by Allan Fish
(USA 1974 131m) DVD1/2
Sister…daughter…sister…daughter
p Robert Evans d Roman Polanski w Robert Towne ph John A.Alonzo ed Sam O’Steen m Jerry Goldsmith art Richard Sylbert cos Anthea Sylbert
Jack Nicholson (J.J.Gittes), Faye Dunaway (Evelyn Mulwray), John Huston (Noah Cross), Perry Lopez (Escobar), John Hillerman (Yelburton), Roman Polanski (Knife man), Darryl Zwerling (Hollis Mulwray), Diane Ladd (Ida Sessions), Burt Young (Curly),
Chinatown is a film to make film buffs salivate, a wonderfully cynical, labyrinthine descent into corruption and murder in a burgeoning city. The Los Angeles of Chinatown is the Los Angeles of legend, before the war made all Americans conscious of the darkness lurking below the surface. This is a film set in the era before film noir came to Hollywood, a 1937 as immediately recognisable to both those who lived through it and to those who wished they had. Here was the last great homage to old fashioned noir cinema made, like so many of the great noirs, by a director who wasn’t even American (think Billy Wilder, Jacques Tourneur), let alone from the City of Angels.
In the late thirties Jake Gittes, a P.I. and former D.A.’s assistant, is hired by a woman looking to find out the truth about her husband, who she believes is having an affair. It turns out that not only is he not having an affair, but the woman is an impostor and the real wife threatens legal action over his investigations. However, when her husband is murdered, Gittes comes to realise that there are very shady motives behind the killing and everything is not what it seems.
Everything is not what it seems? That of course could be the epitaph to film noir itself, but this is more than a mere film noir, it’s a state of mind. Chinatown the place barely features in the film at all, only that the hero used to work there, got fatally involved with a woman there, left the force to try and forget it, but is ultimately drawn back there by another mysterious woman. There’s a certain inexorable logic to the narrative that allows its audience to be taken along on this journey into the darkness, all the time lulling you into a false sense of security by having nearly the entire film set in the daytime. But when it gets dark, beware as that’s when the moments of real violence occur; the slicing of Gittes’ nose and the downbeat finale to name but two scenes whose atmosphere is heightened by the use of the dark. The rest of the film is bathed in a golden glow, as if you’re viewing the film through tinted spectacles, but the narrative itself proceeds to remove those spectacles until the truth is staring you in the face and, like the neon lights of the Chinatown gin joints and the car headlights, it blinds you. Unlike the previous year’s The Long Goodbye, it doesn’t reinvent the Raymond Chandler world, it brings it up to date by taking you back to the past.
Everybody contributes here, from Alonzo’s unforgettable photography to Goldsmith’s haunting music and every member of the cast, particularly the immortal Nicholson in his greatest film. His is a P.I. of whom Humphrey Bogart and Dick Powell would be proud, equally home relating the infamous “screw like a Chinaman” joke or taunting his aggressors and cops. However, most of the credit for the film’s tone must go to Polanski, who must be just about the only director of his day to dare to have the film turn out so sour, so bleak. As Ed Exley said in the later variant LA Confidential, there’s always a guy who gets away with it. In that film he was finally caught, but here Rollo Tomassi (in the shape of Huston’s deliciously evil Noah Cross) gets away with it again and, as is even more worrying, he will do in the future. In the end, one man cannot do that much to change things. Chinatown is very realistic about that and makes no apologies for Cross’ abhorrent behaviour as he doesn’t either. As he says of man in general, “at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of anything.” All the hero’s assistant can say as he drags Gittes away is “forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown.” He’s right, but we’ll never forget Chinatown. Once seen, never forgotten, it remains one of the truly great films of the seventies.
Hi! Allan,
I ‘am in the process of preparing some packages to be shipped, but I just wanted to stop by and tell you what a very interesting review of a film by you, that is considered a “classic neo noir.” I know, for a fact, that it has all the elements of a film that maybe considered a classic neo noir.
Thanks, for sharing!
