If one were to ever try to venture out of the norms of society and commence a pervasive act of autocritique, many lessons could be learned from the film Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Directed by Shane Black in 2005. This film, in a pronounced, unadulterated, and quite tongue-in-cheek manner, performs an autocritique of society’s essentialist manifestation of films in terms genres. It highlights the domination of the institutionalized public and film industry’s discourse on the “characteristics” of a genre. By this I mean that Kiss Kiss Bang Bang takes bits and pieces from various established genres, molds them together, and puts them on display in a way that debunks the rationale behind genre formation, and the use of genre in terms of classification.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’s main focus is to make fun of what Steve Neale in his work “Questions of Genre” calls the “generic images”. These images are “providing labels, terms and expectations which will come to characterize the genre as a whole” (p. 49). With this idea of specific images and themes leading to a prescription of a specific genre, a lot of the enjoyment of film is lost. There are two ways is which this happens:
- When someone is told that a movie he/she is going to see is a Chic Flick. One automatically thinks that the film will include a man and a woman. These people will probably be separated or have a hard time finding each other. But don’t worry! They will find each other in the end. There will be a happy ending that will probably be represented by a final shot with two lovers embracing in a kiss.
- The film that someone has just seen involves a lot of scenes with fast-paced movements, people are jumping off of building, running through the streets, and getting shot left and right. So what happens after? This person leaves the theater and tells people they have just seen the best action film all year.
The problem with both of these scenarios is that by either associating a film with a genre or describing a film as within a specific genre, you are detracting from the subtleties and uniqueness of the films you see. The genre specific mentality is basically a huge oversimplification of films.
So in efforts to avoid being oversimplified and reduced to generic expectations formed by “the level of expectation, the level of the generic corpus, and the level of the ‘rules’ or ‘norms’ that govern both,” Kiss Kiss Bang Bang misuses and points out flaws in common genre specific formats and characteristics (Neale p. 56). One example is when the protagonist Harry (Robert Downey Jr.) does a narrative of harmony’s life seen here. (Around 8:30 min. mark) He points out how he screws up the narration...he hates how that happens, so he goes back for “our viewing pleasure.” As if his critique of genre could not go any further he amazes us again in the end with the clip of him in the hospital scene (Around 7 min. mark) when he interrupts the scene with his narration.
Here again Harry shows his disgust at the way creators of films, confined by genre’s parameters and audience’s expectations will mold their films into what is pleasurably predictable. This furthers the fact that the entirety of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang thrives on its ability to be unpredictable, unclassifiable, and still pleasurable. There is some merit in letting films just be what they are without associations, predictions, and specific characterizations. Because like what I think Alex said in class, the only way to describe this film is by saying it is “Badass”.
The nebulous nature of genre is absolutely fascinating. It reminds me of the terms often used in my Study of Sexualities class. What exactly does the word "queer" mean? Or "transgender"? We may have a rough idea in our heads, but these terms mean different things to different people at different times in different contexts. Genres, like sexuality terms, are loosely fitting labels, a form of societal shorthand that attempts to summarize a collection of ideas, characteristics, and cases in a single word. While the study of generic conventions can be interesting and beneficial, the goal of creating clearly defined and everlasting categories seems impossible.
ReplyDeleteI, like Alex, think the idea of genre is very complex and hard to wrap your head around. As you and Steve Neale suggest Katrinah, genres are labels that tell you what to expect from films that you have never seen. You use the example of the chick flick to demonstrate how genre labeling can have negative effects on a potential audience. I, however, think that there are times that genre labels are good and useful things. Thomas Schatz says in his book Hollywood Genres that "genre exists as a sort of tacit "contract" between filmmakers and audience, the genre film is an actual event that honors such a contract." I don't think it is always a bad thing to know what to expect. So, for example, if I had just broken up with my long-distance boyfriend, I would not want to go see Sleepless in Seattle; it would make me cry for all the wrong reasons. But since I know it falls under the "Romantic Chick-flic" genre classification, I would know to (hypothetically) stay clear. My example, your examples and Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang's examples are three different angles on the idea of genre. This just shows how complex of an issue it is.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right to portray films like "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" as being somehow "genre-bending" (nods to Alex's reference of gender=genre), blurring the lines between the stereotypically classified classes of classic Hollywood cinema.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that "stereotypes" and cinematic cliches exist for a reason; namely that where there is smoke, there is fire. While there are of course genre-defying or uncategorable films produce in the confines of Hollywood and Tinsel Town, these are generally the exceptions to the norm. You cannot argue, for example, that there are not "action films" that are highly formulaic and predictable. I did not bother to see the recent action-classic "Push," for example, because I had already seen it a dozen times before: in "Elektra," in "Wanted," in "Daredevil," and in "Spidermans One Through Three."
