Sign in to follow this  
Sepiatone

That's ONE way to put it I've not heard before...

299 posts in this topic

56 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

One term I don't use is neo-noir. It's like saying a neo-Nazi is a new kind of Nazi. No, a Nazi is still a Nazi. And anything "neo" filmed in the 20th century is "old" now.

For just about any example I think of, "neo"-anything in name basically distances itself from any kind of serious continuum on an original idea.  Really badly.  It is an outright admission of revisionist wankery.

Around here though that can also mean "Northeast Ohio", not to be confused with wankery.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Zoology of course, and other natural sciences are the fields which rely on cladistics the most. Definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics

You can pick any animal in the taxonomic order and invariably --if you trace it back--you will see mentioned that at some point early naturalists were probably unclear as to what species, family, or order it was.

(Here's one of my favorites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ungulate)

You can see that confusion usually developed because taxonomers were deceived by some visual component. They didn't have advanced tools or techniques. So whatever initial label they gave to a specimen was overturned by later zoologists who examined the evolutionary record instead. That's why we know there's no 'jackalopes' roaming the prairies.

Not just in natural history but practically any modern science or art you can think of (unless its totally something fru-fru like basket-weaving).

'Appearance' alone is never used for classification anymore. I'm frankly shocked to see it advanced as a theory; whether in cinema or anywhere else. Its an outdated paradigm for any purpose.

Did they ever find Manbearpig?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MovieCollectorOH said:

For just about any example I think of, "neo"-anything in name basically distances itself from any kind of serious continuum on an original idea.  Really badly.  It is an outright admission of revisionist wankery.

Around here though that can also mean "Northeast Ohio", not to be confused with wankery.

Thanks for setting the record straight! I won't even try to speak for Ohioans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Blue Dahlia:

The Blue Dahlia is merely a very disappointing crime film. It fails to convey any noir sensation to the viewer even though all the elements are present.

There is no 'paranoia', or 'sense of malevolent persecuting forces'. Everyone in this film seems in control of their own fate and responsible for their own lives. The principal characters do not suffer from neurosis, obsessions or psychological problems. The times or the society do not seem 'out of joint'. Instead, The Blue Dahlia is a mystery story, or who-dun-it. The principal suspects are even gathered into one room at the end for a revelation of the guilty party, just as in an Agatha Christie novel. 

Instead of the sweeping hysteria of film noir, the characters are simply quietly negotiating for the best deal they can get from a complex situation. They 'want a home', as Marshall's characters always do. If they got upset or obsessive, they wouldn't be on their toes for this goal.

Raymond Chandler wrote the original script. Literary critics, (and even Chandler himself) occasionally forgot that he is a literary mystery writer, (unlike most noir scriptwriters), and had a strong commitment to the paradigms of the mystery story in his work. He didn't give in to the genre-pressure of the day.

--Cribbed the above from a Dahlia review I found and admired. Says it better than I.

 

Sergeant M., I have to assume that the post above is in response to my question to you a page or two back, where I asked,

"You say that you don't regard The Blue Dahlia as a true noir, (despite its having all the requisite "ingredients"), but you don't say why. "

I have to wonder why you didn't quote me , then reply as you did in the above post (where I've quoted you.)

This is a very active thread, with a lot going on in it, a lot of different posters and comments etc. One way we can clarify if we're addressing a particular poster's questions or comments on the thread is to first quote them, then reply. To me it's almost a courtesy. It took me a minute or two to read this and realize that you were responding to my question as to why you don't regard this film as a noir. Just wondering if there were a reason why you did not quote me first (sometimes I feel like a second class citizen on these boards. Now that's  sad  noir.)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

I have to wonder why you didn't quote me [...]

He's mentioned in other threads that he can't figure out the quote function. It may be a case of him using a device/browser that doesn't properly display all of the site's functions (I used to run into those issues when I used a tablet to post), or he may be too drunk to make out the words.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

"And to say something like Shakespeare's Macbeth is a noir..."   Not that you were the one who said that, C.J.

I gave you a title to Joe MacBeth a film noir based on Shakespeare's MacBeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

I gave you a title to Joe MacBeth a film noir based on Shakespeare's MacBeth.

I think she's saying that people were saying the actual play MacBeth is a noir. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TopBilled said:

One term I don't use is neo-noir. It's like saying a neo-Nazi is a new kind of Nazi. No, a Nazi is still a Nazi. And anything "neo" filmed in the 20th century is "old" now.

Neo Noir comes in handy. You have what everyone sort knows Classic Noir is, (I'm gonna leave it vague purposely) and then you have its non MPPC version 2.0 that I call Neo Noir,  and in between the two you have your Transitional Noir between 1960 and 1970, it's all Noir essentially but it's useful to see how it all fits together

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misswonderley3 stated:

Quote

I have to wonder why you didn't quote me , then reply as you did in the above post (where I've quoted you.)

