*** Official Film Noir Discussion Thread

FYI, Ella Raines has appeared in more than a few film noirs like Brute Force, The Web and Impact.

Jane Greer was something too and she was one of Howard Hughes favorites.






Crawdaddy

Sorry that I am late to the thread and I am just starting to catch up with you guys.

I just wanted to start off with saying that I think George makes a damn good point here on the genre vs movement thing. Certainly no one disputes that there were Neo-Realist directors and New Wave directors but it would be tough to name a Film Noir director (a guy who worked in that movement rather than just making a film or two in the genre).


BTW, I just saw Out of the Past about a month ago for my Studio Era class (pre-DVD unfortunately thanks to being a few weeks too late). Great noir film, I really enjoyed it.


Mildred Pierce
Rather than "melodrama" I believe its more typically tied to the genre of "women's issue film", as well as being a great noir (even has a femme fatal despite the female lead - ie, a woman using a loving relationship to manipulate the lead into helping her get what she wants).


Maybe it was mentioned and I missed it but I think Sunset Blvd is also a noir film. The lead is working his angle but is manipulated by a female with which he has a romantic relationship, resulting in his downfall. Add to this the more obvious art direction/lighting.


BTW, something that Sunset Blvd, Double Indemnity, Mildred Pierce, and others have in common that I think is a strong "noir" signal is that they open with the lead making a confession leaving most or all of the film as a recounting of past events after the audience already knows of the downfall. I mean when you start off the film dead, that's got to be about as noir as you get.

BTW, since we are talking noir and Herb was nice enough (and others as well) to post some background and definition of film noir, let me add one other critical point.

WW2 not only served as the influence in the US for the tone that created these films, it is also a big part of how Cahiers du Cinema was able to spot the "trend".

During the war all these American films were unavailable to the French market (as well as most other European countries). Following the war H'wood sought to hit paydirt with a backlog of 5-7 years of films that hadn't played there yet. This was amplified by European resistance to such a flood because they wanted to protect their own national film studios/productions.

The final result was that you had audiences who had last seen films like Wiz of Oz, Gone with the Wind, etc. and were suddenly seeing a whole slew of these films that looked very similar.

To audiences on the inside the gradual change of tone went unnoticed, and while its possible that future students of film might have picked up on it, it was probably hella more obvious to the French critics due to the starkly direct comparison between pre and post war US films they were seeing. To them the slow shift looked like a sudden jump and enhanced their awareness of this new style.



BTW, since Blade Runner has been mentioned then let me ask a corollary question to the movement or genre question...was cyberpunk a movement or new genre?

To me the answer for that is probably similar to the answer for noir.


And if we consider noir as a genre then I definitely side with Chinatown belonging to it squarely, while I agree that most others are neo-noir. However, I do consider Blood Simple a traditional noir just as much as Chinatown.

I understand the "self awareness" point, but I think its wrong to assume that at the time filmmakers of original noirs weren't at least aware of what formula was currently popular, despite not being aware of it as a new trend/genre/movement. I think Wilder could be just as aware of what he was doing in Double Indemnity for example, picking out a back-stabbing female romantic temptation intentionally and with qualities that would match what had already been made popular with other films, even if he didn't call her a femme fatale at the time.

I've read quite a bit of cyberpunk ( Gibson, Cadigan, Sterling, Stephenson, Shirley, Rucker, etc. ) and I certainly would consider it a movement at least in terms of its origins. ( Interesting choice of literary styles to consider given that cyberpunk is influenced by noir. )

Coincidently, the first question of the Cyberpunk F.A.Q is:


1. What is cyberpunk, the literary movement?

Before its christening, the "cyberpunk movement", known to its members
as "The Movement", had existed for quite some time, centered around
Bruce Sterling's samizdat, _Cheap Truth_. Authors like Sterling,
Rudy Rucker, and John Shirley submitted articles pseudonymously to this
newsletter, hyping the works of people in the group and vigorously
attacking the "SF mainstream". This helped form the core "movement
consciousness".


Back to the thread at hand...

