I just watched "Stage Fright" last knight. It is a 1950 Hitchcock thriller which Wikipedia considers film noir, but this may be borderline. What do you think?
Film Noir
- Thread starter luvmysuper
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #82
I've not seen it yet, but it seems to have all the necessary elements!
I agree with Phil. It seems to have the elements. I do not recall seeing it. But the Wikipedia plot description seems very noir. Sounds nicely dark. The cast does, too. And Hitchcock is a big step toward noir all by himself as a factor. What seemed missing to you?
First - it's things like this which make B&B such a gem. I think a lot of us get attached to the movies that we grew up with. For me, that means enduring Hollywood's current efforts to destroy all the franchises from the late 70's and early 80's that I loved as a small child. Back to the Future is the last man standing...I can't believe it's safe!
Anyway, as I get older, I find that my taste in films (just like my taste in music) tends to be going backwards in time. I have recently been sitting down and watching some older movies, and I have seen a good handful from Phil's list. My conclusion: quality stands the test of time. I shall definitely refer back here when I am looking for more films to watch.
And that brings me to my point. If foreign language films aren't a problem you could do worse than check out some of Akira Kurosawa's noir pieces (or his other movies for that matter). I had always thought that his movies were so gushed over by nerdy film types that they couldn't possibly live up to the hype. Wrong again!
Here's one to try:
Anyway, as I get older, I find that my taste in films (just like my taste in music) tends to be going backwards in time. I have recently been sitting down and watching some older movies, and I have seen a good handful from Phil's list. My conclusion: quality stands the test of time. I shall definitely refer back here when I am looking for more films to watch.
And that brings me to my point. If foreign language films aren't a problem you could do worse than check out some of Akira Kurosawa's noir pieces (or his other movies for that matter). I had always thought that his movies were so gushed over by nerdy film types that they couldn't possibly live up to the hype. Wrong again!
Here's one to try:
I felt that "Star Struck" was film noir, but it was missing from some of the film noir lists. I watched it yesterday and was pleasantly surprised.
- Thread starter
- #86
Updated list in Post #1 with latest additions
Yeah ... two of my all-time favourites, but I'd never have pegged them as "noir". If comedies can fit under the broad umbrella, maybe take a look at the Ealing Street comedies of Alec Guinness? "The Man in the White Suit", "Captain's Paradise", and so forth?
My first thought along those lines was "Chinatown". Maybe that's too obvious, maybe it's discussed already ...
A bit more thought and I remember Sean Connery in "The Hill". How bout them apples?
- Thread starter
- #88
I think Connery did a Hitchcok film in the 60's, but I can't recall for certain. I'll have to do a search.
Edit:
Yep, Marnie (1964)
Last edited:
I'm not a film nerd, but I have watched some Kurosawa films. I really liked what I saw!
I'm not alone, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai and Hidden Fortress, they both got turned into westerns (though the latter was more of a space western) by Hollywood. Yojimbo and Sanjuro were also good films that got turned into westerns, though by the Italians. Ran is interesting in that it's Kurosawa taking a story from the west (Shakespeare) and setting it in medieval Japan. (Though, Kurosawa was also influenced greatly by Hollywood, especially John Ford.)
Rashomon, though is probably Kurosawa's most interesting film. He tells the same story from four different perspectives.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with Kurosawa's films, I'd recommend watching these films, first. They're absolutely captivating.
Kurosawa at his best is as good as it gets!
Can comedies be noir? Good question. I am not sure. Different definitions for different purposes, I suppose.
Chinatown, LA Confidential, Body Heat, all pretty good neo-noir, I would say. Along with other films we have discussed.
As for whether I prefer more modern over more vintage films, I do not know. My impression is there used to be many more films released, and it is only the better ones that tend to be sought ought or watched now. I do think there are a lot of weak movies these days, but I am guessing that was so back in the day, too. I had a mentor who was a fan of, say, 40s and early 50s music, sort of pre-rock and roll, who said that "sure there is a lot of bad music released these days, but believe me, there was always a lot of bad music being released." I am guessing that that is so for films, too.
Plus the fact that films reflect the mores/culture of their times, and folks like me and Phil, and I am guessing many B&B members commenting here are not going to be steeped in current mores, as younger people are, and I am guessing younger people are the bigger paying audience for newly released films. It is interesting to watch some films and think that they are obviously dated. But others do not really seem dated at all. Maybe it is that if a film is really compelling, one does not notice any dated aspects.
I wonder if really good actors back in the day managed to get involved in as many bad films as modern excellent actors seem to.
I also suspect that for music and for film that there are excellent examples of each that never really come to our attention or that are available to us. Of course, a lot easier to put out a record than it is to make a feature length film. There are probably films made in other countries that are excellent that we in the States never get to see.
Can comedies be noir? Good question. I am not sure. Different definitions for different purposes, I suppose.
