misswonderly3

This is appropriate, given that the thread started with talking about the 1951 "Scrooge". Because when old Scrooge wakes up Christmas morning, all reformed and joyful, he sings a song that goes, "I don't know anything, I never did know anything, but now I know that I don't know, all on a Christmas morning." edit: I found a clip of it. Unfortunately it's colourized, but you can't have everything. Hey, maybe it's a noir element that he decides to stand on his head.

Right, Dargs, the French have a lot of "u's " in their words. It's those danged French Canadians who got us Anglo Canadians up here using that old suuperfluuouus "U". !

So, Lorna, how do you deal with this: I know you're a big Joan Crawford fan. And I know you loathe blackface numbers. So how do you feel about Torch Song, in which Joan performs possibly the worst blackface number ever?

I think it's Swingtime. I love Fred Astaire movies, I love Swingtime. But yeah, what were they thinking when they did those blackface numbers? I mean, I like that movie, I even don't really mind that number (except for the blackface, but that's a huge part of it), but as Lorna said, one blackface number can almost spoil a whole movie.

We already did that, Sepia baby. (And by "we", I don't mean just me, I mean, quite a few of us have.)

Well, that shows how few noirs you've seen. There are a ton of film noirs (even by the strictest definition) that have no murders in them.

This is the most entertaining - and perhaps enlightening - post on this thread. People who run websites should always be aware of unfortunate - or maybe fortunate -double entendres.

Ah, so narcissistic and obnoxious to quote oneself ! I know. But I wanted to give an example of what I mean by people simply substituting the word "noir" for "evil" or "darkness", and then applying that word ("noir") to any story that has a narrative with evil characters, events, etc. To wit: (hey, it's fun to say "to wit") "I think there is a flaw in your logic above. Nothing can pre-date noir. Noir has always been present. It's just that it wasn't identified as such until the 20th century. Shakespeare was definitely writing noir when he wrote MacBeth and Hamlet. His writing doesn't pre-date noir. His writing pre-dates the identification of noir. That's how I look at it" Now this demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about. Of course Shakespeare and the ancient classic dramatists (like Sophocles) and countless poets, playwrights, and other storytellers throughout time have told stores involving tragedy, evil, horrible terrible events, killings, betrayal, rape, war, murder, and on and on. Darkness. Some people enchanted with the idea of noir, and with the word "noir" itself, like to apply that word to all stories that recount horrible, "dark" events. Like I said, nobody's arguing that stories and films outside the "stricter", more defined application of the term "noir", don't include "dark", evil, narratives and characters. It was ever thus. It's just that a lot of people like to apply that word "noir" to such stories. And no, I am not "targeting" any one poster here. Lots of people on this thread have argued the above point. (Misguidedly, I may say.)

Ok. Thanks, that clarifies what you thought in response to my post about children and noir. I'd have to go back and find the original post to which I was responding, but I think that post used the term "children's noir". It might seem picky, but sometimes punctuation makes a difference. The possessive apostrophe - as in children's noir, suggested to me that the poster was implying that a "dark" film with children in it was something intended for children to watch. If that's not what they meant (and I agree, it seems absurd), then they should have called it something else - - I dunno, maybe something like "disturbing evil child movie" - although that does seem like a pretty cumbersome label ! But yeah, I would be surprised if anyone here who knows and loves "classic" movies that feature a wicked child or ghost child, or anything of that ilk, would think such a film is appropriate for children to watch. Full disclosure: I love Night of the Hunter and watched it with all three of my children once; I wanted them to watch it, it's such a good movie. However, 1) the children escape the evil pursuer, and the film has a (more or less) happy ending (well, maybe not "happy", but not without hope) and 2) my youngest child was 10 or so at the time. So maybe old enough to handle the scary aspects of the film. And none of my kids have ever forgotten that movie !

