misswonderly3

I hate teddy bears.

speedy baby, I call them "Joan-o-dramas".

Hope so. Sunday morning seems like the least appropriate time they could possibly feature film noir. (I'd love to see it late on a Friday or Saturday night...)

Pas de problem. I could tell by your very literate write-up of the novel In a Lonely Place that you're an intelligent lady. And hey, I probably wouldn't have been able to resist the "gris /grey vs noir" joke either. After all, "noir" means "black". I looked it up and was interested to find that "noir" means "black". I thought it also meant "dark", and I guess it does. But there's another word for "dark" in French, which I also looked up: "fonce' " . Anyway, it's nice to see someone (relatively) new posting about noir, however they may see it.

Nope. Not big on the "psycho noirs". But that's not to say I don't enjoy the odd psycho case in a noir - such as Richard Widmark's unforgettable Tommy Udo in Kiss of Death, or William Bendix's sadistic thug in The Glass Key. And of course there are lots more, too numerous to mention. I don't have a problem with the inclusion of violent psycho types in classic noir (you know, like, 1942 - 1960). It's just when that type of character is celebrated in some way - or when they're the main character (as in, yeah, Lawrence Tierney in Born to Kill - this is not one of my favourites) that I'm not crazy about. (No pun intended.)

Ooh, that's so clever. Why didn't I think of that? How can I like film noir because I think it explores the grey (oops - gris) side of human nature, rather than its dark, evil side? Look, I don't like being sarcastic, but I feel the post I wrote about my take on what film noir is deserved a little better than a quick easy riposte. In my response to your post about In a Lonely Place (and of course I'm very aware that you were talking about the book, not the movie, and I recognize there are many differences) I think I was careful to be respectful towards you and what you wrote, and also, careful to state that how I regard film noir seems to be quite different from what most people here, obviously including you, see it. I will say again, film noir to me is not about getting inside the head of a psycho killer or otherwise depicting the most nasty and violent aspects of humanity. It's about an average person (ok, usually "man") who gets unwittingly and unwillingly caught up in a nasty, violent, and yes, dark situation, the whys and hows of this situation, and how he is changed. As cigarjoe said in response to my post, "First with the topic of Film Noir it's all subjective. Noir is in all of us. Think of us all as having an internal tuning fork, these tuning forks are forged by our individual life experiences which are all unique. When we watch these films their degree of Noir-ness resonates with us differently, so we either "tune" to them or we don't. The amount of "tuning" (I'm appropriating this term from the Neo Noir Dark City (1998)) to certain films will vary between us all also." " So yes, again, I understand that some - looks like many - people who see themselves as film noir fans think of it as much darker ( as in evil) than I do. I don't agree with that interpretation of this style of film, but hey, chacun a son gout.

