Sgt_Markoff

Yeah. I've seen it and enjoyed it, as far as that goes. Competent; but nothing very spectacular. The similarities are there; except Heston's character is just an all-around he-man with not much personality or very much flair. He's just trying to get a good fee out of the strange assignment. And of course, it's not the only influence from which 'Raiders' was drawn. There's one memorable quip delivered by Hest. The frail with him, of course has a twisted ankle on the top of Maccu Piccu --wouldn't you know it--and so out of chivalry he is forced to inquire whether she wants him to carry her down the mountain. "Oh no, I wouldn't make you do that" "I'm glad you said that...!" (said with feeling) I believe this flick also leveraged 'Romancing the Stone'.

nice heap from Roger Moore & Tony Curtis' 1970 'The Persuaders' tv show Renault R4 yes, even a lowly Renault, looks better than almost anything made by car manufacturers today

I hope some little bird puts a word in my ear should I ever get too umbrageous around here. I've been told my 'typing voice' often sounds overly-lordly and stentorian. Like Professor Kingsley in 'The Paper Chase'. But that's not my intention, I assure you!

But this is one of the most correct definitions for the functionality of any genre, according to Cawelti and thousands of other critics who've written about genre fiction since the 1700s. The primary idea you've divulged to me so far (if I may paraphrase you without incurring any ire) is that you tend to dismiss objectivity in audiences. From your remarks here I suspect that is still your underlying point. If so, it'd be better to start there. But, I would say that what you are uneasy about 'being made up'...isn't made-up at all. It's drawn from the evidence. Anyone who approaches the task of assessing genres, invariably comes to some basic, fundamental, conclusions like this. You're free to recuse yourself, naturally. But then the question remains: does avoiding the analysis indicate you have another to substitute in its place? Or are we supposed to stand around with our heads drooping down on our chests and our hands down at our sides, resigned to perplexity in what is a fairly straightforward matter? Are you saying that 'film noir' is so weighty, ponderous, and complex we must accept defeat and admit that we can't define it? We put Neil Armstrong on the Moon but we can't identify various types of cinema? We might do this sometime; but I rather disagree with the methodology. As I said to Big Joe; the first thing to recognize is that we can't look to remove "noirish elements" like this, in order to get at some 'distillation' or 'reduction' of what it is. I advanced one such starting-point myself a few weeks ago, but that too, was probably speaking too glibly, rashly; and subjectively. Its an easy pitfall. But (re: your request) I also don't see why I'm 'put on the spot'. Noir studies has a rich, existing field of critical literature. Recall that a crony of mine even majored in this field. You can do the reading yourself. I can maybe point you to some titles. (I'm already digging through some old tomes on my own shelf in order to squelch the mirage that 'hard-boiled detective' can be noir). Good point. But I believe I've already 'come out against' (in another thread), the idea that a genre is defined by "what the plots might contain". Remember, I spoke of "how sci-fi does not stop being sci-fi merely if you remove all the aliens and robots". I still have some responses to read in that last weekend's discussions; I need some time to catch up to whatever Big Joe left off. I also don't want to get too agitated about this; I don't want to ram my views down anyone's throat. What is 'fun' for me (with my analytic turn-of-mind) is clearing up muddy waters; but not to the point of stepping on anyone's corns. To be continued...

trick question if you ever want to stump anyone is this a Mercedes-Benz or not? Hood ornament says yes; but car historians say no. Body lines do not match. the answer is that production designers 'mocked up' this phony vehicle for a movie in order to crash it. Pete O'Toole & Barbara Hersey in 'The Stunt Man' (one of my fave flicks)

Unnnghhhh. The infatuation with personal subjectivity is far too prevalent in many viewer's descriptions of the films they watch. Bad trend. After all, its not as if whatever you experienced watching this movie, (which maybe happened as a result of what you personally ate or drank that evening, or which was maybe the result of some childhood experience), 'goes' for the rest of us. When studying a book of film criticism, and suddenly arriving at a chapter about film noir, we can't halt and contact you to get your reaction. There's no sole, lone audience member who's opinion can stand for all. Subjectivity has to be taken out of it all this. We can't all sit inside your skull. Even if one blithely wishes to characterize a film as 'following a certain logic' (for them); a noir flick nonetheless has many qualities which viewers do react to uniformly; or near-uniformly. What truly matters is these more 'universal traits', when it comes to describing what a noir is. You can't often do this in cinema; and so we shouldn't veer away from it and insist on our individual reactions instead. Where does that get anyone? H'mmm? What prevents us from making a checklist for noir? What prevents us even, from singling out one primary quality of noir? Thanks to the unique structure of noir, its perhaps the only genre of cinema where we can do confidently such a thing. Remember, personal opinions do not constitute disagreement. If two people sit at a table and each of them speaks about 'what works for them'...'what they like' ...'what they dislike'...then, the entire matter ends when they get up and walk away. There's no contention between merely two opinions.

