Official Film Noir on Blu-ray Thread

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Lost Highway was on there already, and After Dark My Sweet, and Hustle were in the A-Z list, so I added the thumbnail for those. I think of the rest, Galveston may be added, but I'll have to look closer at the rest, and consider what others say as well.

I'm following up.

What's the status of my noir suggestions?

[NuXiaolin]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

I wish there was a way to block Dailyan from seeing my posts.
12 years of snipes and personal put-downs from this troll is enough.

How does that work when the poster only joined here 10 years ago?

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by NuXiaolin

How does that work when the poster only joined here 10 years ago?

It seems longer.

[FindOneInEveryCar]

I love Thieves Like Us like nobody's business, but I don't think it's anything like a neo-noir. The plot is noirish but nothing about the way this film was shot, designed or acted strikes me as noir in any way.

[GeoffOliver]

Originally Posted by FindOneInEveryCar

I love Thieves Like Us like nobody's business, but I don't think it's anything like a neo-noir. The plot is noirish but nothing about the way this film was shot, designed or acted strikes me as noir in any way.

Especially when you compare it with the previous film adaptation of the novel, They Live By Night, which genuinely was noir.

Personally I think classic noir and neo-noir should be separate threads, but that’s just me, especially since it seems harder to agree on just what qualifies for the latter.

[FindOneInEveryCar]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

Personally I think classic noir and neo-noir should be separate threads, but that’s just me, especially since it seems harder to agree on just what qualifies for the latter.

Yes, I agree completely. And even when most people agree on films that are "neo-noir," they can still cover a very broad spectrum of styles and genres (e.g. Blade Runner, Brick, Blood Simple, etc.).

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

Especially when you compare it with the previous film adaptation of the novel, They Live By Night, which genuinely was noir.

Personally I think classic noir and neo-noir should be separate threads, but that’s just me, especially since it seems harder to agree on just what qualifies for the latter.

I've said this before, but I do consider the Neo-Noir section to be more of a bonus to the main film noir stuff, as what people believe should be included is much broader than classic film noir. This is mainly why I manage this thread on a community-basis, where I welcome feedback from everyone on what should be included or not. With that in mind, it's impossible to please everyone with the lists.

Someone is free to make a separate neo-noir thread, but I do feel it's just easier to have the discussion of titles in one centralized place. The focus will always be on classic film noir here though.

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

Personally I think classic noir and neo-noir should be separate threads

Why?

And while you're at it, please explain to me the necessity of having "neo-noir" in the first place.

Thanks!

[GeoffOliver]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Why?

And while you're at it, please explain to me the necessity of having "neo-noir" in the first place.

Thanks!

I personally don't consider them the exact same thing, and many fans of classic noir also categorize them differently. Film noirs of the post-war period (roughly 1945-1955, with a few outliers before and after) didn't actually label themselves as such because the term didn't exist at the time. They were all just crime films and melodramas following similar trends under similar influences with similar themes, under varying degrees. However, after those trends had faded away, that's when film scholars noticed the similarities and grouped them under the "film noir" label. Films made after this point that are deliberately inspired by, paying homage to, or outright copying the style of that specific period are called "neo-noir."

The "film noir" category in my collection only has classic film noirs from the period that films considered neo-noir are inspired by. I don't have a neo-noir category; I personally put those under drama or action, depending on the film.

A lot of this is subjective; I'm just explaining my personal reasoning. It's not a big deal for this thread to have neo-noir. But I do come here to learn about classic noirs coming out on Blu-ray and 4K, not random crime films from recent years that someone kinda sorta thinks might be considered "noir" (even if they're good films).

[SeanJoyce]

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

I personally don't consider them the exact same thing, and many fans of classic noir also categorize them differently. Film noirs of the post-war period (roughly 1945-1955, with a few outliers before and after) didn't actually label themselves as such because the term didn't exist at the time. They were all just crime films and melodramas following similar trends under similar influences with similar themes, under varying degrees. However, after those trends had faded away, that's when film scholars noticed the similarities and grouped them under the "film noir" label. Films made after this point that are deliberately inspired by, paying homage to, or outright copying the style of that specific period are called "neo-noir."

The term didn't exist, but as you acknowledged, the trends did. Having these arbitrary cut-off dates for "classic" and "neo noir" has never made an iota of sense especially since, as you also acknowledged, nobody can agree on anything, i.e. dates (you said 1945-1955 while most purists swear it's 1941-1958), what actually constitutes this or that, what should be excluded, etc.

