rickaltman film genre

8/2/2019 RickALTMAN Film Genre

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rickaltman-film-genre 1/8

Z 6 E D W A R D B U S C O M B E

i. R e n é W c l l c k an d A u s r i n W n r r e n , T V j í

Harcourt, B r a c c Si Wn r ld , 1 9 5 6 ) , p. 160.

3. Ibid.,p. 131-

4. J i m K i t s c s , Horizons W e s f ( l i l o t i m i n g

Press, 1970), p-H'

5 . I b i d . , pp. M-1!-

fi. See Colin McAnhur, "Genre and Iconography," paper d e l i v e r c d at a B n t -

Is h F i lm i n s i i i u i c semlnar.

7. Ki t s c s , Horizons Wesl, p. 10.

s i o n : t hc d i s i i ne l i o n b e r w c c n auteur and melteitr-eii-sccnc hás no importa.ice

hcrc.

9. Charles Hieham and Jocl G r e e n h e r g , Hnllywood in lhe forties ( L o n d o n :A . Zwemmer; New Yo r k : A. S. B a r n e s , 1368], p. 19-lo. R o b i n Wood, Hitcl>cock's Filias (London: Zwemtner; New Y o r k : Bart ic s ,

1965).

3. A Se m a n t i c / Sy n t a c t i c A p p r o a c hto Film GenreK I C K A L T M A N

W h a t is a genre? W h i c h f i lms are genre f i lms? Ho w do we kn ow to wgenre they bc long? A s fundamenta l as thesc ques t ions may seera , thea l m o s t n ev er a s k ed — l e r a lone answer cd— in the f i e ld o f c inema s tuM o s t c o m f o r t a b l e in the secming ly u n c o m p l i c a r e d world o f Hol lywclass ics , genre cri tics have felt l i n lc need to refiect open ly on th e a s st ions under ly ing t h e i r w or k . Every th ing seems só clear . W hy both

solve? W e al i know a gcnre whcn we sce one. Scratch only where it i tAccord ing to th i s v iew, g e n rc cheory would be called fo r on ly in thel ik e ly e v c n t that knowledgeab lc g enre c r i t i cs d i sag reed on basic i sT he task of the thcorist is then to adjudicate a m o n g conflicting

sc ruc t ing a modcl that reveals the r e l a t i o n s h i p bctween differ ing crc l a i m s and thei r func t ion wi th in a b roadcr cul tura l context . Whe rcaFrench c lca r ly view theory as a f i r s t p r inc ip ie , we Americans tend ti t as a last reso r t , s o m eth i n g to t u r n to when al i cise fails .

Even in thís l imited, p r a g m a t i c view, w h e r c b y t h eo r y is to be avoidal i costs ,_the time for theory is ncyertheíess u pon .u s . The.clockhasjt

thirtecn; we had bcst call in the theorcticians. Themore genre critic

read, th e m or e un c e r t a i n ty I note in the cho ice or extent o f essentialicai terms . Oftcn what appears as hesitat ion in the te rminology of a s

critics ar e c om pa r e d . Now, it would be one t h i n g if these cont radicwerc s imply a mattcr of fact. On the contrary, however, I suggestthese ar e not tempora ry problcms, boun d to d isappear as soon as we

cons t i t u t ive weaknesses of c u r r e n t no t ions of genre. Three cont radicin par t i cu la r s ccm worthy of a good scratch.

W h c n we es tab l i sh the corpu s of a gcnre we general ly tend to dothings at once, and thus establish two alternatc groups of texts, each

r e s p o n d í n g to a different no t ion of co r p us . On the one hand , we ha



3 G R I C K A L T M A H

ftillowing L ê v i - S t r a u s s , a growing number o f critics throughout lhe sev-

c i i t i c s dwc l l cd on lhe m y t h i c a l q u a l i t í e s oí Hollywood genros and t h u s

s i r e to please and its nccd to attract consiimers were v i e w e d as tlic mcch-

a n l s m w h c r c b y spectaturs wcrc a c t u a l l y able co designate the k l n d o f f i l m s

they wamed to see. By choosing thc films it would patronize, the audicncc

r e v c a l c d i t s prcfcrcnces an d i t s b e l i e f s , thus i n d u c i n g H o l l y w o i s d siudios

to producc films r c f l c e t í n g its desires. Participation i n the genre film ex-

a k i n to tha: associated with e s t a b l i s l i e d religion. Most openly champi-

oned byJohn Caweltl, this r i t u a l approacb appcars as well in books byLco ISraudy, Fra n fc McConncll, Michael Wood, Will Wright, and Tom

S chatK . 1 It hás the n i e r i t not only of accounting for the i n r e n s i t y of I den-t i f i c a t i o n t y p i c a l of A m e r i c a n gcnrc film audienccs, but it also encourages

t h e p i a c t n g o f genre film n a r r a t i v e s into a n appropriatcly widcrcontext of