Thanks. Hey I have a fresh question (unrelated to anything above). Did Kate Hepburn and Bette Davis get along? I can't recall they ever worked with one another, right? If they did get along, why do we suppose that was? Why didn't they ever have a feud like Bette & Joan? Both Kate/Bette ...iron-willed termagants...

Anything that happened before the end of WWII whether in print or in film--anything 'proto-noir' --whether remarked on or not by writers in America or France--dismiss it. It all has the character of happenstance, chance, randomness, fluke, quirk, and coincidence. When you have a bunch of products all with similar degrees of darkness, grimness, and gloom--naturally the word 'black' or 'noir' is going to deployed on multiple occasions to describe them. The fact remains that 'hard-boiled' has nothing to do with noir. Its from an utterly different family lineage of literature; besides one predating the other. 'Hard-boiled' was born from other progenitors; and written with other goals in mind; not to mention coming from a completely different medium. If this is glaring obvious situation really remains occluded in doubt in anyone's mind; I can painstaking go over in detail, the origins of 'hard-boiled' to make my case. To my way of thinking, of all detective-types, 'hard-boiled' may even be the detective-style least similar to noir! Effective noir doesn't have society's 'professional troubleshooters' in the forefront, it always has amateur citizens. Yes, even if this discounts 'From Out of the Past' as a noir, so be it. Face up to it! Don't be a-skeered to challenge dogma! With regard to early precedents and proto-noir, think of it this way: if Henry Ford ever had the whim to label his famously all-black, early assembly-line Model-T Ford cars with a much sexier, snazzier label like 'Stingray'...would we today consider the clunker from that era, the definitive 'Stingray'? Nope. No way at all. The later model is the more advanced and it would be that model which deserves the name. Get on the right side of all this. Dusty, misbegotten, groping-in-the-dark articles from '30s France do not trump the power of what we can see with our own eyes using our powers of observation today. If someone slipped up way back then, don't simply repeat and compound their error for all-time to come. We can use our own faculties to determine the facts better, at this later date. (This is not always so in history; but in cinema it sure is).

Indeed. And technophobe that I am--believe it or not-- I myself used to work in 3D animation. It was exciting at first but then I grew to hate it. Anyway having been there, I pay little heed to all the hoopla--to my way of thinking, digital FX has been a disaster for credible-looking movies. The results are ludicrous. 300 Million dollar budgets which make flicks that look no better than 'made-for-tv'. Truly. Whenever I check out one of the latest blockbusters I have to turn away in involuntary revulsion. The 'realism' is a joke. It all looks as fake and as unconvincing as Monopoly money. Not sure what other people are seeing which makes them 'rave' so much; is it because they have no familiarity with the way good cinematography can actually immerse one in a film? Is cheap CGI all they've ever known, therefore they have no yardstick for quality? Fortunately I have found my opinions are not extremist at all. Roger Ebert, Walter Murch, Chris Nolan, and a slew of other knowledgeable authorities have come out in support of keeping things traditional. Excessive CGI is just studios vainly wanting to cut costs instead of paying talent what talent is truly worth. Links: Costs at 3D Movie Theaters Keep Rising, But What About Quality? https://tinyurl.com/zphftey Are small theaters punching their tickets... to oblivion? http://tinyurl.com/6hwo8au The 3-D trend: 'Rubber To Meet $ Road'? https://tinyurl.com/jbktull 20th C Fox to End Distribution of 35mm Films http://tinyurl.com/3hw9qq4 'T&O' (Teal-and-Orange digital color palettes) https://tinyurl.com/ybb7kv2 Post DVD Movie future https://tinyurl.com/6kokhks Why Today's Blockbusters Suck https://tinyurl.com/85edoyv 'The Gray Ones' ...fade to black (classic films vs modern) https://www.popoptiq.com/the-gray-ones-fade-to-black/ Spielberg & Lucas Predict 'Implosion' for current film industry http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/steven-spielberg-predicts-implosion-film-567604 Roger Ebert: Why 3-d won't work and never will http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/why-3d-doesnt-work-and-never-will-case-closed C. Nolan tries to persuade Hollywood not to abandon 35mm film stock https://tinyurl.com/h989qhy

Hum. How tragic and unfortunate that FX guy had to do some actual *work* in the course of his job.