DeeDee 😉
This was a fair-enough, congenial and humble comment that correctly posed the suggestion that CHINATOWN is a neo-noir, or “might” be. I see no presumtuousness here, just the typical endearment from the most wonderful human being that has ever graced these pages.
Dee Dee.. You said: “you know, for a fact, that it has all the elements of a film that maybe considered a classic neo noir”. Well, if it contains all the element the, hunny, it IS a neo noir. Curious? Have you ever actually seen CHINATOWN? If you, of all people, haven’t, then you do “noir” a total disservice as a fan of the genre. I suggest you get to it as no collection of great noir films is complete without it. Also, considering THE MALTESE FALCON to be THE supreme, if not one of the SUPREME noir films ever made you might find the casting of the villian, Noah Cross interesting as he’s played by none other than MALTESE director John Huston. Branch out a little, hunny, there is more to film than just old black and white NOIR films. Try CALIGULA or IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES, these might be right up your alley.
Dennis you owe Dee Dee an apology. She has a heart as big as a house and is the most sincere and gracious person I have met on the Net.
Seconded, though there’s as much chance of it happening as there is getting a straight answer froma politician without resorting to sodium pentathol.
Good review Allan. One of Nicholsons best performances. Easily one of his signature performancesN along with Milos Formans ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOOS NEST and Kubricks THE SHINING. Clearly this was a decade dominated by Nicholson, an actor who has, time an again, never lost sight of his craft and art, and made mince-meat out of SELL OUT hacks like DeNiro (sold out since CAPE FEAR), Al Pacino (Sold out since DICK TRACY) and Dustin Hoffmann Tsold out since WAG THE DOG). Make no bones, Nicholson was ALWAYS the better actor (3 Oscars kind of solidify my point here) and worked with more great directors than all three I mentioned. Damn, how many huge actors ever got the chance with POLANSKI, NICHOLS, ANTONIONI and most impressively, KUBRICK in one life time. Uh, Jack did!
Nicholson’s range of directors is impressive, and you can add Minnelli, Scorsese and Huston in his career. However, saying he never sold out is a bit much when he made the likes of Terms of Endearment, Batman, anything with Adam Sandler, The Bucket List.
Yes, de Niro has done nothing after Casino and Heat, but he ranks alongside Nicholson – no Kubrick or Polanski, no, but has Nicholson worked with Bertolucci, Leone, Cimino, Gilliam, Mann and Tarantino?
As for Pacino, what about Heat, The Insider, Insomnia, Donnie Brasco, etc.
All actors sell out on film, hell even Olivier made The Betsy. They all have to pay the bills.
Likewise Goldsmith had done some great scores, but a hell of a lot of dross, and there are numerous better composers over all – hell, he’s not within hailing distance of say Herrmann, Rota, Jaubert, Delerue, Legrand, Takemitsu, Korngold, Rózsa, Steiner, Morricone, Kilar, Fiser, Tiomkin, Preisner, Newman, Desplat, Nyman, hell even Williams at his best.
If we want to play at being encyclopaedias, you’re the Pears or the Readers Digest, I’m the Brittanica, and several others are way beyond that. So, let’s leave off the generalised titbits from the font of all knowledge like we’re waiting for the Oracle of Delphi to speak.
I like Goldsmith, and I own many of his scores, but I agree he’s not with the ones you name above.
And Jerry Goldsmiths score is a triumph here. His trumpet solos conjure the flavor of thirties L.A. Seen in those old noir moviesv as well as the terrific costume design and set production. Goldsmith really was the music master of this decade and along with CHINATOWN, delivered one tremendous score after another including HIS favorite (ISLANDS IN THE STREAM) to epic (PATTON, PAPPILLON, CAPRICORN ONE) to monumental (BOYS FROM BRAZIL), Oscar win (THE OMEN) to his masterpiece (STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE). He’s just one of the greats associated to this great film.
yes Dennis, Jerry Goldsmith is quite the master composer. i couldn’t agree with you more.
