Talk:List of film noir

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List
This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
NA
This article has been rated as NA-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] What's the English plural?

The correct term is "films noirs", isn't it? Curero 14:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, films noir. Mkweise 22:21, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
And General Patton used "sonofabitches" as the plural of "son of a bitch". Michael Hardy 03:16, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Everybody in the world (EVERYbody) uses the correct (French) expression "films noirs" (and femmes fatales etc.) How come someone might think it could be "films noir"? User:213.23.2.151
Hmmm... well I wouldn't know for sure myself, but a google for 'films noir' yeilds mainly English sites, a search for 'films noirs' yeilds mainly french sites, e.g. http://archives.arte-tv.com/fr/archive_545359.html. I'm guessing the correct borrowing is the latter. RowlandReed 13:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We decide this question by Google search? How about a reference book. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861690306/film_noir.html It is FILMS NOIRS and this page name should be changed. 68.1.175.241 28 June 2005 05:40 (UTC)

To make it more complicated, I suspect most English speakers (even many who speak French) would use "film noirs" and "femme fatales", as loanwords/phrases tend to be treated as English once in general use. Google returns about as many hits as for "films noir". Its a choice between:
  1. Using the French phrase, "films noirs".
  2. Using the English plural of the phrase loaned from French, "film noirs".
For a similar example see this plural of "vendetta" poll — currently in favour of (2) "vendettas". In the absence of good evidence of usage neither is more correct than the other, but both are better than the current "films noir", which is neither English nor French. I suggest we try and find some offline English sources (film theory texts?) to settle this. Jihg 06:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Mirriam Webster gives three options, in this order: film noirs, films noir, or films noirs. It appears, therefore, that not "everybody in the world" uses "films noirs," as an editor above suggests. Any of the three is correct, not just "films noir" as the editor below argues. So the question here is which version should we prefer? I would suggest that we should take the first option listed in Mirriam Webster, which would be the most commonly used. HistoryBA 18:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Add/drop

Vertigo is not a film noir, so I'm deleting it. Also, I think I might add The Lady From Shanghai to this list, since it's definitely a film noir.Karatloz 12:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] moved page back to films noir

The correct pural is Films noir, not films noirs (too many purals there). Moved page back where it was.

Why don't you cite some evidence here, rather than just asserting your opinion as others have done above? HistoryBA 23:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Films noir or not...

As far as I know, it is Films noir, not Films noirs or Film noirs (even though many people use film noirs incorrectly on websites). Also, the category on Wikipedia is Films noir. As far as Vertigo goes, most sources list it as film noir. Believe me it's very fustrating to figure out what is and isn't noir because it's a style that's not easy to peg. Many films on IMDB are listed as noir and probably arent, while many that are are not classified as such. My rule of thumb is if I can find a number of sources that call it "noir" then the film is. Steve-O

[edit] Plural

Just to update what's up with the plural. After a long debate (I believe the discussion is at the film noir page), it was decided that Film noir is both the plural and the singluar for the term. Many do use Film noirs, films noir, or even films noirs. But for now, the list is at "List of film noir" Steve-O 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] There needs to be some serious pruning...

It's appearing that everyone and his brother is listing any random crime film as being a neo-noir with no understanding that just because a movie involves a couple of rival factions, etc. or someone kills someone else, it's not necessarily a noir. Just a crime film.Gnrlotto

Lots of inclusivity... This page (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/Noirfilm.html#neo), which actually goes into some detail for each neo-noir film it lists, might help people get a better feel. Jonathan F 18:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A previous post I made was deleted but this article is awful. Film noir effectively has lost all meaning whatsoever if this page is even half-right. I may be strict in defining noir (I don't even think THE MALTESE FALCON quite meets the stylistic standard of noir), but this article is absurd. I'm not an authority by any means, but I am a film theory student with a particular affinity for noir, and I have not encountered anyone in four years of film studies that would consider this article anything more than trash. I'm sure there are numerous people more qualified than me that would disagree... by making, perhaps, a FEW unusual inclusions, but as a whole, this is entirely inexcusable. I will concede, however, that even making a page like this is staggeringly difficult due to the completely inconsistent parameters set by the cinematic community. This is why I think this article should even exist.MikeFlynn52 06:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest trying to describe some of the relevant parameters and disagreements in the introduction to the article, and perhaps splitting the list into "central" and "peripheral" headings. There was much work (mostly original research, regrettably) at Film noir to distill a canonic list of the most important noir films. A section like that, with proper references, would be invaluable to this list. --Dystopos 12:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neologisms

"Proto-noir," "psycho noir": should they stay under Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms? Jonathan F 01:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a long history of American academics using "proto-noir" and there appears to be sufficient usage of "psycho-noir" on the Web to indicate that it is established idiomatically outside Wikipedia. --DCGeist 10:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sin City