This post has motivated me to write about my own, apparently unorthodox, view of film noir, that is as far as I can tell, radically different from what most people who participate on these boards think of as noir. In fact, I feel so strongly about this, I was going to start a whole new thread about it. But then I decided that this "Noir Alley" thread is as good a place as any to say what I want to say on noir and how it seems to diverge from what many others' idea of it is. marcar talks about the novel In a Lonely Place. She describes how the author gets into the mind of the Dixon Steele character, with all its creepy violence and pathological nastiness and misogyny. The mind of a rapist and a serial killer. She (marcar) quotes some lines from the book, describing the twisted thoughts and the hatred going through the mind of Steele just before he kills some woman he's encountered on a beach. Then she - marcar, the poster - says, "Now, that's noir." I completely disagree with this idea of the workings of a serial killer's mind as ultimate "noir". First, I want to say I mean no disrespect to marcar, who strikes me as an intelligent poster. I appreciate her review of the book. What prompted me to write this was, not just marcar's declaration that the ugly workings of a rapist and killer's mind is "Noir", but that so many agree with her. I'm in the minority here. What I'm trying to say is this: Everyone's always going on about how nasty and bleak film noir is, and how it's all about the dark side of human nature, etc. etc. Yes, of course. That's why it's called film noir. I know that. And yes, I love that the world of noir is full of dark shadows and rain and desperate characters. But to me, noir is NOT about psycho killers or serial rapists. That is, there sometimes are such characters in film noir movies, but they are never the main characters, they're not the protagonists. If such characters do appear in a noir, they are depicted as repellent figures with whom we do not identify, and they are usually peripheral to the story. Psycho killers and serial rapists belong to a different genre altogether - horror movies. Whether I like that genre or not is irrelevent; my point is, that kind of character does not dominate the genre I love and that I'm talking about here: film noir. When I first discovered this style of film, back in the 80s, I was intrigued by its beautiful atmospheric black and white visuals, its seedy urban settings, and most of all, its desperate, often outcast characters. But almost always, the protagonist ( a better word than "hero") is someone we can identify with in some way. He ( almost always a "he") is usually an ordinary guy, a common man who, due to some bizarre twist of fate combined with a self-destructive weakness, gets drawn into a series of terrible circumstances over which he has no control. This noir everyman character is often isolated from the mainstream of society, he's alienated, bitter - maybe because he was given a raw deal when he returned from the war, or he was imprisoned unjustly, or he's recovering from some traumatic experience. Often - but not always - he's led astray because he's in sexual thrall to a woman. Or he's trapped in a situation from which the only escape is to co-operate with a gang of criminals. He may encounter psychotic violent characters on his noir journey ( yes, film noir is rife with these), but he is not one himself, and we the audience do not relate to these characters. Also: more often than not, the protagonist comes out alive at the end of this journey. Changed, yes. In the best noirs, the hero is profoundly altered by his experience. But he usually lives. I've noticed a lot of people seem to think most noirs end with the hero's death. (For sure, there are a few - "The Postman Always Rings Twice" and "Double Indemnity" are two obvious examples - but there are just as many, and I believe more, that end with the protagonist alive and free - albeit different than he was before.) Ok, this is a long and I'm afraid, somewhat rambling post. But I really wanted to make this point, that I don't agree that noir is about evil people - or at least, it does not celebrate evil. It celebrates the dark side of life, but that to me is not evil. What noir really does more than anything, and what I like most about it, is explore and validate the grey side of human nature. Most people are neither "good" nor "evil", and noir acknowledges this more than any other film genre. If typical "noir" was about what goes on in the mind of a sick violent man who enjoys killing women, I wouldn't love noir.

NARROW MARGARINE Hard-boiled police detective Walter Brown figures he's had enough of cheap dames, crummy walk-ups, and most of all the tough dialogue he always has to speak in pursuit of the low-life crooks his job requires him to interact with. He decides to get into an entirely new and different field of work. One day he wanders into an all-night diner and orders a grilled cheese. The short-order cook has just run out of butter, but he's just received 50 pounds of margarine, and slaps that on the bread. Detective Brown takes one bite of his margarine-slathered grilled cheese and becomes a complete convert. No more butter for him ! It's oleo all the way from now on. Detective Sergeant Brown quits his job on the spot and throws himself into the newly burgeoning margarine industry. It's 1952, and there's plenty of moms out there who are happy to feed their kids peanut butter and margarine sandwiches. Brown partners up with an old cop friend, Sarah Meggs (aka Mrs. Frankie Neal, aka Marie),and the two of them start up a brand new margarine company. They need an "angle", something that will set them apart from all the other margarine businesses out there. Police Officer Meggs (aka Marie) points out that margarine is easier on the waistline than fat-filled butter*, and she proposes that they name their new product "Narrow" Margarine, conjuring up images of slim Americans eagerly shovelling down slices of Wonder Bread generously covered in Narrow Margarine, all of them fit and narrow-waisted. "It's a stretch, but I'll go for it", Sergeant Brown concedes, and the Narrow Margarine company is born. "I've heard some cheap and cheesy ideas before, but this has got to be the oiliest yet." * (This is 1952, and it will be many decades before the dieticians of the Food and Drug Administration will realize that in fact, certain kinds of fat are actually good for people. But we won't go there...)

