Genre, Style and Type.

Note to teacher (Important):

Click on "Older Posts" at the bottom because I've passed the maximum amount of posts on one internet page.

------------------------

One of the first questions we were asked at the onset of the semester was to differentiate genre, style and type. I remember thinking that I had never before considered any of these terms separately, having confused all three as words that ultimately meant the same thing.

Little did I know. It quickly became obvious that all three have their own place in cinema. It's not terribly important to know these terms, but I do believe it'll help clarify some misunderstandings.

Genre

Genre is what most of us would normally associate all the others with. In fact, this is the one that we understand. It describes a category of film such as science-fiction, horror, drama, comedy and so on.

Style

Style is sometimes confused with genre. It's not something we think much about because it pertains directly to the director. It refers to a director's personal touch on a film, their signature. It's what demarcates or what makes a film so easily identifiable with its director.

Type

The type is a bit muddied. It's often confused with genre, and to some extent it is almost acceptable to believe that genre defines a type. Nevertheless, a type classifies movies that are stamped-out and fit within a recipe, such as the 'action' type.

I hope this has cleared up a few things. I might have more coming up.

Film Noir

Film noir is a cinematic term that we discussed at various times throughout the course. It's a style that came about in the early 1940s until the late 1950s. German expressionists who fled Germany during this tumultuous period played an important part in what was to become Film noir. The entire premise is inspired by the cynicism that was a consequence of the depression and the war. Therefore it is kind of a hard-boiled detective genre, but with some interesting twists that I'll elaborate on further down.

I do believe it's one of the most inventive styles of the time —and it happens to really grab our attention. Like many film genres— even though film noir is not universally considered one— there is a formula that guides it. However, I believe it's not so much a formula as it is simply a number of elements that have to be included, but many of which are only visual in nature. For example, one of the chief characteristics in Film noir is the low-key lighting. It's safe to say that if any filmmaker dared to use low-key lighting, we'd automatically assume at first glance that we were looking at Film noir, aside from everything else.

Key elements in Film Noir:

- Femme fatale
- Good girl
- Doomed protagonist (with a shady past)
- Voice-over narration
- Jazz music
- Everything in focus
- High contrast (Low key lighting / Chiaroscuro)

Types of Shots

Shots are mainly for identifying distances between the camera itself and its subject and what it's going to focus on. Depending on how well this aspect is handled, filmmakers may have greater or lesser control over the various elements that hold their story together.

If we're to think realistically, there is a limitless sea of possibilities when it comes to picking a distance, angle or subject to focus on. However, there are certain goalposts when it comes to defining basic layouts, all of which are useful in depicting particular scenes or moments within a film. Although a film-maker has all the right to position the camera anywhere he pleases, these camera positions all have a different effect on the audience. If they are well-understood prior to using them, they can be used to achieve a greater purpose.

Normally, it is suggested that a scene be introduced in the following order: from large to small (i.e. from a general sense of the scene to the main focus, which would vary from film to film).

Establishing shot:

Gives an over-all view of the background along with the subject matter. It's useful to use first as a means to introduce the surroundings before getting into the fine detail.



Mid shot:

Focuses on the subject even more intensely, but does not remove all the surroundings necessarily. There is still the impression of the over-all subject intact.



Close-up:

The subject's features become the dominant aspect of the frame and therefore are closely scrutinized. At this point there are practically no surroundings visible.




Other shots:

Extreme Wide Shot (EWS)
Very Wide Shot (VWS)
Medium Close-Up (MCU)
Extreme Close-Up (ECU)
Cut-in
Point of View (POV)

Images are courtesy of MediaCollege, http://www.mediacollege.com/video/shots/

Types of Motion

Here it is; short and simple.

Primary

- Actors:
The actors moving on-screen, which is often the most essential part in the over-all motion.

Secondary

- Camera movement:
The camera's movements, such as panning, rotating, moving positions or the use of zoom are all valid ways of expressing secondary motion.

Tertiary

- Movement through editing(Cuts, close-ups etc):
Assembling the shots in a way that moves the story forward.
The use of linear versus non-linear story-telling:

Auteurism

Auteurism originated from the French New Wave and stands for 'Authorship' in French. The term came about in the 1950s. The chief pioneer in this new field of study was film-maker Francois Truffaut.

This new theory was pivotal in defining a director's role and place in film-making. Previously, the film industry was seen as being simply that: an industry that produced on schedule, following formulas for creating the various types of movies that entertained the most. Films were first looked upon as a medium meant to entertain the masses and deliver a brief, but enjoyable escape from reality. Directors were not tasked with being creative or inventive. Their job was formulaic.