Yes, while there are other noirs based on comic books (Road to Perdition, A History of Violence, etc.), they at least bear some relationship to "reality" as we know/knew it. There is nothing realistic in Sin City, and as such, it bears a closer relationship to Batman than The Man Who Wasn't There.Gnrlotto 22:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a little confusion about the meaning of "crossover" in this context--it means the film in question, in addition to being classifiable as a noir, is readily identified with a specific genre not generally thought of as overlapping with noir. What non-noir genre do you think Sin City is a part of? Surely not the superhero genre. Perhaps animated film (defining "genre" in a different way)? Well...it's not a cartoon, Gnrlotto, it's a live-action, live-acted film played against a lot of blue screen with extensive digital manipulation (the same could be said about the recent "Star Wars" movies). Indeed, Sin City is anti-naturalistic (you know, of course, it's extreme and highly POV to say there's "nothing realistic in it" at all), but then so is Brick, for instance. No one speaks that way in real life--let alone contemporary American teenagers. But it sure as hell is a film noir. How about Se7en--that's nothing like a realistic depiction of the world...it's very deliberately and comprehensively "stylized." Not to the extent of Sin City, but exactly where and how do you draw the line? And why do you feel the need to draw a line at all?—DCGeist 06:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Because now you're falling under your definition of what a "Superhero" is. ;) Gnrlotto 07:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
There is a case to be made that it's as close as we've gotten to a live-action adaptation of a comic book not only in terms of character and plot, but narrative construction as well. My initial reaction was mostly to the term "stylized," since visual stylization is what so many noirs are known for in the first place. I see you left the crossover designation blank; I hope, for the moment, simply "comic book noir" meets with your approval.—DCGeist 19:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking for a way to more sharply define Sin City--if it's to be defined as a "crossover"--I came across this article by New York Times film critic A. O. Scott: "The Unreal Road From Toontown to 'Sin City'". It makes a provocative but well argued case for a connection between Sin City and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, a connection we can make via the phrase "toon-noir."—DCGeist 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Veronica Mars

Besides being a show wherein a teen-aged girl solves mysteries in her community, is there really a cynical and biting harshness to the show, where death is as normal (if not moreso) than living? Is there a bleakness and a sense of doom pervading the series as it reveals what a cruel existence it is in which we live? Otherwise, having mystery elements alone does not a noir show make.Gnrlotto 22:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your personal definition of "film noir." However, it's by no means universal. There are many movies (and TV series) widely described as "film noir" that are not "pervaded" by "a bleakness and a sense of doom." By that standard, the first widely recognized classic noir, Stranger on the Third Floor would have to go. So would The Big Sleep. So would dozens of others. You may not want to call them noir. I may not want to call them noir. But many do. As for requiring that "death [be] as normal (if not moreso) than living," I'm sure you realize in retrospect how silly that is. Most film noirs are Hollywood movies; most Hollywood movies are star-driven; and most stars don't play corpses. Is Philip Marlowe a cadaver? Is Sam Spade? Are most of the characters in classic film noirs dead or alive? This ain't Return of the Living Dead we're talking about.—DCGeist 23:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

If you require evidence that, per the article's intro, Veronica Mars is "often described" as noir:

  • The Wikipedia article on the series categorizes and repeatedly refers to it as "noir."
  • The Village Voice refers to it as a "sharp teen noir in the making."
  • The Observer refers to it as "teen noir." This leading British newspaper goes on to associate the title character with the protagonist of the movie Brick, stating that they "resemble characters from a Dashiell Hammett novel. They are loners, cast out by their former friends, cut off from society and focused solely on their respective quests."
  • Salon.com, the leading cultural site on the Internet, refers to it as a "teen noir."
  • In These Times, the terribly serious progressive journal, notes, "As in earlier noir tales, which feature a working-class private investigator navigating the shady dealings of a duplicitous elite and violent street toughs, everything that happens in the show is presented and viewed through a class lens." The paper adds, "like Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe, the noir heroes from whom she descends, Veronica sees up close how the pathologies of class operate."
  • Flak Magazine, a top-notch webzine, says the series "takes yet another angle on the conventions of the teen drama, retelling the story as film noir. So far, it's doing so splendidly. All of the classic noir elements are here: an unsolved murder, a complex and convoluted back story told primarily in flashback, a corrupt and lawless society with evil forces controlling the action from behind the scenes and a hard-boiled detective who struggles to stay ahead of the forces conspiring against her."

