Evolution is inevitable in all things, even thought. Has the expectation and sophistication of the audience evolved story telling in such a way that the classic idea of genre no longer works? Or has the concept always been flawed and we lived with it. Romantic Comedies became so ubiquitous that a new genre of Romcom was born. Is this becoming the new world for all stories.
I ask this because I heard someone say “It’s a classic horror” when discussing a film. In the old days of genre focused writing this would have been “a horror”. For me using the term “classic horror” indicates that modern horror has many aspects beyond horror.
Do we need to focus on the audience reaction instead? I don’t know how we would communicate this. But are we better saying, “It is a sad film, with elements of hope”, rather than a Drama.
What are your thoughts?
Generally I agree that the evolutionary process ongoing and strictly singular genre categories seem to be on the way out. While I see nothing wrong with that, it does make it difficult for screenwriters on the contest circuit to enter their works in the 'correct' category..
Contests and even some production and listing services. A producer says she wants a “Crime Drama”. In the old days Cops and Robbers, easy done. But look at Heat. More about people than crime. Thanks Doug
3 people like this
No, a genre is a category of work (as in literature, film, music, etc) characterized by simularities in style, form, and/or subject matter. The genre “system” itself is not going away nor is it changing drastically, really. Sure, like most classification systems there are possible different interpretation. If anything, in my opinion, more and more subcategories are being added. However, what each includes or how each category or genre and/or subgenre is defined is often convoluted and/or conflated with personal opinion too. Regardless, genre is needed to help define work and to help give practical reference for discussion and organization. We gotta have some agreed upon language in which to talk about and share all this wonderful creative madness. ;)
Agreed Beth. But have we moved away from the original categories. If we say there are 9 Genre ( I haven’t counted) just to get a simple 2x2 mix, that is 81 sub-genre. Is it beginning to get to complex? What about a mix of sub-genre.
3 people like this
I agree with Beth. I'll add a little bit:
I think the "fuzziness" around the term "drama" was a result of a topic over the weekend because somebody wasn't sure what category to list his script in a contest - "comedy" or "drama."
Every film and story is "drama" - from comedy to tragedy, and everything in between. But for the sake of a contest label, I guess I would consider "drama" to be "serious" and that isn't another one of the defined categories, and even if my story had funny elements to it - just like As Good As It Gets, Bull Durham, and This Is 40 funny elements.
Regarding genres, and mixed-genres, you can go back to 1935, and notice that many films made back then were combinations of genres, too - and some weren't. But there were romantic-comedies, romantic-musicals, comedy-musicals, comedy-mystery, sci-fi horror, action-adventure, etc.
As society and cinema evolved, the variety of subject matter, styles/genres increased, and so did the sub-categories, like Beth noted. For example, one sub-category of horror is "slasher films." Hitchcock is credited with being the "Master of Suspense", and also the "Father of Slasher Films" (even though that history goes back a bit further into the Italian Giallo films, and even further than that in literature). But ever since Psycho was first released some 60 years ago, there have been probably 1,000 or more Slasher films made. And one of America's biggest cinema stars even had his first role in a Slasher-Comedy film. Talk about mixing genres and sub-categories.
And about 50 other sub-categories of horror now exist, too.
I don't think that "classical sense" of a single-genre film will ever disappear, simply because of the greater variety of films made each year, and by more and more people and in more and more countries. Some people will probably always make single-genre films in a sub-category of that genre, and without crossing genres, and some won't.
And, at the same time....everything is "drama."
For those interested here is a list of genres and sub-categories from one of my favorite film sites, filmsite.org. There sure weren't that many sub-categories in 1935, and there will probably be a few more in 2035, too.
https://www.filmsite.org/subgenres2.html
Audience are getting smarter and smarter over the years, never underestimate it. When talking about "classic horror" that person maybe talked about the tropes, tropes that had been seen a million times. Movies are hybrid products.
These are all interesting points. But there is an accepted fact that we cannot understand something with a word for it.