Films during the "classic" period were inspired by each other just as much as the later films were when the term "film noir" was coined and the genre was codified. Noir is noir, whether it was a movie made during the nascent phase of the early 40s or one birthed during the self-reflexive years of the 70s/80s. The dominant style, characterizations and themes all have a strong shared history. Endorsing a movie as a "neo-noir" is an implicit acceptance that it is, at its heart, a noir. Why then is noir the only genre where people feel the need to contort themselves into pretzels to justify these classifications?

That said, I at least appreciate you proffering an explanation; it's a much better defense than anything else that's been mustered in these parts every time this topic resurfaces. Plus we can agree on this:

...not random crime films from recent years that someone kinda sorta thinks might be considered "noir" (even if they're good films).

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by FindOneInEveryCar

I love Thieves Like Us like nobody's business, but I don't think it's anything like a neo-noir. The plot is noirish but nothing about the way this film was shot, designed or acted strikes me as noir in any way.

Appreciate the discourse, FindOneInEvery Car.

I don't disagree with you, but I think once you push through Robert
Altman's eccentricities there's more than enough there to qualify
Thieves Like Us as a noir. But I don't insist on it, either.

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

Especially when you compare it with the previous film adaptation of the novel, They Live By Night, which genuinely was noir.

Appreciate the discourse.

They Live By Night is truly great cinema and in my top five classic
film noir's. You can feel the gravitas of the dark in the novel by
Maxwell Anderson, which has to be read by every fan of noir. They
Live By Night diverges from the novel but captures the essence of
it more than Thieves Like Us.

Originally Posted by GeoffOliver

Personally I think classic noir and neo-noir should be separate threads, but that’s just me, especially since it seems harder to agree on just what qualifies for the latter.

I agree with this.

I dislike the term neo-noir, because the conditions that created the
trend we now describe as film noir did not come to an end in 1958
-1959. Nor did those conditions begin in 1940-1941. When the
French coined the term after WWll, it was because they recognized
that type of film from their own experience in the 1930s. Some
very intense film noir emerged out of France's social realism in the
1930s. The French created film noir a decade before we did, and it
didn't have an arbitrary cut-off date. The Germans went through
it before and simultaneously with the French. For those who think
WWll started America's impulse toward film noir, what do you think
the Korean war did, and the Vietnam war after that?

Originally Posted by FindOneInEveryCar

Yes, I agree completely. And even when most people agree on films that are "neo-noir," they can still cover a very broad spectrum of styles and genres (e.g. Blade Runner, Brick, Blood Simple, etc.).

True.

The context and boundaries for film noir expand and contract over
the years, but the heart of the matter is the same. For example
everyone recognizes Chinatown (1974) as a genuine noir, but it's
also a period film and a recreation of a time and place that came
before the classic film noir period. Yet it evokes the classic film
noirs as if it were made during the classic period. This because of
the temperament of director Roman Polanski. Every film he made
has that inner darkness, that flinty edge, that psychological damage
(even his last film, a broad satire, has it).

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I've said this before, but I do consider the Neo-Noir section to be more of a bonus to the main film noir stuff, as what people believe should be included is much broader than classic film noir. This is mainly why I manage this thread on a community-basis, where I welcome feedback from everyone on what should be included or not. With that in mind, it's impossible to please everyone with the lists.

Why not say "neo-noir is much broader than classic film noir" as an
introductory statement to the neo-noir section? and then let some
moonlight in? You say that you welcome feedback, but you never
offer your reasoning as to why a suggestion is rejected. For example
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974) is the very definition of
noir. Your definition, in post #7. It would be at home in the classic
era of the 1940s and 1950s. And yet you refuse to even discuss it.

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Someone is free to make a separate neo-noir thread, but I do feel it's just easier to have the discussion of titles in one centralized place. The focus will always be on classic film noir here though.

I would not like to see a separate thread. This is the thread I
constantly return to for noir shopping.

I think you've already nailed neo-noir right here in this thread.
The problem is that you are stringent in your rules and exclude
films that are painfully obvious noir.

[dallywhitty]

My goodness.

[Richard--W]

Originally Posted by FindOneInEveryCar

I love Thieves Like Us like nobody's business, but I don't think it's anything like a neo-noir. The plot is noirish but nothing about the way this film was shot, designed or acted strikes me as noir in any way.

Have you seen Altman's Kansas City:



Do you think it's noir, or a crime film?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Why not say "neo-noir is much broader than classic film noir" as an
introductory statement to the neo-noir section? and then let some
moonlight in? You say that you welcome feedback, but you never
offer your reasoning as to why a suggestion is rejected. For example
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974) is the very definition of
noir. It would be at home in the classic era of the 1940s and 1950s.
And yet you refuse to even discuss it.

