criterionforum.org

Cold Bishop wrote: At first glance, it seems odd that the film can be so easily categorized as a film noir. There are no claustrophobic, urban settings, no femme fatales (no femmes at all really), and with the exception of few key, effective night scenes, the film is categorized entirely by blazing sunshine and wide open expanses. In many ways, its noirness could be chalked up entirely to Tallman's performance. With his leather jacket, .38 caliber revolver, lazy eye, and permanent scowl, he's the embodiment of some sort of pulp paperback nightmare, sweating the sleaze and barely contained violence that noir is made of from every pore.

Thanks for this. I was struggling to understand why this seems to be universally considered noir. It came off closer to a horror movie to me, but this perspective at least gives me something new to think about. Maybe a second viewing is in order.

So no to neo-noir?

Vote for/champion any film you think worthy. Some members are not considering neo-noir when they compile their lists, and some are.

Tom Hagen wrote:So no to neo-noir?

My list will include a very limited amount of neo-noir, but my problem with neo-noir is its preoccupation with pastiche, it attempts to capture the classic era without presenting anything new. There are a few exceptions I find, and something like Point Blank is a interesting example of the passive noir anti-hero. But that film for me doesn't really provide anything that wasn't already presented with Mike Hammer's quest for the "great whatsit" or Sam Spade's search for the falcon, the ambivalence of Lee Marvin in Point Blank felt like it was there to ape what classic noir had already done but simply place the archetype within the post-Hays code world.

I'm not one who thinks that noir is confined to a specific era, but rather that so much that came after that era is more intent on replicating the past than anything else that most of the neo-noir thing feels like the product of filmmakers who watched too much classic noir in their youth. My swapsie is the only exception I can find to this because, while I think it has its flaws such as the odd racial humor, it takes a remnant of the classic noir era -the femme fatale - and does something with that archetype that is indebted to the classic era without falling into pastiche, and actually grounds the femme fatale in contemporary times. If the femme fatale was originally the result of fear of women in the workplace and their newfound power, then Last Seduction pushes the femme fatale further into the post-Women's Lib era where someone like Kathy from Out of the Past who is ruthlessly gunned down by a mob of policemen because of her actions now has free reign to do what she likes. If one takes the view that noir is the (white) male's reaction to a changing society and that the femme fatale is a representation of men's fear of empowered women then Last Seduction pushes this misogynistic fear to its inevitable conclusion where the femme fatale is completely liberated and now can dominate men without having to fear her predecessors' fate. She emasculates every man she comes across, and even the law is on her side since her crooked lawyer makes sure she's aware of all the tricks. Last Seduction plays brilliantly with the gender themes that originated in noir and presents the femme-fatale come full-circle, unencumbered by the law and always one step ahead of her male lovers.

Speaking of the whole neo-noir argument, and 'The Last Seduction', specifically, for me John Dahl's best, certainly of the three neo-noirs that I've seen is 'Kill Me Again'.

And its a shoo-in for my Top 50 list

Force of Evil
Zedz I can't thank you enough for this one. I won't go far as you in compliments, for example I'm going to put Night of the Hunter above this one for this list, but it might be the best American film of the '40s I've seen. Just as a noir this almost defines the genre. It's left me a tad dumbfounded even in that regard. The last fifteen minutes especially put it over the edge. There's this scene of silence toward the end that while only lasting about ten seconds is completely painful. Painful, that's probably how I'd describe the whole ending. There's this scene of violence, I don't think we actually see anything, but I don't remember the last time I cringed so hard. The last scene, the journey to hell, provides this great moment of relief from all that I'm so glad. Sorry for the rambling The movie just finished and I'm only able to process how I reacted to individual scenes rather than connecting the whole film together.
Also I don't want to make it look like the first hour isn't great, it is, but the last fifteen minutes is where the real immediate sucker punch is.What seals the deal for me is the relationship the characters build. The film sets things up so that the core relationships, especially in regard to Garfield, are born just when we see them. The stand out character is the brother though. That's the performance of a lifetime. I don't know who the actor is, but if I see him in anything else I won't be able to see him as anything else.
The cinematography is great. The way the dame character is introduced is totally amazing. We start off focused in on Garfield as he makes a phone call, filling half the screen, as she slowly sneaks into the room. The camera keeps moving around Garfield hiding her up in the corner of the screen keeping her as the focus and off focus before she starts this interaction with Garfield. The way that starts though doesn't do the boo got ya thing the previous movements suggest, but instead almost makes it mundane that these people would do anything together. There's another moment just as powerful as that with the brother, but it presently escapes me. I almost want to watch it again and I never do that so soon.
Finally, to alleviate things, that has to be the fastest newspaper printing ever.

knives wrote:Zedz I can't thank you enough for this one. I won't go far as you in compliments, for example I'm going to put Night of the Hunter above this one for this list.

