How is "Tadpole" on Screen???
 

"Tadpole" is the movie opened this week. This movie was shot with SONY PD-150 and transferred to film.
Anybody watched this film on screen? Just curious to know how
it look on screen?

More info:
FILM: Tadpole
DIRECTOR: Gary Winock
DISTRIBUTOR: Miramax
PLAYDATES: Opening theatrically July 19, 2002
FORMAT/CAMERA: DVCAM – Sony DSR PD150 PAL
TRANSFER: Duart Laser
NOTES: Won Best Director at 2002 Sundance.

Another one of those films that are not trying to hide the fact that they are shot on video. Good or bad? I don't know. The PD150 can produce better results on screen then we have seen in any movie so far. So can the XL1.

I still think "Sweet" the short shot by Alan Daviau on a VX1000 is the best DV to screen effort so far.

I think the aesthetic of video blown up to 35mm highly depends on transfer technology.

A few years ago I saw Chuck and Buck (VX1000) on the big screen and it was just distracting to me. The depth of field looked like crap and the close-ups looked fantastic. Everytime they would cut to the establishing shot it looked horrible. I watched it again on video an it looked fine.

Don't get me wrong, general production has a lot to do with the aesthetics as well, but from what I have heard some dupe houses are making major advancements in DV to film blowups.

I will always feel video looks best viewed on video. With more and more theaters investing in HD projection systems it won't be long before DV to film transfers are obsolete. I would suspect DV filmmakers would opt to blowup to HD instead. It's cheaper and it looks better (DV to HD transfers). Though, by that time Sony and Canon will probably be making prosumer HDcams.

Sorry to hijack your thread, Syerneni. Haven't seen <i>Tadpole</i> yet. I have however heard some really great things and the screen shots look great. I can't wait to check it out.

IMO the success of TADPOLE is the script/acting ... the dv video to film transfer does not distract from the story ... the dv video looks OK to good up there on the BIG screen ( i saw it in a theater seats 80 - could look different in one that seats 500) ...... also after watching 4 "film " previews of coming attractions you do notice the quaility drop when tadpole 1st starts but you adjust to it in 5-10 minutes ......

IMO if the audience likes the story/acting they will not be distracted by the "video to film" ......

It looks better than "Full Frontal". I'm curious how they could get name actors like Sigourney Weaver and John Ritter yet they can't afford film?

How about 'ivans xtc' by Bernard Rose. A great film and shot on DV (don't know the specs though). Some shots look good but when there is a lot of movement there's quite a lot of blur.

Sometimes actors work for free or a lot less than usual, don't they? Film stock never does!

<<<-- Originally posted by JustinMorgan : How about 'ivans xtc' by Bernard Rose. A great film and shot on DV (don't know the specs though). Some shots look good but when there is a lot of movement there's quite a lot of blur. -->>>

I looked up that film. Apparently it was shot with Hi-definition Sony betacams. Bernard Rose stated that he sees Hi-Def as indistinguishable from film. I personally don't know how close it is but it still beats the heck out of 525 lines. I just can't wait till Hi-Def cameras come down in price to below 10k.


Revolver1010.

I read something which said that Bernard Rose (the director) had shot some test footage using both film and the digital camera he was proposing to use. He then showed the footage one after the other to a group of cinematographers he had gathered and says that none could tell which was which (from your research it suggests that he was using something a bit more high level than an XL1s or PD-150 though).

Here's something quite inspirational for us DV bunch that he wrote on the film's website (www.ivansxtc.com):

Walking through the Art Institute of Chicago I was
struck by something._ The gallery, which concentrates
on European painting, is arranged in chronological
order; the flat two dimensional early religious works
give way to the renaissance experiments with depth and
perspective, which_ in turn give way to the overblown
work of nineteenth century genre paintings - ugly
gaudy canvasses with observation and subject matter
taken entirely from convention.

And then comes the Impressionists._ The breath of
fresh air is palpable._ No more sylphs dancing in fake
ancient settings. Now we get Manet's girl friends -
dressed and undressed as they are, not some paying
patron or king._ We see Van Gogh's bare room - the
place he actually lived._ The lily pond in Monet's
back yard. The light fairly shines from these
canvasses - the real light, as it might fall on a
haystack at different times of the day._

This is the heart of the digital revolution. Most
people are not constantly back-lit in real life._ At
night the 'moonlight' does not come from a high crane
with powerful arc lights that cast a blue glare as
bright as any baseball stadium._ Women do not wake up
in bed with perfect hair and make-up. Industrial
Cinema is a legitimate form - but it is stuck in rigid
conventions, hamstrung by money, and like traditional
oil painting, has entered its decadent phase.

