misswonderly3

I am waiting....

I like to think I don't engage in "rule-mongering" here (or anywhere else, for that matter...in fact, I'm a bit of a rule-breaker.) I know you mentioned rule-mongering in a different post, but I just wanted to address it here, before I moved on to this next bit. Which is: Sarge, I think maybe you're over-thinking this; that is, you're predicting what you think people will say in response to a post you haven't even written yet. I'm sympathetic to this, sometimes I "overthink" things too. But really, it's very very simple. Since you indeed appear to have very strong opinions and ideas on what constitutes a true film noir, it should be easy for you to provide us here with a list of titles that you believe fits that definition. Yes, I've upped the ante. I'm not asking for "just one title" now, I'm requesting a list ! (could be a small list, if you like...) Ok, Detour. Good. I get it. Many people regard Detour as the ultimate noir. (I really dislike this film, by the way, but I certainly would not argue that it's not a noir.) That's a good start. Now, I'd fall out of my chair with gratitude if you'd just type out a few more. Just the facts, sir. That is, just the titles. Don't worry about people countering and nay-saying the films on your (hoped for) list. Just do it ! Otherwise, we all end up falling down the rabbit hole of argument (oh no, I can't believe I used that over-used expression. Lewis Carroll would fall down his own rabbit hole in his grave if he heard how everyone uses that phrase now. I bet half the people who say "falling down the rabbit hole" have never even read Lewis Carroll. But I digress.)

Ok. Thanks for taking the time and thought to respond so thoroughly and politely. However ! I'd still really appreciate it if you actually did name one, preferably two, actual movie titles that fit your definition of film noir. A title or two would be nice and specific, and would maybe help clarify in a way that all your academic expositions don't (perhaps we're all willfully misunderstanding you ! 😆 ) It was flattering how carefully you replied to every point I made in the post you quoted, except for this one: "Could you please name us a movie that you regard as a true film noir? Just a title or two. That would be nice, and might actually help clarify what you are always saying about noir more than all your scholarly writings here. Merci." So, honestly, I'm genuinely interested in naming names here. Could you please simply and succinctly just name a movie or two that you would categorize as a "film noir" ? Many thanks in advance.

Sergeant Markoff, I only quoted a bit of your post just to get your attention. And it could have been a bit of a quote from any one of the many long, pedantic (sorry), complicated posts you write about noir. Because basically you're saying the same thing in all these posts you write. So, two things: 1) We just want to have fun. I could go on and on about how film is an art form as well as a means of entertainment, and how many old movies are a little bit of history captured on film, and how movies, like literature, can have profound things to say, etc. etc. blah blah blah But you know what? When all's said and done, I watch movies that I like, because I enjoy them. They're fun. Is this why you watch movies? 2) You know, for all your constant pontificating about film noir and what it is not, I have never once read in any of your posts the mention of a movie that you would consider to be a film noir. Lots to say about what it isn't, and why as far as I can tell, none of the films we talk about here are noir. Could you please name us a movie that you regard as a true film noir? Just a title or two. That would be nice, and might actually help clarify what you are always saying about noir more than all your scholarly writings here. Merci.

Belated post on Double Indemnity: Seen it many times, always enjoy it. Speaking of comedy in noir, I find this one has some pretty funny bits too, particularly the way Neff calls Phyllis "baby". Also, all the scenes where they meet in that grocery store are hilarious, I suspect intentionally so. I love to watch the two of them, skulking around amongst the canned tomatoes and baby food. And the final scene in the store in which Phyllis is sporting those shades ! Talk about looking suspicious ! It's a riot ! And for the first time, it struck me that Walter Neff was much more interested in beating the system, winning the insurance game - as in insider, it was so tempting - than he was in either Phyllis or the money. Just like Eddie said in his "outro". I'd never really thought of it that way before. I'll tell you what the biggest crime about Double Indemnity is: Edward G. Robinson not even getting nominated for best supporting actor. I love Eddie G., and everything he's in, he makes it better. The murder: they on purpose make Mr. Dietrichson kind of cranky and mean and dislikeable, all the better to not care too much when Walter offs him. Still...if everyone who's cranky and mean and dislikeable were murdered without retribution, there'd be an awful lot of crabby dead people around. The ending: I'm so glad this film ends as it does, with Walter Neff bleeding to death (I hope) in the doorway, and Eddie bending over him, more sad than angry at Neff's crime and betrayal (as Keyes probably saw it.) I always like to think that Neff dies then and there. As he himself says, he does not want to be "patched up only to be sent to the gas chamber". I'd much rather think of Neff as dying from Phyllis' gun shot fairly soon after he collapses in that doorway than to think of him enduring the horrors of the gas chamber. Hey, who wouldn't rather die from a gun shot wound than in the gas chamber?

