What?
maybe i wasn’t clear. the existence of the phrase “genre film” implies that there are some films that aren’t. those lumped in the genre film category are often unfairly looked upon as lesser films. casablanca could be a war film, a romance, an espionage thriller, etc. but isn’t considered a quote unquote genre film. while frankenstein, which touches upon all sorts of lofty themes with wit and pathos, is relegated to the genre ghetto. now, i am not comparing these two particular films to one another. just asking why the genre tag automatically equates to a lesser film.
because thats still the general perception, and always has been. its an american thing. “genre” films are very well respected in other parts of the world. for us, we think we’re above that, and only “quality” pictures deserve our respect and admiration.
on a larger more theoretical level, yes, all films are genre films. genre only means “type”, in a true dictionary sense. everything is a type of something. but for film studies, the term genre usually does refer to either sci-fi, horror, thrillers, westerns, etc. these are all genres that haven’t been given due respect in the history of american criticism. as far as what came first, “the chicken or the egg”, i’m not sure.
I don’t know. But the terminology applies to literature as well. Go into a bookstore: you have the “General fiction” section, and then you have sci-fi, fantasy, romance, mystery, etc., off on their own, which people sometimes also call “genre fiction.” Of course everything has its own genre, and of course genre only means “type,” but in general most stories are relatively basic in that they are about regular people in a real setting—but the style and themes can vary greatly. However, once you start adding zombies and aliens and spaceships, the themes and styles become more specific—to that of sci-fi. So we call it genre.
But what difference does it really make? Call them whatever you want.
Here’s an interesting topic that a tough death after five comments.
I agree with the OP, why is the Exorcist mentioned as just a great horror film today, when in fact it is a great film.
Obviously there are films that look to stick in a niche, be a genre film and catch that audience, but really cannot films transcends the supposed genre and just be a great film?
It is true that sometimes genre films are unfairly discounted, but I don’t think that you can apply a genre to all films.
To me a better word for genre is ‘Formula’. You are choosing a formula that will safely attract a certain amount of attention. Some people who write in genre (Like Leone, Tarantino, etc) go beyond the formula and do their own distinct thing. But all the comic book movies out there tend to adhere strictly to the formula.
A genre is more specific than ‘Family drama’.
Peace be with you all.
I agree that most films are genre films but some films don’t fit into any category.
Those are usually in the genre called “art film.”
Genre does not exist in nature, but taxonomy comes in handy when one wants/needs to make comparisons. If I want to talk about the differences between Ford and Hawks, it makes more sense to talk about The Searchers and Red River than, um, Monkey Business and 7 Women.
But, yeah, the idea that a “genre film” can’t be as good as a (whatever a non-genre filmed would be called) is a holdover from literature, and a bit of an anachronism at this point, I would think.
Ford doesn’t follow the Western formula though, his films are called Westerns because they happen to take place in the southwestern United States in the 19th century.
Genre classifications are usually reserved for films that have the exact same story as similar films. If a film has the exact same story as similar films, it’s probably not a great film.
Huh?
I feel a genre film can be great but only can be measured against others in the genre, only great film transcends genre designation. Jean Renoir made great film no matter the style, Where as Roger Corman could leave his entertaining yet inferior genre position.
cole roulain
i am sometimes frustrated by the connotation of the “genre” film designation in that it implies the film is somehow less legitemate or significant. why is it that the sterling examples of horror, sci-fi and the like get marginalized when drama and comedy can be split into just as many genres (drawing-room drama, family drama, etc.) that have no more/less merit than any other? why do you folks think some genres get the short shrift and some films, while obviously cinematic milestones, still are ghettoized by the genre designation?