Conclusion

From writing these posts I come to the conclusion that the state of film genre in the current day is predominantly about marketing. The general film goer will want to watch films that constitute to particular genres and other than that there will be certain ‘flavour of the month/ year’ genres that will be hugely popular for a certain amount of time. So film studios will want to take advantage of that.

Comedies, horrors and action films are the genres that seem will be popular forever. These genres are pure escapism and bring out laughter, adrenaline and excitement and adrenaline respectively, when watched. The fad genres are basically just embodiments of what is the craze in popular culture at the time (such as the Saw movies which was the root of the tidal wave of Torture Porn films, like I have talked about in previous entries). At the moment the fad genre would be vampire movies brought on by the pandemonium of the Twilight series. Predicting the rise of these fad genres is literally impossible and it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the quality of the product, which I’m sure is obvious to anyone who has had the misfortune to suffer exposure to any of the Twilight films.

Now genre to film studios is very important, if they can market a film as one or all of the three genres I previously mentioned and/ or as a fad genre, then more often than not the film will be a financial success. Proof of how Hollywood will use this technique (although it may not always equal success at the box office) can be seen from how they market films that have not been made for the general film goer. Take Synecdoche, New York, (written and directed by Charlie Kaufman) this film in no way is trying to accommodate the everyday film goer, it is a film that is surreal and confusing to understand. Yet looking at the DVD cover of the film it is described as “The Smash-Hit Comedy of the Year!” The film isn’t a comedy at all (I even found it slightly unsettling).

Recently, I saw a trailer on TV for Up in the Air, starring George Clooney, the trailer made it seem like the film was a laugh out loud comedy, when in fact it is a comedy-drama, but one that is a lot more heavy on the drama than comedy, but still amusing all the same. Now this type of marketing may seem misleading but I don’t have a problem with it as hopefully it will entice the general film goer to see a film that they wouldn’t have considered going to see had they known exactly what it was like.

This is perhaps why I think that if somehow film genre could be done away with, that it would be a benefit to everyone who watches film. There are so many films that would easily be enjoyed by the general film goer outside of their genre comfort zone, if they only gave them a chance and watched them. Blurring the boundaries of genre through marketing may be slightly deceitful, but sometimes you can’t rely on people to know what to like, to quote Peep Show: “People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can’t trust people.”

Filmography

Saw (2004) Directed by James Wan. United States: Lionsgate.

Synecdoche, New York (2008) Directed by Charlie Kaufman. Sony Pictures Classics.

Twilight (2008) Directed by Catherine Hardwicke. Summit Entertainment.

Up in the Air (2006) Directed by Jason Reitman. Paramount Pictures.

Sequels, Remakes and Reboots: Hollywood Style. (Part 2)

Foreign films are something that Hollywood likes to take advantage of, they buy the rights to remake them cheaply and then make millions from someone else’s artistic achievement. They will tailor the film for the everyday film goer, hire the cheapest options to make the film and then market it with the money they have saved on the production of the film.

The strength of a film’s story is really the key factor behind remakes of foreign language films. The premise is that if audiences elsewhere have responded to a movie, audiences here will respond, as well, provided its story is adapted to contemporary American culture. (Grove, 2004)  

The remake will be much inferior to the original but generally a massive box office hit and the only reason for the success is because the basic premise of the original film is so good. Examples of this would be Vanilla Sky (2001) and The Ring (2002).  

Vanilla Sky: Even with Hollywood stars it's very likely that a remake will be inferior to the original.

The only exception of a remake being as good as the original, which I have seen is The Departed (2006), which was adapted from the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs (2002). I think the only reason that The Departed could match the original is because it was directed by Martin Scorsese. Had the remake been crafted by lesser hands it would have undoubtedly been mediocre. If Hollywood treated these remakes with respect and tried to make them as good as possible by hiring acclaimed and talented people, then maybe the fans of world cinema wouldn’t regard Hollywood with such disdain.

