Genre, Structure & Cinematic Spacetime Part III
Thoughts On: Genre & Cinematic Spacetime
A final look at genre via our objective-subjective theory.
What we have so far established in our look at genre and structure are two key premises. Firstly, we have defined genre as the quality of, and the elements in, a narrative that relate it to, and make the story, art. Secondly, we asked of the universal structure that underlies all narratives. We did this to implicitly confront a question of why all narratives are, to some degree, unoriginal and derivative of one another. If it seen to be true that art is mimetic, imitative of life, then there must be a singularity of narrative: the fundamental narrative. This is our attempt at outlining just that:
In this final look at genre, its place in narrative and its impact on story, I would like to finalise and conclude an answer to the question: What is genre for? We have questioned what genre is, what its basic functioning is, and so now we will define its general purpose. To do this, we must outline how genre works in action by building an allegory.
Cinema is space and time - narratives, in some way, are all space and time. An event exists in space, but for it to occur space must move, therefore we require time. Space and time, as Einstein asserted, are one: we live in spacetime, and so do stories. Drama, as we have asserted before, is the catalyst for the ticking of clocks as, without drama, nothing can happen. Form is a window onto, and an embodiment of, that which drama manifests: action. Within bodies of action, what moulds them from within, is mode. This is essentially how we may map out a literal cinematic space:
Inside the cinematic space (the black triangle), we have drama (the upside triangle presiding over all). Below this, we have a white oval: form. But within form is mode (the black circle). This diagram symbolises the idea that, within the cinematic space, drama controls all, oversees and motivates all movement and action. Mode shapes form, which is to say, if a writer intends to make a realistic film, its form will comply. The form that encompass mode is then what we literally see on screen, it is the characters, their clothes, the location, lighting, camera angles, etc. Let us look at a frame of a film:
Drama and action presides over this frame. The action here is simple: characters are sitting down on a curb in despair. The drama that got us here is within the plot I am about to describe: the father, Antonio, needed a job to support his family: his son, Bruno (who sits beside him), his wife and his baby. He luckily got a job pasting posters on walls. He needed a bike to take the job and move around town, however, and he had just sold his old bike. His wife pawned of their sheets to get the bike back and Antonio started working. On the first day, someone stole his bike. Antonio has tried to find the culprit with Bruno, tried to talk to the police, but has gotten nowhere. He sits on the curb with his son in despair.
This drama has catalysed all the movement towards this image. What shapes this image, however, is De Sica's realist mode of direction. It is because he intended to make a film realistically that we have the form we see. We see tattered clothes that don't look like they're from a costume department, a real street in Rome--not a set--unprofessional actors, the camera stares from a distance, noninvasive, and more could be said about the music and technicalities if the image moved. This form is determined by the mode within the physical form we see represented. So, let your imagine equate the above image to this diagram:
The drama is the action above the image. The form is what we see in the image. The mode is De Sica's choice to represent the drama as we see it. This is a simple exercise, but we have not yet accounted for genre. Let us do this here:
We have spoken of drama presiding over cinematic spacetime, of mode existing in form and form being within or on the cinematic space. However, we have not spoke of the spacetime of cinema itself. We shall be equating this to genre. As we have previously discussed, genre is the foundation of the cinematic space. Among other things it is that which encompasses a story. And the best way to understand how genre functions is to think of it as spacetime. Let us then move to an Einsteinian model of the universe:
To understand the universe, one must think of space and time as a fabric upon which masses sit. As you can see above, when a large object, such as a planet, sits on this fabric, it bends. Because space and time bend, gravity comes into existence. One must not think of gravity as a something that pulls us down. Instead, gravity warps the space and time you exist in. Much like your older brother sitting on a trampoline causes you to fall towards him, the sun sitting on the fabric of space and time causes nearby planets to fall towards it (and establish an orbit within its gravitational field). That is how gravity works; the presence of mass effects the composition of physical reality.
We shall attempt now to map this onto the cinematic space as to form a loose allegory. Genre is spacetime, and upon it sits the formal elements of a film which are shaped from within by mode - and all of this is called into existence by a god: drama.
