There will be 10 best picture nominees starting with the 82nd Oscar ceremony, skedded for March 7, at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood.
The announcement was made Wednesday morning at AMPAS headquarters in BevHills by Acad prez Sid Ganis. Oscar noms will be unveiled Feb. 2.
Ganis explains in a press release sent to us from AcademyAwardsGuru:
“After more than six decades, the Academy is returning to some of its earlier roots, when a wider field competed for the top award of the year,” said Ganis. “The final outcome, of course, will be the same – one Best Picture winner – but the race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies from 2009.”
“Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories, but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize,” commented Ganis. “I can’t wait to see what that list of ten looks like when the nominees are announced in February.”
Click on names for archives
Writers/Founders
I think this is an excellent idea and I applaud the Academy on this wise decision, one that should not have been scrapped in 1943.
A number of worthy films did not make that elitist five, and this includes the recent DREAMGIRLS, which was edged out two years ago. As to the argument that the short list of ten will “water down” the choices as Craig has suggested I feel differently. Many of us see around 150 films a year, and invariably there are at least a minimum of around 25 films that rank either at 4, 4 1/2 or 5 stars. Ten films will FINALLY allow animated films (like UP in) and it will curb the cut-throat jockeying that informs a tiny short list of 5.
Few serious moviegoers take the Oscars seriously anyway, so this open house will finally allow indes and foreign language films more than a fair chance of making the expanded cut.
For me it’s a no-brainer, and a glorious return to th elate 30’s and early 40’s where it worked quite well before some masterminds decided to make the competition more acute.
The irony, of course, being that in the late 30’s and early 40’s, Hollywood was producing masterpiece after masterpiece, fully warranting 10 nominees (if not more).
Indeed Movie Man, indeed!!
Look at 1939 for example:
Picture:
“GONE WITH THE WIND”, “Dark Victory”, “Goodbye, Mr. Chips”, “Love Affair”, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, “Ninotchka”, “Of Mice and Men”, “Stagecoach”, “The Wizard of Oz”, “Wuthering Heights”
I wish I could get Sam to respond to emails as quickly as he responds to site comments…it’s like waiting for a royal appointment.
Sam I have to disagree with you here. Sure, I could get behind this idea I could trust the academy voters…
This feels like a publicity stunt to get more viewers to watch their already overlong exercise of handing out “safe” Oscars. Perhaps I’m too jaded, but I think this might be the result of The Dark Knight not getting a nomination last year; so they up it to ten in hopes that the extra five slots — which will be given to more commercially accepted movies — will reel in more viewers.
I don’t like it. I don’t like it one bit.
But hey, I guess that’s why there’s Tivo.
That’s a good observation, Kevin. It didn’t occur to me; in fact the decision was a bit of a head-scratcher, given that movies have, by most accounts, been getting worse rather than better. Your explanation makes a good deal of sense…
I can see Kevin’s point. If the Academy can’t get it right with 5, why assume they will with 10? It will make a long show longer. It will this generate more revenue for the academy, while ensuring, in these frugal times, that publicity departments don’t quite have to be so mercenary in their promotion of films knowing they can get in a little bit easier.
Likewise, those thinking this will mean a foreign film or two getting in are living in fantasy land. Won’t happen. Animated films, yes, which will mean they can get rid of that useless best animated feature award, but that’s it.
Don’t see any foreign films getting nominated nor animated movies. I do see a lot of bucks being made for corporations. But hey, since everything is run by big business, nothing new there.
Look out for new categories in the increasingly money mad Hollywood – BEST SEQUEL, BEST FLIMSY ROMCOM, BEST REMAKE, BEST REMAKE OF A REMAKE, BEST REMAKE OF A SEQUEL, BEST PREQUEL, BEST “THIS IS A PIECE OF SHIT BUT MARKET IT TO LOOK COOL” AND, MY OWN FAVOURITE, FOR THE REAL SHORT-ATTENTION SPAN GEEKS, BEST TRAILER…
Best trailer! Ha! Now that I WOULD watch.
It’s interesting news, but I think it’ll be necessary to reserve judgment until we see what the Academy does with their new-found options. If we get an animated film, one or two foreign films, and one or two closer-to-being-really-indie films come February, and they all seem like relatively acceptable choices, it’ll probably be for the best. If not, oh well—what else is new?
Seriously, don’t knock trailers. There is an art to creating a good one. Indeed, some trailers are better than the movie.
Before I respond to and thank all of the contributors, I’d like to mention on this thread that there two posts (one superlative review of a silent classic and one exceedingly impressive 2002 movie list) by T.S. of Screen Savour and Kevin Olson of Hugo Stiglitz Makes Movies (both on the blogroll) that deserve unqualified promotion:
T.S.’s definitive treatment of D.W. Griffith’s BROKEN BLOSSOMS:
http://www.screensavour.net/2009/06/broken-blossoms-1919.html
Kevin J. Olson’s eclectic and beautifully-written 2002 best list:
http://kolson-kevinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-top-10-2002.html
Kevin also gives a wonderful treatment of GOODBYE SOLO which is under the linked piece.
Tony is quite right there about the danger of undersetimating trailers, methinks.
Thank You Movie Man, Kevin, T.S., Bobby and that irrepressible Allan!
I will first say this: This is most assuredly a controversial decision, and I’m sure it was engineered with much consternation. But I stand by my position that the good outweighs the bad. I believe with ten slots availble you WILL see foreign and animated films slip in. It’s a given. This year UP will make the cut, and I bet you’ll see a few indes that would never have made a shortlist of five. Movie Man says the films are getting worse, not better, and I can’t oppose him there. But there is no year in memory that didn’t have at least a dozen or so worthy films. I mean we’re talking 130 to 150 films seen every year in theatres by myself as well as many others who come to these threads.
It’s easy to look at this cynically to to be discouraged by the motives. But even Allan, who generally opposes this move, told me on th ephone not just 30 minutes ago that the movie companies will save money now, since they won’t have to fight as hard with double the spots open.
But my major reason for applauding this announcement has to do with the glorious expectation of some biazarre upsets, with the votes splitting in ten directions.
But it will be easy to see what five of the ten are serious contenders by simply looking at the Best Director nominations.
Ten nominees also brings the Academy in line with movie critics, who typically produce “Ten Best” lists at the end of the year, as well as the National Board of Review and the American Film Institute, each of which names the ten best films of the year. The Golden Globes also, in essence, nominate ten best films: five in the “Drama” category, five in the “Musical or Comedy” category.
I think this decision will allow for more movies on the “rim” to make the final cut.
I have to agree wuth the nay-sayers on this. If you really want to make the Oscars worth something dear Academy, the try something new and interesting: NOMINATE FIVE GOOD FILMS and GIVE THE GODDAMNED STATUES TO THE PEOPLE AND FILMS THAT DESERVE THEM! Better idea to make the show grab ratings? Shorten the thing! Get Oprah up there to make a speech about the history of film and then call up the winners! One hour that’s it goodbye and I’ll be seein’ you. Last year only two films in BEST PICTURE deserved to be in the category: The Reader and Milk. If, perhaps the Academy were to truly see all the films and negate it’s attention to films worthy of the nod they might generate quizzical interest by more people. As far as THE DARK KNIGHT goes last year, don’t get me started-it was a travesty not to nominate it or WALL-E. By trying to look smart they make themselves look stupid. This is hog-wash!
