Every time I watch a Noir film such as Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or Out Of The Past I find myself wondering just what it is about these films that make them so entertaining. I have to admit that in watching most films from the 60's or before I find myself very bored and wishing that I was not wasting hours of my life. So what exactly is it about Film Noir that makes it such an amazing period of film?
I found myself wondering if it was the technical aspects of film Noir that interested me. And without out doubt many noir films photography is indeed very intriguing. I think I could get many hours of enjoyment watching a movie such as Out of the Past and dissecting it scene by scene trying to figure out exactly how each shot was done. The lighting and camera work for many Noir films is amazing. But then again there are quite a few B Noir films such as Detour where basically all of the moves are routine and most of the lighting is done in the simplest way possible. Plus in comparison to todays movies the technical aspects of even the best Noir are not that special.
I would have to say that I believe that the main reason why people love the Noir period was the overwhelming style change in Noir movies as compared to so many others. Never before, nor afterwards has the style thats exhibited in Noir movies been anywhere remotely as prominent as it was during this period. The differences in plot create a very different type of story.
Consider Out of the Past as just one example. Out of the Past is a story about a detective who gets him self mixed up with a girl whom is wanted by his employer. He is later attempted to be tricked by him employer in an effort to get him back. What I found so interesting about the plot of this movie is that the main character Jeff Bailey (Robert Mitchum) remains on top for basically the entirety of film except the end of the movie. What I mean by this is that he always seems one step ahead of everyone else. When he goes to find the girl Kathie Moffat (Jane Greer) he finds her before she even knows she is being tracked and then manages to trick his boss, Whit Sterling (Kirk Douglas) into thinking that he didn't find her. He is then later on is brought back to his boss again who tries to trick him by setting him up for a murder he did not do. However, Jack immediately sees threw this and soon regains the upper hand eventually bringing Sterling down. The ending is the only part where we really get a sense that Jack has run out of luck because he is finally put into a position where he has no way out.
This sort of story where the “good guy” has the upper hand through out the film until the very end is basically the opposite of most films today. when watching a good crime or action film today, like the borne identity for example, you get the feeling that the main character is always in a desperate situation until the very end. They always narrowly escape time and time again before finally getting free at the end. To me its very interesting and almost makes me happy to see, in Noir, a character that appears to be on top of the world for the good portion of the move.
Film noir was a product of its time, something Thomas Schatz points out about all genres in his article, Film Genre and the Genre Film. Schatz says, "The determining, identifying feature of a film genre is its cultural context, its community of interrelated character types whose attitudes, values, and actions flesh out dramatic conflicts inherent within that community." Film noir popped up in American cinema right after the end of World War II in the 1940s and then into the beginning of the 1950s. American audiences were tired of Allied propaganda and the overly optimistic way of looking at life. Americans were ready to turn to the dark underbellies of their lives, and film noir reflects this on screen.
ReplyDeletePaul Schader's Notes on Film Noir essay opens with this cultural frame. Because of the current events in 1940s America, "Hollywood lighting got darker, characters grew more corrupt, themes more fatalistic, and the tone more hopeless." This overarching feeling of hopelessness was gone by the end of the 1950s and in the 1960s, and film noir disappeared with it. Chinatown brought noir back in 1974, but this did not spark a complete rebirth. Today we are facing similar issues in contemporary America that we were in the 1970s. Who knows, maybe in this time period we could bring film noir back with a vengeance.
I agree with you, Jacob, that the stylistic beauty of noir is what makes it so beautiful and interesting. I am always mesmerized by the way traditional noir films play off the black and white with their use of shadow and light. Even with Chinatown, which was in color, I couldn't help but be impressed by the lighting (something I never really pay attention to).
ReplyDeleteAlso, it's interesting you bring up the point of the "good guy" in noir being on top of the world for most of the film. I'm not sure I agree. Perhaps you mean, he has the upper hand most of the film, in comparison to The Bourne Identity in which we see the protagonist trying to regain his power throughout the movie. It is strange to see, however, that dichotomy within these movies. It seems like in most noirs the protagonist has the upper hand throughout the movie and then loses it by the end. In more traditional Hollywood films, the protagonist has no control throughout most of the film until the end when he/she regains control of his/her situation. I wonder why movies seem to do this, have it oppositely end to how it began. Perhaps it makes the narrative more interesting, but sometimes I think it's fun to have the movie end how it began with nothing resolved. A little sadistic, yes, but far more intriguing, too.
It is interesting, as Laura suggests, to think that we might be entering a period that would see a resurgence of Noir-esque cinematography. Like the 1930-1950s, we are once again in a period of economic turmoil, where society can largely be seen as corrupt, jaded, or somehow "dark" by contrast (insert thinly-veiled Bernie Madoff allusion here).
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that perhaps it may be premature to jump to such a conclusion; during hard times such as these, people often turn to positive, happy-go-lucky feel-good films to forget that their lives are an unmitigated source disappointment, a constant stream emotional pain, an eternal fountain spiritual anguish, a snowballing cycle of loss, and an eternal cavalcade of human pathos and suffering.
To put it mildly.
Keep in mind that it was only after the saccharine-laced, sickeningly sweet sugar-coated movies preceding them that film noir gained a following. Film noir was a reaction to the sparkling smiles of upbeat musicals, and came about during relatively good-times (as the mid- and post-World War II years were, economically speaking). I think it's no accident that a relatively upbeat film like "Slumdog Millionaire" swept the Academy Awards (even if it was decidedly shocking and gritty).
Put even more bluntly, people who have it good, want bad stories to make them appreciate what they've got; whereas people who have it bad want stories to make them feel better, and give them something to hope for.
Hmmm Jacob. I wish you had done some of that technical pulling apart that you so crave! It would be interesting to dissect how we get the impression that the dectective is "on top" or "ahead" in the film. Are there technical aspects that help convince us of this...in addition to the plot?
ReplyDelete-Alexis