Makeup Blogs

Bellour, The Obvious and the Code
This reading was interesting, but at the same time I found myself waiting for it to end. I would have never viewed the car scene in this way, and didn't think it had nearly this much meaning or importance behind it. The part where he discusses how Vivian is viewed longer and in better lighting than Marlowe, who seems to blend in a bit with the background. It's fitting because this is when we begin to learn the truth about Vivian and her part in this entire scheme. Although the camera seems to favor her, Bellour also mentions that Marlowe is the only one speaking in the frames by himself, but we can hear both Marlowe and Vivian talk when she is framed alone. This shows his importance in her life whether he is seen or not, and how he plays a role behind the scenes.


Schrader Notes on Film Noir
This reading was very interesting and probably my favorite one from this class. Film noir is a fascinating type of film, and like Schrader said, it is one that has gone mostly unnoticed until recently. The realism and gritty undertones seen in these movies, along with other classic noir elements like lighting and use of shadows make these films more interesting than the flashy action movies that are popular today. Back then it was about getting a point across, and using your creativity to make a exciting, yet though invoking film. The emergence of the femme fatale during this time was also very important, because it allowed women to break out of their stereotypical roles and become the antagonist and branch out. One statement made in the article that I found interesting was the comment on how water is used a lot in film noir. I have seen many films, but never actually noticed this quality. However, thinking back I have realized than many films have water as a subtle, yet prominent theme. Either through rainy scenes, or wet streets after a rainy scene, rivers, or pools.

auteur theory

An auteur theory is what reflects the directors creative vision.  An auteur is developed over time, its personality and character, it does not come out of the blue.  I agree on Wollen that directors should not be close minded it is essential to consider more than one opinion or idea in their development of films.  Another key element on auteur theory is the idea of a "camera pen", the idea that directors should wield their cameras like writers use their pens and they should not limit their imagination to traditional narration.  What makes a director unique is their openness to new forms of portraying their message though their films 

Wollen and Auteur Theory

The Wollen article was interesting to me because it was over motifs. Motifs in my opinion are the formal element that I have enjoyed learning about the most in class. Wollen uses the article to talk about how directors use motifs in films do define and give way to particular things. I thought it was interesting to see Wollen’s Auteur Theory. Before I really didn’t have much knowledge about Auteur theory was. I figured that it was through the vision of the director and the director only, and I was also interested to find out that Auteur theory also involves the viewers as well. I thought that the entire creativeness and all the unique things that go into a film were all involved in Auteur theory. One thing that I found interesting and caught my eye was the debate between the auteur theory and metteur en scene. I didn’t really come away with a clear understanding as to what Wollen was trying to discuss. I understood that there was some discrepancy between the two, but never came across a clear and definite answer.
Like many others I also enjoyed reading Hawks example of auteur. I don’t have much knowledge or background of any of Hawks films besides the film The Big Sleep that we watched in class. There were many different motifs that went along with the movie. I did some further reading and learned about a technique called the “MacGuffin”, a type of plot device that Alfred Hitchcock made famous. In The Big Sleep Hawk used a technique similar by creating the character of Shawn Regan. Regan has suddenly disappeared after spending a long time working for General Sternwood. Although the General is concerned about Regan, he is more concerned about stopping the renewed blackmail

Wollen and Auteur Theory

"What the auteur theory argues is that any film, certainly a Hollywood film, is a network of different statements, crossing and contradicting each other, elaborated into a final 'coherent' version."

I think that statement pretty much sums it up. In Wollen's article, he draws upon the auteur theory and the many implications from which it derives, everything from the creative vision of the director to the breakdown of codes and even a conscious effort on the part of the spectator to understand the meaning of the text. I like how Wollen used lots of examples, particularly Hawks' films (because we have already viewed one of his films, making it all the more easy to identify those structures of auteur theory).

I also enjoyed the beginning part of the article where Wollen put the auteur theory into a historical context. In this way, I think it is easier to track the roots and development of such a critical piece of film analysis and makes it not only more thorough, but also more conclusive.

