Art on Demand.

Would modern cinema be able to function without the classifications of genre that have been established by a century of filmmaking? Would modern audiences be able to choose a film to see without understanding the categorical organization developed? Would filmmakers even be able to make similar films without an understanding of like-minded films that have come before? Of course, but this doesn't mean genre is irrelevant.

The most blatant purpose of genre is to reproduce a type of film that was successful. Casting aside the art vs. commodity argument for a minute, commercial filmmaking is a business. The American film industry has done a rather amazing job at making it a profitable business at that. Yet their ability to identify the type of films that kept people coming back would not be possible without understanding the idea of genre. On the one hand, the audience likes a certain story and wants to see it again. Thus the proliferation of genre films, be it gangster, western, melodrama, ensures that audiences will find similar films. At the same time, keeping in mind the word ‘similar,’ the viewers do not (exceptions, of course, exist) want the exact same film a second time around. Thus we get what has come to be called the standardization/differentiation dialectic.

What is interesting is that genre films propagate their own existence. Creating films of similar style/theme is rationalized by their success in the box office. Like stated, the film will then need to differentiate itself from the competition by offering something that audiences have not seen in this particular genre. Naturally, this is not always achieved and the hoards of entries will fall into obscurity. Thus the downside of consciously creating what is wanted.

Mass production of films diluted the quality of existing films by increasing competition. We could easily blame our culture for insisting one cannot have too much of a good thing and applying the mindset to its arts and creative endeavors. The results can be a commercial compressed and dry film that offers nothing to the viewer but the same old story. It is not my intent to rant about the detrimental effects of commercial filmmaking, I rather like many a film of today. However, the nature of the genre film is both a blessing and a curse, something to look forward to or something to be weary of. It can feel like a prepackaged, assembly line product, yet one that is aimed at pleasing the largest amount of people possible.

Soviet artists Vitaly Komar and Alex Melamid hired a professional polling company to find out the average person’s aesthetic preferences. The results were used to create paintings, country by country, of the most desired and least desired elements. Of course, the artists did it to comment on the commercial nature art has taken on while at the same time ‘selling out’ in a way be producing said pieces. The film industry, to a large degree, operates on this very same research. The most successful movies are the one that will get reproduced, serialized, re-released, and most advertised. But does the matter of size, the fact the movies can cost millions and paintings not so much, validate its system? If a painter only painted what people wanted, knowing it would make money, would they be selling out all the time? Would they even be creating art? Would this style of work make the product nothing more than a commodity for mass consumption? If that were the case, a large majority of this country’s films would fit the bill. More later.