I think I may have figured out the crux of the biscuit, as to what all this arguing on this thread is all about. (Sepiatone, look ye what ye have wrought !) It's partly about the use of the word "noir". "Noir", as we all know, is a French word meaning "dark", also "black". And those French film critics in the 50s coined the term "film noir" to refer to that certain kind of American crime film that was "dark", both in terms of its visual appearance and cinematography, and its thematic content. But a lot of people are now using the word "noir" to refer to any kind of "darkness" in any kind of movie. And many comments here, by many posters, have pointed out the "dark" elements in films that are not usually associated with the original (as in those French film critics) definition of film noir. So, I think what's causing disagreement and confusion is, people who say that any story or film that includes some elements of "darkness" could be called a "noir". And many, many movies - perhaps most - feature aspects of "darkness", or evil, or at least, bad, disturbing things, in their narratives. In fact, short of one of those early Dick Powell musicals and the like, most films have something "bad" or "dark" in them. This could be a crime (not necessarily murder, but maybe...), or a nasty /evil character trying to bring about the fall of someone, or mental illness, or even a suggestion of the supernatural (as in the great ghost movie, The Innocents). Yes, many, maybe most, movies worth watching contain a narrative that includes some kind of "darkness". The problem, I think, is that a lot of people want to say that any film with "darkness" (as just stated, whether in a character or a crime or some otherwise "disturbing" aspect) is a "noir", or "contains elements of noir". It's just substituting the word "noir" for "darkness" or even "evil". I have no problem with acknowledging that many films, (some mentioned here on this thread) have a "darkness" to them, that they explore various aspects of the badness that exists in the world, and in the human heart. It's just a matter of terminology, or what word they want to use to indicate these films have those elements. And since "noir" means "dark", they're pleased to apply that word to those movies. Movies which in my opinion may very well have "darkness" or a narrative element of wickedness or violence in some way, but do not fall under the label (for lack of a better word) of what I regard to be "film noir".

James, I just quoted you here to get your attention. (Although there may be more than two camps on this or any other issue...like, band camp, for instance...) Anyway, I really would like to know why you "reacted" to a post I wrote here about children's literature and films with a "laugh" emoji. Really? You thought what I said was funny? Or were you just trying to annoy me? I'm curious to know why you thought that post was funny. It was not intended to be. I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about children's entertainment and art (sorry, "art" sounds kind of pretentious), and I was trying just a little bit to clarify some of it. But as I said in that earlier post, that's another topic for another thread. (or not.)

Right, Arteesto, looks like we agree on The Bad Seed. Except...I would say, never mind the earnest 21st century psychological mental illness labels, (as in, "Antisocial Personality Disorder"), she was just plain evil. !

I don't know if you're alluding to the post I wrote here about The Bad Seed, Arteesto, but in case you are, I'd like to clarify something. I never said a film like The Bad Seed could not be regarded as "having noirish elements". What I said was, there is no such thing as "children's noir", it's a ridiculous concept. Someone had suggested that this film, along with The Innocents, could be lumped into a category called "children's noir". And I said, just because a film has a story that features a child, doesn't mean it's a children's movie. Also: I'd like to make clear that I have no problem with children's stories and movies having sad, bad, or scary elements to them. In fact, a truly good children's book or film does have such aspects to it. But actually, this is a whole different topic which I don't want to get into here.

Actually - and I know I'm probably a minority of one - I kind of like Margaret O'Brien's performance and character in Meet Me in St. Louis. I think she's every bit as cute as she's supposed to be. (I know. Like I said, I know I'm probably the only person ever who's seen that movie who feels that way...)

Yeah, I kind of like Pat O'Brien. You might like to know, Lorna, that Pat O'Brien is featured in the upcoming Noir Alley movie this weekend (Dec. 1 /2): Crack-Up. Pat stars in it, and he's pretty darn good. So is the movie. I liked it, anyway.

