Joaquim da Silva Fontes, Significação e Estabilidade do Género no ...
Joaquim da Silva Fontes, Significação e Estabilidade do Género no ... Joaquim da Silva Fontes, Significação e Estabilidade do Género no ...
In a long essay, Stephen Heath lays stress on the process of regulation, in the sense of a certain independent mechanism, in the classical economy of film, more specifically that of narrativisation: Narrativization is then the term of a film’s entertaining: process and process contained, the subject bound in that process and its directions of meaning. The ideological operation lies in the balance, in the capture and regulation of energy; film circulates – rhythms, spaces, surfaces, moments, multiple intensities of signification – and narrativization entertains the subject – on screen in frame – in exact turnings of difference and repetition, semiotic and suture, negativity and negation; in short, the spectator is moved, and related as subject in the process and images of that movement. (Heath 1981:62) While anyone who has watched movies and reflected on the experience of spectatorship would agree that, as a matter of simple fact, to watch is to be “moved” and simultaneously to be held, in a coherence of meaning and vision, Heath then develops the notion of “the spatial organization of film”, and the extent to which the Hollywood film system has taught us to be attracted by the economy of “sameness” present in genres. Moreover, the fact that filmmakers “organise” their productions around genres and/or film categories helps the viewer and the whole industry in terms of consumption and marketing: “the spectator is moved,” but above all he or she feels “related as subject in the process and images of that movement.” Some may say (as Heath does) that this “spatial organization of film” can be achieved by the setting of the film. However, the location of the film might not always determine the genre, as films can have the same setting (a war context, for example), and yet portray different themes and moods. Moreover, genres cannot automatically be defined as a form of film distinguished by subject matter, theme, or technique, for the same reasons. In fact, there seems to be categories within categories of genre which overlap (such as comedy-thrillers) but which are not mutually exclusive. Having posed the problem in such apparently inexplicable terms, Edward Buscombe writes that: (...) the problem is only another aspect of the wider philosophical problem of universals. With regard to the cinema, we may state it thus: if we want to know what a western is, we must look at certain kinds of films. But how do we know which films to look at until we know what a western is? (Buscombe 2003:14) 396
Buscombe is right: if we take a genre such as a Western and examine it in terms of its main characteristics, this implies first isolating the body of films that are Westerns. Yet, these major characteristics can only be detected once the films themselves have been isolated. Inasmuch as this may have a “snowball effect”, Andrew Tudor explains that: This “empiricist dilemma” has two solutions. One is to classify films according to a priori criteria depending on the critical purpose. (...) The second is to lean on a common cultural consensus as to what constitutes a western and then go on to analyze it in detail. (Tudor 2003:5) Yet, Tudor’s second solution to this problem of definition may not be plausible either because the “common cultural consensus” may be vitiated by the fact that the cultural and social dimensions of genre are not always applicable. If not by setting, then by narrative content, or by form (including structure and style), the “empiricist dilemma” presented by Tudor still persists. As regards the process of genre, I have tried to analyse it from the perspectives of production (according to a restricted mode of communication among members of a production team), distribution (a method of product differentiation), and consumption (viewer involvement). Rick Altman also suggests a distinction between “film genre” and “genre film”: By definition all films belong to some genre(s), at least in terms of distribution categories, but only certain films are self-consciously produced and consumed according to (or against) a specific generic model. When the notion of genre is limited to descriptive uses, as it commonly is when serving distribution or classification purposes, we speak of ‘film genre’. However, when the notion of genre takes on a more active role in the production and consumption processes, we appropriately speak instead of ‘genre film’, thus recognizing the extent to which generic identification becomes a formative component of film viewing. (in Nowell- Smith 1997:277) Our expectations as viewers are thus reinforced when we participate in the experience of “genre film”. This kind of ritual relationship that spectators establish with genre films follows theoretician Lévi-Strauss’s synchronic analysis within his generic context for the linguistic community. During the sixties and early seventies, the mythical features of Hollywood genres mentioned above were of particular interest to genre analysts and structuralist critics alike. To them, genres were conceived as neutral constructs and their semiotic genre analysis was based on the discursive power of generic formations. In 397
- Page 361 and 362: writers like Dashiell Hammett (who,
- Page 363 and 364: Chuck Tatum, a cynical, frustrated
- Page 365 and 366: on, Ann, who represents his hope fo
- Page 367 and 368: This kind of temporal manipulation
