Official Film Noir on Blu-ray Thread

[mogwai_macabre]

I've watched Night and the City twice now, and it's pretty high on my list. How is the UK cut? Good? I'll have to give it a go next time around.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by mogwai_macabre

I've watched Night and the City twice now, and it's pretty high on my list. How is the UK cut? Good? I'll have to give it a go next time around.

Haven't watched it; I do know that the US cut was what Dassin preferred, for what it's worth.

[Gunsnroses092789]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Based on what I've read, the MOC beats out the Criterion because of the lossless audio on the British cut and the inclusion of the hour-long Widmark interview. I love Criterion's poster art though.

Thieves Highway and Pickup on South Street also have respectable UK releases (from Arrow and Eureka, respectively), while the rest of us are (im)patiently waiting for Criterion to upgrade.

The UK POSS and TH are amazing. Two of my favorite imports! Please indulge, if possible.

Also, The UK NATC is BFI, not MOC.

[chas speed]

Originally Posted by mogwai_macabre

I've watched Night and the City twice now, and it's pretty high on my list. How is the UK cut? Good? I'll have to give it a go next time around.

The UK version is worth watching and has a few new bits in it, but is missing some good stuff from the US version. I agree the US version is better and has a better score.

[latehong]

Originally Posted by mogwai_macabre

I've watched Night and the City twice now, and it's pretty high on my list. How is the UK cut? Good? I'll have to give it a go next time around.

More of a curiosity. I saw that version once in a local repertory cinema and have stuck to the US version since. It's not bad at all, but the US version is far superior. There are many differences, including the whole different score composed by Benjamin Frankel (Franz Waxman in the US version) or a slightly more upbeat ending (same shots with different edits), but the most disappointing change for me is that the wrestling scene is shortened in the UK version. I'm not a wrestling fan, but the scene needs to be exhausting as it is in the US version.

I love my BFI Blu-ray but there is a great comparison feature on the Criterion disc I remember.

On a side note, the screening I attended was programmed by Park Chan-wook of Oldboy fame (he selected the film for the special occasion and there was a conversation with the director afterward), but he was taken aback realizing the theater brought the UK version he'd never seen before.

[nitin]

The UK Cut is worth a watch because as latehong says above, the score is completely different and so is the ending. It’s an inferior film but worth seeing to see how those two changes in particular effect the overall impact.

[nitin]

Yves Allegret’s Une si Jolie Petit Plage (1949) is one of the best films of the 40s.

A film of quiet but cumulative power that is really heart wrenching by the time it is over. Possibly also the noirest of noirs even though there isn’t a gumshoe or femme fatale in sight. But psychologically and visually it is as noir as noir gets.

Gérard Phillipe carries the bulk of this film through the saddest eyes in cinema but he gets very solid support from Madeline Robinson. Their extended scene together halfway through the film is simply beautiful.

And visually it’s stunning, the small town this is set in is always covered in rain and there are unforgettable night shots lit by street lamps where the rain swirls in a way that it seems to almost coil itself around the characters.

Essential.

ps I saw it off the Pathe blu ray which is region free and from a pretty good 2k restoration. The blacks are a little off for my liking and a bit digital looking in places but if you knock back your tv’s gamma a couple of notches, it generally looks pretty pleasing.

[SteelyTom]

Does Possessed (Warner Archive) qualify as a noir? Is it worth getting, or will I lose all patience with Joan Crawford within five minutes? (I liked her in Mildred Pierce, fwiw.)

Trying to decide between Possessed and the Bette Davis film The Letter.

[noirjunkie]

Originally Posted by SteelyTom

Does Possessed (Warner Archive) qualify as a noir? Is it worth getting, or will I lose all patience with Joan Crawford within five minutes? (I liked her in Mildred Pierce, fwiw.)

Trying to decide between Possessed and the Bette Davis film The Letter.

Yes, it's definitely a noir. If you liked her in Midred Pierce, you'll like her here. It also has one of the most famous death shots in the noir canon.

[nitin]

Possessed is definitely a noir, and a good film. But if you are choosing between that and The Letter, it’s a pretty easy choice heavily in favour of the latter.

[nitin]

Devil in a Blue Dress is a tightly constructed neo noir with some delicious supporting characters and also a very casually relaxed movie star performance from Denzel Washington. The texture that you would expect from a noir with an African American lead character is also worked in very organically and the ending is a nice little stinger.

