|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 22, 2019 19:19:38 GMT
In 1964 while deciding a case of obscenity, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”Film noir is a lot like Justice Stewart’s perception of pornography – we can’t define it precisely but we know it when we see it. But some people do define it quite rigidly. In his commentary on the restored print of 1948’s “The Hunted,” Eddie Muller recounts that at the end of one screening, a man stood up, announced that “This is not noir; it is romantic melodrama,” then crashed through the exit doors as he stalked out.  Personally, I tend to allow a lot of leeway in my judgments. I like this paragraph from David Parkinson’s book “100 Ideas The Changed Film.” Critically disdained, morally feared, and industrially mistrusted, film noir subsisted on low budgets and B-movie status. Essentially an artistic ghetto for Hollywood’s many European émigré directors in the 1940s and 1950s, it used innovative shooting and lighting techniques to evoke the mood of anxiety and ambiguity sweeping postwar America.A Facebook group I belong to gives a list of 18 items that go to determining what is or isn’t film noir – and thus permissible to discuss on the site. A movie doesn’t have to have them all but should have a goodly number. Some I give great importance to (2,3,8,14), at least one I disagree with (18), most are not essential except as they add up to a trend. Make of it what you will and please share your thoughts. 1. An investigator, a man of relative integrity 2. A Criminal 3. A Femme Fatale 4. A bland but good woman 5. An “everyman” - normal person caught up in the events 6. European emigre director 7. Stolen valuable 8. Use of lighting/angles/composition (Chiaroscuro - high contrast - no fill light, long shadows, asymmetrical or imbalanced composition, deep focus giving background equal importance, reflections/mirrors, camera position / extreme high and low angles, extreme close-ups/ heightened intensity, 9. Script based on American Pulp Fiction 10. Heavy smoking and drinking 11. An obsession with something of the past (Flashbacks / Voiceover) 12. Complex plot 13. Urban location 14. Bleak view of humanity 15. Fast paced/poetic dialogue 16. Events that control the outcome as much or more than the characters 17. Downbeat ending, not happily after 18. The story must be contemporary to the time the film was made. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jan 22, 2019 20:05:54 GMT
I took a class in Film History. The professor was very adamant that Film Noir was just a sub-genre of Crime Drama. Noir was no more of a separate genre than Spaghetti Westerns or World War II movies. If it didn't have a cool name attached to it, no one would spend too much tine arguing "Is 'Movie X' Noir or not?" Is A Fistful of Dollars a western? Certainly. Is D.O.A. a crime drama? Certainly
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jan 22, 2019 20:11:08 GMT
In 1964 while deciding a case of obscenity, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”Film noir is a lot like Justice Stewart’s perception of pornography – we can’t define it precisely but we know it when we see it. But some people do define it quite rigidly. In his commentary on the restored print of 1948’s “The Hunted,” Eddie Muller recounts that at the end of one screening, a man stood up, announced that “This is not noir; it is romantic melodrama,” then crashed through the exit doors as he stalked out. Personally, I tend to allow a lot of leeway in my judgments. I like this paragraph from David Parkinson’s book “100 Ideas The Changed Film.” Critically disdained, morally feared, and industrially mistrusted, film noir subsisted on low budgets and B-movie status. Essentially an artistic ghetto for Hollywood’s many European émigré directors in the 1940s and 1950s, it used innovative shooting and lighting techniques to evoke the mood of anxiety and ambiguity sweeping postwar America.A Facebook group I belong to gives a list of 18 items that go to determining what is or isn’t film noir – and thus permissible to discuss on the site. A movie doesn’t have to have them all but should have a goodly number. Some I give great importance to (2,3,8,14), at least one I disagree with (18), most are not essential except as they add up to a trend. Make of it what you will and please share your thoughts. 1. An investigator, a man of relative integrity 2. A Criminal 3. A Femme Fatale 4. A bland but good woman 5. An “everyman” - normal person caught up in the events 6. European emigre director 7. Stolen valuable 8. Use of lighting/angles/composition (Chiaroscuro - high contrast - no fill light, long shadows, asymmetrical or imbalanced composition, deep focus giving background equal importance, reflections/mirrors, camera position / extreme high and low angles, extreme close-ups/ heightened intensity, 9. Script based on American Pulp Fiction 10. Heavy smoking and drinking 11. An obsession with something of the past (Flashbacks / Voiceover) 12. Complex plot 13. Urban location 14. Bleak view of humanity 15. Fast paced/poetic dialogue 16. Events that control the outcome as much or more than the characters 17. Downbeat ending, not happily after 18. The story must be contemporary to the time the film was made. Q: Film Noir – what the devil IS it, anyway? A: A style of film making  |
