*** Official Film Noir Discussion Thread

I don't think you've been wishy-washy.

Your rules for "true noir" films appear to be:

1. Noir films made only between 1941 to 1958.

2. Noir films must be contemporary films. That is unless they violate Point #1.

Therefore, a 2004 contemporary noir cannot be "true noir" due to rule #1. Catch-22?

I think that George and I may have reached the same conclusion. And no, I don't think he's mucking with you a bit but rather just trying to get to the heart of it. I mean, we can agree to disagree but it would at least to know what we are essentially disagreeing with first, don't you think?

What I'm getting at (and perhaps what George is as well) hopefully can be settled by you answering one question. That question is:

1. If "modern noir" copies the "noir style" of "true noir" films -- what are the specific elements of "noir style" that define your "true noir" period (1941-1958) as opposed to all preceding years of filmmaking? In other words, what specific style elements does a "modern noir" copy from the "true noir" films that they can't copy from non "true noir" films?

Noirs don't have to be contemporary, crime thrillers are contemporary. If you look at every crime thriller made during the noir years, they all exist in a contemporary world. The period noirs made in this period were often westerns, but did stray to other eras (Night of the Hunter being a perfect example)





I still don't like the term "true" but whatever. A number of factors go into what is and isn't a noir (which is why it's so subjective. I'll quote an earlier post of mine that holds my two most important factors to me.



That said it's not just those elements, those are just the most important factors to me. there are exceptions to these as well.

I'm trying to find a good analogy as to why I don't consider modern noirs to be real noirs. Rockabilly could be a good example (we'll see). Rockabilly music by guys like Billy Lee Riley or Charlie Feathers is very different then the Stray Cats or Robert Gordon. Riley and Feathers were making new music, contemporary, never done before. They were originators. Gordon and The Stray Cats were making retro music, they knew what era they were aping, and they spent a lot of effort getting it right. Feathers didn't have to do that, he just played music of the day.

Same with noir, when a director went to make a crime picture or a melodrama or a western in the late forties, they didn't try to make it a noir, they just made contemporary pictures for the contemporary audience. this was the style of the day, not every movie was a noir, but almost every movie made during that period has elements noir in it. They didn't try to do it, that was just how they were made. Again it all comes down to sincerity. I have no idea if I'm explaining this well or not (probably not).

I guess when the set decorator needed to put together a cheap room in 1948, they used whatever was around and fit the character. When the Coens needed a cheap room, they have to make sure it's "period-correct". And that, to me changes the focus of the picture, from being about telling a story, and telling a story so that it's looks like it was from another era.

As to what "modern noirs" copy, well they usually copy the trappings of noir. Some double crossing, a femme fatale, convaluted plot, story told from flashback and unnatural-sounding dialogue. these are all certain elements of noir, but they tend to be surface elements. They can't re-create the frshness of the original, they are retreads that have been done better by those who came before.

I don't mind explaining my point of view, I tend to be better in verbal discussion rather then written ones, so I can understand if I'm not always clear.

Hi guys,

I've been lurking in this thread for a while and thought I'd add my two cents. It seems to me that the noir rules being proposed have so many exceptions, even within well and generally accepted noir pictures that their use as rules diminishes to the point of uselessness. Perhaps the rules should be further generalized.

Here is my humble attempt:

1. Use of effects (lighting, camera angles, etc) to evoke isolation and loneliness

2. Morally ambiguous characters

3. Guile, manipulation, or wits as a major tool for the main players

4. A crime, scheme, or or scam

A possible 5th rule could be a contemporary setting.

Certainly not all of them.

I don't disagree that the 'story behind and history of' the song might be different. But if the music itself is indistinguishable (not that I'm necessarily saying it is in this case), then it doesn't matter.

As Rich pointed out, other genres don't have time limitations in terms of what year they were made. Now, of course, this goes back to the 'movement' idea. And I think we run full circle and just have to agree to disagree.

Basically, if you accept that film noir is a 'movement or some other kind of historical thing', then sure it makes sense to limit the time frame. In fact, it's necessary.

