Viewing Thread:
"Room for new genres?"

After that post on the MI films, it made me think about how we group films togther. For instance, if a film has a few explosions and some shooting in it; even if the film is meant to tell us about some deep rooted moral problem with society, it will most likely be referred to as "an action film" just because most people will only see it for the shooting/explosions. This is quite unfortunate, and it strikes me that this is probably what happened with Fight Club. Most people just expected it to be about "some cool underground fighting thing" and the kind of audience it attracted as a result were people who wanted blood and violence, and therefore would not have appreciated the deep, dark, cynical outlook it takes on human attitudes, and way the world has become blindly caught up and twisted by obsessive/compulsive capitalist consumerism. For this reason the film did not take of in the way it deserved to, and which I believe it has since done (or is doing) with its release on Video/DVD, now that people are really seeing for what it is.

So should we be so ready to categorise movies in this way? Maybe instead of a film being made and released, and then we put it under a heading of a genre, we should be more willing to let new genres develop and evolve, as a result of a movie being released. Surely there is no end to the imagination of directors and writers, leaving endless possibilities for new films, with ever new and original plots and ideas - so why not allow more specific and wider ranges of movie genres, instead of trying to force films into existing ones?

Anyone feel the same? Or do you think there are already enough genres, and we shouldn't confuse things? Or anything I missed?
Thanks for listening :)

Inept wrote:
> it strikes me that this is probably what happened with Fight Club.
> Most people just expected it to be about "some cool underground
> fighting thing" and the kind of audience it attracted as a
> result were people who wanted blood and violence,

This is xcatly why it took me soo long to rent the movie... Thinking it was about an underground boxing club, with Bradd Pidd spending most of his time semi clad... I only rented the movie when I really couldnt find any other alternative, and enjoyed it more than I could have ever imgained :)

However I dont think I would have enjoyed the movie half as much if I had known what to expect?

So
> should we be so ready to categorise movies in this way? Maybe
> instead of a film being made and released, and then we put it under
> a heading of a genre, we should be more willing to let new genres
> develop and evolve, as a result of a movie being released. Surely
> there is no end to the imagination of directors and writers, leaving
> endless possibilities for new films, with ever new and original
> plots and ideas - so why not allow more specific and wider ranges of
> movie genres, instead of trying to force films into existing
> ones?

I dont think films are created due to the avalible range of catagories... moves are made and then put into catagories, not catagorised and then made (barring the usual Hollywood mass produced mush)

Catagorisation is a basically human trait, seen throughout beliefs, civitlisations and mode of thought... We catagorise everything we do and see, wether somthing is morally valid...

where a plant is a tree or not, there is no catagorisation inherant within nature, it is, like numbers a creation by man to help control and understand his/her enviroment... as such non-catogorisation of movies would lead to a chaotic result,

Even worse... the blurb writers would hold sway over our movie choices!

After that post on the MI films, it made me think about how we group films togther. For instance, if a film has a few explosions and some shooting in it; even if the film is meant to tell us about some deep rooted moral problem with society, it will most likely be referred to as "an action film" just because most people will only see it for the shooting/explosions. This is quite unfortunate, and it strikes me that this is probably what happened with Fight Club. Most people just expected it to be about "some cool underground fighting thing" and the kind of audience it attracted as a result were people who wanted blood and violence, and therefore would not have appreciated the deep, dark, cynical outlook it takes on human attitudes, and way the world has become blindly caught up and twisted by obsessive/compulsive capitalist consumerism. For this reason the film did not take of in the way it deserved to, and which I believe it has since done (or is doing) with its release on Video/DVD, now that people are really seeing for what it is.

So should we be so ready to categorise movies in this way? Maybe instead of a film being made and released, and then we put it under a heading of a genre, we should be more willing to let new genres develop and evolve, as a result of a movie being released. Surely there is no end to the imagination of directors and writers, leaving endless possibilities for new films, with ever new and original plots and ideas - so why not allow more specific and wider ranges of movie genres, instead of trying to force films into existing ones?

Anyone feel the same? Or do you think there are already enough genres, and we shouldn't confuse things? Or anything I missed?
Thanks for listening :)