We just need directors who are prepared to take the implications of the follow-up a little more seriously. (Dammann, 2007)

Unfortunately Hollywood doesn’t care about this, they just want to make money and will remake any films that fall into a particular genre they are currently trying to exploit.   

     

  

     

 

 

A lot of people feel that Hollywood is running out of ideas and this is the cause of all the sequels, remakes and reboots but I really don’t believe that is the case. Hollywood primarily makes films that the general film goer wants to see and the general film goer primarily wants to see sequels, remakes and reboots. 

Films are now either remakes, based on a book or comic, or a sequel. Only once in a good while are films like Little Miss Sunshine discovered and widely released as it should be. (Adair, 2007)   

The talent is there Hollywood just doesn’t have any reason to use them.

Online References

Adair, A. (2007) Originality: Lost Art in Film. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/06/27/originality-lost-art-in-film/ > [Accessed 16 May 2010].

Balzano, V. Hollywood Movie Remakes Keep Falling Flat. [Internet] Available from: < http://guide.thehoya.com/node/398 > [Accessed 16 May 2010].

Dammann, G. Don’t Knock the Movie Sequels. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2007/jun/05/diehardsequelsblog > [Accessed 24 May 2010].

Grove, M. (2004) H’wood Strikes Gold By Remaking Foreign Films. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4818178-1.html > [Accessed 16 May 2010].

Los Angeles Times. (2010). Hollywood likes foreign films – when it can remake them. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.omaha.com/article/20100411/ENTERTAINMENT/70419965 > [Accessed 16 May 2010].

Seiler, A. (2002) Movie direction: Remaking old and foreign films. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.usatoday.com/life/2002/2002-06-26-remakes-plus.htm > [Accessed 16 May 2010].

Snyder, G. (2005) Been There, Seen That. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.slate.com/id/2133065 > [Accessed 16 May 2010].

Visconti, E. (2010) Movie Sequels, Prequels, Remakes, & Adaptations. [Internet] Available from: < http://filmtvindustry.suite101.com/article.cfm/sequels-prequels-remakes-and-adaptation > [Accessed 16 May 2010].

Filmography

The Departed (2006) Directed by Martin Scorsese. Warner Bros.

Infernal Affairs (2002) Directed by Andrew Lau and Alan Mak. Media Asia Entertainment Group.

The Ring (2002) Directed by Gore Verbinski. DreamWorks Pictures.

Vanilla Sky (2001) Directed by Cameron Crowe. Paramount Pictures.

Sequels, Remakes and Reboots: Hollywood Style. (Part 1)

If you made something and loads of people bought it, would you make more? If your answer is yes, then Hollywood agrees with you. I’m not against sequels, remakes and reboots in principle, for example without sequels there would be no The Godfather Part II or Aliens and without remakes and reboots there would never have seen The Thing or Batman Begins. 

Robert De Niro in The Godfather Part II. Best Sequel of all time?

Instead, my problem with them (and everyone else’s) is when too many in a series are made, coupled with the sheer volume of all the different franchises. With all these different film series and their countless follow ups the new and original films are lost from the vast quantity of all the sequels, remakes and/ or reboots. 

Some enterprising Wikipedia contributor decided to pull together a list of the 50 films with the highest worldwide gross of this decade so far. Here’s the thing: One has to go all the way down to No. 15 on the list, Disney/Pixar’s “Finding Nemo,” before finding one created from original material — in other words, not a sequel, remake or adaptation of existing material or characters (such as Batman or Harry Potter). (Horowitz, 2009)

Now, this might not seem like it has anything to do with genre but how Hollywood goes about making its franchises is surely dependant on genre. Take The Hangover, which was the surprise box office hit of 2009, this film is a comedy with all of the conventions of the genre and because of its success the inevitable sequel will be a comedy too.