I saw it via Sony’s region free german blu ray which has the same master as the TT release. It is a decent if unspectacular older remaster but I can’t see it getting a new restoration anytime soon.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by nitin

Devil in a Blue Dress is a tightly constructed neo noir with some delicious supporting characters and also a very casually relaxed movie star performance from Denzel Washington. The texture that you would expect from a noir with an African American lead character is also worked in very organically and the ending is a nice little stinger.

I love this thread, but I don't often chime in on neo-noirs and sometimes wish there were two separate threads for classic and neo since I see them as often being very, very different. However, those reservations aside, I agree with you on DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS being a superb neo-noir in every respect. It's got a compelling story, deep characters and is beautifully executed without ever sacrificing substance for style, something that defines many a neo-noir. I give it my highest recommendation.

[mdanderson]

Any thoughts on this release of Fallen Angel? I have a region free BD player and was wondering if this is a bootleg or if this is a release from a legitimate studio. Thanks.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Falle...680/#Packaging

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I love this thread, but I don't often chime in on neo-noirs and sometimes wish there were two separate threads for classic and neo

That would be catastrophic.

since I see them as often being very, very different.

How so?

[Kakihara]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

I love this thread, but I don't often chime in on neo-noirs and sometimes wish there were two separate threads for classic and neo since I see them as often being very, very different. However, those reservations aside, I agree with you on DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS being a superb neo-noir in every respect. It's got a compelling story, deep characters and is beautifully executed without ever sacrificing substance for style, something that defines many a neo-noir. I give it my highest recommendation.

How so? I find that very quizzical considering the whole basis of the neo-noir is to harken back to film noir only modernized (e.g. in color) and not impeded by the Hays code. Sure, neo-noir is self-aware of being noir when film noir wasn't necessarily so but the same tropes derived from film noir are essentially the same you see in neo-noir.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Kakihara

How so? I find that very quizzical considering the whole basis of the neo-noir is to harken back to film noir only modernized (e.g. in color) and not impeded by the Hays code. Sure, neo-noir is self-aware of being noir when film noir wasn't necessarily so but the same tropes derived from film noir are essentially the same you see in neo-noir.

Ding ding ding!

The very designation of "noir" and "neo-noir" is the apex of pretentiousness and one of the worst things to happen to film academia.

Film noir, even before the term was exactly coined, was also self-aware...does anybody here really think that those guys weren't aping and copying everything else that was going on at the time? Hell, that's how it evolved from a distinctive style to its very own genre.

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

Film noir is film noir. Period, end of discussion.

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

That would be catastrophic.
How so?

Starting even as early as the 60’s many neo-noirs are awash in self-consciousness and most would not exist were it not for the classic period. There are many great neo-noir films, but for me they will always carry the stigma of being a copy. Modern noir sometimes diminishes that even more,a copy of a copy. This thread often gets on the tiresome kick of whether this or that is really a noir, but when that debate starts over a neo-noir, I usually tune out. I do like and enjoy a lot of so called neo-noir films, but I just don’t feel they necessarily belong in the same discussions with the original period. To use a tired sports metaphor, it’s like talking about the major leagues as opposed to the minor leagues. Sometimes they naturally intersect, but more often than not they share the same sport, but are vastly different.

It’s ok, I’ve learned to stay out of here when neo-noirs occasionally dominate the talk, so it’s manageable. But, really, don’t you think using the word “catastrophic” is a wee bit of an overreaction?

[Dailyan]

Originally Posted by mdanderson

Any thoughts on this release of Fallen Angel? I have a region free BD player and was wondering if this is a bootleg or if this is a release from a legitimate studio. Thanks.

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Falle...680/#Packaging

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

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by Professor Echo

Starting even as early as the 60’s many neo-noirs are awash in self-consciousness and most would not exist were it not for the classic period. There are many great neo-noir films, but for me they will always carry the stigma of being a copy. Modern noir sometimes diminishes that even more,a copy of a copy. This thread often gets on the tiresome kick of whether this or that is really a noir, but when that debate starts over a neo-noir, I usually tune out. I do like and enjoy a lot of so called neo-noir films, but I just don’t feel they necessarily belong in the same discussions with the original period. To use a tired sports metaphor, it’s like talking about the major leagues as opposed to the minor leagues. Sometimes they naturally intersect, but more often than not they share the same sport, but are vastly different.

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...

[Professor Echo]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Ding ding ding!

The very designation of "noir" and "neo-noir" is the apex of pretentiousness and one of the worst things to happen to film academia.

Film noir, even before the term was exactly coined, was also self-aware...does anybody here really think that those guys weren't aping and copying everything else that was going on at the time? Hell, that's how it evolved from a distinctive style to its very own genre.

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

Film noir is film noir. Period, end of discussion.

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.