Going beyond the question of origin or the formative years of a particular cycle of artistic acheivement; once the conventions or guidelines associated with an artform have been established, does the 'movement' magically transmogrify into genre? Is it valid to talk of the art form as 'movement' when referring to it in terms of film history and simultaneously consider it a genre when discussing stylistic conventions or works that exist outside the formative years?

Certainly filmmakers were aware of the 'formula' even during the noir cycle. But I still believe it is one thing to work within the structure of a genre or style essentially playing it straight and another thing to develop a work that exists as an homage to a bygone era of filmmaking. The difference is not necessarily the content or style of the film ( ignoring for the sake of discussion the differences in tone associated with a color pallette ) but rather the culture or environment within which the film exists. Also, assuming that the contemporary filmmaker is attempting to make a 'noirish' film that works in that context vs. a film that has a sardonic sense of film history or the stylistic conventions of noir.

- Walter.

Heh, yeah, I'll admit that while I think the idea of film noir is interesting, for the most part I tend to think of these movies as "hard-boiled crime" films. I think it's because I actually came to the genre through the books that many of the movies were based on, and while some critics have tried to apply a "noir" designation to the literature, it tends not to stick and the books are usually described as hard-boiled crime fiction or something along those lines. So from that point of view, a movie like Mildred Pierce would be part of whatever we're discussing because it's based on a James Cain novel, Cain being one of the most important crime fiction writers, and the movie is relatively faithful in spirit to the novel (although they gave the movie a happy ending), so it just fits the same way that The Postman Always Rings Twice and Double Indemnity do. But that's just me

As Andy stated, I think Peter's stand on this issue is probably the same as mine.

Walter, probably as close to a cyberpunk movement thread as I will every get. It was worth a brief mention due to noir's influence on it(BR). In the case of Blade Runner, I find the film lifted much more from the noir genre than its' lifts from its' own source material. Especially in the case of the original voice-over release.

It seems almost fruitless to attempt to classify certain films into genres anymore. There is so much melding and mixing of styles that simple genre classification frequently doesn't work:
There's the dramedies like "The Apartment"
Retro futuristic: "Brazil"
Sci/Fi western: "Westworld"
Sci/Fi Noir: "Blade Runner", "Dark City"
Western/Noir: "Pursued"
I never am quite sure how to describe "A Clockwork Orange"
Some directors are so idiosyncratic, they become a genre discription unto themselves. Hitchcock is probably the most notable example: Hitchcockian suspense. What would be his closest film to noir? "The Wrong Man," "Strangers on a Train," "Spellbound," "Notorious," "Shadow of a Doubt?"
The Coen Brothers, David Lynch also are distinctive. I don't believe there are any auteur film noir directors.

Basically I believe that film noir is comprised of thematic (fatalism, morally weak males, scheming, two-timing females, cynicism, crime and corruption, etc.) - and visual elements (darkness, shadows, urban, black and white expressionistic photography, etc.) none of which is mutually exclusive or absolutely necessary. The more of these elements present, the more is feels like noir to me.

Walter's comment about cultural environment is worth noting. There are definite differences between the noir films of the 40s and those of the 50s. The cultural and societal mores of each decade is reflected in the films, both thematically and structurally (music score for example)

Even films that wouldn't be considered film noir that were made post WWII have scenes and elements that I think are clearly noir. In "It's a Wonderful Life" the fatalistic nighmare scenes of George Bailey learning that no one knows him are very noirish. Likewise, I always get a kick out of the last line of "Best Years of Our Lives," when Dana Andrews tells an adoring Teresa Wright, "You know how it will be (being married). We'll have no money no decent place to live. We'll have to work, get kicked around." How's that for cheerful optimism.

It’s also interesting to go back and look at the directors who were responsible for certain gems, although much of their careers were diverse with a myriad of styles and genres to their credit e.g. Huston, Wilder, Tourneur, Vidor, Dmytryk, Walsh etc.

While I’m not necessarily advocating that either of them were responsible for the genre (or movement as some choose to call it), I do think there are at least two directors that spent their entire career making films that we now refer to as noir.