Hollywood loves to do sequels because they don’t have to find and/ or take risks on new material. When a film does well financially, there’s a temptation to try to capture the enthusiasm (and dollars) of audiences by doing a sequel. People enjoyed the first one; they’ll surely like the next one, and the one after that. (Visconti, 2010)      

Now a film like Alien was a Sci-Fi/ Horror and when the sequel was made, it was much more action orientated, I feel this allowed the sequel to be completely fresh, because of the slight genre swerve, both films are excellent on their own and I would say a big reason of this was because Aliens wasn’t just trying to copy Alien. Now I’m not saying that The Hangover 2 should be a courtroom drama, but I think a lot more film purists would be more tolerant to sequels if they tried to be different from the original film. 

Cameron also wanted to make a different kind of film from the one Ridley Scott had helmed. The scenes of future warfare in The Terminator introduced the conservative directing style and dour military-industrial design sensibilities that Cameron would carry over into Aliens. At that time he also reveled in action. This mixture of qualities meant that Aliens would have a different vibe from the slow pace and artistic imagery that characterized Alien. The result was a stylistic and thematic distance between Alien and Aliens that ensured the sequel was no inferior retread of the original. (Simpson, 2009)

Aliens included more action in order to differentiate itself from the original film.

Sequels will always be made, but there comes a time when even the general film goer will no longer care about seeing (to quote The Simpsons) “Rocky VII: Adrian’s Revenge” and “Star Trek XII: So Very Tired”. So what can Hollywood do when this happens? Well, they will then remake/ reboot the original film and any other “classic” films from that genre. To me it seems like the film studio executives look back at the films in a certain genre that are particularly popular at the time and then remake each of them, ticking each one off the list when it’s been made. Take the horror genre, (which audiences seem to never get tired of) below are just a few of the films that have been remade/ rebooted this decade: 

• The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (Original, 1974 – Remake, 2003)
• Dawn of the Dead (Original, 1978 – Remake, 2004)
• The Omen (Original, 1976 – Remake, 2006)
• Halloween (Original, 1978 – Remake, 2007)
• Friday the 13^th (Original, 1980 – Remake, 2009)
• A Nightmare on Elm Street (Original, 1984 – Remake, 2010)

 

  

   

 

 

 

What will Hollywood do to make money when they have exhausted every popular genre of films sequels, remakes and reboots? I’m sure they’ll think of something. 

Online References 

Balzano, V. Hollywood Movie Remakes Keep Falling Flat. [Internet] Available from: < http://guide.thehoya.com/node/398 > [Accessed 16 May 2010]. 

Boniface, P. Movie sequels and remakes: Is Hollywood out of ideas? [Internet] Available from: < http://www.helium.com/items/1410908-movie-sequels-and-remakes-is-hollywood-out-of-ideas > [Accessed 16 May 2010]. 

Horowitz, L. (2009) Proof Originality Doesn’t Pay in Hollyw’d. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.thewrap.com/article/originality-doesnt-pay-hollywood-10253 > [Accessed 16 May 2010]. 

Seiler, A. (2002) Movie direction: Remaking old and foreign films. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.usatoday.com/life/2002/2002-06-26-remakes-plus.htm > [Accessed 16 May 2010]. 

Simpson, M. (2009) Retro Cafe: Was ‘Aliens’ the Best Science Fiction Sequel Ever? [Internet] Available from: < http://www.cinemaspy.com/article.php?id=3017 > [Accessed 24 May 2010].

Snyder, G. (2005) Been There, Seen That. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.slate.com/id/2133065 > [Accessed 16 May 2010].

Visconti, E. (2010) Movie Sequels, Prequels, Remakes, & Adaptations. [Internet] Available from: < http://filmtvindustry.suite101.com/article.cfm/sequels-prequels-remakes-and-adaptation > [Accessed 16 May 2010]. 

Filmography

Alien (1979) Directed by Ridley Scott. 20th Century Fox.

Aliens (1986) Directed by James Cameron. 20th Century Fox.

The Godfather Part II (1974) Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Paramount Pictures.

