*** Official Film Noir Discussion Thread - Page 5

Greatest:
The Killers
Out of the Past
Chinatown
The Postman Always Rings Twice
Double Indemnity

Historically important:
Body Heat (1981)
Gilda
This Gun for Hire

Other:
Blade Runner
Sorry, Wrong Number

Dave:

In the 20' and 30's, arguably Paris along with Kansas City were leading cities of Jazz. In the mid to late 60's, many American born musicians lived in Paris and other parts of Europe. While in the 20's it was about personal freedom and "tolerance" for many - in the 60's it was more about earning a living. Perhaps this Smithsonian link on the Jazz Age in Paris might start you off: http://www.si.edu/ajazzh/jazzage.htm

Separately, I have no idea why you've introduced race into this discussion.

Fuller didn't make a lot of noirs, I'm not sure if Naked Kiss is one, had id been made 10 years earlier there would be no doubt, but the miniskirts, the frankness of the conversations and the sixties ciolor schemes just take me out of it as a noir. As movie, it's great.

Probably even greater if you could remember it. No 60's color scheme, the film was in black and white. No miniskirts, if anything skirts were at knee level or below. Frankness of the conversations? Such as? As I remember the language seemed quite coded. As Fritz Lang's M (1931) predates the issue of child predators by over 30 years, I don't see how The Naked Kiss significantly differentiates itself regarding subject matter or how it was presented. Other than that, I'm with you 100 percent.

All,

Again, I'm not saying it is a perfect analogy but an
American jazz musician goes to Europe to live and work and record - it's still jazz music. When Miles Davis records in Paris the jazz soundtrack for Ascenseur pour l'échafaud (1958)a.k.a Elevator to the Gallows (one of his all-time best works for those unfamiliar with it) yep, still Jazz music. And when Frenchmen Rene Urtreger (piano) and Pierre Michelot(bass) join Miles Davis for the soundtrack, it's still jazz. And when Clint Eastwood casts Pierre Michelot to play in the American film 'Round Midnight set in the famous Blue Note club in Paris, the Academy still lists it as an American film and yes, the soundtrack and subject matter is still jazz. With that said, I'm off the jazz analogy, sorry for the interruption.

European directors that came to America made noir films. American directors such as Dassin making films in Europe, still noir. European directors can make noir films in Europe as well. Melville is an example - Le Circle Rouge has been mentioned and I would chime in with Bob Le Flambeur - a terrific noir film. Considering Bob Le Flambeur - does Melville's Paris show less noir shadows, less noir mood, different noir lighting than some noir film set in San Francisco?

Talk about being late for the party! Geez you all have been busy bees, and one fine hive you all have made too! (of course this leads to the all important question... who's the queen bee?)

OK, so tell me again the definition of Film Noir?

Seriously, I am shocked (pleasantly) at the response this thread has gotten and so quickly. As soon as I have the time to read through this thread I'll be sure to post something, and hopefully it won’t be too ridiculous.

In the mean time let me just say how pleased as punch I am too see how great an interest there is in Film Noir. Perhaps even more evidence that 2004 really will be remembered as The Year That Brought Back Film Noir?

-----
quote:
Separately, I have no idea why you've introduced race into this discussion.
-----

I actually didn't catch Dave's reference to race. If it was regarding jazz, race – for better or worse – is indeed a huge issue, but that's another story.

And race rears it's head in film noir as well. Now that we all have our brand new DVDs of Out of the Past, consider this passage from William Luhr's Raymond Chandler and Film:

"Jacques Tourneur's classic noir Out of the Past (1947) opens with images of idyllic rural American life in Bridgeport, California . . . The first place [Jeff Bailey] looks [for Kathie Moffat] is in a Negro nightclub, then he goes to Mexico City, then to Acapulco . . . The film carefully establishes the woman's evil not only by her explicit acts of betrayal but by linking her with various forms of racial and cultural otherness. Little narrative explanation is given as to why a black nightclub would be the first logical place to look for her, but it is, and the fact links her with people who are racially different . . . We see no blacks in Bridgeport, and everyone speaks English. The sense of racial and cultural otherness compounds by association the villianess's evil and her threat to the good life of Bridgeport, California."

