SCREEN-L Archives

December 1994, Week 1

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Arthur Lizie Jr <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 7 Dec 1994 17:09:41 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
This has undoubtedly come up before, but does anyone have a good
definition of film genre?  I have just completed an exhaustive literature
review on film genre theory (not criticism/endless self-reflexive babbling/
interpretation) as a means of understanding film as a communication process,
and continue to be dumbstruck (I know, how can you tell the difference?) at
the lack of theoretical grounding for genre theory.  Most theoretical
definitions fault toward the tautological, and most interpretations make
grand assumptions and contain no theoretical grounding.  The closest I
can get to a theory is:  There are certain groups of films that
contain similar and familiar patterns of icons and conventions (but not
necessarily plots) that will be promoted as similar by the movie industry
and understood as similar by audiences.  Seems pretty pathetic.  Any thoughts?
 
arthur

ATOM RSS1 RSS2