Genre genre genre

Or in the words of Henry David Thoreau, "simplify, simplify, simplify."

I just read an article in Hollywood Reporter about how the smaller "independent" studios are going to go back to the formulas which made them successful in the first place- genre films.

Now as a fiery independent filmmaker you'd probably expect me to throw my arms in rage, but I actually agree with the studios. Yes, you heard it right. I am defending the genre film, my artistic integrity be damned.

It's a matter of perspective, as every film must fall into some category. Even the most off-kilter, strange, abstract films will fall into some sort of genre. "Donnie Darko" was a science fiction film, "Pulp Fiction" a caper noir, and so on and so forth. Many films that we dem as "unclassifiable" are classified by that very distinction. What do we call a film like "The Cremaster Cycle"? In the end, Matthew Barney made a convincing drama, no matter how convoluted the narrative.

But that's just semantics. What we're dealing with, in terms of the studio perspective, is money. "Genre" to an independent filmmaker may be interpreted as "predictable," or "limited" or "conservative." A genre is limited in terms of its creativity, because getting the title of a genre means you have, in some way shape or form, follwed a set of rules that defines that particular genre. A genre film is a shure shot, there's no artistic integrity and the studios like them because they are tested formulas that make money.

Yes, that is true. But one has to admit that a good genre film ultimately works. Conventions exist for two reasons- to follow and to be broken. I'm not advocating that when making a genre film that you follow every rule to the t- rather, you must acknowledge those rules and operate within its internal logic, whether or not you are following the rules or not. The difference is in the execution when it comes to genre films.

Rian Johnson made a film called "Brick" which I was fortunate to see when i served as the Marketing Director for the Chicago International Film Festival. Rian's film was a genre film, a classic noir, a film which was deemed by the critics who saw it in Chicago as one of the rare films that was amazingly true to the noir genre. But what Rian did with his film was make it fresh through its execution- the twists and turns that he took, decisions that he made as a director, is what made his film fresh and unprecedented. He made an extremely unique genre film, and lo and behold his film was picked up for distribution by Focus Features.

It's called a calculated risk when it comes to filmmaking. By sticking to a genre, your chance of reaching an audience has been given a boost. That doesn't mean you have to make a conventional film, but stick to your genre. It's what we're planning with "The Killing Moon," and what I didn't do with "19 Revolutions." When I was writing "19 Revolutions" I wanted to make it a noir, but I intentionally strayed from the conventions of noir, thinking I would make something that had no precedent. My thinking was if I make something so different, if I hit I hit it big, and because of the cost of my production if I don't hit it it'll be easier to recoup my costs. I realize that my thinking was not wrong but flawed. I have to think differently, I have to think outside the box, but conversely i have to make sure it makes sense. If it doesn't, I've lost the battle even before I've begun.

Film, by design, is not for conservative souls. Every step is a risk. given this level of risk, why not reduce at least some percentage of that risk by following the tried-and-tested rules of a genre? It doesn't mean go out and copy "The Searchers" when you want to make a western. Rather, understand the rules of the west, the credo of the cowboy, and the laws of the land. Once you ascertain and accept those laws, by all means violate and destroy those laws. But in order for a law to be broken, it must first exist in perpetuity.

Studios need to make money, and so do I. But we create the art, and they sell it. There is some connect between the two: we give them something they can sell, and they give us the means to make our art. When negotiated smartly, I think it's a tragically fair arrangement.