Film Ramble: Genre

[ The following post is a collected series of tweets, hence the choppier and shorter-than-usual sentence structure.
I imagine many of you will probably be thankful for this, if nothing else. ]




So I was catching up on podcasts when I heard Ethan Hawke being interviewed on @Wittertainment, for his new film #Maudie. (For the record, I doubt I'll get to see this at the cinema. Shame, Sally Hawkins is always fantastic. Anyway...) It was during this chat that Hawke pointed out that this type of movie wasn't his usual go-to, presumably for either acting or watching. Fair play. It instantly occurred to me that I feel largely the same, I'm not interested in bio-pics either; Although I am interested in people. Then it expanded, again instantly. I'm not interested in bio-pics because I'm not really a fan of any genre these days…

When was the last time you watched a film based on the section of HMV it'd get shelved in? And is that why you did/didn't enjoy it? It's a more reliable barometer to go for movies starring a certain performer or director, but they're rarely the same style of work (obviously I'm excluding the likes of Seagal, Van Damme and Kevin Hart here, but bear with me). Most people when asked "what's your favourite type of movie?" would be able to tell you. Me? I have no idea... is 'good ones' an answer?

When I started reviewing on the blog, my two objectives were a) to write regularly and b) to see film differently. The combination of these means that I've seen a lot of films I wouldn't normally have bothered with, largely due to their genre/category. Now obviously I've seen a lot of rubbish over the years, but I think I've watched as many disappointments in familiar genres as in new ones. Quite possibly more, in fact. In making myself write about each film, I've developed a laundry-list of things I can't stand about Horror™. Which is to say 'studio horror', but since I live ten minutes walk away from a multiplex, this is only to be expected. Similarly, I approach comedy movies with far more trepidation than in the past, their genre-label absolutely no guarantee of performance. Luc Besson and the Wachowskis have done their best to ensure that Sci-Fi is no longer the thoughtful, reliable escapism it once was, and for every Wreck-It Ralph in animated adventure, there's a Cars 3. For every Kubo and the Two Strings, there's an Emoji Movie. Which makes absolute sense of course, you can gravitate to one type of music - eg. Metal - but that doesn't mean all Metal bands are great.

I understand why genre exists of course, and from a marketing perspective I can see that it's essential on a very fundamental level. The problem seems to be when filmmakers become more obsessed with using it as an end-goal rather than being something which happens anyway. Or worse, they use the genre as an excuse to flop out half-baked ideas which shouldn't have made it past the screenplay's first-draft. "Oh it'll be fine Terry, it's only a comedy/horror/action, the audience isn't expecting much!". With an attitude like that, no wonder.

The films I enjoy the most are the ones which surprise me. Often because they defy the category their marketing has slotted them in. I generally abhor Richard Curtis' work, but About Time was a masterful mix of rom-com, family drama and (albeit 'broken') time-travel. Likewise, if someone can tell my why I loved My Week With Marilyn when I have little/no interest in Marilyn Monroe, that'd be great (and yes I love Star Wars and the MCU, but those films are their own thing and no longer dependent on people 'fancying a superhero or space-movie'). And sure, it's intriguing to see how a director will fare after switching from a familiar lane to an unexplored one. (Kenneth Branagh directed the first Thor movie, putting himself well on-par with the other Phase-1 MCU filmmakers). But that often says less about the 'new' area they're working in and more about their own range of skills as an artist.

So I find myself at a place where the only useful info I can glean from a film's genre is how wide its distribution is likely to be, and what kind of crowd will be there - ie looking at their phones (slasher movies) or rustling sweet wrappers and talking (period drama). Quite often, assigning a set of expectations in the audience's mind can work against a film (ref. three walk-outs during A Ghost Story). It almost certainly leads to comparative references against other movies 'on the same shelf' that shouldn't be made.

And yet obviously, you need to know roughly what type of film you're going to see. That's why genre exists, to cater for our moods. Even after all these years dissecting the things I watch at the cinema, I'll talk about 'Saturday night' and 'Sunday afternoon' films. Genre is how the industry works, and yet it's one of the biggest problems causing it to stagnate.

"Bio-pics largely aren't interesting to me, it's Maud Lewis' art that's interesting."

~ Ethan Hawke, 4th August 2017.

It's art. That's interesting.

I'm not interested in genre; I'm interested in storytelling.
I'm interested in film. I'm interested in art.

Discuss.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.