You don’t think jazz cats and noir cineastes are attracted to marginalized art forms in part because of their marginalization? I don’t think it’s the whole story, but I do think it’s a big part of it.
Yes, it’s obvious that everybody who has a taste for art forms that are not part of the mainstream is a snob. Not that anybody could really *enjoy *any of it. They’re all just pretending to do to look cool. :rolleyes:
Film Noir depended heavily on black & white. Especially the use of shadows.
I grew up watching it on a B & W tv. It loses something on a color tv. It’s only a simulation of b & w. The contrast is not as sharp. The shadows aren’t as clear. My old b & w set finally died years ago. I miss it. I used it whenever I watched an old B & W movie on my vcr.
I’m not nearly as familiar with European films. You know much more about them than I do.
From what I have seen, however, I’d place Neorealism and the New Wave as separate genres that grew out of many of the same impulses but took their own directions because of local variations in experiences in the war. The New Wave directors are famous for their adoration of classic American directors but took the style into totally new directions. There really wasn’t any equivalent base of native-language private eye or hardboiled books for them to draw on. And except in England, which didn’t contribute much in this style, there never existed an idealization of the officials, the government, and the police for them to corrupt. “The police are thugs” was an redundancy, not a shocking revelation.
I agree completely in spirit. Despite the wonderful examples you give, I have to gently suggest that nothing is isolated in film history. Everything emerges from everything else. When a body of works coalesces around a particular notion we call it a genre. But its boundaries are always fuzzy to the point of invisibility and its beginning and end are Heisenburgally difficult to pin down.
The stuff in the center is much easier to talk about. Everything around that is left to the individual enthusiast.
That’s true, but though B&W is necessary for film noir, it does not define the genre, any more than bright colors define the animated film genre. There are many B&W films that aren’t noir, and concentrating on the color and darkness over the meat of the film – story, character, etc. – leads to confusion.
He Walked by Night is a police procedural, much like CSI or Dragnet. Yet it has the stylistic aspects you mention. But in this case the police are the good guys, the system is not corrupt, the killer is not drawn into things by forces beyond his control, there is no femme fatale, etc. So 90% of the elements that make a film noir are missing, other than the visuals.
The movie is about the protagonist. Porter is living by a code - you betray me, I kill you. People like Porter or Walker (Point Blank) or Jack Carter (Get Carter) or Tyrone Tackett (Hit Man) may pay a high price for their revenge but they’re living by a code that says you have to seek revenge when somebody wrongs you. A noir film would be if one of them decided to forego his revenge and then had to live with the consequences of that.
Somebody once coined the phrase “rogue cop” to describe a certain set of noirs – things like … whatever that one with Jocelyn Brando … “The Big Heat.” Sort of the hunter becomes the hunted and goes all Sonny Landham on his predator or something like that.
Go back and read the post you responded to. Focus hard on the words “in part.”
Actually the 1931 version, the first one, is far more faithful to the novel, especially in its depiction of Spade as a womanizer, something Huston plays right down. Also, as it was a precode movie, the relationship between the Fat Man and his gunsel could be hinted at in far broader terms than Huston was able to do. It was the second version with Bette Davis which completely rewrote the book.
True. A film like Godard’s À bout de souffle (Breathless) is a deliberate hommage toward American noir, but it’s even more a parody of the genre and in its intertextual self-awareness also a portrait – and a discussion - of cinema itself: Michel (played by Jean Paul Belmondo) copies Bogart’s gestures to be more like his idol but in doing so, he constructs an artificial persona that is in this sense an antithesis of the noir protagonist. And to add intertextuality, Godard lets us watch Michel contemplate Bogart’s poster to make us understand that cinema has turned into its own subject in cinema. The world built within cinema is built by cinema.
This scene, of course, is also an ironic tribute to the unspoken voyeurism of the American noir by repeating the approach, but consciously, making us aware of it and our accomplice-like involvement.
In other words, the film is a textbook example of Nouvelle Vague, not film noir.
Equally true. But I’d say that you might have given film noir more socio-cultural orientation than it actually had (yes, debatable). From my pov, the gangster-movies of the 30s were far more focused on the malfunction of institutions while their breakdown is already accepted reality in noir. We get to know the protagonist long after he has turned his back to society and its institutions, there is no moment of desengaño, he already is alienated, disillusioned and, consequently, lonely … but – and there is another contrast to protagonists of the Nouvelle Vague like Michel – despite a deeply felt hopelessness, he is usually not self-consciously advancing his own doom, though he is aware of the danger and willing to accept it as a consequence of his decisions but not as its reason (yeah, might also be debatable).
Ha, could I have worded this worse? Let me try again: the classical film noir is a unique kind of cinema that could not have been created at any other place and at any other time. It’s the one kind of cinema that highlights the most how totally European roots were transformed into something uniquely American. It is connected and it stands for itself.
Btw, I also think it’s a very honest cinema that disappeared for decades till the directors of New Hollywood revived it … for a short period of time.
I agree. The style suits film noir perfectly but it’s not film noir itself – your example explains this perfectly.
So you see, the REAL reason that film noir movies are not more popular is that, after you eliminate all that aren’t REALLY film noir movies … there aren’t any.
Criticism accepted.
Siodmak’s The Spiral Staircase (1945) and The Killers (1947), Vidor’s *Gilda *(1946), Dark Passage (1947) by Delmer Daves, Lang’s The Big Heat (1953), Aldrich’s Kiss me Deadly (1955), The Lady from Shanghai (1948) and Touch of Evil (1958) by Orson Welles. And, like I already said, L’ascenseur pour l’échafaud by Malle is film noir par excellence, while Polanski’s Chinatown (1974) is a perfect reconstructive effort.
And I haven’t even mentioned a single movie with Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake.