When discussing a topic as rich as film noir, a topic overflowing with critical perspective and differing opinions, it only seems necessary to engage in discussions of genre theory. With new scholars adding to the discussion, questions over film noir’s status as a genre are constantly being raised. Even though its history is one of great debate, scholars are not shy to address film noir, whether it is framed in a larger discussion of genre or as its own phenomenon all to itself.

In any discussion of genre, Jane Feuer’s chapter, “Genre Study and Television” in Allen’s Channels of Discourse (1992) looms large. Feuer describes in detail the construction of genres and what they mean to the overall discourse of media communication. Feuer explains that use of a term such as genre “implies that works of literature, films, and television programs can be categorized,” (1992). Further, she says that the purpose of genre study is to give reasons for a work’s inclusion into a class of works – a genre. The next important point that Feuer makes is that genres are not organic in their conception. They are synthetic: artificial creations by intellectuals. Genres in effect are not created by those involved in the filmmaking process; rather they are created by film theorists. This is particularly relevant to the film noir phenomenon. After the Second World War, American films were released en masse to the international arena. Indeed, it was French scholars who invented the term, film noir. Because of the intensity of the release of American films in France and their lack of temporal spacing, French scholars had seemingly no choice but to label these films for their relative bleakness, both in terms of visual and narrative aesthetics. What Feuer wants to communicate is that genre’s main function is dealing with questions of classification as well as acknowledging genre’s construction as mostly one of scholarly intentions.

Speaking of classification, it is important to note the difference between the classification and that which is being classified: the difference between film genre and genre film. In his article Film Genre and Genre Film, Thomas Schatz explains this by saying, “to discuss the Western genre is to address neither a single Western film nor even all Westerns, but rather a system of conventions which identifies Westerns films as such,” (2004). What Schatz seems to be saying here is that genres are not tactile. One cannot physically touch a genre. To use his example of the Western, the genre called Western is an abstract umbrella-type concept that reigns in all films that happen to exhibit qualities consistent with the generally agreed upon attributes of the genre. However, a genre film is a specific example of the genre to which it supposedly belongs. It is the film reel itself – tactile. It is the composition of images that appear seamlessly on the screen. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (George Roy Hill, 1969) is an example of a genre film fitting into the Western genre.

Schatz’s most interesting point is that he likens the concept of genre to the literary concept of grammar. “If we extend these ideas into genre study, we might think of the film genre as a specific grammar or system of rules of expression and construction and the individual genre film as a manifestation of these rules,” (Schatz, 2004). Schatz warns about taking the analogy too far though. Grammar is something that learned individuals have extensive experience with, while genre is not as consistent. Most of the rules governing grammar are learned upon reaching adulthood. The rules change only slightly. However, when talking about grammar in terms of film genre, the rules not only can but are encouraged to change frequently. This leads to what I see as Schatz’s biggest contribution with this article: genre is both a static and dynamic entity.

Normally, when one thinks of genre, certain images and themes are conjured. For example, in the Western, there are images of horses, saloons, and Indians. Themes of the outcast, impending industrialization, and struggles between old and new cultures dominate the landscape of the Western genre. These are what Schatz would call the static portions of the genre. There are some of the generally agreed upon traits of the Western. However, it is imperative that films expand, alter, or change an audience’s expectations. If every film featured the same images and themes and the only difference from film to film would be the characters, films would become tired and stale. There would be no reason to watch movies ever again. While innovation may seem to hold more value both the static nature and the dynamic nature of genre are necessary. Rick Altman points out that, “genres thus are not neutral categories, but rather ideological constructs that provide and enforce a pre-reading,” (Allen, 1992). What does this mean for genre? Why would the public want something to be static? Wouldn’t that become stale? In fact, stasis is positive in reference to genre. Audiences want to have some idea what they are watching. They want to go into the theater and know what kind of a film they are about to experience. It influences their expectations. But the dynamic quality of genre is also necessary to keep genres fresh. There are times when audiences’ expectations need to be altered. In short, filmmakers working within a genre need to walk a line: expand, develop, elaborate on the genre, but keep it under the overall structure of the specific genre umbrella.

I have chosen to begin with a brief discussion of genre theory because of its importance (theoretical as well as cultural) to film noir. The theory is important because it informs the reader as to my position on the subject as well as putting my eventual foray into Sin City all the more relevant. Because any discussion of film noir is on unsteady foundation, it is necessary to provide a solid structure of genre in order to progress into a smaller offspring of genre: film noir.