The Welsh never had a word for pink, it was just red. So without the word pink it was impossible to discuss the colour.
Is our limited genre set stopping us from exploring story more through, just like the Welsh and their struggle with concept of Pink.
This is a thought thread. Perhaps to inspire or even make us question our understanding of our craft.
3 people like this
Craig, I just don’t share your concern. We have not moved away from the original categories of genre. For me, I do not find it too complex nor restrictive nor limiting. It’s all pretty straightforward as it can be. Lol! Consider genre as a loosely-defined tier system with the main “umbrella-like” categories at the top: drama, comedy, thriller, horror, science fiction, etc, etc. Then the next tier and the next tier or group and subgroup fallout beneath as each either relates or is a combination. Genre offers a grouping of elements to help define, create, and discuss film and story. Using your color analogy, genre is a big box of crayons. There are the red tones, the blue tones, the green tones, the yellows, etc. The color wheel offers an abundance of hues and mixing possibilities and differences between the effect of a mix, just as blue-green is very different from green-blue. The first in a combination is always more pronounced than the second. There are thousands and thousands of colors and yet ALL of them stem and originate from the simple three primary colors of red, blue, and yellow—and always will. With genre, we have a similar tier system and “mixing of colors.” A horror film with thriller elements. A thriller with horror elements. These combinations and/or a genre's subgenres often develop, break out, become grouped with others, and then they are named or are given distinction as a subset in some way. I do not see this as a negative, only a positive. With more categories, we have more and more new takes and exciting new work to consider and discuss. The genre crayon box is just getting bigger and bigger. It’s a good thing. ;)
2 people like this
I think it depends what your writing. If you are examining humanity and it's myriad of possibilities, then I think you naturally pull in many genres. Life isn't always a comedy, a horror or an action. Sometimes the lines cross in a multitude of ways that if done right offer a very rich story.
1 person likes this
I've been confused ever since The Martian won the Golden Globe for Best Comedy. A lot of my stuff I think of as dramedy — certainly more comedic than I found The Martian (never saw that's what Drew Goddard was going for, so more a comment on the award category than my writing prowess) — though maybe just more muddy genre waters!
Beth Fox Heisinger you are making great points. Except there are hundreds of words to describe colours Aqua, chartreuse are both blue-green or green-blue.
I don’t have concerns as such. But everything is the “norm” until it isn’t. Change can only happen when we question the norms.
Craig, I just used basic color names to keep it simple and to keep the analogy easy to understand. Actually, there are thousands and thousands of colors with many names, depending on many factors. I am a studio artist, by the way. Studied color theory. I know color. I used to have to color correct photography and direct color print production as a former art director. Shall we talk about the Pantone color system? What, no, you don't want to? Me neither. Lol! Plus I'm one of those weird people who tested very high in seeing how many colors and what subtle, underlying hues I can detect. Let's just say it was indeed high. True chartreuse is actually a very light, pale, green-yellow, not a green-blue, but that's not relevant nor important here. Again, I was just using color as an analogy. That's it. About change and "norms"... yeah, again, I just don't share the same viewpoint. I don't question. I don't see change, really? Or challenge? Genre is a genre, sub or otherwise. ;) Anyway, I'm happy that some of my points are adding substance to the discussion! Thanks for starting it, Craig. Best to you! ;)
2 people like this
I don't overthink genres and I've played fast and loose with them without really concerning myself with conventional thinking. I hardly ever write anything that doesn't have some elements of humor. For example, I did an HP Lovecraft adaption and he wasn't exactly known for being funny. However, I've received some great festival and reader feedback for modernizing and injecting humor into these celebrated stories such as The Testimony of Randolph Carter. However, the general approach for the work is in the tradition of anthologies like Creepshow and Tales From The Crypt. The main objective is to create good work that people notice, and god forbid, would like to make into a feature film. Beyond that, sky's the frigging limit.
1 person likes this
Phillip E. Hardy, Prolifique i completely ignore genre. But I sometimes do bump against it when trying to describe my work.