Auteur

Before reading the Wollen article, I thought that an auteur was a director who had creative input in all realms of the filmaking process, not strictly limited to directing. What I gathered from Wollen's article on the Auteur theory, is that that my previously held view of the definition of the auteur is a predominantly European view. He also makes it clear that although we have a potential definition and concept of the auteur, it is not conclusive. He specifically mentions the controversy between conflicting definitions between the auteur and a metteur en scene. An auteur's meaning through film is constructed a posteriori (after the fact) where a metteur en scene creates meaning a priori (before the fact). Now while this makes sense as a concept, I don't fully understand how this can be determined or definite and why one may be valued above the other. I hope we take some time in class to go over these concepts and look at some examples.
I also enjoyed his use of Hawkes as an example of an auteur. Although I have not seen any of the Hawkes' films he mentions in the article (other than The Big Sleep), I was able to use The Big Sleep as a jumping off point to help me conceptualize his use of motifs and themes throughout his vast array of work. Through this example, I came to understand that the auteur theory was more focused on the continuity throughout a director's work in terms of their style and motifs. Wollen makes this clear toward the end of the article by saying "what the auteur theory does, is take a group of films, the work of one director and analyze their structure." The auteur theory is important because it allows for critical analysis of a full body of work of a director, understanding their lasting importance and impact in the world of cinema.

Response to Auteur Theory

I had always believed that the auteur theory only extended to the vision of the director, and that it implied that everything within the film was methodically constructed and placed there for a specific purpose to create meaning. Thus, I was equally shocked when the article revealed that the auteur theory is not limited to the director itself. It very much involves the active decipherment on part of the viewer, in order to decode the ultimate meaning of the film, which at times is obscured by the introduction of other elements and often unconsciously placed by the director themselves.

I find it very interesting that the underlying principle of the theory is to uncover the motifs present in a group of films of a specific director and then analyze that structure. I find this even more appropriate now when I think of films by the Coen Brother, and how the themes in many of their films are constructed within a dark comical world, characterized by miserable people and money motivated murderers, where the women are usually the last ones standing.

The end of the article explains, "it is an illusion to think of any work as complete in itself, an isolated unity whose intercourse with other films, other texts, is carefully controlled to avoid contamination." After reading this article, I realize that taking a critical eye is necessary when analyzing films within a specific auteur's repertoire. Without doing so would only reveal a piece of the whole, leaving meaning obscured and overall appreciation diminished for variations within a repeated message.

Auteur Theory

Wollen's article on auteur theory was quite interesting. I studied this in both Nazi cinema and a German film noir type class I have taken, and I find it very interesting. In the past we only talked about German auteurs and the really emphasized that the auteur was the sole created of the product. The directed, produced, and sometimes even starred in their films. Individuality and personal creativity were stressed at the time that auteurs were allowed in early German cinema. This article focuses on American auteur cinema, and the fact that it cannot be solely one person's idea, but instead that one person has certain motifs or styles that are repeated throughout films. These styles are what we should focus on when calling someone an auteur and not so much the individual movies. This concept was a little confusing to me because for so long when I thought of an auteur I thought of someone who created an entire movie and was able to control almost all aspects of it. However in this article it seems to encourage people to focus more on the repeated aspects of a filmmaker instead of looking at each film individually.

Auteur Theory

In his article on auteur theory Wollen discusses auteur theory as a way in which directors use certain motifs throughout their films to give their work a defining structure. I found Wollen's explanations of gender as a motif by certain directors to be extremely intersting. Wollen discussed Hawks thoroughly and pointed out how in many of Hawks's movies there is underlying homosexuality, the ideal social group is an all male group, and how often males are being humiliated and dominated by women. Through the motif of a homosexual like, weak man and a domineering woman Hawks says something misogynistic about women as a whole. They are undesireable to the ideal community of his film. Additionally, Hawks was not the only director who used gender as a motif to undercurrent his films with messages that were less than respectful towards women. Wollen discusses how in Boetticher's films women have no real significance. They are valuable only as a provoker or vehicle for male action. Finally, in Ford's films women are nothing but domestic drudges trapped in a life of subordination and service. Although Ford's women do a little better by being sentimentalized; three influential and great directors have as central components of their auteur misogyny in one way or another.