Luhr goes on regarding The Big Sleep, and in particular when Philip Marlowe finds Carmen Sternwood in an oriental gown in A.G. Geiger's oriental furnished house – a porn pad, and murder site:

"The oriental furnishing of Geiger's house and the veiled activities that go on there associate it with death, sex, blackmail, exotic drugs, and pornographic activity. The association extends further to Geiger's store, which is decorated with oriental objects . . . Geiger is associated with things oriental, and in this film, things oriental suggest mysterious, unexplained, and perverse evil. This is not all surprising, considering the racism inherent in many American films of the period, and especially considering the fact that most of the film was shot when the United States was at war with Japan, when anti-oriental feeling was particularly strong. Although [Howard] Hawks could not explicitly show many of the things the story line suggested – nudity, drugs – he could suggest that anything was possible simply by using an exotic oriental atmosphere. The implicit reasoning is that a man who surrounds himself with oriental objects is capable of anything."

If this theme is not too offensive, could someone remind me of the scene or scenes where a noir killer whips himself into a murderous frenzy in a hyped up jazz session in black nightclub? I want to say Elisha Cook? The point being the confluence of jazz, race, and noir. Sorry, but true.

Uh, I'm a little uncertain if I should respond to this in light of the warnings, but I just wanted to say that the irony of this is that, from what I've read of Tourneur's comments on Out of the Past, the simple reason he included non-white characters in the film was because he felt that Hollywood neglected them too much. I mean, the majority of the non-white characters in the film come off as charming, at least to me. Mitchum goes into the club, asks for some help, and they happily help him and they seem like real people instead of the caricatures that were popular at the time. But if the mods want this message deleted, I'll understand.

It's not "race" but "racism." What about homophobia, misogyny, and Red-baiting as well as racism in film noir? These are all legitmate issues of inquiry in the mainstream noir literature and in general film criticism. If this was a thread on Birth of the Nation, admonishing discussion on racism would itself be "offensive." Isn't the issue one of tone and respect rather than some blanket prohibition? Indeed, it is out of respect, that I ask you to reconsider. If my post isn't picked up on that's one thing, but my post being a sore point? Perhaps I'm too "academic" for this crowd.

Walter,

You voted for the Maltese Falcon twice. I only counted it in the greatest category, so you can still add one to the historically important category.

Current voting:

Greatest:
6 - Double Indemnity
6 - Out of the Past
4 - The Killers (1946)
3 - The Big Sleep
3 - The Maltese Falcon
2 - Touch of Evil
2 - In A Lonely Place
2 - The Big Heat
1 - Sunset Blvd.
1 - Raw Deal
1 - D.O.A.
1 - Murder, My Sweet
1 - Chinatown
1 - The Postman Always Rings Twice

Important:
2 - M
2 - The Maltese Falcon
2 - Detour
2 - This Gun For Hire
2 - Touch of Evil
1 - The Big Clock
1 - The Big Sleep
1 - I Wake Up Screaming
1 - You Only Live Once
1 - Laura
1 - Raw Deal
1 - Body Heat (1981)
1 - Gilda

Other:
2 - Blade Runner
1 - The Night of the Hunter
1 - Red Rock West
1 - The Gunfighter
1 - The Roaring Twenties
1 - You Only Live Twice
1 - Pickup on South Street
1 - D.O.A.
1 - Gilda
1 - In A Lonely Place
1 - Sorry, Wrong Number

Am I the only one bothered by the 'message' of Fuller's Pickup on South Street? It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember my main reason not for liking it, was that it seemed to be embracing anti-communist hysteria at a time when the blacklist was in full swing. It just left a sour taste in my mouth.

Greatest:

Touch of Evil
Double Indemnity
The Maltese Falcon
Le Cercle Rouge
The Killers


Historically Important:

The Big Sleep
Chinatown
Key Largo


Others:

Breathless—Jean-Luc Godard’s tribute to Humphrey Bogart and these films.
Branded to Kill—A Japanese version

When you say "the key point being that film does not exist apart from its audience" - - if you mean that film funding and distribution does not exist for long without an interested audience - agreed. If you mean something else, please explain.

