. NY: The Museum of Modern Ar t. -------------. "Mystery and Violence." Program notes for Museum of Modern Art. Series 2, Program 4. NY: The Museum of Modern Art. -------------. "The Film and Contemporary History." Program notes for Museum of Modern Art. Series 2, Program 3. NY: The Museum of Modern Art. Barsam, Richard Meran. Nonfiction Film; _A Critical History. NY: Dutton, 1973. Basehart, Sr. Mary. "Christian Metz1 Theory of Connotation." Film Criticism, 4, no. 2 (1979) pp. 21—37. Baudry, Jean-Louis. "Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematogrphic Apparatus." Trans. Alan Williams. Film Quarterly, 28, no. 2 (1974-1975), pp. 39-47. Baxter, John. The Gangster Film. NY: A. S. Barnes, 1970. Bazin, Andre. Que-est-ce que le Cinema? 4 vols. Paris: Editions du Cerf , 1958 — 1965. Bell, Philip. "Identification in a Film of Social Control: Siegel's Dirty Harry." Australian Journal of Screen Theory, nos. 5-6 (1978), pp. 163-192. Belton, John. "The Backstage Musical." Movie, no. 24 (Spring 1977), pp. 36-43. Ben-Amos, Dan. Folklore Genres. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976. 486 Beograd Film Institute. Film Genres, An Essay in j Terminology and Determination of Film Genres. Beograd: Beograd Film Institute, 1953. Bergman, Andrew. "Frank Capra and the Screwball Comedy." i I In We're in the Money: Depression America and Its Films. ' Evanston: Harper and Row, 1971. B.F.I. "Films for Children." Sight and Sound, 5, no. 20 i (Winter 1935-1936), pp. 128-129. Bizet, J. A. "Le Musical americain." Cinema * 7 4 , j (February 1974), pp. 34-55. ' i Boatwright, Mody C. "The Formula in Cowboy Fiction and I Drama." Western Folklore, 28 (April 1969), pp. 136-145. i Bond, Kirk. "Formal Cinema." In Introduction to the Art of the Movies. Ed. Lewis Jacobs. NY: The Noonday Press, , 1960, pp. 209-217. Borde, Raymond, and Etienne Chaumeton. "A Propos du Film | Noir Americain." Posit if, 19 (1956), pp. 52-57 . i --------------. Panorama du Film Noir Americain: 1941-1954. Paris: Editi o n"s d 1 Au j our d 1 hui , 1975. -------------. "The Sources of Film Noir." Film Reader, 3 j (1978), pp. 58-66. i i -------------. "Vingt Ans Apres, Le Film Noir des Anees i 70." Ecran, 32 (January 1975), pp. 5-8. Bordwell, David. "The Art Cinema As A Mode of Film \ Practice." Film Criticism, 4, no. 1 (Fall 1979) pp. 56- 64. --------------. "Camera Movement and Cinematic Space." Cine- Tracts, 1, no. 2 (1977), pp. 19-25. --------------. "Happily Ever After, Part Two." Velvet Light Trap, 19 (Spring 1983), pp. 2-7. Bossart, William H. "Form and Meaning in the Visual Arts." British Journal of Aesthetics, 6 (July 1966), pp. 259-271. 487 Bourget, Jean-Loup. "Social Implications in the Hollywood Genres." Journal of Modern Literature, 3 (April 1973), pp. 191-200. Boyajian, Cecile Starr. "Film Portraits." Film Library Quarterly, 3, no. 3 (Summer 1970), pp. 11-15. Braudy, Leo. The World in a Frame. Garden City, NJ: Anchor Press, 1976. Brooks, Peter. The Melodramatic Imagination. New Haven: Yale University Press'^ 1976. Brosnan, John. Future Tense: The Cinema of Science Fiction. NY: St. Martin1s Press, 1978. Bukalski, Peter J. Film Research: _A Critical Bibliography with Annotations and Essay. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1972. t I Burke, Kenneth. A. Grammar of Motives and A _ Rhetoric of Motives. NY: World, 1962. -------------. The Philsophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1941 . -------------. "Rhetoric and Poetics." In Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method. Berkeley: UC Press~i 1968. Buscombe, Edward. "The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema." Screen, 11, no. 2 (March-April 1970), pp. 33-45. Bush, Stephen W. "A New Star; It Blazes on the Horizon of Educational Kinematography and Its Name is Raymond L. Ditmars." Moving Picture World. 28 February 1914, pp. 1095-1096. -------------. "History on the Screen." Moving Picture World. 22 February 1913, p. 757. ------- --------- -------------. "New Functions of the Motion Picture." Moving Picture Wor1d . 6 July 1912, p. 21. 488 -. "The Place and Province of Humor in the Moving Picture." Moving Picture World. 28 November 1908, pp. 420-42 1 . -. "The Real Enemy." Moving Picture World. 13 May 1911, pp. 1058-1059. Butler, Ivan. The Horror Film. NY: A. S. Barnes, 1977. . The War Film. NY: A. S. Barnes, 1974. C Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, eds. Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action. Falls Church, VA: Speech Communication Association, n. d. (c. 1978). Carrol, Noel. "Avant-Garde Film and Film Theory." Millennium, nos. 4-5 (1979), pp. 135-143. --------------. "Film Theory and Film History: An Outline for an Institutional Theory of Film." Film Reader , 4 (1979), pp. 81-98. Cavell, Stanley. The World V i ewe d , Reflections on the Ontology of Film. NY: Viking Press, 1971. f f ICawelti, John G. Adventure , My stery, and Romance. ;Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976. --------------. "Chinatown and Generic Transformation in Recent American Films." In Film Theory and Criticism. Eds. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen. 2nd ed. NY: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 559-579. --------------. "The Concept of Formula in the Study of Popular Literature." The Journal of Popular Culture, 3, no. 3 (Winter 1969), pp. 381-390. --------------. "The Gunfighter and Society." The American West, 5 (March 1968), pp. 30-35, 76-78. --------------. "Prolegomena to the Western." Studies in Public Communication, 4 (Autumn 1962), pp. 57-70. --------------. The Six-Gun My sti q ue. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green University Press, 1976. 489 Clarens, Carlos. _An Illustrated History of the Horror Film. NY: Capricorn, 1967. Collins, Jim. "Toward Defining a Matrix of the Musical Comedy: The Place of the Spectator Within the Textual Mechanisms." In Genre: The Musical: _A Reader. Ed. Rick Altman. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul/BFI, 1981, pp. 134-146. I Collins, Richard. "Genre: A Reply to Ed Buscombe," Screen, 11, nos. 4-5 (August-September 1970), pp. 66-75. Comolli, Jean-Louis and Jean Norboni. "Cinema/Ideology/ Criticism." Screen, 13, no. 1 (1972): reprinted in Screen Reader I, pp. 2-12. Connor, Edward. "The Composer on the Screen." Films In Review, 7 (April 1956), pp. 164-170. Cripps, Thomas. Black Film As Genre. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1979. i I Curtis, David. Experimental Cinema. NY: Universe Books, 1971 . Dadoun, Roger. "Fetishism in the Horror Film." Enclitic 1, no. 2 (1977), pp. 39-63. Damico, James. "Film Noir: A Modest Proposal." Film Reader, 3 (1978), pp. 48-57. Danto, Arthur. "Moving Pictures." Quarterly Review of Film Studies, 4, no. 1 (Winter 197971 PP• 1-22. Davis, Brian. The Thri1ler, The Suspense Film From 1946. London: Studio Vista, 1973. Davis, John. "Warner’s Genres of the 30s and 40s." Velvet Light Trap, 15 (Fall 1975), pp. 56-60. DeGeorge, Richard and Fernande, eds. The Structuralists: From Marx to Levi-Struss. NY: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1972. 490 De Laurot, Edouard L. "Towards a Theory of Dynamic Realism." Film Culture, 1, no. 2 (January 1955), pp. 2- De Mille, Cecil B. "Forget Spectacle -- It's the Story j That Counts." Films and Filming, 3, no. 1 (October 1956), ■ p. 7. | Deren, Maya. "Notes, Essays, Letters." Film Culture , 39 | (Winter 1964), pp. 1-86. Dewey, Langdon. Outline of Czechoslovakian Cinema. London: Informatics, 1971. Dickinson, Thorold. _A Discover of Cinema. London: Oxford ' University Press, 1971. ------------- and Catherine de la Roche. Soviet Cinema. London: Falcon Press, 1948. i Dienstfrey, Harris. "Hitch Your Genre to a Star." Film Culture, 34 (Fall 1964) pp. 35-37 . ! Domarchi, Jean. "Evolution of the Film Musical." Cahiers I du Cinema, no. 54 (1955), pp. 34-39. ! Donohue, James J. The Theor y of Literary Kinds: Ancient Classifications of Literature. Dubuque, Iowa: University of Iowa Press, 1943. Dooley, Roger. From Scarface to Scarlett: American Films ! in the 1930s. NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981. i Dubin, Robert. Theory Building . NY: The Free Press, 1969; rev. ed. 1978. Dulac, Germaine. "L'essence du cinema. L'idee visuelle." Cinema♦ Special issue of Cahiers du Mois. Paris, 1925. Dunne, John S. Time and Myth. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1973. Durgnat, Raymond. "Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic, Epic." In Film Genre: Theory and Criticism, Ed. Barry Grant. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1977, pp. 108-117. --------------. "The Family Tree of Film Noir." Film Comment, 10, no. 6 (November-December 1974), pp. 67. 491 ------------- . "Genre: Populism and Social Realism." Film Comment, 11, no. 4 (1975), p. 23. ------------- . "Ways of Melodrama." Sight and Sound, 21, no. 1 (August-September 1951), pp. 34-40. I i Dyer, John Peter. "All Manner of Fantasies." Films and ! Filming, 4, no. 9 (June 1958), pp. 13-15+. • . "A Man's World." Films and Filming, 5, no. 8 (May 1959), pp. 13-15. -------------. "The Murderers Among Us." Films and Filming, | 5, no. 3 (December 1958), pp. 13-15. I j ------------- . "Some Nights of Horror." Films and Filming, ! 4, no. 10 (July 1958), pp. 13-15+. ; E ’ Easthope, Antony. "Notes on Genre." Screen Education, I nos. 32-33 (Autumn-Winter 1979/1980), pp. 39-44. • Eberwein, Robert T. A Viewer1s Guide to Film Theory and i Criticism. Metuchen, NJl Scarecrow Pres”s, 1979 . I Eco, Umberto. _A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1976. \ Ehrenpreis, Irwin. The "Types" Approach to Literature. j NY: King's Crown Press, 1945. i j Eidsvik, Charles. Cineliteracy: Film Among the Arts. NY: Random House, 1978. Eisner, Lotte. The Haunted Screen. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Eisenstein, Sergei. Film Form, Essays in Film Theory. A Harvest Book. NY: Harcourt, Brace, & World, 1949. ------------- • The Film Sense. A Harvest Book. NY: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1942, 1947. Elsaesser, Thomas. "Tales of Sound and Fury: Observations on the Family Melodrama." Monogram, no. 4 (1972), pp. 2-15. 