Film noir is unique in that it is genre/style of film (whichever you prefer) that is almost wholly unique to American cinema. Other genres like action, romance, suspense, and even comedy, span every country and every culture in the world because they are, by their very nature, universal and understood by virtually everyone. Film noir lacks this universality because it is a distinctly American style born of distinctly American roots and causes.
What really gave birth to the film noir genre was the fear and uncertainty surrounding America in the late 1930s. Fear of the war that everyone could see was brewing in Europe and uncertainty over the lingering effects of the Great Depression, combined with the lingering memories of the gangster era and the corruption it exposed gave rise to a blend of filmmaking techniques and plotline that were virtually exclusive to Hollywood during the late 30s to the early 50s.
The dark, shadowy urban settings, the reluctant, burned-out, sometimes drunk anti-heroes, the questionable moralities of all the central characters in film noir were previously unheard of anywhere in cinema, buthe their dark, ambiguous nature perfectly represented the pessemistic confusion that was permeating through the nation at that time. Because this confusion was not as prevalent eslwhere in the world - if existant at all - the resultant films were utterly unique to America.
While elements of film noir have slowly made their way into other countries cinemas, and even into other genres, the core of film noir remains firmly rooted in America due to the unique conditions and circumstances surrounding its origin.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Film Noir Journal
11/19/08
I've just finished watching Blade Runner and The Maltese Falcon, so I now have a pretty good idea of what film noir really is. It's not a genre, per se, of film making, but a style. It can cross genres easily, from the classic whodunits of The Maltese Falcon and Double Indemnity, to the futuristic science fiction of Blade Runner. After careful analysis, here's my list of what makes a movie film noir:
Required (or at least highly desirable):
In my opinion, out of the four films I've watched, only Double Indemnity is a true example of film noir because it meets the most of my requirements, and not just that the film feature a flashback narration by the hero (The original cut of Blade Runner had such a narration). Granted, the other three films all featured characteristics of film noir, but only Indemnity seemed (to me) to fully embody and embrace the style of film noir.
11/15/08
Two films down, and I'm getting a better idea of what film noir is. It's beginning to seem less like a genre to me and more like a style of filming. Touch of Evil and Double Indemnity are both gritty detective films, but only Indemnity seems (IMO) to be noir-ish: Touch is just too bright and "happy" at times.
With that in mind, here's my updated list of what makes a film noir movie:
Required (or at least highly desirable):
11/12/08
So, yesterday was my first real exposure to film noir. I was right: I like this genre. However, my exposure is (as I said) extremely limited, so I'm still trying to figure out what makes a film into film noir . Here's what I've got so far:
I've just finished watching Blade Runner and The Maltese Falcon, so I now have a pretty good idea of what film noir really is. It's not a genre, per se, of film making, but a style. It can cross genres easily, from the classic whodunits of The Maltese Falcon and Double Indemnity, to the futuristic science fiction of Blade Runner. After careful analysis, here's my list of what makes a movie film noir:
Required (or at least highly desirable):
- Very dark (lighting), with lots of shadows
- Very dark and somber mood or feel
- The hero or protagonist is either a cop, ex-cop, or private investigator
- The hero usually becomes involved in the situation against his will or better judgement
- The hero narrating the film in a flashback voiceover
- Murder, or some other sort of crime
- Some sort of plot twist
- All nonessential dialogue is very short and to the point
- The characters (or at least the protagonists) all smoke and/or drink rather frequently
- All the men wear fedoras and trench coats
- Corny dialogue (between characters in love, anyway)
- Liberal use of the words "dame" and "baby"
In my opinion, out of the four films I've watched, only Double Indemnity is a true example of film noir because it meets the most of my requirements, and not just that the film feature a flashback narration by the hero (The original cut of Blade Runner had such a narration). Granted, the other three films all featured characteristics of film noir, but only Indemnity seemed (to me) to fully embody and embrace the style of film noir.
11/15/08
Two films down, and I'm getting a better idea of what film noir is. It's beginning to seem less like a genre to me and more like a style of filming. Touch of Evil and Double Indemnity are both gritty detective films, but only Indemnity seems (IMO) to be noir-ish: Touch is just too bright and "happy" at times.
