The word ‘Genre’ originates in Latin and means ‘kind’ or ‘class’. The study of these classifications in film is known as Genre Theory. This topic not only explores the different codes visible in film, but it also explores how academics and ordinary people develop the systems of classification that define genre.
Modern society is familiar with many codes, such as thriller/horror/romance/sci fi/fantasy/drama and so on. Many genre theorists also argue that there are many other unidentified genres that we have no name or no widespread recognition of due to their specificity (Fowler 1989, 216; Wales 1989, 206). Some theoriests such as Carolyn Miller suggest that there is an intrinsic link between the complexity and diversity of a society and how many genres ‘exist’ in their community (Miller 1984, 36).
Similarly to Mr Nobody itself, there is no undisputed map of exactly what genre is, or what elements of a film or other text create meaning which automatically classify them as belonging to a certain genre. This is a matter of much theoretical dispute, as one expert may consider technique as the most critical element in forming a classification, whilst another may argue that style/formula/thematic grouping or mode is the most crucial element. There is also a distinction between what academics consider genre to be whereas the public makes use of their own de facto genre labels.
Defining genre is considered by some to be a theoretical minefield. Robert Stam, genre theorist, identifies four key problems that most people face when trying to sort a film into a genre group
- Extension – how narrow or broad people interpret and subsequently label
- Normativism – having preconceived ideas about what a particular genre should be
- Monolithic definitions – the idea that a film only ever belongs to one genre
- Biologism – viewing each genre as having set parts that are already set in stone, and although there may be a continual cycle of events/devices in these genres, they never change
(Stam 2000, 128-129)
Another point of conjecture among academics is what method of selection is the best for identifying genre. Three common approaches amongst contemporary theorists are the definitional, family resemblance and prototypical approaches. The definitional approach is “based on the notion that they constitute particular conventions of content…and/or form…which are shared by the texts which are regarded as belonging to them” (Chandler, 1997). Theorists employing the family resemblance method illustrates similarities between texts within a genre, but has been criticised by theorists such as David Lodge, who states “no choice of a text for illustrative purposes is innocent” (Swales, 1990, 50). Essentially what this means is that similarity alone is not enough to classify something, as an author is purposeful in their own unique thinking. Although a film may share similarities with others, the intended meaning could be quite different and thus completely alter the genre classification. The final approach is prototypical, and seeks to classify films based on having the largest conventions of a certain genre. For example, if a film had 10 horror conventions and 8 romantic conventions, it would be classified as a horror. This method is limiting for obvious reasons and also receives some criticism.
To further add to the complexity, these are some examples of academics who simply cannot agree on what genre is. This is similar to how many reviews cannot seem to identify what Mr Nobody is, or what it means.
Christine Gledhill
- There are no “rigid rules of inclusion and exclusion…” (Gledhill, 1985, 60)
- “Genres… are not discrete systems, consisting of a fixed number of listable items (Gledhill, 1985, 60)
Steve Neale
- “…genres are instances of repetition and difference” (Neale, 1980, 48)
John Hartley
- “the same text can belong to different genres in different countries or times” (O’Sullivan et al . 1994, 129)
They argue respectively that genre is not rigid, genre is rigid, and genre changes depending on society or time.
Genre theory itself is a complex web of never ending questions with fewer answers. Multiple lifetimes could be spent examining, learning and debating about this fascinating topic
References:
Chandler, Daniel (1997): ‘An Introduction to Genre Theory’, http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/intgenre/chandler_genre_theory.pdf, 10 April 2016
Fowler, Alastair (1989): ‘Genre’. In Erik Barnouw (Ed.): International Encyclopedia of Communications, Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 215-7
Gledhill, Christine (1985): ‘Genre’. In Pam Cook (Ed.): The Cinema Book. London: British Film Institute
Miller, Carolyn R (1984): ‘Genre as social action’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151-67; reprinted in Freedman & Medway (1994a, op. cit.), pp. 23-42
Neale, Stephen ([1990] 1995): ‘Questions of genre’. In Oliver Boyd-Barrett & Chris Newbold (Eds.) Approaches to Media: A Reader. London: Arnold, pp. 460-72
O’Sullivan, Tim, John Hartley, Danny Saunders, Martin Montgomery & John Fiske (1994): Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies. London: Routledge
Stam, Robert (2000): Film Theory. Oxford: Blackwell
Swales, John M (1990): Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wales, Katie (1989): A Dictionary of Stylistics. London: Longman
HALL_M_210132_A1_FTV306 