In digital cinema your girl friend is the star. Your
back yard is the set. Your life is the script._

Interesting. But I still want my stuff to be purty to look at.

Looks great to me
 

Since I am in Hong Kong, chances of seeing anything without Arnold in it at the cinemas are very slim.

I caught the trailer of Tadpole and it looked great to me, I was unsure whether or not it was shot on DV until the restaurant scene where the light reflects off the actor's faces, other than that, I thought it looked very good. it's the best PD-150 work so far, it didn't have that digital glow in brightly lit scenes that you usually see.

One thing I found to be consistent in most DV films is that they usually shoot the talents at the head and eye levels. DP's on DV features tend to do that, may be it's just me. Anyone else sees this?

Daniel

>I'm curious how they could get name actors like Sigourney >Weaver and John Ritter yet they can't afford film?

these are SAG actors ... they work for SAG min ... SAG has some low budget contracts ... the SAG min$ depends on the budget.

some of them catch you on the back end with HIGER RESIDUALS... on the 75K budget contract you have to pay off the defferred before your sell the project -no pay - no commercial release from actors. ..

i think starting on the 300K budget you are free to sell your project as you paid them in FULL when they worked at the SAG min but they still get the higher residuals.

OK my girlfriend and I saw Tadpole in the theater last night. The screen was big but just a bit smaller then most screens for major motion pictures but DAMN we were impressed!! Anyone that says you can't blow up DV to the big screen is simply just being overly pessimistic. Neither of us could really tell the difference between it's footage and film. Now granted there are those of you out there that are veterans with this stuff and can see it easily. But hey, if we, as DV filmmakers, can get our stories out there and have ordinary people see it and not know that is was shot on DV then I think we've been granted a low budget filmmakers dream come true :-)


Revolver1010.

I saw it too, with my girlfriend! Oh my God, it must be destiny! Yes, well, anyway. Good movie, good footage. Only thing I can really say is that (to me) it looked as though they used avaiable light, as opposed to lighting each set.

Also did not know Chuck and Buck was dv. Great movie (no I'm not a creepy childlike stalker--but no offense to those on the board who are creepy childlike stalkers).

A good example of how beautiful DV can look on is "Personal Velocity," which was also shot with PD-150s and won the Dramatic Jury Grand prize at Sundance this year.

Rebecca Miller directed. Gary Winick, who directed "Tadpole" produced it.

Gorgeous color depth, artful lighting, low grain.

I saw a clip of it on a Sundance promo DVD and can't wait to see the whole film.

Tadpole shot in 4:3 interlace mode???
 

I read in an article saying the following about the movie "Tadpole"

This story of the innocence of youth was shot with three Sony PAL PD- 150s. The cameras were set to 4:3 aspect ratio and kept in interlaced scan mode. The film was edited in PAL on a Macintosh G4 powered Final Cut Pro system. It was made for $150,000 but sold for nearly $5 million!

Could anyone explain to me why they opted to shoot the movie in 4:3 and interlaced mode instead of the frame mode? I always thought that the frame mode would give it a more dynamic picture quality and more film like look to the footage.

Does anyone know how they can get footage looking this well with interlaced footage???

Without the slight delay in the refresh rate of the picture, normal interlaced mode footage looks very video like the news...

Daniel

According to the article on "Tadpole" in Filmmaker Magazine, the film look was added in post. We've found that interlaced mode works better when transferring to 35mm. You can still get the look of film with Cinelook and other After Effects plug-ins.

Consider this: Probably the best-looking digital film released this year so far has been "The Fast Runner," shot on a Sony Widescreen HD Betacam (The one that costs 150 grand). It also was shot in NTSC, not PAL. The rules are a-changing.

Doug

So go for film look in post???
 

Hi Doug,

I thought that the films "tadpole and Personal Velocity were projected digitally and that the filmmakers did not make a film print until it went national. Does that mean that the sundance screening would not have looked as good as the public cinema version?

