# Film Genres



## J-Sun (Mar 17, 2012)

There's a very practical sense to genre in the sense that, while I don't have all that many DVDs (and still have some VHS) I do have them divided rather sloppily into comedy/drama (both very broad)/sf/f/h (all three barely divisible as Hollywood basically makes more or less scary fantasies) and am not entirely happy with this. And then there's the theoretical sense in which just talking about perceptions that lead to classifications is interesting to me and hopefully to others. I went looking around and the following links have some brief discussions and/or genre lists and/or descriptions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_genre
http://www.filmsite.org/filmgenres.html
http://www.imdb.com/genre/

I actually find the lack of a true (and generally accepted) top-level classification, the size of the closest thing to a "top-level", and some of the components of the semi-top-level (action vs. adventure? specific crime & gangster? family? really?) to be kind of silly. I have vague thoughts but I don't have any soundly structured theory of my own. Seems like, while not limited to binaries, you'd want more or less of a tree of stuff created from a handful of distinctions: fiction vs. non-fiction; in fiction, comedy vs. drama; in drama, this vs. that vs. the other. Something like that.

There are those who would do away with genre and such viewpoints are certainly relevant and welcome but, despite the difficulties, I'm a pro-classification guy, myself.

Anyway - free-form thread: anybody organize their DVDs a certain way or have abstruse theoretical insights?


----------



## dask (Mar 17, 2012)

J-Sun said:


> There are those who would do away with genre...


 
I've always looked upon an author's name as a type of genre. Those who don't like the notion of genres ought to buy and read their books (yeah, I know you're talking about film) without knowing who wrote them.


----------



## Behni (Mar 17, 2012)

No order other than DVDs with the DVDs and Blu-Rays with the Blu-Rays. But I just had a thought that arranging my movies by colour would be rather interesting as viewed from a distance.


----------



## Connavar (Mar 17, 2012)

Im newer DVD collector and im exactly like dask in that author name are like genres for me. I collect books by author names.  I dont buy a book because its fantasy i buy it because that authors name i like,know.

Same with the films i have.  I shelf my DVDs with the director name.   Melville films, Johnny To films, Kurosawa films etc.   I dont get a film because its a Samurai or a urban drama like some Kurosawa films.  I get them because of the directors name. 

Just like i organize my bookshelfs.   Lord Dunsany+Vance+REH+Hammett+Gemmell in the top shelf because of their fav author status.

Genres mean almost nothing to me, only when im trying unknown films/directors.


----------



## Starbeast (Mar 17, 2012)

J-Sun said:


> There's a very practical sense to genre in the sense that, while I don't have all that many DVDs (and still have some VHS). I'm a pro-classification guy, myself.
> 
> Anyway - free-form thread: anybody organize their DVDs a certain way or have abstruse theoretical insights?


 
With not many DVDs and VHS, you could just file them in "numeric/alpha" (I call it). With numbers first, then letters.

*3 Days of the Condor*
*28 Days Later*
*3000 Miles to Graceland*
*One Million B.C.*

*Alien*
*Aliens*
*Alien 3*
*Battlestar Galactica*
etc.
OR​Catagorize them similar to how I did mine (DVD & VHS together).

*Sci-fi*
*Horror*
*Action*
*Comedy*
*Superheros*
*Drama*
*Animation*
*Documentary*
*Misc.*​


----------



## Moonbat (Mar 17, 2012)

I have quite a substantial dvd collection and organising them into genre is nigh on impossible. Some areas are fine - out and out kung fu/martial arts, horror and comedies, but the dramas, actions, sci fi and epics are much harder to define. We do have some that we can group by director -woody allen, coen bros, clint eastwood etc, but thats usually only a handful. obviously trilogies and more can be grouped together, but eventually we had to add more distinct genres to encompass everything and still ended up with an ' other' section. I think we added: gangster, by nation (french, korean, spanish), guilty pleasures, biopics, tv series, stand up and more.
There were some arguments on where to place things.


