Official Film Noir on Blu-ray Thread

[Kakihara]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Sorry, but now you’re just being ridiculous. Whatever issues you may have with film academia does not make you right and everyone else wrong.

You display an ignorance of film history by claiming that filmmakers during the studio era of classic noir were copying each other or that any of them were rampantly “self-aware.” These films were not so incredibly successful at the box office that the studios were all instructing their B units to follow a formula of noir style that would somehow help sell their films. It’s only in retrospect that the common ideas and looks were able to be readily recognized. Your claim makes it seem as though every classic noir film resembles each other because of Venetian blind shadows. In truth, if you watch enough of them, you can move beyond the superficial and learn that they are very individual, sharing certain ideas and techniques, but still unique and original.

In addition, whether a film is in black or white has nothing to do with it being designated a noir. Most, but not all, are indeed in black and white, but that does not dismiss the color ones which fit the parameters just as well.

Finally, noir is more a style than a genre and it evolved over time. It has just as much to do with thematic issues than appearance. If one chooses to focus only on appearance, then you would do well to focus on modern noir since that aspect is often celebrated more than anything else.

You post some good stuff, Sean, but your anti-intellectual stance on appreciating film strikes me as being sad. To me you are missing out on by rejecting so many other ways to watch a film rather than just munching on your popcorn and letting the movie do all your work for you. So be it. We are all different and to each their own, but stating “Period. End of discussion” is very childish.

I understand your take on film noir (though don't fully agree with it) but it's still quizzical on how you find neo-noir "very, very different" from film noir. The saying, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." applies here.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

You display an ignorance of film history by claiming that filmmakers during the studio era of classic noir were copying each other or that any of them were rampantly “self-aware.” These films were not so incredibly successful at the box office that the studios were all instructing their B units to follow a formula of noir style that would somehow help sell their films. It’s only in retrospect that the common ideas and looks were able to be readily recognized.

Nowhere did I claim that everybody was out scouting other sets with notepads or pouring over screenplays looking for bits to sample. But to suggest that none of these filmmakers, especially the most prolific in the burgeoning genre, were aware of what was happening and were just making these movies independently of each other is an even more profound display of ignorance. Was this all just one massive coincidence that all of these movies inundated us at the same time? What exactly are we referring to then when we discuss a filmmaker's influence? You think Huston, Siodmak and Wilder had zero influence on their peers when it came to styles being pushed and ideas being disseminated?

In addition, whether a film is in black or white has nothing to do with it being designated a noir. Most, but not all, are indeed in black and white, but that does not dismiss the color ones which fit the parameters just as well.

You're exactly right, and I wasn't stating otherwise...I was referring to what the other poster said about color, and why some people are so impelled to make a distinction in the first place.

Finally, noir is more a style than a genre and it evolved over time.

That's almost verbatim what I said in another post...

It has just as much to do with thematic issues than appearance. If one chooses to focus only on appearance, then you would do well to focus on modern noir since that aspect is often celebrated more than anything else...
To me you are missing out on by rejecting so many other ways to watch a film rather than just munching on your popcorn and letting the movie do all your work for you.

This is irony boldly defined, since I'm positing that so many people "miss the forest for the trees" by drawing these rigid lines with "noir" or "neo-noir" and painfully trying to shoehorn movies behind them. Why the hell can't things be simple and noir be noir? I've not seen one compelling argument for the existence of "neo-noir", and I don't think I ever will. Everything that made noir noir is present in neo-noir, or modern noir, or whatever the hell kind of category you want to splinter it into and classify it as.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Kakihara

I understand your take on film noir (though don't fully agree with it) but it's still quizzical on how you find neo-noir "very, very different" from film noir. The saying, "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..." applies here.

Yeah, perhaps emphasizing it with “very, very,” was indeed hyperbolic. I should have just said that I see them as being different and not sound so emphatic. Remember that I did say I love a lot of neo-noir films, especially those of the 60’s-70’s. Never did I state I have any blanket disdain for latter films that fall under that category.

I acknowledge that my stance is a slippery slope and I don’t particularly enjoy drawn out message board debates or arguments so I’ll fall back to the old agree to disagree mode and just leave my posts on the subject stand as is.

One thing I’ll add is that I consider a contributor to this thread, “NoirJunkie” to be one of the most esteemed members here. He is a Noir scholar and has written extensively on the subject for publications. He has taught me a lot about noir and I respect him very much. I’ve seen him recommend neo-noir films without any hesitation, but he has referred to them by that designation as many others do. To dismiss his or anyone else’s knowledgeable experience with the subject by unequivocally concluding that all Noir is the same and there should be no demarcation or any additional perspective at all, end of discussion, doesn’t sit right with me and never will. I am not the biggest advocate of requiring an academic view of film, in fact such views often annoy me, but I would never go so far as to summarily reject one’s learned history with a subject nor trying to learn from it and be inspired by it. Sometimes reading about a film can be just as enjoyable as watching it.

[mdanderson]

Originally Posted by Dailyan

Bootleg. The BFI have a legit release as a part of their Preminger set.

Thanks for the input and information about the Preminger set. I would get the Preminger set except that I already have Where the Sidewalk Ends on bluray from Twilight Time. I am hoping someone releases Fallen Angel separately on bluray. Thanks again.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I am not the biggest advocate of requiring an academic view of film, in fact such views often annoy me, but I would never go so far as to summarily reject one’s learned history with a subject nor trying to learn from it and be inspired by it. Sometimes reading about a film can be just as enjoyable as watching it.

