In response to my article ‘What is parallel cinema?’ published in these pages on July 22, I received many emails from students of film studies in Pakistan and abroad. While appreciating my explanation of ‘parallel cinema’, their main concern was the absence of this term in academic text on film genres.
They pointed out – and rightly so – that most books on film theory and practice do not contain a separate chapter on any genre called ‘parallel cinema’. Though normally I avoid indulging in academic discussions in newspaper columns, this question is valid and deserves attention.
Some students of cinema appear to be unclear about the difference among film genres, kinds, movements, styles, subgenres, and techniques. They also think that parallel cinema is not an accurate term to describe a film genre, as it is conspicuous by its absence from most categorizations of films.
Let me try to explain here without dropping names of authors and books, which one can find easily on the internet. It is true that most classifications of genres include dozens of categories from action and adventure films to thrillers and Western. They do not have the same definition of these categories and genres, and even subgenres. So first let’s be clear that an agreement on each term is not ideal for academics and students, especially in social sciences. Strict compartmentalization has its own pitfalls that one can avoid.
So, what is genre (pronounced zhanra)? It is simply a class or category that helps us organize our concepts for ease of understanding. One can have one’s preference for organizing concepts that are not necessarily the same as you find in academic textbooks. For example, I have a lot of books that defy any easy classification per the books of library science. Some books may fall in multiple categories.
For example, if I have a philosophy book, it can easily find a place in the category of philosophy. But if I have books on educational philosophy and political philosophy, will they go to the education or philosophy section or the political science section? For the sake of convenience, I make my decision about how to organize my books. The same applies to the concepts in my mind and the categories that I find useful.
In social sciences – including film studies – cross-pollination of ideas is not a bad idea. I find crossing the boundaries of categories and disciplines a useful practice and not everyone needs to agree with it.
In natural or physical sciences, one needs to be more careful about the differences between classification, taxonomy, and typology. In social sciences, it is more flexible, and there is nothing wrong with it, as long as you are making sense to yourself and to others. For films, one may classify genres based on movements, themes, or styles, as you please.
Movements usually have an ideological bent – such as nationalism, Marxism, Nazism, socialism, or even various denominational movements such as films promoting Hindutva or Islamic ideology. These films may be classified as a separate genre of subgenre.
You may simply have two broad streams or umbrella terms of popular and parallel cinema as I suggested in my previous article, and within these you may have various genres or subgenres. The problem with most books on film studies is that they discuss categories that fall under commercial or popular cinema.
Genres – from action, adventure, comedy, drama, and fantasy to horror, musicals and mystery films – may fall within popular cinema as their primary aim is to entertain viewers to maximize profit. Relatively there are fewer academic articles and books on parallel cinema, hence the confusion about the existence of parallel cinema itself.
Various genres of films normally use repetition with some variation. They tell familiar stories with similar characters; even situations are not very different. For example, the genre of Western film uses nearly the same filmmaking styles and techniques. The genre of film noir mostly uses flashbacks and low-key lighting.
But that does not mean parallel cinema cannot make use of these techniques. That is why it is better to have genres on the basis of themes rather than styles of techniques. Some practitioners – and even theoreticians – of film think that there are only three main genres of film: avant-garde (experimental), documentary (nonfictional), and narrative (fictional).
I find this classification problematic as it appears to be rather restrictive. Russian director Dziga Vertov’s 1929 masterpiece ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ was definitely an experimental film, but IMDb (International Movie Database) puts it in the genre of documentary. Produced in the same year, Louise Bunuel and Salvador Dali’s ‘Un chien Andalou’ (An Andalusian Dog) was also an avant-garde film that IMDb places in three genres: fantasy, horror, and short. I would put both under the umbrella term of parallel cinema as they were not for profit and commercial and popular consumption.
Within parallel cinema, I would place them under the documentary and fantasy genres respectively. For ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ Vertov uses a realist style with outdoor filming. Un chien andalau’s style is surreal, which was Dali’s hallmark. Realism and surrealism are like ideology or philosophy from which emanate realist and surrealist styles of filmmaking. They are different from techniques which are more like an ability or technical skill to apply a certain method of filmmaking to get the desired result. Style is a particular feature or manner, or simply a distinctive mode of presenting content.
If you are familiar with the perennial discussion about ‘content’ and ‘form’ in literature, perhaps in filmmaking you can understand ‘style’ as more related to the content whereas techniques are more concerned with the form of presentation. Content and style refer to a work’s subject matter and its meaning; form refers to how the filmmaker or writer composes the subject matter and what techniques a cinematographer employs. How elements of design come together to focus on the physical aspects of the artwork is the question of form and techniques.
Realism, or socialist realism, influenced the content and style of ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ whereas close-ups, fast and slow motions, freeze frames, jump cuts, multiple exposure, and tracking shots are the cinematic and editing techniques that influenced its form. This avant-garde film may also find place in another genre called ‘city symphony’ that thrived in the 1920s and 1930s. Under this genre. there are films such as ‘Manhartta’ (10 minutes) about Manhattan, New York; Berlin: Symphony of a Metropolis (65 minutes); and of course ‘Man with a Movie Camera’ (70 minutes) presenting urban life in Kiev, Moscow, and Odessa.
Most subgenres often combine two or more genres, and there should be no restriction on it as we have just discussed. The discussion about genres and subgenres is interesting, and cinema lovers can derive immense pleasure by developing their classification of films and by discussing which films cross the boundaries of genres. For example, I would like to introduce semi-parallel or soft-parallel cinema in which we can place films that may include dances and songs but that are not entirely commercial and popular.
Most films by Gulzar I would include in semi-parallel; Bimal Roy and Guru Dutt may also fall in the same category of directors who made mostly semi- or soft parallel films. Conversely, you may also call them semi-popular. To conclude, it is perhaps better to keep an open mind about categories and genres; one should develop one’s ability to appreciate art, culture, dance, drama, and films, as they help us develop better aesthetic senses.
The writer holds a PhD from the University of Birmingham, UK. He tweets/posts NaazirMahmood and can be reached at:
mnazir1964yahoo.co.uk