- Page 369 and 370: ought forward by the characters of
- Page 371 and 372: found Kathie: “I was glad it was
- Page 373 and 374: Figure 102. Out of the Past In this
- Page 375 and 376: Figure 104. The Lady from Shanghai
- Page 377 and 378: Jeff: Give him time. Kathie: You ar
- Page 379 and 380: Figure 106. Out of the Past The sce
- Page 381 and 382: Gun Crazy, a barrage of police gunf
- Page 383 and 384: 2.4 Joseph H. Lewis Considered as a
- Page 385 and 386: untold storied of ordinary men and
- Page 387 and 388: through windows, to provide the ind
- Page 389 and 390: 2.4.1 The Big Combo (1955) and the
- Page 391 and 392: of most noir films including The Bi
- Page 393 and 394: 2.4.1.1 “First is First and Secon
- Page 395 and 396: In The Big Combo the unconscious tr
- Page 397 and 398: It is not only in terms of narrativ
- Page 399 and 400: Although the idea is not to go into
- Page 401 and 402: Figure 113. Scarlet Street Neff’s
- Page 403 and 404: 2.4.1.2 The Big Combo and Generic T
- Page 405 and 406: and knowing they are both surrounde
- Page 407 and 408: As the noir movement entered the la
- Page 409 and 410: V. Conclusions: 1 Genre Revisited T
- Page 411: on social aspects through a dramati
- Page 415 and 416: constructions that make it difficul
- Page 417 and 418: Such factors have been scrutinised
- Page 419 and 420: Thematically, noir films as a group
- Page 421 and 422: While enforcement of the Production
- Page 423 and 424: are “as often nihilistic, cynical
- Page 425 and 426: which is normally not associated wi
- Page 427 and 428: morality brought about by these noi
- Page 429 and 430: It is within this cinematic and cri
- Page 431 and 432: ____________ (1994). The Semiotic C
- Page 433 and 434: ____________ (1992b). Farewell, My
- Page 435 and 436: E Easthope, Antony (1993). Contempo
- Page 437 and 438: Greenberg, Joel & Higham, Charles (
- Page 439 and 440: James, David E. (2005). The Most Ty
- Page 441 and 442: Malkiewicz, Kris (1986). Film Light
- Page 443 and 444: N Naremore, James (1978). The Magic
- Page 445 and 446: Polan, Dana (1986). Power and Paran
- Page 447 and 448: ____________ (2006). Ava Gardner:
- Page 449 and 450: Sullivan, Ellie (1986). Jacques Lac
- Page 451 and 452: Wilson, Edmund (1962). Classics and
- Page 453 and 454: Appendix I: Annotated Filmography T
- Page 455 and 456: Beware, My Lovely RKO 1952. Prod: C
- Page 457 and 458: Christmas Holiday Univ 1944. Prod:
- Page 459 and 460: Dark Corner, The Fox 1946. Prod: Fr
- Page 461 and 462: Framed Col 1947. Prod: Jules Schern
Buscombe is right: if we take a genre such as a Western and examine it in terms of<br />
its main characteristics, this implies first isolating the body of films that are Westerns. Yet,<br />
these major characteristics can only be detected once the films themselves have been<br />
isolated. Inasmuch as this may have a “s<strong>no</strong>wball effect”, Andrew Tu<strong>do</strong>r explains that:<br />
This “empiricist dilemma” has two solutions. One is to classify films according to a<br />
priori criteria depending on the critical purpose. (...) The second is to lean on a<br />
common cultural consensus as to what constitutes a western and then go on to<br />
analyze it in detail. (Tu<strong>do</strong>r 2003:5)<br />
Yet, Tu<strong>do</strong>r’s second solution to this problem of definition may <strong>no</strong>t be plausible<br />
either because the “common cultural consensus” may be vitiated by the fact that the<br />
cultural and social dimensions of genre are <strong>no</strong>t always applicable. If <strong>no</strong>t by setting, then by<br />
narrative content, or by form (including structure and style), the “empiricist dilemma”<br />
presented by Tu<strong>do</strong>r still persists. As regards the process of genre, I have tried to analyse it<br />
from the perspectives of production (according to a restricted mode of communication<br />
among members of a production team), distribution (a method of product differentiation),<br />
and consumption (viewer involvement). Rick Altman also suggests a distinction between<br />
“film genre” and “genre film”:<br />
By definition all films belong to some genre(s), at least in terms of distribution<br />
categories, but only certain films are self-consciously produced and consumed<br />
according to (or against) a specific generic model. When the <strong>no</strong>tion of genre is<br />
limited to descriptive uses, as it commonly is when serving distribution or<br />
classification purposes, we speak of ‘film genre’. However, when the <strong>no</strong>tion of<br />
genre takes on a more active role in the production and consumption processes, we<br />
appropriately speak instead of ‘genre film’, thus recognizing the extent to which<br />
generic identification becomes a formative component of film viewing. (in Nowell-<br />
Smith 1997:277)<br />
Our expectations as viewers are thus reinforced when we participate in the<br />
experience of “genre film”. This kind of ritual relationship that spectators establish with<br />
genre films follows theoretician Lévi-Strauss’s synchronic analysis within his generic<br />
context for the linguistic community. During the sixties and early seventies, the mythical<br />
features of Hollywood genres mentioned above were of particular interest to genre analysts<br />
and structuralist critics alike. To them, genres were conceived as neutral constructs and<br />
their semiotic genre analysis was based on the discursive power of generic formations. In<br />
397
Change language