You're welcome. I'd probably put Night of the Hunter above it as well, but I'm still not sure if I'd count it as noir. Otherwise, it sounds like your initial reaction to the film was pretty much as gobsmacked as mine was!

No Way Out

I thought this was terrific. The Bedford Incident has long been one of my favourite films, and although Poitier and Widmark don't get so much time together in this one, it was great to see how, even 15 years earlier, they balance each other out perfectly, both incredibly vulnerable performers but expressing it in different ways - Poitier with his veneer of calm determination, Widmark with his heart-on-sleeve hysteria and rage.

As you'd expect from Mankiewicz, some of the dialogue is great, and a lot of it is over-egged, self-important and clunky. Perhaps it's inevitable that a film from this era, dealing with this subject matter, has to spell everything out so carefully, but I wish I could get in there with a pair of scissors and reduce it to the taut, lean psychological thriller which it essentially is.

That's a forgiveable flaw, though, and as well as being really obvious at times, it's also refreshingly complex in its attitude to character, lending multiple dimensions to Widmark's bigot without actually softening or redeeming him, and somehow managing to make Poitier's doctor both exemplary and likeable. Poitier also does really well in several key scenes where he has to efface himself completely and let the white guy do the talking - when he and McNally (good actor lumbered with thankless role) first visit Darnell (magnificent), for instance, or at the film's climax. In some ways, these are the moments that best convey the significance of the title - they're the moments when the hero is at his most vulnerable, even powerless, in a way that movie heroes tend not to be. Except in noir, I suppose.

This was also the best Widmark performance I've yet seen. There are no words for how great he is in this film.

zedz wrote:

knives wrote:Zedz I can't thank you enough for this one. I won't go far as you in compliments, for example I'm going to put Night of the Hunter above this one for this list.

You're welcome. I'd probably put Night of the Hunter above it as well, but I'm still not sure if I'd count it as noir. Otherwise, it sounds like your initial reaction to the film was pretty much as gobsmacked as mine was!

My reasoning for Night goes back to that discussion on The 7th Victim. If film noir is at its essence about the darkness in which humanity can go I can't think of anything that better defines that than Night of the Hunter. Even the geometry is horrifyingly black.

I still haven't determined whether my own definition of noir is prescriptive or descriptive, but I strongly suspect the latter, and Night of the Hunter is such a truly unique film that even though it ticks a lot of noir boxes (but in some respects - the fairy-tale tone and the clear-cut nature of its morality play - it's noir's polar opposite) there's so much other stuff in there in terms of both content and style that it feels like trying to fit a rocking-horse shaped peg into a round hole.

And The Seventh Victim is so similar in tone and approach to the other Lewton horrors (which, let's not forget, also tended to be cautiously ambiguous about their supernatural components) that it definitely falls into that category for me, not noir. So I'll hold that back for the inevitable horror list.

Perhaps a nice addition to this thread from DVDBeaver.

Crossfire - Alienated soldiers after the war seems a ripe topic for noir to pick apart, but this one drowns whatever could have been in message film morality. There's a great noir somewhere in here, George Cooper's recollection of his drunken wanderings at night are the best part of the film - his exchange with Gloria Grahame's beau in her apartment is a highlight - and if the film had simply been from his perspective as he tries to piece together his fractured memory then I would have enjoyed it a lot more. A great cast - loved Gloria Grahame - and great photography as well, and nice that Ryan got the Oscar, but it just felt very slight and Mitchum was wasted despite being given a few good lines ("I'm in custody, Williams is in custody, everybody's in custody! But what does that prove except you've got a big jail.")

Dark City - It starts to lose some steam once Heston's relationship with the wife of the dead man starts up, but for the first half hour or so this was among the best noir I've seen. The card game cinematography is brilliantly done - Scott wandering around gazing at each players' cards - and I'm willing to forgive it for it's lackluster second half since I think a few repeat viewings will fare better. Although there are a few irritating moments: there's this strange edit that occurs around the hour-ten minute mark with Heston and the wife by her car that was pretty sloppy and I thought stuck out terribly; and then the final lines Scott and Heston blurt out before laughing away into the end credits. However, the set up of a couple guys beating a guy at cards, he hangs himself, and they worry they'll be charged with murder is darkly humorous, if only the film had explored the humor of the situation better.