That list could easily be three times as long. Please remember, Gnrlotto, everybody has their own personal definition of noir. The Wikipedia list doesn't exist so you or I can present our own individual list to the world. I don't necessarily look at Veronica Mars, or Twin Peaks for that matter, and immediately think "noir," but many do, and we have to respect that. As the list's intro states, "No claim is made that any listed movie 'is,' in some objectively testable way, a film noir."—DCGeist 06:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Primary Characteristics and Conventions of Film Noir: Themes and Styles
The primary moods of classic film noir were melancholy, alienation, bleakness, disillusionment, disenchantment, pessimism, ambiguity, moral corruption, evil, guilt, desperation and paranoia.
Heroes (or anti-heroes), corrupt characters and villains included down-and-out, conflicted hard-boiled detectives or private eyes, cops, gangsters, government agents, a lone wolf, socio-paths or killers, crooks, war veterans, politicians, petty criminals, murderers, or just plain Joes. These protagonists were often morally-ambiguous low-lifes from the dark and gloomy underworld of violent crime and corruption. Distinctively, they were cynical, tarnished, obsessive (sexual or otherwise), brooding, menacing, sinister, sardonic, disillusioned, frightened and insecure loners (usually men), struggling to survive - and in the end, ultimately losing."
See, simple. The definition I choose to follow, as per: http://www.filmsite.org/filmnoir.html. Also, don't see how these: "By that standard, the first widely recognized classic noir, Stranger on the Third Floor would have to go. So would The Big Sleep. So would dozens of others," wouldn't be noir.
"Most film noirs are Hollywood movies; most Hollywood movies are star-driven; and most stars don't play corpses. Is Philip Marlowe a cadaver? Is Sam Spade? Are most of the characters in classic film noirs dead or alive? This ain't Return of the Living Dead"
Common sense, please. Where did I say that they were about corpses?
"Please remember, Gnrlotto, everybody has their own personal definition of noir. The Wikipedia list doesn't exist so you or I can present our own individual list to the world.
I'm sure you can do better than treating me as if I am cataclysmically stupid and you need to use that patronizing tone to explain what Wikipedia is and isn't to the retarded monkey who somehow started using a computer.Gnrlotto 07:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely in order. And, Gnrlotto, I don't think you're "cataclysmically stupid" and I regret that my tone came across as patronizing. Sorry about that. On to the debate...
You've used as support for your definition an online source that can hardly be considered authoritative. After all, this is a writer (Tim Dirks) happy to publicly represent himself with phrases such as "in the end, ultimately losing." Again, his description--like yours--is not ridiculous, but it is not universal, either. Dirks or not, the definition of noir simply isn't "simple." As for the definition you offer entirely as your own: in noir, "death is as normal (if not moreso) than living"--what exactly is the "common sense" reading of that? It's a reasonable way to describe many horror movies (as I, I thought common-sensically, suggested); it might also apply to many war movies. But how do you think that definition applies to film noir? Recall your favorite dozen film noirs, say...Is death truly "as normal (if not moreso) than living" in any of them? What can that phrase mean if not that most of the characters in the movie die? Let's take Stranger on the Third Floor and The Big Sleep--in each case the hero and heroine walk off together, very much alive. The vast majority of secondary characters also survive. In what sense is "death as normal (if not moreso) than living" in those films? And do you truly leave either film thinking "what a cruel existence it is in which we live"?
That said (and asked--the questions are meant seriously, not just rhetorically), upon further reflection, I believe you are getting at something with treating Sin City as a special case. Please see above under Sin City thread. Best, Dan—DCGeist 19:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea behind it is that fact that in most "normal" films, death is treated as something terrible, a true tragedy, not something that just happens as part of day-to-day life. In most film noirs, death is at best a motive for vengenace, but not something that is reflected upon, or makes the characters realize that life is all the sweeter for being alive. (See female deaths re: The Big Heat, Chinatown, etc. See male deaths, re: Hammett, Miller's Crossing, This Gun For Hire, Key Largo, The Asphalt Jungle.)Gnrlotto 23:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I get the idea insofar as standard dramas are used as the "normal" reference point--but then do we have to exclude all those noirs known for their tragic sensibility (Gun Crazy, Night and the City)? On the other hand, think of all the action films and even crime dramas not customarily referred to as "noir" in which people die by the dozens without prompting reflection on the part of the hero or the viewer. What, if anything, distinguishes noir's conceptual approach to life and death (under your definition) from that of XXX, for instance? I'd say that the films customarily described as "noir" evidence a broad range of attitudes--in some, death is regarded as a part of everyday life; in others, it's tragic, horrific; in others, a joke.—DCGeist 00:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, being as I'm assuming we're just having a movie discussion, I'd say the main difference between a noir, and XXX is the fact that one of the films is created with more of an intellectual thrust behind it, and therefore bears some closer introspection. This isn't acedemic snobbishness, it's just the reason some films are popcorn films and some are not.

"I'd say that the films customarily described as "noir" evidence a broad range of attitudes--in some, death is regarded as a part of everyday life; in others, it's tragic, horrific; in others, a joke."

And again, I'd argue the most of the noirs thought of when people speak of the "archetype" have a more bitter and nihilistic approach to them.Gnrlotto 15:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noir Video Games

How about a section on noir video games? There have been two Max Payne games, and a new one coming out from Rockstar, LA Noire... Should we make a section?Gnrlotto 15:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

  • So, Shall we?Gnrlotto 20:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I oppose it. They might be deserving of their own article and/or list, but I think we're straying a bit too far from the core medium to include them here. TV series like movies are an unambiguously narrative art form, but if we make the leap to video games, by what logic would we not start listing every "noir" music video that's been made, every "noir" TV commercial, etc.? Is a noir video game more "film noir" than a noir comic book? In some ways, yes; in other ways, clearly a comic book is closer to the core medium. Can we not agree that the things listed in a "List of film noirs" should be able to experienced as motion picture stories? On the logic of including TV series, I could see creating a new section if and when narrative noirs start being made for the Internet--where story reception and appreciation rather than gameplay are the essential draw.—DCGeist 08:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Then create a "Noir in other mediums" page so these things can be covered.Gnrlotto 19:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitano noir

There's certainly sufficient backing to list one of the Kitano films:

  • Boiling Point
    • "Takeshi Time" Metro film review, describing Kitano's deliberate violation of "traditional laws of film noir structure"--marking it as a certain brand of neo-noir
    • "Boiling Points" Village Voice film review, noting that film is included in NY Japan Society's "Dark Visions: Japanese Film Noir and Neonoir" series
    • "New Kids on the Street: The Pan-Asian Youth Film" academic David Desser includes film in "neo-noir" cycle; chap. from 21st Century Film Studies: A Scope Reader, ed. James Burton

Others of his are occasionally described as "noir," but none with sufficient regularity to list:

Hm, okay, by that logic I guess you'd want to put Violent Cop back in there too. But what happened to Brother (1997)? Are we saying that's not neo-noir now or was its re-removal a mistake.? Jonathan F 19:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
As we've seen over and over again, there's no objective way to "prove" a specific film "is" or "is not" noir. From a Wikipedia standpoint, the best we can do in terms of listing is to see if there are sufficiently substantial external references to a given film as noir. In the case of the Russian Brother (1997), they're not there. Just as they're not there for Kitano's Brother (2000), which you were right to cut.—DCGeist 21:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katia Ismailova (1994)

Noir citations:

[edit] "Captain Conan"

We can see from the Wikipedia discussion of the series' format that the show is much more closely associated with a different crime fiction tradition:

Case Closed has the format of classical mystery/crime literature, with such classical set ups such as the Closed-Room-Type murder case, and cases with a limited number of suspects. It also includes the wrap up of the case and conclusion/solution of the case as in typical crime literature. Many references to other detective literature can also be found for fans of detective novels; References to Sherlock Holmes, Agatha Christie's works, Kogoro Akechi, Kosuke Kindaichi, Arsène Lupin, Maigret, and many more.