This boring reality took a turn when Auteurism began to shine.

Over the course of the semester, I've come to understand that this new theory suggested that a more creative or sophisticated role for a director was called for. It brought about a whole new way of analyzing films and understanding them. Films would no longer be stamped out to fit a predetermined category or type of movie. Directors who embraced this idea could very well look upon their films as works of art, as opposed to another entertainment flick fresh off the assembly line.

Auteurism empowered directors to take a more creative approach, to consider their work as a medium worthy of delivering thoughtful messages or thought-provoking ideas. It meant that a director's role became more personal, more akin to that of an artist. They could take their creativity and transform movies into their own personal vision.

Rules and Technique

I present you with one technique and two rules —although there are definitely more— that have great significance in the film-making industry.

Cutting the action.

One of the most important techniques in film is cutting the action. I'm not entirely certain what the exact term for this technique would be, but I felt that calling it this way was more or less appropriate as you shall see.

Whenever there is a cut from one angle to another, it is quite a significant change and it's easy to feel disoriented and displeased. Film-makers have found that one way to work around this dramatic shift in tertiary motion can be assuaged by cutting a person in the middle of his action and continuing it in the next shot.

When the attention of the audience is focused, albeit discreetly, on what the actors are doing and their actions, creating a cut to change angle does not interfere in the least. As long as an action is cut and continued over seamlessly into the next one, the audience will be paying so much attention to the action itself that they will not notice or heed any tertiary motion. Thus the editing becomes invisible. If you ignore this rule, you will create slight discomfort and move towards disjunctive editing.



The 30 degree rule

The 30 degree rule is well-known across the the film-making industry. It is one of the most important rules, and if broken it will definitely look disjunctive regardless of anything else you do.

The 30 degree rule basically stipulates that any second shot in a scene must have at least a 30 degree angle difference with the previous one. The result is a seamless experience. The opposite of that would in fact make the audience uncomfortable and feel as though something strange had just occurred. This in turn makes the editing process extremely visible and, unless that is your purpose, is ill-advised.


The 180 degree rule

The 180 degree rule is similar to the 30 degree rule in its mandate: To not confuse your audience or to upset them. Violation of this rule does not necessarily make the film disjunctive, but it feels wrong and can be interpreted as deliberately confusing.

This rule states that an imaginary line must exist that divides the world perfectly in half, which is referred to as the axis line. The camera man is on either one side or the other, but cannot travel over that line through the use of tertiary motion. That is, a film should not cut between two sides of a conflict, conversation or whatnot. Thus, the 180 degree rule is meant to keep the world oriented. If you ignore this rule, you switch that orientation each time and I guarantee you'll make a lot of enemies.





To summarize:

These rules are not meant to be ignored, at least not if you're trying to create an experience that is seamless. If your objective is to revise these rules or to deliberately question them, that is another matter and it is quite permissible.

Types of Editing

Disjunctive Editing:

Disjunctive editing is a process that has for some time sparked mixed reviews and commentaries, because it can be uncomfortable to watch. Its purpose has been, in certain cases, to question the norms of camera motion established many years ago; to challenge our perception of the way we've come to view films and accept them. Disjunctive editing, as opposed to invisible editing, makes the editing process very apparent; it ignores the basic rules of film-editing that were established for the purpose of creating a seamless experience.

Therefore, this type of editing interferes with the film's narrative, however it can be done purposely for effect. The results are that the audience is suddenly pulled back when it notices editing has taken place. It is often associated with amateur films or student films, but that is not always the case.

One of the greatest and most famous examples where disjunctive editing is praised for its intentions is “Breathless”.

The following is an example from Breathless that demonstrates perfectly the idea behind Disjunctive editing.





Invisible Editing:


Invisible editing was discussed at lengths during several of our classes. I was particularly intrigued by the amount of attention and —much to my amazement— the level of theory and base knowledge required to achieve realism. I understand now that film-editing entails much more than what can be seen on screen. There is much that goes on before our eyes that our brain —for whatever reason— chooses to disregard from the over-all experience. It's in this minute oversight that film-editing becomes an art of manipulating what is truly detected on-screen and what will go unnoticed.

After watching an entire movie concerning this phenomenon, it became apparent that invisible editing is meant to be enjoyed without the audience ever seeing it. Its task is to join shots and construct a movie that feels like there are no cuts —it must be done in such a way that it never interferes with the film's narrative.

In the next entry, I will be discussing the various, conventional rules and techniques that are essential for Invisible editing. I will also explain how they relate indirectly to Disjunctive editing.

For now, here's a quick example of editing that is invisible: