> Marianne Macdonald wrote:
>
> ....Noir seems to me to be
> neither character- nor plot-dependent, but a matter
of the setting.
> It's the shadow moving beyond the campfire light,
the darkness down
> the back alley, in the unlit doorway (Third Man,
right?), between the
> street lights, OR in the woods. Or for that matter
in the
> unconscious mind, the dark mind of the Other, the
killer....
> Death's home, really or symbolically.
>
> *********
> I think that you have pointed out a difference
between film
> and fiction noir. Film noir is heavily into style.
Turn on
> the smoke machines and turn off the lights that
don't cast
> dramatic shadow and, like you said, you don't even
need
> characters or a plot. But noir fiction is different.
It's
> all about atmosphere, and this atmosphere is very
dependent
> upon the characters. There's gotta be that heady
blend of
> sweat, fear, and desperation.
>
> Take Williams's DEAD CALM. I don't think that
anybody would
> argue that the book is juicy noir. But what about
the movie?
> The movie content is dark and wicked, and I would
personally
> call it noir because of this. But I think that a lot
of
> people would hesitate to call the movie noir simply
because
> it's missing a lot of the classic noir props. It
would get
> the "thriller" tag instead.
>
> Thanks to everyone who posted.
>
> miker
miker, I think you're labouring under a (very popular)
misconception re: film noir - i.e. that film noir is defined
by visual stylistics. While it is true that many films noirs
share a certain look - I think most people here would know
what I'm talking about - very many do not. Even during the
classic film noir period, approximately 1940-1960, some noirs
were made in colour & many noirs went for a flat,
naturalistic look influenced by European neo-realism as well
as the new technology & styles originally developed for
newsreels. It's the writing that made these films noir. After
the classic period the "noir look" faded away but people have
continued to make films that are noir right up to the
explosion of "neo-noirs" of the 1990's to now. Some of these,
such as Chinatown & L.A. Confidential go for a
self-conscious noir look that pays homage to the classic
noirs. Others, & I would include Dead Calm & more
recent examples such as Memento & Fargo as films that are
very much noir although they do not avail themselves of the
stylistic devices that we associate with the classic film
noir. On the topic of city vs everywhere else as noir
setting, my take is somewhat paradoxical. Although fully
aware of how much noir (& hardboiled) has been set away
from the Mean Streets right from the earliest identifiable
days of the genres/styles I still think of noir as being
primarily urban. My justification? (Or rationalisation?) I
think in the modern world, certainly in the 20th & 21st
centuries, anyone is only hours away from the big city. Rural
areas, small towns, the desserts of the USA & Mexico
& anywhere else a noir or hardboiled story would be set
is basically a suburb. I think that maybe why the western and
the hardboiled novel often overlap is because they are often
set in the same geographical area - here I'm thinking of noir
films & novels set in the desert or badlands : Detour,
Gun Crazy, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, God is a
Bullet. On the one hand, these stories are set in the same
badlands that good & bad cowboys & Indians fought
& died in Westerns but on the other hand, the
protagonists are a drive away from the modern city. So,
apologies for rambling but I think Dead Calm in either medium
qualifies as noir. If the universe is caving in on you, you
are now entering the Noir Zone, which, like its close cousin
the Twilight Zone, can be anywhere. Cheers, Rene
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 13 Feb 2003 EST