I regard His Kind of Woman as a comedy. Ok, there are some pretty un-funny bits in it, particularly that scene SPOILER near the end, where poor Mitch comes very close to being subjected to a horrifying injection of something that is -uh, horrific. Not to mention he gets beaten up pretty badly. Why oh why did Howard Hughes have to intervene in the films he produced, almost always for the worse? However, there are so many scenes in His Kind of Woman that make me laugh- mostly courtesy of the peerless Vincent Price - that I still say it's a kind of comedy ("Her Kind of Comedy" ?) , and would definitely be included in that thread I'm going to start one day about Noir and comedy. (Take that, Sergeant Markoff ! )

What ? Whaat?? cigarjoe, how can you say this? You are one of the biggest aficionados of film noir on these boards ! I can't believe my ears ! (as Anne Baxter said to George Sanders). So, ok, I know you're going to say noir is not a genre, you can apply the term noir to any of the film genres you mention above, etc. etc. I know, the tuning fork thing. But still ! It was a shock to me to read those words: to wit, "I'm not a big aficionado of other genres." (Meaning genres other than the Western.) But you are !

Oh, Sepiatone, I'm so sorry to hear this. When I saw your thread topic, before clicking on it and reading it, I just thought you'd been away on a vacation, something like that. When I read your news of the loss of your wife, I was truly saddened. I remember, you'd often mention her here on these boards. You often had funny little stories about Alicia, many of them about how spirited she was. Anyone could tell, just from reading these mentions of her in your posts, that she was hugely important to you. Again, truly sorry to hear of this great loss in your life. Thank you for sharing some of your memories about this special lady with us.

Handsome guy, Gershwin fan. I have to say, a lot handsomer than George Gershwin. (But then, did Michael Horse ever compose anything like "Lady Be Good"?)

I believe that My Fair Lady boasts of at least one motet; rumour has it that Lerner and especially Loewe wanted to bring a more highbrow tone to their musicals. Oh, ok....so, nothing do to with Curly, Larry, and Moe. (Although it is a little-known fact that Moe's last name was actually "Tet.")

Has this got something to do with motes?

The last thing I want to do here is trigger another impassioned debate about what, exactly, is film noir. However, I can't resist responding to these two comments about how Talk About a Stranger is not noir by saying that it gets back to whether you regard "noir" as a style or a genre. (I kind of do both.) Certainly if you think of film noir as a genre, one that includes a heinous crime (something even worse than alleged dog poisoning), possibly an alluring duplicitous woman, and lots of angst and/ or alienation or nihilism, blah blah...., then this film probably doesn't qualify as a noir. But if you think of noir as a style, it fits quite nicely in the noir canon. Eddie spoke about the look of Talk About a Stranger in his intro, mentioning that noir stalwart John Alton did the cinematography, and showing clips from the film that show very noirish shadows, foggy roads, etc. So, as far as visual style goes, this could be considered a noir. Certainly Eddie makes a good case for that.

With respect, Cid, I think you might have over-reacted to what you'd heard regarding what happened to the dog in Talk About a Stranger. You see absolutely no abuse or cruelty to the dog or any other animal in the film. In fact, you never see the little dog again, after the kid's dad says he'll tie the dog up while the kid rides into town. There is no depiction of the dog suffering or dying, you never even see the dog's body after Bud (the kid) discovers it. It all happens off-screen. I don't know what description you read of this movie, but there's nothing in it that even animal rights activists could complain about.