----------



## HoopyFrood (Mar 17, 2012)

I haven't got a large enough collection of DVDs to warrant any major categorising, and there's one genre I tend to have a hell of a lot more of, so it tends to be Horror and Other 

We have five shelves of VHS in the hallway (we may be the only house left in the UK that has such a collection -- and two vus players, too) and we organised that quite well. Until the inevitably not putting things back where they came from...


----------



## Mouse (Mar 17, 2012)

I don't really categorise mine either, but I do put films with the same actors in together. So all my Ben Barnes's, my Alan Tudyk's, my Dominic Monaghan's and my Jackie Chan's are together.


----------



## Gumboot (Mar 18, 2012)

Ordering alphabetically by film titles seems the only logical and sensible way of storing a collection of films if you ask me.  The title is generally the most widely known detail about the film; a film director is not in any way parallel to a book author.

Arranging by genre seems really bad, particularly given the wide popularity of genre-hybrid films.


----------



## Gumboot (Mar 18, 2012)

Mouse said:


> I don't really categorise mine either, but I do put films with the same actors in together. So all my Ben Barnes's, my Alan Tudyk's, my Dominic Monaghan's and my Jackie Chan's are together.



What do you do with films with more than one actor in them?


----------



## J-Sun (Mar 18, 2012)

dask said:


> I've always looked upon an author's name as a type of genre. Those who don't like the notion of genres ought to buy and read their books (yeah, I know you're talking about film) without knowing who wrote them.



That can be taken two ways. As far as actually organizing by director, I agree with Gumboot that it's not comparable to a book author. But I wouldn't say it's not "in any way" parallel. It's probably the closest thing to it, even if that's far away. And when the same guy is both director and writer, it's still not identical, but much closer. The extent to which books can end up being products of a committee is probably underrated. But movies are intrinsically more public, collaborative, and products of compromise. And, yeah, usually the writer and director aren't the same.

But, taken in the second way, as far as certain directors managing to produce identifiably stamped pieces that are part of a larger body of work, I think that's definitely true. I don't (at least initially) pay much attention to director or actor or anything particular - more "what it's about" and/or a gestalt - but I do find myself ending up with more than one film by certain directors and it doesn't usually surprise me when I find out a given film is from the same guy who did a given other.



Mouse said:


> I don't really categorise mine either, but I do put films with the same actors in together. So all my Ben Barnes's, my Alan Tudyk's, my Dominic Monaghan's and my Jackie Chan's are together.



As far as actors, again, I have to agree with Gumboot - I couldn't possibly organize that way. Too many actors in too many movies. And actors are a weight in the scale that may tip things one way or the other but rarely determine things (the rare times I've seen a movie just for a particular person I've regretted it). But it's an interesting thought - we've got alphabetical, color-coded, director, actor... wonder how many other ways people do it?



Gumboot said:


> Ordering alphabetically by film titles seems the only logical and sensible way of storing a collection of films if you ask me.
> 
> Arranging by genre seems really bad, particularly given the wide popularity of genre-hybrid films.



As far as hybrids, some hybrids seem to put something in the "quirky" category and others are popular enough that they could possibly form their own new genre. If nothing else, you could just give weight to whichever seemed dominant or whichever you preferred. I mean, the fact is that many stores and websites do organize their films by what they deem to be genres. I will grant that I think it's a actually a bad idea there. For instance, I've seen _All the President's Men_ in "action" where I would never in a million years look for it (several copies correctly alphabetized, so it wasn't just misfiled) and I usually end up looking several places for the same thing because I can see arguments for filing it under a variety of places. Wastes time and annoys. But for one's own purposes, I don't see the harm. I don't really have paintings and stuff but basically wallpaper in books, music, and video.  (Try that with a Kindle.) So, while I don't contemplate Behni's color sorting, I sort of get it now that I think of it. I like to shelve things more "interestingly" than purely alphabetically. Besides which, if I'm looking for a movie to watch, I'm generally in a vague mood for "something" and having them broken down by "somethings" means I only have to scan a subsection quickly.

