Usually, movies, books, television, and other forms of entertainment are considered to fall into one or more genre categories. You know, like science fiction, horror, action, adventure, romance, etc. And within those there are even sub-genres, like steampunk, slasher, war, exploration, historical fiction, etc. There’s also categories based on author intent or story purpose, like message fiction or even escapism. If you look hard enough, you’ll find hundreds of different genres and definitions films have been placed into over the years.
However, one category I rarely see highlighted (outside of academia and publishing) is literary fiction. As opposed to genre fiction, literary fiction is often regarded as having more artistic merit, and often tells stories with deeper social commentary, contains more character study, and reads at a slower pace. Literary fiction authors are more concerned with style of their artistic piece than purely entertaining the reader.
Gatekeeping aside, literary fiction publishers and writers see each other’s work as morally a bit higher class than genre fiction. They’re not making commercial work – they’re making moral work. Stories that pose questions, make the reader rethink their own reasonings, and better society morally.
I don’t mean to put it down but basically; the boring ‘classics’ you’re forced to read in school.
To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies, Of Mice and Men… those sort of books.
If they’re your cup of tea, that’s perfectly fine. I myself enjoy quite a few literary fictive works, although as a whole I can’t say I find myself very interested to read all the category has to offer.
Literary fiction can sometimes come off a bit too preachy in my opinion, and at worse can push a now inappropriate or even racist message; something that once might have broken new ground might now feel insensitive, or worse. cough Uncle Tom’s Cabin cough
However, while literary fiction is often discussed, debated, and reviewed extensively when concerning the written word, I’ve noticed it’s often rarely, if ever, used to define a film.
I think that this is a bit unfair, as I’d argue there’s a plethora of movies with messages and a greater focus on storytelling over story that could qualify. You know, the type of movies that, popular or not, stride themselves on the craft rather than something as petty as audience numbers, genre fit, or franchise creation ability.
Some films that immediately come to mind are many Stanley Kubrick’s works. While 2001: A Space Odyssey is firmly cemented into the genre of science fiction, I feel that it breaks from a lot of the ‘norms’ (if there ever have been any) of regular science fiction. The story, plot, and interpretations rely not on solely the setting and gadgets, but on the situation and characters. Feels pretty literary to me.
And then there’s A Clockwork Orange, which Wikipedia describes as “dystopian crime” and IMDb describes as drama. Surreal and very different, I’m tempted to label this one as literary as well.
And while films like Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove, and The Shining are clearly genre flicks (historical epic, black comedy, and horror, respectively) the notorious behind-the-scenes attention to detail and perfectionism of Kubrick almost leads one to conclude that, for him at least, the ‘getting everything right’ was often more important than the ‘just tell a story’ – indicative of perfectionism, sure, but perhaps of “literary” filmmaking too.
Let’s look elsewhere.
How about Citizen Kane, The Godfather, and adaptations of already established literary works – like To Kill A Mockingbird?
I feel that, of that shortlist, Citizen Kane is the one most would agree could be considered “literary.” The focus on style (a lot of which went on to revolutionize filmmaking) and the odd storytelling structure (title character dies in opening minutes, story is told through flashbacks & uncoverings) leads me to consider including it in that category.
The Godfather is perhaps a bit harder to convince you on – since it did sort of spawn/revive the “gangster” film genre, however, I feel that there’s enough raw artistic merit and focus on storytelling aesthetic to consider it more literary than genre in execution. Especially since it’s become a well regarded film that’s sometimes studied more than viewed for pleasure.
In the case of To Kill A Mockingbird (and all other adaptations, really) things get a little more tricky. While in a novel one might not have to put focus on certain areas (Stephen King even suggests in his On Writing novel to NOT describe the characters’ appearance beyond generic descriptions to better give the viewer more imaginative choice on their own end) films, being a visual medium, MUST make these decisions. Just how alien and space-y is our sci fi gonna look? What race is our main character? Where does (and in what time period) this story take place in our adaptation? So on and so forth.
I think this can lead to a literary adaptation not also being considered literary. However, in the case of To Kill A Mockingbird, I’d argue for it being considered literary. It is an accurate & faithful adaptation, and does just as well as the original novel in getting its message across, developing the characters, and engaging with the audience in a way that is unique to literary fiction.
Even some of Quentin Tarantino’s films, I’d argue, could be considered “literary” with their emphasis on dialogue, characters, and odd/obscure references and homages to a plethora of media and entertainment that came before. Sort of like very bloody Andy Warhol pop art.
With so many films ‘eligible,’ I’m partially tempted to just slap every critically sweeping classic film with a literary lablel, however, that’s unfair and begins to take on water very quickly. Star Wars, for example, was hated by people within the studio system of the time, but became a commercial success (and subsequently a critical one as well). Plus, despite George Lucas’ continued insistence over the years, it’s definitely a science fiction. Maybe an olden epic inspired space soap opera; but the lightsabers, ships, and alien settings, no matter how presented, pretty firmly place Star Wars into the sci fi category. There’s a reason why it’s fanbase is comprised of mostly science fiction lovers and not Iliad reading Days of Our Lives watchers.
Plus, later “entries” (really films in a second, Disney sanctioned continuity) such as The Last Jedi, with their critic adoring, audience abhorring reaction almost seemingly confirm a literary status… apart from the, you know, being a sequel to other genre fictive works, and the whole lightsabers, ships, and alien setting as stated previously.
Maybe this whole comparison is futile, however, I thought I’d throw it out there anyway. No two films are alike, and just as with novels, sculpting, and painting – movies are an art too. And, as with any art, I say there are genre strong crowd pleasers (Jurassic Park) and there are thought provoking medium-changers (Bicentennial Man).
I was inspired to write this entire little study/essay based upon a thread in the unpopular opinion subreddit.
Back to the Future is as good as The Godfather
The OP brought up an interesting question in my mind through his opinion that Back to the Future (a big crowd pleasing, strongly genre film) was as good as, if not better than, The Godfather (a highly regarded, almost more-so literary film). It immediately threw my mind back to a conversation I’d had a few weeks back about literary fiction versus genre fiction, and I just had to write this.
If you take nothing else away from this post, and least consider these questions:
Are there “literary” films? If not, are all films inherently “genre” films? And why?
The CinematiCritic 