On the other hand, if it's a genre, then it's not defined by when it was made, but the characteristics of the film itself.

Myself (and many others), see film noir as a genre. Now, the genre has a history, and it had a time during which it was developed, and times when it's popularity increased or decreased, but as a genre, people could still make a film noir today, just like they could still make a western, even though that genre has a history, and is long past it's peak of popularity. We don't need to refer to such a film as a neo-western.

Others (perhaps most), see film noir as a historical period, like the Baroque period, etc., and of necessity, to be part of that historical entity, requires a specific time frame.

I think we can still debate whether it's a genre or something historical.

I guess I'd have two questions in that regard.

1. If it's historical, is it a movement? I've already discussed that somewhat, but I'm not certain if historical = movement. We can talk about a style, but to me that's another word for genre.

2. Why isn't it a genre? We started to have this discussion, but we never really finished it. The main argument against it being a genre seemed to be that there was no common thread, unlike other genres. So, let me ask, what is the common thread that makes science fiction a genre because all sci-fi films have that thing in common?

I just watched the Roaring Twenties, and here are my thoughts about it and film noir.

Certainly this isn't film noir. And frankly, I have a hard time seeing how it's related, except obliquely.

This is basically just another in a long line of gangster films. Now, those films as a whole, might have been an important predecessor to film noir, but I don't see how Roaring Twenties stands out in that regard. There are plenty of earlier gangster films that seem darker and more noirish to me. This film just never made me even think of film noir, except for the fact that it's been discussed here.

While I agree that "The Roaring Twenties" is not film noir, I don't agree that it's basically just another gangster film. Some film historians believe that it was the last great gangster film. IMO, this is an excellent film, no matter how you classify its genre. The film has some memorable lines of dialogue and outstanding acting performances.







Crawdaddy

Robert,

It may deserve the historical significance of the 'last' such film, but I don't think other than that, that it overshadows other more important and more influential ones that preceded it.

Dave/All,

Well, you used the term, I was trying to move things along and not be misunderstood. Small housekeeping note as this seems to be a common misconception, Chinatown takes place in 1937.


The question was specific to what "noir style" elements were new and different to the "true noir" period - not what elements are most important to you. But, perhaps you meant both - that they are important factors and original. If so, consider Das Kabinett des Doktor Caligari (1920)

Stark B/W cinematography used with strange angles? Check

Man against fate and losing with his own actions working against him? Check

Certainly not a noir film, but quite an influential film. Point being that I can't think of any element of noir that is truly new to the "true noir" period. Thus the conclusion that if all elements are borrowed from older films, than a 1944 noir film is a stirring of copied elements. (note: nothing at all wrong with that I'm just getting to the Dave's issue of copying)Question then is why (in your opinion) can't a 1964 noir film (using the same copied elements that a 1944 noir film copied) and set it as a contemporary film not be a "true noir?"


George/All,

Yes. And that is why so-called "experts" define it as a period. Defined periods lead to being able to work in their comfort level. That and the abilty to describe their noir books as "complete" as well as a lot easier to compile - particularly when you eliminate those messy foreign films. You know, including films from the country where the term 'noir' was first used. However, neat and comfortable periods also leads to rather messy ideas.

Consider the list of noir films that Herb posted along with which "expert" listed which films in their book. (btw, Thanks Herb for the post!!!) Where the heck is The Third Man? Absent. Why? When you hard define/limit noir to American films you can't include The Third Man as that was developed by foreign studios and set in Austria. But they do include Ride The Pink Horse because ... it was developed by a American Studio and set in Mexico. Laughable.

Fairly, noir 'period' is a reasonable term when discussing the hayday of noir film creation. I just disagree when it is used as an exclusionary term.

To me, the term 'movement' should be left to discussion of things like civil rights in the 60's and woman's lib of the 70's, your mileage may vary.

Does anyone have any memories or opinions on this film?

While The Roaring Twenties might not be classic film noir, remember, films like it and Little Caesar (1930), Scarface (1932), Public Enemy (1931) were all legitimate noir precursors that were probably responsible for what would eventually emerge some ten years later. The films generally contain the (same) elements that became common with the genre (or whatever you choose to call it) such as violence, greed, acts of crime that were basically symbolic of the times.

