"a.n.smith" <
ansmith@netdoor.com> writ:
> > I think it is true that Noir is generally used
for film and hardboiled for
> > fiction but I think it goes further than that.
Noir carries with it a
> > sophistication that hardboiled rejects--or
pretends to rejects.
>
> Okay, let's think about this one: Hammett's novel
MALTESE FALCON is
> Hard-boiled, but the movie is an example of film
noir. And the book was
> pretty much the script.
Hhmmm ... superficilly yes ... but a little probing undoes a.
n.'s contention. Here's a pretty standard, pretty
unproblematic definition of the key defining characteristics
of film noir:
# investigative narrative structure
# voice-over narration
# use of flash-back
# distinctive 'expressonistic-style' lighting throws
heavy shadows
# disorienting visual composition
(I could go on, but these'll suffice for now)
Huston's 1941 film is often cited as the marker, the point at
which film noir originates ... however, Huston's film *lacks*
some of the most fundamental characteristics of the film noir
... can you imagine how much *noirier* it would be with a Sam
Spade voice over, as he
*recollects* what happened when Wonderly sashayed into the
office a week ago, when Miles was still alive ...
There are no flashbacks in Huston's Maltese Falcon either ...
and the lighting is really rather subtle ... think about some
of the wonderful lighting effects in The Big Sleep, for
example, when Brody's killer runs down the stairs to be
pursued by Marlowe, or how about the scene in Mildred Pierce
when Mildred slips away, leaving Wally alone in the house
with Monty's body ...
In terms of composition, compare Huston't Maltese Falcon with
some of the split-screen effects and diagonal compositions in
In a Lonely Place
...
I could [but won't!] go on to argue that, stylistically, The
Maltese Falcon isn't film noir at all ... pretty much as a.
n. suggested in an earlier post that the reader can make the
text perform all sorts of tricks, depending upong the reading
strategy employed ... I will however, make a final point
concerning that hoary old tale about how Huston's film is
'pretty much the novel' ... if someone set out to
deliberately mythologise an adaptation they couldn't have
come up with a better story than that ... has anyone ever
wondered why the 'secretary' who 'just retyped the novel as
scenes' which then found its way to Jack Warner for
'approval' never gets a name ... could it be because
she
(like much of Huston's self-mythologising) is less true, less
than
*real*?
IIRC (and without bothering to pause to check notes) I've
traced this particular fidelity-myth back to Allen Rivkin,
who circulated it sometime in the 1960s, and it gets recycled
pretty much uncritically ever-after. I would suggest that
Huston's film is as much an adaptation of the two earlier
films of The Maltese Falcon as it is an adaptation of
Hammett's novel ... anyone who wants to see my more
considered thoughts on this, together with screen-grabs
comparing Huston's film with the earlier Maltese Falcon films
is invited to check out the following url: http://www.ejmd.mcmail.com/chapter3.htm
ED
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 21 Apr 2000 EDT