H.W Question: With specific reference to the three focus films studies discuss the idea that "Genre is Dead"

Genre is a faimilar term amongst the film and Media world, and horror could be argued as the most iconic of all generic categories. Since its early development from gothic creatures all the way to modern gorno movies, its conventions have always followed familiar and predictable elements; primarily the use of a monster and scaring people. By playing on our deepest fears horror has achieved ultimate financial and commercial success. However, is it possible to say horror or even any genre exists anymore? There are so many varieties of hybrids and sub-genres, like gorno, zombie, slasher, sci-fi and gothic, that it could be argued this idea of purity has been lost. After studying the horror films Halloween, Scream and Hostel 2, i shall form my own opinion in this essay as to whether genre is truly dead.
Notable theorist Thomas Schatz, formed this idea of a "Genre Cycle". This suggests each genre goes through an organic process starting from being an innovative and ground breaking film, to a classical stage everyone feels comfortable with. Then this familiarity reaches a parodic and almost comical stage finalising on a deconstruction where new conventions are formed, and so the cycle continues again. Now this concept is very appealing, as the films I have studies being applicable in the cycle. It can be stated that Scream is a parody, as it intertextualises and references Halloween, which in it's time was innovative and ground breaking. However, I discovered that this cycle is heavily flawed. Firstly, my studied films could easily fit into more than one category. Halloween maybe innovative yet classical, as the concept of the slasher film originated with Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. And Hostel 2 could be a deconstruction because of it's representation of women becoming the killers, yet its also classical because the film Saw, released before Hostel originally formed this idea. It widely depends on your own knowledge of films, and what you have seen. The theory also lacks a time span of how long this process takes, and also objects to the idea of sub-genres, something that Horror is now formed from.
However this idea of static genre is still attractive to the industries distributing these films. With the horror genre there are huge adavantages such as guaranteed sequels, which means easy selling of the film. It's conventions and formulaic nature, as well as its recognisable directors and stars make it easy to market and create. And finally its less risky, meaning it will be more likely to achieve blockbuster success. It's also an asset for the audience, as horror taps into our desires of being thrilled, and its expectations make it comforting yet iconic amongst people. The pleasure of fear is attractive to us and forces us to be active with the film, and finally its easy to sell to us. Studying the stalking scene in Halloween, we notice many patterns that are used in horror films, particularly with cinematography and sound. The same chilling music is used to represent the killer Michael Myers, and that he is coming. He is also Omni Present, and he is in control. As well as this the camera is from the point of view of the killer, tracking Jaime-Lee Curtis, almost putting us as the role of the killer.
These conventions have been followed in films like Scream, and more modern horrors such as I Know What You Did Last Summer,, and these conventions drive the success of horror. Unfourtanetly, financial success seems to be the only interest of institution, meaning nobody is challenging the audience anymore, and genre is replaced by this concept of a blockbuster or a spectacle, something we seem to now accept as the norm.
It is also becoming apparent that there is no originality amongst horror anymore, and that there is just an endless supply of postmodern referencing. Using the opening of Scream as an example, we see many intertextual references to Halloween. The setting of a middle class, detatched house surrounded by a white picket fence is instantly recognisable, as is the use of a knife. Drew Barrimore who plays cassie is killed of instantly, which could echo Psycho, but when mentioning her boyfriend and the use of sexual implications on the phone forces her to be punished. This is a similar pattern in Halloween, where sex means the loss of purity and something the parent's do not know about, and their payback is basically death. Shatz' cycle is applicable here, meaning he was right about one thing; there is no originality anymore, and where there are minor convention changes, most horror films have been replicated.
After debating from both ends, I have concluded that it is not right to claim genres posess clear, stable and identifiable boundaries. It's a fact that theyre are so many hybrid and sub-genres that its impossible to categorise films these days. I do however believe it's agreeable to suggest horror texts function in relation to genre, but not be defined by them, as all the films I have studied and discussed are indeed some form of horror. I believe genre is almost a comfort zone for audiences and institutions and their benifits, however from an intelligent point of view I believe it's our own cinematic history that helps us deconstruct genre, and that once you investigate and break down a complex media text, generic labels become fairley meaningless. I see them as stereotypes, and it is this particular reason and the arguments above that i do believe genre is dead.