|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 26, 2010 13:57:03 GMT -5
Really, both points of view can be valid, depending on how your framing the lecture/conversation. Historically and academically, film noir is a term used to describe a specific type of film from a specific era. Stylistically, it can be used to cover a much broader group of movies. Hence, I think noir and noirish (OR IN THE STYLE OF NOIR) are good terms to use to differentiate. I concur entirely, that's what I was trying to get at. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 26, 2010 14:09:20 GMT -5
Also worth noting is that one common theme of classic noir, from say, 1946 to the early 50s, is life after WWII, where the world had really changed economically and politically, especially for veterans who had seen much more of the world while in combat. Many male lead characters in classic noir films are veterans. You can't really replicate that in a "neo-noir" film, unless it's set in the time period, and even then it might be self-concious. Compare a 30's gangster film to a post-WWII crime film, and you can see the differences. I agree with grubl that The Maltese Falcon was probably the first noir film. It really drew the line for a new kind of hard-boiled crime movie. Another great post, very interesting. I've also read that when the production code put the kibosh of the gangster films craze of the early 30s, the theme of the urban tough guy was forced to become more subtly conveyed, i.e. the anti-heroic Sam Spade. Or Jeff Markham/Bailey in OOTP who in nearly every scene is caught in the mid-point of a triangle between the straights and the outlaw society. What kind of irks me is the how noir as a selling point is slapped on soooo many DVDs. I recently got from Netflix some titles that were in a collection so advertised. These were FIVE AGAINST THE HOUSE and THE LINE-UP, both interesting black and white crime films, but they're not noir.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 26, 2010 15:17:26 GMT -5
Yes, that was a good post, James. Sure, like many labels, it was given late in the game, but there is not doubt that there were many unifying elements and, as you pointed out, they were pretty unique to the time. A weird exception to the rule from that period, in that it features a female protagonist, is MILDRED PIERCE (1945), directed by Michael Curtiz (CASABLANCA) and starring Joan Crawford (hits little girls with wire hangers). A great film and noir to the core. Just to throwout some other great "noir" titles, if you haven't seen Billy Widler's DOUBLE INDEMNITY, Aldrich's KISS ME DEADLY or Dmytryk's MURDER, MY SWEET, you really have to. There are many more obscure ones, like Anthony Mann's T-MEN, that are worth checking out. So are either FIVE AGAINST THE HOUSE or THE LINE-UP worth seeing?
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 26, 2010 16:29:31 GMT -5
A weird exception to the rule from that period, in that it features a female protagonist, is MILDRED PIERCE (1945), directed by Michael Curtiz ( CASABLANCA) So are either FIVE AGAINST THE HOUSE or THE LINE-UP worth seeing? MILDRED PIERCE is just profoundly entertaining. Curtiz' genius with lighting and shooting b&w films like ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES and THE UNSUSPECTED, is always striking. 5ATH is good. It's a heist movie set in Reno and filmed on location at operating casinos, so you have lots of actual patrons as extras looking straight into the camera or plainly staring at the actors. The bold gimmick for how four college guys are gonna rob the place is positively laughable. But the movie's very well-played, and there's all this affected collegiate banter that's actually pretty witty. THE LINE-UP is an early Don Siegel movie I saw years ago @ the Film Forum that I rented mainly to listen to James Ellroy on the commentary track. It's the big-screen version of a long-forgotten DRAGNET-style TV show and has some great San Francisco location shooting. Eli Wallach as the villain of the piece goes over the top and stays there. Both films were written by Sterling Silliphant.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 26, 2010 17:17:51 GMT -5
I do like Don Siegel. By the way, speaking of recent movies worth watching, anyone see THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS? I just saw it and really enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 26, 2010 17:33:32 GMT -5
By the way, speaking of recent movies worth watching, anyone see THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS? I just saw it and really enjoyed it. I saw in the theater, it wasn't to my taste. Usually love all big-screen things Clooney. I absolutely can't stand Ewan MacGregor.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 26, 2010 22:47:19 GMT -5