And thanks Bob McCartney for enlightening us all with your ensightful commentary on this matter that 20 comments couldn’t sum up. I don’t know what WitD would do without you. Somebody get a blanket and put it over “Lightning” McCartney’s head! Jesus!
Hate to sound overtly cynical but, let’s be serious for one second — everything in Hollywood is a “commercial” decision and ONLY a commercial decision. Every year these jokers nominate five pictures and those pictures immediately have a spectacular windfall of dollars as a result. This expansion will only serve to “spread the wealth” to more films. The entire thing is a joke being played on the movie-going public.
And another thing.. The Academy always like to pull a wild-card director into the category (meaning four nods to directors with films nominated for picture and then a nod to a solo director)m if we are now to have TEN films nominated then there better NEVER be an eleventh director in the mix. If the can’t get it right with five outta ten then the whole things a BUST. I have to agree with Allan and some of the others… This is BULLS*#T!!!!!!!
Look, I hear everyone’s negative thoughts on this, but you’re wrong. Of course there will be some underachievers sneaking in there thanks to the 5 extra slots, but that already happens! The Reader and Benjamin Button?!?! There were at least ten other films that didn’t get nominated that made those two look like student films (with the exception of Benjamin Button’s special effects, of course).
But look at it this way, yes, some junk will get nominated but it also opens the door to some real gems that would otherwise undoubtedly get snubbed. Think about the bigger picture here.
Sam — Thanks for the shout-out…you’re too kind!
If a piece of unmitigated garbage like the ‘The Dark Knight’ gets nominated, the case against this move is made.
Thanks for the linkage, Sam. I appreciate it.
Unmitigated garbage, oh Bobby…it’s worth more than 75% of Best Picture winners in the last 20 years…
Thank you Allan!
I am with you Bobby J!
A confusing noisy comic writ large on a wide screen, that is sorely in need of balloons to capture the dialog, which is otherwise unintelligible. Heath Ledger does something with his role, but to no greater purpose. Bale is predictably banal, and the rest of the cast borderline only. The plot is entirely derivative and the supposed count-down climax a veritable yawn. The mayhem in the closing action sequence is so closely framed and poorly edited that you don’t know what the hell is going on. There is something wrong when so many otherwise intelligent people can invest this tripe as some deep and meaningful metaphor for our troubled times.
Well, I will say this: there were a number of other films I would have nominated before THE DARK KNIGHT!
Welcome here Eric!
You know of course that I share your sentiments, even if friends like Peter Danish and Dennis make strong arguments against the move.
sent via e mail—
this is incredible news! a good idea, although I wonder if this will really split things for any non mainstream films, of which more will be nominated, that now it will be even easier for the middle of the road movies to win.
Even of the five nominees per year the Academy usually gets it wrong. Ten films will only double the Academy’s stupidity. I got an idea.. How ’bout the Academy letting the guys at WitD choose the nominees? Or how about the critics? Year after year they flub the ball in nominees and winners. NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN over THERE WILL BE BLOOD and JUNO? And where was I’M NOT THERE in the noms for BEST PICTURE? CRASH over MUNICH, CAPOTE and BROKEBACK? Laughable. Adrian Brody in THE PIANIST over Daniel Day-Lewis in GANGS OF NEW YORK? That’s just showing their mental defects. A BEAUTIFUL MIND over FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING? STOP ME PLEASE! No, no, no. Ten pictures will only worsen the blows to excellence and merit. Doing this would give them far more credit than their worth.
And then there are the foreign films that never saw the light of day. CINEMA PARADISO, RED, RAISE THE RED LANTERN, RAN, Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN, TALK TO HER, BREAKING THE WAVES. Animated? What about the LION KING or that PIXAR has been consistantly been knocking them outta the park both commercially and critically for over a decade? No. Leave it at 5 noms so the embarassment isn’t so pronounced!
dennis — don’t forget 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days, which somehow didn’t even make the shortlist for Foreign Language Film.
Well, K, my own wife is against me on this as well, and a close friend of mine told me face to face last night that the competition will be watered down. You have made good points right along.
Sam, there are a ton of good points about it as well, and you’ve articulated them brilliantly. Seeing as how it’s the Oscars, and it’s Hollywood, and it’s a business, I just can’t imagine the good shining through. I’m waiting to be pleasantly surprised, though, and, in fairness, we don’t really know any more details about the nomination process.
Thanks very much K. I must admit I am beginning to doubt my own reasoning, which has always been fueled by frustration. I remember being terribly disappointed when DREAMGIRLS missed the Big Five a few years back, and I was devastated when FAR FROM HEAVEN missed, and then when A.I. didn’t go in in 2001. But I was crushed in 1987 when EMPIRE OF THE SUN was snubbed. But I agree that 10 may be too many films; perhaps adding one or two would have been a safer direction, but as you and many others have excellently posed there is much more at play here in this decision.
And by keeping it five it also whittles junk out of the nominees. Five is the right number. If they do it with ten then you have the opportunity to nominate more junk.. Case in point: 2002-FAR FROM HEAVEN
Interesting examples you cite, Dennis. I too agree that posterity usually shows the Oscars’ choices to be foolhardy, and that all inclinations are the past decade will be worst than most in this regard.
But as for what you mention:
No Country – I think this was a better choice than There Will Be Blood, a fascinating movie but also a mess. That’s debatable, however. Less so I think would be the choice of Juno – an entertaining comedy, if overly derivative and at times nauseatingly cutesy/hipster, certainly not Best Picture material.
I’m Not There – Interesting concept, but I was not enamored of the delivery. Also do not think this would be Best Picture material. You can read my review on my blog (the second I ever wrote, back in July of last year) for more on that.
Crash was indeed a head-scratcher, but Capote didn’t seem to be much of anything: a chance for Hoffman to do an impersonation but overall, an overhyped project that didn’t really say as much as it thought it did.
I like the Brody choice; I could watch Day-Lewis read the phone book, but I think it’s questionable as to whether his performance was the best of the year (I think he ran over similar ground, with better results in There Will… so one could credit the Oscars with foresight, though of course it’s mere coincidence). I would have been happy if he won, but was very happy with Brody’s excellent performance winning too.
As for A Beautiful Mind, you’re probably right and the first Lord of the Rings was by far the best of the trilogy, but it was still a tad overrated, methinks.
Which just goes to show there’s a great deal of subjectivity in assessing the Oscars’ decisions. I think we’d be on safer ground noting not what won over what, but what films were left out in the cold altogether: Mulholland Dr., which got a Best Director nod but little else; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind which was overlooked for Best Picture – just to name two examples of films which will be probably be remembered for much longer than much-hyped and quickly-forgotten films which tend to dominate Oscar talk at the end of each year before slinking off into oblivion.