But the thread doesn't have to be purely on organizational matters. For instance, Conn said he doesn't care about genre. I usually do in that I tend to like certain genres and not certain others and I suspect it raises my batting average if I concentrate on genres I like and only let certain things from other genres "leap the walls". Do most people use genre to condition what they're likely to watch in the first place or ignore it?

And the mention of hybrid genres raises another aspect - how much does genre - whether you pay attention prior to the film - affect your viewing of the film. Put it out of your mind? Or let it condition your responses? For instance (moving more to TV), a lot of Whedon's stuff depends on a knowledge of genre and the genre's standard elements. He believes in genre even when he upstages it. So that raises an interesting quandary for the theorists who disregard genre: if the maker of the fiction believes in genre then, for the purposes of that fiction, don't you have to, too, or aren't you "misreading" it?

And this still leaves open the question of what genres _are_ in the first place - are they purely descriptive approximations of a handful of films with no deeper logic? Can you say that there's something called "action" and something called "adventure" and the main distinction is the exotic locale? So is _Die Hard_ action and _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ adventure... if you're a New Yorker? And the other way around if you're an Egyptian (or whatever)?


----------



## Mouse (Mar 18, 2012)

J-Sun said:


> As far as actors, again, I have to agree with Gumboot - I couldn't possibly organize that way. Too many actors in too many movies. And actors are a weight in the scale that may tip things one way or the other but rarely determine things (the rare times I've seen a movie just for a particular person I've regretted it). But it's an interesting thought - we've got alphabetical, color-coded, director, actor... wonder how many other ways people do it?



Ah, but it works quite well. So if I've got my Ben Barnes's together, I can put at the end of the row, say, Stardust. A fantasy film. My next DVD in the row can then be The Lord of the Rings, with Dom Mon... so I can then shelf my Dom Mon DVDs. The last one is, say, I Sell the Dead*. A comedy horror. I can shelf this next to Tucker and Dale vs Evil. A comedy horror with Alan Tudyk. My Alan Tudyk films go next, ending with Serenity, maybe. A sci fi. Now I can shelf my sci fis.  


*or The Purifiers, a martial arts flick. Which means Jackie Chan can step up.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 19, 2012)

My collection sits at approximately five thousand DVDs and a couple of hundred Laser Discs(finally managed to replace everything that was on VHS). Any kind of classification went out the window ages ago for me. The only way I can find anything is alphabetical order (and sometimes even that doesn't help much). It's at the stage that, with my book collection also bursting at the seams, I really need a bigger house.


----------



## scotlandsyard (Mar 28, 2012)

Behni said:


> No order other than DVDs with the DVDs and Blu-Rays with the Blu-Rays. But I just had a thought that arranging my movies by colour would be rather interesting as viewed from a distance.



I did that for a while, it was nice...pity that a lot are black, though. With the other colors I always, new ah, soandso...is red, so has to be on that shelf...worked very well.


----------



## Vertigo (Mar 28, 2012)

I don't have any kind of DVD collection but if I did I would organise them either by title or by an index number generated by me. I would then have an application like Calibre (book database) that allows categorisation using your own system. Search for what you want in the database and then find it in your collection either by title or by index. 

The beauty of a categorisation system like Calibre has, is that you can give multiple tags to each film. So, for example, Alien might be tagged as SF, Action and Horror (pushing it a bit). You decide what categories (tags) you want to have.

Actually there's no reason not to use Calibre itself. Although it is geared to ebooks it doesn't have to actually have an ebook attached to each record so I happily add my paper books to the same database. No real reason why I shouldn't add films as well. I could simply add a new category of tags - Media - which would have options like: Paper Book, eBook, DVD, BlueRay etc. Other advantages are that you can easily add your own review to each entry (I try to do this but don't always succeed ), star ratings, etc.


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 31, 2012)

I organize my DVD (and Blurays) by most significant reason that I bought the film. For example: all my Tarentino films are together. (*Once upon a* *Time in Mexico* and *Sin City* are nearby because Rodrigez has a similar style.) 
Fifties Science Fiction classics such as *Destination Moon* and *This Island Earth* are together because of time period.
*Dirty Harry* and *Magnum Force* are together because of the character.
*Logan's Run* and *Looker* are together as slick 70s/80s Science Fiction (Visually slick rather than significant concepts)
*Perry Mason* and *Ellery Queen* are together as TV detective series.
*Firefly* is with *Serenity*.
In other words, they are organized by what my potential watching mood might be. What else?


