sarcastig
Posts 10
|
5/14/2007 6:28 PM
posted awhile ago
What makes noir noir?
Is it a style, is it the themes, is it a feeling? Is it the cynical and witty voiceovers? Where does noir begin, where does it end? Discuss away!
|
|
|
JimBell
Posts 102
|
5/25/2007 12:33 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: What makes noir noir?
Film Noir Characteristics ProtagonistMysterious, haunted protagonist; tough but vulnerable; protagonist a bit of a ‘chump’Fate e.g., trouble usually finds the protagonistTrying to find out; lots of questionsSnappy dialogue; witty reparteeSmoking, as part of being elegant and cool The LookB&W (now usually colour) photography influenced by still photos and painting, by German expressionism; also, careful composition and often a lower camera angleNight scenesDress—hat, tie, trench coat for detectives, bad guys etc.ShadowsSymbolism e.g., net for entrapment; rain for sex Femme fataleFemme fatale—not mono-dimensional; cool; sensual; make the man do most of the work; power relationshipsSexual magnetism between men and women, even in brief encounters AtmosphereNitty-gritty, tough, the darker side of lifeUndercurrent of possible violence throughoutAudience does not always know if the characters are telling the truth—until laterNegative resolutionCity, urban, including jazz OtherVoice-over narration is not uncommonPsychology as well as plot
|
|
|
JimBell
Posts 102
|
8/9/2007 4:07 PM
posted awhile ago
Re: What makes noir noir?
Richard Schickel, who knows way more about movies than I ever will, has written his take on film noir (see The Wilson Quarterly). Although the article is well worth reading, it should be seen for what it is. I’m going to focus not on what Schickel said (the product) but on the process. Schickel operates by making a claim and then supporting it carefully with reference to one or two films. However, as the very first book on film noir (by Borde and Chaumeton in the last 1950s) pointed out when you write the history of film, you should be judged by the standards of history (fairly rigorous) when you write of film’s place in society, you should be judged by the standards of sociology (fairly rigorous), and when you critique a film, you should be judged by standards of criticism (rather subjective). So Schickel has written a piece of sociological history and not supported it with the quotations, documents, Gallup polls, and so on that a good sociological history should have. What he has written is what is sometimes called a connoisseur’s piece—and given his background, he has every right to do so. But as cineastes, we have an equal right to treat it as simply his opinion instead of a definitive sociological/historical study. If I were to spend a year or two researching film noir, I’d investigate this as a possible, partial explanation: Maybe the average North American headed full-blast into the suburbs and prosperity and denied the horrors of WWII; yet the artistic directors, many of whom had fled Hitler, did not deny the dark side of people; when the artists made film noir, the movies spoke to suppressed knowledge in the prospering people out on Friday night dates.
|
|
|
JimBell
Posts 102
|
10/31/2007 2:06 AM
posted awhile ago
Is Key Largo film noir?
Everyone likes Key Largo (1948). There is not much more to say about it. Key Largo is a good film and enjoyable to watch, but not a great film. Although it is chock full of good actors, all the characters are stereotypes. Edward G. Robinson is the amoral, tough-guy gangster; Humphrey Bogart is the heroic but disillusioned ex-soldier; Lauren Bacall is the good-looking, spirited woman ready to fall in love with a hero; Claire Trevor, up from the B-movies, is the gangster’s moll turned lush. Bogart’s war vet goes beyond a stereotype in that he is disillusioned by WW II yet deep down still a good and admirable man. This leads to the movies theme, best stated by Bogie: “When your head says one thing and your whole life says another, your head always loses.” Bosley Crowther’s 1948 review for The New York Times said this theme generated too much “pompous and remote” philosophical talk. But the characters have to do something as they sit and wait, wait and sit, until the action at the end of the film. The theme also addresses a feeling that may have been widespread: The war stopped Hitler but it did not make America a much better place. This was certainly on director and co-screenwriter John Huston’s mind when he, Bogart, and Bacall returned to California in 1947 after testifying at the House of Un-American Activities Committee. The three of them had gone as concerned citizens but were soon tarred with the label of Communist sympathizers. A lot of the talk and bickering in the Key Largo hotel is raising the question of what American citizens, like Bogart, should do in the face of fascist politicians, represented by Robinson’s gangland dictator. Key Largo is often categorized as a great film noir, and I’m ok with people calling it a film noir, but it lacks as many noir elements as it displays. It has the gangland element, but the gangsters are in the Florida Keys rather than in the urban jungle. It has black and white cinematography replete with shadows, but many of the shots are rather soft as if shot through 100-percent humidity. This gives the movie quite a different feel from the cold, harsh glare of big city neon. While a film noir need not have any particular kind of music, the sound track is often sparse and certainly not standard Hollywood orchestration. But Key Largo features Max Steiner’s over-emphatic score. Probably most contrary to noir films is the ending. The strong moral themes running under the surface come to the fore, and we have an over-the-top happy ending. The alcoholic gun moll, who instantly has a soft spot for Bogie, slips him the boss’s gun as Bogie is forced to captain the gang back to Cuba. Bogie kills the entire gang single-handedly, and then he phones back to the hotel even though the phone lines have been knocked out by the tropical storm. Bacall joyously opens the shutters and light streams symbolically in. Musical strains swell and love and justice are in the air. Not typical noir fare. Actually, maybe not even a credible ending to a drama. I enjoyed the movie and I never thought for a minute that it was not shot in some old hotel in the Keys. But the hotel and the beach were in the Warner Brothers lot, and the storm was stock footage not used in another Warner Brothers’ 1947 movie.
|
|
|
JimBell
Posts 102
|
11/2/2007 3:34 AM
posted awhile ago
Is Pickup on South Street a noir classic?