But that’s nothing new, as the Oscars have rewarded short-term thinking for pretty much the entirety of their career.
Tony, on the seemingly endless Dark Knight discussion, I agree with your sentiments as applied to many other blockbusters of the era, I found the film in question one of the better examples of the comic-book-adaptation/comment-on-our-times-in-barely-concealed-allegory genre. While acknowledging its formal problems (and denying its status as “great” as a result) I found the screenplay fairly compelling…it seemed that rather than try to pursue realism with too much fidelity (I mistake Batman Begins made, i thought) it accepted its status as myth. Granted, there were plenty of problems, it was obviously (and inevitably) overrated, and I can definitely see why so many turned against it, but I found it to be one of the more successful “big” pictures of recent years, if not Best Picture material (at least judged against the ideal of such).
Yes, yes good examples all. ETERNAL SUNSHINE moved me in ways I cannot put into words. But, I’ll defend THERE WILL BE BLOOD to the death. I think it may be the best of the decade so far.
Short term thinking, MM? No, I would go further, they have the sort of memory that makes Guy Pearce in Memento look like Wylie Watson in The 39 Steps. I agree entirely on Eternal Sunshine and Mulholland Drive. The Dark Knight must be put in context…of the comic book action genre it is a classic, in the same way a Terminator or an Alien is a classic. Is it a masterpiece? No. Is it Nolan’s best film? No, I’d place two ahead of it. But it’s as good as you’ll get of its type.
I won’t say any more as it may spoil future polls. Suffice it to say The Dark Knight will be on the top 100 of the 2000s, but where I couldn’t say.
Hi! Sam Juliano, Allan, and WitD readers,
I really don’t want to admit this, but I’ am very “impartial” when it comes to whether adding five additional films to the list of nominees is a good idea or not a good idea 😕 because I “rarely,” if ever watch television. Of course, I placed a strong emphasize on the word “rarely.”
DeeDee 😉
LOL Dee Dee!!!
I remember what you had said at Oscar time back in March. You are not really a television person (basically I also am not) and you haven’t always followed the Oscars, which in the end is a better thing, methinks!
Allan, which two? Of his works, the two I enjoyed most were two of his least celebrated, The Prestige & Insomnia. Both were perhaps flawed but I found them more engaging & intersting than the well-made but quite cold Memento (which gave me a headache) and the extremely irritating and misbegotten Batman Begins. I have not seen his first movie.
By the way, is everyone aware that Michael Jackson has apparently died? And that Farah Fawcett apparently died earlier this week too?
Well, Sam – I think you make an excellent point in one of your above bits, about being able to compare top ten lists of critics and other major awards lists. That’s about the only positive element in the decision.
If anyone thinks it’s to do with the Academy and art rather than in the interests of the studios and big business corporate interests…..well, see there’s this yellow pill, take one and POW….the matrix is exposed.
May be I’m a bit conservative, but I love to be able to compare year upon year and as it’s been 5 movies for the last 65 plus years, that knocks that on the head….. What next – 15 movies.
Anyway, when they do the close-up of the producers as the award is annonced, how will they expect to get ten people into those little boxes (or do they assume that everyone has a 52-inch wide screen tv). And does this mean that ten directors get nominated. It really makes non-sense of statistical comparisons of eras.
As for getting ten great films on the board……are ten truly great film made in one single year?
Compare this from 1946, when there were only 5 choices to make:
The Best Years of Our Lives
The Big Sleep
La Belle et la Bete
Green for Danger
It’s a Wonderful Life
A Matter of Life and Death
My Darling Clementine
Notorious
Great Expectations
Shoeshine
…..and that’s excluding others of the ilk of The Killers, Gilda, The Jolson Story, A Walk in the Sun, ect, ect.
Maybe they’ll nominate that piece of shallow ‘sci-fi’ execrement ‘Star Trek’ written by babbling idiots and made by a mentality better suited to Mtv and Beverly Hills 921.
As for ‘The Dark Knight’ being in context, I think the context is faulty here. ‘The Terminator’ and ‘Alien’ are Science Fiction and flow from the well-spring of the genre’s life-blood – the short form (vignettes (up to 999 words), short stories (1,000 to 7,499), novelettes (7,500 to 17,499) and novellas (17,500 to 39,999) ) source of life for SF. This leads to novels, radio, tv and movies. The best these SF, fantasy and horror shows and movies stem from literature (90-95% of time), though there are always honourable exceptions. ‘The Teminator’ was a forging of 3 ‘Outer Limits’ episodes, ‘Westworld’ and ‘The Driver’. ‘Alien’ was an unoffical remake of ‘It! The Terror from Beyond Space’ (by a hack SF writer) which was a steal of Van Vogt’s ‘Black Destroyer’ (1939) ( available to read here: http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0743498747/0743498747___5.htm ) with elements taken from “Junkyard” by Clifford D. Simak and ‘Strange Relations’ by Philip José Farmer (1960).
Anything coming from outside the field is labeled ‘sci-fi’, a derisory tag that it more than deserves.
To put comics into this context, even the best isn’t a valid comparison. It’s like trying to compare ‘2001’ and ‘The Incrediable Shrinking Man’ with ‘Spiderman’ or ‘Iron Man’. Comics are more to do with myth-making national legends, the way the Germans did in the ’20s with their national legends such as ‘Die Nibelungen’ or Americans did with heroes of the old west.
Comic book are usually derivatve of SF concepts but hardly about the ideas. ‘The Dark Knight’ can have many of the trappings of SF (which it didn’t, unlike ‘Iron Man’) but it was all to do with myth-making.
I unleashed my venom on it when it was originally reviewed.
I found it to be one of the most reactionary films since ‘Birth of a Nation’ – and justifying the whole Nixon/Dick Chenay conception of the Government.
Bobby J, I agree with you on two points: 1) The Dark Knight functioned primarily as a myth and 2) it was a reactionary film.
However, I liked the film – and in fact would say that these two elements strengthened it as they helped avoid two of the cliches so many blockbusters fall into: “realism” (a trap that ensnared Batman Begins) and a knee-jerk liberalism . I don’t agree with the film’s justification of Bush/Nixon governance, but I find it infinitely more compelling and interesting than yet another movie making easy and unthinking left-of-center arguments, which are a dime and a dozen coming out of the industry (and usually hypocritical – bound up as they are with all kinds of audience-pleasing concessions, a bit of having your cake and eat it too – to boot).
I think saying The Dark Knight functions as myth is a bit over the top. A myth has some foundation in reality however far removed. Reactionary yes, but even saying that is investing this inept film with a power it does not have.
On the contrary, Tony, my impression of the typical myth is that it has even LESS foundation in reality than The Dark Knight did; if anything, I’d say The Dark Knight still had too much residual “realism” for its own good. Your criticisms are fair enough. I don’t really have much invested in defending the film, which I enjoyed and found compelling, but also thought was (inevitably, given the hype) somewhat overrated and directorially not especially notable. Just thought I should mention that it worked for me. Out of curiosity, what did you think of Batman Begins and Sin City, two comic book adaptations I did not care for? I’d be interested to know your opinion of the latter, especially, given your famed fondness for noir.
