Not really my position. What I suggest is that once perceived by the
audience as a member of a genre certain assumptions about the film kick
in and help structure the experience of the film. It would be a form of
cinematic (or literary, etc.) pragmatics for those with experience of
the genre rather than merely a categorization.
j
Henry M. Taylor wrote:
> And so ... for some blood is simply paint (Godard/Harris), and horror
> not a genre but a marketing label (Harris again), while for others
> (Matturi) it is a convenient way for viewers to categorize films and
> their experience of them (reception and/or cultural studies). But what
> about the films themselves? However intriguing the kind of
> deconstructionist genre theory is that e.g. Rick Altman advocates, I'm
> left with the feeling that ... there is such a thing as the horror film.
>
> Henry
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy salon
> After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
> To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
>
>
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|