Fall 2015 Session One Conceptualization I: What is Genre? Dr. Richard Nowell 12:30 13:30 Introductions, and Course Overview and Objectives 13:30 13:40 Break 13:40 14:35 A (Hopefully!) Helpful Hand from Star Studies 14:35 14:45 Break 14:45 15:45 Conceptualization I: What is Genre? Structure: Biweekly seminars held in English, with emphasis on discussion Methods: Discussions of readings, mini-lectures, and practical exercises Focus: Theoretically informed assessment of transferable genre theories Aims: Promote practical, theoretically-informed, empirical research on genre Assessment: Research paper on any aspect of any media genre (subject to approval!) Session 1. Conceptualization I: What is Genre? (Dyer, Mittel) Session 2. Conceptualization II: Contestation & Flux (Neale, Jancovich) Session 3. Assembly I: Movies (Altman, Whalley) Session 4. Assembly II: Marketing (Klinger, Austin) Session 5. Output I: Production Trends & Cycles (Romao, Nowell) Session 6. Output II: Repackaged Genre Films (Scream [1996], Wee) What is your favorite genre of film or television show? Why is it your least favorite genre? What is the weirdest genre you have ever heard of? What genre would you like to know more about? What do you want to know about it? A Cultural/Discursive Approach to Genre A Helping Hand from Star Studies Defining a Genre Genre as Type and Discursive Cluster What is often taught as genre theory is really a group of theories, which might each tell us about a genre but not genre as a general concept By contrast, this course promotes what has been called a cultural or discursive approach: what we call a cultural/discursive approach The cultural/discursive approach is a collection of models drawing from empirical research to make generalized observations about genres Genre can be VERY confusing to some people, so it is perhaps helpful to start from a different and possibly more accessible vantage point Strange as it might sound, the field of Star Studies furnishes us with a model that makes the cultural/discursive approach easier to master What media texts does Dyer suggest contribute to a star personae? How or what exactly do these texts contribute to a star personae? How might the components of a star personae interact to form a persona? How does the concept of Structured Polysemy explain how we might perceive an individual star? Using these ideas, what does Dyer argue were (by 1979) the meanings of Jane Fonda? Multiplicity of Media Texts Films/Promotion/Publicity/Criticism Multifaceted Structure Themes/types develop over time Dynamics of Structural Elements a. Themes posit a specific type (harmonious) b. Intriguingly implacable (incongruous) Structured Polysemy We view a star somewhat differently 1. Based on exposure to public discourse 2. Based on our evaluations thereof Pre-1979 Jane Fonda invokes the Tom Boy: Father Figures/progressive politics/sex/acting Dyer asks us to de-emphasize the human being(s) that are essential to the star persona He stresses a public reputation is only partly generated by the conduct of the performer Instead, he posits a system of information to which myriad articulations contribute over time The totality of these contributions lies beyond any individuals comprehension, however This enormous but finite cluster changes over time and is seen differently by different people Beyond movie stars: Dyer posits a general and transferable model of reputation-making in media Culturally situated and empirical, he acknowledges producers, consumers, texts, and the hyper-text He explains reputations are not centrally-controlled but instead the products of diffuse stakeholders He recognizes that a hyper-text is a process; that it changes over time as new information emerges He emphasizes the hyper-text is seen partially and from distinct perspectives; begetting disparities The history of Genre Studies is characterized by many scholars taking a number of dead-ends In particular, this field was dominated by their attempts to define the essence of a given genre Many scholars pursued two Factor Xs: 1. A Localized Factor X which: a. United all examples of a given genre b. Distinguished these from non-members 2. A Universal Factor X which represented a single criterion explaining the existence of all genres Structuralism seemed to offer one such approach Scholars using this approach identified narrative elements shared by films of a certain type They argued these commonalities begat thematic oppositions staging major human concerns And so, Westerns were said to embody conflicts concerning the civilization of the frontier similarly, Stalker Films a conflict between youthful innocence and jaded experience Such approaches were riddled with problems Many films did not fit the models posited These trans-historical approaches could not account for changes across a type of film Implied audiences viewed films identically At best, they might have offered a convincing Localized Factor X for a genre But they ultimately did not and could not fully conceptualize genre as a concept What do we mean when we use the word genre? How does Mittel conceptualize genre? What are the similarities to Dyers model of star personae? While earlier studies illuminated some aspects of the genre they examined, truth be told, they said little about what a genre is generally Ironically, most studies begin with one half of a very