As for Dimendberg's points, let me break the logic down a bit.

First, while I think most of us differentiate some "crime pictures" from a film noir, most certainly crime is a major element of film noirs, so let's go with it.

- However, a centralized America versus a "decentralized America" have much to do with film crime and film noir? Certainly the 50's and 60's show a move to the suburbs (decentralized) as well as a change of demographics within the cities. But the cities most impacted were the smaller or middle sized city. The major cities (i.e. New York, Chicago, L.A. and San Francisco didn't feel the same impact of say a Hartford or New Haven. Point being that if a film isn't portraying a Hartford or a New Haven sized city as often as the large cities ... does it matter much? Perhaps it does. Perhaps the plight of "everyman" in the city doesn't resonate when "everyman" is no longer as concerned about that plight.

- What about the very premise of a centralized city being important to the story or to the audience of a noir film? Touch of Evil takes place primarily in a small Mexican border town. Ride the Pink Horse takes place in a small Mexican town. In both, crime is a core building block but certainly don't depend on American city structures nor even American soil. I find it hard to believe that audiences wouldn't find these films engrossing no matter where they might live. Having said that, it is often getting an audience to see the film in the first place (and that likelihood) that provides film distribution). Said another way, just because a film is engrossing doesn't (at all) guarantee distribution. Even in the hayday of Hollywood produced film noirs, many of the films we dearly love were not top tier films (as far as film budgets go) with large budgets.

So, as I'm working through this in my own mind, I think the points that Walter makes seem quite valid.

I'd also add:

Audiences interest in films change regardless of social/economic/cultural changes. Look what happened to film musicals for 30 years and westerns to a lessor degree. Pointedly film distributors are part of the problem over-doing trends to there is a decided backlash. Look at spy movies in the 60's to the backlash of the 70's. Audiences in the 50's that went to B movies or B movie houses are no different in seeing things different. Look at the increasing number of B level horror films and Sci-fi in the 50's.

Distribution of B-movies and B-movie twin bills had its demise in the 60's along with many small theatres and most drive-ins. Studios reacted by making fewer films and cinemas having to do longer runs of these films. Certainly not conducive to smaller films (in general). I bring up this point to shift to where we are now. The distribution system has changed with the interest and profitability of DVDs. Now, distribution of films do not depend as much on filling theatres for long engagements with the market for home video.

Perhaps if noir DVD sales are surprisingly good it might even influence some current directors to create a noir film (even if only to release it as an independent film). At the very least, it will be terrific for some (like me) to see older films that they never had a chance to see in a theatre.

Final note: Sam Fuller's Crimson Kimono is well worth seeing if you can find a source for the film. Not a terrific film, but still worth a viewing.

well, looks like I have some explaining to do.

Sorry for bringing up race. It was meant purely in jest, as a gentle ribbing, nothing more. I'll refrain from doing that in the future.




Uh, who said anything about Americans recording Jazz in other countries? Miles Davis could go to Antarctica and record, it would be Jazz. When Sven Ole Nordstrum tries to record a Jazz album, he's probably copying it, that's what I meant, sorry if that wasn't clearer. Again music is still a different entity, there are many other factors (being able to watch it live for one), that seperate it from film. I should probably also say that I don't really like Jazz, and that my knowledge in music comes from Blues and Blues-based music and I should probably stick with that. However I find it a little condescending to suggest that I take a learner course on a style of music, because you missunderstood my post.



Haha, I have no idea what movie I talking talking about, because it clearly wasn't Naked Kiss. Now I'm not so sure I've ever seen it and I don't know what movie I WAS talking about!



Well I can understand you're disagreeing with my assesment of Naked Kiss, 'cause it wasn't even the right movie I was talking about! But I stand by the statement that Fuller didn't do a lot of noirs, or maybe that he wasn't really known for his noirs as much as he is for westerns or war pictures. He did make some great noirs, no argument from me there.



I don't think you'll find much debate there. There are sub-genres in the Sci-Fi genre, and Star Wars fits into one of them (bad enough we're discussing noir, I'm not gonna start with other genres ) Some could argue whether certain movies belong in certain categories, but for the most part it's pretty easy to pick out a musical or a western (always exceptions, but with noir there tend to be lot's of exceptions to every "rule" therefore more contention)



I'm gonna use an example I probably shouldn't, just because art history isn't my strong suit. If an artist spent 5 years making a completely new pianting, done in the style of the renaissance artists, could it ever be placed among the work of Michealangelo and Bottecelli? Nope. It's a copy, it's looking so meticulously at every detail to make sure it doesn't stray from it's source. You can make a document look like it was writting in 1826, you can use the correct paper, writing style, choice of words, it's still not actually from 1926, it can only ever be a close copy.

As for Man Who Wasn't There. I haven't seen it, but it doesn't matter. It is a movie that absolutely aware of what it is. A copy, not saying it's bad, just it is what it is. Again Panic Room is closer to a modern noir, because it's never trying to be a noir or look like it is. In fact the people who made it probably wouldn't like me calling it one, so it's closest in terms of just naturally creating the atmosphere without trying.

I'll say again that noir to was a result of the natural progression of movies. Lot's of different factors went into it (just watching one of the commentary tracks for one of WBs movies and someone brought up the popularity of Freud - it hadn't even occured to me). Factors that can never be repeated only copied. I want folks to know that there is no way we will ever come to a consensus on this issue, it has raged in the noir community for decades and it's still open for discussion. So my comments aren't meant to cut anyone down, just backing up my position is all.

Dark Passage

This is one of my favorite Film Noirs. I think is is a truly interesting and entertaining film. Bogart and Bacall are electric. I also love the camerawork in this film!! I think it has been unfairly underrated!! It might not be the best of the two stars' films together but it is still a great film!!

I respectfully suggest that more people know Forty Guns then they do any of his noirs. Quantity, he made more noirs, but he's never referred to as a noir director, he's much more closely associated with War and Westerns (and you're right it's mostly war movies).

Just a few thoughts/questions:

Django Reinhardt isn't jazz?

Eric Clapton isn't a great blues guitarist?

I guess I feel the same way about film noir.

Chinatown isn't film noir?

I think what all three of these have in common is (to me) artificial definitions - that something has to have come from a certain country, or be done by a certain type of person, or have been made in a certain time frame in order to be genuine.

I disagree. If he was so good, that you couldn't tell, then what's the difference?

I guess I'm a believer in the black box. Consider two cds. One is a 2004 recording of a Bach concerto by symphony X. The other is a cd from an alternate universe in which Bach never wrote that concerto - I did, note for note in 2003. The same symphony X in 2004 recorded the same Bach concerto, which is exactly the same performance to the minutest detail.

One of those you would call a baroque work. The other you would say is a pale imitation. But if the cds are identical in every single respect (except for the history behind who wrote the music), and you don't know which is which, you can't tell them apart. Yet, you would insist that one of these two identical cds was baroque and the other wasn't, even though you would never ever be able to tell me which was which?

Obviously, I'm very confused.

Robert,

Thanks for the heads up!

No problem. Thanks for clearing that up.


Very true. Duplicating a time period (by itself) doesn't help or hurt something from being noir.

When someone does a Western in 2004, it's considered a Western. The same goes for other described form of films. Yet, if someone does a 2004 noir, it is slapped with a neo-noir label by some or worse, told that noir ended with such and such a film ... because they said so.


So in your view, a film that stumbles (i.e. doesn't try to be noir but still manages to be noir) into having noir elements, somehow deserves more appreciation than one that tries to be noir? I'll leave that one alone.

Two major flaws in your overall argument though, the assumption that the film that tried to be noir could not have come up with a story as good or better than other noir films or Panic Room. Also, you use "copy" quite loosely. As if the original poster was talking about a frame by frame remake of Psycho or something. He is clearly talking about a "newly discovered film noir" not a newly discovered re-make. Big difference.