Saying only this means very little. It is important to recognise that genre is that which connects one story to all other stories; that which makes a narrative art via association. Genre is just this because genre is made up of tropes and archetypes. The classical, fundamental genre is the archetypal story that we recounted via the Taoist creation myth:
This an attempt, we could suggest, at articulating the prototypical narrative. It is not necessarily a true and complete story, rather a precursor to all stories told. The prototypical genre is within these lines. The structure and movement from Tao to harmony (which we expanded upon previously) is the prototypical plot and thematic arc. The prototypical character is that entity which embodies unity; the prototypical drama is The Way that births conflict; the prototypical side-characters and bad guys are found in trinity and the myriad of creatures. The theme, meaning, plot, characters, etc of this 'story' are the prototypical genre. I will continue to hazard to define the basic genre via this fundamental structure:
This is not a true genre, it is the prototype. A prototype is that which is altered to make an archetype - which is unchangeable, inimitable and universal. True genres are archetypes built from this prototype via a manipulation and contrivance of archetypal plot lines, characters, conflicts, themes, etc.
Let us extrapolate with a look at the genre of romance. The fundamental meaning of every romantic film, its Tao, has much to do with togetherness and procreation. So, all romantic films start with the implicit assertion that a couple of some sort is the ideal state of being, and that such may be defined as true love. This implied Tao gives birth to an unstable unity; an unhappy bachelor and/or maiden looking for love. The break of this condition into a duality comes when the lovers first meet; one intention becomes two possibilities, to love and not to love. Alas, it is inevitable that the condition of that duality has ties to exterior forces. Maybe the lovers are from different classes or backgrounds, maybe they're not perfect for one another, maybe one is already engaged. This will lead to the consequential invasion of a third entity; a disproving family, another potential love, danger of some kind. The couple must insert balance into the ten thousand problems and possibilities that emerge from a conflict between the three entities, essentially achieving a state again of being able to love or leave each other again. From here, harmony will emerge and whisper the meaning of the narrative. For example, the girl and boy will fall in love and live happily every after and thus the implied Tao is spoken: true love exists and togetherness is the natural state of being. In a tragedy, harmony would still be achieved if the couple split. For example, Juliet kills herself after finding Romeo dead. This is a painful harmony, but it is one that melancholically rings the same meaning: true love does exist, and it is worth dying for. A satirical or cynical romance would have an antithetical Tao--love doesn't exist--and the end would be in harmony with this.
Herein I have outlined the archetypal romantic plot, its characters, themes, meaning and conflicts. Alas, any one of us could have done this as it is such a fundamental and familiar genre, one of the most recurrent archetypes of its kind. What we may now recognise is that the genre of romance forms the spacetime of a narrative. It is contoured and bent in accordance to its archetypal characters and expected form which rests on its surface, actually contouring it. One can then easily think of Romeo and Juliet being one manifestation of the basic romantic genre-story (which is an adaptation of the prototypical genre) and Her being a very similar story made to look and feel different via different form, characters, worlds, etc. Let us now then be reminded of this image:
If this represents the archetypal romantic genre with its mode and form (its characters, world, etc) in place as the coloured spheres, then each and every individual romantic film will have slightly different forms thanks to the specific modes embedded into them. Thus, the spacetime of genre will be contoured slightly differently due to differently shaped characters, world, themes, plots and more. Furthermore, the drama that manifests this space will have the planetoid forms move somewhat uniquely. And it must be added here that the narrative centre will be the heaviest object--that which will bend the spacetime of genre most--and so every formal/modal element that is not central will orbit around it.
We can now then conclude rather simply. The function of genre is to relate all art to other art, to see art emerge through a reference to the prototypical, fundamental narrative and the basic archetypes that have spawned from it. Genre in action looks like spacetime bending. The purpose of genre bending like this is two-fold. Genre firstly retains fundamental truth in being a descendent of an age-old genre and the prototypical genre. This truth is embedded into its composition. Alas, and here we have the second fold of genre's purpose, this spacetime is malleable as alterations of perspective and situation above fundamental truth provide a greater array of answers and questions for stories to explore and communicate with. Ultimately genre is a template of truth.
It is now that we have a model for understanding not just genre and its function, but its function in practise, how it makes up and affects the cinematic space in its most fundamental capacity. We have covered much in the previous three posts. So, I leave you now with a very broad question: What are your thoughts on everything we've discussed? And can you apply this theory of genre onto a specific film yourself?
Previous post:
Genre, Structure & Cinematic Spacetime Part II
Next post:
The Possessed: Part II - For The Fear Of God
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
A final look at genre via our objective-subjective theory.