helpful definition genre = type; and the generality of this observation is very important To return to this point is to appreciate the fact that there is no universally applicable Factor X in films which constitutes a genre Instead, if anything, the Factor X is the practices human beings activate when they elect to group texts together: and this is Mittels major point We might therefore initially shift attention from content to reception: and here we find a plurality of approaches wherein criteria vary wildly Can you think of any genres defining criteria? Are these wholly derived from the content of example films? What is the most unusual defining criteria you can think of? The cultural/discursive approach posits genres constitute more than shared content In theory, folks can invoke anything as a means of grouping films together as a genre In fact, folks do just that, ensuring all bets are off when it comes to defining criteria Criteria may be any single perceived commonality or various combinations thereof Ultimately, the range of commonalities is bounded only by the needs of stakeholders Shared textual features generic repertoire is but one way of invoking and contributing to a genre The cultural/discursive approach suggests genres are in fact clusters of discourses which: 1. Are given voice through/by myriad sources 2. Exceed the content of the films 3. May be true, untrue, or subject to contestation 4. Differ in significance to different people 5. May include incompatibilities and contradictions Hence, Andrew Tudor rightly suggested that genres are what we collectively believe them to be In the early 1980s, a consensus largely existed among the US film industry and press as to what constituted the make-out movie as a genre Content Heterosexual travails of young couples told from a female perspective Audience Aimed at female youth, as viewers and as intermediaries for male peers Functions Facilitate (and monetize) physical intimacy between young moviegoers Exhibition/Consumption Intended to support pre-home-video culture of theatergoing and dating Genres are thus generated by huge numbers of discursive articulations across media over time Gregory Lukow & Steven Ricci called this system the inter-textual relay. It comprises: 1. Films themselves (as texts) 2. Marketing texts (as framing devices) 3. Reception texts (as understandings/arguments) i. critics ii. scholars iii. lay folks (casual audiences, fans, etc ) Rick Altman argues genres comprise four elements: 1. The Label (what a genre is called, e.g. Western) 2. The Corpus (all of the films assigned this label) 3. The Blueprint (the model used to make such films) 4. The Contract (viewers expectations of these films) But a single label is not always coined, and some genres lack a blueprint as they are not industry lines but rather critical categories Jason Mittel proposes the following useful traits: 1. Definitions (the nature of commonalities) 2. Interpretation (critical understandings of meaning) 3. Evaluations (qualitative assertions good/bad) STAR PERSONAGENRE Dyers Four Media Texts Unperceivable totality Structured Polysemy Name/Traits/Potential/Experience Definition/Interpretation/Evaluation Contradiction/Contestation/Flux The Inter-textual Relay Unperceivable totality Structured Polysemy Label/Corpus/Blueprint/Contract Definition/Interpretation/Evaluation Contradiction/Contestation/Flux Label Corpus Blueprint Contract Definition Interpretation Evaluation Numerous inc. mad slasher, teenie kill-pic, stalk n slash Halloween, Friday the 13 th, ripoffs, adult-centered thrillers Narrative, mystery, horror, thrills, teen fun, mild violence See above: plus also extreme horror, sadism, misogyny Teen horror or Misogynist maniac brutalizes women Date movie, gore showcases, reaction against feminisms Harmless entertainment, transgressive, misogynistic trash Each of these texts contributed to the cluster of discourses that constituted this new genre in 1981; a genre known by myriad labels Each text was produced for different reasons, with only some of them intended to directly influence the way Americans perceived the genre These texts and countless others articulated something about that genre by drawing from and contributing to its evolving discursive cluster Yet, none of these texts expressed the totality of the discursive cluster, and none of them were wholly comprised by elements of the cluster Rather, each INVOKED the genre, by articulating aspects of the cluster (and adding to it) as part of their multifaceted discursive make-up Genres are born out of folks producers, consumers, critics, scholars - attempts to bring order to the perceived chaos of cultural output Texts may be united and distinguished from others, thus giving rise to a genre, by any criterion or criteria; not just distinctive content or themes Dyers model of star personae reputation making can be largely transferred to genre to help us better conceptualize the concept of genre Dyer argues star persona are clusters of discourse changing across time, generated by all the information articulated in myriad media texts Genres too are theoretical constructs derived from perceptions of content, marketing, and reception: beyond full comprehension; mutable These discourses may be activated in a movie or other text but do not constitute the text itself: they are a component of its textual makeup