MovieMan, I enjoy a good super-hero as much as the next guy. I consumed thousands of comics as a pre-teen. (I had a free supply from an old Russian guy who worked at the warehouse.)
So I suppose there is a certain disappointment behind my response to The Dark Knight and Batman Begins – we build our own myths from fantasy and memory. But my disappointment with Batman Begins was tempered with a liking of the gothic visuals in that movie. Sin City I haven’t seen. I asked my 21yo son and he said it was “kind of dumb”… I am not knocking your liking The Dark Knight, the same 21yo liked it too 😉 Neo-noir doesn’t interest me that much, and for me the label ‘noir’ or ‘noirish’ is too often applied with uninformed abandon anyway.
I may be wrong here, and this is not a personal criticism, but I find your saying inter-alia “yet another movie making easy and unthinking left-of-center arguments” problematic. You seem to raise the bar far higher for films informed by a liberal conscience than those with a rightist bent.
I just got in the house. It is 12:30 A.M. and I am pooped. I will be answering my good friends Movie Man and Bobby J. in the morning. Thank You. (Movie Man on THE SEAPARATE PEACE thread too)
Hiya! WitD readers,
Par”dom” me, but if I may add this comment from Yahoo message board that a commenter posted over there on their board about whether Nolan’s Batman is/or should be considered a noir…and he said,
“It definitely has many elements of film noir (low key lighting, dramatic shadows, on location and night shoots in urban setting, low angle shots, wide angles, flawed and alienated hero, crime storyline, moral quadries, etc.), but I would not classify it as a clear cut example of a film noir.
The distinction between traditional film genres (style) is so blurred these days that it is difficult to classify most films within one specific genre (style).
The Batman story has its roots in film noir style and story and this particular film show it that very well. Also combined with director Christopher Nolan’s style, which is often rooted within film noir as seen in his other films, it makes the Dark Knight very film “noirish.”
…Personally, I think Batman has elements of noir for the same reason that the commenter, mentioned in his comment.
But please be mindful, of the fact, that I’ am a graphic artist, and that my artwork (human figures) are drawn in the same “vein” so to speak, as depicted in comic book(s) by the likes of Ken Kelly, Duncan Fegredo, Dermot Power(s) and my favorite illustrator (to date) Scott Hampton. (All four men are illustrators/artists that have rendered Batman in a very realistic manner.)
Whereas, I’ am not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone on this thread…
…I’ am just voicing my own opinion about why I think that Batman (The Dark Knight) is very “noirish” indeed!
DeeDee 😉
Hmmm…maybe with the exception of illustrator Duncan Fegredo. 🙄
Tony, you are correct in a sense. On the one hand, and this is purely personal as it’s hardly the criteria for an objective assessment, a right-wing film is simply refreshing simply since so many Hollywood films come from the left-of-center. In this regard, were more conservative films made the “refreshment” angle would dissipate – hence my statement that this cannot be the grounds for an objective appraisal of right-leaning films.
On the other hand, the very fact that a Hollywood film takes a right-leaning bent entails a certain amount of self-consciousness and thoughtfulness – unless the film is made in a right-wing bubble, like last year’s An American Carol – because it’s necessarily aware of going against the grain. Whereas Hollywood’s leftism is so reflexive, liberal content tends to be knee-jerk and thoughtless (this is not always the case, but 9 times out of 10 is so).
It’s not so much a question of one ideology being “better” than the other, as a film whose ideology runs contrary to its milieu being refreshing – much as a left-wing talk show host plunked in the middle of a right-wing channel (as opposed to on a left-leaning station with other like-minded folks) would be refreshing and probably more thoughtful and self-aware than the conservative blowhards surrounding.
Hope that was clear – it’s early and I’m trying to wrap up so I can head out the door – I’ll clarify later if necessary!
P.S. The criticism is also not so much of left-leaning films per se, but of the reflexive, knee-jerk variety, seemingly unaware there could be any legitimate alternative to its viewpoint, and with an irritating capacity to preach to the choir – which is the camp most such films have fallen into for years (whether a liberal “message” movie or a movie with left-leaning content or asides). Some of the greatest filmmakers were resolutely left-wing but in a strong and informed way.
Another thing that bothers me about Hollywood leftism is that it’s hypocritical – the epitome of limousine liberalism, and not just behind-the-scenes but in what’s onscreen, as there’s usually a great deal of narcissistic bombast and party-hearty mentality mixed in with the liberalism. Or as I said to someone the other night, seeing an episode of a new show about a do-gooder playboy who makes ironic asides and then pauses to embrace a starving little Third Worlder (before claiming to bed an aid worker) with a strained, pained expression on his face. This can also lapse into a neoconservatism, equally annoying, such as that of Iron Man which just barely got away with it due perhaps to Robert Downey Jr.’s charm.
I got into trouble a here a couple of months back knocking the Coen Bros. Tonight I finally summoned the fortitude to watch No Country for Old Men. Technically impressive but in every other way empty. What does this film say? Nothing. All we have is chic nihilism and gruesome violence not even held together by a coherent narrative. The manipulative presentation of violence is so calculated it is almost fascist, the incidental killings are labored over with buckets of blood and gore so by their anonymity they can be indulged in, while those of central characters are conveniently handled off-screen. This is what gets the Best Picture Oscar and a collective nod from cineastes and the critical establishment. Clearly I have no call blogging about film at all, as I am obviously missing something essential. As well as doubting my mental competence I now fear for my sanity after reading the apparently serious review by David Thomson in his book Have You Seen…? praising the film’s concern with “the implacability of death’s reach”. I am out of here.
thanks for the link to the review Movieman….just read it and found it a cogent and engrossing piece. Quite excellent. I’ve posted my original response to the movie at the end, I was pissed off at the time, after having two hours of Neo-Con propaganda.
I’d say that between ‘Birth of a Nation’ and ‘The Dark Knight’ lies one other film and that is ‘Dirty Harry’ – yet another outsider taking the law into his own hands. Torturing to save lives, ect, ect. It can also be seen as the rights backlash against the whole civil rights, civil disorder, anti-war liberal ‘60s. It is almost the proto-type (probably unintentional) for the super hero film.
For me, Movieman – ‘Batman Begins’ – I found virtually faultless and emotionally engaging. ‘Why do we fall, master Wayne’- jeeez, I get goose pimples.
Talking about Film Noir and Batman…..brings about a ‘what if’.
What if Orson Welles had directed Batman in the mid ’40s.
Well, about a year and a half or two ago, some comic book geek decided to have a bit of fun and wrote an article to create a urban legend, that Welles was in pre-production on a Batman film at that time. He even had a pre-production sketches from the supposed film.
It was all hogwash, though.
But the trailer that appeared around that time is great fun. In fact, it far more fun than ‘The Dark Knight’. At least, it makes me crack a smile. Enjoy….
PS:
Superheroes that worked for me as movies despite a flaw or two…
Superman – the Movie, Superman 2 (Donner cut released directly to dvd), The Rocketeer, Batman Returns, The Hulk, Spiderman 2, X-Men 2.
Superheros that didn’t, Superman Returns, The Dark Knight, Dick Tracy, The Phantom, Doc Savage, The Incredible Hulk, Fantastic Four, Batman…
PS 2: Moveiman, here’s a link to my view on ‘The Dark Knight’
https://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2008/11/28/the-dark-knight-%C2%BD/
PS3: As for the right versus left argument…..and liberalism.
Well, I know that liberals is a degotory label in US, but the liberal (socialist) side of life gave America super-power status. Is was the liberal side of the political spectrum that fought for health and safety legislation, maximum wages for a man’s toil, civil rights, unions to fight to for a worker, medical care, enviromental protection and would put up tariffs to protect trade and stop the corporate out-scourcing of jobs (first manufacturing, now computing and design – but hey, if you can pay an Indian or Chinese worker 10 to 15% what you would to a US citizen, would you as a CEO not look at your bottom line, too?).
The right has been about deregulation, competition for jobs (even if the guy your competing against lives on the factory floor and is willing to do the job of a westener for $5 a day). The Savings and Loan disaster of the ’80s when Reagan deregulated them and cost the US tax-payer 1 trillion dollars (cited as the most expensive signiture in history), the backing of death sqauds in Latin America, the freeing up of the noble business man and banker to do what they like with as little interference as possible from the Governement, the culture wars about abortion, the refusal of stem cell research, and whole neo-con project in which – if the President does it, its no longer illegal.
The only place where I think the right has something to contribute, is in taking personal responsibility for a persons actions. Except, the structures of politics and business is usually suited to them, an elite established elite.
Movieman, I think you’d appreciate this. It’s a 3 part BBC documentary – it will NEVER, ever be shown in the US. As a US tv executive said to the maker after watching it, if they showed it there, their licence would be revoked.
And it won’t even be released in the UK on dvd, as amount of rights clearances required is almost insurmountable (he samples images and sound tracks from movies). He is one of the finest talents working in tv or film on either side of the pond. The only one of his level is Ken Burns. This one of best things made in the last ten years….it’s like a reading an incredibly engrossing non-fiction book. You won’t see anything better on tv or the movies this year.
three parts….
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=power+of+nightmares#
after that….the following independent films may be of interest to you.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904
http://www.youtube.com/911scholars
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2329092821935314404
“the implacability of death’s reach”….lol
Dee Dee:
I think a very strong case can be made for THE DARK KNIGHT and/or BATMAN BEGINS as film noir.
“The Batman story has its roots in film noir style and story and this particular film show it that very well. Also combined with director Christopher Nolan’s style, which is often rooted within film noir as seen in his other films, it makes the Dark Knight very film “noirish.”
Dee Dee, that pretty much says it all there.
I will now respond to Bobby J.
…
Bobby J:
Thanks as always for the exceedingly thoughtful and comprehensive response here in regard to the ten nominee decision of the Academy.
Whether the motive is money or not (it basically is) is not the focus I am embracing here. I am looking at the end result, and whether or not this will finally do some justice in righting wrongs of the past. If ten were chosen, HENRY V and CINEMA PARADISO would have gotten in in 1989, GATTACA would have made it in 1998, A.I. in 2001, FAR FROM HEAVEN in 2002, DREAMGIRLS in 2006, WALL-E in 2008 and so on……….I am myself interested in seeing some justice in not slighting deserving films.
As far as the argument you make about there not being ten good movies every year deserving of nominations, I strongly reject that. I see around 130 movies (theatrically) every year, and there are never less than about 20 films of exceeding excellence. True, about 80 to 90 of the 130 are forgettable, but there is always that solid group that fall within the masterwork or near-masterwork category. And that’s not just me, but th eprofessional critics. If a scrutinyzing critic can enthusiastically embrace and promote 10 films and a honrable mention 10, well then the far more accepting Academy can do it.
The reason why this decision was made is admittedly dubious, but I do believe the end results will succeed.
Your massive film noir piece above written to Movie Man is stunning. I don’t know where to begin, but it is deeply deeply appreciated at this site.
Dee Dee: Check out Bobby J’s fascinating film noir submission above!
hey Sam, I hope you watch the documentaries – I’d like your opinion.
Aye Bobby I definitely will, and I will respond on this thread by tomorrow evening.
Hi! Sam Juliano, Bobby J, and WitD readers…
Here goes a really interesting article with director Christopher Nolan, discussing The Dark Knight and Film Noir…Sam said,”Dee Dee: Check out Bobby J’s fascinating film noir submission above!”
Oh! Yes, Sam, I checked out Bobby J’s submission and found it to be utterly fascinating.
Sam Juliano said, “Dee Dee, that pretty much says it all there.”
Oh! No! Sam, I think this article pretty much says it all right here…
…With ‘The Dark Knight,’ film noir still lives
It’s a visual style. It’s a movie genre. And nearly 70 years after it first appeared, film noir is not only still with us, but has successfully moved into the worlds of science fiction, the graphic novel and comic books. Take “The Dark Knight,” opening Friday. (July 18th 2008) It’s not just the latest Batman film, but a brooding, dark story in which Bruce “Batman” Wayne must fight epic villains like The Joker, as well as deal with his own internal conflicts.
“The biggest thing about noir is moral ambiguity, characters who are not easy to pin down – who is good, who is evil,” says “Dark Knight” director Christopher Nolan, referring to the genre and his own film. “In the greatest film noir there is this continuing pressure being put on the character, and I was looking back to a film like (the 1944 classic) ’Double Indemnity.’ There is a spiraling sense of doom in these films, the characters are under pressure, and you see how they react.”
Film noir, literally “black film,” is a term coined in the 1940s by French critics to describe the dark, cynical American crime dramas of the era. The genre’s classic period, roughly 1944-1958, emerged from the horrors and cultural dislocations of World War II, and dealt with everything from the role of women in society to the ways in which returning veterans, some of them shell-shocked and drug-addicted, attempted to fit into the postwar world. Noir movies often featured a private eye, a femme fatale, and a sadistic hoodlum. Many were concerned with notions of identity, moral ambiguity and the search for the truth. Coupled with a high-contrast, black-and-white shooting style, noir movies seemed to capture the essence of the period.
“Noir is caught up with postwar disillusionment, and the coming of more explicit crime literature, like ’The Postman Always Rings Twice,’” says Paul Meehan, author of “Tech Noir: The Fusion of Science Fiction and Film Noir.” “It’s a study of nihilism, perversity, the darkness inside people.”
That also makes it a perfect style for the science-fiction and comic-book worlds, which, in works like “Blade Runner” and “Road to Perdition,” have been flirting with dark themes for years. “Because science fiction by its nature is allegorical, it allows you to discuss dark territory,” says David Eick, co-executive producer of the critically acclaimed TV series remake of “Battlestar Galactica,” which has explored classic noirish themes like the search for identity. “The science-fiction genre fits with the film noir style,” he adds, “because it allows for a more emotionally charged discourse.”