TCM aired a very lurid flick earlier this evening; 'the Power' with an incredibly varied and top-notch cast. George Hamilton Suzanne Pleshette Michael Rennie Arthur O'Connell Earl Holliman Nehemiah Persoff Gary Merrill Yvonne De Carlo Aldo Ray What were they doing in this, I'm sure I don't know. A more motley crew could hardly be assembled (unless you're talkin' bout 'the poppy is also a flower') George Pal production. But truly a strange and heavy-handed SF/Horror flick indeed. Queasy.

Bah. Ulp. No. Me, I never liked that program; never could tolerate more than a few minutes of it. Felt it was lame. Same reaction to 'South Park', 'Seinfeld', 'Beavis & Butthead', 'Lost', Gray's Anatomy, Dexter, CSI, The Wire, Breaking Bad, Sopranos, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Big Bang, Bachelor, Kardashians, Will & Grace, Family Guy, King of Queens, King of the Hill, Futurama,....pretty much name all these so-called 'hot' show and I disliked it. Despise TV programming. Every time I happen to view one of them accidentally (at someone's house or whatever), they seem incredibly pointless and irrelevant; garish; gaudy; improbable and contrived; unconvincing; poorly-written and poorly-acted.

I remember one of the first cinema fan-sites which came out on the web, had a 'virtual' concession-stand in a 'virtual lobby'. From the comfort and convenience of your keyboard and mouse, (& Gateway monitor) you could purchase 'virtual' Goobers and Raisinets, popcorn, etc. Of course you couldn't eat any of this virtual food but while you chatted about movie-trivia you could....well, I don't know. Imagine eating these tasty treats? That's about how seriously I take all this kind of thing.

Das Boot

Beat me daddy, Eight-to-the-bar...

"The Ghost and Mrs. Muir" tonight. Rex Harrison was a handsome devil wasn't he? He should have sprouted a beard more often. What a strange persona. Gene Tierney, fetching of course...but I prefer her as a villain. At least tonight no one sitting next to me called her "Jane" Tierney. Augh! Mediocre viewing all the same this evening. Because even worse, another Don Knotts outing. Only two weekends ago, it was "The Incredible Mister Limpet". What's up with that, I'm sure I don't know. I'll stick to radio this weekend. I can't hang out in a bar until 12 am when "noir alley" starts. And its a good one tonight too. "Follow Me Quietly". Dang! Why can't TCM put dogs like Don Knotts on at 12 am and put hard-hitting crime flicks on at 9pm when decent, God-fearing folks are following doctor's orders to stay hydrated on a Saturday night? Oh well. Eh. I did learn tonight where the rumor of Ben M's "Hollywood background" comes from. His great uncle, Joseph M? Sorry no. Brrrrzap. Doesn't count! Anyway. Thanks for the kindly words Jazz Man. Y'know, I've been called a lot of things since the development of the internet but 'breath of fresh air' is a novel one, I must say. I hope these serendipitous sobriquets don't wind up sticking in anyone's craw. Heck, I usually do alright on a forum, if I can avoid being thrown out on my ear! 'Noir experts' ...I put you on notice ...you may come to regret extending me such open-armed bonhomie. I promise you!

What am I good at? Oh these little scribbles? Well I thankee for that kind word. But there's quite a handful of facile and eloquent film reviewers on this forum I've seen so far. TopBill'd stands out for sure--but there's others too. That guy who reviewed 'Escape from Fort Bravo'--which I read on friday--now that was a doozy! The real struggle of course is taking place between myself and 'CigarJoe' in the noir section. That's shaping up into a very enjoyable ideological clash of wills. He's an articulate guy and I'm at pains to ensure he knows this is all in good, clean, fun as far as I'm concerned. I'm simply a purist when it comes to noir! And I'm tenacious about it. Whichever way it wends, its the meatiest discussion I've enjoyed in some time. I admire a man who sticks to his ground, as he does. Hear that, Cigar Man? I'm talking to you! Getting ready now --showered and changed--to venture out and see what's playing at my 'TCM bar'. Its blustery here tonight in NYC. Really good burger is waiting for me up the street. The only thing bad about it is --and you are sure to hear about this from me in future--other patrons drinking/eating at my elbow who do not know what they're looking at on screen and who make all sorts of daft guesses about what they're viewing. As a classics fan it is tough to endure. Hearing someone confuse Don Knotts with Don Rickles or someone stating firmly that Lauren Hutton stars in 'White Lightning' when instead she appeared in 'Gator' instead. Nails on a blackboard!

In all fairness TCM is really the only kind of television I'd even be interested in watching anymore, at this point in my adulthood. Its the only channel I'd trust; of course I don't have any familiarity with all these other services which I'm sure are all well and good. I just don't like being dependent on these faceless companies and their faceless minions. You get to liking something too much and sooner-or-later you're shafted because they take it away, or change it. The horror of what happened over at AMC...sad. The bottom line for me is that I don't want any cable service in my home, since it means accepting all the other nonsense which comes along with owning a television. Helpdesks, accounts, passwords, wires and cords, bills-arriving-in-the-mail; remote-controls; program guides...commercials...etc etc etc. I do have two TVs in my little den; actually. One is the aforementioned Magnavox 13". Pre-cable era. It's in the kitchen, on a wall-mount up in the corner of the ceiling. Left there by a previous tenant. It receives a few local channels; public-access stations and the like; and its always good for white-noise as I mentioned earlier. The other is a more-modern, Sony, 23" curved screen, which sits in my wardrobe under my laundry. Ha! Its cable-compliant but I keep it around only for the possible occasion that I should want to insert a DVD I may still have lying around. That urge is very rare these days: I am much more of a book-reader than I am comfortable with passive, electronic media. It makes me squirm and fidget to sit idly on a sofa with my eyes locked on a glass tube. Feels Orwellian and mindless. Life's too short to spend it endlessly watching made-in-Taiwan screens and monitors. Until two years ago, I hadn't viewed TCM in probably the preceding ten years. I'm a work-a-holic and I'm 100% absorbed by my career. But then two yrs ago, in my neighborhood, a corner bar unexpectedly changed hands and went from a dive to an upscale jazz restaurant. And in keeping with this classic aesthetic, they only play TCM on one lone, bar TV; perched above the bottles. Most other pubs --as you probably know-- usually play sports or news (despicable! I avoid such garbage-media like plague). So there you have it. Only by fortuitous chance do I find myself regularly watching movies again. If it was any other type of fare, I would turn my back to it and imbibe my Rx medicinal extracts (which arrive direct from Scotland and Ireland in large cases) gazing out at the shoppers and strollers. But yeah this is how I've gotten somewhat back in the swing of things.

Watched Burt Reynolds, Matt Clark, Bo Hopkins, Jennifer Billingsley, and Ned Beatty in "White Lightning" on TCM last night whilst enjoying some pizza. I liked the pizza, but didn't like the movie. Ugh. Simplistic plot; but also much too "boondocks" for my taste. And there's just something at times, really seamy and unsavory about Burt Reynolds in more than a few of his flicks. He just ...'smirks' too much. I'll take him as Print Asper in 'Gunsmoke' but leave his films mostly unviewed.

Its one more additional reason I don't watch media anymore. The commercialization is pervasive, to an insane level. Its just not good mental hygiene to be constantly bombarded by nonstop advertising. Maybe I'd be easier about it if I resided somewhere else besides NYC. But here in my town, you are "shrink-wrapped" by ads ...at all times ...whenever you're out in public. There's ads on the sides of buses and trains; ads on the insides of buses and trains. Ads on the tops of taxi-cabs passing by; and if you get in a taxi there's a little TV screen embedded into the seat facing you. There's ads beamed by lasers onto the sidewalks outside storefronts; right under your feet as you walk. Hanging signs, stretched on strings, between storefronts and lamp-posts above the sidewalk. And in all the shop-windows. Train stations and bus stops of course. Even the stairs and railings on staircases in a train station. Skyscrapers have giant blinking displays all around their facades, up to about the 3rd or 4th story above ground. People dress in ads--everyone's shirt or hat, has a slogan or saying. Aisles in stores. More walking on ads. Of course, coming across the loudspeakers too. (You have to wear earplugs or headphones anytime you shop). If you avoid public transportation and drive your own car--well, some companies send out fleets of ad-vehicles which drive up right alongside of you, on the expressway. Finally, in desperation --you gaze up at the sky and what do you see? Planes skywriting ads or hauling banners around the city. So: no TV for me. No way.