----------



## J-Sun (Mar 31, 2012)

steve12553 said:


> I organize my DVD (and Blurays) by most significant reason that I bought the film. For example: all my Tarentino films are together...In other words, they are organized by what my potential watching mood might be. What else?



That's an interesting idea. That's why I have them divided by genre to the extent that I do - genre somewhat equates to watching mood and that's the idea for me, too - "What do I feel like watching? Hm. Look through section _whatever_." But I don't think I've ever thought of breaking it down that specifically. I wonder how straight I could keep it, though - some films might have more than one reason for purchase. And I might end up liking and keeping a film for entirely different reasons than what I bought it for if I pick up something I haven't seen before. Still, like genre or anything else that isn't strictly factual, I guess it would just be down to a question of emphasis.

I also like your idea, Vertigo, except that the computer connection is both an upside and a downside.  I do agree that multi-valued assignments like tags can be useful and can't be replicated on a shelf.


----------



## Gumboot (Apr 1, 2012)

J-Sun said:


> That can be taken two ways. As far as actually organizing by director, I agree with Gumboot that it's not comparable to a book author. But I wouldn't say it's not "in any way" parallel. It's probably the closest thing to it, even if that's far away. And when the same guy is both director and writer, it's still not identical, but much closer. The extent to which books can end up being products of a committee is probably underrated. But movies are intrinsically more public, collaborative, and products of compromise. And, yeah, usually the writer and director aren't the same.
> 
> But, taken in the second way, as far as certain directors managing to produce identifiably stamped pieces that are part of a larger body of work, I think that's definitely true. I don't (at least initially) pay much attention to director or actor or anything particular - more "what it's about" and/or a gestalt - but I do find myself ending up with more than one film by certain directors and it doesn't usually surprise me when I find out a given film is from the same guy who did a given other.




The problem for me is that, like the actor system, while "director" may work for some films and some directors, it doesn't work for all of them.  Sure, there are big-name auteurs whose film has a distinct mark, but what about first time nobody directors who have virtually zero control over their films?  Or indeed directors who don't even direct their films?  (It may surprise some people to know that on the majority of Hollywood films the original director is fired part way through shooting and replaced with a "finishing" director, and the original director re-hired only once shooting is done).

In the same way, you can probably safely categorise a Adam Sandler film by actor, so that's well and good, but what do you do with an ensemble film full of great actors?  How would you classify "The Lord of the Rings"?

For me, a system that can't adequately handle _every_ film is no good.

Which is why, for me, alphabetical is the only way to go.


----------



## steve12553 (Apr 1, 2012)

Gumboot said:


> The problem for me is that, like the actor system, while "director" may work for some films and some directors, it doesn't work for all of them. Sure, there are big-name auteurs whose film has a distinct mark, but what about first time nobody directors who have virtually zero control over their films? ...
> In the same way, you can probably safely categorise a Adam Sandler film by actor, so that's well and good, but what do you do with an ensemble film full of great actors? How would you classify "The Lord of the Rings"?
> 
> For me, a system that can't adequately handle _every_ film is no good.
> ...


The key word is, of course, me. The system that works for you is the right one for you. I don't have a collection of DVDs that is world class impressive. I have a collection of films that I like. And so do you. I am impressed by some directors (Hitchcock, Tarentino, Kubrick). Sometimes actors are the main draw of a movie (Clint Eastwood, John Wayne). Sometimes it's a character (Sherlock Holmes, Quatermass, Doctor Who). For me alphabetizing fails when I can't remember the name of the film or TV series. I've never completed a collection. I may give up on one. (i.e. videotapes) but if I' collecting there's always one more. Eventually you can't remember all of them or where to find them unless you have a system that works for you.


----------