“The darkness alone” in science fiction makes it noir-compatible, says Ronald Schwartz, author of “Neo-Noir: The New Film Style From ’Psycho’ to ’Collateral.’” “In science fiction there’s some sort of evil out there. You look at a film like ’Invasion of the Body Snatchers’ – those pods are alien; that’s sci-fi noir.”
This sense of noirish doom also has invaded the comic book and graphic novel, which have increasingly turned to bleaker themes and visual styles, as seen in works like “Sin City” and the upcoming film version of the classic crime-fighting comics hero “The Spirit.”
“Batman was the first noir superhero,” Meehan says. “He inhabited a noir universe, the dark streets of Gotham City, filled with twisted, crazy criminals.”
“’The Dark Knight’ is a crime story,” Nolan adds, “and not all crime stories are film noir. But I think you’re seeing a desire in storytelling to have moral ambiguity, and that’s been the basis of film noir.”
Not that noir has always been in vogue. For a while it was out of favor and the subject of parody, as in the 1982 Steve Martin comedy “Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid.” But what Schwartz calls “neo-noir” emerged in the mid-1960s. Now shot in color, these dramas featured a more permissive sexual attitude, heightened violence and the emergence of the serial killer in movies like “The Silence of the Lambs.”
“There are good-bad detectives and good-bad cops” in these films, Schwartz says. “These people have multiple sides to them; they’re not straight as an arrow, like Philip Marlowe,” the Raymond Chandler character.
What all this means is that despite its origins in a war that ended more than 60 years ago, noir doesn’t seem to be fading. In fact, given the right stories and circumstances, it remains as vibrant, and cinematic, as it ever was.
“It continues to feel very contemporary to me,” Eick says. “The viewing public ultimately wants something that reflects the times and the condition of their times, and because of its allegorical power, film noir is a mainstay.”
“Noir will come in and out of favor,” Nolan adds, “because the desire to see these stories depends on the world outside the movie theater. When you’re in unsettled times, that’s when the genre rises to the fore. Like the concern in ’The Dark Knight,’ the fear of anarchy invading society – that’s a very contemporary fear.”
The author of the article below Kimberly A. Raven agree that the film “Batman” (especially, director Tim Burton versions of the film the “Dark Knight” has “noirish”
elements.)
http://www.unc.edu/~kcraven/research.html
___________________________________________________
DeeDee 😉
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Ahhh! Allan, you “caught” me this time….because I added one link!
DeeDee 😦
Bobby J,
Thanks for the response. I will definitely check out the “Orson Welles” Dark Knight trailers when I’m on a faster computer; it sounds hilarious, and intriguing.
As for the politics, you may have misunderstood me somewhat. I am not against liberalism per se, and you will get little argument from me with your laundry list of conservative sins. I consider myself politically independent but I am no fan of the right, particularly the Bush era right, which I loathed – I voted for Kerry in ’04 and Obama in ’08. My objection is to the overabundance (and knee-jerk quality) of left-leaning values in Hollywood films, and particularly the hypocritical way this is so often delivered, given that the values of the film industry are hardly humanitarian and noble when you scratch just beneath the surface.
As for “The Power of Nightmares” I have seen one episode of it and while I enjoyed some of the history it provided of the jihadist movement, I found it overly propagandistic and its comparison of the neocons to the jihadists facile. It seemed that the filmmaker started with an agenda of how he wanted to present the facts – a narrative of two fundamentalist, nationalist ideologies arising simultaneously in different spheres before battling one another in the 21st century. It makes for a good story but is an appallingly simplistic truncation of the far more complex truth (among other things, the many of the roots of neoconservatism are – ironically – on the Left, where individuals like Irving Kristol began their political lives as Trotskyists, eventually trading in their ideological affiliation but not their messianic fervor; also, neoconservatism has little to do with religion, particularly little to do with Christianity). I remember there being one particular point about Reagan which I found way off-the-mark: I think it was the idea that he came into office reasonable about the Soviet Union, but eventually hardened his line according to neocon influence and heated up his rhetoric, when in fact the exact opposite move happened – by the end of the 80s he was buddy-buddy with Gorbachev. I hope I have not misremembered that last anecdote, as it has been a while since I saw the DVD.
As I have only seen part 1, perhaps the direction of the series changes after that and my comments are only applicable to the beginning.
Tony,
Interesting take on No Country. Jonathan Rosenbaum too found it nihilist and trivial, so you are not alone. I would have to see it again (I only saw it once, in theaters, and was quite impressed) but I would respond to your comment on two terms. One, that the powerful aesthetic is enough for me; I don’t have to agree with a film’s vision (though perhaps you feel that it didn’t have one at all) to admire it, but we’ve been over this ground before and I think it’s a personal difference in how we view movies and art.
But two, I don’t think the film was as nihilist and amoral as you seem to think. Perhaps the Coen Brothers invited this speculation due to their ironic and semi-sadistic use of violence over the years (which they returned to with a vengeance in the purposeless Burn After Reading) and the coldness of their style, both in No Country and elsewhere, but I recall No Country as being positively mournful and melancholy, an attribute I assume it takes from the Cormac McCarthy novel, which I have not read. Are you familiar with that book, and if so, do feel it shares the Coen brothers’ perceived misanthropy? Or do you think they just misinterpreted the book and turned it to their own purposes?
Movieman, you really ought to watch the other to episodes…..they are incredible and the footage and thesis he bears out holds out if you do.
Dee Dee, I respect your opinion and agree the origins of comics like Batman come from hard-boiled fiction, but there was no cross-pollination between film noir and super-hero comics. I recommend the thoroughly researched and wonderful novel by Michael Chabon, Kavalier & Clay, which is to my mind the best exploration of the outgrowth of the super-hero comic from pulp crime fiction.
The argument that The Dark Knight is noir is to my mind invented after the fact. The quotes you render are problematic and in some cases half-baked. Anyone who talks about film noir as a genre is suspect. No one ever set out to make a film noir in the classic period. The look of noir is a synthesis of German expressionism and the French poetic realism of the late 30s. Hard-boiled fiction preceded noir and WW2, so for me ‘post-war disullionment’ is not central to understanding why film noir emerged. The film-makers of the 40s and 50s were not making ‘films noir’ but crime movies and melodramas steeped in the angst and alienation of life in big American cities. Paul Meehan has got it wrong when he says: “Noir is caught up with post-war disillusionment, and the coming of more explicit crime literature, like ’The Postman Always Rings Twice’”. Cain wrote Postman in 1934 and Double Indemnity first appeared in 1936 in Liberty Magazine.
MovieMan. Left-politics in North America is decidedly liberal and centrist. The left in the UK and Australia is not represented by the opportunism of banal centrists like BoBlair and KRudd – it is socialist and interventionist. So for me anyway, anything coming out of Hollywood that questions the prevailing orthodoxy is interesting however flawed.
I have not read McCarthy’s novel but I gather the film is faithful to the book. The mood you describe as ‘melancholy’ strikes me as without sincerity or substance. The sheriff is at bottom slow and less than competent, his failure is necessary to sustain the far-fetched capacity of the psychopath to elude capture time and again. He is painted as some sort of saint, while everyone else is either venal or stupid, or both.
