Film Noir Tournament (1 Viewer)

[Brook K]

2nd The Blue Dahlia

 

[george kaplan]

I think the majority of noir fans would agree that both Chinatown and L.A. Confidential are film noir, and both are in color and made after 1960.

 

[Gabe D]

Pending approval, I'll nominate:

The Asphalt Jungle
Devil in a Blue Dress
Niagara

 

[Tommy G]

Wow, I wholeheartedly disagree with Notorious being left out of this tournament. Here is a definition as quoted from filmsite.org of what qualifies as film noir:
I suppose I'll just wait until the voting starts as I'm confused as to what I should be nominating

 

[SteveGon]

Tommy: It does get a bit confusing!
As you originally mentioned, is Rebecca film noir? Perhaps.
Anyway, some of the films you listed above may end up in the tourney since it looks like we may have a problem filling out the list. The reason I took some films off the list was because I wanted to concentrate on the more straightforward examples of noir - Double Indemnity, etc.
I guess, in the end, what best defines "noir" (aside from the aesthetic elements) is that feeling you get from watching a movie. I'd say it's as much a personal opinion as anything else.
Gabe, those are fine except for Niagara which I haven't seen. Anyone?

 

[Lew Crippen]

In that case
Second:
Asphalt Jungle

 

[Lew Crippen]

In the spirit of the feel of film noir, someone with a nomination left might consider The Element of Crime. This absolutely has the look and feel. And even though it’s nominally in color, Von Trier’s monochromatic approach gives a B&W effect.

And I’ll also make a plea for Kurosawa’s High and Low with the feel of film noir (and as a bonus taken from an Ed McBain, 87th Precinct mystery.

 

[Brook K]

I would nominate a different Von Trier movie that I think falls within the bounds of noir, Zentropa

 

[Rob Tomlin]

Wow, I wholeheartedly disagree with Notorious being left out of this tournament.

Me too!

 

[Justin Doring]

There seem to be a number of disagreements about what and what should not be included in this tournament.

 

[Ric Bagoly]

Well, the way I see it, if a film is nominated, then Seconded and Thirded by two different people, then that should be it. If Reservoir Dogs is such an offensive pick, then surely it wouldn't be seconded and thirded, no? The point is, if three people feel it deserves to compete, then that's the way it goes. I'm sure all the people opposed would vote the malignant film out in the 1st Round, but would they? In this case, the criteria would appear to be ESPECIALLY strict, and while exceptions to the rule like Chinatown and LA Confidential could make it in (obviously, Kaplan ) the fact is that if 3 active members on this board feel Lebowski, Reservoir, or Notorious should be in, that is supposed to reflect the DIVERSITY of different opinions on what Noir is, not just one person. Thanx.

 

[Bill J]

Ric, would you care to enlighten us on how Reservoir Dogs is noir?
By the way, Steve, I think you are doing an excellent job. I certainly see why this can be tough with all the varying opinions.

 

[ChuckDeLa]

People like certain films a lot and develop blind spots when those films are concerned. Big Lebowski, for example, is one of those movies that people seem to worship for some bizarre reason, and they'd love to see it win every tournament. The fact that three people share this delusion is irrelevant. We'd have friggin' Star Wars in this tournament if Dome thought he could get away with nominating it.

...is supposed to reflect the DIVERSITY of different opinions on what Noir is, not just one person.

Sez who? This is Steve's tourney, not a democracy. Steve sets the rules. If you want a "Reserv-noir Dogs" tourney, start your own. I'm glad he's sticking to his guns, even if it involves eliminating movies I happen to like a lot.

 

[Ric Bagoly]

I'm sorry, I guess I'm the only one who owns Reservoir Dogs on DVD, because in the "Special Features" on disc 2 there is an extended feature on Dogs' debt to the "noir" genre. (Apparently there have been books done in this style too!) Now if they make a WHOLE Special Feature on the film's importance to noir, surely a case can be made, no? Or is film noir radically "different" from literary noir?

 

[Rob Tomlin]

If you want a "Reserv-noir Dogs" tourney, start your own.

I watched Blood Simple again last night and it dawned on me that this is a great Noir film! Came up to the computer to make sure it was nominated, and sure enough, it's already in!
I really think it's the Coen's best movie (barely beating out Fargo).

 

[Lew Crippen]

Time for another two cents.

I hold with the prevailing opinion that the person who moderates the tournament determines the criteria for that tournament. This is not the first time that the person running a tourney has decided to allow and disallow films. Steve has thrown out my noms in several tourneys, beginning with a ‘Death of Villains’ tourney. He made a call as to whether or not my entry met his criteria (not mine). On the other hand, I thought that George allowed films in a Christmas tourney that in no way reflected anything about Christmas, except that there was snow on the ground. As you allowed some films (such as Pulp Fiction) in your very excellent ‘cult films’ tourney.

The fact that I felt that ‘Pulp Fiction’ was not a cult film and should not be in the tourney was beside the point. You let it in and it was your tourney and your decision to make. (To be honest, that did not keep me from posting why I voted against ‘Pulp Fiction’ almost every time, but it rolled right along, regardless of my view and postings).

And I would observe that:

I'm sorry, I guess I'm the only one who owns Reservoir Dogs on DVD, because in the "Special Features" on disc 2 there is an extended feature on Dogs' debt to the "noir" genre.

We read this very differently. My take on this comment is that a ‘debt to film noir’, is a clear statement that the film is not ‘film noir’, not that it is.

Even so, this film comes closer than does the Coens’ ‘Lebowski’, which is a comedy, albeit a pretty dark one. The Coens have been quoted as saying that this film was their take on a Raymond Chandler novel, which would be in the spirit of film noir, except that Chandler never wrote comedy (other than irony). Nor did any of the other ‘literary’ noir writers of the period.

Having written all of this, I’d be open to reading what makes RD (or Lebowski) film noir. But something other than two of my mates and I think so discussion would be helpful.

 

[Rand]

Second:

This Gun For Hire
The Blue Dahlia
They Won't Believe Me
Mildred Pierce

Third:

Detour

I'm of the "film noir was a movement, not a genre" camp. If it was released after the mid fifties it's not film noir. It may have film noir elements, it may closely resemble film noir, it may give homage to film noir, but it ain't film noir.

 

[Lew Crippen]

I would nominate a different Von Trier movie that I think falls within the bounds of noir, Zentropa

Not at all to disagree Brook. My suggestion of The Element of Crime is because if it’s not on DVD, chances are that not enough people will have seen the film to vote.

Even at that, it is pretty hard to detect a groundswell of support for this or High and Low

 

[ChuckDeLa]

I love High and Low, but I don't think it's all that noir-ish.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Fair enough, Chuck. I was not sure if it met the test when I ran the nom past Steve. Certainly the source (Ed McBain’s King’s Ransom) would in no way be considered ‘noirish’, as it is pretty much a straightforward police investigation novel.

Still, to me, H&L feels like a film noir. There is to be sure no ‘femme fatale’, perhaps a necessary ingredient of true film noir. So I’m happy to move past this to something else.

How do you feel about either of the Von Trier suggestions?