492 Engle, Gary. "McCabe and Mrs. Miller: Robert Altman's Anti-Western." Journal of Popular Film, 1, no. 4 (Fall 1972), pp. 268-287. Esselman, Kathryn C. "When the Cowboy Stopped Kissing His Horse." Journal of Popular Culture, 6 (Fall 1972), pp . 337-49. j Everson, William K. "The 'B' Western." The American Film j Heritage, Ed. Kathleen Karr, et al. Washington, D. C.: Acropolis Books, Lts., 1972, pp. 48-51. -------------. The Detective in Film. Secaucus , N. J.: The Citadel Press, 1972. -------------# "a Family Tree of Monsters." Film Culture, 1, no. 1 (1955), pp. 24-30. F , t Fearing, Franklin. "Psychology and the Films." Hollywood ! Quarterly, 2, no. 2 (1947), pp. 118-121. ! -------------. "Warriors Return: Normal or Neurotic?" |Hollywood Quarterly, 1, no. 1 (October 1945), pp. 97-109. I Fell, John. Film and the Narrative Tradition. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1974. -------------. "Structuring Charts and Patterns in Film." ; Quarterly Review of Film Studies, 3, no. 3 (1978), pp. i 311-331. Fenin, George. "The Western — Old and New." Film ^ Culture, 2, no. 2 (1956), pp. 7-10. Fenin George, and William K. Everson. The Westerns: From Si lent s to Cinerama. NY: The Orion Press, 1962. : -------------. "The European Western." Film Culture, no. 20 (1959), pp. 59-71. Feuer, Jane. "The Self-Reflective Musical and the Myth of Entertainment." Quarterly Review of Film Studies, 2, no. 3 (August 1977), pp. 313-326. 493 Field, Mary. "Children's Taste in Films," Quarterly of Film, Radio, and Television, 11, no. 1 (Fall 1956), p. 28+. Fielding, Raymond. The American Newsreel; 1911-1967 . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972. A Bibliography of Theses and Dissertations on the Subject of Film, 1916-1979. University Film Association. Monograph n ~ 3 (Fall 1979). Filmarchivum Magyar Filmtudomanyi Intezet. "Summary Working Methodology of Filmography." Magyar: Filmarchivum Magyar Filmtudomanyi Intezet, 1962. Fisher, Walter R. "Genre: Concepts and Applications in Rhetorical Criticism." The Western Journal o f Speech Communication, 44 (Fall 1980), pp. 288-299. Focillon, Henri. Life of Forms in Art. Trans. Charles Beecher Hogan and George Kubler. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942. Folsom, James K. "Western Themes and Western Films." Western American Literature, 2 (Fall 1967), pp. 198-203. Fordin, Hugh. The World of Entertainment: Hollywood 1s Greatest Musicals. NY: Avon Books, 1975. Frayling, Christopher. Spaghetti Westerns: Cowboys and Europeans from Karl May to Sergio Leone. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981. Freeburg, Victor. Pictorial Beauty on the Screen. NY: Macmillan Co., 1923. Freeman, Joseph. "Biographical Films." Theater Arts, 25 ! (December 1941), pp. 900-906. French, Philip. "Incitement against Violence." Sight and Sound, 37, no. 1 (Winter 1967-1968), pp. 2-8. -------------. Westerns: Aspects of a Movie Genre. NY: The Viking Press, 1973. Frye, Northrop. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957. 494 I Fables of Identity . NY: Harcourt, Brace and | Wor1d ,1963. | I -------------. The Secular Scripture : _A Study of the ; Structure of Romance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard i ‘University Press, 1976. G Galassi, Peter. "Rudolf Arnheim: An Interview." Afterimage, 2, no. 5 (November 1974), pp. 2-6. Gallez, Douglas. "Patterns in Wartime Documentaries." The Quarterly of Films, Radio and TV, 10, no. 2 (Winter 1955), pp. 125-135. Garel, A. "Le film historique americain." Image et Son, 287 (September 1974), pp. 13-30. Geduld, Harry, and Ronald Gottesman. Guidebook to Film: ; An 11-in-l Reference, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, j 1973. I i i | -------------. An Illustrated Glossary of Film Terms , NY : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1973. -------------. ed. Film Maker s on Film Making; Statements on Their Art By Thirt y Directors . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1967. [ i Gehring, W. D. "Screwball Comedy: An Overview." Journal 1 of Popular Film and Television. 13, no. 4 (1986), pp. ] 178-185. : ! George, Diana Hume. "The Myth of Mythlessness ." j Enclitic, 4, no. 2. Special Feminist issue (Fall 1980). I i Gerlach, John C. and Lana, eds. The Critical Index. NY: Teacher’s College Press, 1974. Gerstein, Evelyn. "Four Films of New Types." Theatre Arts Monthly, 1L (1927), pp. 295-298. Gessner, Robert. "Cinema and Scholarship." Journal of 1 the Society of Cinematologists , (Cinema Journal), 3 (1963), pp. 73-80. 495 Giles, Dennis. "The Name Documentary: A Preface to Genre Study." Film Reader , 3, (1978), pp. 18-23. . "Show-making." In Genre: The Musical. Ed. Rick Altman. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981, pp. 85-101. Gilson, Etienne. Forms and Substances in the Arts. Trans. Salvator Attanasio. NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966. Gledhill, Christine. "Klute 1: A Contemporary Film Noir and Feminist Criticism." In Women in Film Noir. Ed. E. Ann Kaplan, rev. ed. London: BFI, 1978; 1980). Godard, Jean-Luc. Godard on Godard. Trans. Tom Milne. NY: Viking, 1972. Goldstein, Ruth M. The Screen Image of Youth. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1980. Gombrich, E. H. Art and Illusion. London: Phaidon, 1960. Goodman, Nelson. Languages of Art. Indianapolis: Hackett , 1976. --------------. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1978. Graham, Peter, ed. The New Wave. London: Seeker and Warburg, 1968. Grant, Barry K. "Film Comedy of the Thirties and the American Comic Tradition." West Virginia Philological Papers, 26 (August 1980), pp. 21-19, Grant, Barry K., ed. Film Genre: Theory and Criticism. Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1977. --------------. "From Film Genre to Film Experience." Paunch, nos. 42-43, (December 1975). --------------. "Prolegomena to a Contextualistic Genre Criticism." Paunch, nos. 53-54, (January 1980), pp. 138- 147 . -------------. "Tradition and the Individual Talent: Poetry in the Genre Film." In Narrative Strategies: Original Essays in Film and Prose Fiction. Eds. Syndy M. Conger and Janice R. Welsch. Macomb: Western Illinois University Press, 1981 . Gross, Larry. "Apres Film Noir: Alienation in a Dark ! Alley." Film Comment , (July-August 1976), pp. 44-49. Gruber, Frank. The Pulp Jungle. Los Angeles: Sherbourne Press, Inc., 1967. : I | Guback, Thomas H. The International Film Industry. I Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969. H ; Hamlyn, D. W. The Psychology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1957. | Hardy, H. Forsyth, ed. Grierson on Documentary, London: : Faber and Faber, 1966. ! Hardy, Phil. Th e Western: The Film Encyclopedia. NY: ! William Morrow and Co., Inc., 1983. Hardy, H. Forsyth, ed. Grierson on Documentary . London: Faber and Faber, 1966. Harrison, Louis Reeves. "It is To Laugh." Moving Picture World , 21 December 1912, p. 1166. ' I -------------. "Melodrama." Moving Picture World, 13 May ! 1911, pp. 1058-1059. I -------------. "Theatrical Feature Plays." Moving Picture World, 26 July 1913, p. 405. I Hartnoll, Gillian. "American Comedy Books." Focus on Film, 1 (January-February 1970), pp. 55-58. Haskell, Molly. From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies. London: New English Library, 1973. Heath, Stephen. "Screen Images, Film Memory." Cine- Trac t s , 1, no. 1 ( 1977), pp. 27-36. 497 Henderson, Brian. A_ Critique of Film Theory. NY: E. P. Dutton , 1980. -# "Two Types of Film Theory." Film Quarterly, 24, no. 3 (Spring 1971), pp. 33-42. Hernadi, Paul. Beyond Genre: New Directions in Literary Classification. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1972. Hess, Judith W. "Genre Films and the Status Quo." Jump Cut, no. 1 (May-June 1974), pp. 1, 16, 18. Hill, Janet. "Children’s Films." Sight and Sound, 21 (April-June 1952), pp. 179-181+. Hirsch, E. D. The Aims of Interpretation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976. !--------------. Validity in Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967. Huaco, George. The Sociology of Film Art. NY: Basic Books, 1965. Hubley, John, and Zachary Schwartz. "Animation Learns a jNew Language." Hollywood Quarterly, 1, no. 4 (July 1946), I pp . 360-363. I Husserl, Edmund. The Idea of Phenomenology. Trans. William P. Alston and George Nakhnikian. The Hague: Nijhoff, 1964. J Jablonski, Edward. "Filmusicals." Films in Review, 6, no. 2 (February 1955), pp. 56-69. Jacobs, Lewis. The Compound Cinema, The Film Writing of Harry Alan Potamkin. NY: Teacher's College Press, 1977. --------------. The Rise of the American Film. NY: Teachers College,1968. --------------. "World War II and the American Film," Cinema Journal, 7 (Winter 1967-1968) pp. 1-21. Jacobs, Lewis, ed. The Documentary Tradition: From Nanook to Woodstock. NY: Hopkinson and Blake, 1971. 498 --------------, ed. Introduction to the Art of the Movies: An Anthology o£ Ideas on the Nature of Movie Art~ NY: Noonday, 1960 . j j Jarvie , I. C. Movies and Society. NY: Basic Books, 1970. Jung, Carl G., ed. Man and His Symbols. NY: Doubleday, Garden City, 1964. K Kaminsky, Stuart. Ame r i can Film Genres , Approaches t o a _ Critical Theory of Popular Film. A Laurel edition. NY: j Dell, 1977. ' --------------- "Little Caesar and Its Place in the Gangster 1 Film Genre." Journal of Popular Film, 1, no. 3 (Summer 1972), pp. 209-227. ------------- . "Once Upon a Time in Italy: The Italian Western Beyond Leone." Velvet Light Trap, 12, (Spring 1974), pp. 31-33. Kaplan, E. Ann, ed. Women in Film Noir. London: B.F.I., I 1978. I i Karimi, Amir Karimi. Toward a Definition of the American | Film Noir (1941-1949) . NY: Arno Press, 197"6T I Karpf, Stephen Louis. The Gangster Film: Emer gence , Variation, and Decay of a Genre. NY: The Arno Press, 1973. | Khatchadourian, Haig. "Family Resemblances and the j Classification of Works of Art." British Journal of Aesthetics, (1968), pp. 79-90. Kitses, Jim. Horizons West: Anthony Mann, Budd Boetticher , Sam Peckinpah: Studies of Authorship within the Western. Bloomington, Indiana and London: Indiana University Press, 1970. Knight, Arthur. The Liveliest Art. NY: New American Library, 1957. Kozloff, Max, William Johnson, Richard Corliss. "Shooting at Wars: Three Views." Film Quarterly, 21, no. 2 (Winter 1967-1968), pp. 27-36. 