misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
31 minutes ago, Dargo said:
Saaay, ya know, maybe should place the blame for all this confusion at the very doorstep of those who seem responsible for it?!
Uh-huh, those darn French folks.
See?! This would be just ANOTHER example of why French words should have NEVER been allowed into the English language!
(...but FIRST of course I'd say we look into that whole superfluous-u thing, as I've heard the French were responsible for THAT whole unfortunate thing TOO!)
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". !
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:
It really is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to get it out of your mind isn’t it? Like the movie keeps going, but you can still see and hear it.
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?
-
1 hour ago, Hibi said:
I know. I watched it Sunday night. Really stops the show! LOL. I dont understand blackface at all. WHY are the lips white? Since when do blacks have white lips?
There's a Fred Astaire film that has a blackface number (cant remember which one) but it's not as bad. Think it's Bojangles related......
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.
-
6 hours ago, Sepiatone said:
We'd perhaps have to look into why the French( where the term came from) CALLED certain movies "film noir" and go from there.....
We already did that, Sepia baby. (And by "we", I don't mean just me, I mean, quite a few of us have.)
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, TopBilled said:
The discussion has definitely gotten off track from the OP's original intent. That's quite evident. What the OP was saying was that he/she came across an interpretation saying A CHRISTMAS CAROL could be classified as a noir. And the OP saw it as one way of looking at the film and classifying it. Certainly nothing wrong with that. The OP seemed to agree, or else this thread probably wouldn't have been created.
As for my comment, I did not say murder = dark subject matter. What I was saying is that dark subject matter = murder in noir. Typically films about heists or rapes or other criminal activity are not considered noir. They become dark and are classified noir because someone has been killed or was the target of an unsuccessful killer.
A noir without murder is like rain without water.
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.
-
3
-
-
20 hours ago, scsu1975 said:
I'd like to know how Sepiatone became an "Enhanced Member." Is this a physiological thing?
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.
-
1 hour ago, misswonderly3 said:
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".
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.)
-
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
I assume you're taking about the 'children noir' thread; I laughed at that because I wasn't sure you were joking or not when you appeared to assume that 'children noir' meant a dark film made for children (i.e. made to be viewed by mostly children). To me that was NOT what the OP meant; instead children noir meant dark films that included children in a significant role (which is why I mentioned Night of the Hunter).
PS: As for Night of the Hunter; I said the film has noir elements. I try to stay away from saying a film is a 'noir' because I wish to avoid the yapping gums of the 'that isn't noir' camp.
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 !
-
2
-
-
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".
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
Nope not buying that line. I see more then only two camps on this forum. Anyhow have at it.
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.)
-
2 hours ago, Arteesto said:
Nope
The [disagree with me..I'm old I can take it] is generic and is not a swipe at you or anyone.
A fencing match about the small, precise details of film noir doesn't interest me.
Just mentioned how I feel about Bad Seed.
The sappy ending is the problem with this movie..it mitigates the darkness of the film.
Clearly the child had Antisocial Personality Disorder.
To me..her demise was the end of the movie.
The bolt of lightning was poetic justice.
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. !
-
3 hours ago, Arteesto said:
Except for that stupid ending...Bad Seed is noir(ish)
The fact that the murderous character is a child doesn't negate the noir elements/components.
Disagree with me if you want.
I'm old and can take it.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Fedya said:
Don't you want to strangle Margaret O'Brien's character to death every time you watch Meet Me in St. Louis?
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...)
-
2
-
-
11 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:
Watching KID PERSONALITY (1934) right now.
I’m floored.
PAT OBRIEN was actually a good actor?!?!?!
i had no clue.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
On 11/23/2018 at 2:24 PM, Fedya said:
My first thought would have been The Window.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 11/23/2018 at 12:17 PM, NipkowDisc said:
it must be alastair sim's climb up the long dark shadowy stairs. you can even see the outside illumination coming through the window and we see a bust in a recessed wall area. what a lonely and dark abode. Victorian dismal.
scrooge locks himself in his bedroom to enjoy some hot porridge. what a dismal and gloomy xmas eve nite.
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.
-
On 11/23/2018 at 10:14 AM, TomJH said:
Some fans really like to obsess over whether or not some film can be categorized as some kind of noir. Now it's "Christmas noir."
I don't see fans of other genres doing this, just noir fans. Pretentious pap.
Much ado about nothing.
Yes ! Exactly ! Hey, why not suggest that "Wuthering Heights" could be catgegorized as a Western, because it's got a horse in it?
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 11/23/2018 at 10:11 AM, TopBilled said:
Interesting idea. Yes, I think there probably is such a thing as children's noir. THE INNOCENTS (1961) would certainly fit that "category" and so would THE BAD SEED (1956).
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.
-
1
-
-
On 11/23/2018 at 10:02 AM, Sgt_Markoff said:
Oh, my gawd.
Yer killing me over here. This really is the dizzy limit!
Why not just stick a knife in my ribs rather than this slow death by a million little cuts?
It stands to reason? What reason? Lack of reason is more like it. Otherwise, I suppose 'Wizard of Oz' is 'children's noir'? The theory is DAFT!!!
Yes yes yes. I agree so much.
-
1
-
-
On 11/23/2018 at 8:31 AM, Sepiatone said:
I'll make this quick( since I'm behind my schedule ) but after viewing my DVD of '51's "Scrooge"( or "A Christmas Carol") I had time to spare and took in some of the "features". And in one of them, saw where the movie was referred to as "A Christmas Noir."
Well, I never thought of the movie in that term, but it does seem to fit.
Thoughts?
Sepiatone
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.)
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, cigarjoe said:
To me it was more a father and son vibe. I've never even would have thought it otherwise until it was brought up here. But with say Desert Fury it definitely was giving off "gay" vibes, in fact it was quite over the top.
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 !
-
13 hours ago, TheCid said:
3.I picked up on Jay C. Flippen asking Hayden to go away, just the two of them. But didn't see it as a gay reference. Just an old man with no one who wanted a son.
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.
-
8 hours ago, TheCid said:
2. The black guy was an attendant, not really a guard. To be clear to others reading your post, Carey was shot by an armed guard, not the black attendant.
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.
scrooge locks himself in his bedroom to enjoy some hot porridge. what a dismal and gloomy xmas eve nite.
That's ONE way to put it I've not heard before...
in General Discussions
Posted
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.