I’ve set myself the task of writing a review of all ten films in the DVD set, The Ultimate Film Noir Collection.
Click here
For anyone contemplating buying it, it’s excellent value, despite some dodgy transfer quality at time and an absence of commentaries or extras. Also, if you’re like me you won’t have heard of half of the films in the collection, but that is probably the main attraction, because they so rarely turn up on TV.
The ten films are listed on the link, by the way.
Before I get down to the individual films, I want to ponder on this term ‘film noir’, which I don’t like. For a start, it is a merely a phrase invented by French critics retrospectively to label crime films that shared a cinematic style and a few common themes. Second, it is prodigally over-used, usually to give some critical class to cheap (though hardly cheerful) B-movies.
I’ve seen Orson Welles’ Macbeth described as ‘noirish’ and read message board discussions arguing the toss about whether Leave Her to Heaven is a noir film. And is there any review of Chinatown which doesn’t describe it as ‘modern noir’ or ‘hommage to noir’. All of which begs the question I posed above.
Now a critical label doesn’t appear out of nowhere. It has to be based on certain definable criteria which are genuinely shared by a number of films, intentionally or otherwise. I would say that there is a consensus that a ‘film noir’ should have these three elements:
Style: monochrome; shadows, bars of light through blinds; expressionistic camera angles; flashbacks; narration, etc.
Theme: Life’s a bitch, and then the hero dies. ‘As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods – they kill us for their sport.’
Elements: the femme fatale; the hero’s fatal flaw; crime; violence; corruption; the contrast between the fruits of crime and the poverty of honesty, etc.
Off hand I can’t think of many films that fit even those rather loose criteria, but the following are usually cited as leading examples:
Out of the Past (aka Build My Gallows High), although it has a lot of light and outdoor locations.
Double Indemnity
High Sierra – no femme, but a chienne fatale.
Detour – archetypal, with the added advantage of being a real Poverty Row product.
The Killers (1946).
Scarlet Street
Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid (only joking).
I would dispute that the following are ‘noir’:
The Maltese Falcon and all the Chandler/Marlowe films. They may have the style, but they don’t have the content.
White Heat – the lead is psychotic, not a tragic hero.
He Walked by Night – police procedural.
I suppose what I’m saying is that if you try and define ‘noir’ you end up with a definition so narrow that it excludes most films, or so wide that it becomes meaningless. I am certainly saying that such labels are unnecessary and a recipe for critical laziness.
And who cares? If a film is good, why does it matter how we label it? After all, I won’t accept Treasure of the Sierra Madre or North-West Passage as Westerns, but that doesn’t stop them being great films.
Click here
For anyone contemplating buying it, it’s excellent value, despite some dodgy transfer quality at time and an absence of commentaries or extras. Also, if you’re like me you won’t have heard of half of the films in the collection, but that is probably the main attraction, because they so rarely turn up on TV.
The ten films are listed on the link, by the way.
Before I get down to the individual films, I want to ponder on this term ‘film noir’, which I don’t like. For a start, it is a merely a phrase invented by French critics retrospectively to label crime films that shared a cinematic style and a few common themes. Second, it is prodigally over-used, usually to give some critical class to cheap (though hardly cheerful) B-movies.
I’ve seen Orson Welles’ Macbeth described as ‘noirish’ and read message board discussions arguing the toss about whether Leave Her to Heaven is a noir film. And is there any review of Chinatown which doesn’t describe it as ‘modern noir’ or ‘hommage to noir’. All of which begs the question I posed above.
Now a critical label doesn’t appear out of nowhere. It has to be based on certain definable criteria which are genuinely shared by a number of films, intentionally or otherwise. I would say that there is a consensus that a ‘film noir’ should have these three elements:
Style: monochrome; shadows, bars of light through blinds; expressionistic camera angles; flashbacks; narration, etc.
Theme: Life’s a bitch, and then the hero dies. ‘As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods – they kill us for their sport.’
Elements: the femme fatale; the hero’s fatal flaw; crime; violence; corruption; the contrast between the fruits of crime and the poverty of honesty, etc.
Off hand I can’t think of many films that fit even those rather loose criteria, but the following are usually cited as leading examples:
Out of the Past (aka Build My Gallows High), although it has a lot of light and outdoor locations.
Double Indemnity
High Sierra – no femme, but a chienne fatale.
Detour – archetypal, with the added advantage of being a real Poverty Row product.
The Killers (1946).
Scarlet Street
Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid (only joking).
I would dispute that the following are ‘noir’:
The Maltese Falcon and all the Chandler/Marlowe films. They may have the style, but they don’t have the content.
White Heat – the lead is psychotic, not a tragic hero.
He Walked by Night – police procedural.
I suppose what I’m saying is that if you try and define ‘noir’ you end up with a definition so narrow that it excludes most films, or so wide that it becomes meaningless. I am certainly saying that such labels are unnecessary and a recipe for critical laziness.
And who cares? If a film is good, why does it matter how we label it? After all, I won’t accept Treasure of the Sierra Madre or North-West Passage as Westerns, but that doesn’t stop them being great films.
No comments:
Post a Comment