The top three of all-time are:
1) Bernard Herrmann
2) Max Steiner
3) Erich Wolfgang Korngold
But Ennio Morricone, Nono Rota, Frank Waxman, Alfred Newman, John Williams, Miklos Rosza, and a number of others ar eclose I would say. I love Michael Nyman, Clint Mansell and Alexander Desplat of the contemporary crowd the most.
Chinatown is one of the main stays of 70’s cinema, one of Polanski master works (others being Knife in the Water, Repulsion and Rosemary’s Baby). The set design, the score and the cinematography are superb. The performances are extraordinary by Nicholson and Dunaway. John Huston’s lascivious squint in his eyes makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up straight, pure evil. The script by Robert Towne is a complex masterpiece of noir writing and brilliantly executed by Polanski.
Allan, I am totally in synch with your review. Excellent!
another typically observant and authoritative comment here by John. I am not a big fan of CHINATOWN. the question is, am I completely alone? Movie Man, Ed, any mercy for me here or shall I walk down the path with my tail between my legs?
“In the end, one man cannot do that much to change things. Chinatown is very realistic about that and makes no apologies for Cross’ abhorrent behaviour as he doesn’t either. As he says of man in general, ‘at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of anything.'”
A chilling line if there ever was one. Cross’ perspective reminds me of APOCALYPSE NOW’s take on Joseph Conrad’s HEART OF DARKNESS — the bestial tendencies of man, in the right situation, gains a certain timelessness as it is applicable to any period.
I’m not sure I would say Polanski is the only director of the day to get away with turning out a film that is so dark, so sour — as we’ve seen with a number of WitD’s reviews of 1970’s film, this seems to be a noticeable trend as films of that decade embraced increasing grit and unapologetic realism. CHINATOWN is certainly dirtier than, say, THE GODFATHER, but the sort of honesty in storytelling is still very present as early as 1972.
That is a most insightful and informative response there Leclisse, that as always is very much appreciated here. Yes, the 70’s are dark and cynical. I was never a huge fan of CHINATOWN, but i will say no more knowing I’m one of the few on th eplanet who doesn’t adore it, and also because I don’t want to ruin my friendship with Jon Lanthier. LOL! It must be me on thi sone for sure. Thanks again!
Ha, Sam. Actually I can quite understand someone not liking “Chinatown,” but due to the cultural tenor of the era I grew up in and some quite unsavory and haunting details in my family history that recall the twisted denouement of the film I feel as though it speaks to me (or rather, whispers) quite resonantly, if acidly. I am also fascinated with all alternative California histories in the movies, and this is one of the best. Unlike some individuals, however, I hardly see my own opinions as the only ones worth having, and I would be quite interested to hear a negative appraisal of the film, seeing as how there are so few out there.
Actually, like Jon, I think I’d find a negative (or at least critical) review rather refreshing. I had heard so much adulation for the film for years, but once I actually sat down and watched it for myself, I couldn’t help but be disappointed. I liked the story, and I thought the performances were excellent, but it almost seemed too bright (photographically speaking) to be noir-ish. I know there is a lot more than lighting that goes into making noir, but something just didn’t seem right to me. I know a lot of people give flack to Woody Allen for being too “self-important” (the thread on ‘Manhattan,’ for instance), but that is exactly how Polanski came across to me. His ego was more than a little noticeable — especially when he billed his bit part so highly in the end credits.
Indeed Leclisse, indeed! The film’s lighting is too strong and to be quite honest the plot is tedious and unfocused. What you say there about Polanski is irrefutable; he is famous for that. Of course I had no issue with those performances, but the film was always cold and distancing for me, and never engaged me intellectually or emotionally. I have trouble even sitting through this film. There you have it Leclisse, an extreme minority opinion related bluntly.
I agree that this is another superlative review. Similar to John, Chinatown is one of my 70s mainstays. I believe I had it at #5 on my list, behind 3 Coppolas and The Conformist. This is my favorite Nicholson performance.
Dave, I bet this is a leading candidate for its year at your countdown.