You bring up an interesting point. Though I truly enjoyacting, I would never see a film strictly for an actor ( except for theGolden Agers, I'm kind of a completest for many of them). I do follow writers and, more so, directors. I don't think that a good actor can save a crappy film. But, Clooney, post-Batman, does seem to be very dependable in his ability to attach himself to mature, solid and generally strong projects. That is in his capacity as director, actor and/or director.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jun 26, 2010 23:11:34 GMT -5
By the way, speaking of recent movies worth watching, anyone see THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS? I just saw it and really enjoyed it. I saw in the theater, it wasn't to my taste. Usually love all big-screen things Clooney. I absolutely can't stand Ewan MacGregor. Really? I find Ewan MacGregor one of the most likable actors on screen today. He was one of the few actors that made the prequel STAR WARS fun to watch and totally sold me on Obi-Wan Kenobi being a badass. THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS starts off strong but suffers from a really odd and confusing ending. Still, I enjoyed it a lot for it's off-the-wall story and characters.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 26, 2010 23:17:56 GMT -5
Really? I find Ewan MacGregor one of the most likable actors on screen today. He was one of the few actors that made the prequel STAR WARS fun to watch and totally sold me on Obi-Wan Kenobi being a badass. It's just one of those things, I can't rationally defend it. I just do not like him, he rubs me the wrong way. There's nothing I've seen him in I wouldn't have preferred watching someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 26, 2010 23:35:16 GMT -5
Though I truly enjoyacting, I would never see a film strictly for an actor ( except for theGolden Agers, I'm kind of a completest for many of them). I do follow writers and, more so, directors. I don't think that a good actor can save a crappy film. There are some actors I'll watch in anything, and a few stars I see opening weekend, or at least in the theater, as I want to do my bit to ensure the movie landscape isn't ceded entirely to teenage boys. Right now, it's just Denzel and Clive Owen and Clooney. It used to be Paul Newman. I may add Daniel Craig. You have to support your stars. I recently read a tweet from Kristen Bell... ...who said something like, "Hey all you people who want a Veronica Mars movie? you need to see WHEN IN ROME opening weekend. " (It didn't work,and the VM project is dead...) I could name dozens of actors who saved hundreds of crappy movies for me. I'll throw out two names for starters: Michael Caine. Boris Karloft.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 26, 2010 23:42:14 GMT -5
The great Caine and the great Karloff don't make bad scenes, but they are in plenty of crappy films that I can't sit through. Caine will do anything for a buck.
I mean I love Gong Li, as an actress (my favorite, generally in her Chinese/Hong Kong films) and as masturbation fodder, but you still couldn't pay me enough to go see that MIAMI VICE remake.
And what is it with you people and this Kristen Bell? I've only seen her in HEROES, and wouldn't even know her by name if not for a certain person constantly drawing attention to her on my favorite podcast. On that show she seemed pretty much a typical television actor. I don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 26, 2010 23:53:59 GMT -5
And what is it with you people and this Kristen Bell? I'll let someone else field that one, as there are greater devotees, but VERONICA MARS was a great show, anchored by her truly genius turn of acting. And you didn't pause.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 27, 2010 12:47:49 GMT -5
Okay. I just did some research. I now know all about Kristen Bell and VERONICA MARS.
|
|
|
Post by tombitd on Jun 27, 2010 19:43:42 GMT -5
And what is it with you people and this Kristen Bell? I've only seen her in HEROES, and wouldn't even know her by name if not for a certain person constantly drawing attention to her on my favorite podcast. On that show she seemed pretty much a typical television actor. I don't get it. Well, because in Heroes, she had a crap, one-dimensional character, playing nothing more than the Whore to Hayden Panittierie's Madonna.... elsewhere, she is a lively, personable, exciting and extremely sexy actress, one who could kick Megan Fox's Causasin-Wankery-Network cookie cutter ass.... sigh....I's luvs her...
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 27, 2010 19:49:51 GMT -5
I see that you love her and I certainly have never been a fan of this Megan Fox (actually, I only know her from that horrible, horrible TRANSFORMERS film and she was definitely horrible in it). But, I know that I'm opening a can of something, where does this rivalry between the two of them stem from. Also, where is a good place to see Kristen Bell at her best?
|
|