Sgt_Markoff

Think of it like this: here I have a detective novel published in 1930; first filmed with very 'bright photography' in '31 and for ten years no one at all, regarded it as the arrival of a new means of storytelling. It was just hard-boiled pulp crime. Then in '41 its filmed with 'darker photography' (Huston), and now the exact same story is called 'noir'? Same story, just darker sets? That makes it a new form of narrative? No. Doesn't make any sense at all. Nope. That's just a visual, stylistic, photographic difference which puts it on someone's noir list.

The point is it that a detective story conceived long before noir had even arrived and which is structurally opposite from noir--its inclusion in any musing on 'dark' filmmaking is inappropriate to take as part of the 'founding' of the definition of noir. Its false and mistaken no matter who wrote it or when. This is the problem with being enslaved to dogma. No, I'm not taking on any airs--that period in France was rife with cinema-theory and not all of it has been engraved in gold, or used as a means to stifle analysis. There was a blizzard of words going on at the time. So, question what needs to be questioned; (especially when you can perform the analysis yourself and see that its wrong). Digressing. With regard to the 1930s, even Horace McCoy or James M. Cain would make a better argument than Dash Hammett. Yea, even from those two (much heavier-hitters than Hammett who has no noir at all in him, you can see the trace of noir in their actual words, no relying on photographed elevator-grate shadows) ...as I say, even evidence from those two only make a case for 'proto-noir'. The authors' ruminations are simply not definitive. Kicked off discussion but did not end it. Its not a question of 'style' or 'hard-boiledness' or 'dark photography'. Those are all red-herrings. Barely two of the six titles cited in the article might be considered noir. They're crime, mystery, detective, or drama. Put them alongside an actual noir and the difference would be starkly revealed. I say again: Maltese Falcon is about as far from noir as you can get and still play in the same ballpark. Its frankly ludicrous; its an embarrassing discussion.

What's with the expletives?

A good comedian never explains a joke...

I like a simple, 13" b&w, curved-screen, Magnaxox with rabbit-ears, myself. With a remote-control that doesn't work. No big media conglomerate can "cut its costs" in any way that affects me. In fact, I'm fine watching snow if I have to.

Count me as well a big fan of this flick!

I feel the reason for it is that life in metro NYC is emphatically *about* service. Dining, drinking, shopping--these are the main activities here--and so we are constantly focused on the quality of the service we receive. The instant it goes wrong we must pounce on it. You really do have to arrest it the moment it starts or you will be overcharged; your meal might be ruined; your guests might leave; etc. So we get very hawk-eyed about it. What this environment of intense scrutiny turns up, is actually a lot of bad service. The fast pace and the brusqueness; the density of the city and the impersonal attitudes grows poor waitstaff. So whenever we get outside the city and into the real world, NY'ers find it hard to drop the 'demanding' demeanor. We assume that more bad service awaits us elsewhere. But, it's not true. I am not a native so these are unbiased observations.

Very fine write-up. Y'know even though Holden is my fave male star and even though I like Sturges a LOT...I've never bothered to explore this film. Reason: its always sounded like just an overly-simplistic 'oater' to me; especially seein' as how John Carpenter based "Assault on Precinct 13" on it (?). But the OPs' sterling review makes me regret I haven't followed-through on this one.

Something's wrong then; maybe Granger was wearing lifts or heels or boots or something because he was a giant in person. His hair too. Huge, almost a bouffon 'do. Same thing with Christopher Plummer. His hands and even just his facial features--nose, jaw, cheeks, chin, brow--seemed almost comic-book caricature enormous.

Although I am not much a fan of Jane Fonda, I am a fan of James Caan and also Jason Robards. And the director too, is one I esteem. So I'd consider myself a fan of this movie. I rate it somewhat like "China 9, Liberty 37" from the same circa. The cinematography in both is very fine. But this particular flick goes in more for use of camera and lighting and scenery to give a 'gravitas of the American West' than does its rather meager storyline. In the writing, it's almost like an episode of 'Gunsmoke'. Just three characters in the foreground. Fonda plays a hard-bitten prairie woman who detests the ways of men. She's forced to accept the good-intentioned help from hired-hand James Caan when Jason Robards grabs her land. Its set in the 1940s; is one thing odd about it.

Farley Granger is one of the few big celebrities I've actually met in person. Shook his hand and got his signature. And when I say 'big celebrity' I mean 'big celebrity'. Its startling how tall this guy was; and the size of his enormous face, skull, and hairdo. Felt like shaking hands with one of the costumed characters who walks around DisneyWorld or McDonalds. He towered above everyone in the room.

Without doubt, the film I've watched the most is Ridley Scott's gorgeous "The Duellists". Its the kind of flick which for me is singular in that I can (and have) placed it on a loop in the player and simply let it play and replay all weekend long. Hours and hours, without every growing weary or impatient. The music and photography; the authentic wardrobes and lush French landscapes; the horses ...it's like being back in the 1800s (which is frankly where I'd always rather be, than here now). I've also done this with "Reilly: Ace of Spies" (Sam Neill); the art-docu film "Koyaanisqati"; "The Way Things Work" (German)...one other; what was it...oy yes, "Last Year in Marienbad". All these films seem to have no ending or beginning and lend themselves to cyclical viewing. But "Duellists" is surely the best.

New Yorkers are notorious in every tourist market around the world, as the globe's biggest whiners and complainers. It's totally true.

These look like videos to me. 135 pages worth. Way to crash my browser. Ten minutes of hourglass sand.

Lee Horsely IS Matt Houston Sparks Roadster. I don't know what kind of detective ever makes a salary able to support a lifestyle which includes a vehicle like this. Maybe ...Nash Bridges?

Written 1929 published 1930. USA officially enters WWII in 1941. If they can do math (huh!) they should know not to even try to argue its noir-ness.

Not enough brain cells to keep track of this stuff...

Ouff! I'm embarrassed. I thought this was a '65 Stingray. That's Nick Mancuso below.

Yay! Thanks! Aw what a honey. '63 right? I believe the white thing on her face is the slotted grill for outflow engine air. Its white because of sun glare.

It's just something that irks me I guess. I shouldn't have griped so openly about it. I need some ice cold medication soon.

They make a great protagonist/antagonist pair. If memory serves, they worked previously together in a film, too. Name it if you can --no help from the audience!

The Seven-Ups This blog says it all. https://thebillhickmanstory.wordpress.com/the-films/the-seven-ups-2/ (Bill Hickman), one of the top stunt drivers of all time. Responsible for Bullitt, French Connection; etc. Others in his skill tier are few: Remy Julienne... http://www.theitalianjob.com/cars_stunts.htm

DeathRace 2000

there's a nice Jag in Elmore Leonard's "52-Pickup" starring Roy Scheider, Ann Margaret (hubba hubba), and John Glover as the villain (below). A John Frankenheimer film, I seem to recall. May be the best director of thrillers ever? Anyway I can't find a pic of Scheider's jag. Below is the villain car.

^^^ I think you're right. Good job.