One of the crucial developments in more recent genre theory is the notion of genres being fluid and dynamic phenomena which develop and evolve over time. In considering how a
Page 36 of 363 film genre develops over time, one must consider precisely where genres come from, and as Tzetan Todorov indicates new genres are derived ‘quite simply from other genres. A new genre is always the transformation of an earlier one, or of several: by inversion, by
displacement, by combination’ (Todorov, 1990, p.15). This is the first step in identifying and understanding a new genre, undertaking the process of determining what other genres are its generic antecedents and how the new genre has transformed existing generic characteristics to serve new purposes. Gary R. Bortolotti and Linda Hutcheon’s adaptation theory considers the way in which the process of adaptation parallels Darwin’s theories of evolution in nature:
As a biologist and a literary theorist, we decided to look to the possibility of new questions-and answers-for narrative adaptation theory by investigating the relevance to cultural adaptation of the insights about adaptation in post-Darwinian biology Therefore, we would like to propose for the sake of argument and the purposes of debate a homology – not an analogy, not a metaphoric association – but a homology between biological and cultural adaptation. By homology, we mean a similarity in structure that is indicative of common origin; that is, both kinds of adaptation are understandable as processes of replication. Stories, in a manner parallel to genes, replicate; the adaptation of both evolve with changing environments (Bortolotti and Hutcheon, 2007, p.444).
Whilst Bortolotti and Hutcheon refer specifically to adaptations, new genre films essentially
‘adapt’ the narratives and generic markers of previous genre films to create new forms.
Drawing upon his earlier point on the three levels of genres, Schatz argues that an individual
‘genre film represents an effort to reorganize a familiar, meaningful system in an original way’ (Schatz, 1981, p.19) by drawing upon existing generic features and varying them to offer a new experience. As Schatz goes on to propose ‘genre filmmakers are in a rather curious bind: they must continually vary and reinvent the generic formula. At the same time, they must exploit those qualities that made the genre popular in the first place’ (Schatz, 1981, p.36). He also argues that ‘there is a sense, then, in which a film genre is both a static and a dynamic system’ (Schatz, 1981, p.16). Therefore, all films conforming to a particular genre
Page 37 of 363 share a familiar formula of narrative and stylistic elements, but, at the same ‘changes in cultural attitudes, new influential genre films, the economics of the industry, and so forth, continually refine any film genre. As such its nature is continually evolving’ (Schatz, 1981, p.16). This evolution is a key part of understanding both a film genre and its constituent genre films. If each film genre draws intertextually on previously existing forms, then each
individual genre film’s engagement with generic traits will naturally shape the direction of future productions. Any subsequent genre films will react to all preceding genre films, either by imitating successful traits or by rejecting unsuccessful approaches. This is clearly the case for the hacker film genre, as The Conversation influences subsequent productions with its narrative tone and visual style.
As I previously stated, the differences between individual genre films allow us to track the evolution of a genre. In considering generic development, Schatz also questions ‘whether this evolution represents mere cosmetic changes in the surface structure (equivalent to
fashionable clichés or idioms in verbal language) or whether it reflects substantial changes in the deep structure (the generic system itself)’ (Schatz, 1981, p.20). Again, Schatz present us with diametrically opposing absolutes, suggesting that generic development either relates to
‘surface’ or ‘deeper’ changes, when the reality reflects a more spectrum-based approach. As I will explore in Chapter One, Enemy of the State (Scott, 1998) marks a number of generic evolutions from The Conversation (Coppola, 1974). Some of these evolutionary points are
‘surface’ changes, such as the representation of new technology and how that allows the narrative surveillance to be framed on screen, whilst others, such as the hacker’s development into a more dynamic figure, are ‘deeper’ changes. This would appear to be a natural way for genres to develop – through a combination of ‘surface’ and ‘deeper’ changes as social concerns change over time.