[edit] High Noon

While, like Jonathan F and, for instance, critic Arthur Lyons, I really don't see much call to consider High Noon as a noir, the list is not about the personal opinions of we Wikipedia editors. The fact is, there is sufficient published support from authoritative sources to include the movie as an arguable example of a noir-Western crossover, as a Google Book Search reveals (two of the three sources are also listed in the main article's bibliography):

  • Durgnat (1970): "films noir in other genres include...High Noon" (p. 2 in The Big Book of Noir, ed. Gorman et al.)
  • Paul Buhle and David Wagner (Hide in Plain Sight: the Hollywood blacklistees in film and television, 1950-2002; 2003): "Durgnat cited three noir Westerns, with High Noon the most on point" (p. 22, n. 43), referring to statement in main text: "As English critic Raymond Durgnat has observed, Mccarthyism's 'impact forced film noir themes to retreat to the Western'" (p. 113)
  • Biesen (2005): "Zinneman directed the revisionist noir western High Noon" (p. 209)

So be it. Let's just keep in mind the caveat in the list's introduction: "No claim is made that any listed movie 'is,' in some objectively testable way, a film noir."—DCGeist 01:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Brimstone & Other Stuff"

Added a link to the paranormal/noir series Brimstone. Thought this is a valid neo-noir series.

Also am just wondering about the inclusion of Alein3, The Terminator & Jhonny Mnemonic in the list of Post-classic noir-SF crossovers. They don't strike me as particularly noir in any sense. Jhonny I'd say is about the only one which really has a chance of staying, but in general I'd put it firmly in Cyberpunk. I think the fact these films have some similarity to Bladerunner is why people have listed them. Opinions people?

Also my vote is for plural Film Noir.

Cameronmurtagh 12:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casablanca

Is Casablanca considered as film-noir?

I asked the same question to my Media Studies teacher last year, and she said that it isn't. But I disagree.

It has been a year since I studied Film Noir so hopefully I can remember a few of the elements/techniques.

  • It is set within a sinful/large city.
  • The main protagonist is a male (you could also say that Ricks persona fits into the main persona of a Film Noir protagonist in that he seems as though he should be a detective or cop not the owner of a Gin-joint)
  • Ilsa does posses some qualities of a femme-fatale type woman.
  • Rick is dealing with some form of internal conflict (as in the reason he is unable to return to America and also the return of Ilsa)
  • Ugarte could be compared to being a sidekick in that he clearly sees Rick as being superior to himself and in that he also confides in Rick. Sam could also been seen as being Ricks sidekick, although it seems that Rick does not see Sam as being inferior, which he did with Ugarte.
  • The film uses a lot of foreboding music to hint at key moments which are to happen within the movie.
  • The use of dark/harsh lighting. The lighting is a parallel between the characters emotions/feelings and what we as an audience seen on the screen.

In conclusion, Casablanca is a Film Noir. There are some real purists out there whose FN criteria are just too narrow. Ask them and they'll tell you only three Films Noir were ever made. I prefer a looser definition than what many people out there call for. I think it's perfectly acceptable to call a movie like Casablanca FN. I also think it's OK to call The Usual Suspects, Chinatown, Blade Runner and the new James Bond film Casino Royale as film-noir.

This question was raised a few months ago on the main article's Talk page. Here's what I wrote in response then:
No, the current consensus is that Casablanca is not a film noir. Most compilers of serious encyclopedic sources proffering canons of the genre do not regard the movie as a noir (see Silver and Ward; Ottoson; Tuska). Likewise, major comprehensive film information/review sources such as imdb.com and Time Out Film Guide do not associate Casablanca with their respective film noir categories. That said, this is, again, the current consensus, and opinion on the noir status of Casablanca could change as it has for many other films of the era.
And, as you point out, the film contains many of those elements critics often cite as definitive of film noir. I'm not sure what you mean about Rick "seeming as though he should be a detective or cop"--he's clearly no fan of policemen--other than the fact that he's played by noir icon Humphrey Bogart...it's the actor as much as the character type here that supports the characterization of Casablanca as a noir. Best, Dan—DCGeist 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the person Warner hired to do the film's DVD commentary, Roger Ebert, flat-out states that the film isn't a noir on the same disc should also point towards this not being a noir. Gnrlotto 09:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet, other leading critics increasingly tend to include it in discussions of noir. Joe Morganstern, reviewing The Good German this past Friday in the Wall Street Journal (12/15/06): "[Soderbergh]'s idea was to use the devastation of postwar Berlin as the setting for a period piece involving murder, political intrigue, moral ambiguity and romance—a film noir in the tradition of Casablanca and The Third Man...."—DCGeist 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


Your point seems to make little sense since you're comparing a random reviewer to the one that was *specifically chosen by Warner Brothers Motion Picture Studio* to comment on their film.Gnrlotto 02:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Joe Morganstern isn't a "random reviewer," he's the Pulitzer Prize-winning critic for one of the country's leading newspapers. And why should the opinion of one writer count extra just because he was hired by the company that owns the rights to the movie? Morganstern is just as respected as Ebert; Warner Video could just as easily have hired him. That would no more have made the movie "officially" noir than Ebert's comments make it conclusively not noir. And, anyway, you seem to misunderstand my point: I wasn't referencing Morganstern in order to support a claim that Casablanca "is" noir. It was to demonstrate yet again the broader and more important point: as with so much concerning noir, there is substantial difference of opinion on basic definitions and historically significant films.—DCGeist 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


"Joe Morganstern isn't a "random reviewer," he's the Pulitzer Prize-winning critic for one of the country's leading newspapers."