The first was Fritz Lang whose filmography looks like a whose who of noir films - basically from start to finish. I’m also of the opinion that he is responsible for the very first true film noir with You Only Live Once (1937), a film highly regarded among noir aficionados. The second is Anthony Mann who ironically started his career with musicals and finished it with westerns, many of which are strongly considered noir. It’s interesting that many authors/historians don’t consider the obvious and common choices when listing their favorite examples of noir e.g. Double Indemnity, The Maltese Falcon, Out Of The Past etc. Surprisingly, the title that seems to be most often mentioned as the quintessential noir is Anthony Mann’s Raw Deal (1948).

Another director who deserves at least honorable mention with respect to the genre whose entire career was spent making films noir (albeit, to a much less degree of commercial success to those of Mann and Lang), was Edgar Ulmer who made some of the best B pictures ever, mostly noirs.

While I’d be reluctant to give any one individual the credit for starting this phenomenon, I am of the opinion these three were at least responsible for their ingenuity and influence for what would transpire over the next 20+ years.

Herb - To that fine group of directors, I would add Robert Siodmak who delivered a string of solid films through the latter half of the '40s. Re-reading your post; Siodmak did not spend the entirety of his career making noirs, but when listing individuals who contributed to its sucess I believe his efforts are worth recognition.

Film Noir Directors: Robert Siodmak

- Walter.

This is an EXCELLENT thread! Great discussion!



Well, if we have to limit it to a single choice, I would have to agree with you George, and also select Double Indemnity.

To me, Double Indemnity has virtually every element in it that is normally associated with Noir as discussed above (filmed in B&W, dark, voice over, femme fatale, investigation, etc.). It is a great film.

However, I like Wilder's Sunset Blvd. even better, and while I definitely think that it also qualifies as Film Noir, it seems as though it is just missing one of the "classic" noir elements compared to Double Indemnity. I think Double Indemnity focuses a bit more on the "investigative" side of things than Sunset Blvd. did.

Now that I try to put it in words, I don't really know why I think of Double Indemnity as being more "Classic" Film Noir than Sunset Blvd.? I guess it just "seems" that way!

This Gun For Hire will be my feature presentation tonight!

BTW, when is the new Double Indemnity DVD due to be released?

Following up my prievious post, another site with more extensive information on the career of Robert Siodmak

- Walter.

Walter,
Robert Siodmak is also one of my favorite directors with many of his films being some of the best I've seen in my lifetime.





Crawdaddy

I think that the definition of Film Noir could be summed up with Touch of Evil. While not prototypical it is (to me) the definitive Film Noir.

I certainly can't argue with that Walter... two of which are favorites of mine, The Killers & The Sprial Staircase.

I'm kinda surprised at the lack of discussion regarding the inclusion of foreign titles as noir as I asked early on in the thread. What's everybody else think...?

Herb.

Herb - Personally I haven't seen as many foreign films as some of the 'regulars' as I've spent most of my time going back to the '40s and '50s of Hollywood as a respite from contemporary fare (which I still watch of course) so it is a little difficult for me to evaluate that question. For instance Odd Man Out remains in my collection, but unwatched. I'll keep telling myself that one of these days I'll get caught up. Of course your massive film noir list isn't helping me, Herb.

My initial reaction, with admittedly not enough experience to make a clearly informed decision, is that the cultural and societal mores related to the environment of the film limit noir to American films and locales. But I'm frankly not comfortable making that rigid a distinction. To take one example; while I love The Third Man my first impression is to not categorize it as noir.


Robert - I haven't had the pleasure of viewing much of Siodmak's output, but those films I have seen have been excellent. The File on Thelma Jordan remains one of my most anticipated noir releases.

- Walter.

Seven, Usual Suspects, for me these movies evoke the same feelings (reactions) as classics such as Double Indemnity, The Maltese Falcon, and The Third Man. I think they fit in the category of film noir because of the element of surprise and the pessimism permeating throughout the plot and or the ending.

Hmmm. I'll go with Out of the Past (which I just got done screening). It's a bleak world indeed where even an act of kindness is a lie...

I just ordered the new Warner box set from Amazon -- I can't wait!