This is a very active thread, with a lot going on in it, a lot of different posters and comments etc. One way we can clarify if we're addressing a particular poster's questions or comments on the thread is to first quote them, then reply. To me it's almost a courtesy. It took me a minute or two to read this and realize that you were responding to my question as to why you don't regard this film as a noir. Just wondering if there were a reason why you did not quote me first (sometimes I feel like a second class citizen on these boards. Now that's  sad  noir.)

I'm quite chagrined about this. Truly. See, I have a browser format issue that garbles the quote function most of the time, forcing me to manually recreate people's comments. Certainly had no intention to make it less apparent (that my reply needed to dovetail to yours).  Ordinarily I try to be diligent about this, but this morning when I first sat down to peruse the chatter, the fur was really flyin' and I had my hands full. You're not the first to complain about it. Wish I could figure out a solution; in every other way the TCM site functions very nicely indeed. Programmers did a good job.

You're not a second-class citizen! You're not! :wacko:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

I gave you a title to Joe MacBeth a film noir based on Shakespeare's MacBeth.

I don't think you needed to provide an alternative example, though it's nice you did. Obviously the makers of JOE MACBETH saw the noir in Shakespeare's original which they "brought up to date."

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

I think she's saying that people were saying the actual play MacBeth is a noir. 

I said it, sort of. There are noir elements in several of Shakespeare's histories/tragedies. Definitely. We can certainly use the term noir retroactively and apply it back to stories that were produced before FILM noir came along. There's nothing to stop anyone from doing that, from taking the concept of noir and giving a greater existence as it were. A more expansive timeline.

Though when I said MACBETH was a historic noir, I was actually referring to Orson Welles' 1948 filming of the story. And when I said HAMLET was also a historic noir, I had Zefferelli's dark 1990 film version in mind.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

He's mentioned in other threads that he can't figure out the quote function. It may be a case of him using a device/browser that doesn't properly display all of the site's functions (I used to run into those issues when I used a tablet to post), or he may be too drunk to make out the words.

Are there other browsers that tablet users can choose? I don't have a tablet so that's why I ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I said it, sort of. There are noir elements in several of Shakespeare's histories/tragedies. Definitely. We can certainly use the term noir retroactively and apply it back to stories that were produced before FILM noir came along. There's nothing to stop anyone from doing that, from taking the concept of noir and giving a greater existence as it were. A more expansive timeline.

Though when I said MACBETH was a historic noir, I was actually referring to Orson Welles' 1948 filming of the story. And when I said HAMLET was also a historic noir, I had Zefferelli's dark 1990 film version in mind.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for explaining yourself. I thought you meant just any version of the play. What you said makes a lot more sense.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Are there other browsers that tablet users can choose? I don't have a tablet so that's why I ask.

I don't know. I'm no techie, by any means. My tablet used the Silk browser.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:

Misswonderley3 stated:

I'm quite chagrined about this. Truly. See, I have a browser format issue that garbles the quote function most of the time, forcing me to manually recreate people's comments. Certainly had no intention to make it less apparent (that my reply needed to dovetail to yours).  Ordinarily I try to be diligent about this, but this morning when I first sat down to peruse the chatter, the fur was really flyin' and I had my hands full. You're not the first to complain about it. Wish I could figure out a solution; in every other way the TCM site functions very nicely indeed. Programmers did a good job.

You're not a second-class citizen! You're not! :wacko:

Thanks, Sgt.M. Oh, I think I was just being kind of "hey pay attention to me"-ish, which unfortunately I get like sometimes. It was clear to me you were addressing my question to you about "The Blue Dahlia", and I suppose that's what counts. 

It must be frustrating to have technical issues when trying to post here (or anywhere on the net, for that matter.) I still don't know or use all the functions on this site, just the basic ones....Although, hey, I see you've mastered the emoji options ! 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, misswonderly3 said:

It must be frustrating to have technical issues when trying to post here

It also may be a blessing.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

I gave you a title to Joe MacBeth a film noir based on Shakespeare's MacBeth.

I'd never heard of Joe MacBeth. I looked it up. Now I'd like to see it, anyone know if TCM has ever aired it?

Now, one film based on "Macbeth" that I have seen is Men of Respect, from 1990, starring John Turturro and Stanley Tucci (among others) two actors I really like. And yes, based on what I remember about it, I'd say it was a "neo noir".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

I'd never heard of Joe MacBeth. I looked it up. Now I'd like to see it, anyone know if TCM has ever aired it?