Curiously, howcver, whilc the r i t u a l approach was attributíng u l t i m a t eauthorship to the audience, with the studios s i m p l y serving, for a prite,

the n a t i o n a l w i l l , a p a r a l l e l i d e o l o g i c a l approach was demonstrating how

audiencesare manipularei! by thcbusinessand piiliticalintcrestsof Holly-

wood. Starting with Cabiers du Cinema and inoving rapidly to Screen,

Jiimp Cal, and a growing n u m b e r of j o u r n a l s , this view hás recently j o í n e dhands with a more general c r i t i q u e of the mass media of f c r cd by the

F r a n k f u r t School.5

Loukcd at in this way, gcnres are s i m p l y the g e n e r a l -ized, i d e n t i f i a b l e structures through whicli Hollywood's rhetoric f lows .l:ar moreattcntive to d i s c u r s i v e conccrns than the r i t u a l approach, whicli

remains f a i t h f u l to Lêvi-Strauss í n emphasizing narrativc systems, the ide- .

ologícal approach strcsses quest ions of repres entati on and i d e n t i f i c a d o npreviously le ft aside. S i m p l i f y i n g a bit, we m i g h t say that it c h a r a c t e r i z c s

" eacíí individual genre as a s p c c i f i c type of lie, an untruth whose mosc char-

actcristic f e a t u r e is its ability to masquerade as tru th. Whereas the ritual

approach sees Hollywood as responding to societa! prcssure and thus

expressing audie ncc desires, the ideological approach claims that Holly-

wood takes advantagc of spectator cncrgy and psychic invcstment in

order to l u r e the audiencc into Hollywood's own positions. The two are

i r r e d u c i b l y opposed, yet thesc irreconcilable argumcnts continue to rep-

resem the most intercstíng and w c l l dcfcnded of reccnt approaches to

Hollywood genrc film.

Herc we have three problems that I takc to be not limited to a sínglc

school of criticism or of a single genre but implic it in every major ficld of

current genrc analysis. In nearly evcry argument about the l i m i t s of a gc-

neric corpus, the opposition of an i n c l u s i v e list to an exclusive canon sur-

A S E M A N T I C /S Y N T A C T I C A P P R O A C H

faces. Wherever genres are discusscd, the divergem concerns of thco

i t i /d to genre thcory alone, noagrecmentLan be f o u n d between thosc

ological purpose. We f m d ourselvcs desperately in need of a thcory w

without ( i i s m i s s in g a n y of these widely h e l d positions, would cxplai

contradictions. If we have learncd anything f r o m poststructuralist

cism, wc have learncd not to fear logical contradictions b u c instea

rcspect the exrraordinary enetgy gcnerated by the play of contradi

forces w i t h i n a field. What wc i i ecd no w is a new criticai strategy enaus simuitaneously to understand and to capitalize on the tensíons

i n g in curr tgcní

sessing thcories of genre, critics have often labelcd them acco

to a particular theory's most salicnt features or the type of a c t i v iwhich it devotes its most concentrated at tcn tion. Paul Hcrnadi, fo

ample, recognizcs f o u r general classes of genre theory: expressive,

to The Fantastif, Tzvetan Todorov opposes histórica! to theoretical

res, as well as elcmentary genres to their complcx cou nterparts.7

O

l i k e Frcdric Jameson, have followed Todorov and other Frcnch sem

cians in d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between semantic and syntactic approach

gcnre.8 W h i l e there is anything but general agrcement on the cxact

tíer sçparating semantic from syntactic views, we can as a wholc dguish between gcneric d e f i n i t i o n s that depend on a list of common t

attitudes, characters, shots, locations, scts, and the likc—thus stre

the semantic elements that make up the genre— and definitions tha

;ad certain constitutive relationships becween undesignated

:ionships t h a t _ m i g ^ i t bc called the genrc'

roach thus strcsst-s the gcnrc's

privileges the structures into w

damental syntax. The se

ing blocks, while the sy

they are arranged.

The d i f f e r c n c e between semantic and syntactic definitions is pe

us with a clcar example of the most common definition. The we

Mitry proposes, is a "film whose action, situated in the American

tence in the Far West between 1840 and 1900."* Based on the pre

or absence of casily identifiable elements, Mitry*s nearly tautologica

nition implies a broad, undiffcrentiated gencric corpus. Marc V



32 RKMLTMAN

6. KeJ Ri*,.. The T e.

stourk characters ("thc toitgh/soft cowboy, lhe lonely s h c r i f f , the f a i t h f u lor irreadierous Indian, and thc strong bur tender woraan"), as wel l as

tcdhnical elements ("use of f a s t tracldng and crane shots").1" An enrirdy

dífiferentsolution is suggcsted by Jim Kitses, who emphasizcs not thc v u -cabularyof [hc wcitcm kif t l i L - ry l . i t i i > i i _ s l i i j i s l i n k i n g lexical ejenjeuts. Eoc.

