“Provide a report of a genre of your choice, making reference to key

films that would be included into this category; any associated stars,
directors, and actors; and the traits that you believe contribute to a
genre’s familiarity and appeal.”

The science fiction genre has been captivating the audience’s imagination
ever since Georges Méliès’ ‘A Trip to the Moon’ was first released in 1902.
Since then people have been enthralled with images of outer space, weird
and spectacular scientific experiments not always going to plan,
extraterrestrial visitors (sometimes kind & friendly, sometimes attempting to
steal ones body) and many, many more variants of this exciting genre.
Richard Hodgens describes ‘Science fiction’ as a ‘…extrapolated or fictitious
use of scientific possibilities, or it may be simply fiction that takes place in the
future or introduces some radical assumption about the present or the past’
(Hodgens 1959: 30). Hodgens’ last few words are indicative of the direction in
which many science fiction films have gone, but perhaps the description given
by Michael Ryan and Douglas Kellner may offer a more telling insight into this
genre where they state that ‘The flight into the future in many fantasy films is
often a flight into the past, toward a world of more traditional values. But it is
also often a flight toward more radical alternatives than the constraints of
“realism” (both as an aesthetic principle and as a principle of social control)
allows to be elaborated.’ (Ryan & Kellner 1988: 244)
This statement alludes to the fact that the science fiction genre has been
used to channel political motives. It is apparent that science fiction films often
promote certain conservative or liberal ideals. That they actively work to
dismantle one another is clear; what is fascinating is the means taken to
achieve they’re goals in the use of constructed representations of one
another, symbolically and ideologically implemented in film.

‘If conservative filmmakers used the motifs technology and dystopia to project
terrifying images of collectivisation and modernity, liberals and radicals used
them to launch covert attacks against the conservative ideals of capitalism
and patriarchy.’ (Ryan & Kellner 1988: 244)

Ideological representation can be a powerful political tool; hence, the battle

for supremacy of the social forms, figures and concepts which is evident in
many science fiction film narratives. Rather than reflect a reality external to
the film medium, a film narratives function is to execute a transfer from one
field which proceeds to another. This results in film becoming part of the
broader cultural system of representations that construct social reality.
The depiction of technology takes on different forms depending on the
ideological position taken. For example, the technophobic film is a defensive
conservative reaction to the radical liberal ideals that try to dismantle the
stability of established conservative social institutions.
Films such as George Lucas’ Star Wars series can be viewed in the
context of conservative ideology. Ideas such as ‘…individualism against the
state, nature against technology, authenticity against artifice, faith and feeling
against science and rationality, agrarian values against urban modernity, etc.’
(Ryan & Kellner 1988: 230) seem to adhere to conservative ideals. The
“republican” rebels are represented as the underdogs battling against the
faceless uniformity of liberal socialism that the “Empire” represents. To uphold
the natural order of the patriarchal family and the simple faith that binds those
communities together versus the conservative fear of collectivisation and
massification projected onto socialism, which is represented through the
sameness of the Imperial Storm Troopers.
Luke Skywalker, the protagonist of the first three episodes, is also the
combination of ideals such as ‘…individual freedom…the agrarian to the
spiritualist…the antistatist, antirational individualism of that conservative
ideology and an ideology of corporatist discipline, authority, and elitism…’
(Ryan & Kellner 1988: 230). The idea that a leader is naturally selected,
someone who is privileged to the natural power and authority of a born leader
can be perceived as being undemocratic (not that democracy has anything in
common with capitalism).
Feminine maternity, manifested in socialization which incorporates ideas
such as care, empathy and the tempering of male violence, are all absent in
the films. The struggle of male masculinity against this authoritative paternity
is approbated through the heroic individualism and male militarism, something
conservatives often justify with spiritualist and idealist ideologies.
An interesting twist to the science fiction genre is Blade Runner, directed
by Ridley Scott, which is based on Phillip K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream
of Electric Sheep? A story which follows its protagonist Deckard as he
struggles to “retire” four androids that revolt against the corporation that made
them. What is revolutionary about this film is its depiction of technology. There
is the regular dystopic vision of a city torn by capitalist desire, but it is the
“more human than human“ benevolence of the android who could have so
easily ended the life of his pursuer, but decides to allow him to live, just when
his own life is about to finish. This accompanied at the end with the escape to
nature of Deckard and the android Rachel, represents the union between man
and machine. It would seem that the narrative of Blade Runner is not
concerned with dichotomising ideology, in fact, it tries to merge ideals together
leaving an ambiguous interpretation to established conventions. Thus, Blade
Runner refuses to choose a ‘clear’ path, leaving the audience in an uncertain
realm of limitless metaphorical ideology, whilst hinting at the futility of trying to
attain an absolute truth.
Tom Ryall suggests a model in which we may define a genre.

