--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "decastro3" <decastro3@...> wrote:
> > If you don't think LAURA and KEY LARGO are film noirs, then you and I live on different planets.
> I guess we live on different planets then. So you're saying that there IS a connection between a movie like "Laura" and "Double Indemnity"?
> Sorry I don't see it. Not even a little bit.
------I've been following and commenting on this subject for the past several days on Steve Lewis' website, mysteryfile.com/blog. It appears everyone has their own idea as to what constitutes film noir. Some viewers include just about every crime/mystery film in the 40's and 50's and some are very strict in what they consider film noir.
However, concerning LAURA, I think the mood, atmosphere, and general tone of the film has to include it in the film noir canon with DOUBLE INDEMNITY. I guess we can argue all day about this subject but the main reference books on film noir all include LAURA as film noir with no arguement at all. I'm talking about such books as Film Noir, an Encylopedic Reference by Silver and Ward, Film Noir Guide by Keaney, Encyclopedia of Film Noir by Mayer and McDonnell, and The Film Noir Bible. These books are just a few of the ones in my library that claim LAURA is film noir. I maybe can see someone stating that LAURA is mainly a crime drama with strong film noir elements but I don't see how we can flatly state that it is not film noir and there is no connection between LAURA and DOUBLE INDEMNITY.
If we fall back on the so called experts and critics, some of which I've listed above, then we see that they also put LAURA firmly in the film noir canon. Does anyone else also take Tony's stand?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 05 Mar 2009 EST