Fair enough; I've always espoused a shall we call it "outsider's" perspective on this topic and find myself in an extreme minority. About once or twice a year I feel the need to vent about "neo-noir" before withdrawing into my shell and quietly, if begrudgingly, accepting that it's a term that will exist for as long as films are discussed.

Btw, whether or not you intended it or not, the "major/minor league comparison" comes off as a slight as opposed to a juxtaposition.

Cheers

[Gunsnroses092789]

Speaking of neo-noir/noir, why isn't Payback with Mel Gibson on the initial list?! It's a personal fav of mine!

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Gunsnroses092789

Speaking of neo-noir/noir, why isn't Payback with Mel Gibson on the initial list?! It's a personal fav of mine!

Which version is your fave, the theatrical or the Director’s cut?

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Fair enough; I've always espoused a shall we call it "outsider's" perspective on this topic and find myself in an extreme minority. About once or twice a year I feel the need to vent about "neo-noir" before withdrawing into my shell and quietly, if begrudgingly, accepting that it's a term that will exist for as long as films are discussed.

Btw, whether or not you intended it or not, the "major/minor league comparison" comes off as a slight as opposed to a juxtaposition.

Cheers

Cheers to you too, Sean.

I feel the same way whenever someone posts that THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN is the greatest Universal monster movie and one of the best horror movies of all time. Frankly, I can’t even watch it I dislike it so much, but I try to grit my teeth and let those posts go, realizing I am in, as you say, the “extreme minority.” Every so often though I get fired up all over again the same way you do with the Noir labeling.

In any case, if we all agreed on everything what would be the point of having a forum? I’ll definitely think about the things you said as I try not to be a slave to my ideas. Life is too short to be so inflexible all the time.

[latehong]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Which version is your fave, the theatrical or the Director’s cut?

You didn't ask me, but I prefer the director's cut, because I don't care for that "self-awareness" of the theatrical cut, like blue tint, voice-over, and Tarantinoesque "cool" music. It's in the 90s "neo-noir" vibe while the director's cut is more in the vein of 70s gritty, subdued, hardboiled crime movies like Get Carter, Charly Varrick or The Outfit.

[tallrichard]

In the argument of B&W vs color being a definition for film noir, where does Leave Her To Heaven stand?

I personally, think the tone of great films like Point Blank make it noir, no matter the year made of the type of film stock used....

JMHO

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by tallrichard

In the argument of B&W vs color being a definition for film noir, where does Leave Her To Heaven stand?

I personally, think the tone of great films like Point Blank make it noir, no matter the year made of the type of film stock used....

JMHO

Thankfully, no one (or almost no one) makes the argument that color should disqualify a film from being considered a noir.

[MifuneFan]

Yes, I wouldn't say B&W is a necessity, but rather a common trademark of most classic noir films. In addition to Leave Her to Heaven, there's also Desert Fury, Inferno (1953), Niagara, House of Bamboo, Violent Saturday, and several others.

[Gunsnroses092789]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Which version is your fave, the theatrical or the Director’s cut?

Director’s cut, hands down. It’s sharper, smarter and doesn’t have the silly voiceover or the ridiculous kidnap plot at the end. And it has a true noir ending.

An absolute favorite of mine.

How about you?

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

And not every newer noir is in color, e.g. The Man Who Knew Too Much and Sin City.

Well, there's some color in Sin City...

[tommasi]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

I addressed this in a post on the previous page...do you seriously think none of the so-called "classic noir" films were self-reflexive? How do you think it became a genre unto itself?

Chinatown is "minor league" noir? Because it's in color and had the "misfortune" of being made in the 70s? It features one of noir's founding fathers in a prominent role for a reason...

Genre my arse. Most neo-noir 's have nothing to do with each other. Nor anything to do with original film noir except for one element, sometimes just having bad characters or being a crime film seems to be enough to get the get label.

Obviously Chinatown fits the label, but for every one like that there's a load that don't.

The original wave itself was too broad to be a genre really, but at least it being tied to an era means they all have a similar style.

[EVERYONE LIES]

Originally Posted by Gunsnroses092789

Speaking of neo-noir/noir, why isn't Payback with Mel Gibson on the initial list?! It's a personal fav of mine!

The neo-noir list is very subjective. Most of it in my opinion is not anywhere close to noir. Use it as a guide only.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by Gunsnroses092789

Director’s cut, hands down. It’s sharper, smarter and doesn’t have the silly voiceover or the ridiculous kidnap plot at the end. And it has a true noir ending.

An absolute favorite of mine.

How about you?

Same, the Director’s Cut by far. For all the reasons you and latehong cited, especially that dirty 70’s crime film aesthetic it evokes.

[MifuneFan]

Netflix just posted a video defining Neo-Noir on their YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tu5c...ature=youtu.be

[noirjunkie]

For a two-and-a-half minute video, it's not bad -- and a special shout-out for incorporating the term homme fatale (although it does spoil a key plot point of the film it's referencing). I haven't seen Cities of Last Things, so thanks to the video for mentioning it.

I now fully expect SeanJoyce's head to explode.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by noirjunkie

I now fully expect SeanJoyce's head to explode.

Did absolutely nothing to refute anything I've said this entire time.

But like I said on the previous page, it's cool...film geeks need "neo-noir" so their badges don't get revoked, I get it.