5 - Genres, cycles and series

Summary

While the output of Finnish film industry was so limited that it hardly makes sense to speak of genuinely domestic genres, indigenous interpretations of such transnational genres as crime films, musicals, screwball comedies or melodramas were common. In general, however, I would suggest that Finnish studio cinema did not rely heavily on fixed genres, but rather invested in more limited and short-lived groupings of films that can be characterised as cycles, sequels and series. This chapter explores the strategies employed by Finnish film studios to plan their output, be it in the long run (production levels or genres), the short run (sequels) or somewhere in between (cycles or series). Special attention is paid to the lumberjack film, which is arguably the only domestic film genre, the cycles of historical dramas, problem films and Schlager films, and three long-lasting series: Family Suominen (1941–59), Pekka Puupää (1953–60) and Inspector Palmu (1960–9).

Classifying films

One of the frequently discussed topics in Finnish film journals during the studio years was film criticism itself. Who was qualified to write reviews? Should domestic films be approached according to the same principles as international films? What were the general criteria of a good film?

The first question divided reviewers, other journalists and filmmakers sharply. While reviewers obviously defended their profession – explaining the undeniably varied quality of reviews by the lack of schooling – high-brow journalists often attacked the reviewers openly. A telling nickname for a newspaper review was a ‘cognac critique’, referring to the practice of the studios giving lavishly serviced press screenings: the implication was that the film producers provided the reviewers with delicious foods and drinks in order to get favourable reviews. Filmmakers, too, seemed to have a less than a flattering opinion of reviewers, albeit for different reasons. The nickname ‘errand boy critique’ implied that the filmmakers and producers assumed that film reviewing was held in such low esteem in newspapers that a review could be written by anyone who was available. This insinuation was even captured in a film. The comedy Am I in a Harem? (SF 1938) features a self-reflexive scene in an editorial office in which an errand boy is sent to a cinema. A conversation ensues between a newspaperman and the errand boy:

The status of domestic films among the film offerings varied considerably during the studio years.