""K«B«"tKè"wcstcrn grows out of a dialectic between the West as garden

and as dcserr {between culrure and nature, community and individual, fu -tume and past).

11The wcstern's vocabulary is thus gcneratcd by this syn-

taoticrcfationship, and not vice versa. John Cawelti actempts to systcm-

at&se thewestern in a similar fashion: thc wcstern is always set on or near

a foontier, whcre ma n encounters his uncivüized double. The western thus

latesplace on thc bordcr betwcen two lands, between two eras, and with

a herawho remaíns divided between two valuc systems {for he combines

thc-itown's morais with the outlaw's skilis).12

fa jxiaing we might wcll note rhe divergem qualities associated with

thesetwoapproaches. While the semantic approach hás little explanatory

pt»»er, ít is applicablc to a larger number of films. Conversely, the syn-

tactüc approach surrenders broad applicability in return for the a b i l i t y

A S E M A N T I C /S Y N T A C T IC A P P R O

secmingly leaves the genre analyst in a quandary: choose the se

view and you give «p explanatory pouier; choosc the syntactíc ap

and you do without broad applicability. In tcrms of the western, th

lem of thc so-called "Pennsylvania western" is instructive here. T

—obse«icrs-W-sccrns-q u i te-dea r íhat-fi l ms-1 i k c-Jíjg& ^Xljdf-n nj JJa

(Rouben Mamouli an, 1937), Drums aloug the Mohaivk (John

1939), and Vnconqitered (Cecil B. DeMille, 1947) have d e f i n i t e afwith the western. Employing f a m i l i a r characters set in relationship

ilar to their counterparts west of the Mississippi, these films co

plots and dcvclop a frontier structure clearly dcrived from deca

western novéis and films. B u t they do it in Pennsylvania, and in thc

century. Are thesc films westerns because they share the syntax o

circds of films we call westerns? Or are they not westcrns, becaus

don't fit Mitry's dcfinition?

In fact, the "Pennsylvania western" ( l i k e the urban, spaghetti, an

varicties) represcnts a quandary only because critics have insisted o

missing one typc of d e f i n i t i o n and approach in favor of anothe

a rule, semantic and syntactic approaches to genrc have bcen prop



34 RICKALTMAN

g c n c r i c p r o b l e m s ha ve a r i s c n o n l y w h c n s c m a n t i c a n d s y n t n c t ic t h e o r c t i -c i a n s h a v e s i m p l y t a lked pas t each other, e a c h u n a w a r e o f t h e other's di -v e r g e n t o r i e n t a t i o n . I m a i n t a i n t h a t thesc nvo c a r e g o r i c s o f g e i i e r i c a n a l y -si s are c o m p l e m e n t a r y, t h a t t h e y can b e c o m b i n e d , and in fac t t h a t some1

o f t h e m o s t í m p o r t a n t q u c s t i o n s o f g e n r e s t u d y c a n b c a s k e d o n l y w h c nt h e y ar e e o n i b i n c d . In short, I propose a s e m a n t i c / s y n t a c t i c approach to

Now, i n o rdc r to d i s c o v e r whether c h e proposed s t - m a n t i c / s y n t a c t i c ap -p r o a c h p r o v i d e s any ncw u n d c r s t a n d i n g , le t us r e t u r n to the t h r e e c o n -

tradictions del inea ted e a r l i e r . F i r s t, t h e t c i s t h c s p l i t c o r p u s t h a t c h a r a c -t e r i ze s cu r rent gcn ce s t u d y — on th e one side an i n c l u s i v e l i s t , oti t h e o t h e ran e x c l u s iv e p a n t h e o n . It s h o n l d now b c q u i t e c l e a r that e a c h c o r p u s c o r -r e s p o n d s to a di f f c r en t a p p r o a c h to g e n e r i c a n a l y s i s an d d c f m i t i o n . T a u -t o l o g i c a l s e m a n t i c d c f i n í t i o n s , w i t h t h e i r goal o f b r o a d a p p l i c a b i l i t y , o u t -l i ne a la rgc genre o f s e m a m i c a l l y s i m i l a r tcxts, w h i l c s y n t a c t i c d e f i n i t i o n s ,i n t c i u a s t h e y a r e o n e x p l a i n i n g t h e g e n r e , s t r e s s a narrow r a n g e o f texts

t h a t p r iv i l ege spec i f i c s y n t a c t i c r e l a t i o n s l i i p s . T o í n s i s t o n o n e o f thc se ap -p r o n c h e s t o thc c x c l u s i o n o f c h e o t h e r is to t u r n a h l i n d cyc o n the n e c e s -s a r i l y d u a l n a r u r c o f any g e n e r i c c o r p u s . For every R im t h a t p a r t i c i p a t e s

content t o d e p lo y i n n o p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p t h c e l c m e n t s t r a d i t i o n a l l yassoc ia tcd wich th e genre. W e nced to r ecognizc that n o t al i g e n r e f i lmsr e la te to t h c i r g e n r e i n t h e s a m e w a y o r t o t h e s a m e cxtcnt. B y s i m u l t a -n e o u s l y a c c c p t i n g s e m a n t i c a n d s y n t a c t ic n o t i o n s o f g e n r e wc a v a i l o u r -se lves o f a poss ib le way to dea l c r i t í ca l l y w i t h d i f f c r i n g l eve i s o f "gcncric-

