about the term “elevated genre.” I had never heard the term prior to his article, and I was surprised by his negative stance towards it. In the article, which you can read online, he believes the term stems mostly from the stigma attached to genre films – horror especially – and I agree with his assessment. He also feels the term is counterproductive to the acknowledgment of genre films. I somewhat disagree.
Now, just so we can establish a definition for the term, the Arab Times, in the review of the film, Monsters, which Alexander cites, offers this, “… [a film] where horror, sci-fi and monster movie tropes are smartly used to tell a not-so usual story.” I think their definition is sufficient in that it lets you know the film in question is a genre film, which is big, in my opinion, but it also says that it’s more ambitious than the standard genre piece, which is what Alexander finds offensive. Personally, I think the term is the genre equivalent of “art-house” – a term I find much more pompous. I’d include films like Let the Right One in, Monsters, District 9, Children of Men, etc. as examples of “elevated genre” most of us could agree on without much argument to the contrary. In fact, I find the term short and functional enough to the point where I plan to use it in the future.
But getting back to my point, I think the term “elevated genre” is a positive. I’ve already written that emotionally impactful horror films must be about something other than the “horrific.” There must be substance beneath the “monster,” so when director Matt Reeves (Let Me in) says, “[Elevated genre] means there’s more of a dramatic and emotional core than just the horror,” I wholeheartedly agree. I also see this as the type of artistic approach that’ll attract superior writers/directors/actors to sign on to genre pictures, which should help improve the final product. And to refer to a film as “elevated genre” shouldn’t be seen as a slight. I’ll take “elevated genre,” which at least acknowledges the fact a project is a genre film, over a horror film being called a “thriller” *cough*Silence of the Lambs*cough* in attempt to try and save face. Does it imply “standard” genre films are the slums of cinema? Yes, but Alexander considers it’s use almost a personal affront – he’s understandably the editor-in-chief of Rue Morgue and therefore tied professionally to genre films – but I look at the term as a possible means to more genre films being released.
I’ll use District 9 to illustrate my point.
District 9 is easily one of the best science fiction films of the last decade, and its budget was roughly $30 million and its cast was a lot of unknowns. As Neill Blomkamp, the writer and director of the film, received his due attention and appreciation for the film, he was also legitimized. Now, his science fiction follow-up, Elysium, is budgeted around $125 million and stars Matt Damon and Jodie Foster – two Oscar-winners. So I ask, if successful “elevated genre” films serve to legitimize genre films, what’s the problem? I understand that as fans we might feel “elevated genre” implies the genre films we love are inferior as art, but what good is it to be a fan if the genre films we’re fans of aren’t being made as competently as possible?