Even within Film Noir, there is a whole slew of nigh-indistinguishable films that, while worthwhile to watch, are so derivative of one another that their titles and leading actors become blurred and undefined in the viewer's memory. (In particular I am referring to the series of Robert Marlowe mysteries, which are admittedly based off a series of books, which were likewise indistinguishable and interchangeable).
This is not to say, however, that there cannot be blindingly unique and watershed moments within genres. The first Matrix movie, for example, set the bar for the modern action film, and all subsequent action films (even those made as part of the Matrix trilogy) were subsequently judged by their relation to the original Matrix.
As evidence of this, I submit my favorite modern cinematic technique: "Bullet-time."
Before the Matrix was produced, "bullet-time" (the technique of slowing down the action of a film at points of cinematic importance to emphasize speed and articulate some nuanced action, often to the point that individual bullets can be seen) was a wholly unheard of technique. Never before in cinematic history had individual bullets been seen IN THE PROCESS of being fired.
After the Matrix, however, the concept of slowing down time to articulate a scene of action became standard. How many action movies in the past decade or so have NOT had at least some scene using bullet-time or other time-dilation effect to convey the sheer speed and rapidity of the movement (what I like to think of as a "Lookee here! This is happening so fast that your puny mind couldn't follow it unless we slowed it down to your level" moment)?
Genres are well-established, derivative, and repetitious. And, may I just say, rightly so. Hollywood is a business industry; when they find a formula that works, the will continue to use it until it works no longer. Innovation in film is (at least for commercial works like Hollywood and film noir) not a matter of artistic experimentation but of economical ingenuity and importance.
"Necessity" therefore, "is the mother of invention." But, at least in Hollywood, once there is no longer any economic necessity for invention, innovation falls by the wayside as the industry as a whole flocks to capitalize on the latest winning formula. Once the impetus for creation and creativity is gone, the industry as a whole settles back in its collective recliners to rest on its laurels, exerting only enough energy to be just SLIGHTLY ahead of the curve (and avoid the occasional lawsuit).
The result of this, is genre.
You bring up a fantastic point, Katrina. Why do we feel the need to box every movie into a genre?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it somehow detracts from the movie itself. A ridiculous amount of great movies have been left unseen by the general public because at one point or another the marketing strategy chose to box the movie into one generic category. I know we are creatures of simplicity, bent on structuring our lives into more easily comprehensible schemas, but movies like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang cannot really be classified by one genre. And when they are it might not meet people's expectations.
For example, I know that when a movie is blatantly advertised as a horror film I tend to avoid paying to go see it (Wolf Creek has left me traumatized as to how bad it was), because I always know that the plot will be contrived and the gore unoriginal. But what if it weren't boxed into that category? Perhaps it could reach a larger audience than by purely labeling it as one category.
But, at the same time, I think people like classifying things into neat categories, which is a shame because sometimes we can miss out on watching truly "badass" films.
I agree with your idea about how everyone HAS to define the type of movie they watched. I feel that this habit takes away from our movie watching experience. If we are told that a movie is a specific genre before we go see the movie, we already are expecting the movie to be something it might not even be. This same theory works the other way if you are the one who tells someone about a movie.
ReplyDeleteIf we tell someone that a movie is a chick flick, and they liked the movie, they might be embarrassed to give their true opinion on it later. This does not give a film the proper justice it deserves because someone's opinion has too much power to influence the opinions of others.
Great post Katrina! Way to be specific :)
ReplyDelete