And I agree, the (consensus) list I posted a few pages back is far too narrow and excludes far too many films which I categorically insist are classic film noir.

George,

I think we can agree to disagree, you summed up the positions nicely.

As for questions 1 and 2, I'll give you my answers.

1) I'm not a big fan of the word movement, because noir falls outside that label. Style is too superficial and I believe the same applies to genre. I guess noir is an era, one that reflected the attitudes of it's time. It's probably that I feel it's closer to a movement then it is to a genre that I've used the word.

2) Genres by nature have a common theme that links them together, no matter how varied the individual movie. Westerns take place in "the west", Musicals have musical numbers, Sci-Fi uses science in a fanastical/fictional way (I'm of the opinion that the term Sci-Fi is bandied about far too casually).

There are sub-genres for all these that even more tightly link individual titles (post-apocalyptic, Berkely musicals or spaghetti westerns), but they still connect to their main genre. I can't think of a single plot element that is necessary to noir. With the above definitions you will find exceptions, but not en masse, with any plot element that is suggested for noir there will be an equal amount of movies that lack said element.



Woah, we agree on something! I'm of the same opinion, it's a decently made gangster movie, but doesn't any of the pathos to be a noir.

I think you should read the rest of my posts, I only quoted the two strongest elements, not everything that goes into noir. As for what "new" characteristic are inherit only to noir of the 40's/50's, the answer is really none. I suppose you could say that the idea of looking into why's of people's actions could be something, but it's really the combination of numerous factors (and again I've already gone through this) that lead to noirs, that's it. It was the natural progression of movies that lead to it existing (which is why when people recreate that atmosphere unnaturally it doesn't feel right).

I'm not of the opinion that a forgery is just as good as the original, and I never will be. I'll never subscribe to the theory that if you make something look like something else on the surface then it's good enough to rank with the originals (again my analogy of renaissance painters and Rockabilly), it doesn't have the history. As George has pointed out,we're not going to agree, that's fine. Quite frankly though, the more I think about it, I have to wonder what theme links noir so totally that you would venture to call it a genre. What makes Blade Runner a noir or Chinatown and L.A. Confidential for that matter?

Not that it really matter, I doubt my mind will change, but I am open to it.

Oh, and I'll have to go through my posts, but if I did use the word "true", it was out of laziness, I've since made numerous statements avoiding it or asking that it not be used, but I gues if I used it first, I got what's coming to me.

Where did you get the idea that "The Roaring Twenties" has overshadowed other important and influential films?

I don't have that idea, in fact I reject it. I was reacting (I guess) primarily to the idea that The Roaring Twenties is an important precursor to film noir (at least enough so that it's been mentioned/voted for in this thread). I was basically trying to say that I thought it was simply part of a genre, where there were much better examples of film noir influence. In other words, I don't see why someone would list this film instead of more influential films like Little Caeser, Scarface, Public Enemy instead.

Just so I understand you, let me paraphrase.

You would argue that having a key element is a necessary, though not sufficient criteria for being a member of a genre, and that a genre must have such a key element. I say that, because certainly not all films that take place in the west are westerns, nor are all films with musical numbers, musicals. I'll concede that all musicals have musical numbers. I suspect there may be westerns that don't take place in the west.

But even so, I guess I'd say the following:

A genre doesn't have to have a single element in common, it could have a set of N elements, of which n were needed in common.

And if you do need a common element - I'd say all the films I would call noir are crime/detective/mystery stories. So for me at least, that's at least as good a common element as whatever common ground all adventure films or horror films have in common, IMO.

yup, that's pretty much it. With westerns (more then other genres) you may find more exceptions, but these are generally doing it on purpose, to either make a point or just be atypical. The Wild Bunch is a western even though it takes place at the turn of the century and it ends in Mexico. The point of it was to show your stereotypical gunslinger being left behind by the world. But you won't find too many examples of that. There's an argument that movies that take place in the early part of last century are westerns, I don't agree with that.

