Leslie Winall
Rick Altman, “Film/Genre”

In these first two chapters of his book “Film/Genre,” Rick Altman seeks to provide an introduction to film genre theory, necessarily preceded by important aspects of literary genre theory. In chapter 1, he begins with a discussion of Aristotle’s Poetics, which had an impact or were adopted by most later genre theorists. Aristotle wrote of the ‘essential’ qualities of poetry, namely that “poems with similar ‘essential’ qualities will produce similar effects on their audiences” (1). Centuries later, Horace furthered the ideas of Aristotle and argued that “each genre must be understood as a separate entity, with its own literary rules and prescribed procedures” (2).

Throughout the periods of neoclassical and nineteenth century genre theories, the main argument persisted that (despite the appearance of such “hybrid genres” as tragicomedy and the melodrama) genres have separate borders and can be readily identified. At the beginning of the twentieth century, however, Croce challenged the notion of genre. Altman notes, “Croce’s strong critique of genres had the effect of shifting genre theory towards a new dialectic opposing general categories and individual texts” (7). Though Croce was not forgotten, the pendulum swung back in the opposing direction in the 1940s and 1950s, when Wellek and Warren (followed by Frye) sought to redefine genre and the “generic map” through a focus on both structure and technique of literature. Later critics furthered this tendency by explicitly suggesting that genres might also be defined by the critic and or reader. In short, the basic argument of literary genre theory seems to revolve around whether genre rests on “textual structure within traditional genres and canons of texts” (10) or falls into the realm of reader/audience responsibility; this argument has yet to be resolved.

*Note: Altman provides a brief outline of the “major principles of genre theory” at the end of the chapter that requires no further summary. I would also like to draw your attention to Altman’s comment regarding the inconsistent meaning of the word “genre” itself.

At the beginning of chapter two, Altman notes that film genre study arose out of literary genre criticism, although it has been established as a separate field in the last two decades or so. Again, Altman tries not to emphasize any ‘correct’ theory, but to present the major facets of the field. Altman begins appropriately by addressing the question of genre’s continued existence in film theory (in other words, if genre is constantly exceeded or subverted, how can it persist?). He answers, “genres provide the formulas that drive production [“blueprint”]; genres constitute the structures that define individual texts [“structures”]; programming decisions are based primarily on generic criteria [“label”]; the interpretation of generic films depends directly on the audience’s general expectations [“contract”]” (13). In other words, generic criticism is pertinent to both production and reception of films.

Film genre theory generally does not ascribe to the later literary genre theories that granted larger responsibility to the critic. Rather, “genres are defined by the film industry and recognized by the mass audience” (14) (films that do not share this relationship are simply not genre films).   Moreover, genre critics adhere to classical standards, by often disregarding “films that fail to exhibit clear generic qualifications” and defining major genres “in terms of a nucleus of films obviously satisfying the theory’s fourfold assumptions [blueprint, structure, label, contract]” (16). It therefore seems that these critics stick to a “safe zone” in order to uphold the existence of genre.

Altman continues with the assumption that, “once generically identified by the industry, films are typed for life” (18). He criticizes the fact that new terminology is not allowed to affect the “identity” of an earlier film. In addition, generic films are transhistorical, leading to a connection between genre and myth, and also allowing for certain films to be treated as the ‘generic prototypes’ of a genre (which incorporates Aristotle’s idea of ‘essential qualities’). However, such a transhistorical perspective denies the fact that genres do in fact exist in history in various shapes.

Altman also discusses the various aspects shared by all (Hollywood) genre films. In short, they exhibit dual protagonists and dualistic structures (sheriff vs. outlaw in a Western, for example); repetitive (same resolution to conflict time and again) and cumulative (over-all affect important, not the result) natures; and predictability. In addition, the genre film often depends not so much on reality, but on intertextual references. Following theories of the 70s and 80s, genres can also be seen as having a “ritual” or “ideological” function. The ritual approach challenges classical theory, attributing creation of genre to the audience. According to this theory, “the narrative patterns of generic texts grow out of existing society practices” (25). Conversely, the ideological approach sees generic films as a means for either government address (to its subjects) or industry appeal (to its audience). This radical theory sees generic films as luring audiences into “false assumptions of societal unity and future happiness” (25).

Finally, Altman addresses the role of the genre critic. Not surprisingly, the view of the critic once again generally adheres to classical standards. The critic cannot define genre, but can only observe its effect on the audience (implying that the critic is somehow both outside and above the realm of audience).

Questions to Consider

1. Altman asks, “Does genre reside in a pre-existing pattern, in texts, in criticism, or somewhere else? Are genres classificatory conveniences or are they representations of reality?” (11) In other words, he seems to be asking us whether it is even possible to resolve the centuries-long debate surrounding (literary) genre theory. Is there a solution?

2. Altman writes, “Film genre’s special power is nearly always expressed in terms of stylistic devices or metaphors that figure a special ability to establish connections” (13). Based upon this comment, could we –as the audience- define a “Fritz Lang” genre? Consider also the repetitive/cumulative nature of genre films, as well as their intertextual qualities.

However, he also notes of non-genre films that “the most interesting texts supplied by film industry are complex, mobile and mysterious?” (15) To which category do the Lang films that we have seen belong?

3. Leo Braudy describes the relationship between industry purpose and audience response as follows: ‘Genre films essentially ask the audience, “Do you still want to believe this?” Popularity is the audience answering, “Yes”’ Is this statement true? What are some examples? How would you describe the relationship between industry and audience? What happens when this relationship is interrupted?

4. According to Stephen Neale, ‘The existence of genres means that the spectator, precisely, will always know that everything will be “made right in the end”, that everything will cohere, that any threat or any danger in the narrative process itself will always be contained” (17). Based upon this comment, is M a genre film?  Is M in some ways a ‘generic prototype’ (19) of the other films we have viewed?

5. Is the role of the critic in film genre really only to observe? Or do we see instances where critics take a more active stance in defining genre?