Genre Theorists

NAME /theorists	THEORY  (summarised)
Chandler	all things have a genre, this is a way to study texts and audience response
Tudor	genre needs recognizable elements/conventions before we can identfy it as genre “is what we collectively believe it to be”
Altman	1)        semantics/syntax - genre has become to preoccupied with semantics (signs/iconography) rather than CONTEXTS
Altman	2)       genre offers audiences a set of pleasures
Stam	There are other ways to classify films (other than drama, action, etc.)
Grant	all genres have a subgenre
Feurer	genre is abstract
McQuail (audience)	uses and gratifications theory
Mittel	industries use genre to sell products to audiences
Metz	genres go through typical cycle of changes during their lifetime (genres and genre conventions always change)
Buckingham	genre not given by culture.....in constant process of negotiation and change (there must be a mutual ‘understanding’ and ‘familiarity’ and genre between institution and audience – ex some genres flop (parody is dying) because audiences don’t engage with it , therefore there must be a negotiation from institution to make changes to meet audience demand.  (Example think of successful genres right now such as ‘superhero/action’ – most common genre in cinemas …)
Neale	genres are processes of systemisation - they change over time (the way we classify genre always changes – because genre is always changing………ex the more time that goes on, the more hybridity we have, harder to classify under ‘main film categories’ )