Box sets rarely look this good!

Shadows, Lies, and Private Eyes - The Film Noir Collection, Vol. 1 (The Asphalt Jungle / Gun Crazy / Murder My Sweet / Out of the Past / The Set-Up)

Speaking of Robert Siodmak, I was poking around at a few of the other regional sites and discovered Dark Mirror (1946) and Christmas Holiday (1944) are available in R2 - two titles we're probably not likely to see released here anytime soon. The Anchor Bay release of The Sprial Staircase is OOP, but I have the R2 Prism version which is very good. I also discovered Fritz Lang's Secret Beyond The Door available in R2 as well. My wife's gonna kill me...

Herb.

Andy, THE GIRL HUNTERS is on TCM on Monday.

I have a multi-part question for people.

First, does everyone here agree that The Maltese Falcon (1941) is the first film noir?

If not, then, in your opinion, what was?

If so, then, in your opinion, who's most responsible for that? Obviously the credit is shared, but who gets more of the credit? Did first time director John Huston basically invent a genre/movement? Was Bogie's tough-boiled portrayal the key? Arthur Edeson the cinematographer? Who?

IMO, it was Beast of the City starring Walter Huston and cases can be made for Fury, Stranger on the Third Floor and The Letter all of which came out before The Maltese Falcon.






Crawdaddy

Well from the books that I've read on the subject, Stranger on the Third Floor (1940) is generally considered the first Noir film with credit given as far back as Josef von Sternberg's Underworld (1927)

The roots of Noir is a blending of German Expressionism & French Poetic Realism.

Great thread BTW. Hope it keeps going for a while.

Could be, but I will only comment on films I've seen.

Right. Look at Fritz Lang's "M". Seems "noirish" to me!

George… no. While I do agree that The Maltese Falcon was the first perfect example of the genre to surface, I don’t believe it was the first example. The film was perfect in every way beyond a great plot and superb performances but included loads of skewed camera angles, a perfect femme fatale, atmosphere in spades (pun obviously intended) and an ensemble cast of characters that was never topped – ever (primarily the reason it remains one of my favorites).

From the films I have seen, I’d be inclined to say the first noir was You Only Live Once (1937). So to answer your next question and considering the films that have been mentioned here (M, Fury, You Only Live Once as well as a few others that haven’t, the other two Dr. Mabuse films, Liliom with numerous noir qualities and You And Me), I’m of the opinion, serious consideration has to be given to Fritz Lang as a/the leading influence.

Interesting. It's not surprising that those picking a film pre-dating The Maltese Falcon are all picking different films, but I am surprised that everyone (so far) is doing so. For myself, I haven't seen most of the films being mentioned, but while I can think of films before Maltese Falcon that have noir elements, I can't think of one I've seen that I'd call film noir. But apparently I'm alone in that opinion (what else is new? ).

I think this is an excellent observation, though I have to plead ignorance on key parts. I certainly would agree that Lang was a major influence, but I'm not in a good position to judge his most important work in this regard. I've seen Metropolis, M, and Fury, which certainly are important predecessors to film noir, though I wouldn't personally call any of them film noir. Unfortunately, the next Lang film I've seen after Fury (1936) is The Big Heat (1953), which is certainly film noir, but I'm in no position to make any judgments about his films between those two.

Obviously, I've got some serious film noir gaps.

I know we've got a thread listing every film noir (and depending on your pov, then some), but maybe at some point we can try to come up with a shorter list of the 'essential' film noir, to help those of us who want to, to fill in our gaps. I know at some point I need to see Possessed (a western that might qualify as a noir) and others, but with all the other films on my to see list, I really need to narrow this down.

Hell, the more I think about this, the more I think I'm going to start another thread for an 'essential film noir' challenge, part of which will be trying to decide on a list of 'essential' film noirs, which will probably be as contentious to define as film noir itself.

Robert,

I assume it makes sense to start such a challenge in a separate thread, but if you think it would fit in better as part of this thread, let me know. I don't want to hijack this thread, nor do I want to start a thread that some mod would decide to merge back into this one.