Film is expression but it is also illusion. A Western doesn't recreate the old West it creates an illusion that works. You know, fake buildings, fake towns, dubbed voices, dubbed sound effects, stunt doubles, an orchestrated score along with men with straight teeth, and women with fake boobs. The same is true for film noir. Point being that some discussion of period authenticity or "realness" seems quite laughable.


There also seems to be some implication that a "true" noir is period specific because of some sort of genuine authenticity related to that period. What exactly is that authenticity? "Authentic" studio sets put them over the top? Man up against forces he can't control with a woman (femme fatale) that leads him astray? Sounds as old as Adam and Eve to me. Or ...

Not one single thing but a list of many factors that make something film noir? Agreed. But you're back to explaining why those same factors can't be in a 2004 noir just as well and just as validly noir.

I don't consider either to be noirs, and appreciation has nothing to do with it. Only that I can understand the tag being applied to something like Panic Room because it doesn't simply ape it's sources. I've already been VERY clear on when I feel noir movies ended.




Story has nothing to do with the argument, L.A. Confidential is a great story, The Grifters is a great story, none of this has anything to do with whether or not something is a noir. That's the point of my argument, if you only look at noir as being a collection of story elements and some B/W cinematography, then you're selling it short.

I use the word the copy because it is vague, I'm not saying an exact replica of a film. D.O.A. takes place in contemporary California, Chinatown does not. Chinatown had to copy the look of the 40's, whereas D.O.A. did not. Man Who Wasn't There takes place in the 40's, it's not a contemporary crime thriller the way the original (I prefer that to the word "true") noirs were. It "copies" their style.

Could you elaborate. What makes a film noir?

That it takes place in the 40/50s?

That it takes place in contemporary time?

Or both?

I'm guessing you'd argue for both. Chinatown meets the first criteria, Body Heat meets the second, but neither meets the third.

However, while I can't think of any off the top of my head, I'm hoping someone can name a film noir made in the 40s or 50s that takes place during a different time period. If such a film exists, then that would invalidate the third criterion.

Current voting:

Greatest:
7 - Double Indemnity
6 - Out of the Past
5 - The Killers (1946)
4 - The Maltese Falcon
3 - The Big Sleep
3 - Touch of Evil
2 - In A Lonely Place
2 - The Big Heat
1 - Sunset Blvd.
1 - Raw Deal
1 - D.O.A.
1 - Murder, My Sweet
1 - Chinatown
1 - The Postman Always Rings Twice
1 - Force of Evil
1 - Le Cercle Rouge

Important:
2 - M
2 - The Maltese Falcon
2 - Detour
2 - This Gun For Hire
2 - Touch of Evil
2 - The Big Sleep
1 - The Big Clock
1 - I Wake Up Screaming
1 - You Only Live Once
1 - Laura
1 - Raw Deal
1 - Body Heat (1981)
1 - Gilda
1 - Leave Her To Heaven
1 - Chinatown
1 - Key Largo

Other:
2 - Blade Runner
1 - The Night of the Hunter
1 - Red Rock West
1 - The Gunfighter
1 - The Roaring Twenties
1 - You Only Live Twice
1 - Pickup on South Street
1 - D.O.A.
1 - Gilda
1 - In A Lonely Place
1 - Sorry, Wrong Number
1 - 99 River Street
1 - Breathless
1 - Branded to Kill

Now I know yer only mucking with me but that's fine. I'm pretty sure if you re-read my posts my opinion what is and isn't noir is pretty clear. I was clearing up a point on my use of the word "copy" I wasn't attempting to restate my entire argument.

The "crime thrillers" of tthe 40's/50's (which you like to point out are the only legitemate noirs and can therefore be made in any era) are all contemporary. I won't say there couldn't be an exception but I haven't seen it or heard of it.

Of course if you accept my position that it's style/era then some westerns of the time apply, as well as period pieces like Bluebeard and Night of the Hunter.

No, but I should have made it clearer that I was speaking in regards to the 'contemporary' issue.

Sorry, did I clear it up?