Hmm. Ok, I just read one of cigarjoe's post, which quite flatteringly quotes me in a post I wrote about Christmas films and film noir and how there are some Christmas movies, or at least, films set at Christmas time, which are also noirs. As I said, I'm flattered that joe quoted me. And I stick by everything I said in that post. I have no trouble extending a concept of film noir to Christmas time, or for that matter, to genres that are not normally considered classic "noir". I agree with cigarjoe's "tuning fork" theory ( well, not his, he's quoting that book, "Dark City", or whatever it's called, sorry I'd have to look it up and I'm in a hurry...). But what I do disagree with is this idea, usually perpetuated by people who have just discovered "film noir" or the idea of "noir", that that particular name (call it style or genre) can be slapped on to just about everything. It's like people are, for some reason, delighted with this term "film noir" (which seems to be shortened to just "noir" more and more these days) and think it makes them look smart and knowledgeable if they apply it to just about any old movie. No. I get that noir is a much broader concept than, say, Western or musical (hey, we could call "Rocky Horror Picture Show" a "musical noir"). I get the "tuning fork" idea, and actually agree with it. But at some point we have to stop being silly and realize that "film noir" is not a phrase that can or should be applied to every kind of movie ever made, like a kid who wants to keep playing with a new toy. come on, people. If everything is "noir", than nothing is.

Fedya, The Window is a good movie. And yes, I would say it's a "noir". And yes, there's a child featured in it. It's all about the child. But I don't understand why people don't seem to get that a film with a child in it is not necessarily a "children's movie". It shows, to me, a complete lack of understanding of children and what children's fiction (books or movies) is about. ...not to say that I support children's books and films that are saccharine and have no "bad" things happen in them. That kind of "children's" book or movie is just plain bad.

That's the whole point. Scrooge lives in a "dismal and gloomy" house, he lives a "dismal and gloomy" life. But "dismal and gloomy" does not necessarily equate to noir. I swear Dickens would roll over in his grave if he knew of this discussion.

Yes ! Exactly ! Hey, why not suggest that "Wuthering Heights" could be catgegorized as a Western, because it's got a horse in it?

No. Just because children are in a movie, or even if a movie is about a child (or children), does not make it a "children's movie". Like the two examples you just gave, which I would never want a child to see. The Innocents and The Bad Seed are not "children's movies". And a "children's noir" is a contradiction in terms.

Yes yes yes. I agree so much.

Nope. Doesn't fit at all. Come on, people, this is getting ridiculous. Hey, why not say that "Meet Me in St. Louis" is a noir? Full disclosure: I just read the very first post that started this thread, and haven't even looked at the 3 pages ensuing. Apologies to those who have already said what I just said (and I like to think there were many.)

Well, it's one of the interesting things about The Killing, there are a lot of things to notice and ponder and debate. What I can't remember is whether the old guy knew that Johnny was planning to marry Fay (Coleen Gray's character) as soon as the heist was done and they'd made a clean escape (which of course didn't happen....) Or maybe Johnny and Fay were already married? In any case, if Flippen's character were aware that Johnny had a woman in his life, why would he have suggested the two of them go away together? No inclusion of Fay was mentioned. I just think, if he just had paternal feelings for Johnny, he might have suggested that he join Johnny and Fay, maybe hang about as a surrogate grandpa type figure, an honourary member of the family. But what he seems to want is for it to be just him and Johnny. I'm not saying he was proposing an outright gay relationship with Johnny, more that he might have had feelings for him (Johnny) that even he might not have recognized. But for sure, he didn't want Fay around in this proposed "get away together" idea he had. Not very fatherly... ps: I'm not one of those people who sees a gay subtext in every movie I watch !

Yes, I remember the old guy saying he thought of Johnny as a son. Maybe you're right. But I also did pick up on a gay vibe. The Flippen character says something like, "marriage, it's no good" (which of course doesn't necessarily mean he's gay...). Just the way he so touchingly asks Johnny to go away with him after the heist, "just the two of us", felt to me like he had feelings that were more than fatherly towards Johnny. But it's certainly open to interpretation, and I could be wrong... By the way, Cid, I hope it doesn't seem like I'm "stalking" you or picking on you, taking 3 of your comments and quoting them and disagreeing with them all ! I like your contributions here - - and at least you know I pay attention to what you post.

Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure that it is the black guy who shoots him. There is another guard, or attendant, or whatever that particular position was called, on the scene as Carey tries to pull away, but I thought I saw the black guard, the one Carey had been speaking with, shoot him. I was watching the guy a lot after "Nick" snapped his horrible racist insult at him, just to see what, if anything, he might do next.