Genre: generic origins and relationships

1
Genre generic origins and relationships

• A consideration of Tom Ryalls contribution (1978)

2
What is genre criticism?

• Tom Ryall (1978) distinguishes genre criticism
  from the two approaches dominant at the time of
  its development auteurism, and an earlier
  tradition which saw films as providing social
  documents. He sees as a central concern of genre
  criticism the relationship between the art
  product, its source and its audience. Both auteur
  and 'social document' approaches use a linear
  model of this relationship, privileging artist or
  social reality as the originating source of the
  art product, which, representing their
  expression, is then consumed by its audience. In
  contrast, Ryall suggests, the model offered by
  genre criticism is triangular, with art product,
  artist and audience as three equally constituting
  moments in the production of the text -A view
  which posits a dynamic and mutually determining
  relationship between them. The basis of this
  equality lies in the way the conventions of genre
  operate. They provide a framework of structuring
  rules, in the shape of patterns/forms/
  styles/structures, which act as a form of
  supervision' over the work of production of
  film-makers and the work of reading by an
  audience. As a critical enterprise genre
  analysis, which looks for repetitions and
  variations between films rather than originality
  or individuality, was developed as a more
  appropriate tool for understanding popular cinema
  than authorship theories. Following the
  structuralist intervention and revival of Marxist
  aesthetics, genre analysis enables film criticism
  to take account of conditions of production and
  consumption of films and their relationship to
  ideology. Thus Ryall places his original triangle
  - film/artist/audience - in two concentric
  circles, the first representing the studio, or
  particular production institution - the film's
  immediate industrial context - and the second
  representing the social formation - here American
  society, western capitalism - of which the film
  industry and cinematic signification are a part.
  Whereas the triangular model displaces the notion
  of a single originating source, the concentric
  circles displace an earlier Marxist linear model
  used to account for historical and social
  determination - in which the base is seen as
  unproblematically reflected in the
  superstructure. In this reconceptualisation art
  and society are not opposed to each other as two
  abstract and discrete entities rather art is
  understood as one of the social practices in
  which society exists. Ryall's model, then,
  attempts to grasp the range of determinants -
  historical, economic, social, cinematic,
  aesthetic, ideological - involved in the
  production of meaning in the cinema, without
  foreclosing on the question of which element
  dominates in any given instance.
• Pam Cook, The Cinema Book. 1999, BFI

3
Auteur Theory

• Film-maker as auteur or author
• Director
  Film
• E.g. John Ford Stagecoach
• Linear model

4
Marxist/structuralist approach

• Social reality/industrial production conditions
  produce a film
• Social Reality
  film
• E.g. McCarthyism High Noon
• Linear model

5
Ryalls Triangle

• Ryall suggested that art product (film), artist
  (film-maker) and audience all relate to each
  other
• dynamic and mutually determining
  relationship/model

6
Concentric Circles

• But to take into account both the context of
  production
• And the social reality of societys ideology
• Ryall placed this triangle within two concentric
  circles to try and establish the dynamic
  relationship

7
(No Transcript)
8
So what?

• How does High Noon, for example, fit into this
  model?
• How does it help us to understand the dynamics of
  production and reception?
• How does it suggest a different
  (better/worse/more complete?) framework for
  looking at genre as a concept?

9
Lets apply the theory
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13

• Merl Kimmel Philadelphia
• Date 19 September 2004Summary High Noon
  assessment
• High Noon is for me one of the two finest
  Westerns ever made (the other is Shane). It is an
  elemental commentary on the best and worst of
  America, the best and worst of mankind. It is
  Greek tragedy and Shakespeare brought to the Old
  West in a grandly simple form. Gary Cooper is
  superb and the supporting cast is outstanding as
  well (although I wish Grace Kelly would have
  spoken without the artificial sounding
  school-girl accent, something which marred so
  many of her otherwise fine performances). I do
  not read into the film a commentary on events of
  the 1950s, specifically the ongoing
  investigations by Congress of left-wing
  activities. High Noon transcends such specifics
  as this. I know John Wayne called the film
  un-American but I must disagree. I have great
  respect for the Duke but think he got this one
  wrong. Weak, timid people are everywhere and the
  strong are often few and far between. Goodness
  and right often prevail because a small minority
  insure that they do. All benefit from the courage
  of the lonely hero whether they realize it or
  not. High Noon is a testimony to this truth.

14
Gratuitous High Noon Posters