Wilder Interview

I really enjoyed reading the interview with Billy Wilder. Although I could not relate to everything he said as I have not seen all his movies, like "The Apartment" and "The Emperor's Waltz," I have seen quite a few of his movies. I especially loved hearing him talk about Audrey Hepburn as she is one of my favorite actresses of all time. He describes how she had a one of a kind "X" factor, and he also attributes this "X" factor to Marilyn Monroe, and I agree completely. I fall in love with Audrey Hepburn when I watch her unlike any actress I watch in the movies today, and I fell in love with Marilyn Monroe in a very similar way when I watched "Some Like It Hot." I also thought it was interesting how Wilder preferred black and white over color, and even when almost everyone else was using color still used black and white for "Some Like It Hot." I found the idea of timing jokes also very interesting. I found "Some Like It Hot" to be such a funny movie, and I especially enjoyed the scene with the maracas, in which we find out "Daphne" is engaged, so I thought it was really cool that one of the reasons I found it so entertaining was because it was timed, and that this timing was inspired by the Marx brothers. Finally, I thought the personal anecdotes were hilarious, especially the one about how he couldn't pee and the one about calling six girls and pissing off his screen writer after too many martinis.

Schatz and Genre

In his article on genre Schatz discusses how genre actually has little to do with setting, but much more to do with characters and how they embody certain cultural types. He uses the example of "The Hardy Girls" to show that setting does not make a Western, but instead the idea of a hero coming in to either save or ruin a place and eventually leaving, makes a Western. Further reflecting upon these points, he explains that the reason genre films are so popular and abundant, despite the fact that they follow linear, predictable plots, is because they speak to timeless conflicts that can not be as casually "solved" as they are in these films. Schatz touches upon how we as an audience enjoy exploring these conflicts that are either present in our own lives or completely foreign to us. However, I think the popularity of the genre film runs deeper than this. As audiences we do not simply enjoy the genre film because we get to explore a cultural sector's problems and attitudes, we enjoy the genre film because we get to see a cultural sector's problems and oppossing attitudes solved and resolved, and we, more often than not, get to see people live happily ever after. Movies have always been an escape, and in exploring timeless problems we all can relate to on some level or another, what is more escapist than the classic happily ever after ending of the genre film?

Auteur Theory

Although auteur theory is explained very clearly in Wollen's article, I find it difficult to comprehend through simple writing. Having never seen the film discussed it was difficult for me to understand how auteur theory was shown. However, I found his description of auteur theory and how it was used and has lasted very interesting. It seems that directors who have mastered auteur theory are films that one can instantly recognize a distinguishing aspect about, since the director is the "author" of the film, despite being only one of many people involved. It is their vision and understanding that comes through in the film.

The Auteur Theory

I found it interesting that the auteur theory was not so much another method of approaching art, but something of an unconscious style. The individual is the one under scrutiny, and it is a body of work, not simply one piece that is examined. The exploration into the methods that Howard Hawks employed in his films was fascinating. The way he created stories was broad, but what linked them were the motifs. This is the basis of auteur theory and what sets it apart from other art. It is not necessarily what the film itself is trying to say, but what the artist is preoccupied with and expresses through the film, possibly without even realizing it. This is not what I had originally understood the auteur theory to be. This film style survived, as it was said in the reading, because it was indispensable. I believe it was theorized during that early period of cinema, because cinema as we now understand it had been around just long enough for directors to build a body of work and see the pattern of motifs. The auteur theory is something that cannot be dismissed from the cinematic process, nor should it. it can now be seen celebrated in the workds of modern directors such as Tarantino and Scorsese, both of whom have distinctly individual focuses and cinematic styles. Scorsese, I think, would be the most interesting and prevalent modern comparison to the reading's analysis of Howard Hawks. Though he has a body of work that is usually associated with violence or the mafia, he has made vastly different films such as "Kundun" and documentaries like "Shine a Light." The auteur theory allows an organic type of life to continue to run through the film industry, even as it seems that they may be running out of ideas.

