How about North By Northwest?
That, to me, is a complete description of Noir.
But to be fair, I mostly agree that Hitch’s films are predominantly thrillers. Pyscho a noir film? Not for me. But I wouldn’t agree that Noirs are always “gangster, detective, police films”. Crime films, sure. But what makes them noir, in my mind, is brutish, sexy, trust, mistrust, desire and repulsion elements you listed above.
The Postman Always Rings Twice is a perfect example. There’s a crime but the story isn’t about the detective. It’s about the two perpetrators and how their passion and mistrust undoes them.
[quote=“John Welles, post:41, topic:1786”]How about North By Northwest?[/quote][quote=“Phil H, post:42, topic:1786”]That, to me, is a complete description of Noir.
But to be fair, I mostly agree that Hitch’s films are predominantly thrillers. Pyscho a noir film? Not for me. But I wouldn’t agree that Noirs are always “gangster, detective, police films”. Crime films, sure. But what makes them noir, in my mind, is brutish, sexy, trust, mistrust, desire and repulsion elements you listed above.
The Postman Always Rings Twice is a perfect example. There’s a crime but the story isn’t about the detective. It’s about the two perpetrators and how their passion and mistrust undoes them.[/quote]
Oh yes, you are right, crime films, that’s what I meant.
In NbN the spy plot is at least essential for the movement. Mason and his gang are a treat for Grant. What and why they are smuggling is not that important, but the spy plot is nevertheless in the center of the film. But it’s also a 10/10 film.
In Notorious the Nazis are only a sub plot. The main plot is the relationship between Grant and Bergman, the story could have took place elsewhere with another bunch of baddies.
Suspicion is a film noir.
hmm … I would also say no
Why? Because the ‘femme’ fatale has a penis?
Gangster films are in no way film noir… Gangster film were made predominantly before noir’s evolution and only had traits of bruteness and vulgarity to be considered noir. There is often exceptions to this such as White Heat but the film is quite brightly lit throughout.
Thrillers are often noir but not often Hitchcock’s films primarily because there are filmed in color e.g. Dial M, North by Northwest, Vertigo are all automatically non-noir for being in color.
The Wrong Man, I Confess, and Strangers on a train are all film noirs for their low key lighting and mystery driven plots.
If thrillers could not be noirs then you would have to exclude many classics-- The Killers, Act of Violence, The Lady from Shanghai.
Although I know where you’re coming from and agree on all the films listed I don’t think you can dismiss a films noir credentials purely on the basis of its being shot in colour. Certainly in the case of neo noir.
Films such as The Hot Spot and The Grifters are both in colour and both as noirish as you could ask for in terms of their content and style. (They’re both Jim Thompson stories so they qualify for my money on that alone)
I know what you mean with classic noirs of course. They did tend to be shot in monochrome and that added something to their atmosphere which became pretty much synonmous with the genre. But later films proved it could still be done very effectively in colour.
I disagree. Wikipedia lists these films as classic era Film Noirs:
Leave Her to Heaven (1945)
Desert Fury (1947)
Rope (1948)
Inferno (1953, 3-D)
Niagara (1953)
Second Chance (1953, 3-D)
Black Widow (1954)
Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
Hell’s Island (1955)
House of Bamboo (1955)
I Died a Thousand Times (1955)
Accused of Murder (1956)
A Kiss Before Dying (1956)
Slightly Scarlet (1956)
The Unholy Wife (1957)
Vertigo (1958)
This is a quintessential noir thread! Whenever the topic appears, whatever film sparks it off, the definition of ‘noir’ itself quickly takes over.
And what all such threads prove is that there is no universal definition. It means different things to different people, and that, of course, is why it’s such a fascinating field (I won’t say genre, because that gives the wrong impression).
That’s why I prefer to talk about noir elements (as in disputed cases such as Psycho, and Hitchcock films in general), because noir had many characteristics - visual, thematic etc - that can be found in a diverse range of films, predominantly urban but also rural, with crime, almost invariably, being the connecting thread.
And while I think we’d all agree that the best examples are the B&W classics, I agree with John Welles and Phil H that noir can function perfectly well in colour - The Driver, to cite one of my favourite latter-day examples, is steeped in noir characteristics.
My fave neo-noir has to be “Chinatown”. A masterpiece and it’s in my top 10 [or maybe even top 5] movies of all time. I’ve seen few classic noirs once but it was a long time ago and can’t remeber them too well
Exactly. Films made after the noir craze was over in the early to middle sixties are to be considered neo noirs because of the undeniable noir elements, they are allowed to be noir because of their tribute to noir in a color prominant bussiness.
@ Starblack I agree the Driver is a great film…
Jess Franco made a couple of nice noirs I have been enjoying recently: Downtown and Kiss Me Killer.
Downtown seems almost like a parody on the genre, and Kiss Me Killer is a more sleazy take on the genre.
Not sure if STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS qualifies as a noir, but it should at least be close. And it’s fantabulous.
How good is Kubrik’s The Killers?
Grade A noir right there…
These are my favourite films that might be considered noirs…
- Woman in the Window
- Dark Passage
- Key Largo
- Kiss of Death
- Dead Reckoning
- In a Lonely Place
- Blast of Silence
I’m going to be watching Hitchcock’s “Spellbound” today. How good is it?
I haven’t seen Spellbound for several years but I remember feeling disappointed. It’s quite leaden for Hitchcock, and Gregory Peck is not a great match for the director, though there is of course the famous Dali-designed dream sequence.
I need to see it again really - be interested to read your thoughts.