Genre Theory & Auter Theory

In my previous post, I wrote about 'genre' as a method of categorisation, and explained the restrictions of this method when applied to short films. After reading this post, our media teacher provided Tom and I with some reading material about Genre Theory and Auteur Theory. In this post, I will explore these theoretical fields, and explain their relevance to our practical production.

Genre Theory

This field encapsulates all study relating to the concept of 'genre,' from arguments surrounding its definition as a word in use, to analysis its utility in the modern world. Previously, I explained what I saw as the defining characteristics of a particular genre: narrative tropes, and the film's effect on the audience. I must stress, however, that this is only my personal perspective, and it is immediately clear from research that this is by no means a standard interpretation of 'genre.'

The concept of genre was first used by the Greeks, who felt that the type of person an author was determined the type of poetry they wrote. Evidence for this can be found in the earliest surviving work of dramatic theory, Poetics (c.335 BCE), where Greek philosopher Aristotle writes of poetry as having 'split into two kinds according to the poet's nature.' Whilst the distinction genre is used to draw here is very simple: that one author's work is different from another's, the implications of this are nonetheless very important; if there is a deterministic relationship between an author and his work, then genre relates to the process that created the work, and not just the work itself.

Jacques Derrida sporting a quintessentially philosophical look.

In The Law of Genre (1980), French philosopher and father of deconstruction Jacques Derrida articulated the idea of genre in relation to process, stating that texts actually participate in genres, rather than belonging to them. In a 1986 paper entitled History and Genre, Ralph Cohen responded to and built upon the ideas of Derrida, writing the following:

'...since each genre is composed of texts that accrue, the grouping is a process, not a determinate category. Genres are open categories. Each member alters the genre by adding, contradicting, or changing constituents, especially those of members most closely related to it. The process by which genres are established always involves the human need for distinction and interrelation. Since the purposes of critics who establish genres vary, it is self-evident that the same texts can belong to different groupings of genres and serve different generic purposes.'

In contemporary Genre Theory, British semiotician Daniel Chandler has stated that genres create order to simplify a mass of available information; to promote organisation instead of chaos. Whilst most modern theorists agree with Chandler as to the utility of genre, many still argue differently over the best method of categorisation. Jane Feuer, the Professor of Film Studies at the University of Pittsburgh, sees genre classification as being divisible into the three following methods:

• Aesthetic - Texts organised according to certain sets of characteristics.
• Ritual - If a text performs a 'ritual' associated with a 'system of ritual', then it is a practising member of that 'system.'
• Ideological - Texts promoting or evoking similar ideologies are part of the same category. (This is the method most commonly used when marketing a text.)

Conversely, in Writing Genres, Amy J. Devitt talks about genre as being a rhetorical device. She essentially states that genres are not free-standing entities, but are interconnected amongst themselves and the works they describe; they are generated from the culmination of every factor present in the construction and consumption of a text. Whilst this particular theory, with its fluid and versatile method of taxonomy, doesn't make the categorisation process any easier, it does allow for more choices, for both the consumer and the producer; genre is there simply to aid a decision, and consumers and producers are free to choose how to use it.

The idea of choice and personal freedom brings us nicely onto Auteur Theory.

Auteur Theory

Unlike Genre Theory, which is a field of study containing many different ideas, Auteur Theory is more comprehensive and distinct, making it a theory in itself. Advocates of Auteur Theory believe that a director's creative vision will always be apparent in their work, regardless of the production processes it endures.

Alfred Hitchcock

The theory takes its name from the French word for 'author,' because the first proponents of auterism were writers for the influential French film magazine of the 1950s, Cahiers du Cinéma. They praised filmmakers such as Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks and Jean Renoir for being the absolute 'auteurs' of their films. Part of the purpose of auterism was in promoting Alexandre Astuc's ideal approach to filmmaking, where directors would use cameras in the same way writers use pens, so that they are not hindered by conventions in film and storytelling.

Since the 1960s, Auteur Theory has been criticised by critics and screenwriters alike, who have argued that it is wrong to ascribe authorial merit to the Director alone, when screenwriters and producers have given an equal amount of creative input, if not more.

Contention or Collaboration?
Some critics and spectators see Genre Theory and Auteur Theory as being at odds with one another; they believe that the former argues that all films abide by a certain set of conventions, of which there is a finite amount, and they believe that the latter argues the opposite: that films are free from constraints, and the resultant product is purely dependent on the filmmaker's vision. I think advocates of this view misunderstand the ideas of Genre and Auteur theorists.

I am of the opinion that Genre Theory as a field of study and Auteur Theory as a hypothesis are interelated; I believe that the collective artistic voice of a production team does transcend genre (in the sense that genre can only categorise to a certain extent, and the influence of the artistic voice surpasses this extent, making a film unique within its genre), but I also believe that genre is important for filmmakers and viewers alike. Genre provides a method of taxonomy by which we can organise and identify our tastes, experiences and sources of inspiration; whether we subscribe to the tastes, experiences and sources of inspiration of others, or of the past, is an individuals own decision.

What Does it All Mean?
Well, for Tom and I, Auteur Theory instills a great amount of confidence; if filmmakers truly have total creative freedom and control, then together we can surely achieve exactly what we intend to. Genre Theory, whilst not so inspiring, is helpful all the same, for it affirms the usefullness of genre in organising our own ideas. My own personal study of genre has also assuaged my fear that genre constrains filmmakers' with conventions; I now see genre as something much more versatile and fluid, which tends to appear more concrete from the perspective of consumers, who are bombarded with genre categories in the process of marketing.

In summary, I now feel confident to continue taking our short film in the direction Tom and I want, and I see the utitlity of genre when it comes to marketing a film. In our subsidiary products, a review and a poster, we will include a combination of conventional factors from the overlap of genre that will no doubt be present in our film between mystery, film noir, and drama. This way, we can market the film to its most responsive audience, but also retain its uniqueness.