Sgt_Markoff

No, I honestly have no idea what it is; though I can glean a little from the context in which you've all talked about it so far. In all likelihood; some kind of SJW group on either Facebook or Twitter. Sigh. Yea, I generally pay attention only to things in life which matter to me. In this information age (mostly useless and unnecessary information) ignorance is sweet, sweet, bliss. It's not a novel approach to living. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau wrote eloquently about it, in the early 1800s. Love those guys.

So if a musician composes a piece of music and I play it according to his instructions, I'm not playing his composition?

Brough Superior SS100 TE Lawrence owned eight of them in succession; died on one; and was waiting for another on delivery when he died http://www.broughsuperiormotorcycles.com/the-ss100/history.html http://www.broughsuperiormotorcycles.com/world-of-brough-superior/george-broughs-legacy.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brough_Superior

Well...you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din...

Hey! I resemble that remark!

"Harlan County, USA" is another fine docu. One of the few movies ever to come out of conservative Hollywood ...about the great good and positive power of American unions.

People rely on some kind of 'guide' to help their TV viewing?

It makes my blood boil! Yes, we're of like mind on this point. You'll never find me in a crowd of pitchfork-wielding suburbanites calling for a committee to save our precious children, the sanctity of womanhood, etc. Whatever I privately feel about anything, I can't abide rule-mongers! I don't subscribe to Redbook or Good Housekeeping. Jean-Jacques Rousseau is my intellectual hero!

What a dog!

It's got to be 'Flipper'

p.s. Thankfully I'm unfamiliar with the hashtag group you mentioned. But, it doesn't sound like anyone I'd care to have a beer with....

You'r-r-r-re a har-r-r-r-rd man, McGee... Answer #1: no, I don't believe I change my own behavior to the extent you just described. If I involuntarily dislike something, I simply don't go out of my way to ever view it. But I don't rush through my home rooting out all the traces of the evidence. Answer #2: boycotting. N/A because I already boycott all sorts of media. Answer #3: Do I feel my own abnegation of an odious performer should be a policy adhered to by anyone else. NO. Nothing is more despicable to me (in today's culture) than the urge for censorship, redaction, or whitewashing.

Love Braverman! It was at least twenty years --since it was released-- that I first viewed it on television, it and I had no problems with its chronological age at that viewing. I'm pretty sure I could repeat the experience at any point in time and enjoy it just as much. Since when do we have such a disjunct from our own cultural history? Why do we regard our communal past as so 'alien'? I think that's wrong.

'Ars Gratia Artis' eh? Overt judgments can be refrained from, but internal judgments are another matter. There are still elements of deliberation, choice, and acquiescence. You are repeating someone else's movements when you play a chord they played themselves, recorded, and transmitted to you. I think its fair to agree that much music is not completely random; it is organized into a pattern and presents itself as containing meaning, open for us to interpret. Hypothetical: Let's say that someone wrote a piece of music which could physically cause ear damage to listeners. Let's say they wrote it expressly for this purpose. If so, you wouldn't play it. Straying pretty far from the topic of Raymond Burr here, I know-- but I stand by my gut reaction. Yes, I have been able to ignore the private lives of plenty of other artists as occasions have variously demanded. This specific instance? Nope.

True but only in the sense that the directors given the assignments to direct these gloomy, low-budget flicks, weren't self-consciously aware of the term 'noir' at the time. They didn't know that's what it would wind up being called. But the working methods they used, certainly yielded noir as a result. The prevalence of the resulting films all bearing the stamp of this specific aesthetic, was what caused the French critics to apply the label. I would demur too, on this point. It wasn't random or subjective as this; wasn't based on serendipity, happenstance, or coincidence. It happened because all the functional parts which we (now) know were essential to noir were in place and stayed in place; were repeated on each production. The wheel wasn't reinvented every time a new noir movie was embarked upon. As individuals, all the players and performers might have made any kind of movie; after all they were salaried studio contractors. What happened was more akin to medieval era atelier-style production or factory-floor production. The atelier or the factory gets a call for a certain kind of product and there's a set of constraints involved with the making of that product. Every single noir director didnt come up with his own individual solution; they all faced common hindrances like low-budget or the Hays Code or lack-of-equipment ....and howsoever directors solved problems on any individual movie the overall output subsumed it all together as 'directorial cleverness' which is a common feature of noir. (Not to digress, but the only thing which is really 'pan-genre' or rather, 'supra-genre' is comedy and tragedy. Everything else is debatable.) Back to point. The reason your remark here about 'style' doesn't make sense to me is that were noir 'a style 'applicable to other types of film' --this doesn't however, even make it apply to itself. This is because the internal components of noir are not ornamental; they're structural-functional. For example: "low budget" in the 1940s is not a 'style'; it wasn't 'chosen'--it was forced upon noir directors. It was a working constraint. The ingenious results came about in spite of it, not because of it. What you're rather saying is that I could narrate a noir story; casually or whimsically leave out one of the noir stylistic elements and that might render it something completely else. But 'stripping away' is not the true litmus test here. The logic should flow the other way, something like, "any film which doesn't have noir inherently can't have it added on". Because the production method itself structures noir into what it is. For instance. Noir being low-budget between '45 and '58 (bracket dates just for convenience) meant they had minimal lights and minimal camera set-ups. Minimal lights and set-ups meant the directors came up with certain kinds of camera angles to narrate the story. This working method then typified those productions. Conversely, a lavish historical costume drama *could* be shot in any random style (see Buz Luhrman) but not being a production forced to observe the same constraints (which noir did), the mere 'look' of the film won't clinch the point that it does. Lots of films can look similar to each other. They're still made differently. This is the same argument I have heard at length from science-fiction fans. SF addicts love to insist that some SF stories not necessarily possessing robots, aliens, time travel, (etc) ought better be called 'literary fiction'. The rebuttal of course is that SF is not classified as the genre which it is, based on any such a checklist. SF is SF based on its internal arrangement, its components; its internal structure. Above all it is how the story is told. Thus, I can make the same argument for noir. Noir is noir because of the production methodology; not because of 'what the noir story contains'. Other types of films differ in 'what they contain' but the way they were made, is what determines what kind of film they are; rather than style/appearance. Fine exchange-of-views here; enjoying hearing your side. Thanks!