With that in mind, here's my updated list of what makes a film noir movie:
Required (or at least highly desirable):
- Very dark (lighting), with lots of shadows
- Very dark and somber mood or feel
- The hero narrating the film in a flashback voiceover
- Murder, or some other sort of crime
- Some sort of plot twist
- All nonessential dialogue is very short and to the point
- All the men wear fedoras and trench coats
- Corny dialogue (between characters in love, anyway)
- Liberal use of the words "dame" and "baby"
11/12/08
So, yesterday was my first real exposure to film noir. I was right: I like this genre. However, my exposure is (as I said) extremely limited, so I'm still trying to figure out what makes a film into film noir . Here's what I've got so far:
- Very dark (lighting), with lots of shadows
- The hero narrating the film in a flashback voiceover
- Murder
- All the men wear fedoras
- All nonessential dialogue is very short and to the point
- Corny dialogue (between characters in love, anyway)
- Liberal use of the words "dame" and "baby"
The Maltese Falcon (1941) Review
I enjoyed The Maltese Falcon. While there was nothing really special about the film (aside from Humphrey Bogart, of course), like Casablanca, it's just one of those films that pulls the viewer in and doesn't let go until the end.
Honestly, I think the reason I enjoyed the film so much is because I love a good who-done-it. Problem is, I usually have them figured out by at least the halfway point, and while I did have most of the plot figured out by about 2/3 of the way through the film, I didn't figure out everything until it was explained at the end. That's what I really loved about this film: it kept me guessing.
Artistically, as I said, there really isn't anything that sets this film apart. The cinematography, mise-en-scene, and editing are all typical of the classic 1930s-1950s era of Hollywood. As I said, nothing special, but the acting is where the film shines. Bogart is, as usual, superb, as are Mary Astor, Syndey Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre. Personally, I thought it was excellent to see those last two in full-fledged roles and not just the bit parts they had in Casablanca.
While it's nothing special, The Maltese Falcon is a true gem. It's worth a watch. Trust me, you won't regret it.
Honestly, I think the reason I enjoyed the film so much is because I love a good who-done-it. Problem is, I usually have them figured out by at least the halfway point, and while I did have most of the plot figured out by about 2/3 of the way through the film, I didn't figure out everything until it was explained at the end. That's what I really loved about this film: it kept me guessing.
Artistically, as I said, there really isn't anything that sets this film apart. The cinematography, mise-en-scene, and editing are all typical of the classic 1930s-1950s era of Hollywood. As I said, nothing special, but the acting is where the film shines. Bogart is, as usual, superb, as are Mary Astor, Syndey Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre. Personally, I thought it was excellent to see those last two in full-fledged roles and not just the bit parts they had in Casablanca.
While it's nothing special, The Maltese Falcon is a true gem. It's worth a watch. Trust me, you won't regret it.
Blade Runner (1982) Review
Frankly, I was disappointed by this film. It was a bit too gory for my tastes, but nowhere near to the level that would make me not like it the way I do.
The cinematography in this film is absolutely amazing. Who would have thought scene after scene of polluted urban sprawl could be so... so... beautiful? Likewise, the random roving spotlights that are omnipresent throughout the film lend it an Orwellian feel, almost as if Big Brother is always watching.
Likewise, the mise-en-scene is fabulous. Everything, and I mean everything, looks like it belongs in the worn, dreary, distopian city that is LA in 2019. From the clothes to the cars to the weapons, to the building-covering jumbotrons, everything looks real - even more stunning once one realizes that there is no GCI in the film whatsoever.
Editing, while not as strong as the cinematography or mise-en-scene, is also very well-done, giving the film a definite noir-is feel to it. It doesn't do quite as good a job of building tension as I would like, but it is adequate nonetheless.
I guess the reason I didn't really like this film is just because it was so hyped, for me anyway, that it had reached a standard that no film could realistically live up to. I would have like to have watched the cut with Harrison Ford's narration, though. Maybe that would have made it seem better. But, either way, I have to admit that Blade Runner is an excellent film and should definitely be watched, especially if you're a science-fiction junkie.