Since I don't think I'll have money to get a film print, does that mean if I were to shoot in interlaced mode, and achieve the film look with software plugins in post production, I have a better chance of getting a bette quality image then if I opt for the digital enhancements within the camera?

I am shooting a feature film in two months time and although I am happy with the frame movie mode of the XL1s, I just can't see to replicate the images of these films...

Will I have better luck if I invest on the plugins and the digital enhancements for picture quality?? Because I have always heard people say that you want to get the cleanest picture you can and worry about the enhancements in post...

any advice?

Thanks

Daniel

Daniel:

There are a lot of varibles to take into consideration for any shoot. Are you shooting a film that will be transferred to 35mm? 16mm? Or will it remain video? It has been our experience that DV shot in interlaced mode produces the best results when transferred to 35mm, but we shoot most of our video that is destined for film in PAL, not NTSC, which means different frame rates, different resolutions, etc. When we shoot footage destined for US video, we shoot in NTSC. Our news clients insist on interlaced video, not frame rate. Our documentary work is generally shot in frame mode. Again, the target medium determines the shooting mode. We are also starting to work in Widescreen HD, which means a whole new learning curve.

Both Tadpole and Personal Velocity were shot on PD-150s, which doesn't have a "frame mode" in the same way as Canon, but does offer progressive scan, which was I understand was used in both films (in PAL).

The DP on Personal Velocity had a lot of film experience and shot the DV with that in mind. Not so with Tadpole, which apparently required more work in post.

Remember that frame mode on the XL1S is 30 fps in NTSC and 25 fps in PAL. Film is 24 fps (as is HD Betacam digital video). If you want to transfer your video to another medium, I'd recommend that it is best to start with the best quality master you can create before going into post.

Doug

I saw "Ivans XTC" projected theatrically in a 35mm print. It was an extremely engaging film, very intense. However it was immediately obvious to me that it was shot digitally, and in some instances very sloppily. Certain scenes had a particular lyricism visually, partially due to being shot in available light that would not have translated well to film capture (would have required high speed stock pushed several stops, causing much grain build-up). Others had plenty of aliasing, ugly blown out windows and excessive strobing (I had to look away from the screen during one handheld scene).

Bernard Rose strikes me as very high on this "digital revolution" primarily because it allowed him to make his film outside of the studio system, which had screwed him previously in his career (worth reading about it if you can find the chronology, a sad and cautionary Hollywood Babylon tale). He's got a significant and political bias, so I find it hard to swallow his assessment of the visual appeal of the medium.

I have just returned from a film festival in Palm Springs, where a short that I shot a while back screened along with seven others in a particular program, on a 40 ft. screen in a 500 seat theatre. Six of the shorts were shot on either 16mm or 35mm, and mine and another were shot on DV. The other DV project was shot available light, mostly handheld and coming directly on the heels of a solid hour of film material (all nice-looking, and some of it truly exquisite) it was a shocker to be faced with the look of straight-up DV being digitally projected. The short I shot was a sort of hybrid really, since it was lit and composed in a filmic style--but it was still shot on an XL1, not an Arri, and both the director and I felt a bit uncomfortable with the inevitable visual comparison to the film pieces. (Had it been a purely DV based screening, it would have been a different ball of wax).

We received positive feedback after the screening, and several commented favorably on the look of the film. We had a long conversation with the group that produced one of the shorts that I felt was the best in the program, which was shot on 35mm. We congratulated each other, and they mentioned that although they could immediately tell our project was shot digitally, they liked how it looked--for digital. Meanwhile, I was able to compliment them without qualification for the look of their film.

Call me old-fashioned, but for all of the wonderful freedom that digital provides, I have a hard time being largely enthusiastic about it from a purely visual standpoint. Had "Ivans XTC" been shot on film (i.e. if they had the budget available to do that) it would have been at least as good, I think. It succeeds as a film because of strong writing and acting, and some very powerful choices (the last twenty minutes is as chilling as it gets on a human level).