Was he chosen by Warner's to do their commentary?

"And why should the opinion of one writer count extra just because he was hired by the company that owns the rights to the movie?"

The point here, whether you want to obfuscate the issue with your "What I really meant was's" or your "You seem to misunderstand's" or not, is that even though many people may have differening opinions on what something is, the fact remains that Warner didn't choose anyone but Ebert, a man they knew going in didn't think the film was noir, to do their official commentary defining what Casablanca was. Further, they didn't edit his commentary to contradict his statements which they easily could have done. They let his comments defining the film stand.

"And, anyway, you seem to misunderstand my point: I wasn't referencing Morganstern in order to support a claim that Casablanca "is" noir."

I understood you fine. But if you think people aren't going to understand your supposedly broader point (which doesn't make sense here when the issue is very small and specific), you should state your point flat-out and not play the, "Hey, stupid, what you don't seem to be getting is..." argument that you've used before on this discussion page.

Gnrlotto 18:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Simmer down. You're the only one to raise the issue of "stupidity" here. You're also the one who sent a purely informative discussion in a direction you now find unpleasant with your artful mode of expression: "Your point seems to make little sense." Since you chose to make this exchange personal, it's perfectly fair of me to observe that you're still not getting even the "very small and specific" point. It's not whether Casablanca is or is not a noir--a point that by the very nature of the term can never be conclusively "defined"; the point is whether there is sufficient professional discussion of the film as a noir to warrant its inclusion on this list. The answer is clearly yes. The original question in this thread asked if Casablanca is "considered" film noir. The answer is a simple matter of history: In the past, most critics and historians have not considered it a film noir. Opinion remains divided, but an increasing number of professionals in the field do now refer to it as a noir.
That aside, please explain why the current employees of Warner Video and the man they hired to comment on the film count for so much in your mind. Ebert's opinion is one man's, approved of by one corporate regime, sixty-plus years after the film was made. No one currently at Warners participated in the making of the film. Given that the classic film noir era is seen as ending in the late 1950s, it's likely that no one currently at Warners ever participated in making any movie in the classic noir mold. As you originally stated, the opinion of Ebert, a respected critic, that Casablanca is not a noir is worth taking into consideration. (Just as the opinions of respected critics who say it is a noir should be.) But simply because his opinion is recorded on the latest DVD version of the film doesn't make it any more authoritative, let alone render opposing opinions "random" and nonsensical. Some would even say it is less authoritative than those opinions that have been formally published, but that's similarly unreasonable. Speaking of published sources, you might be interested in picking up the book generally regarded as the most important scholarly examination of film noir in the last decade: James Naremore's More Than Night: Film Noir in Its Contexts (University of California Press). For those interested in the topic, it's an invaluable book generally (and written in clear language, avoiding the pitfalls of academic jargon). Specifically, Naremore offers a very interesting analysis of why Casablanca has historically not been classified as a noir, "even though it contains practically everything we associate with the form." Is his scholarly analysis more "definitive" than the Warner Video–approved opinion of Ebert? No. But it's no less "definitive" either.—DCGeist 18:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"You're the only one to raise the issue of "stupidity" here." No, you are when you imply that the other person just can't seem to grasp that big concept that you're trying to make.

"Since you chose to make this exchange personal, it's perfectly fair of me to observe that you're still not getting even the "very small and specific" point. It's not whether Casablanca is or is not a noir--a point that by the very nature of the term can never be conclusively "defined"; the point is whether there is sufficient professional discussion of the film as a noir to warrant its inclusion on this list."

Wrong again. The point is that I was simply remarking that the man Warners felt would be most able to define their film culturally and historically claimed it wasn't a noir, all in backing up your earlier statement, "No, the current consensus is that Casablanca is not a film noir. Most compilers of serious encyclopedic sources proffering canons of the genre do not regard the movie as a noir (see Silver and Ward; Ottoson; Tuska). Likewise, major comprehensive film information/review sources such as imdb.com and Time Out Film Guide do not associate Casablanca with their respective film noir categories." That's the issue.

This esoteric discussion of Casablanca and its place in the larger mileu of filmic criticism is all you and completely misses the point.

Your last paragraph seems to have devolved into gibbering.

Gnrlotto 03:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have to look too far in the past to discover that this is not an isolated incident of your belligerent and unproductive approach to communicating on Wikipedia. From the discussion page for Who Framed Roger Rabbit:
  • What is the sroce for "Playing pattycake is roughly equivalent to having sex in the Toon world, meaning that Jessica is indeed being unfaithful to Roger."?12.145.73.51 19:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would assume from the movie. You know, 'cause people have eyes and brains and all to interpret.Gnrlotto 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That appears in a discussion thread you so gibberingly, I mean sweetly titled "Who butchered the plot summary?" Unless and until you apologize for your bad behavior, consider yourself ignored. You naughty boy.—DCGeist 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you live in Candyland where no one has wit or sarcasm as part of their day to day frivolities. You also appear to enjoy them big ol' beer muscles the internet gives you.