Three weeks on, my Barnes & Noble shipment of Vol. 5 Noir set finally arrived, yesterday, so I rewarded myself with watching a double bill last night: of 'Deadline at Dawn' and 'Dial 1119'.
Unless I impose very strict criteria for my final selection, neither are likely to make my 50, but neither are without some interest for noir fans, or curiosity value, for the general cineaste.
Both perhaps suffer from verbosity; the former, particularly; hardly surprising, given that its scripted by Clifford Odets.
Also, they're perhaps too precisely structured, almost like a play; even 'Deadline', although it has a sizeable enough number of scene changes.

Pluses for me, of 'Deadline' are the performances of Susan Hayward, and an unusually menacing Joseph Calleia, - what a contrast to his Pete Menzies of 'Touch of Evil'; - a rich blend of supporting characters, - and dark, brooding cinematography by noir veteran, Nick Musuraca.

I haven't quite made my mind up about Marshall Thompson's performance as the 'psycho-killer' in 'Dial 1119'; although it was particularly effective if only being totally out-of-character for him, but then too often, with his bland, baby-faced features, he gave off the appearance more of a pouting teenager than a menacing murderer
(although this might have been the point)
I was sorry to see William Conrad's early departure, as he had been one of the best things about the film, - and it was interesting to see him fiddling with his 'new-fangled' big screen 'television' contraption.
And, indeed, what might have been one of the first films to feature an intrusive tv crew be part of the action in a crime scene.
Interesting story, quite well scripted, but overall perhaps too claustrophobic, and stagy

Murdoch wrote: Dark City - It starts to lose some steam once Heston's relationship with the wife of the dead man starts up, but for the first half hour or so this was among the best noir I've seen. The card game cinematography is brilliantly done - Scott wandering around gazing at each players' cards - and I'm willing to forgive it for it's lackluster second half since I think a few repeat viewings will fare better. Although there are a few irritating moments: there's this strange edit that occurs around the hour-ten minute mark with Heston and the wife by her car that was pretty sloppy and I thought stuck out terribly; and then the final lines Scott and Heston blurt out before laughing away into the end credits. However, the set up of a couple guys beating a guy at cards, he hangs himself, and they worry they'll be charged with murder is darkly humorous, if only the film had explored the humor of the situation better.

Agree that Dark City had a pretty good setup, both in terms of character and atmosphere. But after the first half hour or so, the film trails off considerably, never transitioning well to the next stage.

One thing that annoyed me was the lengths that the gamblers go to get a photo of the menacing brother, but nobody bothers to ask for a simple verbal description. I realize that the film prefers the anxiety and paranoia that ANYBODY could be the stalker, but as it wore on, it seemed fairly obvious to me that a simple description would be quite useful, though none of the hunted make that great mental leap.

I'm not sure what humor you are referring to.
But I don't think they were worried about a murder rap.
The problem was that they thought they could be charged with theft (or maybe illegal gambling) if they cashed the company check. So the check became not only worthless but dangerous to them.

Guess I misremembered that part, I thought they were worried they'd somehow be arrested for causing his death. Rewatched it and that second half just felt even more tedious. Agreed about the photo, so much of what happens after Heston and Webb travel to the dead man's home felt unnecessary - the romance with the widow, Heston getting the job at the Vegas casino. I was hoping during my first viewing that all the craziness would lead up to a good ol' noir tragic ending, but instead we get a contrived love-conquers-all finale, which was just as painful to watch the second time through. I'm just glad I got it for cheap!

Second viewing for both 'Caught' and 'Cornered', although for each its been about 20 years, and then it was a poor VHS recording; now its superior quality DVD prints
Given their titles I suppose they might be seen to be part of a double-bill, but I'd never intended it that way; I'd originally intended to watch 'Desperate', also on the latest Noir set, after viewing 'Cornered'.

'Caught' reminded me a lot of a Henry Hathaway, -'The House on 92nd Street', perhaps, and by the film version of Graham Greene's 'Confidential Agent' - although, helped by the scene-stealing presence of Walter Slezak, -memorably reprised in Wise's 'Born To Kill', - this one was a lot more fun.
Dmytryk was successful in casting suspicion, at various times, on just about every character, male or female, - with the possible exception of the Buenos Aires police, - and, rather than try to keep track of every passing character and their motives, I just relaxed and watched the intrigue unfold.
Although I'm not sure would it fit my normal criteria for noir, given its wartime and spy themes, but I think I'll be able to find a place for it.
Notable among a memorable supporting cast was Luther Adler, - great voice for a great villain, - Nina Vale, as a slinky vamp, - who I had mistook for Marie Windsor on the cover, - and Jack La Rue as a hotel valet, who is more than he seems.
And Dick Powell successfully builds on his tough guy image first displayed, under Dmytryk, for 'Murder My Sweet'.

