The Fault in our Genre

A commentary on the literary trap of Genre and the art of parody.

“As a Filmmaker, you can not make a genre film seriously. You can only make a parody.”

-Michael Haneke

Genre. It doesn’t exist. Yet it does. But it shouldn’t. Genre defines what a text or film is about. It tells us what we’re going to watch, how it’s going to play out, the kind of characters we can expect to see and what we can expect to learn from the film. Genre is widely accepted, in film anyway, to be the bane of all writers. Screenwriters see Genre as nothing more than a limitation, a boundary, and an invisible prison wall to keep your imagination where the money is, so to speak.

 

Screenwriters claim that limiting yourself to a genre prevents the creation of anything new. It keeps movies all the same. There is such thing as the typical Hollywood three-act structure. In this structure there is the typical Beginning, Middle and End. This is accepted in Hollywood and most other art forms, to be the basis of all writing and adhering to it is a film law.

 

But every so often you get the original writer who decides to break such a law, Christopher Nolan for example with his film Memento. He completely reversed the three-act structure by pitting the Sujet and Fabula against each other. The Fabula being the story and the Sujet being the way it is organized. He created something new, something that inspired other writers, and something to be spoken about for years to come. Why? Because it was new and therefore it was interesting. Screenwriters have a similar view on Genre. If you just follow the set guidelines and rules that come with each Genre then you are never creating anything new or interesting. The film business just becomes a monotonous stream of films that are one Genre or the other. Thankfully however, the tyranny of Genre oppression has begun to wither in recent times and all thanks to one film in particular: Star Wars.

 

Star Wars broke the boundaries of writing and film altogether thanks to the rebellious nature of its creator, George Lucas. Lucas hated the big production companies and their approach to film making. He saw them as plutomaniacal monsters hell-bent on making money from films rather than appreciating them for the art that they are. Lucas therefore made Star Wars to be a composite genre: Western, Adventure, Fantasy and Sci-Fi. Doing so, he could absolute freedom in writing and not be bound to the rules and limitations of just one Genre. He could mix elements; plot points, character details, music, and expectations.  His new creation was a swashbuckling showdown in space. The result? We’ve never heard the end of it.

 

The point I am trying to make here is that when you cast off the rusting shackles of Genre and allow yourself to be free in writing, you create something interesting. If you stick to Genre then you follow a pattern and make “Just another movie”.

 

There is however, a type of Genre that is actually a mockery of the concept of Genre. One that plays on the fact that most Genres nowadays take themselves extremely seriously: Parody. Parody steps where no other Genre can, not even comedy. Parody follows the guidelines and limitations of a specific Genre to the letter… and completely and utterly tears them apart. Parody steps out of line and makes something new, something funny, something we can laugh about, and in the end makes us see how ridiculous and cliché most Genres actually are nowadays. Parody can and has exposed how boring Genre really is. Some notable examples are: Shaun of the Dead, Airplane, Spaceballs, Spy Hard, Monty Python.  Noticing a pattern? I’ll make it clear, 4 out of 6 of those films have been selected to be preserved in the United States National Film Registry. Why? Because they are some of the most influential, discussed, and popular movies ever made. And that’s not a comment I make lightly or without evidence. They are all commercial successes and everyone who’s ever seen a film can quote Monty Python.

 

People love to sit back and watch something that doesn’t take itself seriously. We like to laugh, we like to see things that we love get torn apart in the name of a cheap joke. It’s how film began: Simple comedy. Ironically, Parody and Comedy are two different Genres… typical Hollywood categorization. This however does not limit either of the two because of their nature to break the mold of Genres. They are immune to what defines them.

  

Giving film a genre is like giving a genre to classical art. It’s not meant to be categorized. We don’t hear of a piece of art and have certain expectations about what might be in the painting because of a theme or genre it has been tagged with. What is in the painting is what needs to be there for the sake of representing or telling a story.  Giving yourself or being given a Genre as a writer is like telling a musician he can only use certain instruments, (It happened before and it ended up with a very angry monarch).  It’s like telling a painter he can only paint certain things or limiting him to a few colours. Sure if he’s worth his title as an artist then he could make the few colours work, but it would seriously hinder what he could produce.  Hollywood complains that it isn’t getting enough money from films nowadays because stories aren’t interesting or original enough, they pump out remakes and reboots to make up for this, but they are ignoring HORRIBLY the ruin that they themselves are causing. They are the designers of their own destruction and with any luck their own bankruptcy.

 

To be honest, it’s as if these production companies are becoming a parody in themselves.

 

Reviews

[A Ghost of Myself]

You present an interesting point on the classification of genre, but I’m assuming you’re a screen-writer, thus you are bound by genre, and thus creativity is restricted. There’s a reason so many movies placate clinches and tropes, the modern world expects the mundane, the need to ‘not’ think. A large majority of the movies, with the exception of some independent films are formulated around this aspect. You mentioned ‘Memento’; personally I didn’t care for the movie’s repetitive nature, I understood the context and subtext, my personal opinion. But Christopher Nolan takes advantage of many common techniques (such as the ticking clock) I don’t blame him, every writer does, and no story or movie could be made without them; because what is a cliché but something used before that worked and it continues to work. I don’t believe the problem is in Genre, but the overuse of genre, several blockbusters are centered around them, 90% I turn off after seeing the same clichés over and over; but the same is true with novels, you have the three-structure act, as you mentioned earlier—the rules to follow, gun in scene one must fire by scene three, etc, etc, the formulated novel, but they’re still sold nation wide, why? It may sound like I’m disagreeing with you, I’m not; in fact, I couldn’t agree with you more. Before I begin rambling as I often do. I’ll stop here, but if you’re ever in the mood to discuss form or narratives. I’d be interested in the conversation.