If there is one thing that annoys when discussing movies with amateurs, is the claim that certain movies are westerns. Not to name names, "coughs" Brokeback Mountain, "coughs" No Country For Old men, but westerns are lot more than just wearing a cowboy hat or acting bad-ass. I wish this trend extended only to westerns, but there is an alarmingly growing number of people who have no idea what genres mean. For those people, and for those of annoyed by them, I have created this guide, the first in many that will help you turn your movie illiterate friends into fellow connoisseurs. It may even teach you a thing or two as well.
Action: The action genre is pretty straightforward, it is those movies where the action sequences are what are the driving force behind the movie. A lot of people these days seem to think that action movies must be, by definition shallow endeavors, but that is not the case. While it is true that the action genre gets a bad rap for not having a strong screenplay or great acting, this is a stereotype at best, mainly because there are so many action films that are just like that. However, there are plenty of action films that manage to go through the process of character development, deep meaning stories, and brilliant screenplays. We can start, if you please, with Die Hard, a perfect blend of action, humor, and drama, but the action is the driving force, therefore it is an action movie. First Blood is also a terrific example of an action movie that is not just action packed and actually contains a well rounded story with great narrative and character development. Both First Blood and Die Hard are both perfect examples of action movies because they both demonstrate how action drives the story, as well as character development.
Drama: What is drama? Isn't all cinema a form of drama? The answer to this is yes, in the literal sense. Technically speaking, all genres are sub-genres of drama, as the short definition of drama is a piece of writing that tells a story and is performed on a stage, or in our case, onscreen. Of course, that's not the definition we use when talking about drama as a genre in cinema. When we say drama, we mean a serious-toned film, but I go even a little further to say that a drama is a film that has none of the other genres prevalent within. After all, there are plenty of action movies that are very serious in tone, but what makes it a drama and not an action film is the fact that while it may contain action, the action is not the driving force in the narrative, but rather the exploration of the characters, inwards towards themselves. For example, while Braveheart has a lot of action, what ultimately drives the story is the struggles of William Wallace. There are spectacular action sequences, but they do nothing for character development. In fact, if you were to watch Braveheart and skip over the battle scenes, it would not affect the narrative in any way. The battles are there more for effect. Most war movies are like this and that is why, in my opinion, we almost always list war movies as dramas.
Comedy: Comedy is another that is pretty straightforward, much like
action. Comedy films are those that have a humorous tone to them. This
does not always mean your laugh out loud movies. Yes, they make up the
majority, but there are instances when the humor is a little more
subtle, in fact, the movie is almost dramatic. people tend to call these "dramedies",
but i place them with comedy, as drama is such a broad genre, I feel
that any deviation from it, should favor the latter. The best example of
a drama in recent memory would be Stand Up Guys, starring Al Pacino and
Christopher Walken. Another good example is Catch Me If You Can with
Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hanks (and co-starring Walken, but that's just
a happy coincidence". What these movies share is a serious underlying
tone coupled with humor, but the humor is more situational than actual
jokes. They tend to be more grounded and realistic humor, the kind of
thing that makes you laugh during the day to day, in other words, the
jokes are meant as jokes, so the characters can in a sense laugh at them
along with the audience.
Science Fiction: Science fiction, not be confused with nor included with fantasy, is a a movie where the story is driven by the introduction of something new into the context of the story. I mean new, of course, in the sense of advancement or discovery based in science. Many people use science fiction and fantasy interchangeably, but they are two very different and distinct genres. It is not enough for something to be new, unknown, and spectacular to be science fiction. Science fiction must be something that is new in the story. For example, the original Star Wars is science fiction, but not because it is in a galaxy far, far, away, but rather because the Death Star is a new weapon and technology introduced in the context of the story and it is what the characters have to deal with. Had the concept of total planetary destruction already existed in that universe, then Star Wars would be fantasy, just like all the sequels and prequels to date, because while the universe is new to us, for the characters it is just everyday life. Star Trek on the other hand is a totally different story, as nearly all the films involve the characters dealing with some sort of new discovery or technology previously unknown to them, be it the Genesis Device for Wrath of Khan or the unknown alien probe for The Voyage Home.
Fantasy: As previously stated, fantasy is not the same as science fiction. While science fiction needs to be introducing new technology or discoveries to the characters, fantasy, on the other hand, is introducing a new world to us, the viewers. Let's look at Avatar for example. While it is a totally new world for us, it is nothing new to the characters in the movie, nor is anything new really introduced in the film, so instead of science fiction, I would list it as fantasy. I can totally understand the confusion, as it is really a fine line between fantasy and science fiction, especially since some franchises move back and forth between the two, such as Star Wars, and that is most likely the reason that the two genres are used interchangeably.
Western: Westerns are a unique genre, in that they can encompass any
other genre. While other genres are generally defined by by factors such
as whether it focuses on action, humor, or drama, a western can fall
under any of these, and what defines it as a western is the mere fact
that it is set in the old west. So, no, Brokeback Mountain and No Country For Old Men are not westerns, regardless of how much of the genres traditional elements are found in them. likewise, Australia could not really be defined as a western because of its setting. Australia
is actually one that tends to be hard to dismiss as not being a western
because its setting is actually quite similar to that of a western. But
unfortunately, that is the constraint of the genre. Another problem I
have with these so called "modern" westerns such as No Country for Old Men, is that it becomes hard to draw a line as to what is a western. For example, Four Brothers is essentially a remake of The Sons of Katie Elder, a
western. The elements of the original are all there, but it is
modernized. Wouldn't that make a stronger case to be called a western as
opposed to something like Brokeback Mountain? Yet no one ever refers to Four Brothers as a western.
There are of course, sub-genres, like romantic comedy, adventure, and dramedy, as I have explained, but they will almost always fall under one of the prevailing genres, which are, as previously stated, all sub-genres of drama anyway, in a sense. I hope this guide has been helpful to you and maybe help you understand movies a little better, and perhaps enjoy them a little more as well.
