Borrowing or Stealing

There exists a curious dynamic within the film genres as explicated by the genre films that they bear. Leo Braudy notices the side that seems to assault our notions of what art should be.

“Genre films offend our most common definition of artistic excellence: the uniqueness of the art object, whose value can in part be defined by its desire to be uncaused and unfamiliar, as much as possible unindebted to any tradition, popular or otherwise.”

Genre films, by their very nature, will contain the stereotypes, expectations, and allusions that define their being. Thus the genre film is a part of a whole, a single entity that cannot exist alone without the context of the similar films and themes that surround it. Thus it is necessary for it to be called a genre film for it to exhibit characteristics of such a film.

At the same time, as has been stated before; the film cannot simply replicate down to the detail everything that has already been done. This would, without a doubt, offend much more than our common definition of artistic intelligence. While they may still find something worthy in it, as can be done with anything, as a whole it would not be accepted. Thus the genre film must strike the particular balance between new and old. It must insert enough of the past to be recognizable while introducing enough of the present to be relevant. “Within film the pleasures of originality and the pleasures of familiarity are at least equally important.”

We might also wish to look at the timing of any particular film as a part of the genre as a whole. Say film x came out with components a, b, c, d, and e. (a, b, c will be generic conventions) Let’s say film y came out with a, b, d, f, g. Film z has c, g, h, and i. If we can allow this simple formula to stand for our films we can see that x and z bear little resemblance to one another. The fact that they came out years apart means that the particular aspects of the genre had changed and the films in between imagined new concepts.

With this vastly simplified example, the malleability of genre becomes evident. Filmmakers have the choice to adhere strictly to the conventions that define the genre or to liberate themselves freely from what has been done. It is inevitable, then, that they would arrive at genre mixing and feel compelled to insert the expectations or themes from a separate and distinct genre. Genre theory as a whole has received criticism because of this point; the boundaries and definitions are foggy at best. Where one ends and another begins is hard to define unless each example were to be a strict and formal representation of the genre.

This would be a rare thing; a film that so exactly captures one and only one genre that the boundaries become obvious and can be traced out on a piece of paper. Evidently, film is not anything near a straight black and white line but rather a multi-colored, multi dimensional web the connects, breaks, jumps, dodges, and disappears where ever it sees fit. The fact that there is so much freedom both technically and narratively makes it such a broad and shape shifting thing that trying to pin it down with terms like genre, auteur, etc. is the best we can do.

So when a filmmaker makes a film, particularly a genre film, they hopefully have some understanding of what they are making. As an audience, we then have to decide both what was used and how so. Is the filmmaker simply taking something that already existed and stripping it of a few aspects and claiming it new? Or are they taking something new and inserting things that have already been done? Do these simple abstracts even apply to the nature of film or does the particular film exist somewhere on a spectrum between the two? And at what point does borrowing become stealing and does inspiration become plagiarism?