Tony,
Re: left-politics, truth be told I am even more irritated by the hard left than the opportunistic one – particularly given that my own instincts are extremely pragmatic. That said the combination of a hard (read, arrogant, self-certain) left with a hypocritical opportunism – which seems to be the case in question – irritates me above all.
As for Hollywood, it all depends what prevailing orthodoxy it’s questioning. Certainly not the film industry’s or artistic community’s own. Nor that of the one in which film financiers and technicians and artists live and work – the blue (as in Democratic) urban centers. This is why most industry “message” movies have the bitter aftertaste of preaching to the choir.
Also, I find Hollywood leftism to be only vaguely centered on economic issues and far more focused on social and cultural liberalism, which are – unsurprisingly – far more compatible with a retained elitism than solidarity with the working class (many of whom, in the States, tend to vote Republican – or at least did before the current economic crisis).
At any rate, we’re not talking Pasolini or Bertolucci here – but rather do-gooders who want to keep their limos and illegal immigrant servants while lecturing the rest of us about civil liberties and the environment. Unlike Bertolucci, they often do not seem aware of their own devotion to life “before the revolution” (if such terminology can even be used anymore) and hence ambivalence is replaced by narcissism, and I think – this is all that matters, in the end – that attitude is often embodied in the films and TV shows in question.
As for No Country, you raise some interesting points which I cannot refute at this point. They do not entirely contradict some ambivalent memories of the film – that perhaps the Jones character was underserved (I have heard he was more central in the novel) and hence the melancholy balanced out by other factors you mention. I need to watch the movie again, though that will not be happening any time soon. I’ll let you know what I think when it does.
In light of my previous comment, I’d also like to distinguish between a humanistic left, which I tend to admire whatever my disagreements with it from time to time, and which you yourself seem to belong to and perhaps even take for granted as what we’re talking about when we say “the left” – and a left which is a more direct offspring of the 60s counterculture and New Left (a time and a movement I find fascinating often thrilling, but ideologically problematic, and whose descendents I have a positive anitpathy towards). The former left tends to speak for others – or better, yet, try to empower others to speak for themselves – and is characterized by compassion, the latter left sees itself as the victim, or at least the mouthpiece for said victims, despite its own comfort, and is characterized by a rebelliousness, anger, and arrogance.
Of course the two overlap and one cannot delineate between them too neatly. But when I see the latter trend predominating, I get irritated. It strikes me as a supreme example of “having your cake and eating it too” – getting to be on the side of the underdog, while retaining all your own privilege and requisite elitism. In some ways, this type of leftism is a near-cousin to neoconservatism.
Tony said,” The argument that The Dark Knight is noir is to my mind invented after the fact. The quotes you render are problematic and in some cases half-baked. Anyone who talks about film noir as a genre is suspect.”
Hi! Tony,
I hope to return later in the day in order to address or “expound” on some of the questions that you have pointed out to me here. Oh! No, I ‘am not challenging your opinion, on this “infinite” debate among “us True Noiraholics.”
Because I’ am well of aware of the fact, that this is your opinion about whether Batman is considered a film noir and why it should not be considered a film noir. Which I truly respect as you, well know….
….However, in order to clarify my position about some of the issues that you, have pointed out to me in your response.
Take care!
DeeDee 😉
MovieMan, just like you can say of a film “the powerful aesthetic [in a film] is enough for me; I don’t have to agree with a film’s vision… to admire it”, why can’t I say that the ideas in a film are enough for me, whether the maker is a hypocrite, a doctrinaire ideologue, or beats his wife?
And how about right-wing hypocrites like Clint Eastwood? Gran Torino for example. A cliched story may be saved by engaging performances from the two young Asian-American co-stars, but Eastwood’s feel-good neighborly redemption and contrived sacrifice obscure the reactionary scenario that holds-up gun-justice and violence as solutions to urban alienation and conflict – a truly disturbing confection that has nothing to say on the causes of urban decline and the economic forces that shape lives in the suburbs and on the streets.
Tony,
A few points in response:
1) You are. But I’m not 😉
2) Seriously, though, one difference for me is that an aesthetic bypasses ethics while a message is all about ethics. In a way, it’s separate from the artwork and can perhaps be judged separately, and the importance of the messanger may come into play. Hence Leni Riefenstahl’s life & attitude does not seem relevant when judging the aesthetics of Triumph of the Will, which are admittedly most important for me in forming a judgement, but may well come into play when judging its ethics (though see #3 for more on why this is not all that important). By the way, I have not seen Triumph of the Will.
3) That said, I don’t think my objections to a heavy-handed message movie are so much to do with what the makers are doing offscreen as with how their own (or the industry’s) attitudes and compromises manifest themselves onscreen. Like that TV show I mentioned which has the hotshot playboy who loves African kids, too (incidentally, the only reason I saw any of that show was because it was based on the life of a friend of a friend – and lo and behold, they completely rewrote his life to make it fit their format).
As for Gran Torino, I did not see it. I thought it looked quite stupid from the previews, though plenty of people who’ve seen it disagree (and we’ve already discussed the disadvantages of judging a film from its trailer!). I did not really get the impression it was a “message” movie or even a movie with a coded message so much as a character study and perhaps revenge fantasy – my objections to ideological content usually arise more when it’s either front and center or noticeably highlighted and self-conscious. When the message is sufficiently hidden or unconscious or perhaps conscious but woven into the fabric of the movie (say, like Force of Evil – though you seemed to feel that was a straight-up message movie, I did not, and liked it more for that), it becomes quite interesting for me – more so than when it’s in your face. But again, haven’t seen the film, so can’t say for certain.
#1 should read “You can. But I don’t have to” insert winking face…
Tony said,” The argument that The Dark Knight is noir is to my mind invented after the fact. The quotes you render are problematic and in some cases half-baked. Anyone who talks about film noir as a genre is suspect.”
Hi! Tony,
I hope to return later in the day in order to address or “expound” on some of the questions that you have pointed out to me here. Oh! No, I ‘am not challenging your opinion, on this “infinite” debate among us True Noiraholics.
Because I’ am well of aware of the fact, that this is your opinion about whether Batman is considered a film noir and why it should not be considered a film noir. And I “truly respect” your opinion as you, well know….
….However, in order to clarify my position about some of the issues that you, have pointed out to me in your response about The Dark Knight/Batman…I will try to address your to the best of my abilities and why I agree with some of your points and why I challenge some of your assertions…
Tony said Dee Dee, “I respect your opinion and agree the origins of comics like Batman come from hard-boiled fiction, but there was no cross-pollination between film noir and super-hero comics. I recommend the thoroughly researched and wonderful novel by Michael Chabon, Kavalier & Clay, which is to my mind the best exploration of the outgrowth of the super-hero comic from pulp crime fiction.”
Tony, I’ am a disadvantage here because I have never read this book therefore, I must talk to Phillipe or Ms. Gerri Wilam (book publishers) in order to obtain a copy of this book before I comment on the fact, that you, don’t feel that there was no cross-pollination between film noir and super-hero comics.