Schraedar and Film Noir

Before coming to class I was still somewhat confused as to what exactly Film Noir was. I had a general ideal, but still had a little bit of confusion. I liked the fact that Film Noir was described more so as a style than classifying it as a genre. Typically when I think of genre, I think of music and the many genre that fall within music. At times there are way too many, and some tend to get lost along the way. When I think of something being classified as a style I think of something in particular that is distinguished from the rest, and that’s what I think the article was trying to do. When we talked about Double Indemnity and how Film Noir was used, such techniques as lighting, tone, and the mood of the film where all characteristic of Film Noir and were also illustrated in the film.
After going over those techniques in class, those almost immediately stood out to me. In the scene where Walter Neff was ringing the door bell to come in and how he was cast by a shadow, then as Mrs. Dietrichson is coming up to the banister and the lighting techniques that were involved in their entire first meeting, where all things that Schraedar talked about as being a part of Film Noir. One thing that struck me as interesting and ironic was the elements that went along with the film being shot during the time of World War II. One thing Prof. Lopez touched on that I didn’t notice was that during WWII food supply was very scarce. One thing that was shown in the Wilder film was the fact that the supermarket shelves were packed with food. Its Film Noir techniques such as that one in particular that would have gone unnoticed if it had not been brought to my attention.

Wilder Interview

I also thought the Billy Wilder interview was the most interesting article that we have read to date. One thing that stood out to me that others also mentioned, was how open Wilder was with the information that he shared. In most interviews that I’ve seen, I’ve seen a mixture of people willing to disclose handfuls of information, and then on the other hand I’ve seen instances where people aren’t willing to share much information at all. Wilder wasn’t shy about “airing the dirty laundry” of the actors at all. He was brutally honest and made sure if people wanted to know particular answers to questions, he made sure that he told exactly how he felt about the situation.
In the film Double Indemnity, he tells why he chose such things as the house and the roles that the characters played and their significance. After reading the interview and going over the notes we went over in class, the film had a whole new meaning to me. One thing that stood out to me was the fact that Wilder seemed to be a risk taker! He didn’t seem to care too much about what people said or thought about him, let alone what was said or thought about the films he made. He would go out and seek out actors and actresses that he thought would be suited best for the particular film he was doing at the time. He was interested in getting the glory and fame or winning an Oscar. In my opinion he more so made the choices he did because they were his, and whether or not Hollywood approved of them, at the end of the day they were his OWN.

Wilding entertaining Interview with Wilder

I found the interview piece this week the most interesting and entertaining. One thing that stood out for me the most was home openly critical Wilder was about some of his leading actors and his staff. He describes their addictions, suicides and death very explicitly. Although most are likely to be posthumous descriptions, it still was somewhat provocative. In most interviews you read currently, the interviewee would calculate and plan their answers as to not offend or receive any negative reactions because of it. I found Wilder to be extremely honest and candid in his answers, which was refreshing. Especially for our generation, we don’t have much experience with these amazingly important historical figures in film so the first hand accounts really bring them to life.
I walked into the beginning of “Some Like it Hot” last week a few minutes late so I missed the opening credits, there fore not knowing what film we were watching until about half way through when the characters are talking about jazz music and Joe says “Some like it hot”. Throughout the entire film I kept looking at the Jerry/Daphne character wondering where I had seen him before. I knew that I had not seen many films from this period, so I thought that possibly I was mistaking him for someone else. It wasn’t until about half way through that all of a sudden the though popped into my head, “It’s the guy from Grumpy Old Men!”. It was such an interesting moment because I has always thought of Lemmon as the actor who plays all the old men. Hearing Wilder talk about him as one of his favorite actors really put into perspective Lemmon’s long film career way before our time, and also give him tremendous credit for having such longevity in the film industry.

Cameron Crowe on Billy Wilder

I found the interviews done by Cameron Crowe very interesting. Having seen several of the movies they discuss, it is fascinating to hear some of the insight of Wilder and the small techniques and tricks he used to make the films what they are. For Double Indemnity he discusses why he chose that house specifically and how he chose certain actors to play a part. He also talks about why he chose to shoot Some Like it Hot in black and white, explaining that most people actually forget the film is not in color after several minutes and that the content of the film is far more important.