The cinematography in this film is absolutely amazing. Who would have thought scene after scene of polluted urban sprawl could be so... so... beautiful? Likewise, the random roving spotlights that are omnipresent throughout the film lend it an Orwellian feel, almost as if Big Brother is always watching.
Likewise, the mise-en-scene is fabulous. Everything, and I mean everything, looks like it belongs in the worn, dreary, distopian city that is LA in 2019. From the clothes to the cars to the weapons, to the building-covering jumbotrons, everything looks real - even more stunning once one realizes that there is no GCI in the film whatsoever.
Editing, while not as strong as the cinematography or mise-en-scene, is also very well-done, giving the film a definite noir-is feel to it. It doesn't do quite as good a job of building tension as I would like, but it is adequate nonetheless.
I guess the reason I didn't really like this film is just because it was so hyped, for me anyway, that it had reached a standard that no film could realistically live up to. I would have like to have watched the cut with Harrison Ford's narration, though. Maybe that would have made it seem better. But, either way, I have to admit that Blade Runner is an excellent film and should definitely be watched, especially if you're a science-fiction junkie.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Touch of Evil (1958) Review
I hate to admit it, but I really did not enjoy Touch of Evil that much. It wasn't a bad movie by any means; it just didn't draw me in nearly as much as Double Indemnity did. I guess part of the reason was that I had read about the film long before I watched it, so I knew most of the major twists. Even so, I knew Psycho's twist before I saw that, and that film still drew me in...
Honestly, this movie just doesn't strike me as being very film noir. It's just a bit too bright, and the characters at times seem just a bit too happy. There also isn't very much use of shadow in the film, and the overall ambiance is just too bright.
Regardless, it's still a very well-done movie. Charlton Heston and Orson Welles are brilliant in their respective rolls as Vargas and Quinlan, while Janet Leigh (who still doesn't have good luck with motels) does a good job as Vargas' new (and somewhat clueless) wife. Similarly the plot is very well-developed and should keep people (at least ones who don't know it beforehand) entertained.
Overall, I think that Touch of Evil is a good movie by itself and is definitely worth a watch. However, I don't think it fits into the category of Film Noir very well.
Honestly, this movie just doesn't strike me as being very film noir. It's just a bit too bright, and the characters at times seem just a bit too happy. There also isn't very much use of shadow in the film, and the overall ambiance is just too bright.
Regardless, it's still a very well-done movie. Charlton Heston and Orson Welles are brilliant in their respective rolls as Vargas and Quinlan, while Janet Leigh (who still doesn't have good luck with motels) does a good job as Vargas' new (and somewhat clueless) wife. Similarly the plot is very well-developed and should keep people (at least ones who don't know it beforehand) entertained.
Overall, I think that Touch of Evil is a good movie by itself and is definitely worth a watch. However, I don't think it fits into the category of Film Noir very well.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Double Indemnity (1944) Review
Double Indemnity was my first genuine exposure to the genre/style of film noir, and I have to say that I genuinely enjoyed it.
As far as the noir-aspect of the film goes - murder, the hero narrating portions of the film via a flashback voiceover, very dark locations with a lot of shadows, corny dialogue that made liberal use of the words "dame" and "baby" - it was about what I expected. Granted, the closest I've come to film noir before this is Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the Tracer Bullet strips in Calvin and Hobbes, but nevertheless the film struck me to be typical (or possibly even stereotypical) film noir. And I enjoyed it anyway.
Film noir aside, I thought the film was excellent. I especially enjoyed the acting. Barbara Stanwyck genuinely struck me as a murderous black widow of a wife, while Fred MacMurry does an excellent job as Walter Neff. I especially liked Edward G. Robinson's near-obsessive portrayal of Keyes.
Billy Wilder did an excellent job of building the tension up throughout the film. My favortie scene has to be where the car stalls out while MacMurry and Stanwyck are about to make their getaway.