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert :

Call me old-fashioned, but for all of the wonderful freedom that digital provides, I have a hard time being largely enthusiastic about it from a purely visual standpoint. -->>>

Charles:

I think you've hit on the problem that many of us face. As a long-time still photographer, I'm torn between the advantages of digital versus the depth of film. Nearly all of my photojournalism work these days is digital (both still and video) but when I do something for myself, I usually load some Fuji in my F5 or some 5263 into my Arri. Digital pays my bills but film satisfies my creative needs. I love the convenience of digital but I doubt I'll ever give up film entirely.

Doug

<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Thompson : <<<-- Originally I love the convenience of digital but I doubt I'll ever give up film entirely.

Doug -->>>

I would have to agree also. If I went strictly digital, I would have to give up my beloved Holga 120S. As Doug mentioned digital typically pays the bills.

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Sedillo :

I would have to agree also. If I went strictly digital, I would have to give up my beloved Holga 120S. -->>>

Ohmigod, a Holga? How much tape do you have on it to keep light out? And I thought I was a collector of oddball cameras.

Doug

Re: Tadpole shot in 4:3 interlace mode???
 

>>Could anyone explain to me why they opted to shoot the movie in 4:3 and interlaced mode instead of the frame mode?<<

For one I don't know if they did shoot it in 4:3. I could swear I read somewhere that they used the widescreen lens adaptor but I could be wrong. The movie was widescreen though in the theater. Also, the PD150 doesn't have a real frame mode. The frame mode in the PD150 only records at 15 FPS. But keep in mind, what they did was shoot in interlace but then they de-interlaced in post! That to me seems to be the best way to go. It's basically frame mode after that... just done in post instead.

>>Without the slight delay in the refresh rate of the picture, normal interlaced mode footage looks very video like the news<<

When outputting to film it's best to shoot in PAL since the frame rate is so close to film and the transfer to film easier. It's my belief that is one of the most important aspects of getting the film look - the frame rate. NTSC is 30fps which makes motion look quite different then film's 24fps. But again, there are other things done in post to get the look as well. Just keep in mind... before you start doing all this experimenting make sure to have an untouched master tape as a backup.


Revolver1010.

<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Thompson : <<<-- Originally
Ohmigod, a Holga? How much tape do you have on it to keep light out? And I thought I was a collector of oddball cameras.

Doug -->>>

Yes it is quite the tape ball when I get done. Have you ever shot with one? They are a bunch of fun.

With the introduction of the mini35 from P+S Technik, HD, combinations of anamorphic methods on miniDV (www.operafilm.com/dvscope.html), the release of software like Magic Bullet and a strong knowledge of post tricks I see no reason whatsoever to shoot film when aquiring for dramatic work in SD and HD broadcast. When it comes to the big screen HD and SD still have a bit to travel (even if HD has many advantages films does not have). Video most often look really bad but that's mainly because it's shot by people who has not yet grasped the full potential of the medium.

After fifteen years of shooting film I'll probably never work on film again.

<<<-- Originally posted by Paul Sedillo :Yes it is quite the tape ball when I get done. Have you ever shot with one (Holga)? They are a bunch of fun. -->>>

Never shot with one or even seen one. Ah, the stuff of legends.

Doug

<<<-- Originally posted by Doug Thompson : <<<-- Originally posted by Paul Sedillo :Yes it is quite the tape ball when I get done. Have you ever shot with one (Holga)? They are a bunch of fun. -->>>

Never shot with one or even seen one. Ah, the stuff of legends.

Doug -->>>

Believe it or not I bough mine from WalMart online. I seem to recall paying $15.00 for it. You can find them online fairly easy. Just do a Google search if you are interested.

They are quite a bit of fun.

Like a sitcom
 

I thought the movie looked great! I saw it projected on film; I wish I could of seen it projected on video but oh well. no theatre around here projects video.
Was I crazy or did the the film transfer add a noticable amount of grain to the image?
Also it was alot of fun and very exciting to be watching a film originated on video in a theatre with another film that uses video (Full Frontal) playin and is that new Jennifer Anniston film on video as well, cause I saw the trailer for that.
The script for tadpole was all right...it was fun. Like a sitcom. The ending, I don't know, I think the movie was a mix of the graduate and rushmore but ended not nearly as well as either.
All in all an exciting night at the theatre!

the audience was there
 

The audience was there! THey all sat through a digital video production and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves.
The film had such a great energy, something that alot of films seem to lack. people just want to be entertained and challenged and they could care less if we originate on film or video or ntsc or pal or whatever.

