Genre: generic origins and relationships A consideration of Tom Ryall’s contribution (1978)

What is genre criticism?  Tom Ryall (1978) distinguishes genre criticism from the two approaches dominant at the time of its development: auteurism, and an earlier tradition which saw films as providing social documents. He sees as a central concern of genre criticism the relationship between the art product, its source and its audience. Both auteur and 'social document' approaches use a linear model of this relationship, privileging artist or social reality as the originating source of the art product, which, representing their expression, is then consumed by its audience. In contrast, Ryall suggests, the model offered by genre criticism is triangular, with art product, artist and audience as three equally constituting moments in the production of the text -A view which posits a dynamic and mutually determining relationship between them. The basis of this equality lies in the way the conventions of genre operate. They provide a framework of structuring rules, in the shape of patterns/forms/ styles/structures, which act as a form of supervision' over the work of production of film-makers and the work of reading by an audience. As a critical enterprise genre analysis, which looks for repetitions and variations between films rather than originality or individuality, was developed as a more appropriate tool for understanding popular cinema than authorship theories. Following the structuralist intervention and revival of Marxist aesthetics, genre analysis enables film criticism to take account of conditions of production and consumption of films and their relationship to ideology. Thus Ryall places his original triangle - film/artist/audience - in two concentric circles, the first representing the studio, or particular production institution - the film's immediate industrial context - and the second representing the social formation - here American society, western capitalism - of which the film industry and cinematic signification are a part. Whereas the triangular model displaces the notion of a single originating source, the concentric circles displace an earlier Marxist linear model used to account for historical and social determination - in which the base is seen as unproblematically reflected in the superstructure. In this reconceptualisation art and society are not opposed to each other as two abstract and discrete entities; rather art is understood as one of the social practices in which society exists. Ryall's model, then, attempts to grasp the range of determinants - historical, economic, social, cinematic, aesthetic, ideological - involved in the production of meaning in the cinema, without foreclosing on the question of which element dominates in any given instance.  [Pam Cook, The Cinema Book. 1999, BFI]

Auteur Theory  Film-maker as ‘auteur’ or author  Director Film  E.g. John Ford Stagecoach  Linear model

Marxist/structuralist approach  Social reality/industrial production conditions produce a film  Social Reality film  E.g. McCarthyism High Noon  Linear model

Ryall’s Triangle  Ryall suggested that art product (film), artist (film-maker) and audience all relate to each other  dynamic and mutually determining relationship/model

Concentric Circles  But to take into account both the context of production  And the social reality of society’s ideology Ryall placed this triangle within two concentric circles to try and establish the dynamic relationship

So what?  How does High Noon, for example, fit into this model?  How does it help us to understand the dynamics of production and reception?  How does it suggest a different (better/worse/more complete?) framework for looking at genre as a concept?

Let’s apply the theory…

Merl Kimmel PhiladelphiaMerl Kimmel Date: 19 September 2004 Summary: High Noon assessment High Noon is for me one of the two finest Westerns ever made (the other is Shane). It is an elemental commentary on the best and worst of America, the best and worst of mankind. It is Greek tragedy and Shakespeare brought to the Old West in a grandly simple form. Gary Cooper is superb and the supporting cast is outstanding as well (although I wish Grace Kelly would have spoken without the artificial sounding school-girl accent, something which marred so many of her otherwise fine performances). I do not read into the film a commentary on events of the 1950s, specifically the ongoing investigations by Congress of left-wing activities. High Noon transcends such specifics as this. I know John Wayne called the film un-American but I must disagree. I have great respect for the Duke but think he got this one wrong. Weak, timid people are everywhere and the strong are often few and far between. Goodness and right often prevail because a small minority insure that they do. All benefit from the courage of the lonely hero whether they realize it or not. High Noon is a testimony to this truth.

Gratuitous High Noon Posters