Overall, I thougholy enjoyed Double Indemnity. It's a great introduction to film noir, and if you're interested in the genre (and even if you're not), you should definitely watch it.
As far as the noir-aspect of the film goes - murder, the hero narrating portions of the film via a flashback voiceover, very dark locations with a lot of shadows, corny dialogue that made liberal use of the words "dame" and "baby" - it was about what I expected. Granted, the closest I've come to film noir before this is Who Framed Roger Rabbit and the Tracer Bullet strips in Calvin and Hobbes, but nevertheless the film struck me to be typical (or possibly even stereotypical) film noir. And I enjoyed it anyway.
Film noir aside, I thought the film was excellent. I especially enjoyed the acting. Barbara Stanwyck genuinely struck me as a murderous black widow of a wife, while Fred MacMurry does an excellent job as Walter Neff. I especially liked Edward G. Robinson's near-obsessive portrayal of Keyes.
Billy Wilder did an excellent job of building the tension up throughout the film. My favortie scene has to be where the car stalls out while MacMurry and Stanwyck are about to make their getaway.
Overall, I thougholy enjoyed Double Indemnity. It's a great introduction to film noir, and if you're interested in the genre (and even if you're not), you should definitely watch it.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
What Makes a Movie Great?
Hmm... good question. Not an easy one to answer, either. The problem is that there are just so many different aspects to a film that it's impossible to peg down which one makes a movie great. Actually, in my opinion, for a movie to be truly great, it must fulfill several of the following requirements:
QUALITY ACTING. No, I'm not talking about having A-list celebrities in the film (although that can help). What I mean is that whoever is in the starring roles, or any role for that matter, must put on a good, believable performance. For example, Casablanca wasn't supposed to be a great film, but the quality of acting by the leads and the interaction between them is what took the film from being another mediocre Hollywood churn-out to one of the greatest films of all time.
CHARACTERS THE AUDIENCE CAN IDENTIFY WITH. The best acting in the world doesn't mean squat if the audience doesn't care about the characters they portray. That's another reason why Casablanca is so great; the audience feels for Rick, they understand how Ilsa broke his heart and how he is torn between love and hate. It's also why Star Wars (the original, not the **** sequals), for all it's flaws, is so revered: the audience identifies with Luke Skywalker's desire to leave his home and explore the galaxy and learn more about his mysterious father.
GOOD MUSIC. Music can, in some cases, make or break a film. Star Wars is an excellent example of this. If the score had been written by someone else, or if it had been scored using pre-existing music (Lucas' original intent), it would have lacked the same impact that makes it so memorable. Similarly, without its trademark theme, Jaws would not have been nearly as scary as it turned out to be.
A CLEAR STORYLINE. The best acting and the best music and the best characters are all worthless if the audience can't figure out what's going on. Mind you, the story doesn't have to be blatantly obvious, but it has to make enough sense that the audience can clearly understand what is going on. There also has to be a point to the story that the audience can pick up on and understand. An audience should not leave the theater asking themselves "What the heck just happened?" or "Why should I care?"
CINEMATOGRAPHY, MISE EN SCENE, and EDITING. The reason Akira Kurosawa's and Sergio Leone's films are so well-renowned is that they both expertly employ cinematography. The wide open views of the countryside make the audience feel like they are actually in the film, while the tight close ups in Leone's westerns bring the tension in the film to a fever pitch. Similarly, mise en scene can be very important. Just look at Hitchcock's films. Everything in the shot adds to the overall effect of tension in the film. Remember all the portraits that were stairing at Marion in Psycho? Finally, Editing is crucial to the film. Properly done, transitions between shots become all but invisible, further drawing the audience into the film. In contrast, poor, jerky editing throws the audience out of the film and back in their seats, making it harder for them to become emotionally invested in the film.
"BREAKING THE MOLD". Let's be honest, here. All The Matrix really is is just a bunch of cardboard acting and gratuitous voilence, with a bit of hokey Zen philosophy thrown in for good measure. Yet the film was a runaway hit. Why? Because no one had ever seen anything like it before. No one had ever attempted special effects like that before, and they blew the audience away. Basically, a film has to be unique, or at least contain something that has never been seen before if they are to be truly great (which is why sequels usually suck).
