Official Film Noir on Blu-ray Thread

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Danny4

Watchmen isn't a film noir. Really, it isn't.

It's about superheroes with special powers.

Why do you believe that those two things are mutually exclusive?

I think you misunderstand the film noir genre.

Or you do.

Or that you believe that the characteristics of the noir film are inflexible. There was a time when it was believed that noir films could not be in color. All it takes to change the rules is one example that doesn't follow the rules.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Danny4

Watchmen isn't a film noir. Really, it isn't.

It's about superheroes with special powers.

I think you misunderstand the film noir genre.

Then why is Heat, Drive, Looper, Trance on the list then?

Watchmen is neo-noir.

There are only a few titles under the neo-noir section that could be classed as film noir.

Neo noir isn't just regarding the story or characters, its about the feel of the film, the style, the atmosphere, its a genre that moves with the times.

Just think, in 40-60 years time, the sort of films made then, they are going to be different from now, just like 40-60 years in the past.

[Feiereisel]

First off, thanks for reading my post--it was...way long.

Originally Posted by jayembee

That presumes that a film can only be one thing or another, and that both are mutually exclusive. Noir films are treated like a genre, but the commonalities are less on setting and plot than on style and substance. The fact that it might be "more" comfortable as a science fiction or superhero film doesn't mean that it can't be noir.

More to the point: there's nothing in any definition of the noir film that prohibits a science fiction or superhero film from being noir. It's like saying that because Captain America: The First Avenger is "more comfortably a superhero film" that it can't be considered a war movie.

I agree that things don't need to be one thing or another, and Cap is a perfect example of something that can be classified as a sci-fi, superhero, and/or war movie. Things can be more than one thing, absolutely! Along those lines, noir is definitely an unusual genre/category because of retrospective way the movement was identified, which makes things very nebulous and hazy--it's the reason we can debate what is an is not noir so vehemently.

I also don't mean to imply that a movie needs to hit all ten of the cited reasons to be considered a "true" film noir--those guidelines are intentionally loose--but as to Watchmen being a noir or neo-noir? Based on the unique style and substance of the film itself, I think it's excluded from neo-noir classification.

Originally Posted by jayembee

Why? The fact that none of the films that came to define noir were set off-Earth doesn't mean that a film must be set completely on Earth to be considered noir. None of the original films that came to define noir were set in the future, either, but Blade Runner -- as you yourself admit -- is noir.

This is why I concede Blade Runner. Sci-fi noir can be done--and done well. But again, I think the way Watchmen uses Mars, and the intricate glass palace Manhattan creates there, doesn't approach noir, stylistically or substantively.

Actually, after a moment's thought, Proyas' Dark City could be considered an off-world noir, and Siegel's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, through it's dominant themes of paranoia and resistance of conformity, also edges into sci-fi neo-noir territory. So, they exist, but Watchmen, to my mind, doesn't qualify.

More space-based neo-noir: Cowboy Bebop and Azzarello and Risso's Spaceman graphic novel.

Originally Posted by jayembee

That relationship aside, the resolution of the film is unhappy. Like the graphic novel, the ending of the film suggests that the discovery of Rorschach's journal is going to completely undo any positive effects of Ozymandias's plan. So instead of the nations of the world setting aside their differences to unite against a common threat, the Doomsday Clock is going back to just before midnight.

"That relationship" is one of the film's central threads. If you want to leave it aside, fine, but I did bring it up for a reason.

Your reading of the film's final scene is valid, though. But, to paraphrase Eli Cash--...maybe the discovery doesn't? (Okay, that's a stretch. I think you're right; if you view each Watchmen issue as an hour on a metaphorical clock face, the last scene implies midnight and doom. It's also possible that the scene is designed to show how empty and impermanent these supposedly "happy" superhero victories are--the next issue brings with it a new villain, after all. Like a clock, the publishing cycle spins around and restarts. Hence the repeated blood-spattered happy face symbol.)

Originally Posted by jayembee

That some scenes take place in remote locations doesn't alter the fact that the vast bulk of the film takes place in New York City. And I disagree that Vietnam is a "digression for the characters". It very definitely helps to inform the attitude and viewpoint of The Comedian, if not also for Dr. Manhattan.

Not all noir takes place in New York, but many noir and neo-noir films, even recently made ones, tend to be very localized. Watchmen's sweeping scope doesn't mesh with this--it's rooted in the action/adventure tropes of comics. Watchmen is closer in scale to North by Northwest than it is to, say, Psycho.

