-----Original Message-----
>From: William Ahearn <
williamahearn@yahoo.com>
>Sent: Oct 4, 2007 1:59 PM
>To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: The Conversation
>
>>While I don't believe there is what most people
call
>neo-noir, there is a post-noir. A film that
continues
>in the tradition but expands upon the view in a
more
>modern way. THE CONVERSATION is one of those films
as
>is Godard's BREATHLESS and Melville's SAMURAI.
While
>the two French films continue to the
ineluctable
>tragic end, the Coppola film ends with the
unsettling
>realization that the character is trapped by his
own
>device and he will never be the same.
>
>That's my opinion and that's the only way I know
how
>to say it. It may not be noir in the real sense of
the
>word (and I'm using the original French definition
and
>not that sloppy and vague nonsense that followed
all
>the misunderstanding of what the critics didn't
say)
>but what makes THE CONVERSATION so good is that
it
>doesn't seem to follow precepts or design
demands
>(like the completely retro Coen Brothers film THE
MAN
>WHO WASN'T THERE). Whatever it is, THE CONVERSATION
is
>a damn fine film.
>
>William
>
Well, at the end of the flick Hackman is not dead, in jail,
or insane. Justifiably paranoid, yes. Insane? No. Still noir?
Mmmm. Okay then.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Oct 2007 EDT