I'm trying to think of a movie with musical numbers that aren't musicals, if you know any off hand I'd love to hear them.



That would be the "all noirs are crime movies, but not all crime movies are noirs" approach. We're back at the beginning, because I don't consider noir a genre, I can include Night of the Hunter, The Furies, In A Lonely Place, Sunset Blvd and The Sweet Smell of Success in my definition of noir. I also include Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Man With The Golden Arm and Laura. As I've said before some consider Citizen Kane and It's A Wonderful Life to be noirs (might be stretching it, but I understand). You've also got Gilda, Ace in the Hole and most Val Lewton movies that would be excluded if it's considered a genre.

There's always exceptions to every "rule", but I really believe there are more exceptions to noir being crime driven then other "genres"

Interesting. I like George’s summation of the elements that need to be included in a style or genre. And I think that Walter has nailed the difference between a genre (or style as he writes) and a movement. Which (for me) means that Dave is trying to have it both ways: a genre without definition or a movement without limits.

Genres must have some common elements, or they cease to be genres. And movements must have some defined limits, else they are not movements. For example an American today could direct a film very much like François or Jean-Luc did in the 60s. But it could not ever be a part of the French New Wave. Nor could even an Italian today make a neo-realism film.

My question Dave, if film noir is not a genre (and by logic, not a movement), how is it classified?

And welcome to the forum Dave. This is a pretty civilized place--we are always ready for a good discussion.

I think on my second or third post I said that it really can't, it's a unique type of movie. It's not a genre and I believe I agreed to not use the word "movement" very early on. I'm simply defining it as existing within a certain timeframe and not by the story elements.





I'll quote myself again,


that was from post #38. So I hope I've cleared this up. I'll say again it's not really movement, but it certainly isn't a genre. What are the defining elements that make noir a genre, what makes L.A. Confidential a noir.

I also have very precise limits on what I consider noir (that's the whole point of this discussion, I believe it's IS definable as a period or era and others believe that a noir can be made anytime as long as it include "?" elements)

Again, I don't mind explaining my position, but it really feels like I'm repeating myself here.

Well, opinions will vary, but here's some films with musical numbers that I don't consider to be musicals:

Young Frankenstein
The Seventh Seal
The Godfather
What's Up, Doc?
Mulholland Dr.
Hocus Pocus
Stripes
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Buck Privates
There's Something about Mary
An Affair to Remember
The Bishop's Wife
Modern Times
Kiss Me, Stupid
The Parent Trap
Casablanca

and tons more.

Of course it also depends what you mean by a musical number. If you need dancing as well as singing, then perhaps some of the above don't qualify, but many still would.

I wish I had more time to add my thoughts on this subject (and I will later), but I will quickly offer what I consider to be a pretty solid (and encompassing) definition of "film noir":
That's from Merriam-Webster.

Your list is interesting, but I don't think most of those count. Although I realize quite too late, that I was asking for the wrong thing, I should have asked for musicals that don't have musical numbers. Anyways

Young Frankenstein uses it as a comedic element as is parodying musicals.

I'm trying to remember the music in Seventh Seal (never really liked it so...)

The Godfather, I'm assuming your talking about the wedding? A movie that has music playing in it, or a guy singing in it as a plot device doesn't make it a musical number.

I'm honestly trying to remember most of the others, but can't place them, I'm not dodging the question, I just honestly don't have an answer.

Casablanca though has a song in it. It was common practice for movies of the forties to have the lead actress sing a song, I don't think those are either musicals or musical numbers. I was also implying multiple numbers (hence the "s"), but I understand this list.

And not every movie with the common link (musical number, taking place in the west or use of science in a fantastical/fictional way), belongs to said genre. Ravenous takes place in the west, but I wouldn't call it a western. But every movie that belongs to that genre will have that element.

I believe by your definition of noir that not every crime movie is a noir, but that every noir is a crime movie. I've already said (and provided examples as to) why I disagree.