But on the other hand, I’ am quite sure that I can reference 2 books (arguing the opposite of what ever Michael Chabon, Kavalier & Clay, have to say… in their book) then you can reference 4 books and then I can reference 6 books and then you can reference 8 books and before long we both will be banned…from WitD
Why?
Because of all the links that both of would probably generate in our quest to make a point about what I feel is an infinite or never ending debate when it comes to whether The Dark Knight is considered a film noir or has elements of a film noir.
Tony said,”The argument that The Dark Knight is noir is “to my mind” invented after the fact.”
Tony, why do you think that?
Tony said,”The quotes you render are problematic and in some cases half-baked. Anyone who talks about film noir as a genre is suspect.”
Well, not necessarily once again…that is your opinion because in the world of noir…
…Tony, as you well may know…. (Then maybe again, you are not aware of this fact, that there is dispute between two different “camps” going on in the world of film noir…whether noir should be considered a
“style or genre” as I type this…)
… According to Dark Marc,“There’s a raging battle going on in the world of film noir. One camp declares that noir is a genre into itself. The opposing forces adamantly defend their stance that noir is not a genre, but a style of filmmaking that can be found in many genres including Crime, Westerns, & Melodramas.
The smart bombs hurled by these film noir fans, during their debates, are the classic dark thrillers from the 1940’s and 50’s. Rare and lost films noir from obscure studios are resurrected, researched, analyzed, and debated. Ultimately, both sides offer these “B” films as evidence that, the understanding and classification of classic film noir is still a work in progress.”
Therefore, when it comes to classifying this thing called Film noir as a “Genre” or “Style,” I think it is way to “infinite” (classifying film noir as a style or genre) because it appears that there is no definitive concrete resolve… among True noiraholics.
…Personally, I do agree with you, because I do consider film noir a style, hence, the reason that I placed the word “style” in parenthesis behind the commenter, that I quoted in my previous post word “genre.”
However, I ‘am also well aware of the fact, that there are “film noir fanatics,” who may disagree with both of us. And for the same reasons that Dark Marc, mentioned, but who am I to say, that their opinion is half baked or suspect….remember it is a two way street and they can say the same thing to me and you, in questioning why we think that this thing called film noir is considered a “style.”
“No one ever set out to make a film noir in the classic period.”
Tony, this is a well established fact, among film noir aficionados and novices…methinks!
Tony said,”The look of noir is a synthesis of German expressionism and the French poetic realism of the late 30s. Hard-boiled fiction preceded noir and WW2, so for me ‘post-war
Disillusionment is not central to an understanding why film noir emerged.
The filmmakers of the 40s and 50s were not making ‘films noir, ‘but crime movies and melodramas steeped in the angst and alienation of life in big American cities.”
Granted…your definition of the look of film noir is a well-known or established fact, among some film noir aficionado(s) and some film novice(s.)
Personally, I think that The Dark Knight/Batman starred out as stories based on crime novels, but eventually evolved into films with “elements” of film noir and neo noir…with me placing a strong emphasis on the word elements.
Now it is my turn to refer a book to you, and to the WitD readers, who may want to pick up, the book
Crime Scenes: Movie Poster Art of the Film Noir: The Classic Period, 1941-1959 / written and collected by Lawrence Bassoff; foreword with Robert Wise.
L. Bassoff Collection, c1997
because in this book Lawrence Bassoff, discuss how crime novels eventually evolved into films that are considered film noir.And according to The Dark Knight website, this is how the embodiment of Batman began…
“Batman’s original incarnation was quite a dark and grim character. These first Batman stories were similar in the tone of film noir and the gothic horror films of that era. The Batman also carried a gun and was not apposed to using it on the criminals he hunted. When Robin appeared in DETECTIVE COMICS #38 in 1940, the dark tone of the stories was softened, and remained that way until the early 1970s.
In fact, The Batman — or now simply The Dark Knight…”
WitD readers, in order to read more about The Dark Knight’s incarnation…please visit this website…
batman-on-film.com/article_jett_historyofthebatman.html
Tony said,”Paul Meehan has it wrong when he says, “Noir is caught up with post-war disillusionment and the coming of more explicit crime literature, like ’The Postman Always Rings Twice’”. Cain wrote Postman in 1934 and Double Indemnity first appeared in 1936 in Liberty Magazine.”
Tony, I referenced this article not because of Paul Meehan’s opinion, but because of Christopher Nolan’s thoughts on film noir and the Dark Knight.
The only thing I can say about Paul Meehan’s comment is this…. he may have been referring to the films (The Postman Ring Twice and Double Indemnity, with both films being released in 1944 and 1946 respectively.) being adapted to the big screen during that period instead of, to Cain’s novels. If not, I agree with you, that he made a mistake. . Because if you can recall you, Lloydville of mardecortesbaja and I discussed this on your blogsite.
What follows is author James M. Cain’s quote about the war not having a connection to film noir and my response to the quote that you posted in order to evoke discussion among your readers….
James M. Cain, who wrote the novels, Double Indemnity, The Postman Always Rings Twice, and Mildred Pierce, said in 1946 that the change seen in Hollywood movies like Double Indemnity (1944)
“[have] nothing to do with the war [or any]….of that bunk…it’s just that producers have got hep to the fact that plenty of real crime take place every day and that makes it a good movie. The public is fed up with the old-fashioned melodramatic type of hokum you know, the whodunit at which the audience after the second reel starts shouting, “We know the murderer. It is the butler. It is the butler. It’s the butler.”
From Alain Silver and James Ursini (ed), Film Noir Reader 2, pp 12-13
My response on Filmsnoir.net about author James Cain’s comment.
DeeDee said, “Hi! Tony D’Ambra,
That could have a “ring” (no pun intended, ”Postman Always Rings Twice”) I would think more than a “ring”) of truth to it…[What writer James M. Cain, said in 1946… about why producers decided to “turn” out films based on “crime stories”]
Because after all his (James M. Cain’s) novel “Double Indemnity” was probably based on one of the most notorious crimes during that century that of real life husband killer/for insurance money…
…The case of Ruth (Brown) Snyder in 1927 who was one of the first women sentenced to death by electrocution.
Finally, I’ am sorry to say, but I think this question of whether The Dark Knight is a film noir or has film noir elements is an infinite debate.
Similar to the raging debates that occur in that dark noir world “we” reside in when it come to which film is considered the first film noir and which film ended the cycle or what film assisted in ushering in the neo noir period.
Like this very wise person once said, to me…”You say tomato, and I say tomoto….”
Take care!
DeeDee 😉
Typo Alert
Tony, I will try to address your comments to the best of my abilities and why I agree with some of your points and why I challenge some of your assertions…
DeeDee 😉
Dee Dee, as you say it is a matter of opinion and in academic circles the debate rages. I would only say that the ‘genre’ position is the weakest and least supported, and that I did not say film noir is a ‘style’. At filmsnoir.net I say on the front page in the first paragraph: “Film noir is a cycle of mainly American films of the 1940’s and 1950’s exploring the darker aspects of modernity, and usually set in a criminal milieu or exploring the consequences of a criminal act.” There are no super-heroes in the classic noir cycle. Let us agree to disagree.