Jim,
I didn't remember it was you who were coming up in the past
on R-A with these dubious definitions about noir films, and
my remark was certainly not something personal or done with
the intention of starting a polemic just for the sake of it.
It was more like a warning, because if everybody speaks about
something with another concept about the nature of the
thing... what is the point? So, I explained where my views
are. Especially that I found that Steve (the original
provider of this Pandora box) was himself not too sure how to
present his question about the best noir films and the
periods to check for the selection.
One thing is sure, the traditional, or classic, era of Noir
film IS American and stretch from the end of the 30s until
approx end of the 50s. No doubt. 100% guaranteed American
stuff... And my remark was not something nationalistic and my
point was not based on the fact that American Noir in these
days was produced with the help of many Europeans (due to the
trouble period in Europe -end 30s- and the consequent
immigration of a lot of artistic people suitable for the
American cinema industry of that time). It was a pure product
of the American industry.
But film noir did not come suddenly out of the blue. Another
story emerge when you examine the roots of film noir: these
roots are NOT only the American gangster films of the 30s,
it's also: German expressionism in films (that's for part of
the visual style and some ways of editing), the French
realism and poetic realism (that's for their visual style and
*content* and some ways of editing). There are certainly
roots in other foreign cinema, but neither with such an
impact nor such a number of films to illustrate the purpose
than those two foreign segments. Two French examples: LE JOUR
SE LEVE (DAYBREAK-1939) by Marcel Carne is really a film noir
in every respect. LA BETE HUMAINE (THE HUMAN BEAST-1938- aka
JUDAS WAS A WOMAN) by Jean Renoir is a film noir, close to
emblematic
(there are even older examples but I took two films you could
easily check out) A *German* film: M (1931)by Fritz
Lang
There is where I put my notion of international, in the
roots... and continuation.
Should you watch these two French films in an hypothetically
English-dubbed version, ignoring from where they come , you
could not decide it's not noir. Even following your own
"rules".
{In a kind of equivalent test than the one made by some
scientist to prove that a true statement coming from a
machine (printed output of computer that is) cannot be
distinguished from the same true statement typed by a human
if you cannot see the machine an/or the human. So you cannot
decide which output came from who or what}.
As for the continuation, film noir (after 1955) was
rejuvenating under different forms away from the classics of
the 40s, and not only in the USA but also in the UK, France
and Italy (roughly until mid 70s). And also, film noir was
influenced by a literature that was very evolutive
(HB/Noir). During that period, foreign films were more
creative and influenced some of the American directors that
will work later on film noir in the US. We could name this
period Modern Noir. There's where I put also the
international side of film noir.
Under this evolution, the formal aspects of film noir varied
a lot, but the first of the remaining links between them was
a certain type of content, their essence. Not style.
Since mid of the 80s and more certainly all along the 90s,
the evolution of film noir is again purely an American
process, mainly through films that aggressively explore new
grounds in stories and filming. But you could still spot
common characteristics in their goals and contents, in their
essence, all indicating noir. Not in visual style. That's
what we could name the Neo-Noir period.
So that's what links them all, even in different periods:
certain types of content and essence, things which explain
and proof the existence and evolution of a genre. All things
you deny.
Perhaps you should think further about class and hierarchy
applied on film genres. Noir has indeed some sub-categories
if you segregate them by the *plots*. Not the reverse. And
these subs are not the important factor to qualify the
film.
And believe me, color does not matter: it's by the story, the
filming and the content that you can check out it's noir, or
not.
Fortunately for us, this film genre is evolutive... like the
literature of the same color we examine here. Noir film
became all along the years an important segment of the
mystery/crime films category. And even if there is no more
mass production of noir films abroad (which explains their
present lack of real influence on the US films- also because
of the closed system of film distribution in the USA), I saw
recent films of high quality from Russia, Norway, Columbia,
China (under others) which cannot be qualified by something
else than noir, due to their content and filming. They are of
the same essence, even if not identical, as films from the US
classic period. There's where I put the rest of my meaning
about film noir being international.
Could you really pretend that BODY HEAT is not noir?
CHINATOWN? TAXI RIDER? GOODFELLAS? MEAN STREETS? and so many
more...