Many articles about film discuss what certain types of film are and why specific techniques are used, but I found it far more interesting to hear from a directors point of view why he chose to use these techniques, the thought processes behind them and their purpose within the picture.

Cameron Crowe interviews

I really enjoyed reading the interview of Billy Wilder, it was nice to hear his opinions of his films and of Hollywood at the time. The part I enjoyed most was when Crowe asked if he took German expressionism and used it in his movies. I took a German film class last semester and we covered German expressionism. I went back and watched Double Indemnity again, and I could see some of the themes like the use of lights and contrasting between dark and light in this film also.

I liked that Wilder said he liked to take chances with his films and wasn't too worried about that others said. He picked actors and actresses that he thought would be best for the roles regardless of whether they were famous or not, and he didn't worry about other people's criticisms. He knew what he wanted and didn't compromise, which is not something that always happens in Hollywood. His films seem to go against the grain, which I think makes them even more remarkable. With Double Indemnity the idea of having a woman and the supposedly "good" guy be the murderers was risky, but Wilder took that chance and made a great movie. Also with Some Like It Hot, he said that Monroe questioned his use of black and white but he just blew it off and went on with the film, and although it would have been interesting to watch in color, I think black and white makes the viewer pay more attention to the movie.

Schatz... and a whole lot of Grammar

Schatz's article, which was so heavily focused on grammar in the initial phase, could have used some refining itself. For one, his description of the difference between genre and genre film was a bit hazy- they sound pretty similar to me. I did, however, like his analysis of how film genres are constantly refined. This might be the result of changes in economy, technology, or even the morphing values of society. Whatever the reason may be, I can definitely see how a horror film such as Psycho is not exactly the same genre of a horror film like Saw for example. Regardless, however, we develop certain expectations within the larger umbrella of genre- and those establish the foundation for the genre's "rules."

What was really rather perplexing was Schatz's whole discussion of film in terms of semiology. Although I felt his comparison (which said something similar to a linguist studying utterances is the same as a critic studying genre) was a bit of a stretch, I felt that the following line just about summed it all up: "Thus a genre can be studied, like a language, as a formalized sign system whose rules have been assimilated, consciously or otherwise, through cultural consensus." But as thorough as that thought may be, the depth of the "grammar of film genre" left me not all too thrilled. Guess I'm just not a fan of grammar in the first place.

Response to Thomas Schatz

I agree with David’s analysis of the article. The beginning of the “Film Genre and the Genre Film” left me a little lost. It was difficult to grasp what the distinctions between film genre and genre film were, especially due to the fact that both titles utilize the same words and were easily jumbled in my head. Regardless, I found it interesting how Schatz addressed the versatility of genre itself. I found the explanation of ‘determinate’ and ‘indeterminate’ genres especially intriguing. According to Schatz, “Determinate genres [are] entered by an individual or collective hero, at the outset, who acts upon it, and finally leaves” (698). Meanwhile, “Genres of indeterminate space generally involve a double (and thus dynamic) hero in the guise of a romantic couple who inhabit a ‘civilized’ setting, as in the musical, screwball comedy, and social melodrama” (698). I think analyzing the genre within these two separate categories can reveal plenty about understanding the structure of a film. I never considered that conflict is just as persistent in indeterminate films as well as determinant; though its weight is shielded by a “civilized, ideological stable milieu” which helps to construct the narrative. Thus, as the conflicts of westerns and detective film are determined by the volatile environment, the same is influence by normalized society within films of indeterminate genres. I hope to keep this analytical viewpoint in mind next time I view a film like The sound of Music or Oklahoma.

Film Genre and the Genre Film

Schatz’s article on “Film Genre and the Genre Film” was a bit confusing at first, but later on in the article he started to explain a few things more clearly. The confusion put forth within the first few pages can be attributed to, in my opinion, the “language and grammar” characteristics of genre. These two topics in any communication reading are what I fear most, but his descriptions of character and plot were much clearer in getting his point across. For example, his descriptions of the differences in films that take place in the old west were the most interesting. He made distinctions between Western movies involving the lone hero (for example, Wyatt Earp) and Western films that include resolutions of conflict through song (for example, The Harvey Girls). While both movies take place in the old west, the two films resolve conflicts and portray conflicts in completely different ways. Basically, both films portray the Western Film setting, yet only one of the films truly encompasses the spirit of the Western Genre. Still, even without reading this article, I feel like I already had a grasp on the differences between the film genre and the genre film, but this article certainly furthered my knowledge of it.

