I’ve got a chance to teach a film course in film noir, and I’m all jazzed about it because I love classic noir (such as DOUBLE INDEMNITY) and I love neo noirs (such as CHINATOWN) and I love parodies of noir (such as WHO SHOT ROGER RABBIT?) etc. but here’s the rub–I really don’t know what makes something a film noir.
This is maybe not such a problem, as I often find out stuff by teaching a course in it, but I’ve never taught a course before where I had such a vague understanding of the subject of the course. In your view, is it a cinematic look (dark lighting, lots of shadows, etc.)? Is it an attitude (grim, fatalistic outlook)? Is it a story line (involving sordid crimes and their solutions)? Is it something else? Is it meaningless?
I’d say it’s almost all attitude. It’s that “the world is completely going to hell, but I’m still fighting even though I’m the only one, because the problems of a few people may not amount to a hill of beans, but this is our hill, and these are our beans” thing.
The best way to describe noir is that it has a gritty feel to it. The protagonists are almost always anti-heroes who aren’t afraid to take a serious beating (and in fact will usually end up beaten within an inch of their lives several times before the story is over). Femmes fatale are usually major players too.
Exposition is usually given through heavy narrative in the first person. I’m not sure a noir piece could work in the third person. Third person omniscient is right out.
In the case of film, style has its fair share to do with it in the form of camera angles and lighting, but mostly it’s the attitude and storytelling aspect.
All in all, there’s several different aspects to examine when you’re examining noir, and I love every fucking one of them.
Now 'scuse me while I go re-order my Netflix queue.
Yep–LA Confidential.
3) and disturbing placements of the camera –yes, but not necessarily
4) with a male protagonist –yes, but not necessarily
[/quote]
I’m terrible about camera placements; can you give me an example? The only interesting camera placement in film noir I can think of is the beginning of Touch of Evil. As for female protagonists, I can’t think of any film noir with one.
Again, are there any films noir (and is that the right plural?) that don’t concern acts of cruelty? It’s hard for me to imagine one that centers, for example, around someone dying of cancer: even Key Largo’s hurricane is just a backdrop for gangsters.
Heh–Big Lebowski is the only exception I can think of, although I’m sure there are others. On the other hand, the murders seem to be solved most of the time.
Noir is defined by at least three separate things:[ul][li]A jaded, hard-edged protagonist;[/li][li]A plot that involves deception and twists typically involving a deceptive or manipulative woman (the femme fatale) and an object about which the action revolves (the MacGuffin), generally ending in a nihilistic resolution; and[/li][li]A visual styling using dramatic shadows or cool and contrasting colors; bizarre, paranoia-inducing camera angles; and and grim, stark environments (a rainy alley, a fog-shrouded street, et cetera).[/ul][/li]There are many different “forms” of noir from traditional mystery-detective-type film noir (The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Out Of The Past) to color-saturated neo-noir (Blood Simple, The Grifters, Heat), flat, almost colorless color-noir (A Simple Plan), revisionist noir (in which the conventions of noir are kind of turned on their head in winking fashion, as in Chinatown, The Spanish Prisoner, or Ronin), scifi-noir (Blade Runner, City Of Lost Children), noir satire (like The Man Who Wasn’t There, The Big Lebowski, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), and then the big mass of films that aren’t properly noir but derive a lot of thematic or stylistic elements from noir (The Return, Seconds, The Apartment) vitrually every heist movie ever made).
Noir elements pop up all over the place; virtually of all Billy Wilder’s Hollywood output has distinct noir styling and elements, even those that were nominally comedies. Ditto, in his own distinctly nihilistic way, for Sam Peckinpah (The Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs, Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia).
I assume you’re going to screen some films for this class. What movies do you have on the list to show and discuss so far?
I happen to believe that Citizen Kane edges on Noir - it really isn’t at all typical Noir in terms of plot - no detective, no femme fatale. A mystery - but “rosebud” may be the most anticlimatic mystery in cinema. There isn’t a lot of cruelty in it. But its Noir in tone and feel - camera angles, the retrospective plot.