Pickup on South Street (1953) is a film noir well worth seeing. When a pickpocket steals a young woman’s wallet on the New York subway, neither at first knows that he has stolen top secret microfilm on its way to the enemy Communists. Samuel Fuller, screenwriter and director, tells a complicated story with easy and clarity, maintaining tension throughout. The acting is superb. Richard Widmark is wonderfully insolent as the cocky pickpocket. Thelma Ritter is world-weary and street smart as the middle-aged informer surviving day by day (her Academy nomination was deserved). Jean Peters as Candy is not quite perfect in every scene and she has to say a couple of stereotypical lines that almost no one could breath life into, but she exudes sexuality, and that is important to her role. The supporting actors, from Richard Kiley as Joey the Communist agent on down the list, give solid, credible performances. All of this is supported by an edgy score by Leigh Harline. I particularly appreciated the inventive music after I’d just watched Key Largo with its stereotypical and overblown orchestration. All the action is captured by one of my favourite cinematographers, Joseph MacDonald, who could shoot noir as well as anyone (although the three Academy nominations later in his career had nothing to do with noir). Shot in 20 days on location, the mean streets of New York City were captured convincingly. The film is not without its flaws, but I will discuss briefly two scenes to suggest why the flaws are easy to forgive. Toward the end of the movie, Joey the Communist agent beats Candy, his ex-girl friend, when she refuses to help him further. In 1952 the Production Code had refused to approve the script for Pickup on South Street because of excessive violence, singling out the scene of Joey beating Candy. Although the scene must have been toned down, it is still very violent. But it works because it is so well done and it fits perfectly in the dramatic texture of the film. Unlike many modern films which use dozens of edits for a fight scene and show close-ups of blood spatters and so on, Pickup uses so few edits that it seems a continuous shot in my mind, and the camera is at mid distance. While this sounds boring to the modern movie mind, it works wonderfully because we see two real people, in real time, spinning and crashing around the apartment in a stomach-knotting, realist way. It works dramatically because it manifests Joey’s mounting desperation to get the microfilm his relentless bosses want; it demonstrates Candy’s growing love for Skip, the pickpocket, in that she refuses to help locate him; and it makes forcefully clear that what started as a petty crime could become a life and death affair. The weak point in the movie is that after Skip steals Candy’s wallet, gets her in trouble, and then treats her miserably, she falls for him. We are given superficial motivation: He is a devilishly charming guy, and she is, well, a woman of relatively easy virtue. But this is not enough to make reasonable viewers overlook an improbable occurrence in a realistic film. We tend to accept the scene because it is done so well—steamy and complex. Steamy you’ll have to see for yourself, and as you do, your mind will start questioning whether he is just trying to get some easy sex or whether he’s toying with her before he makes some demands for money. Simultaneously, you will be wondering whether she has fallen for the guy or whether she is seducing him to get the microfilm or whether both motivations are going on at the same time. A lot of strengths make it easy to overlook a few weaknesses and create a movie which is greater than the sum of its parts.
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 1511
|
11/5/2007 3:18 PM
posted awhile ago
Re:Is Pickup on South Street a noir classic?
Pickup on South Street is one of my absolute favorites! There's something that seems so real and fresh about the Samuel Fuller movies that I have seen. I feel like the people making these movies have really experienced a lot of the worlds they are portraying.
|
|
|
JimBell
Posts 102
|
11/30/2007 1:54 AM
posted awhile ago
Re:Re:Is Pickup on South Street a noir classic?
Right on! Maybe S. Fuller's background as a sink-or-swim journalist helped him fashion stories that were relentless and convincing. JIMBELL
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 1511
|
12/3/2007 10:54 AM
posted awhile ago
Re:Re:Re:Is Pickup on South Street a noir classic?
 JimBell:Right on! Maybe S. Fuller's background as a sink-or-swim journalist helped him fashion stories that were relentless and convincing.
I'm sure the fact that he was actually involved in many of the worlds and situations he depicts in his movies helped bring about that feeling of authenticity.
|
|
|
JimBell
Posts 102
|
12/4/2007 12:49 AM
posted awhile ago
Re:Re:Re:Re:Is Pickup on South Street a noir classic?
I don't know that much about him. Was he involved in espionage? The underworld? Another other movies--noir or not--by him that you'd recommend? JIMBELL
|
|
|
Risselada
Posts 1511
|
12/4/2007 11:03 AM
posted awhile ago
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Is Pickup on South Street a noir classic?
JimBell: I don't know that much about him. Was he involved in espionage? The underworld? Another other movies--noir or not--by him that you'd recommend?
Well I can't remember specifically without looking it up. I know he was involved in wars in the military. And I think he probably had some underworld connections. That last sentance is speculation. I would DEFINITELY recommend Shock Corridor. And then The Naked Kiss is also very good. Those are the only ones I've seen. I've got The Big Red One queued up to watch soon though.
|
|
|