íty." I n addi t io n , a d u a l a p p r o a c h p c r m i t s a far m o r e a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o no f t h c n u m e r o u s i n t c r g e n e r i c connections t y p i c a l l y s u p p r e s s e d by s ing le-

.. aiinded. approach e s _ Icjs-simpjy. noc-possiblc t o d c s c r i b c H o l l y w o o d c i n -e m a accu ratc ly wi thou t the a b i l i t y to account for the n u m e r o u s films

t h a t i n n o v a t e b y c o m b i n i n g t h e s y n t a x o f o n e genre w i t h t h c semantks

o f anothe r . In fac t , it i s on ly w h e n we bcg in to c a k c u p p r o b l e m s o f g e n r eh i s t o r y that thc f u l l v a l u e of the semantic / s y n t a c t i c a p p r o a c h b e c om e sobvious.

A s I po in tcd ou t ear l i e r , mnst g e n r e t h e o r e t i c i a n s h a v e f o l l o w e d t h esemiotic modcl and s tee red clear of historical considerations. E v e n in the

r e la t ivc ly fe w cases whcre problcms o f g c n c t i c h i s t o r y h a v e h e c n a d -d r e s s e d , a s i n th c a t t e m p t s o f Metz an d W r i g h t to pe r i od izc thc wes te rn ,h i s t o r y há s b e e n c o n c c p t u a l i z e d a s n o t h i n g m o r e than a d i s c o n t i n u o u ss u c c c s s i o n o f di sc re te moments, each charac te r i zcd by a d i f í e r e n c basicve r s i on of die genre— that ís, by a d i f f e r e n t syntac t i c pattcrn that the

genre adopts.15 In short, g e n r e theory h á s up to now a i m e d a l m o s t e x c l u -

A S E M A N T I C / S Y N T A C T IC A P P R O f t C H

m a s k t h e s c a n d a l o f a p p l y i n g s y n c h r o n i c a n a l y s i s to an c v o l v i n g critics have h e e n c x t r c m c l y c lever in t h e i r c reat i on o f categor i e s d c s ito n e g a c e th c n o t i o n o f c h a n g e and to i m p l y t h e p e r p e t u a i s c l f - i d c n teach genre. W e s t c r n s a n d h o r r o r f i lm s ar e of t en r e f e r r e d t o a s "clas

th e m u s i c a l is dcf in ed in terms o f the so -ca l l ed "Platonic i d e a l " o fgration, the criticai corpus of thc melodrama hás largely heen restr

to thc postwar effo r t s o f Si rk an d M i n n e l l i , an d só o n . L a c k i n g a wable hypothesís r e g a r d i n g t h c h i s t o r i c a l d i m c n s i o n o f g e n e r i c syntax

have i nsu la tcd that syntax, a l o n g w i t h the g e n r e t h e o r y t h a t s t u d if r o m th e f l ow of time.

A s a working hypothesis, l s u g R e s t t h a t genres a r i s e in one of two

d a m e n t a l ways: eíther a r e l a t ivc l y s tab lc sc t o f s e m a n t i c g i vc n s is do p ed t h r o u g h s y n t a c t ic c x p e r i m ^ m a t i o n i n t o a c o h e r e n t an d d u r a b l etax, or an a l r c a d y e x i s t in g s y n t a x adopts a n e w set of s c m a n t i c c l e mIn the f i r sc case, the genre ' s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c m a n t i c c o n f i g u r a t i o n i s t i f i ah le long befo re a syntac t i c partem h á s b e c o m e s t a b i l i / e d , t h u sfy ing th e p r e v i o u s l y m e n t i o n c d d u a l í t y o f the g e n e r i c c o r p u s . In cast h i s f i r s t t y p e , d e s c c i p t i o n o f the way in wh ich a se t o f s e m a n t i c g i v ev e l o p s i n t o a h e n c e f o r t h r e l a t ive l y s t a b l e s y n t a x c o n s t i t u tc s th e h i s t oth e g e n r e w h i l e at the same t i m e i d c n t i f y i n g th e s t r u c t u r e s o n w h i c h t h e o r y d e p c n d s . I n dea l ing wi th th e ea r ly d e v e l o p m c n t o f thc m u s i c ac x a m p l e , w e m i g h t wel l fo l l ow th c a t t e m p t s d u r i n g th e 1927-193

r i o d to b u i l d a b a c k s t a g c o r n i g h t - c l u h s e m a n t i c s i n t o a m e l o d r a ms y n t a x , w i t h m u s i c r e g u l a r l y r e f k -c t i ng th e s o r r o w o f d c a t h o r p a r t i ntcrthe s l a c k y e a r s o f 1931-1932, h o w c v c r , th e m u s i c a l begantogro

o f c o u p l i n g , t h c s t t e n g t h o f t h e c o m r n u n i t y , and the píeasures of

syntax can be shown by thc g e n e r i c h i s t o r i a n to grow out of the l io f spec i f i c semant i c elements at i d en t í f i ab l e p o i n t s . A measure o f c o nit y is thus deve loped betwccn thc task of the hi s to r i an and t h a t of the

orctician, for the tasks of both are now r edef ined as thc s t u d y of th

This c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e c n h i s t o r y an d t h e o r y Ís o p e r a t i v e as well isecond t y p e o f generic development p o s i t c d e a r l i e r . When we analyzlargc v a r i c t y o f w a r t i m e f i l m s t h a t p o r t r a y th e J a p a n e s e o r G e r m a n s al a i n s , we t e n d to h a v e r e c o u r s e to e x t r a f i l m i c cvcnt s in ordcr to e xp a r t i c u l a r charactcrizations. Wc t h u s m i s s the extent to w h i c h film

Ali tkrough thc Night ( V i n c e n t S h e r m a n , 1941), Sherlock Hohncs an



36 R I C K A L T M A N

Voice of Terror ( J o h n R a w l i n s , 1942), or t he s e r i a l The Winsloit' Bo y ( A n -t h o n y A s q u i t h , 1 9 4 8 ) s i m p l y i r a n s f e r t o a n e w s e c o f s e m a n t i c e l c m c n t slhe righteous cops-punish-crimiiials syntax that the gangster g enre of

th e e a r l y i h i n i e s h a d t u r n e d to s t a r t i n g w i t h G-Meii ( W i l l i a m K c i g h l c y ,' 9 3 5 Í - A g a i n , i t i s the i n t e r p l a y o f s y n t a x an d s e m a n t i c s t h a t p r o v i d e s

g r i s t for both the histórica! and the theoretical mil l . Or take the dcvelop-

r n e n t of t he s c ien ce f icc ion f i lm. At f i r s t d ef inc d o n l y by a r e la t i v e ly s t a b l es c i e n c c f i c t i o n s e m a n t i c s , the genrc f i r s t b e g a n b o r r o w i n g th e s y n r a c t i c r c -l a t i o n s h i p s p r e v i o u s l y e s t a b l i s h e d by the horror film, only to move in re-

s i m u l t a n e o u s d e s c r i p t i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o bo th parameters, wcarenot l i k e l y

to fa l i in to lhe trap of e q u a t i n g Star \vars (Gcorge L u c a s , 1977) w:th thew e s t e r n (a s n u m e r o u s recém c r í t i c s h a v e d o n e ) , c v e n t h o u g h i t s h a r c s c c r-t a i n s y n t a c t i c p a t t e r n s w i t h t h a t g e n r e . In short, b y t a k i n g s e r i o u s l y th e

c o n t i n u i t y , r c la t í ng f i lm a n a l y ^ i s , g e n r c t h e o r y , and g e n r c h i s t o r y .l i u t w h a t K it t ha t encrg izcs th e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f a h o r r o w e d s e m a n -

t ics into a u n i q u e l y Hollywood s y n t a x ? O r w h a t i s i t t ha t j n s t i f i e s th e in -trusion of a new semantics into a wei l -dcf ined syn tac t ic s i t u a r i o n ? Fã r

f r o n i po s tu la t ing a u n i q u e l y i n t e r n a i , f o r m a l p r o g r e s s i o n , I w o u l d pro-

posc that th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n the s e m a n t i c y n d th e s y n t a c t i c c u n s t i -tiites t ie very site of ncgotiation between Hollywood and its audience,

a n d t h u s between r i t u a l a n d ideológica! u s e s o f g e n r e . O f t e n , w h e n c r i i i c so f o p p o s i n g persuasions d i s a g r e c o v c r a m a j o r i s s u e . i t is because t h e yh a v c established withín the saine general corpus two separatc and t>p-po sed canons, each s u p p o r t i n g one poínt of v iew. Thus, w h c n C a t h o l i c san d Protestants o r l i b e r a i s a n d c o n s e r v a t i v e s quote th e B ih l c , t h c y ar er a r e ly q u o t i n g the sã me passages. The striking fact about r i t ua l and ide-

ologícal g enrc thcorcticíans, h o w e v e r , is that t h c y r e g u l a r l y s t r c s s t h esamc canon, that s m a l l group of texts most c lca r ly r e f l e c r ing a . g c n r e ' s _ .s t a b lc syn tax . The'films of John Ford, for e x a m p l e , h a v c played a m a j o rrole in the development of r i t u a l and ideo lo g ica l approaches alike. From

