--- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "davezeltserman" <davezelt@...> wrote:
>
> --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, "jacquesdebierue" <jacquesdebierue@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com, Mark Sullivan <DJ-Anonyme@> wrote:
> >
>
> > I'm with you. I don't think the audience bought the happy endings. How about Hitchcock's _Suspicion_. Cary Grant took care of it, no matter what the code dictated.
> >
>
> The original ending had Grant plotting his wife's death afterall, but Hitchcock was forced to change that into the toothless suicide business.
>
I suspect Hitchcock wanted to get his way and he instructed Grant to look as dubious as possible. Something that was not very hard for Grant to do...
> > And we were discussing this vey question of "happy" endings in relation to Charlie Huston's _Caught Stealing_, which I had mentioned as an example where the protagonist doesn't go down the tubes. And your rejoinder was very apposite: But look what happens next!
> >
> >
>
> I liked Caught Stealing a lot (and increasing less the other 2 in the series) but don't consider it noir, but instead pulp. Not every violent crime book is noir, no matter how much publishers might want to label it as such.
>
I think it's both. The pulp sensation I felt when things happened suddenly, when the guy got yet a few more bones broken... it was even funny. But you can see that the guy's a total turd, and I couldn't in good conscience root for him, and the way he stumbled around seemed very noir to me, even reminiscent of some Woolrich stories.
In any case, a very good read, be it neopulp or noir.
Best,
mrt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 Mar 2009 EST