Fun lists! Lots of old faves. I salute your familiarity with these titles. But it's pretty much as I suspected: there's either some kind of crime in every one of these; or else they can be taken simply as a 'suspenseful dramas'. Y'know, something is slightly odd about this whole line of reasoning: it's almost like its relying on inductive reasoning; basing the argument on 'examples' this way. I'll have to give this some thought. Its like one of those things that Aristotle talked about; whether an orange is simply a set of attributes or is there 'orangeness' that can be found anywhere else but...an orange? 'A equals B' but 'B does not equal A'? H'mmm. Anyway. If I can find the point I want to make here.. perhaps its that 'dark camerawork' and 'desperate characters' are not specific to noir. To my way of thinking film noir is a combination of almost a dozen precise ingredients all happening at once; and this makes it not a style that can be applied to much else. Although the term 'noir' may have been bandied about in the 30s; (after all its not that cryptic or obscure a concept) 'film noir' is a phrase which emanated from French critics of post WWII American films. That's the dope I always heard. I'm not claiming to have absolute knowledge on this point but I feel it's worth bearing in mind. Hypothetical question: can you take something like 'graphic horror' and characterize that as a style which can be lent to any other genre or sub-genre of film? No, right?

I have a particular yen for that movie. It has long been a guilty pleasure of mine. Stewart Whitman is far from my favorite actor--such a strange career he had--but in a way he's apt for the role he has here. I suppose some left-handed applause is due Netflix for this saturnine and inadvertent generousity on their part. On the other paw; I despise them for not offering so many, many other classics which by dint, they rightfully ought to. How can any movie outlet worthy of its name, hold its head up when they don't even offer classic James Bond flicks? Or classic horror? It's outlandish! I gave a friend my list of thirty personal favorite horror films this month and she couldn't fine even ONE using this service. Even a famous title like Nick Roeg's "Don't Look Now"! Not available! Can't be had! If I could go down to a Netflix office and grab some paunchy middle-manager media executive by the lapels, I would!

You'll grow to love that about me. I promise you!

Maybe it comes down to what we each as individuals, feel is 'over-the-line'. Maybe its an individual judgment call. For instance I might watch 'Will to Power' without a qualm. But I wouldn't watch 'Saw' or 'Human Centipede' or 'Last House on the Left the remake'.

I'd accept that on faith. But I'd like to hear some titles sometime, when you get a chance. Because I kinda feel that if you take away crime from noir you might wind up with straight drama; or "Neo-something" or "Proto-something" or plenty of other somethings. Do you have any titles in mind which you feel are exemplary noir without any crime involved? No rush.

'From Here to Eternity' is the all-time category leader, I think that's safe to say. 'The Americanization of Emily' with James Garner is one. Or, pick any one of the various versions of Hemingway's 'A Farewell to Arms'. Although it is said by some to not be very good, Bill Holden stars in 'Force of Arms'. 'Hanover Square' with Harrison Ford and Leslie Anne-Downe. 'Yanks' with Richard Gere. 'The War Lover' starring Steve McQueen and Robert Wagner.

I forget where I saw it, but some major list-making entity (like the UK Guardian, BFI, Sight-&-Sound, or some other organ like that where editors spend time making up lists) anyway I was both surprised and pleased to see this very recent modern-day list of greatest detective films from their site and 'Chinatown' not only topped the list; but the reviewers raved about it. Heaped paeans upon it. Called it 'far and away the best', called it the 'best of all time', etc. Really heart-warming. Will try to dig up the link and post it. edit: ah yes here it is https://tinyurl.com/ybtyfdly

Good luck! Mudcat is the go-to place for music lore. They are astounding, those guys. If you're looking for a bawdy 18th c. sea-shanty about cabin-boys getting keel-hauled, they probably know about it. I encourage you to scour that site thoroughly before giving up. Give your question a good long airing over there.

Okay but in some cases you can't separate an actor from the man he is in private life. If Burr didn't have self-control over his perverse urges, if he harmed people--I sure won't watch him. Acting is an intimate craft--maybe the most intimate. You are showing your inner truths. Making us partake of them. Delivering them right into our brains. It's personal. So if your private life is corrupt, twisted, and malevolent, maybe don't become an actor. Klaus Kinsky, Woody Allen--yes-- they are skirting the border too.

No. She's a 'has-been'. Forget her! Toss her on the scrap-heap! Relegated to TV!