The easiest throwbacks to point out are the period pieces (L.A. Confidential, Chinatown (1974), etc.) which actually take place in the 40s and 50s. The viewer is transported to the time when noir was the norm through the visuals of costuming and setting, making the style more digestable to the viewer who is presumably accustomed to a lighter, less stylized visual.
Brick and Assassination of a High School President both take place in high school with a scrappy, adolescent outsider guiding the story. Both films display many of the stereotypical elements of noir - femme fatale, narration, flashback, a unique colloquial lingo - but both cloak their protagonists in a trench coat or at least a jacket reminiscent of a trench coat (I swear I made this connection before Bart pointed it out!). This seemingly small gesture could easily be interpreted as an homage to earlier films, but is actually necessary in that it gives our hero the credibility and maturity of a detective in search of the truth for the sake of navigating the blurred lines of good and evil.
For your viewing pleasure, another example:
Last week, Maria actually used Sin City as an example of a highly stylized non-noir film, to which I responded:
"To me Sin City is very much a noir film. In fact, I remember watching it in theaters thinking that it is the perfect update of the noir genre. It successfully uses black and white photography, and gives it another dimension with punches of color that both add narrative significance and blur the lines between good and evil (think Alexis Bledel's character whose shockingly blue eyes make her seem so angelic, yet she proves to be a traitor). The heroes of this comic book adaptation (Dwight, Marv and Hartigan) embody the ideals of the noir protagonist (confident and seedy, yet moral) while their counterparts (Gail, Goldie, and Nancy) are blatantly sexual, independent and dangerous. I can't think of a modern film that better fits the outline of the noir genre."
The above clip (combining the first and last shots of the film) actually demonstrates how the film fits all 7 stylistic elements of noir listed by Schrader: night, oblique and vertical lines, lighting, compositional tension, water (rain), romantic narration, and complex chronological order. (If you haven't seen the movie, the latter element is demonstrated by Josh Hartnett's "the salesman" who only appears in the very beginning and the very end, providing a cyclical element to the story and suggesting that any resolution established in the movie will not withstand the perpetual corruption of this dark world.) Also evident in this clip is the throwback element that seems to resonate in all modern noir films. The music, Hartnett's slicked back hair, their dress, the dialogue and the demeanor of both characters all contribute to the classic look and feel established in noir's post-war peak. It seems that a modern attempt at noir requires some form of historical significance to make the style relevant to the viewer.
Note: I didn't feel it was appropriate to include Kiss Kiss Bang Bang in this analysis as I consider it more of a parody of noir films than an actual film noir. That said, it was definitely my favorite movie we've watched so far this semester.
As a complete aside, I made a random connection between Elijah Wood's character in Sin City and the deaf gas station attendant in Out of the Past. Neither character ever speaks or shows any emotion and (like Anne pointed out last week) both have a dark, supernatural aura about them. Not to mention they both kill without any remorse or consequence (Elijah with ridiculous speed and strength and the gas station attendant with a freaking fishing rod). Just me?
I think I missed the part when I was reading Schrader when he characterizes film noir as a certain period of film history, so I'm glad you brought it up here, as it's a very interesting point. On one hand, I agree with your argument that film noir continues to live in films today with films like "Sin City." On the other hand, something in me wants to say, "Yeah, but those films aren't TRUE film noir." Since film noir was so popular during the 40s and 50s, and came to characterize most of the films of that time, I feel like a lot of people do unintentionally associate film noir with a this time period. And although it's possible to create film noir, the more recent films in this style seem to lack the "old movie" element that is what many people think of when they think of film noir.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that contemporary films such as L.A. Confidential and The Man Who Wasn't There (Billy Bob Thorton) have been made that perpetuate the film noir tradition in a modern context, I think it is significant that these films have a nostalgic element to them. They transport the viewer back to the hey day of film noir in the 40's and 50's for the sake of the credibility, which in essence corroborates Schrader's limiting noir time period of 1941-1953.
ReplyDeleteMost critics position Ridley Scott's Blade Runner (1982) as a neo-noir film set in a futuristic time period, and thus some exceptions are made to this temporal definition. However I feel that true noir films that examine modern and contemporary themes resonant of those present in the post-war days, themes that I argue are starting to resurface, have not found their way into Hollywood sans that transport back in time.
The stylistic elements (which I agree are the main components of defining a noir film) present in Sin City do give it a neo-noir film, but the graphic-novel nature of the film also positions it in an exaggerated and sensational context that echoes the parody of Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. So to truly disprove Schrader's time period, neo-noir films need to emerge that a) don't take place in the time period of film noir's hey day and b) are accepted by a wider viewership and the Hollywood studios than independents such as Brick.
I definitely agree with your point when you say that it would be wrong to pin film noir to any single time period; I watched "Brick" a few nights ago (mostly due to the fact that I wanted to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt in something not hugely dorky, but partly because I wanted a few more examples of more modern film noirs), and if that film isn't a film noir, then I'm not sure how to properly classify it, apart from "drama." But at the same time, I do have to echo Shayna's sentiment: when watching modern noirs, I too get the feeling that they're not /real/ film noirs. I'm not sure why; maybe it's the fact that the films are in color, or that the characters may not fit the middle-aged jaded male stereotype we see so often in classic noir. "Neo-noir" is a term I hear thrown about a lot, but I'm left wondering what that means, exactly; is noir something that really must be defined by a time period? I'm honestly not sure.
ReplyDelete(I would like to say, though, that I hadn't meant to imply that I thought "Sin City" was not a noir film; I very much consider it noir/neo-noir/whatever term is one day assigned to fit it. I can see where my phrasing would have been ambiguous, though, so that was my bad).
I would tend to disagree that film noir does not belong to a particular time period. What makes a film noir? The black and white, the voices, the stupid corny lines. Hollywood is different now and with the changes that have come, film noir, as a style, a genre, or whatever you want to call it, has faded. Sin City, while it is somewhat serious and does encapsulate some of the classic film noir characteristics, fails at being a true film noir because it is known for its awesome action scenes and well known actors. The unique sound effects and rare parts of the film where there is color are what define the movie and make it enjoyable. Film Noir is certainly something hard to repeat in today's Hollywood.
ReplyDeleteMy response to Afftene's post is perhaps indicative of my confusion with Schrader's piece.
ReplyDeleteAs a result, I really do like your example of the representation of the conventions of noir as a style as listed by Schrader and I think this made me appreciate his piece a little better.
@ your statement about noir's "limiting time period", I will respond by saying that I think film norefers to the post-War climate at the time that was a stimulus for many of the noir films produced. Certainly there are many films today that are produced in the film noir style, but this style was the child of the economic difficulties of the forties.
I think you have highlighted the films in recent history that have lined up fairly well with film noir, and I understand your frustration at the tight temporal definition that Shraeder gives the genre. However, I would say that the modern noirs / neo-noirs (whatever you would like to call them), all have an aspect of nostalgia for the past, and, as seen in "Chinatown" and "L.A. Confidential" often require the return to the past for the film noir to be fully set in place. I would argue that, in the modern day noir films, it's as much about the film itself as it is in comparison to the films in the past. The newer noir films either continually reference films of the past, or show evolution in the film noir genre and challenge it. It's as if you need that past set definition of "film noir" in order to see what the intentions are of the modern film noir makers (make it as similar to the 40s & 50s films as possible / parody the style of those films / challenge the style by having similar dialogue but setting it in modern day).
ReplyDelete