QUALITY ACTING. No, I'm not talking about having A-list celebrities in the film (although that can help). What I mean is that whoever is in the starring roles, or any role for that matter, must put on a good, believable performance. For example, Casablanca wasn't supposed to be a great film, but the quality of acting by the leads and the interaction between them is what took the film from being another mediocre Hollywood churn-out to one of the greatest films of all time.
CHARACTERS THE AUDIENCE CAN IDENTIFY WITH. The best acting in the world doesn't mean squat if the audience doesn't care about the characters they portray. That's another reason why Casablanca is so great; the audience feels for Rick, they understand how Ilsa broke his heart and how he is torn between love and hate. It's also why Star Wars (the original, not the **** sequals), for all it's flaws, is so revered: the audience identifies with Luke Skywalker's desire to leave his home and explore the galaxy and learn more about his mysterious father.
GOOD MUSIC. Music can, in some cases, make or break a film. Star Wars is an excellent example of this. If the score had been written by someone else, or if it had been scored using pre-existing music (Lucas' original intent), it would have lacked the same impact that makes it so memorable. Similarly, without its trademark theme, Jaws would not have been nearly as scary as it turned out to be.
A CLEAR STORYLINE. The best acting and the best music and the best characters are all worthless if the audience can't figure out what's going on. Mind you, the story doesn't have to be blatantly obvious, but it has to make enough sense that the audience can clearly understand what is going on. There also has to be a point to the story that the audience can pick up on and understand. An audience should not leave the theater asking themselves "What the heck just happened?" or "Why should I care?"
CINEMATOGRAPHY, MISE EN SCENE, and EDITING. The reason Akira Kurosawa's and Sergio Leone's films are so well-renowned is that they both expertly employ cinematography. The wide open views of the countryside make the audience feel like they are actually in the film, while the tight close ups in Leone's westerns bring the tension in the film to a fever pitch. Similarly, mise en scene can be very important. Just look at Hitchcock's films. Everything in the shot adds to the overall effect of tension in the film. Remember all the portraits that were stairing at Marion in Psycho? Finally, Editing is crucial to the film. Properly done, transitions between shots become all but invisible, further drawing the audience into the film. In contrast, poor, jerky editing throws the audience out of the film and back in their seats, making it harder for them to become emotionally invested in the film.
"BREAKING THE MOLD". Let's be honest, here. All The Matrix really is is just a bunch of cardboard acting and gratuitous voilence, with a bit of hokey Zen philosophy thrown in for good measure. Yet the film was a runaway hit. Why? Because no one had ever seen anything like it before. No one had ever attempted special effects like that before, and they blew the audience away. Basically, a film has to be unique, or at least contain something that has never been seen before if they are to be truly great (which is why sequels usually suck).
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Ran (1985) Review
Straight up, I didn't enjoy Ran nearly as much as I thought I would, though not for the reason you might think. Essentially, the movie is Shakespeare's King Lear, only in Japan with the Samurai. In both high school and college, I have read and reread King Lear so many times that I know the story backwards and forwards. As a result, the film's plot was not a surprise to me at all: I knew pretty much what was going to happen and when. It kinda sucks when you know the ending before the film even begins.
However, if you don't know the story by heart, the film is absolutely spectacular. The cinematography is excellent, highlighting feudal Japan's wide-open spaces. Even the interior shots feel open and unconfined. The whole effect gives the film a grand, epic feeling. It reminds me of a Sergio Leone western, unsurprising since Leone was a student of director Akira Kurosawa's work.
Acting is good, I guess. I'm not familiar at all with Japanese cinema (this was the first Japanese film I've ever seen), so I cannot really comment on it. I can say that it did not feel forced or over-the-top, though.
While I didn't like Ran as much as I hoped I would, it is still a magnificent film and is definitely worth a watch.
