SCREEN-L Archives

December 1994, Week 3

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:
Jeremy Butler <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 17 Dec 1994 12:45:46 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Author:  [log in to unmask]
Date: 12/17/94 12:54 AM
 
[Editor's note: This message was submitted to SCREEN-L by the "Author" noted
above, and not by Jeremy Butler ([log in to unmask]).]
 
~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.
 
    The best book on genre that I know is John Cawelti's ADVENTURE, MYSTERY,
AND ROMANCE (UChicago, 1976). In my own, AMERICAN RELIGIOUS AND BIBLICAL
SPECTACULARS, (Praeger, 1992) I try to deal with it with reference to films
such as The Ten Commandments and Ben-Hur.
    Gerald Forshey
    Daley College
    City Colleges of Chicago

ATOM RSS1 RSS2