499 Kracauer , Siegfried. "Conquest of Europe on the Screen: The Nazi Newsreel, 1939-1940." Social Research, 10 (September 1943), pp. 337-357. j i --------------. From Caligari to Hitler : Psychological { History of the German Film. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947. j I --------------. Hollywood’s Terror Films: Do They Reflect an American State of Mind?" Commentary, 2 (August 1946), p p . 132-136. I --------------. "Silent Film Comedy." Sight and Sound, 21 ! (August/September 1951), pp. 31-32. j I Theory of Film, The Redemption of Physical ! Reality. NY: Oxford University Press, 1960; rpt. 1968. | } Kuhn, Thomas S. Th e Structure o f Scientific Revolutions . J 2nd ed, enlarged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, i 1962, 1970. ; Kuiper, John. '.'Civil War Films: A Quantitative Description of a Genre." Cinema Journal. 5, (1965) pp. 8189. L Landrum, Larry N. "Bibliography: A Checklist of Materials About Science Fiction Films of the 1950's." Journal of Popular Film. 1, no. 1 (Winter 1972), pp. 61- 63. --------. "Recent Work in Genre." Journal of Popular Film and Television, 13, no. 3 (1985), pp. 151-158. Landrum, Larry N. and Christine Eynon. "World War Two in j the Movies: A Select Bibliography of Sources," Journal of Popular Film, 1, no. 2 (Spring 1972), pp. 147-153. Landrum, Larry N., and J. Nachbar. "The Serials: A Selected Checklist of Published Materials." Journal of Popular Film, 3, 3 (Summer 1974), pp. 273-276. Lehman, Peter, et al. "American Film Genre: An Interview with John Cawelti." Wide Angle, 2, no. 2 (1978), pp. 50- 57. : 500 Lennig, Arthur. "The Sense of Form in Cinema." Film Culture, (1965). Leonard, Harold, ed. The Film Index, The Film as Art. NY: Museum of Modern Art, 1941; rpt. Arno Press, 1966. I Le Sage, Julia. "Feminist Film Criticism: Theory and | Practice." Women and Film, 1, nos. 5-6 (1974), pp. 12-18. j Levin, Meyer. "The Candid Cameraman." Esquire, 9, 107 (January 1938) p. 177. Levi-Strauss, Claude. The Raw and the Cooked: Introduction to a_ Science of Mythology. Evanston: Harper and Row, 1964. -------------. "The Structural Study of Myth." Journal of American Folklore , 78, no. 270 (October-December 1955TT pp. 428-444. Leyda, Jay. Dianying: Electric Shadows, An Account of F ilms and the Film Audience in China. Cambride: MIT Press, 1972. -------------. Films Beget Films. NY: Hill & Wang first paperback, 1971. -------------. "The Gangster Film." In Museum of Modern Art | Film Library Program, Series 4, Program 8. NY: The i Library. -------------. "Waiting Jobs." Film Quarterly, 16, no. 2 (Winter 62-63), pp. 29-33. Library of Congress Subject Headings. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 9th ed., 1980. Lindsay, Vachel. The Art of the Moving Picture. rev. ed. NY: Macmillan, 1922. Lounsbury, Myron Osborn. The Origins of American Film Criticism 1909 -- 1939♦ NY: Arno Press, 1973. Lovell, Alan. "The Western." Screen Education , 41 (September-October 1967), pp. 92-103. Lovell, Alan and Jim Hillier, Studies in Documentary, NY: Viking, 1972. Louvre, Alf. "Notes on a Theory of Genre." Working Papers in Cultural Studies . N.P.: Center for Contemporary culture Studies, University of Birmingham, no. 4 (Spring 1975), pp. 121-133. M MacCann , Richard Dyer, ed. Film; A_ Montage of Theories. A Dutton paperback. NY: E. P. Dutton, 1966. Maddow, Ben. "Eisenstein and the Historical Film." Hollywood Quarterly , 1, no. 1 (October 1945). Mamber, Stephen. Cinema Verite in America. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1974. Manvell, Roger. Films and the Second World War. NY: Delta, 1976 . Manvell, Roger, ed. The International Encyclopedia of Film. NY: Crown Publishers, 1972. Mast, Gerald. The Comic Mind: Comedy and the Movies. Indianapolis and NY: Bobbs-Merrill , 1973. -------------. Film/Cinema/Movie, A_ Theory of Experience. NY: Harper and Row, 1977. -------------, and Marshall Cohen, eds. Film Theory and Cr iticism. NY: Oxford University Press, 197TT Mayer, Geoff. "Formula and Genre, Myths and Patterns." Australian Journal of Screen Theory, 4 ( 1978), pp. 59-65. McArthur, Colin. "The Roots of the Western." Cinema (UK), (October 1969), pp. 11-17. -------------. Underworld USA. NY: Viking Press, 1972. McCarthy, Todd and Charles Flynn. Kings of the B 1s : Working Within the Hollywood System. NY: Dutton, 1975. McClure, Arthur F. "Hollywood at War: The American Motion Picture and World War Two, 1939-1945." Journal of Popular Film, 1, no. 2 (Spring 1972), pp. 123-135. McConnell, Frank. The Spoken Seen : Film and the Romantic Imagination. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1976. 502 -------------• Storytelling and Mythmaking. NY: Oxford University Press, 1979. McCourt, James. "Douglas Sirk: Melo Maestro." Film Comment, (November-December 1975). McMurtry, Larry. "Cowboys, Movies, Myths and Cadillacs: Realism in the Western." In Man and the Movies . Ed. W. R Robinson. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1967, pp. 46-52. Metz, Christian. Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema. Trans. Michael Taylor. NY: Oxford University Press, 1974. -------------. The Imaginary Signifier . Trans. Alfred Guzzetti et a1. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981 . -------------. Language and Cinema. NY: Praeger, 1975. Meunier, Jean-Pierre. Les Structures de 1 * experience filmique. Louvain: Vaner, 1969. Meyer, Leonard B. Music, The Arts, and Ideas . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Meyer, William. Warner Brothers Directors: The Hard- Boiled , The Comic, and The Weepers. New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1978. Miner, Earl. Literary Uses of Typology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977. Minnelli, Vincente. "The Rise and Fall of the Musical." Films and Filming, 8, no. 4 (January 1962), p. 9. Mitry, Jean. Esthetique et psychologie du cinema. Paris Editions universitaires. vol. 1 1963, vol. 2 1965. -------------. Histoire du cinema: art et industrie. 3 vols. Paris: Editions Universitaires, 1967, 1969, 1971. -------------. Le Mot et 1 1 image, n. p. Edition du Signe, 1972. -------------. Dictionnaire du cinema. Paris: Larousse, 1963. 503 Monaco, James. How To Read a Film, NY: Oxford University Press, 1977. Montgomery, Douglas. "Audiences, Urban Geography, and the History of the American Film." Velevet Light Trap, 19 (Spring 1983), pp. 23-29. Morse, David. "Aspects of Melodrama," Monogram, 4 (1972), pp. 16-17. i N I Nachbar, Jack, ed. Focus on the Western. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974. -------------. "Riding Shotgun: The Scattered Formula in Contemporary Western Movies." The Film Journal, 2, no. 4. -------------. Western Films: An Annotated Critical Bibliography. NY: Garland Publications, 1975. Neale, Stephen. Genre. Hertford, U.K.: British Film Institute, 1980. Newcomb, Horace. TV: The Most Popular Art. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 197 4. Nichols, Bill, ed. Movies and Methods. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Norden, M. F. "Toward a Theory of Audience Response To Suspenseful Films." Journal of University Film Association, 32, nos. 1-2 (Winter-Spring 1980), pp. 71- 77 . Nowe11-Smith, Geoffrey. "Minnelli and Melodrama." Screen, (Summer 1977). P Panofsky, Erwin. "Style and Medium in the Motion Pictures." In Film Theory and Criticism, Introductory Readings. Eds. Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen. NY: Oxford University Press, 1979, pp. 243-263. Perkins, V. F. Film as Film. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books , 197 2. 504 Perry, George. The Great British Picture Show. NY: Hi11 & Wang, 1974. Petlewski, Paul. "Complication of Narrative in the Genre Film." Film Criticism, 4, no. 1 (Fall 1979), pp. 18-24. Peyton, Patricia, ed. Reel Change: A_ Guide To Social Issue Films. San Francisco: The Film Fund, 1979. Pirie, David. A_ Heritage of Horror: The English Gothic Cinema 1946-1972. NY: Avon Press, 1973. Place, J. A., and L. S. Peterson. "Some Visual Motifs in Film Noir." In Movies and Methods. Ed. Bill Nichols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. Poague, Leland. The Cinema of Frank Capra. NY: A. S. Barnes & Co., 1975. . "The Problem of Film Genre: A Mentalistic Approach." Literature/Film Quarterly, 4, no. 2 (Spring 1978), pp. 152-161. Popper, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. NY: Basic Books, 1959. Objective Knowledge, Oxford: Clarendon ; Press , 197 2 . i i : Porfiro, Robert G. "No Way Out: Existential Motifs in the Film Noir," Sight and Sound, 45, no. 4 (1976), pp. 212-217. Potamkin, Harry Alan. "The Aframerican Cinema." Close Up, (London) 5 (August 1929), pp. 107-117. --------------. "The Motion Picture Comedy." New World Monthly, 1 (February 1930), pp. 117-121. -------- . "The Racketeer Paramount." New Masses, 6 (November 1930), p. 15+. --------------. "The Year of the Eclipse." Close Up, (London) 10 (March 1933), pp. 30-39. Propp, Vladimir. Morphology of the Folk Tale. Austin and London: University of Texas Press, 1968. 505 Pryluck, Calvin. "There's Nothing So Practical as a Good Theory." AFI Education Newsletter, 5, no. 1 (September/ October 1981), p. 2. Pudovkin, V. I. Film Technique and Film Acting, NY: Lear, 1949. Purdy, Jim. The Hollywood Social Problem Film. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981. Pye, Douglas. "Genre and History: Fort Apache and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance." Movie, 25 (Winter 1977- 1978), pp. 1-11. -------------. "Genre and Movies." Movie, no. 20 (Spring 1975), pp. 29-43. R 1 Rahi11, Frank. The World o£ Melodrama. University Park: | Pennsylvania State University Press, 1967. I j Report of the Arts Enquiry. The Factual Film. London: j Oxford University Press, 1947. Richards, Jeffrey. "Frank Capra and the Cinema of Populism." Film Society Review, Pt. 1 (February-March 1972); Pt. 2 ("April-May 1972) . Rieupeyrout, Jean-Louis. "The Western: A Historical Genre." Quarterly Review of Film, Radio and Television, 7, no. 2 (Winter 1952) pp. 116-128. Roffman, Peter and Jim Purdy. The Hollywood Social Problem Film: Madness, Despair, and Politics . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981. Rosen, Philip. "'Screen' and the Marxist Project." Quarterly Review of Film Studies, (August 1977), pp. 273- 287. Rosenberg, Bernard and David Manning White, eds. Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America. NY: The Free Press, 1964. Roth, Mark. "Some Warner's Musicals and the Spirit of the New Deal." Velvet Light Trap, 1 (June 1971), pp. 20- 25. 506 Rotha, Paul. Documentary Film. London: Faber and Faber, 1935, and NY: Hastings House, 1970. ------------- , The Film Til Now. NY: Jonathan Cape and Harrison Smith, 1930. --------------. Movie Parade . London: The Studio ' Publications, 1936, 1950. Ryall, Tom. "The Notion of Genre." Screen , 11, no. 2 (March-April 1970), pp. 22-33. --------------. "Teaching Through Genre." Screen Education, | no. 17 (Winter 1975-1976), pp. 27-30. I S I j Sacks, Arthur. "An Analysis of the Gangster Movies of | the Early Thirties." Velvet Light Trap, 1 (June 1971), j pp. 5-11 . Sadoul, Georges. "L1avant-garde en France et dans le ■ monde." Cine-Club. 2, no. 1 (October 1948). ; Saisselin, Remy G. "Poetics of the Western." British j Journal of Aesthetics 2, no. 2 (April 1962), pp. 159-169. i Salt, Barry. "Film Style and Technology in the Forties." i Film Quarterly, 31, no. 1 (Fall 1977), pp. 46-56. ! i i -------------- "Film Style and Technology in the Thirties." Film Quarterly, (Fall 1976), p p . . Sarris, Andrew. The American Cinema. NY: E. P. Dutton, 1968. Sartre, Jean-Paul. Psychology of the Imagination. Seacaucus , N.J.: Citadel Press, 1948. Schatz, Thomas. Hollywood Genres, Formulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University Press, 1981. --------------. "Structural Influence New Directions in Film Genre Study." Quarterly Review of Film Studies, (August, 1977), pp. 302326. 507 Scheurer, Timothy E. "The Aesthetics of Form and Convention in the Movie Musical." Journal of Popular Film, v. 3, no. 4 (Fall 1974), pp. 307-324. I Schickel, Richard. The Disney Version. NY: Simon & ! Schuster, 1968 . ■ Schiff , S. "The Repeatable Experience." Film Comment, 18, j no. 2 (March-April 1982), pp. 34-36. i Schrader, Paul. "Notes on Film Noir." Film Comment, 8, no. 1 (Spring 1972), pp. 8-13. Schupp, P. "L1evolution du film policier depuis 1960." (Pt 1) Sequences, 19, no. 75 (January 1974), pp. 16-19. i --------------. "L'evolution du film policier depuis 1960." | (Pt 2) Sequences , 19, no. 76 (April 1974), pp. 19-21. i ! Seidman, Steve. Comedian Comedy: A Tradition in j Hollywood Film. Ann Arbor: UMI Research Press, 1981. I Seldes, Gilbert. The Seven Lively Arts. NY: Harper, 1924. Shadoian, Jack. Drearns and Pead Ends: The American Gangster/Crime Film. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1977. j Siclier, Jacques and Andre Labarthe. Image de la Science j Fiction. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1958. ( t Sidney, George. "The Three Ages of the Musical." Films and Filming, 14, no. 9 (June 1968), pp. 4-7. j Simmons, Garner. "The Generic Origins of the Bandit- i Gangster, Sub-genre in the American Cinema." Film Reader, 3 (1978), pp. 67-79. j Sitney, P. Adams. Visionary Film: The American Avant- Garde, 1943-1978. NY: Oxford University Press, 1979. I Sklar, Robert. Movie-Made America. NY: Vintage Books, | 1975. j t Small, Edward S. "A Note on Genre in Film." Journal of the University Film Association, 29, no. 1 (Winter 1977), pp. 39-40 . 508 "Literary and Film Genres: Toward a Taxonomy of Film." Literature/Film Quarterly, 7, no. 4 (1979), pp. 290-299. jSobchack, Thomas. "Genre Films: A Classical Experience." iLiterature/Film Quarterly, 3 (Summer 1975), pp. 196-204. I ISolomon, Stanley J. Beyond Formula: American Film iGenres. NY: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1976. Sontag, Susan. "Imagination of Disaster." Commentary, 40, no. 4 (October 1965), pp. 42-48. Spears, Jack. "The Indian on the Screen." Films in Review, 10 (January 1959), pp. 18-35. Spottiswoode , Raymond. A. Grammar of the Film, An Analysis of Film Technique. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1950. Stedman, Raymond William. The Serials. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971. Steele, Robert. "The Library Organization of Printed Materials Having To Do With the Cinema." Journal of the Society of Cinematologists, (Cinema Journal), 3 (1963) , pp. 45-71. Sturges, John. "How the West Was Lost." Fi1ms and Filming. 9 (December 1972), pp. 9-10. T Tate, Cecil F. The Search for a Method in American Studies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1973. Taylor, John Russell, and Arthur Jackson. The Hollywood Musical. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Todorov, Tsvetan. The Fantastic: A_ Structural Approach to a Literary Genre. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970. Toeplitz, Jerzy. "Film Scholarship: Present and Prospective." Film Quarterly, 16, no. 3 (Spring 1963), pp. 27-37 . 509 Tudor, Andrew. "Genre: Theory and Mispractice in Film Criticism." Screen , 11, no. 6 ( 1970), pp. 33-43. ------------- . "History in the Filming: Cinema Versions of History." New Society, 6 March 1980, pp. 509-510. ------------- . Image and Influence: Studies in the Sociology of Film. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1974. ----------. Theories of Film. NY: Viking, 1974. Tyler, Parker. "Supernaturalism in the Movies." Theatre Arts, 29, no. 6 (June 1945), pp. 362-366+. V Vallet, Antoine. Le s genres du cinema. Paris: Ligel Editions, 1963. Vernet, Marc. "Genre." Film Reader, 3 (1978) pp. 13-17. Vernon, M. D. The Psychology of Perception. London: Penguin Books, 1962. Vivas, Eliseo. "A Definition of Esthetic Experience." Journal of Philosophy , 34 (1937), pp. 628-634. Vorkapich, Slavko. "Toward True Cinema." Film Culture, 19 (April 1959), pp. 10-17. W Walker, Alexander. Stardom. NY: Stein & Day, 1970. Wallington, Mike. "Auteur and Genre: the Westerns of Delmer Daves." Cinema (UK), no. 4, pp. 6-9. Wallington, Mike, and Chris Frayling. "The Italian Western." Cinema (Cambridge) nos. 6-7 (August 1970), pp. 31-38 . Walton, Kendall. "Categories of Art," Philosophical Review (July 1970). Weaver, John D. "Destry Rides Again, and Again, and Again." Holiday, 34 (August 1963), pp. 77-80, 91. 510 Wellek, Rene. Discriminations. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970. ---------------and Austin Warren. Theory of Literature. NY: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1956. White, David M. and Richard Averson. The Celluloid Weapon. Boston: Beacon Press, 1972. White, Dennis L. "The Poetics of Horror: More Than Meets the Eye." Cinema Journal, 10, no. 2 (Spring 1971), pp. 1- 18. Whitehall, Richard. "Crime, Inc.: A Three-Part Dossier on the American Gangster Film." Films and Filming, 10, no. 4 (January 1964), pp. 7-12. . "Part Two: G-Men and Gangsters." Films and Filming, 10, no. 5 (February 1964), pp. 17-22. . "Part Three: Public Enemies." Films and Filming, 10, no. 6 (March 1964), pp. 39-44. Whitney, John S. "A Filmography of Film Noir." Journal of Popular Film 5, nos. 3-4 (1976), pp. 321-371. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M. Anscombe. NY: MacMillan, 1953, 1968. Wollen, Peter. Signs and Meaning in the Cinema. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1969. Wood, Michael. America in the Movies. NY: Basic Books, 1975 . Wood, Robin. "Art and Ideology: Notes on Silk Stockings." Film Comment, vol. 11, no. 3, (May-June 1975), pp. 28-31. . "Ideology, Genre, Auteur." Film Comment, 13, no. 1 (January-February 1977), pp. 46-51. Wright, Basil. The Use of the Film. London: Bodley Head, 1948 . Wright, Wil. Six Guns and Society: A_ Structural Study of the Western. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. 511 MEMORANDA Memorandum dated May 23, 1978 to Paul Spehr , Acting Head, MPS from Harriet Harrison, Wendy White, Motion Picture Section; Subject: Response to Question: "Explain briefly why AACR II is not suitable for cataloging in film archives." Nitrate Control Inventory System Guidelines, "Screen 1 - Title Record," Washington, D.C.: Motion Picture Section, n . d . THESES AND DISSERTATIONS f Cook, Bruce, "Science Fiction and Film: A Study of the j Interaction of Science, Science Fiction Literature and j the Growth of Science." Diss. University of Southern California 1976. ; ft 1 Elder, Harris. The Compilation Film: Principles and Potentials of a Documentary Genre." Thesis. Oklahoma j State University 1976. Guynn, William Howard. "Toward a Reexamination of the j Documentary Film: Theory and Text." Diss. University of ; California at Berkeley 1980. i Hillwig, Jack Leonard. "Film Criticism: Its Relationship I to Economically Successful Films and an Application of ! Rhetoric to Improving the Critic's Methods." Diss. Ohio • State University 1980. | Lowry, Edward B. "Filmology": Establishing a Problematic for Film Study in France 1946-1955." Diss. University of Texas 1982. Porfiro, Robert Gerald. "The Dark Age of American Film: A Study of the American 'Film Noir1 (1940-1960)." Diss. Yale Univeristy 1979. Siska, William. "Modernism in the Narrative Film: the Art Film as a Genre." Diss. Northwestern University 1976. i Styles, Teresa. "A Study of the Black Film in I Determining the Validity of It as a Genre." Thesis. Northwestern University 1973. 512 Wallace, Peggy. "A Critical Analysis of Four Classifications of Dance Film." Thesis. University of Southern California 1967. Yeck, Joanne L. "The Woman's Film At Warner Brothers, 1935-1950." Diss. University of Southern California 1982. 513

Asset Metadata

Creator Byrne, Margaret M (author)

Core Title A working theory of film genre

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Cinema-Television Critical Studies

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag cinema,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor [illegible] (committee chair), Fisher, Walter R. (committee member), Kaufman, Edward K. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-680639

Unique identifier UC11342792

Identifier DP22268.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-680639 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier DP22268.pdf

Dmrecord 680639

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Byrne, Margaret M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA