spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Oct 17, 2017 14:05:18 GMT
I generally subscribe to noir as a style, though I have to acknowledge the huge contingency of fans who believe it to be a genre, too/instead. But I think it's a style that permeates more than one genre - hence I've long held a classification of "Victorian noirs," which to my knowledge is not a standard classification. But certainly films like the Sherlock Holmes series, among others of that period, in my mind follow the "noir" style - and others as well, like The Lodger (1927 & 1944), all the way up to and beyond From Hell (2001).
To me, noir narratives deal with subjects and themes that are just naturally best told in the noir style - literally "black film," replete with deep shadows and sometimes strange angles that emphasize the emotional darkness and alienation of the characters and their stories. Not all films that utilize this style fall into the noir category, of course - Bergman's films, for instance. But I think so many American films do from the 1920s to the present day.
And it always amazes me that in most discussions of noir few seem to acknowledge the influence of German Expression in its development (possibly because so many great noir directors originally came from Germany). If you look at any number of scenes from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and then the funhouse scene in The Lady From Shanghai, just to illustrate the point, it's hard not to see that it's almost a straight evolutionary line from one style to the other.
Just a few thoughts, open for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Oct 17, 2017 16:54:01 GMT
It may well be the most unsettled issue in the realm of film discussion and analysis, and one I've never been able to resolve for myself one way or the other. I can think of films that feel noir-ish not only thematically, but stylistically in every way but visual: Bad Day At Black Rock and While the City Sleeps, for example. And there are those that look like noir, but don't feel like it: some of Val Lewton's productions at RKO, for instance; how I wish he'd at least once applied his talents to a project that embraced both noir themes and style. And maybe there's an answer therein: perhaps it's a genre when it encompasses the visual and the thematic, and a style when only the visual signatures are present. About my only hard and fast rule where those visual signatures are concerned is that B&W photography is most definitely not a required component thereof, in spite of how closely they've come to be associated. As evidence, I submit the opening three minutes of the very first live-action film shot in three-strip Technicolor, 1934's La Cucaracha: How it whets my appetite to consider how effectively the mood-enhancing qualities of color design could have been utilized in film noir, although there have indeed been the occasional moments in one film or another that illustrate the potential. Niagara is one:      |
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Oct 17, 2017 17:22:37 GMT
Doghouse6 Great comments, doghouse. And I love Niagara, which is for me the perfect color noir - a forerunner to The Godfather, which I tend to think of as noir, too, though others might disagree. About this: "And maybe there's an answer therein: perhaps it's a genre when it encompasses the visual and the thematic, and a style when only the visual signatures are present."Perhaps. It certainly makes sense to think of it that way. But I'm not sure I can reduce it down to that; the two still seem so intertwined to me - style and theme. Can't get the Expressionist roots out of my mind, which are so much style - and yet, even in those, theme plays a significant role, too. It's a conundrum that may remain one of the great unanswered cinematic questions for me. But I very much appreciate your comments. And I will have to give your potential conclusion some more serious consideration. You could be right. EDITED TO ADD: Doghouse6 , I didn't look at La Cucaracha before writing my post, and then I did look at the first three minutes of it, and they are remarkably noirish and the color is beautiful. So ahead of its time, in that regard it would seem (where do you find these things anyway?) It doesn't appear to be a noir kind of story, but it sure looks like a noir film. Thanks for the clip. So good to think about your comments in light of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Oct 17, 2017 18:15:45 GMT
I've thought of noir as that there is something dark and unsettling in those movies, usually in crime and detective stories, but could also apply to other kind of movies, maybe a more psychological danger lurking in it's storyline like Leave Her to Heaven 1945 and In a Lonely Place 1950.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Oct 17, 2017 18:46:13 GMT
I've thought of noir as that there is something dark and unsettling in those movies, usually in crime and detective stories, but could also apply to other kind of movies, maybe a more psychological danger lurking in it's storyline like Leave Her to Heaven 1945 and In a Lonely Place 1950. It would seem to me that you and I are rather in agreement on this, teleadm. Though the genre of crime stories loom large in your titles, so I'm not sure. Oh, it is a hard one to unravel, isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Oct 17, 2017 18:54:03 GMT
spiderwortYes they are crime stories, but I meant they are not the "usual" detective stories where usually a crime has already happened, there is another danger in them, you know the danger is there, but never when it will hit or burst out. Maybe it became more confusing now...
