Chinatown. Out of the Past. Detour. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. After hearing these titles, what is the first thing that comes to mind? Why, they are all film noirs! BEEP!!! WRONG! FILM NOIR is in these movies. What irritates me often times is the applicability of genre in any setting, whether it be books, comics, plays, or other forms of expression. When sitting down to think up a great story, do the writers first conjure up the genre, the boundaries of their narrative first? Genre is not what defines a film – the films define the genre, so to say that a such-and-such film is of a such-and-such genre is to diminish the quality and power of that movie. As we discussed in class, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is often discussed as a neo-film noir with its many aspects that reach back to the classical styles of the detective and gangster narrative. However, after watching the film, it was obvious to all of us that it would be impossible to put it anywhere on the shelf (does it go under comedy, action, romance, or what?), except perhaps, as someone cleverly stated, in the New Releases section. Genre is merely a tool that came after the fact. By creating the film genre, we are able to simplify the multitudes of films floating around, to help sort the masses by defining various aspects of movies to allow viewers to “taste” different varieties of film (a little bit of Western, a slice of Sci-Fi, and a healthy portion of raw Action). But more than that, genre limits the scope and applicability of a film and it becomes a danger that we face today.
But I’ll end my pointless tirade there and discuss what is left of the film genre that we know and look back nostalgically (or by changing the channel and avoiding it) at film noir. Rick Altman in his writing, A Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre, claims the importance of looking at two aspects of film genres – semantics and syntactic, an inclusive and exclusive boundaries that define genre. Old studies used to only rely on one of these approaches, thereby making the movies in a genre become defined by an inclusionary or exclusionary measure. So looking at a film like Chinatown, what makes it a film noir, and what makes it not part of any other category? There’s the profuse use of shading throughout the story, a lone detective, a sly femme-fatale character, and the always present tragic ending. Unlike other genres, it does not use vibrant colors to brighten the mood nor does it provide the audience with a sense of satisfaction at the end of the film – why do the bad guys win? Well, that’s what film noirs do, they end tragically. But then if that is the case, is there a possibility of having a film noir that ends happily?
Let’s take a look at Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, a dark humor comedy film dripping with neo-film noir techniques. Mystery – check. Use of shadows – check. Independent detective – half a check. Femme Fatale – uh… I guess you could call her that. Depressing, unsatisfactory close – not quite. Rather than ending on an ambiguous note, this film clears up all the missing details so that the audience can leave with a sense of completion and moral victory. But film noirs, as implied by their names, are supposed to be black, or sad. This means there is more to defining films than merely looking for aspects that define the genre. Robert Warshow’s definition of the film noir claims, “Our response to a gangster film is most consistently and most universally a response to sadism; we gain the double satisfaction of participating vicariously in the gangster’s sadism and then seeing it turned against the gangster himself.” But that is not what we saw in this film. Instead, the film revolved around a pitiful man try to make his way through a pitiful existence, and then finally finding himself in a place of satisfaction by persevering past pitiful circumstances.
Unfortunately, I really cannot see how the film genre operates, especially after reading the papers and watching the films. I am not claiming that it is impossible to define movies in genre – it definitely is possible, but what confuses me is the lack of agreement across the board of how to define genre, as Altman had indicated in his writings. What about film genre makes it so complicated and mysterious to define clearly? His inclusion/exclusion approach seems to work, but then again, who defines those boundaries? I guess that’s something we’ll have to keep striving for…
I think it's very interesting when you say "Genre is not what defines a film – the films define the genre, so to say that a such-and-such film is of a such-and-such genre is to diminish the quality and power of that movie." However, I don't believe that this is the reality. Yes, attaching a specific genre to a movie may initially be limiting with regards to the expectations a viewer brings to the film, but that doesn't prevent the film from being able to also explore other elements and styles within the context of the so-named genre, which can still be appreciated by the audience. In addition, you ask the question, "When sitting down to think up a great story, do the writers first conjure up the genre, the boundaries of their narrative first?" I would have to say yes. I think that film writers usually do have an idea in their head of what kind of film they want to create before they begin their writing. Otherwise, I don't see how they wouldn't have any sort of direction for the story to head in...
