Fred Camper wrote:

>
> Just keep repeating, there are no rules in art. An art work can be made
> primarily in response to another, partly, or not at all. And this is one
> reason that I share your dubiousness about synoptic theories of film,
> and art. But you're making one in denying the possibility that a film
> may be responding to a set of conventions that have accrued over the
> decades in films with similar subjects, or perhaps even commenting on
> those conventions.
>
> - Fred


I think that a film is a reponse to, possibly, everything that has gone
in the world prior to its existence. I never said anything to the
contrary. I've written about movies influencing each other all my life!
I simply said that art isn't prompted by a desire to be different but
rather by a desire to be oneself.


The question was when "genre" was used in regard to film.

In trade journals as early as 1907, westerns were divided into distinct
subgenres, each of which was known to possess its own specific
conventionsamong them, frontier dramas, Indian dramas, Civil War
dramas, western comedies. Films were made by quasi-indepentent
production units (same director, stars, writers), one film a week or
more, clearly in these genres. And they knew what their rivals were
doing because of long plot summaries in the journals. Instruction
booklets were available by mail order for nascent scenarists, in which
all the basic plots and their many variations within each genre were
carefully outlined.

>