Sar r í s and Bo g dano v ich to Scha tz and Wright, champíons of Ford's un-

the c o m m u n i t a r í a n side o f h i s f i lms , while others, s ta r c ing wi th th e i n f l u -en t ia l Cahíersdu Cinema s t u d y of YoungMr. Lincoln (1939) , havc sho wnhow a call tocommunity can be u s e d to l u r e spectators into a c a te fu l l ychosen, ideologically detcrmíned s u b j e c t position. A s t m ü a r s í t u a t i o nobtaíns i n t h e m u s i c a l , where a growing b o d y o f r i t u a l a n a l y s e s of theA s t a i r e - R o g e r s a n d postwar M G M Frced u n i t fi l m s i s m a t c h c d b y an í n-creasing nurnbcr of studies demonstrating the ideological investmcnt of

those very same films.14

The corpus of n e a r l y e v e r y m a j o r genrc h ás de-

velo ped in the same way, with cr i t ic s of bo th camps g rav i ta t ing to ward

A S E M A N T I C / S Y H T A C T I C A P P R O A C H 3

an d e v e n m a l l y b a s i n g t h e i r a r g u m e n t s o n the s a m e n a r r o w r a n g e o f f i l mJ u s t a s M i n n e l l i an d Si rk d o m i n a t e the c r i t i c i s m o f m e l o d r a m a , H i t c h c o chás become nea r ly synonymous with the t h r i l l e r . O f al i m a j o r genres, o n lt he f i lm n o i r h á s failcd to a t t r a c t c r i t i c s o f bo th s idcs to a s h a r e d c o r p uo f m a j o r t e x t s — n o d o u b t b e c au s e o £ the g e n e r a l i n a b i l i t y o f r i t u a l c r i t i c

p r o m i s i n g f o r m u l a s o r s u c c e s s f u l f i lms n e v e r s p a w n a g enre , i t is b e c a u so n ly c e r r a i n types o f s t r u c t u r c , w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r s e m a n t i c e n v í r o n m e n

are su i t ed to the spec ia l b i l i n g u a l i s m r e q u i r e d o f a d u r a b l e ge n r e . T hs t r u c t u r e s of Hollywood c i n e m a , l ike t h o s e of A m e r i c a n p o p u l ar mytho

o g y as a w h o l c , serve t o m a s k the v e r y d i s t i n c t i o n between r i t u a l and ido lo g ica l f imc t ions- Ho l lywo o d do es not s i m p l y l end i t s voice to the p u blic's desires, nor does it s i m p l y manipulate the audience. On the contrar

mo st g en res go t h r o u g h a period of accommodation d u r i n g w h i c h th

p u b l i c ' s des i r es a r e f i t t ed to Ho l lywo o d' s p r io r i t ies (and vice ver sa ) . Bcause the public doesn't want to know that it is being manipularei, th

s u c c e s s f u ! t i t u a l / i d e o l o g i c a l "fit" is a l m o s t a lways o ne tha t d i s g u i sHollywood's p o t e n t i a l fo r m a n i p u l a t i o n w h i l e p l a y i n g u p it s c a p a c i t y f

W h c n c v e r a l a s t ing fit is obtained—which it is whcnevet a s e m a n tg e n r e b e c o m c s a s y n t a c t i c one—it i s because a common g r o u n d h ás bef o u n d , a r eg io n w h e r c t h e a u d i e n c e ' s r i t u a l v a l u e s coincide with H o l lwood's ideobgical ones. The d e v e l o p m e n t of a spec i f i c s y n t a x w i t h i n

e l e m e n t i n a l og i c a l o r d e r , at the s a m e t i m e accommodating a u d i e n c e ds i r e s to studio

co r icc rns .The

s u c c e s s f u l g e n r eowes its

s u c c e s snot alo

to its r e f j cc t i on of an a u d i e n c e ideal^nor_soje]Y tojts status as apology f

the Hoiíywood c n t e r p r i s e , but to its ab i l i ty to c a r r y out bo th f u n c t i os i m u l t a n e o u s l y . It is this s l e ig h t of hand, this st rategic ovcrdeterminatio

t h a t most c lea r ly characterizcs A m e r i c a n film production d u r i n g the s tdio y eats.

