Ron (after Brian) wrote:
> Whether or not it's ghoulish revelry, I'm afraid I don't get the
> "noir"
> aspect of the "bar noir" title, either -- no more than a bank
> robbery that
> left patrons and tellers wounded would be "bank noir," or a
> convenience
> market holdup that has the teller take a shot to the chest would be
> "market
> noir." Not only is there a world of difference, as Brian points out,
> between fiction and reality, but also between noir and senseless
> street
> crime.
Oh, you old farts! Tip your hat to the new noir revolution, and smile
and grin at the change all around. The less empathy for actual human
beings, the better.
Yeah, right....
Actually, I think this is the great divide between classic noir lit
(and film) and neo-noir or or whatever it's called this week.
When we stopped getting drawn into the protagonists' plights and
realized only a falling beam separated them from us and started
putting ourselves above these characters, laughing at how much they
were being hurt and fucked.
It used to be more about the human condition; now it's too often the
equivalent of kids poking a dead dog with a stick behind the
schoolyard to see the maggots dance. The humour isn't so much black as
just mean.It used to be we were supposed to feel for the dog; now
we're supposed to laugh like the kids.
Anyway, in this case, I think Fred (whose COCAINE & BLUE EYES
definitely falls into the classic category) was more bemused by the
windbag politico's comments than by people actually being hurt. At
least I hope so.
Kevin Burton Smith
Editor/Founder
The Thrilling Detective Web Site
"Wasting your time on the web since 1998."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 20 Jul 2009 EDT