I wrote a paper on “memory and film noir.” In my opinion, one characteristic a lot of film noir has is its reliance on a non-linear narrative - the story is told as memory with some jumping around. DOA is the classic version of this.
Another characteristic of classic noir is the cast. If Veronica Lake or Edward G Robinson or Ida Lupino or Humphrey Bogart is in it - chances are good you have a Noir on your hands - or at least a film that has Noir elements. And probably beyond the cast - the writers and director as well. Treasure of the Sierra Madre isn’t classic Noir in setting, but John Huston and Humphrey Bogart give it a Noir tone. Rancho Notorious is another film like that.
Not all noir is non-linear, but I think that the nonlinear chronology was developed for noir. The earliest movie I can think of that has a major portion of the story in flashback is The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. This film, like Citizen Kane, isn’t itself noir but it certainly has elements of it, including the German Expressionalist camera angles and dramatic distorted shadows. This was definitely an inspriration for The Twilight Zone. (A few minor updates and an English script and it would have made an excellent extended episode.) Citizen Kane does have a femme fatale of sorts–Kane’s mistress, who initiates his ultimate downfall–but she’s really just a stand-in for Kane’s lifelong obsession with “Rosebud”. (And I have to disagree that “Rosebud” is an anticlimax, unless you think that “Rosebud” is just a sled.)
So is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. In fact, it almost qualifies as noir. It’s the only John Wayne movie I can really bear to watch him in. Once Upon A Time In The West, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly are also qualify as Western-noir. (I’m not sure whether to include High Plains Drifter there or not; it’s almost more of a surreal horror/revenge story with Clint Eastwood playing the Freddy Krueger role.)
Disclaimer: I say this as somebody with no real expertise in either cinematic technique or noir itself, more as an outside observer offering what I feel noir should represent.
I’d say that noir is an agnostic interpretation of Hell or Purgatory, in which the protagonist(s) must achieve, knowingly or not, redemption and/or purification. This might make sense if you realise that most noir settings are Hell-like or nightmarish, featuring extended usage of darkness, paranoia, fear and death as well as lacking in compassion, innocence, love and happiness. Characters are isolated from one another, each experiencing their own solipsistic torment. Femme fatales are the devil in female human form, seductive temptresses that conceal ‘bad news’ beneath an alluring red dress and matching lipstick.
The use of crime and mystery plots are convenient foils for the notion that there is an ultimate purpose, a puzzle to be solved. To pass the ‘test’, the (anti-)hero must confront fears, battle demons (both real and imagined) and discover the light of truth, even if they have to die to achieve it. Noir is about tackling that dark corner of your mind that gnaws at your sanity. In short, it’s about battling yourself.
Of course, it’s likely that I’m talking bollocks. As I said, I’m no expert on the subject, I was simply offering my own casual interpretation of film noir based on the titles I have seen that are included under the term’s umbrella (mostly psycho-noir and sci-fi noir) as well as classic stereotypes.
I have no list, so far. I have only my favorites (listed above), and all of the movies being discussed here, but I’m not even sure yet how much of the course is going to be devoted to screenings. I suppose we could actuallly show half-dozen to a dozen films in class, and that won’t even exhaust my favorites.
Do we want to show a few films, and discuss them exhaustively, or show many, and be able to generalize effectively? I don’t know at this point.
As a student, I think I’d rather see a few films and go into great detail, rather than a lot of films and discuss them only in generalizations. Students could also be responsible for watching a film on their own and performing an in-depth analysis of it; these analyses could be presented in summarized form to the entire class if you’re a sadist or if the students are very, very good.
Another approach to incorporating independent analyses: after students have done these and turned them in, have the class discussion in which traits of films noir are identified. Create a chart with three columns:
-Trait
-Examples of movies with this trait
-Examples of movies without this trait
Identify the traits first, then go through each movie watched as a whole class and discuss whether it possesses each of the traits, then open the floor to students to talk briefly about which traits their analyzed movie either exemplified or totally lacked.
Something like this might help students develop a stronger sense of which traits are vital to the genre and which are optional.