Film Noir

Film noir is a style of film that sets it's tone by using light and contrasts of black and white. It is realistic and an artistic movement that was a response to WWII. "Double Indemnity" is a film noir movie. Because I watched "Double Indemnity" before I read this article I was struck throughout my viewing of the film by a) that the movie was in black and white, b) the contrasts between black and white the film uses and how these contrasts set tone and reflect dialogue, and c) how I did not find the mistress very appealing. Upon reading this article I was able to appreciate how the semi unappealing mistress and the contrasts and well as the black and white reel, the three things that were most obvious to me watching the film, came together to create a larger system and style. Also upon reading the historical motivations and ideas behind film noir, I was able to make sense of why in fact Phyllis was not very attractive. Film noir is supposed to be about realism and honesty, it's supposed to give us a stark and accurate reflection of the world we really live in. In this honest system why would an evil, murderous, cheating women be someone we aspire to know and lust after? Although Walter does, the system of lighting and music makes her slightly unappealing to the audience, helping us NOT get lost in the seductress's beauty, but see her for what she honestly is, a disgusting sociopath.

Schraeder & Film Noir

I found Schraeder's article on Film Noir very helpful and informative. I had always heard the term film noir but never quite understood what it meant. He describes it as a style, rather than a genre, that is characterized by tone and mood along with the lighting and camera techniques it uses. Film Noir increased after WWII, when its audience was looking for harsh honesty about the world they were in. It is interesting to see that after the war the audience would have wanted to see this type of film, but Schraeder also considers this period the most creative in film, which I am not sure I would agree with. I found that the techniques used in film noir are very creative but more just a break with traditional ways of making films.

Schraeder describes some of the stylistic techniques used in film noir. He says that the majority of scenes are lit for scenes at night, and horizontal lines are used as rarely as possible. The lighting used creates shadows for the actors to fade into and the setting is lit the same way as the actors, creating less of a distinction between the two.

Schrader and Film Nor

I like most everybody who posted, enjoyed the articles of Film Noir as well as Double Indemnity. Lighting and the use of lighting in films was something that stood out to me and something that I found intriguing. It wasn’t until taking the class did I realize how important the element and impact of lighting in films has. I also agree with what Kelly posted in saying how she couldn’t understand why Phyllis Dietrichson didn’t appear to be that attractive in the film. Most of the time when I think of a mistress, I think of a woman who is very attractive and someone who every man dreams to be with. In the beginning scenes she is shown as being flirtatious and to me the CU/MS of Phyllis were to compensate for her not being attractive. I also found what Palace and Peterson talked about concerning lighting and female heroines. Before I hadn’t really seen a lot of black/white films and didn’t have to much care for them. For the most part I’ve enjoyed the movies that we’ve watched. If it weren’t for lighting I don’t think that black/white movies would have the same effect on viewers and would make understanding somewhat different. To compensate for not being in color, lighting is the closest thing filmmakers have to color.
I also loved the way that Schrader helped to better explain what film noir is. What she talks about as being qualities of moods and how those are emphasized in films. From there he goes on to break down further the historical context and categorizes what he labels as the 4 major conditions in American society that helped lead up to the “birth” of this particular style

Schrader and the Film Noir

I found Schrader's "Notes on Film Noir" to be a very interesting document. I liked how he first introduced us readers to a more clear definition of what film noir is- a style of film, though not a genre, that emphasizes subtle qualities of tone and mood. He then broke it down into a historical context by categorizing the four major conditions in American society that led up to the "birth" of this style: war and post-war disillusionment, post-war realism, the German influence, and our “hard-boiled” tradition (namely, the pre-set conventions of which society had become accustomed). This helped to better answer my lingering questions about why the sudden popularity.

Next Schrader gave a thorough breakdown of film noir’s recurring techniques, but glossed over the discussion with regards to theme. I would have preferred that he delve into the various themes film noir embraces rather than give a brief synopsis about a passion for the past, the present, and a fear of the future (one major overarching theme in film noir).

Finally, I though Schrader's belief that the film noir period of Hollywood was probably the most creative period in its history was a rather bold statement. Though I can definitely see film noir as a major creative undertaking and a true art form, I'm not sure that I would consider it Hollywood's finest masterpiece. Still, this might be the result of the fact that I am an American film consumer who perhaps lacks an eye for viewing style. As Schrader put it, “film noir is more interested in style than theme, whereas American critics have been traditionally more interested in theme than style.” That I can agree with.

Schrader Readings and Film Noir

To my suprise I really enjoyed Schraders reading, it was insightful and informative. I was immediately shocked to learn that film noir is actually not a genre but defined by its tone. This makes sense since sometimes the lighting of different shades of black and shadow can have more depth than the plot itself, or even be a reflection of the dark plot. Watching "Double Indemnity" before having done the Schrader reading was a learning experiment for me. Without knowing much about the film I was truly able to grasp what a film noir is all about. The play on black tones and white shadows slivering through the crevasses which were thoughtfully placed there, all create a dynamic in the film which essentially plays a tremendous factor in the dialogue. At a certain point, the fact that a light is turned on or off can hold great meaning in the scene. The play on the color black, projects a mood which is dark, mysterious, and impatient- at any moment with the flicker of a light we expect something to happen.

I have never really considered film noir to be interesting but after viewing "Double Indemnity" I realized that it is truly not only a tone but an art. Since every single detail which causes a shadow or light to come through, or even prevent it, has been carefully done on purpose and in essence working side-by-side with the verbal dialogue to tell a story.

Film Noir and Double Indemnity

I greatly enjoyed the two articles on Film Noir as well as Double Indemnity. In Place and Peterson's article, I found the descriptions of us of light very interesting. I was very intrigued when I read their description of how film noir uses lighting on female heroines to create a specific look for them. Throughout the screening of Double Indemnity, I couldn't understand why I didn't find Phyllis to be that attractive or seductive. She is presented as a seductress for Walter right away in the first image of her in her robe. We then are directed to look at her ankle as she walks down the stairs through a CU tracking shot as she walks down the stairs. However even with these obvious images and her flirtatious nature, I found something unappealing about her. Place and Peterson explain this phenomenon through use of lighting, "Heroines were shot in tough, unromantic close-ups of direct, undiffused light, which create a hard, statuesque surface beauty". This use of lighting on the female protagonist adds to the films solemn and dramatic style.
The use of lighting in these films is probably the most key element to their style and meaning. As both authors mention, film noir is not a specific genre of films, more a set of techniques and themes. One thing I found interesting in the article by Schrader was his depiction of the 3 phrases of film noir. One thing that seems so obvious by didn't specifically come to my attention until I read it in Schrader was that with the widespread popularity of color films, there was really no more possibility for the noir style to continue. Today, when films attempt to use film noir style they must film in black and white.

Film Noir and Schrader

I would always overlook those black and white old fashioned dark films of the late 30's to late 40's. My mom loves these types of movies, and whenever I would ask her what she is watching, she would answer and I would just walk away because I was never interested. Little did I know that I would come across the same movies later in my life and practically adore them. Whether it’s the fast-paced, witty dialogue, the intensely created sexual undertones, or the story that keeps you on the edge of your seat, films among the film noir movement manage to withstand the tests of time. Before setting foot in this class, I knew that film noir’s weren’t exactly a genre, so the bit about such claims in Schrader’s article did not surprise me. However, what did surprise me was the fact that film noir went through an evolutionary cycle, so to speak. The first phase in the cycle is what I would identify film noir to be, “the private eye” phase. The second phase was similar, but it took a more consequential approach, that is, the problems within the film were on a larger scale (government corruption, street crimes, etc.). The last phase was the surprising one to me, where films are even more cynical, displaying a so called “tragic hero.” I was surprised to see Panic in the Streets on the list, however. This was one of the few noir films I viewed before coming to this class, and it didn’t seem as grim as what Schrader would explain. Not only did the main character solve his case, but he came back home to his wife at the end. Maybe I just missed some message the film presented that would suggest its release during the third phase of film noir. Besides this, I’m pleased with the selection of films among film noirs that we are viewing, because it is quickly becoming my favorite type of film.