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 22, 2019 20:17:57 GMT
I took a class in Film History. The professor was very adamant that Film Noir was just a sub-genre of Crime Drama. Noir was no more of a separate genre than Spaghetti Westerns or World War II movies. If it didn't have a cool name attached to it, no one would spend too much tine arguing "Is 'Movie X' Noir or not?" Is A Fistful of Dollars a western? Certainly. Is D.O.A. a crime drama? Certainly a film noir purist's toughest problem, I believe, is separating noir from just plain ol' crime drama. I believe that film noir can have its own genre but recognize that in '40s and '50s B-crime films the lines are blurred. As far as I am concerned any low budget b&w crime film with a downbeat, fatalistic vibe can have a place at the noir table and be citizens of two different genres. |
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 22, 2019 20:22:54 GMT
hitchcockthelegendSo, do you go along with TheGoodMan19 film class professor that film noir is a STYLE within the 1940s and 1950s crime film genre? I have seen this stated before but am not sure exactly what "style" means.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jan 22, 2019 20:45:59 GMT
It will drive you nuts if you thinks about it. And one of the worst things about Noir is this 18 point checklist. Take Bogart's high Sierra. Is it Noir? Some say yes, most say no. Because Ida Lupino, a noirish female, didn't move the plot like Phyllis Dietrichson or Brigid O'Shaunessy character. Was White Heat a Noir? Checks most of the boxes, but no Femme Fatale (guess you could call Ma Jarrett one). And you could check off a lot of the boxes for The Godfather, Part II (criminal, bland woman, urban setting, part events etc.).
You get the same if you ask "Is No Country For Old Men" a western?
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 22, 2019 20:54:49 GMT
It will drive you nuts if you thinks about it. And one of the worst things about Noir is this 18 point checklist. Take Bogart's high Sierra. Is it Noir? Some say yes, most say no. Because Ida Lupino, a noirish female, didn't move the plot like Phyllis Dietrichson or Brigid O'Shaunessy character. Was White Heat a Noir? Checks most of the boxes, but no Femme Fatale (guess you could call Ma Jarrett one). And you could check off a lot of the boxes for The Godfather, Part II (criminal, bland woman, urban setting, part events etc.). You get the same if you ask "Is No Country For Old Men" a western? HA, for sure. Which is why I chose to love film noir but take a very lenient attitude toward classification. This also allows me to see a much wider variety of 1940s thrillers and shoot-'em-up crime capers - the kinds of films I really enjoy. I also avoid arguments with purists. It's all about seeing and learning about films you like. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jan 22, 2019 21:05:05 GMT
It will drive you nuts if you thinks about it. And one of the worst things about Noir is this 18 point checklist. Take Bogart's high Sierra. Is it Noir? Some say yes, most say no. Because Ida Lupino, a noirish female, didn't move the plot like Phyllis Dietrichson or Brigid O'Shaunessy character. Was White Heat a Noir? Checks most of the boxes, but no Femme Fatale (guess you could call Ma Jarrett one). And you could check off a lot of the boxes for The Godfather, Part II (criminal, bland woman, urban setting, part events etc.). You get the same if you ask "Is No Country For Old Men" a western? HA, for sure. Which is why I chose to love film noir but take a very lenient attitude toward classification. This also allows me to see a much wider variety of 1940s thrillers and shoot-'em-up crime capers - the kinds of films I really enjoy. I also avoid arguments with purists. It's all about seeing and learning about films you like. I remember Leonard Maltin's Film Guide calling Sunset Bvld a "black comedy". Sunset Bvld a comedy? Really Leo? Nothing funny about anything in the film. Felt so bad for Norma Desmond, Max von Mayerling, even Joe Gillis (his heart was in the right place and he tried to do right by Norma). Brought it up because it's commonly at the top of the Noir lists and I don't think it is at all. Who's the criminal? Norma, she's just nuts. Joe, just a gold digger. |
|
biker1
Junior Member
@biker1
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 744
|
Post by biker1 on Jan 22, 2019 21:17:17 GMT
I decided at one point several years back that film noir doesn't actually exist. It's merely wishful thinking on behalf of film buffs and the commercial invention of movie companies who exploit those buffs.
I think it makes more sense to talk about crime and thriller movies of the 1940s and 1950s as a genre, rather than striving to intellectualize an overly problematic concept, or style, that links them all.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jan 22, 2019 21:24:53 GMT
Definitions are not essential to my viewing pleasure, but I have thought about this perennial question.
Originally wasn't it just a lighting technique? An economy measure, making do with light and shadow to build a scene when you couldn't afford more tangible props. Good lighting men and cinematographers have always had it.
People sometimes call any serious b&w film from certain decades "film noir", but I like the distinction made (I think) by actor/author Jim Beaver:
Film noir must have a "we're screwed" story.
So Laura is more of romance/murder mystery and The Big Sleep is a crime romance.
True film noir would include The Asphalt Jungle, High Sierra, Out of the Past, Gun Crazy, those sorts of titles.
Sometimes the studio would tack on a quick happy ending. If we are in a generous mood we might allow those, with an asterisk.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jan 23, 2019 14:28:14 GMT
hitchcockthelegend So, do you go along with TheGoodMan19 film class professor that film noir is a STYLE within the 1940s and 1950s crime film genre? I have seen this stated before but am not sure exactly what "style" means. Well I stay away from the word genre as regards film noir, so sub-genre is a no no for me. Style in noir terms is that the visuals are one of the key components, a character itself that emphasises scenes. Shadows suggesting danger or psychological imprisonment, canted angles suggesting a distortion of a character's state of mind or a skew whiff narrative change etc. Then the narrative style is majorly one of being downbeat, noir in its purest form wasn't looking to send you home with a smile on your face. |
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Jan 23, 2019 14:47:40 GMT
For me it's simple Mike
If it in my Silver Film Noir Encyclopedia its a noir   - I have both 3rd and 4th editions (volume 4 ditches a lot of the essays in Vol 3 so both are essential imho)
... if not - it still might be one - just one they forgot!
Guess that makes me an optimist ......ie I could never be cast in a true noir! 
Seriously though a good list of criteria and I agree re the essential ones but would add 1 and/or 5 ..... I think there needs to be a regular Joe or Josephine of some kind - however small the part - just to show up the fatale characters as noirer......and I would explicitly use the word "chance" in number 16..... and I think number 11 maybe essential too (If it were up to me ALL noirs would have flashbacks... not to mention assumed identities and amnesia - my holy trinity of desirable plot elements ).... and would nix number 18 (Which if we kept it would disqualify CHINATOWN - one of the best of the lot... okay okay re criterion 3 - but we sure THINK Evelyn is one for most of the movie...) . Frankly not sure about 13 either - a lot of GUN CRAZY was set in rural areas from memory. Ditto THEY LIVE BY NIGHT/THIEVES LIKE US . And HIGH SIERRA. And I liked wncclain's "We're Screwed" addition
Glad you have no cut off point (usually around 1958/59 with TOUCH OF EVIL and ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW held up as the last gasp of the genre) - I love BODY HEAT, BAD TIMING, THE LAST SEDUCTION, THE GRIFTERS and BOUND just as much as LAURA, SUDDEN FEAR, IN A LONELY PLACE, TOUCH OF EVIL and DOUBLE INDEMNITY, and don't feel the need to prefix them with the term "neo"....
I almost wish the Noir naysayer from imdb1 would turn up and weigh in - remember him ? He referred to it as "Film Nwah" because he thought using the term Noir was Un American or somesuch... Raccoombs was that him?