Best quote on DV I've seen
 

<<<-- Originally posted by JustinMorgan : I read something which



Here's something quite inspirational for us DV bunch that he wrote on the film's website (www.ivansxtc.com):

This is the heart of the digital revolution. Most
people are not constantly back-lit in real life._ At
night the 'moonlight' does not come from a high crane
with powerful arc lights that cast a blue glare as
bright as any baseball stadium._ Women do not wake up
in bed with perfect hair and make-up. Industrial
Cinema is a legitimate form - but it is stuck in rigid
conventions, hamstrung by money, and like traditional
oil painting, has entered its decadent phase.

In digital cinema your girl friend is the star. Your
back yard is the set. Your life is the script._ -->>>

This is the best quote on DV I've seen yet, if not the best, then in the top 3. hHis is the look I want for some projects. I recently came to the realization that when done "appropriately" DV may be the best look for many dramas, in that you will get the, for lack of a better term, "verismilitude" of real life, yet also just enough of the "film quality fantasy" that allows viewers to suspend disbelief enough to get drawn in to the story.

It may also become a movement: Personal films, done with no/low budgets, that if done somewhat professionally enough/appropriately so that people will want to see them-
they will get theatrical/video/TV distribution and get people talking.

Thanks again for posting a great quote Justin. I will be printing it out and taping it up nearby.
Bob Andren

from a article in wall st jr...
at sundance
sony bid 250K ..final bidding came down to Fox seachlight, Fine Line & Miramax. Miramax paid 5 million for it

Tadpole has taken in $2 million at box office ..... Tadpole cost 150K to make and was made for a TV release on Cablevisions Independent Film Channel.

...stars were paid SAG scale $248 day PLUS piece of profits. even the location manager received 1 point in the picture -which turned out to be worth 50K .

it cost more then the original budget to transfer to 35mm and add sound track. add in $1 million plus marketing campaign.

according to miramax: they expect tadpole to make at least 3 million ( profit) after figuring in Video sales .... "given that Tadpole was made for the small screen, that may turn out to be exactly where it belongs"

Tadpole
 

I found Tadpole today at a local dvd/video rental place. Got it on VHS as DVD wasn't available at least not there.

The story of the making of Tadpole is fantastic. Indepent Digital Entertainment (InDigEnt) made it for $200,000 then sold it to Miramar for $5 Million or there abouts. Stars Sigourney Weaver, Bebe Nuewirth, John Ritter, and Robert Iler. They have an innovative profit sharing agreement whereby everyone gets paid from any cash the movie generates. The movie was shot in three weeks with three PD150s.

Unfortunately the story of making Tadpole is better than the movie. I have watched about half and the image quality is not great. The whole movie also seems to be shot hand held which I find simply annoying.

The good news is that the story is engaging, the acting good and the movie seems reasonably well edited.

I also couldn't help thinking OK this is about a 15 year old who just happens to end up in bed with his gorgeous step-mom's best friend BeBe Nieuwirth. Yah, sure that could happen. It sure never happened to me.

So perhaps one day in a better world may we all have beautiful women (or the gender appropriate equivalent) pulling us into bed while movie studios pay us millions for our independent movies that we shot for little money. I could live with that.

Rick

I thought "Tadpole" had a pretty decent look (except for the nightime long shots, which were a bit soft due to the small chip camcorders used); I saw it from a 35mm print in a theater.

The reason it was so successful is because Sigourney Weaver jumped in, and I read that the reason she committed to it was because it was being shot in such a short time period. I also thought it was a really nice coming of age story and quite well done. Good script, good acting, excellent dialog. But without the name actors and connections, it most likely never would have got any attention at all.

I just saw it on DVD, and found maybe only 15-20% of the scenes had a noticeably video-ish look. Otherwise it didn't look bad on a 32" TV.

The quality of the VHS tape I had was not good. Then again VHS in general is not great. A lot of it screamed video. Of course I was primed to look at it closely. I found some of the restaurant scenes a bit claustrophobic because the depth of field was so deep that the diners behind the actors were also in sharp focus so it seemed to foreshorten the distance.

I agree, Bill, the real reason that Tadpole was a success was that the producer had good connections and wrangeld name actors. That and the good script & strong acting as you suggested.