With regard to Vietnam, I think the Comedian's cynicism is already well established--the sequence just plays as an extension of that idea. And the brevity of the film's Vietnam war--a joke, really--is what makes it seem like a digression to me. It's not significant as a war in the alternate-universe proposed by the film--it's significant because it isn't one.

Originally Posted by jayembee

Why does that make a difference? How many of the characters in Blade Runner smoke? Off-hand, the only one I can think of as definitely smoking is Rachael. But that's beside the point. It seems like your arguments against Watchmen being noir boil down to "it wasn't done this way in the old noir films".

Fine, citing the percentage of characters who smoke in the film is a bit pedantic, but, given the phrasing of the "Smoke?"/"Smoking." point, as well as the fact that the commonalities in old noir films helped define what is an is not noir, I don't think it's a worthless observation.

Certainly how smoke is important. Rachael smokes in a way that evokes film noir--another instance of Blade Runner referencing its generic influences. The same can't be said for the characters in Watchmen, though I'm sure you can read all kinds of things into Comedian's cigar.

Originally Posted by jayembee

Not at all true. Rorschach's "moral rot" was the result of the case he worked in his costume identity where

[Show spoiler]the perp killed the little girl he kidnapped, and fed her body to the dogs

. As for The Comedian, we are never given any insight to his pre-hero personality, or even Rorschach for that matter. In fact, I'm damned if I can think of any of the characters aside from Dr. Manhattan where we get even a glimpse of their life before becoming a costumed hero.

Again, you're not wrong, but I interpret the film/comic differently with regard to this point. I think the subtext is that the costumes allow their sadism and inhumanity to kick into overdrive under the guise of "doing good." The masks allow them to abandon their "human" (read: weak and flawed) identities and essentially become inhuman--for better or worse. The most explicit rendering of this is the issues that Doctor Manhattan's superhuman powers raise throughout the text, but it's true to some extent for all the costumed characters.

Ultimately, I was trying to convey that they style of the film doesn't fit with noir or neo-noir using the same points that the previous poster used in their own pro-noir post. I like some of the points you raised, too, and I love talking Watchmen, but I still can't view it as a neo-noir film.

[Feiereisel]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

Then why is Heat, Drive, Looper, Trance on the list then?

Watchmen is neo-noir.

There are only a few titles under the neo-noir section that could be classed as film noir.

Neo noir isn't just regarding the story or characters, its about the feel of the film, the style, the atmosphere, its a genre that moves with the times.

Just think, in 40-60 years time, the sort of films made then, they are going to be different from now, just like 40-60 years in the past.

Those film are all great examples of neo-noir. They trade on noir tropes and concepts heavily, and, most importantly, consciously. They use the noir films of the past to inform their more contemporary (or futuristic) visual styles and plots.

Neo-noir literally means "new"-noir, and derives from the idea that true film noir ended with Touch of Evil. Subsequent films that were viewed as noir-like--but couldn't be, based on the Touch-as-terminus concept, are been classified as such, even period pieces like the '50s-set L.A. Confidential.

Watchmen is just too much of a stretch.

[Danny4]

Science ficitions movies from the 40's and 50's with noir ingredients aren't classief as film noir. But they are sciene fiction movies.

So i don't see why the same sort of movies nowadays should be neo-noirs.

Film noirs usually contain crime/murder plots/detectives/femme fatales etc. I have never seen one with sciene fiction element as far as i know of.

Heat and looper aren't neo noirs if you ask me. Heat is an action movie/thriller and looper a science fiction/thriller.

Drive is a neo noir and i haven't seen trance.

[Feiereisel]

I think a decent case could be made for both Heat and Looper as neo-noirs--cops, criminals, assassins, brooding, doom, etc--though Looper is definitely the harder of the two sells.

Heat can also be read as a modern Western, which is an interesting viewing experiment.

[MifuneFan]

I feel like neo noir is still being shaped, so it's a lot more open to interpretation than classic noir. There are some modern films that have some noir tones, and homages, but the film as a whole doesn't always embody the noir spirit.Personally I don't think Watchmen as a whole qualifies, though there are definitely some nods to the genre i it. I do feel like the current neo noir list could be whittled down a bit as it's a bit of a catchall right now.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Danny4

Science ficitions movies from the 40's and 50's with noir ingredients aren't classief as film noir. But they are sciene fiction movies.

So i don't see why the same sort of movies nowadays should be neo-noirs.

Whether films of the past qualified as film noir is irrelevant as to whether films of the present can be considered (neo-)noir. The idea that no SF films of the (relative) past are classified as noir doesn't mean that one can't come along that does qualify as (neo-)noir. Or do I take it that you don't agree that Blade Runner is neo-noir? As I said, all it takes is one example that defies the rules to make the rules change.

To use another genre that I referred to in a much earlier posting, look at the Western. Most definitions of the genre restrict it to stories set in the Western part of North America in the 19th Century. And yet, along come films like Bad Day at Black Rock (set post-WW2) or Quigley Down Under (set in Australia) that change the rules.

Film noirs usually contain crime/murder plots/detectives/femme fatales etc. I have never seen one with sciene fiction element as far as i know of.

There's always a first one. Maybe it'll be sooner, maybe later. Most agree it was Blade Runner. And Watchmen does contain "crime/murder plots/detectives/femme fatales, etc."

For as long as there has been a science fiction genre, there have been no successful attempts to define "science fiction" that encompasses everything that most people (read: science fiction fans) believe qualifies as SF. SF writer, editor, and critic Damon Knight came up with an oft-quoted definition: "Science fiction is whatever I point to and say, 'That's science fiction'." (An obvious variant of SCOTUS Justice Stewart's "I know it when I see it" when referring to pornography).

Sometimes -- especially when dealing with something as relatively nebulous as "film noir" -- you just have to go with your gut. I've posted specific things about Watchmen that I feel support the idea of it being neo-noir, but the number one reason I feel that way is because in all the times I've watched the film, it seems to me to bleed noir out its ears. I might be willing to concede that Snyder does it too self-consciously, but that's (in my opinion) how Snyder rolls.

[Edward J Grug III]

I feel like this is the key point:

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Personally I don't think Watchmen as a whole qualifies, though there are definitely some nods to the genre i it.

The Naked Gun films include noir references, but they aren't noir films.

[Vlad Draculi]

Looper is too terrible of a movie to be called a Neo Noir.

[jayembee]

Originally Posted by Vlad Draculi

Looper is too terrible of a movie to be called a Neo Noir.

I haven't seen Looper yet, so I can't rightly say whether I think or not it's neo-noir, but it seems to me that whether it's "terrible" or whatever shouldn't be a criterion for determining whether it belongs in a given genre. I mean, I love science fiction, and Armageddon is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but that doesn't make it not science fiction.

Speaking of what is and isn't noir, I'm curious why people think Dassin's The Naked City is noir. Seems to me to be more of a straightforward police procedural than a noir.

[Tech-UK]

This discussion is clearly going nowhere, I think MifuneFan should go through the titles under the neo-noir section and more strictly define neo-noir.

A few of the titles have reference to noir, but not on the whole, if that's how you want to judge them.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Vlad Draculi

Looper is too terrible of a movie to be called a Neo Noir.

That just sums you up as an individual. Come on, be a little bit open minded.

I didn't personally like Looper, but I do not go around calling it 'terrible'.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Edward J Grug III

The Naked Gun films include noir references, but they aren't noir films.

The Naked Gun films do not feel like noirs, even if they have references in them. Whereas to me Watchmen feels like a neo-noir.

Again, I think MifuneFan should sort out the neo-noir list.

[Le Samourai]

Get neo noir the hell out of here and split this into two threads.

[LegacyCosts]

Originally Posted by Le Samourai

Get neo noir the hell out of here and split this into two threads.

Woah there. Looper doesn't feel like a neonoir to me at all. The second half especially not.

[Danny4]

Originally Posted by jayembee

Whether films of the past qualified as film noir is irrelevant as to whether films of the present can be considered (neo-)noir. The idea that no SF films of the (relative) past are classified as noir doesn't mean that one can't come along that does qualify as (neo-)noir.

The fact that people who do not know much about film noir to begin with, start naming movies like batman and watchmen neo-noirs and others who don't know a lot of about noir either, start mimicking this, does not make these movies neo-noirs.

It's the same thing with cult movies. People like to call all kind of movies cult movies, which aren't cult movies at all.

But i'm not going to have a further discussion about it. It's pretty useless if you think watchmen qualifies as a film noir.

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Danny4

The fact that people who do not know much about film noir to begin with, start naming movies like batman and watchmen neo-noirs and others who don't know a lot of about noir either, start mimicking this, does not make these movies neo-noirs.

It's the same thing with cult movies. People like to call all kind of movies cult movies, which aren't cult movies at all.

But i'm not going to have a further discussion about it. It's pretty useless if you think watchmen qualifies as a film noir.

Out of the titles listed as Neo-noir, which do believe are IN FACT noir?

[The Great Owl]

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the noir room!


Last night, I watched Robert Altman's 1973 version of Raymond Chandler's The Long Goodbye. If you want to see an uncanny, yet surprisingly effective post-classic-era noir, then this one is a good pick.

[Feiereisel]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the noir room!

Ha! Terrific!