"You seem to be missing the point that..."

"Hey don't imply I ain't smart enough to get your meaning!"

"I didn't imply anything...you took it that way."

Come on, we're all anonymous, let's not hide behind garbage. The point was that I was backing you up, and, instead of taking it, you decided to pretend we were discussing Casablanca as it stands in the larger critical world, which we weren't. Knock off the "Quit misbehaving," crap though--it's tiring, kiddo.

Gnrlotto 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Layer Cake

Noir citations:

[edit] Casino Royale as "noir"

—DCGeist 18:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only one of those describe it as being in the vein of film noir, and that is Telegraph (UK). PopMatters and Eclipse Magazine are repeated links that only desribe the first ten black and white minutes as noir or reminiscent of. So too does Montreal Film Journal share that sentiment. BBC News on the other hand says that the film is "noir stuff," no different than if a review said a movie is "In Bogart territory." It only means the film shares elements of, not that it is an actual noir, no more than a film being in "Bogart territory" means the film actually has Bogart in it. So far we only have one source claiming it as out-and-out noir, two more claiming the first ten minutes are reminiscent of noir, and the last one indicating the film has some noirish elements. Not enough to classify as a noir. Gnrlotto 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Gnrlotto i have more citations to believe that CR is Noir:

1) Sign your posts. 2) Your first site again uses the "noir-like" moniker. The other two only again mention the first ten minutes. At best, if the film is to be included, it must have an addendum detaling that the noir element is the first ten minute B&W scene.Gnrlotto 11:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

-Okay dude, you've won. However, i'd still put CR on the list. But, i's put a "notice" indicating that CR's noir is "only in a short period" and debated. How's that?

[edit] Star Wars Episode II: Attack Of the Clones

Noir citations:

Insufficient professional critical support. The second citation is actually to a reader's response, not the critic's description of the film. The third is the film company's production notes.—DCGeist 05:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V for Vendetta

Noir citations:

[edit] Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban

--~~Taufiq2u~~

Sorry, no. Two of these are very obviously amateur, nonreliable sources. The professional reference, America Magazine, to a "film noir episode of Sesame Street" is clearly more rhetorical than intended to identify the movie in any serious way with film noir. If there were two other professional sources for this, it would be a fine third...but it can't support Harry alone.—DCGeist 08:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smokin' Aces

Noir citations:

--Taufiq2u

[edit] Fallen Angels (1995)

Noir citations:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by

219.95.242.98 (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Get Shorty

Noir citations:

[edit] Grindhouse

Noir citations:

  1. Big Picture Sound
  2. The Guardian
  3. Real Movie News —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taufiq2u (talk • contribs) 05:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
Sorry, no. "Big Picture/Big Sound" and "Real Movie News" are (a) both amateur sites--nice amateur sites, but amateur and (b) neither even makes a clear statement that the movie constitutes a noir--"Big Picture" refers to a "noir-ish romance" between two characters; "Real Movie News" refers to "Robert Rodriguez's irksome Sin City-izsms (gurgling sax playing, gravity defying action, noir-lightness)"--whatever that means--and then states that is "Neither a true guilty pleasure noir" nor...it's irrelevant. The Guardian is a highly respectable professional source--however, the reviewer never ever identifies the film as a noir; all references to "noir" are in readers' comments. The fact that not a single professional description of the film as a noir can be found pretty clearly indicates it doesn't belong on the list...for the moment, at least.—DCGeist 08:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystic River

"Among other movies to his credit, Helgeland also wrote the screenplay for "L. A. Confidential"(1997), another masterpiece and the finest film noir since "Chinatown"(1974). There are enough noir-ish elements to "Mystic River" to call it an "East Coast film noir." This is a movie with character and cinematic proclivities distinctly different from the West Coast, the locale of most film noirs, but it is a true film noir nonetheless." - themoviespoiler.com

[edit] Total Recall 2070

Should not this series be considered for entry here? Tech-Noir I believe - the Blade Runner TV Series....?

[edit] Life on Mars:

Noir citations:

[6]