Omg! Dennis, can you please tell me how you, really, really, really feel…because last week I was not feeling very well and I had to go to the emergency room, but after reading your comment addressed to me here at Wonders in the Dark.
I was “floored” and had to be immediately, rushed to the emergency room “again” in order to be “resuscitated.” (Ouch! those face slaps that the doctors and nurses administered really…hurt!)
All kidding aside…let me try to address your questions…
First of all, Dennis said,”Dee Dee.. You said: “you know, for a fact, that it has all the elements of a film that maybe considered a classic neo noir”. Well, if it contains all the element then, hunny
(Say Wot! Get out! … Dennis, as a rule I normally, would not be “offended” by your use of the term “hunny,” but since I seem to be outnumbered when it comes to the ratio of men to women that post here on Wonders in the Dark. Instead of, being offended…I find your use of that term more or less “cheeky.” In addition, as actor Humphrey Bogart, would have said, “Sweetheart.” )
Dennis said, “it IS a neo noir.”
Dennis, The reason for my indecisiveness is that I know that other “film noiraholic” may challenge me when it comes to what category to place this film.
Therefore, I was just voicing my own opinion and leaving the “door open” so to speak, for those who do not agree with me on whether this film should be considered a neo noir.
Maybe I should have phrased my comment to Allan, as such…
…”I ‘am in the process of preparing some packages to be shipped, but I just wanted to stop by and tell you what a very interesting review of a film by you that is considered a “classic neo noir.” I know that it has all the elements of a film that “maybe” considered a classic neo noir…well, at least by “some” film noir aficionados and novice(s) it is considered a neo noir”
[Note:Some film noir aficionados, do not consider this film a film noir or neo noir…period!…Hence, the use of the word “maybe”…]
Secondly, Dennis said, Curious? Have you ever actually seen Chinatown?
Walsh: Forget it, Dennis. It’s Chinatown.
Oh! Yes, Dennis, on numerous occasions…I own the Jack Nicholson collection (Chinatown/ The Two Jakes) double DVD (box)set (and both of the beautifully illustrated movie posters for the films Chinatown and The Two Jakes…Which I feel is an often time overlooked sequel to director Roman Polanski’s 1972 film Chinatown. This is just my opinion, but of course!)
Dennis said,” If you, of all people, haven’t, then you do “noir” a total disservice as a fan of the genre.”
Well, not really, I probably would be just doing myself a disservice as fans of that “style” of filmmaking probably, could not care less whether I watched this film or rode a unicycle in the Tour de France.
Dennis said,”I suggest you get to it, as no collection of great noir films is complete without it.
More from Dennis, “Also, considering THE MALTESE FALCON to be THE supreme, if not one of the SUPREME noir films ever made you might find the casting of the villain, Noah Cross interesting as he’s played by none other than MALTESE director John Huston.”
Here goes a little trivia for you…
Jake Gittes: I just want to know what you’re worth. Over ten million?
Noah Cross: Oh my, yes.
Jake Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What can you buy that you can’t already afford?
Noah Cross: The future, Mr. Gitts, the future.
The information that you have provided here I consider trivia since I have watched both films already…
(Laughter!Ha!ha!ha!ha!…I’am talking bellyache laughter!)
And even more from Dennnnis…Branch out a little, hunny, (Oh! No! There goes that word again…please! please! pleasssse! See my explanation above….) there is more to film than just old black and white NOIR films.
Right you are, but as I mentioned my focus is not only on film noir per se, but really, my interesting in films do run the gamut from A to Z and not just A to D. ..
Wait a minute…you suggested to me that there are more to films than just classic black and white “films that are considered noir” and these are the only 2 films that you can suggest…
CALIGULA and IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES
Laughter! Ha!ha! ha!ha! Omg…Let me hope that your tongue was planted firmly in your cheek!
“Try CALIGULA or IN THE REALM OF THE SENSES, these might be right up your alley…”
Oh my goodness!