The Hangover (2009) Directed by Todd Phillips. Warner Bros.

Funny Games: Torture Porn?

Michael Haneke’s Funny Games (1997) is a very interesting film, especially in regards to my previous entry about the Torture Porn genre. The story of the film could be briefly described as about two young men who hold a family hostage and force them to play sadistic games, for their own enjoyment, with the intention of killing them afterwards. At first glance this brief synopsis could easily be thought as a film in the Torture Porn genre, I would certainly not argue against that from the description above, but actually it isn’t.

Still from Funny Games, Paul breaks the fourth wall by looking directly at the camera and smiling.

So why do I not consider Funny Games a Torture Porn film? I would say that the context in which a film is made dictates what genre it is. A Torture Porn film:

… depicts the detailed, drawn-out torture of helpless victims, usually leading to their death. (Harris, 2010)

The definition above technically can’t be said for the content in Funny Games. Violence is purposely not shown in this film, except on one occasion when one of the captors is shot, but this is shown because the audience’s natural reaction to one of the evil characters being killed would be of elation. This moment is promptly reversed in the film though, in order to show that someone has been killed and you as the spectator were happy about it. Apart from this exception every time that there is a moment of violence/ torture, physically or psychologically the “payoff” (if you will) of this act is never shown.

Haneke rarely shows the duo’s acts of violence, but his grueling and bloody depiction of those acts’ respective aftermaths renders the movie utterly unforgettable. (Collis, 2008)

This is exactly why Funny Games is not a Torture Porn film, as anyone who enjoys watching those films will constantly be disappointed by the violence being withheld from view. The film is instead a critique of violence and its use in media.

Its point, runs the consensus, is to confront us with our hypocritical taste for the ersatz clown-violence of modern Hollywood in its various genres. (Bradshaw, 2008)

Michael Haneke wants you to look at yourself and evaluate why you would even watch this type of film in the first place.

(In the above video is a scene from Funny Games, as seen in the clip the death of a character is off-screen, instead the film dwells on the reaction of the remaining family members.)

The first time I watched Funny Games I didn’t really notice the lack of onscreen violence, the feeling I was left with was absolute revulsion.

Narrative representations of blood and violence in the cinema are still able to shock, but the shock they cause could just as easily be found in other texts – the descriptions of murder and sexual violence in Brett Easton Ellis’ American Psycho spring to mind. (Gormley, 2005, P.19)

The above statement suggests that visual representations of violence aren’t necessarily the most shocking. The mind can conjure up scary images when a scream is heard, a facial expression is seen or in a case of the above statement a description of a violent act is read, in the place of the actual brutality being witnessed on screen.

Paul and his accomplice wickedly torment the family for no reason other than for their own enjoyment.

I would say that Funny Games is probably the most disturbing and frightening film I had ever seen. It wasn’t scary in the sense that it made me jump but in the way that I imagined myself in the situation of the family. For that reason I would consider Funny Games a horror and a very effective one.

Printed References

Gormley,P. (2005) The New-Brutality Film. Bristol: Intellect Books.

Online References

Bradshaw, P. (2008) Funny Games. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/apr/04/drama.horror > [Accessed 24 May 2010].

Collis, C. (2008) ‘Funny Games’: The Violent Truth. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20179886_20179893_20183048,00.html > [Accessed 24 May 2010].

Dhingra, P. (2010) Funny Games – Michael Haneke. [Internet] Available from: < http://culturazzi.org/review/cinema/funny-games-michael-haneke > [Accessed 09 May 2010].

Frey, M. (2003) A cinema of disturbance: the films of Michael Haneke in context. [Internet] Available from: < http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/03/haneke.html > [Accessed 09 May 2010].

Harris, M. Exploitation Movies 101. [Internet] Available from: < http://horror.about.com/od/horrormoviesubgenres/a/exploitation.htm > [Accessed 09 May 2010].