Rick

the actors were paid SAG min ( $248 day low budget contract). PLUS they got profit sharing ...

selling for 5 million could be a bargain ? as Sigourney Weaver makes that much by herself - so a finished movie for 5 million perhaps miramax was betting on Weavers box office appeal.

Indepent Digital Entertainment had a contract to make 10 of these movies at 150K each ... all have name actors/actresses in them .... they have a guarantee play on the IFC channel PLUS most have played in theaters ... IMO they are getting released because of the star power.

the list includes

TADPOLE
Directed by:Gary Winick
Produced by: Gary Winick, Alexis Alexanian, and Dolly Hall
Starring:Sigourney Weaver, Bebe Neuwirth, John Ritter,
and introducing Aaron Stanford

FINAL
Directed by: Campbell Scott
Produced by: Mary Frances Budig, Steve Dunn, Campbell Scott
Starring: Denis Leary, Hope Davis

CHELSEA WALLS
Directed by: Ethan Hawke
Produced by: Christine Vachon, Pam Koffler
Starring: Kevin Corrigan, Vincent D'Onofrio, Kris Kristofferson, Robert Sean Leonard, Natasha Richardson, Uma Thurman, Tuesday Weld, Frank Whaley and Steve Zahn

TAPE
Directed by: Richard Linklater
Produced by: Anne Walker, Detour Filmproduction
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Robert Sean Leonard, Uma Thurman

PERSONAL VELOCITY
Directed by:Rebecca Miller
Produced by: Lemore Syvan, Gary Winick, Alexis Alexanian
Starring: Kyra Sedgwick, Parker Posey, Fairuza Balk
Written by: Rebecca Miller based on her book

PIECES OF APRIL
Directed by: Peter Hedges
Produced by: John Lyns, Gary Winick, Alexis Alexanian
Written by:Peter Hedges
Starring:Katie Holmes, Oliver Platt and Patricia Clarkson


WOMEN IN FILMS
Directed by: Bruce Wagner
Produced by: Christing Vachon, Pam Koffler
Starring: Beverly D'Angelo, Portia De Rossi and Marianne Jean-Baptiste

KILL THE POOR
Directed by: Alan Taylor
Produced by: Ruth Charny, Lianne Halfon, Gary Winick, Alexis Alexanian
Co-producer: Jonathan Shoemaker

TEN TINY LOVE STORIES
Directed by: Rodrigo Garcia
Produced by: Dan Hassid

Is 'Women in Films' out on DVD yet?

I'm gonna watch TadPole tonight. When they sold it for 5 million, I don't think any one really expected it to make alot at the box office. But if you want to get consideration for the various awards out there, you have to have a theatrical release.
DVD sales and rental, plus broadcast royalties are about the only way movies make money now days. Even big budget ones. 5 million? almost garaunteed to make money at that price.
Lets not forget the Non USA markets. theaters, rentals, cable tv, all bigger outside the USA than in. Miramax is going to whine all the way to the bank.

How about Blair Witch 2? 26 million to make and tanked everywhere.
Had great production values too. Great cinematography.
Bad Karma.

Agree with a prior comment on the commentary on the DVD. Great insight on shots, location, lighting equipment etc. Stuff like 'we shot this at my mom's apartment . . .' etc. were great to hear. Even if you are so so on the movie, the commentary is worth the rent.

Tom

I saw it in a theater myself, and here are my abbreviated thoughts:

1. The colors looked horrible, they were extremely “washed out.” Maybe this was the look the Director was going for, I don’t know.
2. The motion in the film had a very “ghostly aura” about it as the xters moved. Movements in the film didn’t look smooth.
3. Every single shot seemed like it was hand held, even on Close Ups! The result, I almost got motion sickness in the theater.
4. The night shots looked like video, I really don’t know why this is.
5. The wide exterior shots ALWAYS looked like video, probably due to the limited resolution of DV.
6. The Close up and Medium shots looked fine, they looked like 16mm without the grain.

I should NOTE that I have scene other DV to 35mm transfers before, and they looked WAY better then Tadpole did. The washed out colors and the Hand Held shots could have been avoided in Tadpole, but maybe this is what the filmmaker wanted. Overall, my friend (a non-movie maker) liked the film, and didn't complain about the image. She felt it was what it was, a low budget feature, sort of its own genre