If Bruce Wayne was simply motivated by civic duty, he's set up a
scholarship fund for disadvantaged youth and call it a day. He's a
billionare who dons an elaborate outfit to go out and beat the living
crap out of other people in the middle of the night. I'm not sure you
can call him a public servant, and I think that's made abundantly
clear in The Dark Knight, where Dent is, at one point, labled a "white
knight" for his organized crime prosecutions, while Batman, in this
film, is out running around trying to keep stupid Batman wannabee's
from getting themselves killed. In fact, his vigilantism interferes
with his having any sort of normal life, driving a wedge in between
him and the woman he loves and his friends. It's unhealthy, and
selfish when you get down to it.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:49 AM, davezeltserman <davezelt@rcn.com> wrote:
> Jim, I've been expecting this reply from you since posting my
> definition of literary noir. If you want to hold onto that film noir
> defines literary noir, go ahead, but there's a reason why James M.
> Cain, Cornell Woolrich, Dorothy B. Hughes, Jim Thompson, David Goodis,
> Charles Williams, Charles Willeford and Gil Brewer are often thought
> of as important writers of the noir tradition, and it's because of the
> fatalism (dooming, damning, screwed) element in their works. Having
> read a lot of the early Batman comics, and having seen nothing in
> either of Christopher Nolan Batman films to suggest that Batman's
> motivation is anything other than a sense of public duty, The Dark
> Knight does not fit my definition.
>
> --Dave
>
> --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, JIM DOHERTY <jimdohertyjr@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dave,
>>
>> Re your comments below:
>>
>> "My definition of noir involves a damning, a character giving into his
>> baser instincts and weaknesses and dooming himself either psychically
>> or physically."
>>
>> The way you put this points up, better than anything, what is wrong
> with the way so many of you approach noir.
>>
>> "MY definition of noir . . . " is, by definition (not to be
> redundant), going to be a personal response to, or impression of what
> noir is, and, in consequence, can't truly BE a definition, in the
> sense of giving a description that covers all the stories under
> consideration.
>>
>> This is why, when I defined noir as a crime story with a dark,
> sinister atmosphere, I was deliberately avoiding imposing my own
> preconceptions of what noir SHOULD be. Instead, I tried to discern
> what the common elements were of the films and novels commonly labeled
> noir, and, guess what? "Dark and sinister atmosphere" seemed to about
> be the only thing they all had in common.
>>
>> They didn't all feature a main character who was screwed.
>>
>> They didn't all feaure a main character whose giving in to his baser
> instincts led to his damnation.
>>
>> Some of them were hard-boiled.
>>
>> Some of them weren't.
>>
>> Some of them featured good guys versus bad guys.
>>
>> Some of them just featured bad guys.
>>
>> Some of them were fair-play whodunits.
>>
>> Some of them let you know who the villain was in the opening scene
> of the story.
>>
>> Some of them featured amateurs.
>>
>> Some of them featured professionals.
>>
>> But they all had dark, sinister atmoshperic elements.
>>
>> Earlier Steve Novak said:
>>
>> "I do not consider publication in a 'pulp' as 'entry' into the
>> noir genre/mode/group. ..because if we said that we could/would say for
>> example that all of the Série Noire is 'noir' . . . "
>>
>> Well, duh!
>>
>> Of course all of the Serie Noire is noir, because when Gallimard
> started that line, they COINED the term "noir" to describe the kind of
> crime story that was going to appear under that label. Since they
> coined the term, they get to set the parameters. And the parameters
> they set are a lot broader than what you or Steve suggest.
>>
>> You think "dark and sinister atmosphere" is too broad to be useful?
> Well, that may be, but it seems to me that it's a hell of a lot more
> useful than taking issue over someone else's referring to a given
> story as noir because it doesn't fit the personal, individual
> definition you've decided fits for your personal, individual purposes.
>>
>> Batman stories are noir because they're crime stories that have a
> dark and sinister atmosphere.
>>
>> If you prefer Jack's definition, they're still noir, because the
> poor guy watched his parents get greased by a vicious petty criminal
> when he was 9 or 10, and hasn't gotten over the trauma. He's about as
> screwed, and as screwed up, as it gets.
>>
>> Even by your definition, it's noir because Batman has chosen to deal
> with his trauma by personally wreaking vengeance on every criminal for
> the offense of one single criminal who he'll never be able to bring to
> justice. He's condemning himself to an unfulfilled life, damning
> himself to use your term, to scratch an itch that will never go away.
>>
>> As for THE DARK KNIGHT film, of course it's NOT noir, because it's
> in color and it was made after 1964, and consequently, as we all know,
> simply cannot be noir.
>>
>> But it's close enough.
>>
>> JIM DOHERTY
>>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 25 Jul 2008 EDT