The approach to genrc skctched out in this article of course raises som

qucstíons of its o w n . J u s t w h e r e , for e x a m p l e , du wc l o ca te the exact boder between the s e m a n t i c and the syn tac t ic? And how are t hese two ccgories related? Each of these questíons constitutcs an essential área

i n q u i r y , one t ha t is far too complex to p e r m i t f u l l t r e a t m e n t here. Nevtheless, a few remarks may be in order. A r e a s o r i a b le observer m i g h t wask why my approach atttibutes such importance to the seeming ly band i s t i n c t i o n between a text's m a t e r i a i s and the s t r u c t u r e s i n t o w h i c h t hare arranged. Why t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n rather than, for e x a m p l e , the mo



38 R I C K A L T M A H

trai t h e o r y o f t e x t u a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n t h a t I havc expounded c l s e w h e r e . ' 5

Br i c í ly , t h a t t h e u r y d i s t in g u i s h e s bctween th c p r i m a r y , l i n g u i s t i c m e a n i n go f a text's componenr paris and the s c c o n d a r y o r t e x t u a l m e a n i n g t h a rmost p a r i s a c q u i r e t h r o u g h a s t r u c t u r i n g p r o c e s s i n t e r n a i t o thc t ex t o rt o t h c g e nr c . W i t h i n a s i n g l e t e x t , th e r c f o r e , t h c s a r n c p h e n o m e n o n m a yh a v e m o r e t h a n one m e a n i n g depcnding on whether we considcr it at the

l i n g u i s t i c o r t e x t u a l levei . In t he wes tern , fo r c x a m p l c , th e ho.-st i s an a n -i m a l that serves as a m c r h o d o f l o c o m o t i o n . T h i s p r i m a r y levei o f m e a n -i n g , c o r r e s p o n d i n g to the n o r m a l extent of thc concept "horse" w i t h i n thc

languagc, ismatchcd by a series of other meanings derivcd f r o m thc s r r u c -t u r e s i n t o w hic h the wes tern sets thc horse. Opposition oí the h o r s e to the

a u t o m o b i l e o r l o c o m o t i ve ( " i r o n horse") r e i n f o r c e s t h e o r g a n i c , n o n m e -c h a n i c a l sense of t he term "horse" a l r e a d y i m p l i c i t ír t t h c l a n g u a g e , t h u st r a n s f c r r i n g t h a t c o n c e p t f rom t h e p a r a d i g m "method o f locomotion" toth e p a r a d i g m " s o o n - t o - b e - o u t m o d e d p r e í n d u s t r i a l carry-over."

In th e same way, ho r ro r f i lms borrow f r o m a n i n e i e e n t h - c e n r u r y l i t e r -ary t r a d i t i o n t h e i r d e p c n d e n c e on thc presencc of a monster. In doing só,

t hcy c l e a r l y p e r p e t u a t e t hc l i n g u i s t i c m e a n í n g of t he monster as "thrcat-

e n i n g i n h u m a n being," b u t a t t h e s a m e t i m e , b y d e v c l o p i n g n e w s y n t a c -t i c i t i e s , t h e y g e n e r a t e a n i m p o r r a n t n c w s e t o f t e x t u a l m e a n i n g s . F o r t h eninetcenth century, the appearancc of thc monstcr is invariably tied to a

r o m a n t i c o v e r r c a c h i n g , th e a r t e r n p t o f s o m e h u m a n s c i e n t i s t t o t a m p c rw i t h th e di v i n c ordcr. In tcxts l i k c Mary Shel l ey ' s Frankcnstein, líalzac's

La Recherche do 1'absoln, or Stevenso n ' s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde , a s t u d -ied s y n t a x e q u a t e s m a n and monster, a t t r i b u t i n g to both the m o n s t r o s i t yo f b e i n g o u t s i d c n a t u r e as d e f i n e d by e s t a b l i s h e d r c l i g i o n a n d s c i e n c e .

W i t h th e horror f i lm, a d i f f e r cn t s y n t a x r a p i d l y e q u a t e s m o n s t r o s i t y n o tw ith th e overa c t ive n i n e t e c n t h - c e n t u r y mind, but wi th an e q u a l l y overac-

t ive t w c n t i c m - c c n t u r y b o d y . A g a i n and'again, th e monstcr is i dcn t i f i edwith h is h u m a n c o u n t e r p a r t 's u n s a t i s f i e d s e x u a l a p p e t i t e , t h u s e s ta b l i s h -i n g w i t h t h e s a m e p r i m a r y " l i n g u i s t i c " m a t e r i a i s {the monster, fear , thechase, death) emirely ncw textual mcanings, phallic rather than scicntific

Thc dis t inc t io n between thc s e m a n t i c and the syntactic, in thc way I

h a v c d e f i n e d it h e r c , t h u s corresponds to a dis t inc t io n between the p r i -mary , l ing uis t ic elcments of which al i texts are made and thc second-

ary, textual m e a n i n g s t h a t are sometimes constructed by virtuc of thc s y n -tactic b o n d s e s t a b l i s h e d b c t w e e n p r i m a r y c l e m e n t s . This d i s t i n c t i o n is

st rcssed in the approach to g c n r e prescnted h e r c not b e c n u s c it is co nve-n i c n t nor because it corresponds to a modish t h e o r y of the rclat ion be-