ReplyDeleteHmm, but see, that's my point. Genre tends to limit the approach and power of a film, thereby already constricting it in the minds of the viewer and in the mind of the writer. If it was for merely entertainment or financial purposes, by all means, go ahead and follow the rules to success. But Movie-making is an art, and art is a form of expression, and expression should not be hindered by formalities. Great films are not those that transcend genre but those that ignore genre. See, that direction that you find so critical is not something that should already be defined - it should be something that is created as the artist (in this case the writer) discovers on his own as his masterpiece is brought to life. Sticking to a genre is a people-pleasing tactic. The audience becomes comfortable with the style or the format and therefore wants to watch the film. By ignoring genres, writers use a non-hindered form of expression that is more true to the creator.
ReplyDeleteI can see where you are coming from in that great films, unconstrained by the formal boundaries of genre, are able to transcend this seemingly moot argument of definition and just to create "art." However, given the hundreds of movies that Hollywood churns out each year, only a few rise above the others to be considered "great" movies. Most of the others are studio films, who are constrained by board room investors. Before investing a single penny, these execs demand a defined target audience ( via generic terms), re-writes of scripts to fit stricter frameworks, and maybe even changes to the creative team.
ReplyDeleteSo although once in a while a film like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (or Slumdog Millionaire) comes along that defies generic definition, the majority of the movie churned out by Hollywood fit neatly into the genre mold, and are consciously meant to do so.
I both agree and disagree with your post, but I'm of the first camp slightly more than the second. It's an interesting point that you bring up, and one that merits quite a bit of discussion, both in class and out: is the human desire to pin people/places/things into one specific category wrong? Who is to say that anything, film included, should fit neatly into any given binary? I agree with both Rachel and Shayna when they say that there are certainly films that are easily categorized; "Out of the Past" is nothing if not a film noir, and I have no idea how else it could be categorized, if one is inclined to categorize it. But for those films like "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," or any number of others (is "Rush Hour" an action or a comedy, or is "Dr. Horrible" science fiction, humor, tragedy, or musical?), I believe that you're correct when you say that it's limiting to attempt to constrain them to any given genre. Life, and film, is not so cookie-cutter.
ReplyDeleteYou admit, at the end of your post, that you've struggled in defining genre in film. I think that, as much as we can try to group films together under a genre-umbrella, it is a near impossible task to place a film in a single category. I echo Rachel's statement about how films these days are required to have a target audience, but would argue that, back in the 40s and 50s, a much stricter structure was in place. The studios had much tighter control over the actors, directors, and writers, whereas today, the studios are often the ones doing all they can to get certain stars or certain intellectuals to work with them. It was easier back then, therefore, to group films under a "genre", because the filmmaking industry was much more business oriented. You could say that all the films that were made by certain directors or starred certain actors would fall into a genre.
ReplyDeleteGetting back to your post, I think you use of "Chinatown" as a base definition of film noir is futile. I think, for both chronological reasons and thematic reasons, you should start with the film noir elements presented in "Out of the Past" and "Detour" (as you did mention them at the beginning of your post), and show how they more closely mirror the general structure of the film noir genre. Then you should move on to "Chinatown" and end with "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang". If your overall point is to show how tough it is to define film noir (or any genre for that matter), your points would be better made if you broke down the evolution of the genre and the differences between the films we've watched so far.
Bam! I think this is exactly the statement that Black was trying to make! I completely agree with your first paragraph in saying that genre "limits the scope and applicability of a film". Why are we so obsessed with it?
ReplyDeleteI too think that it is possible to put movies flatly into certain genres, but I just think it is often unnecessary because the conventions that people go in with, like Neale mentions, just might limit the audiences appreciation of the film. I honestly feel that we as a class was put in the perfect scenario to watch Kiss Kiss Bang Bang as we had just gone over the idea that genre is not something should be as defined as it is, and this allowed us to take in all the beautiful elements and styles that Black incorporates into the film.