Nice thread mike |
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jan 23, 2019 14:52:31 GMT
It will drive you nuts if you thinks about it. And one of the worst things about Noir is this 18 point checklist. Take Bogart's high Sierra. Is it Noir? Some say yes, most say no. Because Ida Lupino, a noirish female, didn't move the plot like Phyllis Dietrichson or Brigid O'Shaunessy character. Was White Heat a Noir? Checks most of the boxes, but no Femme Fatale (guess you could call Ma Jarrett one). And you could check off a lot of the boxes for The Godfather, Part II (criminal, bland woman, urban setting, part events etc.). You get the same if you ask "Is No Country For Old Men" a western? It has driven me nuts! I have read all the big hitting noir bibles from the likes of Muller, Silver, Ward, Ursin etc and I still feel under nourished. It's like when a cut off point is put forward - usually 1959 and usually Odds Against Tomorrow is cited as the last "true" noir film of the original wave. Yet the French carried on the noir style through the 60s, with tremendous returns as well. Then of course what we know has been called the noir style was actually being used long before the mid 40s, notably in Germany... The reality is is that film noir when it was coined as a phrase was a very short lived period of film making. It's only in the last few decades where that short period of films have been examined and folk have seen that the style fits other decades.  |
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jan 23, 2019 15:09:01 GMT
and don't feel the need to prefix them with the term "neo"....
That's another can of worms in the mix as well. Essentially to me "neo" becomes when they are colour and not black and white - colour really urinates all over the whole concept of film noir when you examine it. But that gets murky as well because right in the middle of the original noir wave are colour productions like Leave Her to Heaven, which strongly hold their place in the pantheon of narrative terminology. I love neo-noir, not as much as the halcyon days obviously, but it's great that modern era film makers keep the fires burning bright. |
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Jan 23, 2019 15:51:56 GMT
and don't feel the need to prefix them with the term "neo"....
That's another can of worms in the mix as well. Essentially to me "neo" becomes when they are colour and not black and white - colour really urinates all over the whole concept of film noir when you examine it. But that gets murky as well because right in the middle of the original noir wave are colour productions like Leave Her to Heaven, which strongly hold their place in the pantheon of narrative terminology. I love neo-noir, not as much as the halcyon days obviously, but it's great that modern era film makers keep the fires burning bright.
Yes - LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN a good example of colour noir - add PARTY GIRL, NIAGARA, JOHNNY GUITAR, DESERT FURY and you have a mighty solid batch demanding inclusion - even a box set! .
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jan 23, 2019 16:09:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Jan 23, 2019 16:36:23 GMT
HA, for sure. Which is why I chose to love film noir but take a very lenient attitude toward classification. This also allows me to see a much wider variety of 1940s thrillers and shoot-'em-up crime capers - the kinds of films I really enjoy. I also avoid arguments with purists. It's all about seeing and learning about films you like. I remember Leonard Maltin's Film Guide calling Sunset Bvld a "black comedy". Sunset Bvld a comedy? Really Leo? Nothing funny about anything in the film. Felt so bad for Norma Desmond, Max von Mayerling, even Joe Gillis (his heart was in the right place and he tried to do right by Norma). Brought it up because it's commonly at the top of the Noir lists and I don't think it is at all. Who's the criminal? Norma, she's just nuts. Joe, just a gold digger.
Can't a film be a black comedy AND a film noir? Agree SUNSET not the noirest on the block, but I don't really object. And Norma does shoot Joe dead - which most would say is a crime - even if she is batshit crazy.
Great films can defy categories - I genuinely believe JOHNNY GUITAR a noir - but it is also a western, a romance, a melodrama and a comedy... truly the gift that keeps on giving.
