Schatz... and a whole lot of Grammar

Schatz's article, which was so heavily focused on grammar in the initial phase, could have used some refining itself. For one, his description of the difference between genre and genre film was a bit hazy- they sound pretty similar to me. I did, however, like his analysis of how film genres are constantly refined. This might be the result of changes in economy, technology, or even the morphing values of society. Whatever the reason may be, I can definitely see how a horror film such as Psycho is not exactly the same genre of a horror film like Saw for example. Regardless, however, we develop certain expectations within the larger umbrella of genre- and those establish the foundation for the genre's "rules."

What was really rather perplexing was Schatz's whole discussion of film in terms of semiology. Although I felt his comparison (which said something similar to a linguist studying utterances is the same as a critic studying genre) was a bit of a stretch, I felt that the following line just about summed it all up: "Thus a genre can be studied, like a language, as a formalized sign system whose rules have been assimilated, consciously or otherwise, through cultural consensus." But as thorough as that thought may be, the depth of the "grammar of film genre" left me not all too thrilled. Guess I'm just not a fan of grammar in the first place.