I dunno, your defense of genre feels a little lame - as though you're saying "see, genres are okay because highbrow directors like Tarkovski and Kubrick indulged in 'em, and, furthermore, many filmmakers have come up with clever ays to subvert genre conventions." But are we doomed to be philistines if we accept genres (and generic conventions) on their own terms, without any subversion or irony or postmodern whoop-de-doo?

Haven't you ever been surprised by the way some otherwise anonymous horror or action film will come up with inventive ways to go through the motions (2006's RUNNING SCARED is a favorite recent example, as is the same year's CRANK)? Don't you ever find yourself surprisingly - maybe inexplicably? - affected by this week's romantic comedy or kid-centered family flick? The reason I treasure TCM above any other channel on my comically bloated cable package is not for the stuffed-and-mounted classics ("oh, look, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is on...again...") but for the oddball musicals and one-reel comedies and poverty-row nuttiness that seems to come out of nowhere and go straight back there. The same can be said for my dopey little local multiplex - at the end of every year, its often the genre movies that stick with me longer than whatever it was that won the IndieWire poll that year. And anyway, don't films that aren't normally stuck in a generic category - like I'M NOT THERE or 4 MONTHS 3 WEEKS etc. or SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY - themselves constitute some kind of genre? Can't we generalize about them the way we can other, lowlier fare? Isn't 'literary fiction' - the kind of stuff that's often featured in the NYT BOOK REVIEW and its ilk - a generic category, with similar stylistic and thematic tropes?

P.S. - If I ran a video store - if doing so was still a sound business proposition - I would ax the 'Foreign' shelf and stick PLAYTIME in the 'Comedy' section, ONIBABA in the 'Horror' section and so forth. I might keep 'Silent' as a separate unit against my better judgement, just because the complaints from unpleasantly surprised customers would drive me nuts. 'Drama' always bothered me, somehow, as it seemed like where a movie would go if no one knew where else to put it. I'd probably subdivide the whole category out of existence - THE GODFATHER goes into the 'Crime & Gangsters' section, ALL QUIET ON THE WESTEN FRONT goes to the 'War' section, etc.

I hate it when people say things like, "The Orphanage was great ... for what it was." Like it's somehow shameful to be a stunning model of a given genre.

Dan: I'm totally with you. A genre movie doesn't have to "subvert" the genre in order to be a terrific, even great. The first "Godfather" ("One") is a straight-ahead gangster movie (and so is one of the greates "genre" pictures ever made: Howard Hawks' 1932 "Scarface").

When I wrote: "The familiar prototype is just that: a recognizable structure upon which a craftsperson (even an artist) can create almost anything at all -- even turn it inside out or blow it apart," I certainly didn't mean to suggest that a movie that played by the genre rules couldn't be great, hence the word "even" in that sentence. (Hey, I'm the guy who recommended the horror film "Raw Meat" a while back -- a really good horror film that doesn't "subvert" the genre any more than Murnau's "Nosferatu" or James Whale's "Frankenstein" or Todd Browning's "Dracula".) I chose those "highbrow" examples to expand on what I'd already quoted from McGrath. Coming at it from a few different angles: 1) that genre work hasn't always been considered lesser work; 2) that work we now consider classic (Dickens, Austen) could and have been also be considered genre fiction; 3) genre itself provides a structure for all kinds of works -- and, as we all know, some of the most satisfying fulfill genre expectations exquisitely ("Trouble in Paradise," "Ball of Fire," "Bringing Up Baby," "The Lady Eve," anyone?).

It's the attitude McGrath describes behind the use of the labels I sometimes have a problem with -- absolutely not the genre conventions themselves which, as I said, can be adhered to closely or not. But just because a film fits within a "genre" doesn't make it a lesser achievement.

Nick - your comment was great, for what is was (just kidding, I couldn't resist). I agree with you completely.

I also agree with Dan that everything is a genre picture. The "Drama" category in video stores covers biopic, historical, epic, crime and so on. Take any film with crime elements (Silence of the Lambs, Straw Dogs, The Godfather, Blood Simple) and see how many genres you could possibly classify them under. Lambs could be drama, thriller, detective, serial killer, horror, etc.

Even genres as specific as musical have multiple subsets: Romantic musical, dramatic fantasy, comedic fable and on and on.

It's just that with genres that fall outside the realm of the real (science fiction and horror notably) it's the average filmgoer, not the cinephiles, historians or critics that hold them back from full acceptance. There has long been an understanding among those of us in the cinephiliac world that when your average cinephile (strange, obsessive, loves Cherry slurpies or is that just me?) sees Ordinary People and Blade Runner (s)he can see that Blade Runner is better (at least I hope so). The average film goer (judging from everyone I've ever met who is not obsessed with film as I am) sees Ordinary People as better. They're judging it based on content (drama about real people with real problems) rather than artistry. They mistake serious content for excellence and underrate the artistry in Blade Runner because it's Science Fiction.

There are probably several critically acclaimed writers and filmmakers who have always wanted to write a science fiction novel or directors who want to make a horror film but don't because they know it will immediately lower their esteem in the eyes of the public.

Jonathan, you nailed it with this statement: "They're judging it based on content (drama about real people with real problems) rather than artistry."