Laine, T. (2004) “What are you looking at and why?” [Internet] Available from: < http://www.kinoeye.org/04/01/laine01.php > [Accessed 09 May 2010].

Filmography

Funny Games (1997) Directed by Michael Haneke. Austria: Fox Lorber.

The Newest Genre

I’ll set the scene: It was late at night on a Sunday evening, a few weeks ago. There was an advert break in the programme I was watching, so I decided to briefly switch to another channel. I put on Film4, Hostel: Part II was on and I decided to watch it for a couple of minutes. During the extremely brief amount of time that I watched it, I saw a woman brutally cutting off the genitals of a man and then proceeding to feed the freshly severed genitalia to some dogs. Needless to say I switched right back to QI.

For a week or so I was constantly thinking about Hostel: Part II and other Torture Porn films. I was thinking to myself “this is considered entertainment?” and “so this is what horror has succumbed to?” I was thinking about the latter in particular, but then I realised that Torture Porn films shouldn’t be considered horror films at all. I wouldn’t even call it a sub-genre of horror. Horror films are supposed to scare you, films such as Saw and Hostel aren’t scary, instead, they are something entirely different and disturbingly so.

… gory movies in general are an adrenaline rush. (Debnath, 2010)

I think that Torture Porn films are a genre or their own and the only truly new genre since the Hollywood Golden Age. The appeal of Torture Porn films is to see barbaric violence and it seems that people do indeed enjoy watching it. It baffles me that anyone would want to see characters in films tortured in the most gruesome and disturbing ways, but obviously some people do. Otherwise these films wouldn’t have made so much money, causing them to spawn numerous sequels and imitations. These news films then try to outdo their forbearers and create films that are even more sick and twisted.

I’m not saying that extreme acts of violence shouldn’t be used in films. Take the scene from Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs, in which a policeman’s ear is cut off.

The camera then pans away, leaving the actual disembodiment unseen – although the acousmatic sounds of the cop’s muffled cries of pain leave us with the impression of being visually present throughout the mutilation. (Gormley, 2005, P.7)

The two acts of violence in the scenes I have mentioned clearly have different intentions. In Reservoir Dogs the scene is genuinely used to show how crazy the character of Mr Blonde is. What Mr Blonde says is as scary as his actions and to me this is what made the scene seem scary. Whereas all the scene in Hostel: Part II is for, is to show an act of pure revulsion and use it as entertainment.

However, the general opinion was that the scene, whilst generating a sustained, intense and disquieting atmosphere of threat and menace, was remarkably restrained in what it showed. (Students’ British Board of Film Classification, 2010)

(I wanted to embed a video of the scene from Reservoir Dogs here, but unfortunately every video of it on YouTube states that embedding has been disabled. Instead here is the link for the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLTqecGbdCc)

Hopefully Torture Porn films will only be a fad, it does seem that the number in which they are being made is starting to decrease, although that just might be because I have missed hearing about any recently. Either way, it does make me think that if these completely morally bankrupt films can be released, what can’t?

Printed References

Gormley,P. (2005) The New-Brutality Film. Bristol: Intellect Books.

Newman, K. (1984) Nightmare Movies. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Limited.

Online References

Debnath, S. (2010) The Appeal of “Torture Porn”. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.newuniversity.org/2010/02/entertainment/the-appeal-of-%E2%80%9Ctorture-porn%E2%80%9D/ > [Accessed 24 May 2010].

Edelstein, D. (2006) Now Playing at Your Local Multiplex: Torture Porn. [Internet] Available from: < http://faculty.uncsa.edu/film/pollockd/winter/fim_330-3/playing_at_your_local_multiplex_torture_porn.pdf > [Accessed 17 April 2010].

Students’ British Board of Film Classification. (2010) Reservoir Dogs. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.sbbfc.co.uk/CaseStudies/Reservoir_Dogs > [Accessed 24 May 2010].

Wikipedia. (2010) Splatter Film. [Internet] Available from: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_porn#.22Torture_porn.22 > [Accessed 17 April 2010].

