Steve Neale: Genre as Audience Recognition
However, if we only recognise the institutional impact of genre creation and ‘the somewhat dubious assumption that genres shaped by the film industry are communicated completely and uniformly to audiences‘ (Altman 1999, p. 15) we may fail to recognise the impact that individual audiences have in both creating and producing new forms of generic expression and development.
The work of Steve Neale is often referred to when discussing genre. One area he looks at, is the relationship between genre and audiences. For example, the idea of genre as an enabling mechanism to attract audiences based around predictable expectations. He argues that definitions and formations of genres are developed by media organisations (he specifically discusses the film industry), which are then reinforced through various agencies and platforms, such as the press, marketing, advertising companies, which amplify generic characteristics and thereby set-up generic expectations.
For example, he suggests that genres are structured around a repertoire of elements which creates a corpus or body of similar texts, which could all belong to the same category (ie genre). Expectations are based not only on key textual elements (as highlighted above) but also around overarching generic structures such as the idea of verisimilitude which involves a clear understanding and knowledge of’various systems of plausibility motivation, justification and belief'(1990 p.46) This brings up quite an important point in relation to the way in which cultural production – in this instance, the generic mass production of film – is able to structure our understanding around realism or how we understand and recognise the construction of reality.
However, Neale also promotes the idea that genre is a process, that genres change as society and culture changes. As such, genres are historically specific and reflect / represent changing ideas, attitudes, values and beliefs of society at any particular moment in history. This may explain, why genres are often blurred across different conventions and expectations, creating sub-genres, or hybrid genres, that mix-up, shape, adapt and adopt familiar ideas and expectations, but which essentially create something new (different) which is reconisable (familiar). This again suggests a close link between audience expectations, generic codes and conventions, institutional practice. In other words, as new forms of production become available (digital special effects, platforms that now look to specialise in specific production, for example, long form drama direct across new digital delivery systems, so new types of genres will develop and emerge. Once again creating what Buscombe suggested as ‘familiarity’ and ‘novelty’.
In general, the function of genre is to make films comprehensible and more or less familiar.
Turner p.97 ‘Film as Social Practice’