Page 38 of 363 Similarly, one of the key points Altman makes is that genres do not simply emerge from nothing, but rather develop from other genres, evolving and transforming to fit in with new times and new concerns. Instead, and building on Todorov’s point, Altman considers the point at which a new film genre progresses from merely being a subset of an existing genre to instead branch off to become a new form in its own right. Altman argues that all new genres begin their existence as a hyphenated version of another genre – such as the musical comedy, which over time progress with distinct features to develop their own generic identity until finally they are accepted as a separate form. In this respect, generic development reflects human development, undergoing change as it matures and develops; Altman emphasises the importance of ‘patterns of generic change – genre origins, genre redefinition and genre repurposing – along with the more traditional topics of generic stability and structure’
(Altman, 1999, p.208). In many respects, a new film genre is itself an adaptation of one or more previously existing film genres, drawing on existing forms to create a new, yet somewhat familiar, experience for the audience. Moreover, Altman highlights how the audience actually affects the ways in which genres develop by revealing its preferences through the purchase of tickets for films they are interested in seeing (Altman, 1984, p.9).
Ultimately film-making is a business and film genres allow the categorisation of films as marketable products to determine commercial success and future viability.
Returning to Bortolotti and Hutcheon, they propose that stories are like memes that can be passed on to future productions:
Like the idea of the meme, a story too can be thought of as a fundamental unit of cultural transmission: “a basic unit of inheritance allowing the accumulations of adaptations.” As our culture had added new media and new means of mass diffusion
Page 39 of 363 to our communications repertoire, we have needed (or desired) more stories. What we have in fact often done, however, is retell the same stories, over and over again – on film and television, in video games and theme parks (Bortolotti and Hutcheon, 2007, p.447).
Again, whilst Bortolotti and Hutcheon are connecting biology with adaptation theory, this argument extends to the intertextuality of genre films. What comes through as crucial to their argument is Darwin’s notion of ‘replicators’, the idea that narratives are copied repeatedly through time into new formats and new experiences. This is precisely the nature of genre films, copying successful elements from previous films to create new commercial properties for film audiences to buy into. This study will endeavour to identify the generic traits that serve as these ‘replicators’ for hacker genre films.
In fact, viewing genres as static systems suggests a stale form that is repeated to the point of dissolution. Drawing on adaptation theory offers an insight into a healthier engagement with a film genre, combining the familiar with new ideas to reinvigorate the genre. Linda
Hutcheon highlights the notion that ‘adaptation is how stories mutate and evolve to fit new times and different places’ (Hutcheon with O’Flynn, 2013, p.176) and this same point applies to film genres. Equally, just as ‘an adaptation is not vampiric: it does not draw the life-blood from its source and leave it dying or dead’ (Hutcheon with O’Flynn, 2013, p.176), new genre films do not draw the life from a film genre to the point of destruction. Instead, in the same way an adaptation can ‘keep that prior work alive, giving it an afterlife it would never have otherwise had’ (Hutcheon with O’Flynn, 2013, p.176) so do new genre films offer continued life to a film genre, reinvigorating the format and infusing the genre with new features or new approaches to existing characteristics. Like all forms of adaptation, genre offers intertextual influences, but part of the beauty of a new story is the way it combines the familiar with the
Page 40 of 363 unexpected. Thus, each new entry into a genre can combine pre-existing generic features with new forms, or offer a new approach to a familiar pattern. However, the notion of
intertextuality only serves to raise further questions when considering the development and progression of genres, and underlines the interconnectivity of genre films. Nevertheless, intertextuality allows us to make connections between different films, and, by extension, different genres, as they develop and evolve from film to film.
Linked to this idea, Neale also compares genre films to production industries as ‘in the film industry, as in many other industries, multiple copies are made of each item, but the items copied are all unique, all to a greater or lesser degree distinct from one another … the items within as well as across different ranges have to be different’ (Neale, 2000, p.231). As he goes on to highlight genres serve a number of economic functions:
They enable the industry to meet the obligations of variety and difference inherent in its product. But they also enable it to manufacture a product in a cost-effective manner, and to regulate demand and the nature of its output in such a way as to minimize the risks inherent in different and to maximize the possibility of profit on its overall investment (Neale, 2000, p.231-32).
Thus, from an industrial perspective, genres allow filmmakers to generate a marketable product. Ultimately, the production of films is a business and this form of categorisation frames this process of creating something to sell to consumers.