Filmography

Hostel: Part II (2007) Directed by Eli Roth. United States: Screen Gems and Lionsgate.

Reservoir Dogs (1992) Directed by Quentin Tarantino. United States: Miramax Films.

Saw (2004) Directed by James Wan. United States: Lionsgate.

Are Film Genres Unnecessarily Overcomplicated?

I understand why mankind has always wanted to categorise pretty much everything in existence. It does make things easier; but surely how film genres, subgenres and hybrids are being defined now is getting way too over the top. During the “Golden Age” of Hollywood cinema the vast majority of films adhered to a small number of genres and they could probably be singled out as:

• Comedies
• Dramas
• Gangster
• Musicals
• Westerns

Singin' in the Rain (1952). A film from the Hollywood Golden Age.

But when were film genres first defined? A lot later than I would have thought, although film studios would loosely characterise their films, the 1970’s was when film genre conventions began to be seriously studied and subsequently designated. Does this mean that it didn’t really matter that films from this period weren’t all grouped together in defined film genres? I would argue that it didn‘t matter, in simple terms at least.

"Shaft's his name, Shaft's his game." Possibly the greatest tagline ever.

Nowadays the amount of genres that are thrown around are just baffling and to be honest quite pointless. When thinking about watching a film you can muse to yourself “Hmm, I fancy watching a comedy tonight.” Whereas I find it very hard to believe that someone might think “I’m really in the mood to watch a Blaxploitation film.” Its just not going to happen, at least I hope it wouldn’t anyway.

As someone who basically just wants to watch good films, genre doesn’t hold much worth to me, so who would it mean more to? In my opinion this would be the general film goer who will most likely want to see very specific things in a film:

• Guns, boobs and cars (probably in that order)
• Comedies
• Romance
• Zack Efron
• Horror

And if those are the kind of things you want to see in a film then fair enough, that’s your prerogative. But if the general film goer is only really interested in very specific things, wouldn’t they have no use for all the terms for hybrids and subgenres, surely their not going to make any difference to them? That is what I think anyway, so again, this leaves me thinking, just who needs or wants them. And for that I can’t really think of an answer right now.

Maybe I’m overreacting slightly but I really don’t believe there needs to be so many film genres. Surely having such vast amounts of them diminishes their purpose in the first place. Why can’t a film just be simply known as a comedy instead of a comedy/action/horror/bromance?

Online References

Classical Hollywood Cinema. Classical Film Genres. [Internet] Available from: < http://www.fathom.com/course/10701053/session3.html [Accessed 19 March 2010].

Wikipedia. (2010) Film genre. [Internet] Available from: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_genre > [Accessed 19 March 2010].

Wikipedia. (2010) Classical Hollywood Cinema. [Internet] Available from: < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Hollywood_cinema > [Accessed 19 March 2010].

Introduction to My Analysis of Film Genre.

I have little to no interest of genre in film. I watch films for memorable stories and well defined characters, the genre a film may fall in isn’t relevant to me. Sure, there might be genres that would appeal to me more, but if a film is supposed to be good, that is more than enough incentive for me to watch it.

Throughout my posts I mainly intend to analyse the state of film genre as it is today, although I will also be looking into where genre in film was and where I think it may be heading. I aim to talk about certain films and directors, but to also look at possible links between how factors such as film studios and critics have impacted on genre too.

I find that film genre is a curious thing, are they only used as a means to group films into categories or are they also used for other means too? Do we really need them or are they just important for film studios to define them in order for them to make themselves more money? How big an impact have genre hybrids had in new films? Is film genre dying? These are all questions that I have been asking myself before writing this post and hopefully I will be able to answer some of them when I’ve made my conclusions.

Due to how my posts develop I may even branch out to different topics, that aren’t even clear to me at this point. Through research and constant thought will I start to link the state of film genre today, to the revival of the Wispa chocolate bar?

Maybe.