Genre Analysis

Note that an analysis of a text which is framed exclusively in terms of genre may be of limited usefulness.
Generic analysis can also, of course, involve studying the genre more broadly.
This is something we simply don't have time to do in class so you will need to spend time outside of class doing this (although you will hopefully have done lots of this when planning your production).

General

• In what context did you encounter it? (web, film, TV etc)

• What influence do you think this context might have had on your interpretation of the text?

• To what genre did you initially assign the text?

• What is your experience of this genre?

• What subject matter and basic themes is the text concerned with?

• How typical of the genre is this text in terms of content?

• What expectations do you have about texts in this genre?

• Have you found any formal generic labels for this particular text (where)?

• What generic labels have others given the same text?

• Which conventions of the genre do you recognize in the text?

• To what extent does this text stretch the conventions of its genre?

• Where and why does the text depart from the conventions of the genre?

• Which conventions seem more like those of a different genre (and which genre(s))?

• What familiar motifs or images are used?

• Which of the formal/stylistic techniques employed are typical/untypical of the genre?

• What institutional constraints are reflected in the form of the text?

• What relationship to 'reality' does the text lay claim to?

• Whose realities does it reflect?

• What purposes does the genre serve?

• In what ways are these purposes embodied in the text?

• To what extent did your purposes match these when you engaged with the text?

• What ideological assumptions and values seem to be embedded in the text?

• What pleasures does this genre offer to you personally?

• What pleasures does the text appeal to (and how typical of the genre is this)?

• Did you feel 'critical or accepting, resisting or validating, casual or concentrated, apathetic or motivated' (and why)?

• Which elements of the text seemed salient because of your knowledge of the genre?

• What predictions about events did your generic identification of the text lead to (and to what extent did these prove accurate)?

• What inferences about people and their motivations did your genre identification give rise to (and how far were these confirmed)?

• How and why did your interpretation of the text differ from the interpretation of the same text by other people?

Mode of address

• What sort of audience was your text aimed at (and how typical was this of the genre)?
• How does the text address your classmates?
• What sort of person does it assume they are?
• What assumptions have you made about their class, age, gender and ethnicity?
• What interests does it assume they have?
• What relevance does the text actually have for you?
• What knowledge does it take for granted?
• To what extent do you resemble the 'ideal reader' that the text seeks to position you as?
• Are there any notable shifts in the text's mode of address (and if so, what do they involve)?
• What responses does the text seem to expect from your audience?
• How open to negotiation is their response (are they invited, instructed or coerced to respond in particular ways)?
• Is there any penalty for not responding in the expected ways (think in terms of enjoyment for the audience or consequences for the institution)?
• To what extent did people find themselves 'reading against the grain' of the text and the genre?
• Which attempts to position your audience in this text do they accept, reject or seek to negotiate (and why)?
• How closely aligned is the way in which the text addresses you with the way in which the genre positions you (Kress 1988, 107)?

Relationship to other texts

• What intertextual references are there in the text you have created (and to what other texts)?
• Generically, which other texts does the text you created resemble most closely?
• What key features are shared by these texts?
• What major differences do you notice between them?

Analysing the Tavern Scene - Inglourious Basterds

For Lights, Camera . . . , we ask a craftsperson to talk about a specific scene in his or her latest film. This week, Sally Menke, film editor on "Inglourious Basterds", talks about the shootout scene in the basement tavern.
Quentin Tarantino told the multiple stories of "Inglourious Basterds" in five distinct chapters, and we knew from the script stage the film would hinge around the set-piece in the tavern La Louisianne. The daunting task of putting a 25-page dialogue sequence, spoken almost entirely in German, in the middle of the film, weighed heavily on everyone's minds, and it all had to come together in the cutting room. Just mentioning the name La Louisianne created tension among the crew, but we needed that tension to transcend to the audienceIn La Louisianne, the Basterds meet their German movie star contact, Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) for the first time, and they must all pretend to be old friends by posing as Nazi officers. Much to the Basterds' surprise, they not only find Bridget in the dangerously cramped tavern, they find the basement bar filled with drunken, celebrating Nazis, one of whom happens to be enamored with the German movie star and continually pesters their table. The tension in the group runs high as we watch the real Nazis begin to question the origin of the British Archie Hicox's (Michael Fassbender) strange accent, and we hold our breath.La Louisianne required detailed attention to character development as well as numerous story points, all the while using the device of language to create tension. Quentin and I felt it was essential to have the characters not simply drive the scene toward a plot point, but to be fully nuanced characters, while continually building the tension that would culminate in an explosive gun battle that kills all but one. We knew the gunfight would work all the better if we could carefully manipulate and build the tension through a give and take of emotions, playing a cat-and-mouse game with our characters -- and our audience.Our editorial intentions had to be completely clear in how we wanted the audience to feel at any specific moment in the scene -- the Basterds are screwed, wait, no, they're OK, oh, no they aren't, this Nazi knows, he's on to them, no, no, they are OK -- until Hicox makes the fatal error that unequivocally gives them all away as impostors. Every line had a layer of tension, and we needed to play their reactions to the lines as much as the lines themselves to build it properly. Every beat counted. Every second someone delayed their response gave the audience a chance to think, "Did they figure it out? Do they know?"We obsessively controlled every moment so that in contrast, when the climactic gun battle finally does erupt, it explodes in the loudest, craziest and most shocking way possible. But again, while doing this, we always had to return to the human element -- our character development. Hicox gets a bit of a tear in his eye when he realizes he will live no longer, and if we have done our jobs correctly, so will our audience.Another challenge was to seamlessly integrate a lot of key information for upcoming plot points without them feeling perfunctory, heavy-handed or pedantic. For example, we needed to show a close-up of Bridget's shoes so there was no doubt in the audience's mind who it belonged to later on when Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) discovers the shoe while inspecting the aftermath in the bar. We can't draw attention to the shoe in a way that says, "We're showing you a close-up of a foot," but we do need to make enough of a point of it so the audience knows it's Bridget's -- instantly. The solution was to use the shoe as character introduction, to show the style and glamour of this movie star/double agent whom we, the audience and our characters, meet for the first timeThe tavern music was another way we developed a character. The music at first works environmentally and emotionally in the scene but then functions to locate a yet-to-be-seen, off-screen character, the Gestapo Maj. Hellstrom, who, when revealed, we see has clearly been controlling the music selections. We also now know that without a doubt Hellstrom had been listening to the Basterds' conversation the entire time, and we now use the absence of that same music when Hellstrom purposefully removes the needle from the record player to show that he has taken control of the scene. The Basterds, and our audience, are now in Hellstrom's hands.The last issue we had to contend with was the length. A nearly 25-minute dialogue scene that starts 69 minutes into the film can be a potential challenge for audiences, as most scenes by this point play considerably shorter. But it was our belief that if we could hold the scene's tension, we could not only develop character and attend to the story but actually stop the scene to allow Hellstrom to play his King Kong card game, a story in and of itself, which cinematically alludes to another oppressed group, the slaves in America. I could go on about many other layers that needed our attention, but, unfortunately, in this situation I am not the editor with final cut and must end the piece here.

Los Angeles Times