I would not like to see a separate thread. This is the thread I
constantly return to for noir shopping.

I think you've already nailed neo-noir right here in this thread.
The problem is that you are stringent in your rules and exclude
films that are painfully obvious noir.

I literally did write as much at the very top of the neo noir section from the start:

Editor's note: As neo-noir is even harder than classic noir to define, I had a difficult time trying to decide what should be and shouldn't be on the list. So I encourage those more knowledgeable on the subject to chime in on what they feel belongs there, and what doesn't.

I also wrote this at the very beginning of the thread, which applies to all sections:

There may be certain additions and/or omissions on here that everyone won't agree with. There are some that might be considered "quasi-noir", or perhaps a hybrid of genres including film noir. The merits of whether such films belong on the list is entirely up to this community. I'm merely the curator of the list; the contributions of the people here are what will truly determine what ultimately makes the cut. I thank you in advance for understanding this, and I hope everyone appreciates the contributions of everyone involved.

As I said, this is community-based, where I base certain less obvious choices on feedback and what others have to say. I'm not going to add Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia because you feel strongly that it's film noir. I personally haven't seen the film yet, so I can't offer my own thoughts on it. I will say that there is very little online that point to it being "the very definition of noir" or a film that I've seen regularly categorized as film noir before. If others chime in, and there's a consensus that it belongs, then it will be added. That's the process.

[Richard--W]

MifuneFan, you haven't seen it, and you're waiting for other people
to watch it and comment? I understand now. It's going to be a long
wait. Meanwhile, the best way to encourage feedback on a title is
to include it. You may accept my assurance that Galveston (2017)
and Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974) are noir. If anyone
disagrees, let's discuss it here. Some healthy discourse is good for
a thread.

[Taylor3978]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Noir is noir, whether it was a movie made during the nascent phase of the early 40s or one birthed during the self-reflexive years of the 70s/80s. The dominant style, characterizations and themes all have a strong shared history. Endorsing a movie as a "neo-noir" is an implicit acceptance that it is, at its heart, a noir. Why then is noir the only genre where people feel the need to contort themselves into pretzels to justify these classifications?

I've understood that the "classic" noir period of the late 40s and 50s ended because of television. The chiaroscuro that characterized B&W noir didn't display well on television so films stopped using it. Odds Against Tomorrow is often cited as the end of this "classic" era. Harper, which was set in the 1960s but could just as easily have been set in the 1940s, is often cited as an early neo-noir.

The argument for distinguishing "classic" noir from neo-noir is as I understand just a way to acknowledge an art form that found its feet in the post-war period, basically to give credit to directors like Andre De Toth who were creating an art form when at the time they were dismissed as hacks. It is intended as respect. Neo-noir is just a way of saying that others have built on the forms of that art form.

[SeanJoyce]

^The western was the genre most impacted by television, since the glut of western-themed tv shows impacted its cinematic commercial viability, but why don't we feel the need to classify the hangers-on as "neo-westerns"?

Cinemascope, Technicolor and the advent of the widescreen format were leaned as selling techniques for movies due to the rise of television in the 50s, yet why don't you see "neo-dramas" peddled anywhere?

Where exactly does Blast of Silence fall in this uncomfortable grouping, since it was made after '58/59, yet was shot in B&W?

I, respectfully, do not agree with that argument, and as for the "respect" angle...eh, that feels like a major stretch, just like everything else associated with this "neo-noir" nonsense.

[DaBargainHunta]

Originally Posted by SeanJoyce

Where exactly does Blast of Silence fall in this uncomfortable grouping, since it was made after '58/59, yet was shot in B&W?

I consider it one of the last noirs (not neo), regardless of what critics and historians think (and I honestly have no idea what they do think regarding this title). It's on my list of watched noirs, which certainly isn't anything official, but of course it doesn't have to be since it's mainly just for my own use.

[NuXiaolin]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

I literally did write as much at the very top of the neo noir section from the start:



I also wrote this at the very beginning of the thread, which applies to all sections:



As I said, this is community-based, where I base certain less obvious choices on feedback and what others have to say. I'm not going to add Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia because you feel strongly that it's film noir. I personally haven't seen the film yet, so I can't offer my own thoughts on it. I will say that there is very little online that point to it being "the very definition of noir" or a film that I've seen regularly categorized as film noir before. If others chime in, and there's a consensus that it belongs, then it will be added. That's the process.

Alfredo Garcia is to noir what Police Academy is to tragedy.