I agree with Dave regarding his points on noir as a genre. (gulp ) Seriously, other film types like westerns, porn, musicals, etc. have one common easily definable element that is present. That's why I refer to noir as a film type; not because it is satisfying in its vagueness, just that other terms are worse.

Let's face it, if it was a no-brainer, we wouldn't be here discussing it, now would we? I also agree that we should be winding down this area of the discussion.


Who Framed Roger Rabbit for one. Edit (I see this was already covered, and then some ... )o.k. let me add S.O.B, 10, and Gilda.

How is it that other poeple can sum up my points and have them make sense in a paragraph, and yet I can only ramble on confusing people as I go. Type works for me, as does era and (I still think it works) style.


I agree, as I don't think we're covering new ground. It's just a contentious issue and there are no simple answers (are there ever when something is this subjective)


Been so long since I've seen it, but weren't the musical numbers part of the plot/world? As in they were filming musical type cartoons in the world, therefore of course they'd be showing it. Unlike say West Side Story, where they are not in a world where they "should" be singing.

Man, I don't wanna turn this into a what is a musical thread My knowledge of musicals is far less then that of noir so I'd bail out early anyways.

Lew, with all due respect, I find this a very circular(and familiar) argument. It is also, I'm sure many are very aware, if fans of film , not a new debate. It is and isn't a genre, a movement and a style by various attributes and degrees. If a conclusion is drawn here, it would be a first. This is very reminiscent of college film-class debates.
If this was the thread originator's intent to induce such a debate, disregard my post. I got a different impression, and the results have taken me, and I'm sure a few others, right out of the discussion. Many of us, have been down this road.

Sure would like to see a group effort and deconstruct and analyze at least one film.

At this time, I think most of us are ready to turn the page to other topics of discussion regarding film noir.







Crawdaddy

I liked George's intent. Couldn't we start with what we, as a group voted the "5 Greatest noirs (however that person defines the genre)" and what makes them good films?


Just a suggestion

I'm probably as guilty of that as anyone else. I probably felt the need to justify my posts more then most would. I also ramble alot, and that's never helpful.



Sounds like a good idea to me.

When I reviewed the WB Film Noir collection, I gave a (relatively) brief group of characteristics and elements that are usually associated with noir. From the articles I have read and sites I have visited, there is no clear cut definition of what constitutes film noir, which is why I stated that asking for a definition was like asking ten different people about purchasing a new computer (although, even that is getting easier…).

I mean, if we can’t even agree on the characteristics that should be included or the time period covered, how can we reasonably expect to name it properly i.e. genre, style, movement – whatever. And frankly, what difference does it make? Anyone even remotely interested in film (certainly anyone here on the forum) reading this is going to have a good idea of what we’re referring to when they read “film noir”, regardless of the so-called moniker attached to it.

First and foremost, we have to remember that the characteristics lists are simply a guide – a tool that lists many elements often associated with films noir. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if we were to simply use those elements and expect them to appear in every “legitimate” film noir, we’d have a list of about 25 titles (if that). Those elements should be used in addition to the emotions and feelings that are evoked by the so-called titles that we are all in agreement of, referred to as noir. How can anybody here expect everyone reading or associated with this thread to feel the same way about watching every film (or every noir, specifically)…? Personally, those feelings or emotions are not evoked in me when I watch L.A. Confidential or Chinatown…? Why…? I dunno. Why don’t I like French onion soup…? But for those of you who do, am I wrong…?

It’s difficult, if not almost impossible to explain why it is that films from this particular period (at least for me) are “classic” examples of noir… but they are. I could never exclude titles that are void of elements of crime since there are far too many good examples of noir missing that specific element i.e. Sweet Smell of Success, The Lost Weekend, The Set-Up, Ace In The Hole (and dozens of others where crime is only a minor by-product of the film’s plot).

A great discussion and I’m following it intently, but we’re not covering much ground…

Unless I overlooked it I haven't seen Memento mentioned. I would argue that most of the definitions of a film noir apply to Memento as well. Dark look, Femme Fatale, very ambigious characters, voice over, even the flashback is used to a extreme, LOL!

I think it definitely qualifies as Noir.

So let's cover some ground!