Detectives: for instance if you were going to argue that detective literature equates to --or can be substituted for-- noir; you might start by listing (in Will Wright fashion) various detective models. This is just one way to do it. This is what I invited someone to attempt earlier, yesterday I think. But it still leads nowhere. Look: detective as 'knight' (ably stated by Raymond Chandler) detective as 'scientist' (supportable with examples, at first) detective as 'gentleman' (Dorothy L. Sayers articulates this idea) detective as 'thief' or 'gentleman thief' (can be supported by examples at first) detective as professional / workman / operative occult detectives others ...if you see what I mean. None of these equate to the prototypical 'noir' hero; who is first and foremost an 'everyman'. 'Detective' is rarely 'everyman'.

Groan-n-n-n. There's really no such thing as 'noir' writing, Film noir is a cinema trend. You can't write any prose that generates a true noir effect. This is part of the well-known distinction between books vs film; long established and well nigh bulletproof. (Its one reason why I dislike even arguing about Hammett vs Cain and McCoy; because fundamentally none of them are 'writing' noir.) Anyway, forget whatever French articles you've clinging to: its all erroneous. Its either been misunderstood or misinterpreted; or they actually got it wrong at the time. At that early date, very easy to levy an overly-broad definition for the new phenomenon they were encountering; it was too early for them to know what they were talking about. p.s. 'Hard-boiled' detective fiction 'different' than 'traditional detective' fiction? This itself is a deep question which might take a whole weekend to pore over. The differences you're probably talking about are not the ones which matter: the structural ones. That's where you'd have to make your analysis, are you ready to do that? Off the cuff? Let's plunge in sometime then. I predict that even at the end of such a debate, there's no difference that will assist what you're currently arguing. Detective is not noir; no matter the various "categories" of detective literature.

Will do. But here's a very plain reminder why its always been important to keep fiction genres, clear, distinct, and firmly separate from one another. If there was no other reason to separate Hammett from noir (other than what I am about to show you), there'd be this famous debacle to stand as a cautionary example for all time. Overview: https://tinyurl.com/m5yhfbo See below for detail. Basically, this is what happened when science fiction was growing up. Hack SF authors cranked out space-oaters which were thinly disguised westerns and the genre was subsequently floundering. It was so bad that the publisher of Galaxy magazine had to use the back cover of his first issue as a 'manifesto' against space-operas. Here it is: If you don't keep genres clearly distinguished from one another (whether its 'SF' vs 'western' or 'detective' vs 'noir') all genres accordingly suffer. Lumping noir and detective together should make your flesh creep! Its just wrong on the face of it to ever mislabel one for another. And its even worse when they are structurally nothing like one another. They're not even the same media.

A world without contradictory opinions would be mighty dull. This is just healthy, spirited debate; no rancor at all. Next proposition: you could also re-frame the entire thing this way: ask, would any researcher who has written about the history of the detective novel (such as T.J. Binyon or Charles Brownson) agree that the great pulp detective authors were writing noir--15 yrs before film noir appeared? Should we assume that the detective tradition has no pride or integrity of its own, and its practitioners are fine allowing themselves to just be absorbed across a genre-boundary like this? It has no sanctity of its own? Maybe I'll contact Brownson and put this to him sometime, he's a crony of mine. I never have done do before, because it always seemed rather obvious what he'd say. Detective authors were writing detective fiction and it was a noble calling all its own.

Heh heh heh! But I know for a fact right this moment, I can get up, walk over to my Magnavox, and watch snow if I wish. I had some on a couple weeks ago while I was making stew. I don't have any kind of cable or dish or nuttin'. And I aims to stay that way, ma'am!