‘Genres may be defined as patterns/forms/styles/structures which transcend

individual films, and which supervise both their construction by the film-maker,
and their reading by an audience.’ (Ryall 1975: 280)

The problem I find with this is that films have and always will employ various
aesthetic or narrative patterns/forms/styles/structures from different genres
and intertwine them accordingly, resulting in a mutation that is neither
belonging to one genre or the next. This in itself is enough to cast a large
question mark on the function of genre as an accurate definition of a certain
type of film. The assumption that if one has enjoyed a particular genre of film,
would be equally satisfied by watching a film within that same genre also
seems rather naïve. For example, the spectator who enjoyed E.T., The Matrix
and A.I. wouldn’t necessarily enjoy The Terminator, Alien or The Thing, even
though these films would all be grouped within the genre of science fiction.
Genre, then, can only be concerned with the identification of the basic
aesthetic narrative ingredients that are attributed to that particular genre.
Thus, the science fiction genre can only be described as a film incorporating a
radical use of science, or the film noir genre can be understood as adopting a
dark and brooding mood to its films, reflecting this in the lighting and the use
of claustrophobic camera angles.
Now, of course, this does not go about in explaining or differentiating the
innumerable hybrids that have sprung from these basic definitions. For
example, the very differentiation of the science fiction and horror genres
(which are generally lumped together) is particularly tricky and ambiguous,
requiring a number of genre critics and a considerable amount of time to flesh
out some form of definable distinction. Hence, the apparent banality of trying
to register and categorise the continuous evolution of particular genres. It
would seem, therefore, that audiences are more interested in specific
narrative content in relation to the desired effect i.e. how they would like to
feel at the end of a movie. This is opposed to the actual specificity of the
genre, as this may employ ingredients from three different genre types, which
may only be used as generalised features to attract the audience initially
(though indirectly confusing many), where the main focus is on the narrative
content, to maintain the audience’s interest.
This puts us in the difficult position of discerning the actual function and the
distinctions made by genre. There is the argument that there is a use for
categorising films that adheres to the corresponding
patterns/forms/styles/structures that constitutes a certain genre. But as we
have just explored the futility of trying to define particular film categories
accurately, it would seem the most logical approach would be to use these
patterns/forms/styles/structures in as broad a sense as possible, positioning
itself as a general playing field for film-maker and spectator to navigate within.
Viewed in this way, genre then can be seen as a commercial tool to attract
audiences from as wide a background as possible, packaging them in such a
way that offers a distinctive range to chose from and regularly incorporating
various genre types to give better value to their customers.

References

Richard Hodgens 1959, Film Quartely 13, extracted from The Cinema Book
1999, edited by Pam Cook & Mieke Bernink. London: BFI Publishing

Tom Ryall, ‘Teaching through Genre,’ Screen Education, Autumn 1975, no.
17

Michael Ryans & Douglas Kellner 1988, Camera Politica: The Ideology of
Contemporary Hollywood Film. Indiana: Indiana University Press