I dunno how many conversations have been halted because the other person couldn't get past the "what" to see the "how" and the "why."

It's like talking to someone about driving only to find out they've only sat in the front seat when it was parked in the garage.

How 'bout we compile our own list of Genres and petition Blockwood and Hollybuster to enact them? *cough*

1. Drama
a. War
b. Nazi Germany
c. Women Crying
d. Western
e. Grisham

2. Comedy
a. Romantic
b. Black
c. Teen
d. Sex
e. Teen Sex *over 18*
f. Black Teen S..*stop me*

3. Philosophy
a. Sci-Fi
b. Religion/Superstition
c. Politics

4. Horror/Thriller

5. Documentary
a. Michael Moore
b. Actual Documentary

6. Film Noir

7. Special Interest

8. Erotica (You didn't mention the roped-off section, Mr. Emerson. Remember Ralph Wiggum: "Everybody's hugging!")

The end list listless.
Any ideas?

H

I supposed there's something to be said for genre's utility in helping folks best spend their entertainment time/money. If you're on a budget and short on time, it's handy to know that a particular flick is going to have the guns and explosions (or jiggling body parts, or laser-dodging spaceships, or...) you generally enjoy in a movie. Not everyone is looking to be challenged and nourished every time. If you really like Top Ramen and want to eat it several times a week, who am I to judge you? We all have our guilty pleasures, which is why it's fun to watch Soderbergh or Spielberg or Ang Lee bring their skills to caper movies or superhero flicks. It may still be Top Ramen, but the chef has prettied it up into something a bit more upscale. (Tarantino has made an entire career out of doing this).

That being said I've never had much use for genres as a means for picking movies. I've always been more of a "Sturgeon's Law" guy on that front.

(For the uninitiated, Ted Sturgeon was a prominent Sci Fi writer who got tired of interviewers and reviewers constantly hounding him about how stupid Sci Fi was. In response he coined his "Law": "Sure 90% of Science Fiction is crud, but then, ninety percent of everything is crud." Several subsequent observers have expressed the opinion that Sturgeon was an optimist.)

This rings especially true for me when it comes to movie genres - quality matters, genre is pretty much irrelevant. I've got all-time favorites in pretty much every category, but I can't say that I have any favorite categories. The dreck outnumbers the gems in each - For every great classic Noir or Western there are a dozen stinkers that time has largely (and thankfully) forgotten.

For this reason, my experience has been that being a genre devotee (someone stoked about anything/everything released in a chosen category) is something that generally doesn't survive a thoughtful person's adolescence. If you're over 21 and you're still palpably and equally excited by the release of every annual "Nightmare on Zombie-Saw Hostel Street part X" installment, or "Lord of the Dragonrider Elven Blade Castle" epic, or "Attractive People Meet Cute, Struggle, then Live Happily Ever After" RomCom, perhaps your ability to sift wheat from chaff may leave something to be desired. We know the guy who liked "Apocalypse Now" or "Saving Private Ryan" so much that he rates them right up there with "Rambo" and "Delta Force" and any number of Steven Segal debacles. This is sad.

Well, said, George. My take is that the only reason the word "genre" needs to exist is for labeling those movies that find it absolutely necessary to nail every cliche in the book with nothing in between. Which is why I would disagree with a lot of Jim's (possibly Devil's advocatish) categorizing. Shelving movies in video stores is for the least common denominator. Serious film watchers will find what they want. Those who think anything worth watching must have a 'splosion need a system. I guess my point boils down to this: Is "Vertigo" a romantic thriller? Yes. Is it a Romantic Thriller? No. It's a great movie.

Dane: That's exactly it. Genre labels can tell you something about the movie (they sure can't tell you if it's "great") -- but if they could tell you everything, then what would be the point of discovering new titles?

I'm reminded of something I quoted from David Lynch a while back, when he said he didn't like movies that fit into "just one genre." I do. But genre labels, while they suggest certain conventions, were never intended to imply some kind of eugenic "purity." Of course "Vertigo" is a romance (a pretty dark one -- like Poe's "The Oval Portrait"), and it's a thriller, and maybe a ghost story and some other things besides. But that doesn't begin to summarize the movie.

Likewise, most people call "Psycho" a horror picture -- or even the first "slasher" movie (predating the term itself). And it is. There's an Old Dark House. There's even a psycho killer. But I've always thought of it as a family comedy, too. (The Seattle Film Society once showed it on a double-bill with Larry Cohen's "It's Alive" and the pairing worked wonderfully. You know what Norman says: "A boy's best friend is his mother.")

As a huge fan of both Blade Runner and Ordinary People, I'm annoyed by Jonathan Lapper's comments. Sure it's ridiculous that many viewers were blind to the artistry in Blade Runner because of it's supposedly low-brow genre (science-fiction). But on the other hand, Ordinary People shouldn't be dismissed just because it's a 'drama about real people with real problems'. Just because it's qualities were more easily appreciated by the general public, doesn't mean that they're not actually there. Unlike many family dramas, Ordinary People is genuinely moving and not merely manipulative. That's a testament to its artistry which is different but not necessarily inferior to that of Blade Runner. Both films deserve to stand among the very best of their respective genres.