Post by joekiddlouischama on Jul 1, 2017 6:38:01 GMT
What would your argument be against Touch of Evil constituting the final "pure noir"? I can see what you mean (if you meant it), but I am curious as to your articulation. Too inherently parodic? Too self-conscious?
The reason I do not think it is "pure" noir is that Heston, the protagonist, is not a conflicted or ambiguous character. He has a difficult and dangerous job but there is no sense that he is trapped by fate or has made bad choices. Quinlan could have been a typical noir protagonist. Pete Menzies and Tana both tell us he once once a great cop even if his method were dubious, but by the time we see him he is just a corrupt wreck. Quinlan was doomed by bad choices but this was not central to the movie and his decline was complete before the action starts.
I have never considered it parodic, but a bit self-conscious maybe:
Pure noir = we have a minimal budget and half the crew start on another movie in two weeks. Let us do this thing and no retakes.
Touch of Evil = I am a genius and I am going to make a noir which is a work of art (except that he would not have thought of it as "noir" that early).
I do like the film but it is a long way from the central noir canon.
A Touch of Evil does offer a compendium of elements; after all, Charlton Heston seems poorly suited to the noir genre in its "pure" form. Expressing either irony or guilt, two central aspects of noir, was not part of his natural range, nor was conveying cynicism. Genre expectations aside, John Wayne might have fit more comfortably as a noir protagonist than Charlton Heston.
Possible points of connection between Kiss Me Deadly and James Bond might include the perversely twisted nature of the villains, the concern with nuclear annihilation, the showcasing of technological elements such as a sleek car and a stereo, and the modernistic nature of the protagonist. But Kiss Me Deadly is much darker than any 007 film.

