Hill on Genre Benders

If You Liked Andrew Bartel’s Commentary on Genre, then you’ll LOVE Karina Hill’s Commentary on Genre
By Karina Hill

In Andrew Bartels’ commentary “Somewhere between Heaven and Hell…is Genre” (Cinesthesia 2003-04) he brilliantly brings Robert Altman’s ideas regarding genre, semantics and syntax into a metaphor that sheds light on Altman’s role as a reconciler of several binary oppositions. Bartels successfully explains how Altman acts as a “peacemaker,” unifying fundamentally different ways of studying genre (although we could have done without all the gore).   However, that is not say that Andrew Bartels is perfect; we all know he wet the bed until the age of 17, he invents numbers  (One, Two, Bhlrokty, Three, Swebdon, Four, Five. What is this kid’s deal?), and to this day he is convinced that he is the star of his own reality show a lá The Truman Show.   Anyway, that’s not the point.  The point is that Bartels has ignored other equally enlightening examples and explanations of genre by Geoff King and Barry Keith Grant.  That’s where I come in…

After discussing Altman’s theories on genres, this year’s class, CAMS 395 2K5, applied these ideas to films and sub-genres.  Our class discussed Barry Keith Grant’s idea of “the yuppie horror film” as a sub-genre of the horror film in his article “Rich and Strange.” Grant explains that during 1980s a distinct type of horror film developed.  These films adopt the syntax of horror films, focusing on issues of good vs. evil or human vs. monster.  However, these films employ the semantics of a yuppie lifestyle like luxury homes, slick villains, and con-mans, and therefore he described this sub-genre as “the yuppie horror film.” Bartels explains:

Semantics are the building blocks of the genre: common traits, attitudes, characters, shots, locations, etc…The syntactic elements of a genre are its deeper structures - the product of bringing those building blocks together. The syntax is the links and relationships of the semantic elements.

The yuppie horror films code the syntactic element of evil through the semantics of a villain rather than the monster, as coded in traditional horror films. According to Grant, the villain usually functions as something in the main character’s psyche or collective culture that has been repressed.  Instead of monsters threatening the lives of the main characters, theses villains or “yuppie monsters” usually threaten the material status of the main characters.  Carol ended this discussion by noting how syntactical aspects of mythic opposition are translated into another set of semantics. This shifting of semantics allows the audience to grapple with the oppositional forces of the film and attempt to reconcile them.  Grant concludes his article by explaining how the yuppie horror film sub-genre has been successful because it addresses “the biggest monster of all, late capitalism.” 

Still not quite getting it? Me either. Lucky for both us, taking cues from Altman, and Geoff King, writer of “Genre Benders,” our class discussed genre theory in relation to the movie From Dusk till Dawn.  The movie is a textbook example for depicting the way semantics and syntax function according to Altman. King explains that the semantic conventions of the first half of the movie include “arbitrary violence and bloodshed, the black suits/white shirts of the brothers, and road-movie elements such as the south-western landscape and the world of back-road gas stations and motels.”  Halfway through the movie, the genre seemingly shifts due to a change in semantics which include vampires, wooden-crosses, and holy water. I say “seemingly” because in class we discussed how syntax is preserved throughout the film, despite the change in its semantics. 

The film adopts a “revisionist western” as its syntax.  King explains that while westerns are constructed through thematic oppositions, most genre films offer reconciliation between the oppositions.  These oppositions focus on the conflict between the “savage” Gecko brothers and the “settler” family.  When these forces of good and evil meet at the Dew Drop Inn they are forced to interact and thus begin the process of reconciliation.  In every following conflict, Carol explained that “good is always being contested.”  Good is first contested right before the group crosses the Mexican border.  In order to comply with the Gecko brother’s demands, the family lies to customs officers.  Once over the border and inside the bar, good is contested again when the father, a former-preacher, must stick up for the outlaw Gecko Brother who has unnecessarily knocked out the bar’s bouncer.  Finally, good is contested when family joins forces with the murderers to fight against the vampires.  Unlike a typical western which focuses around the thematic oppositions of the “wilderness” and the “garden,” From Dusk till Dawn moves from one frontier to another.  In From Dusk till Dawn there is no “garden,” only degrees of wilderness.  In other words, at the end of the movie the audience sees that there is no “good,”: only degrees of evil.  Student, James Vivian, further solidified this conclusion by offering one of the last lines of the film, uttered by Ritchie Gecko; “I may be a fucker, but I’m not a motherfucker.”  Gecko ultimately reconciles good and evil.  No longer diabolically opposed, Gecko has shown that good and evil exist in degrees of each other.

Although syntax and semantics are really funny theory words, they are actually pretty easy to understand when applied to From Dusk till Dawn and the yuppie horror film sub-genre. Just remember genre films employ a syntax that depicts the deeper structures and meanings of the film, while the use of semantics make the film fun or interesting to the audience! The grafting of semantics on to syntax allows viewers to grapple with the deeper meanings of the film. Much like the way oppositions are reconciled at the end of genre films, Andrew Bartels and I have reconciled our differences for your intellectual betterment. Now you can examine genre films like a pro! 

Comments

[Karina Hill]

That was really really good. And really funny.-Karina Hill