Unless in your rules there is some "tongue in cheek" that I
didn't get?
I (re-)saw this afternoon a film that you could test
with your own "rules" and views... and discover that it fits
perfectly: THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1939) by Sidney
Lanfield, based on Conan Doyle's novel. a. it's dated close
to the 40s b. it's pure B&W from beginning to end c. it's
visually very expressive, with the kind of contrasted
expressionist lighting of a lot of films of that period, but
accentuated in order to create tension, as seen in Noir
classics; it's a crime story: with guns, chases, suspense,
murder... et al. There's even police and a PI. The whole
thing playing on ambiance and moods to reinforce and support
the crime story.
So, my question is: is this really a film noir? If not, why
(following your own book)?
A last word: I do not see where I pretended that if
classified as noir a film is de facto a good film? I always
considered that quality is the only criteria, whatever is the
genre, sub-genre, or no specific genre of the film. Noir or
not. It's something obvious.
I stop here, it's already a too long message.
E.Borgers Hard-Boiled Mysteries http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6384
At 21:47 23-08-03 -0700, you wrote:
>Etienne,
>
>Re your comments below:
>
>> I suppose that nobody here will again try to
prove
>> that Noir is strictly a
>> kind of expressionist crime film produced during
a
>> certain time frame by
>> the American cinema (roughly 40's and
50's).
>
>Then you suppose incorrectly. First of all, I
didn't
>TRY to prove it. I DID prove it. And, having
proved
>it, I wasn't going to bring it up again, but since
you
>have, I'll be more than happy to go over the
old
>ground one more time.
>
>> That's
>> a false and obsolete view.
>
>It's a true and valid view.
>
>> Noir film is a genre. And it's
international.
>
>It may be international. Certainly many of
the
>"American" filmmakers associated with the form
(Robert
>Siodmak, Fritz Lang, even Edward Dmytrik) were
born
>and raised in places other than the US. And
crime
>films with noir-type visual flourishes certainly
were
>produced in countries other than the US
(Clouzot's
>JENNY L'AMOUR, for example).
>
>But it's not a genre. It's a style. A visual
style.
>A visual style that communicates a dark and
sinister
>atmosphere. And, in its heyday, a visual style
that
>was largely unconscious.
>
>MURDER, MY SWEET is a private eye picture. It's
also
>a film noir.
>
>HE WALKED BY NIGHT is a police procedural. It's
also
>a film noir.
>
>LAURA is a romantic suspense/whodunit. It's also
a
>film noir.
>
>THE CIRCULAR STAIRCASE is a period women's
suspense
>film. It's also a film noir.
>
>MINISTRY OF FEAR is a spy movie. It's also a
film
>noir.
>
>That's five different genres (or anyway,
five
>different SUB-genres). But what they all have
in
>common is a visual style that eventually,
in
>retrospect, marked them as film noirs.
>
>There is no such thing as noir content. There is
only
>a common visual style that can be used for a
variety
>of different kinds of plots and
characters.
>
>In fact the same story could be filmed either as
a
>noir or a non-noir, depending on the visual
choices
>made by the director. 1948's THE STREET WITH NO
NAME
>is a film noir, because it's filmed with the kinds
of
>shadowy contrasts between light and dark that
marks
>film noirs. The 1955 remake, HOUSE OF BAMBOO, a
color
>film in wide-screen with lots of daylight scenes,
is
>not a film noir, though it uses the same plot,
and,
>with some changes in setting, the same
script.
>
>Here's an easy way to tell:
>
>1) If it's made before (roughly) 1940, it's not
a
>film noir.
>
>2) If it's made after (roughly) 1963, it's not a
film
>noir.
>
>3) If it's in color, it's not a film noir.
>
>Film noir, by the way, is not an indication
of
>quality, nor is NOT being a film noir and
indication
>of meretriciousness. There are movies that
pass
>muster as film noirs, but which aren't particular
good
>films. There are all sorts of movies that aren't
film
>noir, but which are, nevertheless, very good
movies.
>
>JIM DOHERTY
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
design software
>http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>--
># Plain ASCII text only, please. Anything else won't
show up.
># 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/
.
>
>
-- # Plain ASCII text only, please. Anything else won't show up. # 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 : 24 Aug 2003 EDT