When looking at genre, you’d probably think that it was one of the easiest cinematic concepts to define. To most people, the idea of genre is very familiar because, as many of our readings this week pointed out, we frequently use it as a way to determine which films we’re going to sit down and watch. We all know someone who says, “I love comedy”, and we all know someone (namely, me) who claims to hate the romances.

But what happens when my favourite sci-fi movie has jokes in it, and a sub-plot about love? Do I have to hate it as a romance? Will my friend the comedy fan immediately fall in love with it?

My point is that, as we learned this week, genre is much harder to define than it first appears. One of our readings, called Genre in Film by Tom Wallis and Maria Pramaggiore, suggested that there were several different methods we could use to define genre. One was the prevalence of recurring story elements, including plots, characters, themes and iconography. Another was using social context – can the Marx brothers’ films be placed in the same ‘comedy’ category as Jennifer Aniston’s, or do their different social contexts create genres of their own?

Perhaps the most interesting way of defining genre as suggested in the readings – and discussed in the seminar – was the idea that we can define a genre based on the reaction it inspires in the audience. A comedy is a comedy because it makes us laugh. A ‘tear-jerker’, as Sarah Berry’s reading pointed out, defines itself entirely by its ability to make the audience cry.

It was with this mode of definition in mind that we turned our attention to this week’s text, the seminal Universal pictures’ 1931 feature Frankenstein, directed by James Whale. Horror, in any of the frameworks with which you try to define it, is one of the most clear-cut genres. Its iconography, plots and characters are well-known, and, like the ‘tear-jerker’, its title suggests how its purpose is to evoke a reaction in the audience.

This idea of the horror film’s effect on the audience was a particularly interesting aspect of our seminar discussion this week. Kyle Edwards’ reading Morals, Markets and Horror Pictures outlined the response of the authorities to Universal’s early horror flicks (Frankenstein, Dracula, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, etc), which represented society’s changing opinions regarding the way horror films could affect (and potentially harm) their audiences. After all, if the film’s appeal was its grotesqueness, and the genre’s very purpose to horrify, what could then be said about society’s morality?