I've only seen Gail Russell in two films - The Uninvited and The Angel and the Badman - but I remember her very clearly in both. There's something inexplicably memorable about her. Maybe it's the slight aura of sadness that accompanies her beauty. Actually, her looks remind me not so much of Elizabeth Taylor or Hedy Lamarr, but rather, Loretta Young, with her long dark hair and enormous eyes, and Cathy O'Donnell, who had the same sweetly sad look about her. Gail Russell was perfect in The Uninvited (which is probably my favourite ghost story movie). There's something so endearing and vulnerable about her - no wonder Ray Milland's character fell in love with her and wrote a song about her. Here she is, looking lovely and sad and dark-haired:

Well, here's the thing with Shakespeare, Lorna baby...he wasn't above plagiarizing his own stuff. He probably liked that "love is not love" line so much, he decided to recycle it. So we're both right.

Allison Janney: Marie Windsor: Cat:

Well, I really just wanted an excuse to quote that beautiful line from King Lear. Cordelia's just been dumped by her fiance when he finds out Lear isn't giving Cordelia any money (well, Lear doesn't quite put it like that), so the king of France speaks up and says he'll be happy to marry the young lady ("She is herself a dowry." ) I've always liked that scene.

"Love's not love When it is mingled with regards that stand Aloof from th'entire point."

SPOILERAMAS ! Ok, I like Narrow Margin a lot, too. And I agree, it has to be one of the best movies (in any genre, not just noir) set almost entirely on a train. Ya gotta love the tough-talking interplay between cynical street-hardened Charles McGraw and equally flinty Marie Windsor (I love this noir lady - and as for toughness,she could give Anne Savage a run for her money...) There are all kinds of fun little details in the film...the big fat guy who keeps blocking off the narrow train passageway from everybody, the ultra-noir dialogue (how can you not love a line like "She's the sixty cent special. Cheap. Flashy. Strictly poison under the gravy."?) , and damn, how about that loud trashy swing music Marie keeps playing in her train compartment? And why does she keep drawing attention to herself in this way? Just to prove she's trashy, the kind of woman who plays cheap popular music at full blast ? and how come she's brought a record player onto a train? ( or is it a radio?) Even back then, when train accommodation was roomier than it is now, that would have been kind of awkward. But I enjoy the loud swing music thing, and the implication that anyone who plays that kind of music is trash. ( A common device in old movies, especially noirs - show the person's shallow character by letting them listen to loud popular swing music. It always makes me laugh...) Anyway, I'm digressing a bit. What I really wanted to say was - SPOILER - of course we find out that the trashy fast-talking Marie Windsor is a police officer, set up as a decoy to confuse the would-be assassin and derail ( pun intended) him from killing the real gangster's wife. What bothers me, a lot, actually, is that when poor old Marie is killed, Charles McGraw, even after he finds out who she really was, doesn't bat an eye. This woman risked her life - and lost it - in the line of duty, protecting a key witness, knowing that the odds of getting killed herself were high. Yet does McGraw say one word in her favour? Does he express any regret for the nasty assumptions he made about her, and the rude way her treated her? Nah. He's too busy trying to curry favour with the real gangster's wife - who of course is everything poor old Marie Windsor was not ( decorous, quiet, "decent"...) Every time I see this film, I want him to give a speech about how wrong he was, how fine a person Windsor was for giving up her life so the wheels of justice McGraw claims to respect so much can keep turning. But nope, he just doesn't care.

Thanks, TikiSoo, for starting this thread. I love Woody Allen. It's impossible to come up with one favourite scene, but off-hand.... For funny, I'd say that scene in Manhattan in which Woody confronts his friend about his immoral behaviour (he's married, and he's having an affair), and the friend accuses him of being too self-righteous " You think you're God, or something", to which Woody replies, "Hey, I gotta model myself after someone." For a purely touching moment ( and Woody's movies are full of these, truly moving without being in the least sentimental, one of the things I admire about him): The final scene in Broadway Danny Rose, when Mia Farrow's character realizes that despite all her efforts to forget him, she must see Woody again. She rushes to his apartment and knocks on his door. Woody opens it, and when he sees her standing there, his face sort of crumples. And inside, all the sad losers are enjoying their Thanksgiving party, in Woody's shabby little flat. It's incredibly sweet and sad, like a Chaplin movie. It almost makes me cry, every time.