What we have so far established in our look at genre and structure are two key premises. Firstly, we have defined genre as the quality of, and the elements in, a narrative that relate it to, and make the story, art. Secondly, we asked of the universal structure that underlies all narratives. We did this to implicitly confront a question of why all narratives are, to some degree, unoriginal and derivative of one another. If it seen to be true that art is mimetic, imitative of life, then there must be a singularity of narrative: the fundamental narrative. This is our attempt at outlining just that:
Implied Tao
Unstable Unity Born
Break into Condition of Duality
Consequential Invasion of Duality
Balancing the Ten Thousand Possibilities
Harmony
Logos (Tao Whispered)
In this final look at genre, its place in narrative and its impact on story, I would like to finalise and conclude an answer to the question: What is genre for? We have questioned what genre is, what its basic functioning is, and so now we will define its general purpose. To do this, we must outline how genre works in action by building an allegory.
Cinema is space and time - narratives, in some way, are all space and time. An event exists in space, but for it to occur space must move, therefore we require time. Space and time, as Einstein asserted, are one: we live in spacetime, and so do stories. Drama, as we have asserted before, is the catalyst for the ticking of clocks as, without drama, nothing can happen. Form is a window onto, and an embodiment of, that which drama manifests: action. Within bodies of action, what moulds them from within, is mode. This is essentially how we may map out a literal cinematic space:
Inside the cinematic space (the black triangle), we have drama (the upside triangle presiding over all). Below this, we have a white oval: form. But within form is mode (the black circle). This diagram symbolises the idea that, within the cinematic space, drama controls all, oversees and motivates all movement and action. Mode shapes form, which is to say, if a writer intends to make a realistic film, its form will comply. The form that encompass mode is then what we literally see on screen, it is the characters, their clothes, the location, lighting, camera angles, etc. Let us look at a frame of a film:
Drama and action presides over this frame. The action here is simple: characters are sitting down on a curb in despair. The drama that got us here is within the plot I am about to describe: the father, Antonio, needed a job to support his family: his son, Bruno (who sits beside him), his wife and his baby. He luckily got a job pasting posters on walls. He needed a bike to take the job and move around town, however, and he had just sold his old bike. His wife pawned of their sheets to get the bike back and Antonio started working. On the first day, someone stole his bike. Antonio has tried to find the culprit with Bruno, tried to talk to the police, but has gotten nowhere. He sits on the curb with his son in despair.
This drama has catalysed all the movement towards this image. What shapes this image, however, is De Sica's realist mode of direction. It is because he intended to make a film realistically that we have the form we see. We see tattered clothes that don't look like they're from a costume department, a real street in Rome--not a set--unprofessional actors, the camera stares from a distance, noninvasive, and more could be said about the music and technicalities if the image moved. This form is determined by the mode within the physical form we see represented. So, let your imagine equate the above image to this diagram:
The drama is the action above the image. The form is what we see in the image. The mode is De Sica's choice to represent the drama as we see it. This is a simple exercise, but we have not yet accounted for genre. Let us do this here:
We have spoken of drama presiding over cinematic spacetime, of mode existing in form and form being within or on the cinematic space. However, we have not spoke of the spacetime of cinema itself. We shall be equating this to genre. As we have previously discussed, genre is the foundation of the cinematic space. Among other things it is that which encompasses a story. And the best way to understand how genre functions is to think of it as spacetime. Let us then move to an Einsteinian model of the universe:
To understand the universe, one must think of space and time as a fabric upon which masses sit. As you can see above, when a large object, such as a planet, sits on this fabric, it bends. Because space and time bend, gravity comes into existence. One must not think of gravity as a something that pulls us down. Instead, gravity warps the space and time you exist in. Much like your older brother sitting on a trampoline causes you to fall towards him, the sun sitting on the fabric of space and time causes nearby planets to fall towards it (and establish an orbit within its gravitational field). That is how gravity works; the presence of mass effects the composition of physical reality.
We shall attempt now to map this onto the cinematic space as to form a loose allegory. Genre is spacetime, and upon it sits the formal elements of a film which are shaped from within by mode - and all of this is called into existence by a god: drama.
Saying only this means very little. It is important to recognise that genre is that which connects one story to all other stories; that which makes a narrative art via association. Genre is just this because genre is made up of tropes and archetypes. The classical, fundamental genre is the archetypal story that we recounted via the Taoist creation myth:
The Way gave birth to unity,
Unity gave birth to duality,
Duality gave birth to trinity,
Trinity gave birth to the myriad creatures.
The myriad creatures bear yin on their back and embrace yang in their bosoms.
They neutralise these vapours and thereby achieve harmony.