|
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Jan 23, 2019 16:37:24 GMT
I imported the Allan Dwan box set over from France and Slightly Scarlet was a prime reason for doing so (well that and the brilliant Silver Lode 1954). I have a "thing" for red heads so it's a dream coupling for starters  Great film, thanks for the review Bill, I'll add my bit > Chiseler's and Smouldering Redheads. Slightly Scarlet is directed by Allan Dwan and adapted to screenplay by Robert Blees from the novel Love's Lovely Counterfeit written by James M. Cain. It stars John Payne, Rhonda Fleming, Arlene Dahl, Kent Taylor and Ted de Corsa. A Technicolor/SuperScope production, music is scored by Louis Forbes and cinematography by John Alton. June Lyons (Fleming) is "secretary" to anti-crime campaigner Frank Jansen (Taylor), so with Jansen in the running for mayor, mob boss Solly Caspar (Corsa) looks for a way to smear Jansen. The chance arises by way of June's sister, Dorothy (Dahl), a Kleptomaniac just released from prison. So Caspar puts his main man on the case, Ben Grace (Payne), but bossing Grace around and then putting him in the middle of two fire- cracker sisters could prove detrimental to all. The story is altered from Cain's source and in truth what reads like a tricky plot, actually isn't all that it can be. Yet it's a feverish Technicolor noir, proof positive that in the right photographic/director hands, noir can thrive away from the monochrome. It plays out its tale in a whirl of simmering passions and wonderfully lurid suggestions, sparkled by eye scorching photography and a deliriously devilish production design. Psychological smarts are in the mix, with no easy answers put forward to character's outcomes, while in true noir fashion all principal characters are hard to like or are intriguingly flawed. John Alton is the key hand here, he brings rich colours to the fore whilst ensuring that light and shadow techniques are not compromised. Macho conversations are spun out in darkened rooms, the colour black prominent, foreboding like, while the home of the two flame haired sisters is adorned with purposely garish blues, reds, oranges and greens. Clothes are important to the sexuality pulsing in the piece. The girls dressed up in a number of fetching (colourful obviously) ensembles, with wide V necked sweaters, figure hugging skirts, bullet bras, leopard skin bikini and see-thru nighties! While a couple of phallic symbols form part of the art design just in case you need reminding that sex is a big issue here. Suggestive scenes are within, usually involving Dorothy who mixes Kleptomania with an obvious kink for Nymphomania. Watch how she strokes a pillow in the background as her sister engages Ben in heated conversation, how she looks as she holds a Harpoon Spear Gun in her hands (in that leopard skin bikini), or a quite delicious sequence on a couch, legs akimbo and a back scratcher used to tantalising effect. Wow! It has flaws for sure, mind. The Kleptomania/Nymphomania angle is not fully explored (ineviatbly for the period), Corsa barely convinces as the head villain, Forbes is not sure how to score it! And there are missed opportunities unbound as regards triangles involving Ben, June and Frank and also Ben, June and Dorothy. But this is still a delightful Technicolor noir, lush, lurid and deftly sordid. 8/10 |
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Jan 23, 2019 17:36:03 GMT
I remember Leonard Maltin's Film Guide calling Sunset Bvld a "black comedy". Sunset Bvld a comedy? Really Leo? Nothing funny about anything in the film. Felt so bad for Norma Desmond, Max von Mayerling, even Joe Gillis (his heart was in the right place and he tried to do right by Norma). Brought it up because it's commonly at the top of the Noir lists and I don't think it is at all. Who's the criminal? Norma, she's just nuts. Joe, just a gold digger.
Can't a film be a black comedy AND a film noir? Agree SUNSET not the noirest on the block, but I don't really object. And Norma does shoot Joe dead - which most would say is a crime - even if she is batshit crazy.
Great films can defy categories - I genuinely believe JOHNNY GUITAR a noir - but it is also a western, a romance, a melodrama and a comedy... truly the gift that keeps on giving.
I cannot find anything comic about Sunset. You have a poor demented woman who is trapped in the past and, instead of people helping her, they feed her delusion. Black, yes, comedy, no.
|
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Jan 23, 2019 20:43:52 GMT
Can't a film be a black comedy AND a film noir? Agree SUNSET not the noirest on the block, but I don't really object. And Norma does shoot Joe dead - which most would say is a crime - even if she is batshit crazy.
Great films can defy categories - I genuinely believe JOHNNY GUITAR a noir - but it is also a western, a romance, a melodrama and a comedy... truly the gift that keeps on giving.
I cannot find anything comic about Sunset. You have a poor demented woman who is trapped in the past and, instead of people helping her, they feed her delusion. Black, yes, comedy, no.
Well to each his own.... I certainly laughed at the chimp's funeral. getyarn.io/yarn-clip/a997b82d-e1ed-4a3f-8f22-729b3004e139
message from Mr DeMille   
Hope you never see a stage version - they really ramped up the comedy I thought - saw Close in it a couple of years back. It was impressive but because they made so much fun of Norma she never achieved the grandeur of the film version. |
|
- I have both 3rd and 4th editions (volume 4 ditches a lot of the essays in Vol 3 so both are essential imho) 
