Print

Print


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