Hmmmmmmmmm....no many people or critics...at least accross this vast
pond...would ever qualify Psycho (or any Hitchcock for that matter) of being
Œnoir¹...in between Œcrime film¹ and Œhorror¹ maybe but not noir...it¹s a
witty mecanism, not a murky descent into inferno...
This might start another definition battle/controversy...but it had to be
brought up...I would be very curious to find quotes from non-North American
critics giving the Œnoir¹ label to Psycho and/or Hitchcockian films...There
may be, here and there noir elements. shots, lighting set-ups, blabla
blah...but that does allow the leap into qualifying the whole celluloid as
Œnoir¹...because if he¹s noir, than Hammer films are noir...and some péplums
are too...and then it all becomes absurd, irrelevant, untenable...because
³You see....most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time
and the right place, they're capable of... anything!²
...now, I never read the Bloch book...so (this maybe far fetched): the book
could be Œnoir¹ but the film would not...highly possible in fact...our own
DTW writers from Estleman to Leonard would gladly attest to that...
e-nough for now
Montois de DTW
PS: ³grand guignol and noir²...what a subject really...
Anybody?
On 7/13/09 10:57 AM, "E. Borgers" <webeurop@yahoo.fr> wrote:
>
> And what about PSYCHO by Robert Bloch? Motel Bates, do you remeber? Noir it
> is, even if it leans to grand guignol from time to time.
>
> E. Borgers
> Polar Noir
> http://www.geocities.com/polarnoir/
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Jul 2009 EDT