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Oct 17, 2017 18:59:16 GMT
spiderwort Yes they are crime stories, but I meant they are not the "usual" detective stories where usually a crime has already happened, there is another danger in them, you know the danger is there, but never when it will hit or burst out. Maybe it became more confusing now... No, I understand, Teleadm. You did just fine. I don't think I expressed myself very well. I was trying to say that I think that's why it's hard to disentangle such films from genre sometimes, because while there may be a crime, it's really the characters that are most important - and the twists and turns their needs add to the plot, as you say. Those are the ones I like the most, btw - the ones where the characters are most important. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Oct 17, 2017 19:31:32 GMT
spiderwortI can't ask for any more than that. But it looks like I'm going to. To muddy the waters further while you're considering, another element that I consider a stylistic component of both noir and expressionism is that of stark, boldly geometric composition. There has probably been no more expressionistic a picture since the advent of sound than 1955's The Night Of the Hunter:       Yet it doesn't feel as noir-ish to me as a couple of later films that effectively engaged elements of both theme and style, and did so while incorporating color into the mix. 1980's American Gigolo, exploring a sordid underside of empty affluence by way of betrayal and murder, begins with a palette of warm pastels that gradually gives way to cooler hues as the story darkens and a frame closes in on the protagonist, but also employs those bold geometric compositions throughout:        1981's Thief stays with a cool palette from the beginning, only briefly punctuated by hot tones, but also relies on carefully composed geometrics, all of which accentuate a hard-edged story that's a not-too-distant cousin of The Asphalt Jungle.          Both sleek and visually elegant films, for my money they come closer to the appearance, mood and spirit of film noir than, say, either Chinatown or L.A. Confidential, which are so often cited as revivals of the genre or style (whichever is one's bent).
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Oct 17, 2017 21:44:40 GMT
No, Film Noir is not a genre, as movies from various genres can be Film Noirs. But it is usually convenient to treat it as one. Peanuts are not nuts, they are legumes like peas and beans, but most vendors and customers find it convenient to classify them as nuts.
For me, Film Noir is a collection of styles and themes. I use "pure" Film Noir to describe movies which tick all or many of the boxes. Those which tick fewer I call "noirish". I am less tolerant than spiderwort in accepting "noirish" movies into the Film Noir canon.
What are those criteria? (I may return later and add to the list if other posts remind me).
1. Black and White photography. Color does not disqualify a film from being Film Noir, it just has to work harder in other areas.
2. The protagonist is tainted, by his past or his own nature.
3. The protagonist is predestined to fail, either because of his own imperfections or because he is taking on opponents beyond his understanding. There is no "happy ending" but there may be catharsis.
4. There is a femme fatale. Sometimes she is unaware she is playing this role.
5. The tone is socially subversive. We find ourselves aligned with the underdog(s) against conventional capitalist society.
6. Much of the action takes place in the dark. This helps to make things more baffling (and helped the studios cut corners and save money).
7. The characters experience psychological unease, and often the audience too. This may arise from the musical score, expressionist camerawork or the ambiguous motives of the characters. The tone can often be called existentialist and the heyday of Film Noir 1945 to 1955 coincided with the years when existentialism entered popular culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Oct 17, 2017 23:27:27 GMT
I used to think it was a genre, now I'm inclined to believe it's a style. But it doesn't matter. Just enjoy!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2017 16:48:46 GMT
It's a style, a way of making a film, not something the film is "about". OK to categorize by styles, of course, but it needs to be done universally - for all styles, for all films - not just a few. IMDb's gone a long way to keep things muddled, though, by refusing to make a Style field available, and by mixing certain styles in with genres! Not to mention dictating that Noir covers only certain dates and certain (well, *a* certain) country's filmmaking. Crime seems the most frequent genre for classic-period noir, but is not guaranteed as such - thus one reason to determine the difference between genre and style and work to cover all the bases.
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Oct 18, 2017 20:02:19 GMT
It's a style, a way of making a film, not something the film is "about". OK to categorize by styles, of course, but it needs to be done universally - for all styles, for all films - not just a few. IMDb's gone a long way to keep things muddled, though, by refusing to make a Style field available, and by mixing certain styles in with genres! Not to mention dictating that Noir covers only certain dates and certain (well, *a* certain) country's filmmaking. Crime seems the most frequent genre for classic-period noir, but is not guaranteed as such - thus one reason to determine the difference between genre and style and work to cover all the bases. This is the purist cineast's view and almost the diametrical opposite of mine. I confess to being the maverick because, as already touched on in other threads, my view of cinema is primarily a "literary" one. I am primarily interested in plot, dialog and characters. To say I watch movies as "visual novels" would be an exaggeration but is a rough indicator. Scenic expertise can enhance a film greatly, but cannot be the point of a film for me. Indeed, if I am aware of it during the movie I would probably find it distracting. It is something to be analysed and appreciated in retrospect. Just lately I have been revisiting lots of movies I last saw decades ago (as long as 70 years ago in a few instances). This time around I can appreciate the technical and scenic expertise a lot more because I am not concentrating so much on the plot development. Real cineasts will no doubt pity me for missing out on a lot, but I am happy in my blinkered existence. Anyway it is too late to change at 77 years old and with only months or a few years at most left to me to enjoy "flicks" (as they were called in my boyhood). So many great films to revisit or even see for the first time. |
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Oct 19, 2017 15:04:36 GMT
I find it harder and harder these days to fit movies into one particular genre. I think the vast majority of movies have elements from more than one genre. I saw an interview with Quentin Tarantino once where he pointed out that all of his movies are comedies. That's true but they can also be classified as other genres as well.
I'm just spit-balling here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2017 17:27:39 GMT
I find it harder and harder these days to fit movies into one particular genre. I think the vast majority of movies have elements from more than one genre. I saw an interview with Quentin Tarantino once where he pointed out that all of his movies are comedies. That's true but they can also be classified as other genres as well. I'm just spit-balling here. Postmodern filmmakers seem to go in for the idea of mixed genres. I tend to think of Drama and Comedy as two uber-genres - Drama or Comedy - but there are some blended films recognized now. However, we need to find something singular to call them, and not just chuck in the two ubers side-by-side. Dramedies maybe? Or Commas? I think it's easier to genr'ize classic and modern films as one, with "features" of other genres overlapping. Maybe. Westerns, e.g., are usually also about crime, but is it reasonable to list them with the other types of Crime (genre) films? Or should we find somewhere else to put films with western settings but without the crime element? I have no answer, just wrestle with the problems involved for people searching for a certain type of film, or a certain film by type, in an unsettled, and often minimalized, choice of options. |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Oct 21, 2017 8:29:20 GMT
I used to think it was a genre, now I'm inclined to believe it's a style. But it doesn't matter. Just enjoy! I'm in agreement with your assessment of Noir, OldAussie, and while I'm somewhat averse to the whole Noir As Genre Business I see no harm in having fun with Noir As An Idea (or Philosophy, Psychology or Aesthetic). Dissertations on these and other weighty matters abound, I'm sure, in academic circles where Film is discussed solemnly, reverently. Personally, I think it's too new an art form for that. As one can see with the changing times and changing aesthetics, right down to changing Public, as in what it or they want, prevent it, for commercial and financial reasons from emerging wholly from its status as not much more than entertainment done with style. I wish it were otherwise. Sadly, even what's considered classic and what isn't has, to put it in polite language, moved on. Younger audiences often laugh at screenings of classic films that were once regarded as masterpieces,--and I don't mean movies intended to be funny--as they used to laugh at silent films after sound came in. |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Oct 21, 2017 8:44:22 GMT
I've thought of noir as that there is something dark and unsettling in those movies, usually in crime and detective stories, but could also apply to other kind of movies, maybe a more psychological danger lurking in it's storyline like Leave Her to Heaven 1945 and In a Lonely Place 1950. It would seem to me that you and I are rather in agreement on this, teleadm. Though the genre of crime stories loom large in your titles, so I'm not sure. Oh, it is a hard one to unravel, isn't it? Thanks for starting this thread, Spiderwort. I'm not big on classifying things except for fun, and for this Noir is irresistible. Where crime is concerned I do get my dander up a bit, even with Bogart pictures widely regarded as Noir. I say no to High Sierra, The Maltese Falcon, The Big Shot, Key Largo and The Enforcer. Yes to The Big Sleep, Dark Passage, I suppose Dead Reckoning and surely In A Lonely Place. Some Cagney flicks are considered Noir when they're really crime or gangster pictures. White Heat certainly isn't Noir in my book, more like part of the psycho-gangster cycle of the Kiss Of Death kind. Of the three kings of the tough guys, Edward G. Robinson has the most Noirish filmography of them all. Even the 1941 The Sea Wolf has Noir ambiance, though it's not Noir. Neither is the 1943 anthology Flesh And Fantasy, yet its first two entries are Noirish, too. Then there's Double Indemnity and the two with Fritz Lang, Woman In The Window and Scarlet Street, plus the spy thriller The Stranger, often classed as Noir, it really isn't. The 1956 Nightmare is a Noir thriller with supernatural elements, which turn up in many E.G. Robinson pictures |
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Oct 21, 2017 14:31:18 GMT
I came to think of Clash By Night 1952 by Fritz Lang, it's titled as a film noir, but there is no actual crime in it, more than that love "works in mysterious ways". I can somehow understand those who sees it and is dissapointed that no actual crime is committed and give it low points. For me it's more of a mood piece from Fritz Lang, and how he and his cinematographer (Nicholas Musuraca) uses b/w to utlilize the drama.
The Story: The bitter and cynical Mae Doyle (Barbara Stanwyck) returns to the fishing village where she was raised after deceptive loves and life in New York. She meets her brother, the fisherman Joe Doyle (Keith Andes),and he lodges her in his home. Mae is courted by Jerry D'Amato (Paul Douglas), a good and naive man that owns the boat where Joe works, and he introduces his brutal friend Earl Pfeiffer (Robert Ryan, who else?), who works as theater's projectionist and is cheated by his wife. She does not like Earl and his jokes, but Jerry considers him his friend and they frequently see each other. Mae decides to accept the proposal of Jerry and they get married and one year later they have a baby girl. When the wife of Earl leaves him, he becomes depressed and Mae, who is bored with her loveless marriage, has an affair with him.
And yes a pre-stardom Marilyn Monroe was in it too.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Oct 21, 2017 15:09:33 GMT
Thanks for starting this thread, Spiderwort. I'm not big on classifying things except for fun, and for this Noir is irresistible. Where crime is concerned I do get my dander up a bit, even with Bogart pictures widely regarded as Noir. I say no to High Sierra, The Maltese Falcon, The Big Shot, Key Largo and The Enforcer. Yes to The Big Sleep, Dark Passage, I suppose Dead Reckoning and surely In A Lonely Place. Some Cagney flicks are considered Noir when they're really crime or gangster pictures. White Heat certainly isn't Noir in my book, more like part of the psycho-gangster cycle of the Kiss Of Death kind. Of the three kings of the tough guys, Edward G. Robinson has the most Noirish filmography of them all. Even the 1941 The Sea Wolf has Noir ambiance, though it's not Noir. Neither is the 1943 anthology Flesh And Fantasy, yet its first two entries are Noirish, too. Then there's Double Indemnity and the two with Fritz Lang, Woman In The Window and Scarlet Street, plus the spy thriller The Stranger, often classed as Noir, it really isn't. The 1956 Nightmare is a Noir thriller with supernatural elements, which turn up in many E.G. Robinson pictures You're welcome, telegonus. And, like you, I obviously have an aversion to classifying things too rigidly. I really loved your comments to Aussie, and then your post to me. I'm with you on the crime thing in general, though I do think it very often has some involvement with what is called noir - though, of course, I also believe that style is, for me anyway, more important. It would seem, if I read you right, that we are in agreement on that. There are three crime films that come to mind, however, that I think qualify as noir for me - carrying as they do some elements of expressionism or surrealism that elevates them beyond just being crime stories: Nightmare Alley (1942), starring Tyrone Power, High Wall (1947), starring Robert Taylor, and The Big Combo (1955), starring Cornel Wilde (if I remember them right; I saw them ages ago, so who knows?). And then, of course, I do have my personal classification of "Victorian Noir," which often includes crime, but character and drama usually predominates in them - a critical element in my mind. The Spiral Staircase is another example of that kind of "noir style," though actually I guess it just misses the Victorian era. Of course, there's also Fritz Lang's M, which is another crime film with a noir style, but which, again, concentrates on character rather than crime. And then there's what's considered a horror/fantasy film, The Uninvited, which I also think of as a noir film in terms of style, though it has nothing to do with crime. And what about Frankenstein and others of that ilk? And films like The Whistler series, in which I see a lot of noir style, though they are essentially crime comedies. As you can see, I'm sort of all over the place with the subject. But I guess style's really it for me in the end. I love, love, love Double Indemnity, yet for me it only feels like noir in terms of genre and not really at all in style - maybe the murder sequence, but that's probably even debatable. I know volumes have been written about noir, but I wish there was one that links the Expressionists, the Surrealists, and other great stylists to style's enormous contribution to a "noir" film without situating it firmly in the crime genre. Maybe there is such a book, but I haven't read it. Anyway, thanks so much for your most interesting comments. It's always fun to wrestle with this topic with so many intelligent people like yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Oct 21, 2017 15:49:51 GMT
spiderwortHangmen Also Die 1943, is one of many movies I've wanted to see, since it's about that human swine Heydrich. I guess Fritz Lang did his best to give a fist in the stomach to those who forced him to leave his beloved Germany, and sadly never see united again. My avatar, well I thought it could be fun, and was an original idea I had here, but I didn't know back then how to put pics in, it was never meant to confuse anyone. To put old Swedish actors up that no-one outside scandinavia has heard about, but not to change it too often as some do. The avatar I use now is Sigge Fürst, a bit part actor who used to play crooks, then friendly policemen, and he a had a Radio show every Saturday for over 40 years at 10 AM.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Oct 21, 2017 17:29:14 GMT
spiderwortWhile I initially professed uncertainty, following the thread has been gently pulling me in the direction of "style" rather than "genre." Still, I must note in passing that your remark - - bears some resemblance to mine that "perhaps it's a genre when it encompasses the visual and the thematic, and a style when only the visual signatures are present" (nudge, nudge). Well, never mind...unless you'd like to step outside and settle it.  I do very much subscribe to taylorfirst1 and @colehambone's thoughts about mixing and melding genres, and the suggestion of imprinting of noir/expressionist style upon different ones. Sci-fi, for instance:        I don't imagine any identification of the film is necessary. Perhaps the retroactive application of the very term "film noir," and its amorphous nature, are among the reasons your statement below has been true - and will likely remain so - for a long time.
|
|