Chinatown, LA Confidential, Body Heat, all pretty good neo-noir, I would say. Along with other films we have discussed.
As for whether I prefer more modern over more vintage films, I do not know. My impression is there used to be many more films released, and it is only the better ones that tend to be sought ought or watched now. I do think there are a lot of weak movies these days, but I am guessing that was so back in the day, too. I had a mentor who was a fan of, say, 40s and early 50s music, sort of pre-rock and roll, who said that "sure there is a lot of bad music released these days, but believe me, there was always a lot of bad music being released." I am guessing that that is so for films, too.
Plus the fact that films reflect the mores/culture of their times, and folks like me and Phil, and I am guessing many B&B members commenting here are not going to be steeped in current mores, as younger people are, and I am guessing younger people are the bigger paying audience for newly released films. It is interesting to watch some films and think that they are obviously dated. But others do not really seem dated at all. Maybe it is that if a film is really compelling, one does not notice any dated aspects.
I wonder if really good actors back in the day managed to get involved in as many bad films as modern excellent actors seem to.
I also suspect that for music and for film that there are excellent examples of each that never really come to our attention or that are available to us. Of course, a lot easier to put out a record than it is to make a feature length film. There are probably films made in other countries that are excellent that we in the States never get to see.
The net tells me that noir films, or at least neo noir films, can be, at least "rearely," comedies. Some sources seem to say there is a subgenre of neo noir comedies, and I found a top ten list. None of the films meant much to me, though.
I believe it wasn't uncommon for a studio to release 50 films per year during the Golden Age of Hollywood. That's about a new movie per week. Modern studios release about a new movie per month (if that). That means there were likely many more swings and misses back in the Golden Age than there are today. That said, I'm not sure if the rate of good movies to bad has improved, worsened, or stayed the same.
Incidentally, during Hollywood's Golden Age, movie theaters usually showed a newsreel, a short animated film, an A picture (feature film) and a B picture (feature film). That can help to explain why so many movies were released back then. I do wonder, though, whether any B movies are now considered classics. Come to think of it, I can think of one: Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. I have no clue what the A film was with which it was released.
We can only keep so many items in our "canon" of a genre ... music, film, books, tv shows, &c. As each decade passes on, and a given time passes farther into the past, more and more from that time falls by the wayside. There's too much new stuff vying for our attention for us to be able to remember and enjoy all the old stuff.
150 years ago everyone was reading all the stuff from the Bronte sisters, Austen, and Dickens. 100 years ago everyone would read the few "best" novels by them ... and the focus was on the newer writers ... Agatha Christie, Conan Doyle, Thomas Hardy ... and 50 years ago it was down to Wuthering Heights, Pride and Prejudice, and Great Expectations; throw in Oliver Twist or Tale of Two Cities for the ambitious. Then about the "better" half of Christie, Conan-Doyle and Hardy, and the focus is lots of James Clavell and Stephen King.
I bet nowadays most young adults haven't, and won't ever, read any Bronte, Austen or Dickens. They'll know a few key stories from a tv/movie adaptation, but that's about it. Now, if that's because they are 24/7 on the PS4, that's a damn shame. (I wish I could wake up and it not be true ... but it is.) But if they are choosing to read Brave New World, Catch-22, and 1984 instead ... I can't really fault them.
150 years ago nobody had to decide between Old Curiosity Shop and Finnegan's Wake.
I'm not a film nerd, but I have watched some Kurosawa films. I really liked what I saw!
Ran is interesting in that it's Kurosawa taking a story from the west (Shakespeare) and setting it in medieval Japan. (Though, Kurosawa was also influenced greatly by Hollywood, especially John Ford.)
Rashomon, though is probably Kurosawa's most interesting film. He tells the same story from four different perspectives.
For anyone who is unfamiliar with Kurosawa's films, I'd recommend watching these films, first. They're absolutely captivating.
One thing that I thought was amusing in Rashomon,
was that the authenticity of the medium was just assumed by all the other characters.
The only question was whether or not the ghost was lying,
just like in The Outrage.
I read a Kurosawa interview in which he said that he made more money from
copyright lawsuits than from his original films.
I think dark comedy can fit nicely into noir movies, like Blood Simple. I wouldn't classify Arsenic and Old Lace a noir comedy. It is a dark comedy, but more based on the old fashioned melodramas (or mellerdramer as an old drama teacher used to call them) of the turn of the century
Good example, Blood Simple! I think many noir or at least neo noir movies have comedic aspects.
Saw this last night, and it definitely warrants adding to the list. Modern Australian noir: dark as it gets...
Cape Fear
- Thread starter
- #99
I feel uncomfortable when I watch that film. I don't know why, but I do.
More so the remake than the original, but it is there for both versions and I can't explain it.
I feel anxiety when I'm watching it and want to stop.
Same here. I watched "Beat the Devil" last night. That was a weird flick.
Similar threads
