I'd call it instead hardboiled pulp with noir archetypes.
What a wonderful definition...as Iım watching it again on MTV this Saturday
On 7/26/08 5:16 PM, "davezeltserman" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> --- In email@example.com <mailto:rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com> ,
> Kevin Burton Smith <kvnsmith@...>
>> > SIN CITY was pretty pictures: nice to look at, but emotionally hollow;
>> > PULP FICTION without the wit or grace or narrative muscle. If PULP
>> > FICTION at its best aspired to BLACK MASK or DIME DETECTIVE, SIN CITY
>> > quickly settled for 5 CENT AMAZING DETECTIVE STORIES or some D-list
>> > pulp, barely worth the splinters, filled with stories by writers
>> > several notches below Hammett/Chandler/Spillane wannabes (Hammett/
>> > Chandler/Spillane wannabe wannabes?).
>> > As for it being noir, even if you want to waste your time arguing that
>> > point, it was noir mostly by trope and rote; not so much written as a
>> > list of noirish cliches checked off one by one, with big f/x-laden
>> > "scenes" substituted for actual character development. Like a lot of
>> > what passes for noir these days.
> Kevin, I take it you didn't like Sin City? That's too bad. Personally
> I found it one of the funnest, most innovative and visually boldest
> movies of 2005. I agree with you about it not being noir. I'd call it
> instead hardboiled pulp with noir archetypes. About there being no
> character development, well, I'm not sure a movie like this requires
> intense character development, but I'd still have to think Marv and
> Hartigan were interesting and in their own ways sympathetic even if
> they were not much more than archetypes. D-list pulp? No, much better
> than that. Sorry, but with this one I tend to side with nearly every
> major movie reviewer that Sin City was a stunning achievement.
> --Dave Z.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 27 Jul 2008 EDT