By the way, Dennis, Please! Please! Pleasssse! Tell me you had a “little nip” before you suggested those two films to me…. Dennis, did you, by chance see the feedback left for the latter film? ….hmmm 🙄 I ‘am not sure how much feedback will be left for the former film… Well, not yet at least, but there is one thing that I’ am so happy! About I was fortunately, “revived from unconsciousness” in order to response to your comment.
Thanks, (I, I think?!? 🙄 )
DeeDee 😉
Well, not really, I probably would be just doing myself a disservice as fans of that “style” of filmmaking probably, could not care less whether I watched this film or rode a unicycle in the Tour de France.
As a fan of noir, I would say that your thoughts on “Chinatown” and your unicycling (if you were to, or do) would both interest me! And hopefully my previous reference to you as “dollface” (which as I pointed out at the time was a term of endearment) was not viewed the same as dennis’ “hunny”.
Actually you bring up a good issue, because some people do NOT view this film as a noir but as a kind of ersatz-noir. After all, a number of the classic noir attributes are missing (derived from Paul Schrader’s seminal essay), most notably the influence of German expressionism. But, I personally consider the film a neo-noir for other reasons I have noted elsewhere — and it’s also just a damn good movie.
One more thought. When I was young and frustrated with the standard Disney fare I remember asking my father if there were any films where the bad guys win. He made some facial expression and said something to the effect of, “only the best…”. I’m not sure, but I think he might have been talking specifically about “Chinatown”. And, incidentally, it’s one of my favorite movies — on some days it’s even in the number one slot.
Bravo Dee Dee!
You are quite right right. Whether Chinatown is a noir is certainly debatable. For me it is too self-conscious to be a true noir, and it is not a neo-noir as it is a nostalgia trip.
Jon, you don’t apply a ‘noir’ template to a film. Schrader’s essay is problematic in that sense, as his view that it is a ‘style’. Though he did define noir as belonging to the classic period from the early 40s to the late 50s.
As for Chinatown, I am with Sam. I see nothing special, the plot is confusing, there is too much color, and the characters are thinly drawn.
I have always found the film a grind. It’s tedious, and as Tony says above the characters are “thinly-drawn.” It never engaged me either intellectually or emotionally.
Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! great Lady!
Typo Correction:But of course!
Dennis, You, do not know me personally, Therefore, you probably was not aware of the fact, that I ‘am not interested in film noir per se, but…”
DeeDee 😉
Hi! Dennis, Allan, Tony, Sam Juliano and WitD readers,
Here goes the two beautiful posters for Chinatown and The Two Jakes.
DeeDee 😉
Yep, Dee Dee those are the ones. The film did yield some great art work, there is no question there. Thanks very much for sending these on for everyone to see!
I remember when “Chinatown” came out (and let me state right now that I love this movie) that Pauline Kael complained that Polanski changed the script’s original ending, in which Evelyn and her daughter get away and make it to Mexico. I always wondered what she expected from Polanski, whose persistent theme is the corruption of innocence. There is not a single film of his I’ve seen that this thematic obsession does not dominate, even from the early shorts he made in Poland in the 50s. This gives his body of work the kind of continuity typical of those directors most lionized as auteurs. Mick LaSalle, the movie critic for the San Francisco Chronicle, once asked in a blog (after the death of Bergman) who his readers thought the greatest living film director was. His own choice was Jacques Rivette, but the overwhelming choice of his readers was Polanski. I think you are absolutely right in attributing the power of the film (despite the felicitous convergence of all its other great elements, all of which you credit) to the tone set by Polanski. Now that surely is the mark of a master film director.
Whether I like the film or not, this is a classy comment here in every conceivable way.
Finchy, between you and me, LaSalle may have been right, a toss up between Rivette, Godard and Resnais.
As I stated above, Dee Dee is the most invaluable friend and contributor to this blogsite. If she were to quit blogging, I would probably lose all my present enthusiasm, as she has been here since the very beginning, inspiring us in every way imaginable. In the dictionary next to the title “lovely human being” is her picture. I have enjoyed every second of every day that I’ve spent corresponding with her and witnessing her ceaseless energy and enthusiasm.