This an attempt, we could suggest, at articulating the prototypical narrative. It is not necessarily a true and complete story, rather a precursor to all stories told. The prototypical genre is within these lines. The structure and movement from Tao to harmony (which we expanded upon previously) is the prototypical plot and thematic arc. The prototypical character is that entity which embodies unity; the prototypical drama is The Way that births conflict; the prototypical side-characters and bad guys are found in trinity and the myriad of creatures. The theme, meaning, plot, characters, etc of this 'story' are the prototypical genre. I will continue to hazard to define the basic genre via this fundamental structure:
Implied Tao
Unstable Unity Born
Break into Condition of Duality
Consequential Invasion of Duality
Balancing the Ten Thousand Possibilities
Harmony
Logos (Tao Whispered)
This is not a true genre, it is the prototype. A prototype is that which is altered to make an archetype - which is unchangeable, inimitable and universal. True genres are archetypes built from this prototype via a manipulation and contrivance of archetypal plot lines, characters, conflicts, themes, etc.
Let us extrapolate with a look at the genre of romance. The fundamental meaning of every romantic film, its Tao, has much to do with togetherness and procreation. So, all romantic films start with the implicit assertion that a couple of some sort is the ideal state of being, and that such may be defined as true love. This implied Tao gives birth to an unstable unity; an unhappy bachelor and/or maiden looking for love. The break of this condition into a duality comes when the lovers first meet; one intention becomes two possibilities, to love and not to love. Alas, it is inevitable that the condition of that duality has ties to exterior forces. Maybe the lovers are from different classes or backgrounds, maybe they're not perfect for one another, maybe one is already engaged. This will lead to the consequential invasion of a third entity; a disproving family, another potential love, danger of some kind. The couple must insert balance into the ten thousand problems and possibilities that emerge from a conflict between the three entities, essentially achieving a state again of being able to love or leave each other again. From here, harmony will emerge and whisper the meaning of the narrative. For example, the girl and boy will fall in love and live happily every after and thus the implied Tao is spoken: true love exists and togetherness is the natural state of being. In a tragedy, harmony would still be achieved if the couple split. For example, Juliet kills herself after finding Romeo dead. This is a painful harmony, but it is one that melancholically rings the same meaning: true love does exist, and it is worth dying for. A satirical or cynical romance would have an antithetical Tao--love doesn't exist--and the end would be in harmony with this.
Herein I have outlined the archetypal romantic plot, its characters, themes, meaning and conflicts. Alas, any one of us could have done this as it is such a fundamental and familiar genre, one of the most recurrent archetypes of its kind. What we may now recognise is that the genre of romance forms the spacetime of a narrative. It is contoured and bent in accordance to its archetypal characters and expected form which rests on its surface, actually contouring it. One can then easily think of Romeo and Juliet being one manifestation of the basic romantic genre-story (which is an adaptation of the prototypical genre) and Her being a very similar story made to look and feel different via different form, characters, worlds, etc. Let us now then be reminded of this image:
If this represents the archetypal romantic genre with its mode and form (its characters, world, etc) in place as the coloured spheres, then each and every individual romantic film will have slightly different forms thanks to the specific modes embedded into them. Thus, the spacetime of genre will be contoured slightly differently due to differently shaped characters, world, themes, plots and more. Furthermore, the drama that manifests this space will have the planetoid forms move somewhat uniquely. And it must be added here that the narrative centre will be the heaviest object--that which will bend the spacetime of genre most--and so every formal/modal element that is not central will orbit around it.
We can now then conclude rather simply. The function of genre is to relate all art to other art, to see art emerge through a reference to the prototypical, fundamental narrative and the basic archetypes that have spawned from it. Genre in action looks like spacetime bending. The purpose of genre bending like this is two-fold. Genre firstly retains fundamental truth in being a descendent of an age-old genre and the prototypical genre. This truth is embedded into its composition. Alas, and here we have the second fold of genre's purpose, this spacetime is malleable as alterations of perspective and situation above fundamental truth provide a greater array of answers and questions for stories to explore and communicate with. Ultimately genre is a template of truth.
It is now that we have a model for understanding not just genre and its function, but its function in practise, how it makes up and affects the cinematic space in its most fundamental capacity. We have covered much in the previous three posts. So, I leave you now with a very broad question: What are your thoughts on everything we've discussed? And can you apply this theory of genre onto a specific film yourself?
Previous post:
Genre, Structure & Cinematic Spacetime Part II
Next post:
The Possessed: Part II - For The Fear Of God
More from me:
amazon.com/author/danielslack