Interesting you should say that, Tom ..about "Make 'Em Laugh" and all that. Because I've long maintained that a lot of noirs are quite funny - or at least, parts of them are. I was even thinking of starting a thread, something like "Noir and Comedy: Yes ! Many Noirs Make Me Laugh !" If I were to write a masters film thesis, I think my topic would be Comedy in Film Noir. I suspect no one's ever done it.

...and it's home to the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame.

No. In a Lonely Place is all the better for its almost murder; if Dixon had actually killed Laurel, it would have been just another violent crime movie ending. The film is more tragic because Laurel lives (saved by the telephone call that "would have meant so much" if it had come just a few minutes earlier), letting the horror of what might have happened, and what was almost certainly going to happen, sink in for both Dix and Laurel. Obviously there is no way Laurel can stay with him after that. It's profoundly sad - the two of them going their separate ways, knowing that they "lived a few weeks while they loved" each other, but that the happiness they had during those few weeks could never return. As for the idea that the film would somehow be more noirish if Dix had succeeded in actually strangling Laurel, I say, the idea of murder in film noir is over-rated. There are actually quite of lot of noirs in which murder is not the main event.

This opening sequence and the song really capture the "edginess" and excitement that's to come in this film. Sorry , I can't find a video that seques both the first few minutes of dialogue AND the opening credits song ("Misirlou".) Lame, but these two vids in a row will have to do.

A few weeks ago I heard a story in the news about a bunch of university students ( and, I'm sorry to say, this was in Ontario), who objected when a particular song was played at a social event at said university. The protests to the song demonstrate just how silly and ignorant ( "ignorant" in the original sense of "lacking knowledge" ) these students were. They were claiming that this song was offensive and "hurtful" (it's amazing how easily hurt people are now) to trans people. IF they'd (a) had the slightest knowledge of pop music history, or any interest in music made before 2010 (year chosen arbitrarily), they'd have been familiar with this great song, and it wouldn't have been any surprise to them to hear it and ( b ) If they'd heard of the singer, who was an avid supporter of trans and gay people's rights long before it was in style to do so and ( c ) even if they knew nothing of the history of the song or the singer, IF they'd actually listened intelligently to the lyrics.... ...they would have celebrated this great piece of music, cheered it as a shout-out to trans people everywhere, and been happy that such a timeless cool song was being played at their social event. Silly fools. ( as opposed to sensible fools...) Hey Lou...take a walk on the wild side.

You're right, Hibi, I'm pretty sure Eddie said it would be "Possessed". By the way, I didn't post anything on this thread this week because the Noir Alley pick for July 8 - which turned out to be "T-Men" (not "Possessed", as we expected) was not allowed to be shown in Canada.Instead, they aired a re-make ( sort of) of "The Letter", "Unfaithful", with Anne Sheridan. I liked it ok, but would have preferred the one everyone else ( everyone not in Canada) got to see. I hate, hate, HATE it when this stupid "No Canadian Rights" business comes up. Like tonight , they're airing "Foreign Correspondent". But not in Canada. Aaargh !

The Pyramus and Thisbe "drama" is presented as a play within a play in Midsummer's Night's Dream. And its setting is ancient Greece, its audience the aristocrats of the time. (Including the four main characters, the lovers who got lost in the magical woods.) It's intended to be a joke, an affectionate spoof of the "mechanicals" (labourers) who want to please their noble audience. True, Shakespeare was probably thinking of the above star-crossed lovers when he wrote R and J - along with at least four other sources.

He would have said he was happy to see how his classic story has remained a classic, in that it continues to resonate with audiences regardless of the times in which it's told - and retold. Shakespeare himself almost always used other,earlier stories as sources for his plays. Maybe Luigi Da Porta, who wrote Historia Novellamente Ritrovata di Due Nobili Amanti 60 years or so earlier, was appalled at the temerity of this brash young upstart, who had the nerve to "borrow" his story and alter it to suit his own style. If a tale is universal and timeless - as Romeo and Juliet is - it can withstand updates and changes in the times and places it's set in.

Yes ! Great way to put it.

I thought of that too, but was too delicate to say so. But yes, if they are miniature human beings, wouldn't they have what is discreetly referred to as "bodily functions"? In which case, a mason jar is not a good place for them.