I see a lot of people calling films “film noir” just because they deal with dark themes. But the classic model is really a form of tragedy: the hero gets enmeshed into a a web of intrigue and murder, usually because of a manipulative woman (a lot of film noir is intensely misogynistic). In the best film noir, he does not come to a good end.
I’ve liked films like Double Indemnity (really, the model film noir), D.O.A., Detour, and ** Scarlet Street**. I’m also a fan of Kansas City Confidential and He Walked By Night, neither of which are really film noir (the first is a heist film, the second a pseudodocumentary), but are often cited as being part of the genre since they have some stylistic similarites.
Just out of curiosity, what’s the feeling on the Neo-Noir offerings like Chinatown, L.A. Confidential and things made in the past two or three decades?
One that you had to be watching for or you missed it was Gotham (1988) (TV) but it was one tough movie with some excellent Virginia Madsen!
In my anal-retentiveness, while I have and adore those aforementioned films, they are filed within my Noir folder but I consider them homage to classic Noir.
Similarly, Body Heat and Blade Runner are also high on my list of Neo-Noir which I greatly appreciate but my list of Noir films sort of stops in 1959.
A few scenes?!? Probably 2/3 of the movie takes place in the day.
“Noir” has never meant, from a genre perspective, simply “takes place at night.” It has always relied on some specific tropes that are not all hard-and-fast, but still act as fairly reliable benchmarks. As FDH itemized:
I would also add “A crime”. Does a film need each and every one of these components to qualify as “noir”. No, of course not.
But the Coppola war film has virtually none of these things. To broaden the definition of “noir” (even “neo-noir”) so that it could include just about anything that takes place at night (Aliens? Pan’s Labyrinth? The Rescuers?) renders it functionally meaningless.
The Conversation fits the bill along virtually all fronts, in tone and theme. That definitely counts as neo-noir. The Godfather’s might too, though most would consider them more in the Gangster genre. But Apocalypse Now? Nuh-uh. Heck, One from the Heart is more of a noir (which is to say, not much).
Mostly forgotten but utterly creepy Film Noir with little Bobby Driscoll in the “male” role of the noir–it’s creepy as hell to see a 10 year old boy in the “guy” role.
The upshot is that the kid is a liar…one of his lies almost gets his folks thrown out of their apartment…and dad and mom blow a gasket. That night, he sleeps out on the fire escape to keep cool and in the middle of the night hears people fighting upstairs. He goes up the fire escape, peeks in the window and sees a woman and her (boyfriend?) kill her (husband?–I may have that backwards). In any case, the kid has cried wolf too often and no-one will believe him. Then someone tells the nice lady upstairs what the kid has been saying…
It’s wonderful. (It’s also based on a story by Cornell Woolrich who wrote the story Rear Window was based on.)
Since it’s a subgenre of Classics, the Neo-Noir issue appears to have been settled at Netflix as a non-issue. At least I haven’t spotted any of the newer ones in the list. And I can’t seem to find a Neo-Noir grouping either.
Noir speaks to me because of the ‘darkness’ of the character’s souls, not the lighting. Urban setting? I forgot sin is only found in cities. Femme fatale? You forgot about the best scene in the movie. What do you think they were fighting for? No crime? What if someone stole Kurtz’ wallet, would that raise the Vietnam war to the level of a crime for you. No scapegoat or fall guy? Did you even see the movie? Oh, and what was the name of that Conrad novel it was based on? I think you can’t see the jungle for the trees.
How about it being a war movie with noir sensebilities? I can see the reasoning for aguing for it being a (neo) noir, but to me, it’s a war movie.
A neo noir that I like is The Grifters.
Agreed - I was amazed at how well these very young actors pulled off classic noir characters (the cop, the PI, the femme fatale, etc). And the scene when
How has no one mentioned “The Third Man” yet? Classic noir, with a twist: In most noir, the conventional authorities are corrupt or incompetent impediments to our Tragically Flawed Yet Skilled and Heroic Protagonist. In “The Third Man,” the police are competent professionals, and the PI is a hack writer who turns everything he touches to ash. (We don’t need spoilers for movies older than my parents, do we?)
:rolleyes: “Noir” can speak to you however you want it to, but that doesn’t change the half-century old conventions of the genre. “The Darkness of the Character’s Souls” can apply to anything, from Hippolytus to Othello to Sweeney Todd. That doesn’t automatically make them all “noir”. “Crime” also could mean anything, from stealing cable to genocide, but I think you know that’s not what I meant either. As a film genre, “noir” has come to signify certain sensibilities and conventions, and while some pushing-the-envelope in these conventions is interesting, liberalizing them to the point where anything can qualify as “noir” negates any meaningful discussion.
Let’s take Bringing Up Baby. Mostly shot at night, a woman who throws the protagonist into an unpredictable spiral, multiple crimes occurring and all of it shot in black and white. Yes, it might superficially have the trappings (as Apocalypse might), but I could argue all night that it’s a “noir” without necessarily convincing anyone. Probably the most “noir”-ish thing about the Coppola is the voiceover narration, which was a more specific (though not exclusive) convention of the genre. But everything else only applies if you paint with the broadest of brushes.
I could say my favorite musical is GoodFellas, even though there’s no singing or dancing or musical numbers. But see, it’s got plenty of music in the background, so that makes it a “musical”, right? Oh, did I mention it’s my favorite love story too, because the guy ends up marrying the girl? Just because I choose to ignore certain conventions and oversimplify others doesn’t mean I make a convincing argument. Same goes for you, I’m afraid.
ArchiveGuy - define it how you like. I don’t dislike the classic noir you cite. I just don’t have those same limits. And the genre seems boring within your definition. Thus the noir parodies. How about if I call it noir-ish? Does that offend you too, or should directors consult you before using any noir trope in a movie to avoid confusion in the marketplace?
Sorry, TriPolar, but that isn’t my definition, it’s the commonlyacceptedhistoric definition. You can choose to redefine it and substantially broaden it however you like to make it less “boring”, but don’t pretend that you’re doing so in a free-for-all cultural vacuum.
Oh shit! I hope the movie genre police don’t catch me! Well I totally changed my mind now that I know film noir could only have been made in the 40s and 50s. And the exceptions in your cites are just a clear attempt to entrap me into violating the Noir clause of the Patriot Act. I am shamed by own pretension in deciding for myself what film noir is or isn’t after movie reviewers (the unquestioned authorities on all matters of culture) have etched the definition in loose sand.
You believe Apocalypse is not noir. Then don’t put it on your list of noir films. It’s on mine. I’d call it neo-noir, or noir-ish, to distinquish it from the classic noir films, but it’s still noir to me.