I didn’t dislike the film. It’s just that I thought it was a little boring. I got all of it but it never really had the darkness of the Noirs I’ve seen like Big Combo, DOA, even Border incident. Most likely due to the enjoyable but IMO out of place musical score. So,with my Noir exposure so far, I’m used to different types of interogations than were in this one. Combo had the darkly lit room with only a light shining on Cornel Wilde. But here, we have fully lit rooms that don’t give off that feeling. And I thought comparatively, the background action is too active for me to focus on the interrogations which seemed to go around in circles. Not enough twists maybe. And yes, although Lime is responsible for hundreds of deaths, it is not emphasised enough for it to affect me. Apocaylpse Now did that with Brando. They ghet into this man’s mind without giving him that much screentime. Lime is just talked about in two ways. How great he was, how bad he was. And Cotten discovers the truth too abuptley. I think it would have been beter if he either found out the hard way or got his own clues.
I read that some people believe there to be a difference between Noirs of the 40’s and of the 50’s. Anybody buy into that? think I’ve seen differences. 40’s noirs seem to have the documentary structure which I find pointless. And they seem more…“colder”. ore rustic while 50’s noirs have more spice. I like 50’s noirs better.
Never noticed that.
Haven’t seen that many of that movies, but so far my fave is proto-noir M. It’s hard to believe it was made in 1931, it incorporated many filmmaking techniques that are used to this very day. Great, great movie
A German expressionist crime film I’m lead to believe. Still proto noir though.
I’m checking out the Killing by Kubrick tonight.
My Noir kick is going very good. Better than my Polizzio kick though. Of the 4 or so Polizzios I’ve rented, 3 of those discs were falty and skipped the whole mid section. Big Racket looked to be very good but I missed the first hour due to the shitty disc.
But I’ve been enjoying these Noirs. Watching Touch of Evil at the moment and its looking to be a very good one. My Dad didn’t like it (or The Third Man) but he doesn’t really like Welles’s films. Citizen Kane included. Well, screw that, its still a good Noir (Touch of evil that is).
I don’t really care for the semi documentary narration formula used mostly in the 40’s as it takes the guts out of the films. Ruins the flow. But despite that, I still enjoyed T-Men as it was daaaaarrrrk in subject matter and shadows. Border Incident was a little boring but it had the best flavorof em all so far. Mexico goes good with noir. But Charleton Heston aint no Mexican.
Watched Out of the Past Yesterday and Ienjoyed it’s Noirish lighting but I found it to be rather boring andfrusterating. Don’t think I’m that much a fan of the Femme Fatale formula. But it has the normal darkness but I didn’t care for Robert Mitchum. Not his kind of role. I liked him much better in Pursued. He was sort of a boring character in this one though. Hope I’ll like him better in Night of the Hunter.
Kansas City Confidential looks to be good but I’ve not finished ityet. Shadows are a little lax but still very evident. LVC is in there too s it won’t be bad.
DOA was probably the film that had the quickest pace and it worked well with my enjoyment of the film.
[quote=“korano, post:102, topic:1786”]I read that some people believe there to be a difference between Noirs of the 40’s and of the 50’s. Anybody buy into that? think I’ve seen differences. 40’s noirs seem to have the documentary structure which I find pointless. And they seem more…“colder”. ore rustic while 50’s noirs have more spice. I like 50’s noirs better.
Your thoughts?[/quote]
I actually prefere fourties Noir. The fifties Film Noir’s always seemed less dark and the ending was usally more upbeat, “The Enforcer” being a good example. That said, “Vertigo” is my second favourite Film Noir and “Strangers on a Train” is fantastic.
Wow. Now there’s me thinking that Out of the Past is damn near perfect, almost the definitive noir. And Mitchum is, for me, almost the definitive noir (anti)hero.
Don’t get me wrong though; I value others’ opinions highly and it’s fascinating to read such a diversity of views, especially when they’re well argued.
I don’t really differentiate too much between 40s and 50s noirs. Perhaps there’s more of a naturalistic quality to certain 50s examples, especially those overshadowed by the Cold War, while elsewhere there’s more of an exploitative/pulpier vibe. My own favourites happen to be from the 40s (Out of the Past being in the top five), but then you have Kiss me Deadly, The Killing, Night of the Hunter (noir-esque rather than noir per se)…
There are pluses and minuses in both sets of films (if you want to see them as different sets, although overall I think it’s an artificial divide).
Sure I love Bogie as well. But it’s not just about meanness or toughness - Mitchum had a haunted quality - a stillness, I think it’s been called before - perfectly suited to noir.
It’s swings and roundabouts though - one day I’ll be in the mood for Bogie, another for Mitchum.
If colour stops movies from being Film Noirs then you exclude films like: “Niagara” (1953), “Bad Day at Black Rock” (1955) and “Inferno” (1953). Also what about films like “Chinatown”? As it is in colour, dose this stop it from being a Film Noir?
The three films you mentioned from the 50’s have murder stories, but it doesnt exactly make it noir. The director wanted to differentiate the film from noir by using color. Remember that film noir did not invent murder mysteries.
But then again I havent seen Inferno…
NIAGRA has all the ingredients for noir except B/W, i’d definitely consider it neo-noir, if not full on noir. But then this is why i’m not so crazy about labels. By the strictest of definitions a few of the films we’ve been discussing haven’t really been noir, but i’m still glad we’re discussing them here.
I finally got around to seeing The Big Heat for the first time, and it is definitely one of the best and brutal noirs of the noir heyday. Lee Marvin as a big old asshole was enough to amplify the great experience but it needed no help with this revenge tale. Great acting from all fronts and great directing by Fritz Lang (better than his gimmicky style in Ministry of Fear). Some really brutal moments caught me off guard and really made it memorable.
The films characteristics remindded me of SW’s. Glenn Ford being the tough guy in the bar that makes everyone back off. His thirst for vengeance…
Great flick 10/10
[color=red][quote=“Rififii, post:116, topic:1786”]I finally got around to seeing The Big Heat for the first time, and it is definitely one of the best and brutal noirs of the noir heyday. Lee Marvin as a big old asshole was enough to amplify the great experience but it needed no help with this revenge tale. Great acting from all fronts and great directing by Fritz Lang (better than his gimmicky style in Ministry of Fear). Some really brutal moments caught me off guard and really made it memorable.
The films characteristics remindded me of SW’s. Glenn Ford being the tough guy in the bar that makes everyone back off. His thirst for vengeance…
Great flick 10/10[/quote]
I agree, its a fantastic movie, and one of my favourite films of all time. The throwing of boiling hot coffe into the girle’s face was brilliantly well done, and so was (SPOILERS) the bit where Glen Ford’s wife in the movie is killed by the booby-traped car.