Brian Taves wrote: >I think the reason is, as I suggest in my book on the historical adventure >genre, because "action" itself is not a genre. The types you've mentioned >above are genres, whereas action is a style uniting them. I've read parts of your book with great pleasure and interest, and do see your point. In "The Romance of Adventure" you call action "any film with greater emphasis on action than emotion. Indeed, action is a more appropriate word than adventure to describe THE STYLE of storytelling that runs through many genres." Indeed. BUT, on the very same page you also write: "Genres are named by the various aspects of the movies: caracter (gangster movies), pivotal event (disatsters), mood and purpose (horror films, comedies), target audience (women's films), setting (westerns), OR STYLE (musicals)." Action as a genre is used frequently as a marketing- and categorization-device by both producers, distributors and audience. It's defined by style, mood, purpose, target audience and style, all genre-defining elements acording to yourself. I think something is lost if one of the biggest, most blockbusting genres of the 80s and 90s are reduced to just a style. Ingvald Bergsagel BTW: I've so far gotten six suggestions to read Yvonne Taskers book "Spectacular Bodies". Thank you. I will. ____________________________________________ Ingvald Bergsagel - Rostedsgate 9 - 0178 OSLO home# 22113552 - pager #96819967 ---- Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite http://www.tcf.ua.edu/screensite