Thoughts on Bazin, Schrader, and Place & Petersen

Bazin

Regarding the Bazin reading, I found the description of the transition of sound into film rather vague and therefore, focused my attention more to his detailed explanations of the different aspects of Montage. I understand that he was trying to communicate the premise that sound carried a greater air of realism to montage, helping to reduce the symbolic meanings between messages; however, his reliance on the aesthetic changes disoriented my understating of the function sound has made. Thus, I felt his main goal was to detail the evolution of the language of cinema based on the incorporation of new devices such as depth of focus, and accelerated montage as the techniques separating post 1938 film from silent film, in contrast to solely the advent of sound.

Schrader’s “Notes on Film Noir”

Like RILWSON1, I was also unaware that film noir is regarded as a specific period of film history. I always considered it to be a genre of film, only utilized for themes fueled by gangsters and crime. The more I read, the more I found myself appreciating Schrader’s passion for film noir and his expressive criticism against its neglect. He explains,

“The fundamental reason for film noir’s neglect, however, is the fact that it depends more on choreography than sociology, and American critics have always been slow on the uptake when it comes to visual style. Like its protagonists, film noir is more interested in style than theme, whereas American critics have been traditionally more interested in theme than style.”

I would have never considered this issue of theme vs. style to be the case of its neglect. With this basis in mind, it is easier to understand why westerns and gangster films receive more praise since their themes are not hidden within the style of the film. Film noir requires attention to detail and it is through this necessity that it achieves a higher level of meaning, adding to its unique character and the tone it creates.

Place & Petersen “Some visual motifs on film noir”

I really enjoyed this article since it provided an overall list of the techniques involved in categorizing a film as film noir. I never imagined that so much detail and thought could go into the lighting of one room, let alone one person, and how this could heavily determine the mood of the scene (whether it means making an interior appear claustrophobic or a person appear desperate). Like the process of juxtaposing shots in montage to create a certain meaning, lighting can also produce meaning through the way it is utilized. One example from the article is a scene from the film In a Lonely Place. A high-light is placed under Bogart’s eyes, creating a sinister effect which not only makes him look demented but also suggests he is an unstable character. Having just viewed Double Indemnity, I definitely remember noting the specific use of shadows and light vs., dark. Now I understand the greater function they fulfilled and can bring this new knowledge to my analysis.

Schrader's Notes on Film Noir

I found Schrader’s writings on film noir to be thoroughly engaging and informative. It’s close analysis of film noir sheds a good deal of light on both films of this period that we have screened this semester: The Big Sleep and Double Indemnity. For one thing, I was not aware that film noir was not considered a genre, but a film period equivalent to French New Wave or German Expressionism. This adds a different perspective, because though I knew that the tones were darker and it had quite a distinct style of dialogue, I had always associated film noir with crime dramas, and this isn’t particularly the case. One of the most interesting and applicable points brought up in the reading about the creation of film noir was that of the social circumstances that surrounded its birth. Film noir was brought on by the disillusionment of society following the over-simplification of cinema and the start of WWII. The main point is the disillusionment that people felt towards society after long periods of hardship, and its worthy of note at what point this article was written. At first when I began to read it, I was confused about the author’s reference to old movies as being contemporary, and their more fatalistic style appealing young viewers to it and that of the old film noir period. Then I noticed the year of publication: 1972. This was after the country had suffered through years of the Vietnam conflict, and there was a prevailing culture of disillusionment once more. I have also noticed a trend in cinema to depict realistic, and many times somewhat fatalistic stories in films today and I can’t help but think that this is a recurrence of the trend, brought on by the wars we’ve seen for the better part of a decade. When processing the analysis Schrader made toward this film period, many films meet many of the criteria set by film noir, I would venture to say most notably in the execution and acclaim that The Departed accomplished only three years ago. Other films of note are direct throwbacks to the film noir style, including Brick and the The Black Dahlia.