[edit] Merge proposal

  • I'm re-opening discussion on merging the list of notable film noirs from Film noir into this list. Per the discussion there, it seems that highlighting 35 films as being notable is generally accepted to be original research. --Dystopos 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
What sort of "merger" do you propose? Every one of those 35 films (which come from both the 1940s and 1950s, of course, not just the 1940s) is already cited in this list. Are you suggesting the director and actor information from the list of 35 be added to those films' mentions here? What about the four hundred-odd other films on this page? Do you plan to start adding director/actor info to the rest? That would be a mammoth task. But if that doesn't happen, those 35 films would stick out on this list in a way very similar to how they do now. What's your plan?—DCGeist 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll expand, since it seems the proposal is misunderstood. First of all, the current situation is untenable because an unverifiable claim is made by utilizing original research to create a list of films that one editor considers especially notable. However, the contents of that list, with the editorial context removed, are factual and verifiable and should not be merely deleted. Therefore, I propose improving this article to include some context (directors, major players, etc), along with an introduction which discusses the various periods used to divide the list, and a reference to Film noir for explanation of the term "classic noir". In my opinion this would best the guidelines developed on Wikipedia for article content while preserving the maximum portion of encyclopedic content. (Regarding the issue of "sticking out like a sore thumb" - it is better to be incomplete and invite improvement than to be wrong. Wikipedia is all about accomplishing mammoth tasks. --Dystopos 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • - Per Dystopos explanation, I'm supporting the merger. Any large, rambling list does not belong in the body of the article, and the only reason it remains is because one user has refused to adhere to the clear majority consensus against it. VanTucky (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
It's still not clear what sort of "merge" you're talking about. DCGeist asked a couple of valid questions and you haven't answered them. The changes you talk about for this article -- "include some context (directors, major players, etc), along with an introduction which discusses the various periods used to divide the list, and a reference to Film noir for explanation of the term "classic noir" sound good, but they have nothing to do with merging the list of 35 that I can see. RedSpruce 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, if we're going to continue this discussion, we have to bring a halt to the false claims that are being made. For example,
  • "a list of films that one editor considers especially notable": as RedSpruce has explained on the article Talk page, as the note in the article makes abundantly clear, as the history of discussion on the article's Talk page (Talk: Film noir#Detour (1945 film)) further evidences, this statement is patently untrue.
  • "the only reason it remains is because one user has refused to adhere to the clear majority consensus against it": what is clear is that two long-time contributors to the article are opposed to the list's removal either at the moment (myself) or at all (RedSpruce).
On the broader point of the list of 35's usefulness--yes, it would be ideal if there existed an authoritative critics' poll identifying a given number of the most important or notable film noirs. In the absence of that, the present list has been as close as we could get to an objective and efficient guide for readers interested in educating themselves first-hand in film noir. While the list is not in accord with articulated Wikipedia guidelines, it is in accord with the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia: to educate and serve the reader. The question I have is this--do any of those who have advocated for the effective elimination of the list have any ideas for how the purpose it serves (beyond the listing of verifiable credits) may be conveyed in a revised or entirely new format?
Finally, I have moved the list to the bottom of the article, now that the text has been revised to eliminate direct reference to it.—DCGeist 19:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The "type" of merge I am talking about is moving the information from the "List of 35..." in the article Film noir into this article and deleting it from the source article. The new information would improve this article by expanding on the context of these films and linking them to their creators, as well as by establishing a format for adding information about the other listed films. It would improve Film noir by removing what is - and I think enough people have agreed with this that it needs no further argument - an unverifiable synthetic claim about what films are most notable within the genre. --20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dystopos (talk • contribs).
  • Fine. Except (a) no claim is made about "most notable"--the list simply says "notable" and (b) the methodology for constructing the list is entirely transparent--via the note--and thus verifiable. Also (c), for the moment the list is still objectively valuable for highlighting within the article the names of significant noir performers. I plan to intitiate a new subsection that will cover the important topic in the near future. Once a basic groundwork of information is present in the article's main text, I'll be amenable to removing the list--there's no need to rush it out. This will also give us time to see if we can devise an effective substitute for it that fits more readily within Wikipedia guidelines. To wit, the question remains unanswered: Do you have any suggestion for efficiently and effectively guiding the readers of film noir to a manageable number of notable classic film noirs with which they can begin their first-hand education in the genre (as the List of 35 currently does)? If you do have such a suggestion, what is it? If you do not have such a suggestion, please say so.—DCGeist 23:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I would propose that the note is, in some ways, more problematic than the actual list. Spelling out such a rigorous and personal methodology for distilling a "comfortingly round number" of notable films is itself evidence that the list is meant as a statement. It makes transparent the personal prejudices that went into creating the list. Explaining the synthesis within the article discourages other editors from modifying the list based on their own knowledge of the subject and thereby raises an improper claim on the "ownership" of the article. The only suitable substitute would be a list based on an external published source. This is a core policy of Wikipedia. It is explained in Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The fact that you do not recognize appeals to these policies as valid arguments is unfortunate. Moving on, surely there must be, among the numerous references listed in the article, one or more authors who have proposed a central canon as an introduction and survey of the topic? I believe Neale's Genre and Hollywood is probably the best place to start. --Dystopos 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
As RedSpruce and I have attempted to explain, the list is precisely not a personal statement. To summarize: many editors--and, apparently, readers--over a long time have found it useful to have a list of notable classic noirs in the article. The current list was designed as a way to maintain that utility while eliminating, to the degree practical, the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors as a primary basis for inclusion or exclusion. For instance, several of my favorite noirs, acclaimed films such as Scarlet Street and Gun Crazy, do not appear on the list. If you had bothered to read the link I provided above (Talk: Film noir#Detour (1945 film)), you would know that "other editors" have in fact actively participated in modifying the list in its current format. So...now that we're all clear that none of us is trying to "own" the contents of the list in order to advance an individual viewpoint or "personal prejudices," let's move on...
You suggest that "one or more authors [may] have proposed a central canon as an introduction." Well, yes, one or more have, but choosing one of their canons will almost certainly result in a more personal and "subjective" list. For instance, there's "The Black List: Essential Film Noir" by film critic Lee Server, which appears in The Big Book of Noir. This is Server's honest description of his canon: "Here is an admittedly idiosyncratic selection of one hundred titles that will provide the aspiring fan of dark film with a solid foundation in the noir vision through the decades and around the world." Do you believe that substituting Server's canon, or one like it, would constitute an improvement to the article?
Finally, since you are in favor of making personal observations about each other's "unfortunate" failures of recognition, allow me to observe (1) that you fail to recognize my acknowledgements that the current list is not ideal, my explicit statement of understanding that it is "not in accord with articulated Wikipedia guidelines," and my editing of the article in order to make the list more dispensable. Allow me to futher observe (2) that you seem entirely unaware of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:Use common sense, and especially WP:Ignore all rules and thus seem to find it difficult to focus on what's most important, the practical value and utility of the article to the Wikipedia readership. All this, despite RedSpruce's attempt to bring these guidelines, policies, and perspectives to your attention last week. As I say--or, rather, as you say--unfortunate.—DCGeist 01:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not clear to me why ignoring a fundamental content policy is supposed to be commonsensical, or why pointing out one of our most central policies is supposed to be a symptom bureaucracy. I'm personally all about getting rid of uselessly detailed guidelines, but "No original research" ain't one of them. You say that the methodology of creating the list makes it more objective. I say that it transparently reveals its subjectivity. I agree that we do not need a reference claiming to be idiosyncratic. We need a reference claiming to represent consensus or authority. Since most writers on film noir agree that there *is* no authority, we are left to find a verifiable source for critical consensus on the most representative films of classic noir. By some accounts, the canon of classic film noirs is more universally recognized than their defining stylistic qualities. Perhaps the list here does represent such a canon, but if so it's not because you're "comfortable" with an even number or because it's easy for you to remove an extraneous Hitchcock picture. We need a published source so that our readers can independently judge the usefulness of the list. It's just that simple, it shouldn't be that hard to find, and that's the last I'll say about it. I have no interest in continuing to beat my head against this wall. --Dystopos 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Dystopos, I apologize for removing the "mergeto" tag from the Film Noir article with the wrong reason given. I said "no rationale given", and I see now that in fact you do give a two-sentence rationale somewhere in the off-topic jumble above. If you add the film info as you describe, that's fine with me. RedSpruce 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Dystopos, thank you for stating that what is important is making it easy for "our readers [to] independently judge the usefulness of the list." The current list and note, which carefully makes transparent all of the decisions involved in its formulation, clearly achieves that. To my knowledge, no list that appears in any currently published source comes anywhere close to being assessable in the same manner. So we agree: for the time being, this list is the best there is.—DCGeist 01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it's a fantastic list, suitable for publication. The author should definitely submit it for publication. Once its published it will no doubt attract rave reviews from all manner of notable critics and will quickly find its way into Wikipedia with a suitable reference. Readers will then seek out the original source for the list and familiarize themselves with the painstaking methodology used by the author to create it. Let me be clear. Wikipedia cannot be the original source for the claims made by this list. That is not a minor legality, that is central to Wikipedia's mission, to provide free, neutral, verifiable information. Wikipedia:No original research explains the reasoning for this policy.
Unfortunately for our readers, it appears that although many have said that critical opinion has established a broad consensus on which films represent the central canon of film noir, no one has yet, to our knowledge, actually published such a list that is "assessable in the same manner". Therefore our options are (A) to do as User:Otto4711, User:SteveCrook, User:Mathew5000, User:VanTucky, User:Girolamo Savonarola, User:Cop 663 have recommended and just delete the original research, or (B) to do as I, User:DCGeist and User:Yorkshiresky have, to one degree or another, supported, which is to address the issue of canonic films using cited references in the text and to preserve the factual information in the list by merging it to an appropriate place before the list is deleted. --Dystopos 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] possible vandalism