Here's the main impression I had of Talk About a Stranger: this is one dislikeable kid ! He comes across through almost the entire film as surly, unfriendly, and ill-tempered. Usually the depiction of young boys in 1950s movies is almost sickeningly cute and /or well-behaved. The kids are more often than not polite to adults and friendly to other kids. But this boy - (how come so many boys in 1950s movies are called "Bobby"?) is just not a sympathetic kid to me. Ok, he kind of cleans up his act in the end - but that's the end of the movie, where presumably he's learned his lesson. I wonder if the father had bothered explaining to him why it isn't right, it isn't the way fair and open societies do things, to accuse a person of something based on nothing but your dislike for that person, and talk as though the disliked one has actually committed a crime, rather than giving them the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption, and look into whatever they're accused of a little deeper, --(awkward sentence structure, sorry) -- I say IF the kid's dad had explained this concept to the kid just a little, instead of just saying "You're too young to understand, I'll explain when you're older" if maybe the kid would have held off on that act of sabotage he performed on the oil derrick. But on the whole, I thought this was a good little film, whatever genre (or blend of genres) you want to call it. And it really gave a very clear idea of what life was probably like in a small Californian orange-growing town in the 1950s. Nancy Davis: Boy, they must have been really uncomfortable with depicting pregnant women back then. Nancy's wearing one of those voluminous maternity shirts, but it's clear there's no pregnant belly underneath. She's skinny as a stick, even where she's supposed to have a bump. Didn't they have pillows back then?

Talk about mixing genres ! You make it sound like a collage of film stereotypes. I do see what you mean, but I also think the sum was more than its parts; it was a little better than "a bit of gothic haunted house trope, part stranger in town flick..." etc.

Ok, but here's the interesting thing about the Dan Duryea persona: Yes, everyone thinks he's a real bad guy, a truly mean character, in almost every film he's in. But actually, Dan's character in most of his films is not nearly as bad as we all give him credit for. He's more mean than evil. He's definitely not a "nice" guy; but if you think about it, we rarely see him killing anyone. He's more talk than action; he's a tough guy, yes, and we certainly see a lot of slapping around (usually women) and sarcasm and threats. And he's almost always on the wrong side of the law. But- usually that's where it ends. Compare his " bad guy" characters to someone like Raymond Burr in Raw Deal, or Richard Widmark in Kiss of Death, or that guy "Chester" (Neville Brand) in D.O.A. - just to name a few - and Dan comes across as not too scary. I'd way rather be slapped around a little by Dan Duryea than get into trouble with someone like Burr or Widmark. Of course, sometimes he does do a little killing ( as in Criss Cross ), but on the whole, I find him a lot less menacing than lots of other noir villains. And actually, I love Dan Duryea, I'm a huge fan. He's very entertaining, with his snarky way of speaking and his trademark hand wave (a little gesture from the forehead, almost like a salute). I love to watch him.

Right speedy, I see what you mean. I can imagine Don DeFore's character saying something like, "Aw, you can turn off the tears, baby, nobody's fooled." Or actually, more like Dan Duryea's character saying that. (But of course by that point in the story he wasn't saying anything.)

Same to youu, Dargo baby ! Merry Christmaus and Happy Nu Year !

Well, yeah, RBG, that film's the origin of why I use that spelling. Shirley you knew that? 😎

Eek ! Silly me...I did wonder if I was the one taking you too seriously, something I should know better than by now. As for emoticons or emojis (hey, how come we stopped calling them the first and switched to the second name for those things?), I hate to think I needed one of those to "get" your post. Oh, must be all that spiked eggnog* I had last night, my brain's still in slow gear. * I mean "eggnoug".

You said it, Marinanne ! Aside from it being a short and to the point title, and definitely an apt description of Lizabeth Scott's character, it is of course the "nickname" or, uh, term of endearment 😐 that Duryea's character gives to Scott's. Which clearly the Frenchies picked up on.

Actually, I don't know why Eddie sounded so disapproving of the second (and apparently rejected) title "Killer Bait". I actually think it's a better title than "Too Late for Tears". For one thing, I don't really think Scott's character had many tears to shed at any point in this film (except maybe for herself, but even then....) For another, I like the ambiguity, possible double -meaning of the title "Killer Bait". Could mean either the found money, or (more fun interpretation) Jane Palmer's heartless greedy albeit alluring (to some) schemer.

Um...Dargs, you do know I wasn't seriously suggesting they were (in Blythe Spirit, I mean.) Shirley you of all people do not need to have a joke explained to you.

I dunno, Hoganman...one look at Don DeFore's amiable goofy face, and you just know he could never be a bad guy. Plus, wasn't he busy redeveloping a deactivated army barracks for returned G.I.'s to live in? He wouldn't have had time to operate a black mail scheme as well... edit: Oops, I need to read people's posts more carefully ! Sorry, Hoganman, I see now that you were not suggesting Don was a bad guy, but the one the bad guy was blackmailing, which I can actually see as feasible.

Reading this thread is a bit like wandering into a Twilight Zone episode. If that's a bit cryptic, I'm sorry, but people can take what they will from this comment.