so what IS film noir?

Film noir was an interesting genre to study because it's one that sort of slips under the radar. What's particularly interesting about it is that it isn't really a genre at all - it's more of a film style. This was especially apparent to me after viewing Blade Runner, which is genre-wise more of a science-fiction. It was also the case with Double Indemnity, which isn't completely a comedy, but it definitely has some components of a comedy film (as did Touch of Evil, now that I think about it).

After watching Double Indemnity, I thought I knew all there was to know about film noir. That film, in my opinion, is the ideal example of a film noir because it is a blatant display of the 'good guy gone bad' because of the 'femme fatale' and their suspensful crime story with twists and turns. But then after watching the other films, I realized that there are actually many more components that go into what makes a film noir. Our discussion in class about 'what is film noir?' was certainly helpful in showing me what is/isn't crucial in a film noir. Whether this agrees with that or not, here is my list of what defines a film noir (listed from most to least important!):

- a dark and shadowy feel (both visually and figuratively)
- suspenseful story (usually crime-related)
- a flawed/imperfect hero
- a femme fatale (she doesn't neccesarily have to have bad intentions, but she may simply be a weakness for the hero)
- dramatic music
- a city setting
- smoking/alcohol consumption
- flashbacks
- narration

This list is clearly much shorter than the one we compiled in class, but I think that these components (especially the first three) are absolutely crucial for a film noir.

Something I've also been thinking about is that film noir generally have a gloomy, almost depressing feel to them. Even the comedies are...dark. And it's almost like everything going on is a secret from the outside world; there's always someone hiding something.

This is just a guess, but I think that maybe film noir came as a reaction to the happy-go-lucky films that preceeded it. People were sick of everything always being perfect and having a happy ending, and this was especially the case after the Depression and WWII took place. Film noir kind of gave an outlet for people to see the corruption in other people's lives.

As I mentioned earlier, film noir was really an interesting (sub)genre to study. Even though film noirs are still being made today, I think that the style still goes very unnoticed! I'll definitely be keeping my eyes open for film noirs from now on!

The Man Who Wasn't There

I watched The Man Who Wasn't There on my own time for our study of film noir. I can't say that I enjoyed it very much, although I did appreciate it. It was definitely a great example of film noir, which is exactly what the Cohen brothers were going for. It was almost humorous because it was like there was a blatant overload of film noir aspects.

First of all, this very recent film was very purposely in black and white. Secondly, there was a good deal of narration throughout the film. There was also the expected shadowy darkness throughout the majority of the film, cigarette smoking, a "suspenseful" plot with many twists, an imperfect lead character, etc. Basically everything we went over in class last night to describe film noir was present in this film! However, I found it to be quite dull and boring. I think that the Cohen brothers were kind of striving for that, so I can appreciate it, but I prefer to have some sort of entertainment when I watch movies!

Billy Bob Thorton did a good job as being the "harmless barber" who got caught in a string of unfortunate events, but there was nothing likeable about his character. I didn't even care when he...well...I don't want to give away the ending! Although I obviously just did...

As I mentioned, I appreciated this film for its use of the film noir style, but I can't say that I found it to be an enjoyable experience. In fact, I'm glad that I got to watch it on my own time so I could "accidentally" miss a few minutes of it while I got food from the kitchen or browsed the internet...

Blade Runner

Loved it! Blade Runner is one of those films I probably wouldn't have seen if it weren't for film class, and I'm so glad that I did. At first I was thinking, how can a science fiction film possibly have a film noir style? But it definitely did. The music, lighting, cigarettes and alcohol - they all pointed to film noir. In fact, I picked up on the style at the very beginning of the film when Deckard was interrogating one of the replicants because interrogations are definitely a charactersitic of film noir.

If it weren't for the film noir style, Blade Runner would probably just be another forgettable science fiction film. Clearly that is something that Ridley Scott tries to avoid (Alien is one of my favorite films...and it is far from forgettable!). The concept of combining science fiction with film noir is so bizarre - I still can't quite figure out how it worked - but it did! Scott definitely took a risk with Blade Runner, and I'm glad he did.

As much as I loved a younger Harrison Ford (was he really 40?!), I'd have to say that my favorite character was Pris, played by Daryl Hannah. She was so creepy yet cute at the same time. The same goes for Roy...why do the bad guys always have to be so darn handsome? He really creeped me out towards the end with the howling and what not. I was pleasantly surpised when he saved Deckard's life. It made me a feel a little less guilty for rooting for him during the fight scene, haha!

Overall, Blade Runner was not only entertaining, but also a great example of an off-beat film noir.