User:George Kaplan has moved the talk page. Notice the talk page is redirected and no longer matches the title of the article. --Scottandrewhutchins 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • The user was fixing an error I made trying to resolve the mismatch. The mismatch pre-existed todays move and continues to exist. I'd fix it, but I messed it up the first time I tried so I don't want to do it again. --Dystopos 04:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978 film)

noir citations:

[edit] Linkage

Please link all films listed; if they're notable enough to be on a Wikipedia list, then they're notable enough to deserve an article. Redlinks are not scarlet letters - they're signposts pointing where articles should be. Girolamo Savonarola 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard Candy

Citations:

[edit] Robocop

Noir citations:

[edit] Outland

In my opinion the film Outland (1981) should be listed in the "Post-classic noir-SF crossovers"-section since it features several characteristics that define it as "Tech-noir" (like e. g. Blade Runner). The film is a sci-fi version of High Noon, which in turn is a western-noir crossover (High Noon is already listed). So personally I think that Outland should be mentioned, but I wanted to discuss this issue first. Dutzi (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's all POV, of course, but neither High Noon, nor the excellent sci-fi film Outland are noirs. Selby, for, example, does not list High Noon as an "Off-genre" film noir. Luigibob (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it's all POV. Someone recently demanded citations for the titles in the list. I think that's kind of unnecessary and difficult. It's like you'd ask for a citation if someone says that The Searchers is a western or that Singin' in the Rain is a musical. Naturally, in the case of the film noir (sub-) genre it's not always clear.
Of course Outland and High Noon aren't "classic" film noir. They are rather "noirish", since they display certain aspects. But as you said, it's all POV. And every critic or film historian has an own POV, too. Dutzi (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Right, agreed. I took down the tag. Imagine, every film on the list of film noirs having its own citation. Ha! That said, some garbage is getting on the list. Whenever, I add a new noir I try to always cite the Selby film noir # in the "edit summary." Anyone up for STARTING a film noir TASK FORCE? ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 22:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of films on the list obviously are film noir, but no film historian has identified them as such. And I don't think that they should be removed because of this reason. In this case it's OK to have all the citations in the film noir article. Take a look at the proto-noirs for example. Most of them haven't been described as noir, but they all exhibit basic noir characteristics. So they should remain on the list.

Now let's get back to Outland. So far, I haven't found any noir citation for this particular film, but I also haven't found any critic or film historian who identified The Terminator or Unforgiven as noirs (although I agree to that, too). I think I'll have to carry on my research in order to put Outland on the list. Dutzi (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)