Explain why certain genres of film have thrived for many years

Without doubt there have been specific films genres have solidified success for decades. Success is determined by a balance between the audience who consume, and the film institutions delivering them to us.

Horror is a principle genre that has survived this long for numerous reasons. For the film makers, horror has many advantages; they are easy to market due to their recognisable conventions, stars or directors. Renowned conventions particularly, have passed through the horror genre for years, and films such as Halloween have paved the way for slasher films like Scream, which is virtually a replica of its predecessor. We see both films in a middle-class America setting, both starring masked male murderers targeting teenage girls, who have been naughty in some way, usually sexually. Genre’s formulaic nature also makes them easy to create and of course there is always a guaranteed sequel within horror, ensuring them instant blockbuster success. Furthermore audiences are equally as contributing to horror. It taps into our desires, as we love to be thrilled or scared for a pleasuring experience. It’s also a comfort zone; the formulaic conventions provide expectations for the audience, so they know exactly what they are getting for their money when they purchase the film or go to the cinema. And finally, genre is an evolutionary process, and we drive this development forward, particularly in horror, through social and cultural influences. For example Hostel Part II, according to director Eli Roth was influenced by terrorism and abduction, and the idea that we fear for youngsters and are discomforted by outer territory. This fear factor in the audience is stimulated and almost reassured by Hostel, which is part of the “Gorno” genre, with other films like Saw. Our fears are almost justified by the horror films we watch, which is why they gain commercial success.

Many film makers form their ideas through notable theorists’ genre cycles. Perhaps the most recognisable being Thomas Schatz, who states that genre undergoes a four stage process, from an innovative and groundbreaking stage, falling to a more classical and recognisable period. This then leads to a parody stage where past films are mocked, eventually towards a deconstructive stage, and so the cycle continues. If you put Halloween into this category it can be considered innovative, to due its upbringing of the Slasher genre, and groundbreaking conventions used, particularly in its female representations. You could then put Scream as a parody, as it almost mocks Halloween due to its constant intertextuality. All these theories of course have flaws, as it depends on the cannon of films audiences have watched in the past. For example Barthes cycle of the “Pleasure” and “Extreme Pleasure period” determines an audience’s knowledge. Using Halloween and Scream again, Halloween is the mainstream popular stage, whereas Scream, if you have previously seen Halloween, is extreme as it satisfies by exploiting audience’s knowledge, which makes them feel clever. This is a clever and applicable theory institutions take full advantage of in gaining commercial success and putting “bums on seats”.

I do personally however, argue that this idea of “pure genre” that institutions familiarise themselves with, is dead, and instead is replaced by a variety of hybrid and sun-genres. This is why these theories are flawed, as they do not apply sub-genres within the cycle. As well as this, the Schatz cycle provides no time frame, and can be hard to categorise the films. Halloween could be considered classical rather than innovative due to Psycho which was the original Slasher. This is exactly the same case with Hostel Part II, which represents women as killers becoming quite innovative, yet Saw came before Hostel. It again depends on your film knowledge and what you have seen. More “intelligent” audiences recognise and challenge horror films due to their formulaic nature, believing that nothing is original these days.

Schatz’ list theory is more promising however, putting genre into one of two categories: Genres of Order or Genres of Integration. Ordered Genres have a strong history of conventions and order of narrative. The list also includes a male hero, contested space and primarily a death to resolve the film. Contrasted to integrated genres which are set in civilised space, with internal or family conflicts and female dominance. Although more promising, I argue that horror struggles to fit in, and my studied films could fit into either of them. Halloween has a female hero, but the resolution doesn’t come in the death of Michael Myers, as he disappears in the end. The idea of sequels hugely influences categorising the horror genre.

Paula Guran states that, “Like sex, horror is seductive-enticing the reader to accept the forbidden…” this for me justifies the horror genre. It is successful because people enjoy being scared, and gain pleasure from accessing the forbidden or illegal, as it serves as a form of escape from trouble. This is why it shall also solidify financial success, as institutions are fully aware of cultural influences, and what the audience gain pleasure out of, which is why their conventions are so distinctive. I do argue however that horror is not a genre, and simply a fragmented framework for institutions to gain ease in marketing. It’s so difficult to categorise as there are endless hybrids, including Slasher, Zombie, Gorno, Supernatural, Gothic and so many more. Furthermore I do believe in general that genre is dead, and simply serves as something to rest a film on rather than its formation. It is an organic, evolutionary process which is determined by audience intelligence and social impacts. However to conclude, I do believe that this term we call genre, has pioneered audience pleasure and comfort, and of course commercial success for institutions. And when your consider everything, the only intentions of institutions is money, something genre provides very well.