FILM GENRES bles us to understand and evaluate individual
GENRE films, just dge of English
grammar enables me to write this sentence and e distinction between grammar and usage, closely akin to that -e and surface structure, originates in de Saussure''s distinction ?arole in
verbal language. For de Saussure, the speaker''s and /ledge of the grammatical rules that make up the language sys-es them to develop and understand a virtually unlimited range ;s (la parole). American linguist Noam Chomsky has described is of competency and performance'', he suggests that we should our inherent capacity to speak and interpret on the one hand g so on the other. ideas into genre study, we might think of the film genre as a system of rules of expression and construction and the indi-a manifestation of these rules. Of course, film differs from verbal competence is relatively consistent from speaker to generic competence varies widely. If each of us had the same id''s thousands of genre films, a
critical theory would proba-ruct. But obviously not everyone has a minimal understand-popular and widespread genres, let alone the obscure struc-"subgenres" as the beach-blanket
movies of the ''60s or the he ''70s. i verbal language
systems are essentially neutral and mean-•e not. As a system, English grammar is not meaningful either ially specific terms. It is manipulated by a speaker to make re, conversely, has come into being precisely because of its is a meaningful narrative system. Whereas a verbal statement i organization of neutral components into a meaningful pat-resents an effort to reorganize a familiar, meaningful system aspect of the language analogy concerns the tension between Grammar in language is absolute and static, essentially un-and abuses of everyday usage. In the cinema, however, indi-.m to have the capacity to affect the genre—an utterance has e the grammar that governs it. Even in film technology (the on the Western, for example, or of technicolor on the musi-ndividual usage influences both viewers and other filmmak-ges them in effect to renegotiate the generic contract. Whether lear deep structure exists, which defines the genre and some-of time and variation, we cannot overlook the gradual changes iual genre films) in form and substance on the genre''s sur-md they tend to evolve quite rapidly due to the demands of ir media. But whether this evolution represents mere cosmetic structure (equivalent to fashionable cliches or idioms in ver ier it reflects substantial changes in the deep structure (the will remain, at least for now, an open question, i value of the film-language analogy is as a sort of method or FILM UtNKfc AJN1J inc ucrmc rit-iw methodological model. That is, the similarities between a langi communication systems should encourage the analyst to approa 1
films in much the same way that the linguist approaches Individ 1 all signifying systems, languages and genres exist essentially '' i their users: No single study of English grammar or of a film g I describe the system completely. In this sense, studying film get ! ing to school as competent six-year-old speakers of English an \ English grammar. In each case, we study the system that is the \ ing competence. '' In all of this, we should not lose sight of the critical, evalua tivates the genre critic, while it is virtually irrelevant to the lin concern is the process whereby we verbally communicate mean the quality of that communication falls under the domain of rr film genre critic must be both linguist and "rhetor"—that is, he with both the process and the quality of any generic communic velops competence, a familiarity with the system, by watchi A movies and noting similarities. Ultimately, he or she is concern appreciating, and articulating differences among these movies 1 derstand genre films because of their similarity with other film \ them because of their difference. Therefore an outline of a bas \ filmmaking should precede any critical analysis of individual I TOWARD A GRAMMAR OF FILM GI At this stage, we are somewhere "between" the point of movies) and the point of arrival (appreciating and articulating ing critical). We can appreciate difference only when we bej systematically, when we consider the systems whereby an inc meaning." Thus far, we have considered the commercial anc volved in Hollywood filmmaking from a rather superficial pei ing our focus to examine the workings of Hollywood genres, derstand how commercial and formal systems are realized i ( Genre production itself should be addressed on three distinct le \ characteristics shared by virtually all genre films (and thus ! \ characteristics shared by all the films within any individual gt lacteristics that set one genre film off from all other films. \ Our ultimate goal is to discern a genre film''s quality, its socit To do this, we will attempt to see its relation to the various sj For example, in examining a film like The Searchers, it is not t late the formal characteristics that identify it as belonging to a is it enough to isolate the elements that make it superior. Init cern those traits that make the film—and indeed the Western To repeat Wood''s observation: we are so accustomed to deali ( familiar filmic narrative types, that we tend to isolate these tyj I thus overlooking many of their shared social and aesthetic fes \ ering the Western, gangster, musical, and other Hollywood ger
More summaries about the הז''אנר