A S E M A N T I C / S Y N T A C T I C A P P f i O A C H

t i on i s f u n d a m e n t a l to a t h e o r y o f l iow m e a n i n g o f o n e k i n d c o n t r i b u tt o a n d c v c n t u a l i y e s tab l i s l i c s i r i t -an i ng o f a n o t h e r . J u s t a s i n d i v i d u a l t cxc s tab l i sh n e w m c a n i n g s fn r f a m i l i a r t e r m s o n l y b y s u h j e c t i n g w c l l - k n o w

í n t o b e ing o n l y t h r o u g h t h e r c p e a t e d d e p l o y m e n t o f s u b s t a n t i a l l y ts a m e s y n t a c t i c s t r a t eg ics . It i s in t h i s way, f o r e x a m p l e , t h a t r n a k i n g msic—at t he l ing uis l ic l evei p r i m a r í l y a way o f m a k i n g a l i v i n g — b e c o min th e m u s i c a l a f i g u r e f o r m a k i n g l o v e — a t e x t u a l m e a n i n g e s s c n t i a l

W e m u s t o f c o u r s c r e m e m b e r t h a t , w h i l e each i n d i v i d u a l text c lea r

h á s a syntax oíits o wn, thc syntax i m p l i c d here is that u f thcgenre, whidoes no t a p p c a r as generic s y n t a x u n l e s s i t is r c i n f o r c e d n u m c r o u s t i mby t he syn tac t ic pattctns o f i n d i v i d u a l t ex t s . The Hollywood g enrcs thh a v e p ro vcn thc mo s t d u r a b l c are p rec i se l y t ho sc tha t have es tabl i shed tmost coherent syn tax ( the wes tern , t he m u s i c a l ) ; t ho se tha t d i sappca r tq u i c k e s t d e p c n d e n t i r e l y o n r e c u r r i n g s e m a n t i c e i e m e n t s , n c v e r d e v c l oin g a s t a h l c s y n t a x ( r e p ó r t e r , c a t a s t r o p h e , an d b i g - c a p e r f i l m s , t o n a mbut a f ew). If I l o ca tc th c b o r d c r b c t w e e n th e semant ic a n d t he syn tacat the d i v i d i n g l i n e b e t w e e n th c l i n g u i s t i c and the t e x t u a l , i t i s t h u s i n

gen cr i c f u n c t i o n i n g .In proposing such a modcl, howcver, I may leave tt>o much room

o ne p a r t i c u l a r t y p c o f m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . I t h á s b c c n a c l ichê of t hc ltwo decadcs to i n s i s t t h a t s t r u c i u r e c a r r i c s m e a n i n g , w h i l e th e cho ice

m e t h o d o l o g y fo r s t u d y i n g m y t h , m a y s e e m t o b e i m p l i e d b y m y mod

bu t ís in fact n o t borne o u t b y m y r c s c a r c h . ' * Specta to r response, I l i eve , i s hc av i l y c o n d i t i o n c d b y the c h o i c e of semanr i c e l c ;mc nts_ and _mosphere, b e c a u s e a g i v en s c m a n t i c s u s e d in a spec i f i c c u l t u r a l s i t u a t iw i l l r cca l l t o an ac tua l in t er p r e t ive c o m m u n i t y t h e p a r t i c u l a r s y n ta x ww h i c h t h a t s c m a n t i c s hás t r a d i t i o n a l l y becn a s so c ia t ed in o ther tcxts. T

syntactic expectacion, set up by a semantic sigtial, is marched by a par

le l t c n d e n c y to cxpect spec i f ic syn tac t ic s i g n a l s to lead t o p r e d c t c r m i nsemant ic f ic lds (c.g., in wes tern t cx t s , r eg ula r a l t c rna t io n between man d f c m a l e cha rac ter s c r ca tes expccta t io n o f the semant ic c lement s iplied by romance, while a l t e rna t io n betwcen two males throughout a th ás i m p l i e d — a t least u n t i l r c c e n t l y — c o n f r o n t a t i o n a n d t h c semanúcs

th e d u e l ) . T h i s i n t e r p e n e t r a t i o n o f t h e s e m a n ti c a n d t h e s y n t a c t ic t h r o uth c ag ency o f the spcctator c l e a r l y d c s cr v c s f u r t h e r s t u d y . Suff ice i t to fo r th c p r e s c n t t h a t l i n g u i s t i c m e a n i n g s ( a n d t h u s th e import o f s e m a n



M * p 1 * 8

IJ.S.flsaíiíílífílJsfíUiante.S^lifS-

i'!?!í̂ íprf|píli;iiíp

t í!* r H Í Í E Í í i f ^ f f íí

itíÇfs^ir It|||»sí5 ffl?S*i

íl

fM.ff. í̂f^ ' ^ ^ s ^ ^

3 s^ .

rá'?*^^5-;.

3=»"i.",i' ? e

iilífrrf 111!?.! II

o.:= ^

= . g s: g i í i sB̂' S B =• 3. S S-

rickaltman film genre

Documents