'Caught' was a different matter entirely.
Although I wouldn't quite rank it on the level of Ophuls other US noir, 'The Reckless Moment', this one provided him with greater opportunity for directorial flourishes, not least because of its settings, and its quasi-'Citizen Kane' aspects.
Robert Ryan's character bordered dangerously close to caricature at times but this must rank as one of his finest performances; even when apparently calm, and at ease, you could detect the rage seething just below the surface as he realised the wife his money had secured for him had metamorphosed into a thinking, independent-minded person, with her own needs.
Barbara Bel Geddes, who was surely never lovelier, James Mason, and, in a small role, Curt Bois provided memorable support, but Ryan bestrode this film like a 'Colossus'
(which perhaps helped one understand why Howard Hughes, allegedly, insisted on him playing the part)

Been having a nice time with the new warners set. Desperate is going to rank mighty high. Sort of like a tighter and nastier Shockproof. This film seems to go triple on Mann's typical out-Peckinpahing nihilism towards masculinity. Any attempts at doing the masculine 'right' thing seems to dig the lead and his wife ten feet deeper until everyone drowns. It's also really weird to see Burr with colour in his hair.

Also I need convincing on Phenix City Story's bonafides. I thought it was a great movie, easily Karlson's best, but it felt more like a docu-cop drama rather than noir.

I've never participated in any of the these lists projects, so if this is out of line, please advise. In any event, I have compiled a noir list from the Film Noir Encyclopedias, which anyone is free to review and critique. You can access the list here.

EDIT: I think you can download the list.

Thanks a bunch, Tribe. A quick glimpse of this does handily confirm my personal bias against pre-1940 and post-1960 titles (though being reminded of Blast of Silence and Underworld USA suggests '61 is the more appropriate cut-off), as their inclusions from those periods seem to be pretty random in the "if X, why not Y" sense.

Nice work, but missing a lot of titles (inherent in the source material, obv)-- proof that even the experts have a lot of unplugged holes when it comes to noir

The 4th ed. of the Encyclopedia is particularly problematic...they're arbitrarily deemed everything prior to 1940 as "proto-noir," inexplicably dropped from the classic noir line-up presented in the 3d edition a few iconic titles (e.g., Lang's Ministry of Fear) and added some titles like Them! and Invasion of the Body Snatchers that sort of throw me for a loop.

I've tried to keep track of those variations in Column E:
1) 3d=deemed a classic noir in the body of the third edition
2) 3d(App)=deemed a classic noir in Appendix D of the third edition'
3) 3d(Gen)=deemed a genre film with noirish overtones in Appendices A1 through A4 of the third edition (many of these are deemed classic noir in the fourth edition)
4) 4th=deemed a classic noir in the fourth edition
5) 4th(P)=deemed a "proto noir" in the fourth edition
6) 4th(N)=deemed a "neo-noir" in the fourth edition

My list doesn't touch at all with neo-noir, as deemed by either the third or fourth editions, unless one or the other has deemed it a classic noir film. Neo-noir can encompass just about anything these days (for example, the fourth edition calls Fight Club a neo-noir movie), and it's usage is even more elastic and limitless than defining films noir from the classic period. It's an almost worthless categorization to me.

So, for example, if Column has "3d, 4th" for a particular movie, that means the film in question was deemed a classic noir in both the third and fourth editions. Column E is an attempt to track all that.

Hope it's helpful.

PS: Both editions limit themselves to American films...which I have personally always had difficulty with.

zedz wrote:Sounds like fun. There are always going to be border disputes with film noir, but there's a strong core of consensus about which films belong and don't. I mean, nobody's going to seriously suggest that The Day the Earth Stood Still is a noir, now, are they? (Just to pick a title completely at random.)

The 4th Edition of the Film Noir Encyclopedia does...which is entirely silly to me.

EDIT: I've never participated in a list here before...how many are we supposed to submit?

Tribe wrote:I've never participated in a list here before...how many are we supposed to submit?

50.

I have a couple French 1930s movies I consider essential ( by me anyway): Jour se levee and Bete Humaine. I have to think American noir took some of that poetic realism when the style came about. Does anyone know any specific instances where the influence may have been acknowledged more explicitly?

Tribe wrote:I have a couple French 1930s movies I consider essential ( by me anyway): Jour se levee and Bete Humaine. I have to think American noir took some of that poetic realism when the style came about. Does anyone know any specific instances where the influence may have been acknowledged more explicitly?

Well if acknowledgment means being remade Litvak redid Jour as The Long Night in 1947 with Henry Fonda taking the Gabin role.