However, if you don't know the story by heart, the film is absolutely spectacular. The cinematography is excellent, highlighting feudal Japan's wide-open spaces. Even the interior shots feel open and unconfined. The whole effect gives the film a grand, epic feeling. It reminds me of a Sergio Leone western, unsurprising since Leone was a student of director Akira Kurosawa's work.
Acting is good, I guess. I'm not familiar at all with Japanese cinema (this was the first Japanese film I've ever seen), so I cannot really comment on it. I can say that it did not feel forced or over-the-top, though.
While I didn't like Ran as much as I hoped I would, it is still a magnificent film and is definitely worth a watch.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Daughters of the Dust (1991) Review
I'll be perfectly honest with you. Daughters of the Dust has definitely been my least favorite film I've reviewed so far. I really did not enjoy it at all, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, the narrative style was confusing. Unlike traditional narratives, there was no real chronology. Now, I'm not one of those people that gets confused by flashbacks or flash-forwards, but the thing is I can usually tell when those events are occurring. There was no real sense of time in this film. I don't know if the events took place over the course of a day, a week, or even just a few hours.
Partly as a result of this, I had a hard time figuring out exactly what the story was. Don't get me wrong, I figured out the basics: family of islanders is going to move to the mainland, creating conflicts between the different generations. I could also figure out the various conflicts: Violet's Christianity at odds with the rest of the family's tribal beliefs, Haagar being pissed at everyone who doesn't want to leave, Eli broken up over his wife's rape, Yellow Mary at odds with the rest of the family over her past, etc. The thing is, I couldn't figure out the source of a lot of these conflicts. Why do the rest of the women consider Yellow Mary "ruint"? Why is Haagar so pissed off all the time? Why won't Eula tell Eli who raped her?
I think that the main reason for this is the fact that nearly all of the dialogue is spoken in the particular and peculiar dialect of the islanders. While I was able to figure out the gist of it (I think), a lot of the subtle details blew right passed me because I really could not understand what the people were saying. If there had been subtitles, I think this wouldn't have been a problem.
However, since I couldn't understand them, since I couldn't figure out what the root of a lot of the conflicts were, since I couldn't really get a grasp of the entire storyline, I found the film to be quite boring. It was the longest 112 minutes I've ever sat throught. Even Return of the King felt shorter than this film.
While I can't really call Daughters of the Dust an out-and-out bad movie, I can say that I found it highly confusing and that I really don't reccomend it unless you're really interested in alternate storytelling methods. Otherwise, you should probably avoid it.
Firstly, the narrative style was confusing. Unlike traditional narratives, there was no real chronology. Now, I'm not one of those people that gets confused by flashbacks or flash-forwards, but the thing is I can usually tell when those events are occurring. There was no real sense of time in this film. I don't know if the events took place over the course of a day, a week, or even just a few hours.
Partly as a result of this, I had a hard time figuring out exactly what the story was. Don't get me wrong, I figured out the basics: family of islanders is going to move to the mainland, creating conflicts between the different generations. I could also figure out the various conflicts: Violet's Christianity at odds with the rest of the family's tribal beliefs, Haagar being pissed at everyone who doesn't want to leave, Eli broken up over his wife's rape, Yellow Mary at odds with the rest of the family over her past, etc. The thing is, I couldn't figure out the source of a lot of these conflicts. Why do the rest of the women consider Yellow Mary "ruint"? Why is Haagar so pissed off all the time? Why won't Eula tell Eli who raped her?
I think that the main reason for this is the fact that nearly all of the dialogue is spoken in the particular and peculiar dialect of the islanders. While I was able to figure out the gist of it (I think), a lot of the subtle details blew right passed me because I really could not understand what the people were saying. If there had been subtitles, I think this wouldn't have been a problem.
However, since I couldn't understand them, since I couldn't figure out what the root of a lot of the conflicts were, since I couldn't really get a grasp of the entire storyline, I found the film to be quite boring. It was the longest 112 minutes I've ever sat throught. Even Return of the King felt shorter than this film.
While I can't really call Daughters of the Dust an out-and-out bad movie, I can say that I found it highly confusing and that I really don't reccomend it unless you're really interested in alternate storytelling methods. Otherwise, you should probably avoid it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