Touch of Evil. Ew.

I hated Touch of Evil. Hated it!! In fact, I hated it so much that I don't know if I can say that I even appreciated it. It was choppy. It was boring. I felt like I was watching a circus freak show. Now, normally I would enjoy watching a circus freak show, but the weirdness stopped short of being entertaining so it was just...weird. And boring. It was like a mix between freak show and normalcy. I needed more freak show. And then there was the fast-pace/choppiness of the film. It made it seem like Welles was trying to make a boring plot more exciting by making it so hard to follow, but I just found it to be bothersome and unexciting

Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I need someone to explain to me the "brilliance" in Touch of Evil...because all I know is that it was probably the worst movie-watching experience of my life. I feel like it's one of those films that people don't actually enjoy, but they pretend to enjoy it because they feel like they are supposed to. Like "oh it's so artistic, and Orson Welles is a genius, so I must like it!" Well sorry, but you can't fool me.

Double Indemnity

Double Indemnity was definitely a great film to kick-off our study of 'film-noir.' I loved it!! After watching both Casablanca and Double Indemnity I can safely say that I absolutely love classic Hollywood films. In fact, I feel like I've been missing out because I always assumed that they'd be well, boring. But it turns out that I love the simplicity and glamour that classic Hollywood films present....especially the typical love story between the "man's man" and the beautiful, classy woman. Gets me every time...

Anyway, Double Indemnity was just...delightful! The mixture of suspense, drama, and comedy kept me engaged the entire time, which isn't an easy task. I especially loved Fred MacMurray's role of Walter Neff. You could almost tell that he was purposely exaggerating every "baby" and kiss with Phyllis, and I appreciated his sense of humor. I was not as enthused by Barbara Stanwyck's portrayal of Phyllis - until the twist came at the end. I totally understood that casting decision at that point in the film! Because it was like (hate to say this but)...I always thought she was kind of ugly and she just covered it up well, but then her ugliness just showed through completley when I realized what a tramp she was! And speaking of the twist, I certainly was not expecting it, but I was thrilled by it. It took the film to a whole different level...perhaps a 'film-noir' level? I can't say I've read the Keith Grant handout yet, so I'll get back to that question...

So far I can definitely say that I think 'film-noir' is more of a style than a genre - especially since Double Indemnity could be considered part of a few different genres. So far, I would say that 'film-noir' generally adopts a very shadowy and mellow dramatic feel - both of which I really enjoyed.

Cinematic Excellence

So the question is, what makes a film great? Some people would argue that it must be entertaining. Others would argue it's aesthetic value. Some might even determine a film's greatness by the actors. Maybe a film's greatness is simply found in the eye of the beholder. I can't say that there is one single aspect of a film that makes it great, rather it's a combination of many things. So here it goes. To be truly great, a film must:

- As I just mentioned, good acting is crucial. To me, acting can literally make or break a film. I'm not saying a film must have A-list stars (in fact, sometimes that can actually take away from a film), but character developement and relationships must be engaging, or I'll often tune myself out of the film.
- Cinematography. This has always been one of my favorite aspects of film, but I just never knew what it was! As with acting, cinematography can make or break a film. This was especially the case in Diving Bell.
- It must innovative. No one wants to see something that has been done before (*cough* sequels). For a film to be great it must either address a new issue/event or address it in a way that hasn't been done before.

Now, this is quite a short list, and I plan on adding to it in the future, but this is all I can really think of right now. I was going to add historicity, but then I realized that I don't think a film neccesarily has to be historically accurate to be great. I was also going to add genre, but after seeing Do the Right Thing I think genre is actually quite overrated...

Anyway, I would say that these criteria are timeless and universal when it comes to the greatness of a film. However, there is no denying that there is additional criteria that changes with the times and the culture. For example, within the past decade we've witnessed an age of the "mythical film," which began with Lord of the Rings, and led us to Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Golden Compass, Pan's Labyrinth, and so forth. Now, I wouldn't consider all of those films to be great, but a huge chunk of the population probably would.

I guess my point is that the definition of 'greatness' is in a way timeless and ever-changing at the same time. I know that that is contradictory, but that's how our society is! And, that's how films are. Film is art, and directors are constantly trying to push the envelope and introduce new, innovative, and even controversial movies. So to say that there is one definition or set of criteria for a great film is naive.

As I mentioned, I do plan on editting this post in the near future. "What makes a film great?" is a question that I never really thought about much, and now I can't stop thinking about it! Hopefully I'll find that answer throughout the rest of this semester...