Now, one film based on "Macbeth" that I have seen is Men of Respect, from 1990, starring John Turturro and Stanley Tucci (among others) two actors I really like. And yes, based on what I remember about it, I'd say it was a "neo noir".

Check your PM

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

I think she's saying that people were saying the actual play MacBeth is a noir.

I was. ...although I am aware that there have been a few film versions of it.

The whole thing about "Macbeth" came up because of the sort of thing TB is suggesting, as below:

31 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I said it, sort of. There are noir elements in several of Shakespeare's histories/tragedies. Definitely. We can certainly use the term noir retroactively and apply it back to stories that were produced before FILM noir came along. There's nothing to stop anyone from doing that, from taking the concept of noir and giving a greater existence as it were. A more expansive timeline.

Though when I said MACBETH was a historic noir, I was actually referring to Orson Welles' 1948 filming of the story. And when I said HAMLET was also a historic noir, I had Zefferelli's dark 1990 film version in mind.

What I've been trying to say on this thread for a while is, of course, of course, literature and stories throughout the ages have had "darkness" in them, themes of betrayal, murder, oppression, alienation, madness, you name it - all great stories tell in some way of the evil in the world and in human beings. Nothing new. What I've been thinking is, a lot of people just like to use the word "noir" in place of "darkness". That's basically what TB is saying...just retroactively substitute "noir" instead of "darkness", and there you go. I suppose so, if you want.

But to me the phrase "film noir" refers specifically to film. If I want to talk about all the dark themes in Shakespeare (or Euripides or Dante or Dickens or Thomas Hardy- - the list is endless) I'll call it "evil" or "malevolence" or "darkness"; I'd feel a bit pretentious calling them "noir". But hey, maybe that's just because I'm not French.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ||, CigarJoe said:

Quote

A film has to have enough of the story elements and enough of the visual components to be considered a noir. How much is enough depends on the individual.

Still very mind-boggling. How can any film theory (any theory worth its salt that is), possibly be allowed to fall onto the shoulders of each individual viewer to decide for himself? Making your test criteria too, 'immovable' --in one fell swoop?

Look, what if a fantasy-musical-film-loving individual ... doesn't want to hear "Wizard of Oz" zanily designated by some noir-aficionado as a 'noir-fantasy-musical'? What leeway does your theory allow him? None that I can detect.

In this schema, no genre boundaries exist at all, based on structure/function. You're not just saying that noir is applique' --every film is 'mix'n'match'. All boundaries are 'porous'.

Another gripe: if you're content to let individuals determine how much 'noirness' makes a 'film-from-another-genre' into a 'hybrid-noir' ...what if he insists that he sees none? Does he get any relief? Is there any room for his objection? Nope.

What you're doing here is setting yourself (or your theory) up as a dictum. Its reifying an idea you have and then enlisting everybody's reaction in support whether their reactions diverge or not. "You can buy it in any color you like, as long as its black" (Henry Ford's wag- line comes to mind).

You're saying 'Its unquestionably there, just describe how much you see'. That's your jump-off point. This is a hideous form of circular reasoning, breaking numerous rules of logic. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I tell ye, I'm shocked. I'm shocked to find gambling going on in this nightclub! Waiter! (thump thump thump)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No more mind boggling than this......

Sgt_Markoff

  • Advanced Member
  •  
  • Sgt_Markoff
  • Members
  •  
  • 804 posts
  • LocationNew York, NY

My first rule is probably this: I don't even start to label anything a noir unless the lead role is an American male who has been discharged from WWII military service and is now dealing with the difficulties of re-establishing himself back into an American society which seems strange, amoral, and unfamiliar to him.

Another strong determinant for me, is the budget. Low budget productions were the hallmark of noir.

From this basic starting point, is where I start to make exceptions and compromises.

Sure, I might wind up making a lot of exceptions, but these are still some of the ideal ingredients for noir and is (from what I understand) where it all started. Nothing is true noir until after WWII ends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cigarjoe said:

My first rule is probably this: I don't even start to label anything a noir unless the lead role is an American male who has been discharged from WWII military service and is now dealing with the difficulties of re-establishing himself back into an American society which seems strange, amoral, and unfamiliar to him.

Joe, thanks for locating this post from Sgt. since it was the main post I was thinking about when I have mentioned some having a very 'narrow' view of 'noir';     many so called 'classic' noirs like Laura, Night and the City, and Out of the Past etc.... don't have the theme (element), above.     

Clearly the theme is a 'classic' noir element (like the femme fatale),  but I find having such a 'must have' rule way too ridge.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

I wonder if part of your problem with Eddie Muller is that you seem to take everything he says seriously, when I believe that often his comments are what used to be called tongue-in-cheek.

Tongue-in-cheek, eh? Yeah, having no sense of humor myself I would probably miss that intent of Muller's. Good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us