The fact that she LOVES film noir (as does Tony d’Ambra, John Greco and Dave) is no detriment at all; it is a sign of sophisticated and challenging taste in cinema. To master film noir is to in a sense get a grip on cinema in its most artistic mode of expression in large measure. her knowledge onth esubject has been proven time and time again, and her interviews, discussions and ceaseless blogging has unearth in her an inherent command of her subject.
I wouldn’t have my dear friend any other way. She has moved me to tears a number of times, and I can only say I am blessed and privleged to know her.
As I stated above, Dee Dee is the most invaluable friend and contributor to this blogsite. If she were to quit blogging, I would probably lose all my present enthusiasm, as she has been here since the very beginning, inspiring us in every way imaginable. In the dictionary next to the title “lovely human being” is her picture. I have enjoyed every second of every day that I’ve spent corresponding with her and witnessing her ceaseless energy and enthusiasm.
Seconded quite loudly. Deedee is an absolute delight and one of my favorite readers and bloggers; her signature syntax often brightens an otherwise shadowy day.
Hi! Sam Juliano, Tony, Allan, Jon and WitD readers…
“Believe” me…(Notice that I placed a “strong” emphasize on the word “believe”)
I don’t feel that Dennis, owe me an apology…what so ever…because I feel that I’ am a “thick” skinned person (with a sense of humour ….methinks!)
…and I think my response to Dennis may have been a “bit” over the top!
To be quite honest…I think I was “taken” aback to a certain extent…by his (Dennis) comments…because I have never communicated with him be fore.(Hmmm… 😕
Maybe the ratio…played a very small part.)
If any thing I think, I owe him an apology for being
“overly” dramatic…Allan Fish, said,
“Seconded, though there’s as much chance of it happening as there is getting a straight answer from a politician without resorting to sodium pentothal.”
Allan, LOL!!!! 😆
Take care!
DeeDee 😉
Hi! Jon,
“And hopefully my previous reference to you as “doll face” (which as I pointed out at the time was a term of endearment) was not viewed the same as Dennis’ “hunny”.”
Oh! No! not whatsoever. Jon,
LOL!!!! 😆
Clarification :
Dennis said,” If you, of all people, haven’t, then you do “noir” a total disservice as a fan of the genre.”
I misunderstood Dennis, comment here…He said, “That as a “fan” of film noir that I would be doing film noir a disservice”… and I thought he meant the “fans” of film noir, but it appears that he was just addressing me and not me doing a disservice to the “fans” of film noir.
[Note:I wasn’t “offended” by Dennis, use of the word
“hunny”…once again, I think it was the ratio “thingy.”] LOL! 😆
DeeDee 😉
Yet another example here Dee Dee, of your lovely essence……
There are some films that come with BIG hallowed reputations, and ‘Chinatown’ is one of them. Sometimes they disappoint. ‘Lost Horizon’ and ‘Things to Come’ come to mind. I’d put ‘Chinatown’ in there. This is not to say it doesn’t have individual virtues, like the above mentioned films. The photography, production design, performances are excellent. But it failed to move me on an emotional level. I remember watching ‘L.A. Confidential’ and thinking, ‘damn, this is what ‘Chinatown’ should have been like.”
Without that forward dynamism all that’s left is to lean back and discuss the nature of evil depicted in it.
I greatly favour ‘Rosemary’s Baby’ and ‘The Pianst’ over it.
I much prefer Dick Richards remake of ‘Farewell, My Lovely’.
As for the ‘neo-noir’ debate…..my thinking goes, and I think I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, film noir is a style…due to economics (low-key lighting’ and splash lighting’), war time pessimism and the burgeoning crime fiction genre that emanated from ‘Black Mask Magazine’ and others of it’s ilk and as each year of the ’50s passed it evaporated. It’s not something that can, in my opinion, or should be captured again. It’s ok to have ‘retro-noir’ or neo-noir’ and have classics in that category. Trying to do noir now is usually too self-ware. Rather like the Coens’ trying to do Preston Sturges and Frank Capra, it usually doesn’t come off.
Right now, I think we have nihilistic noir for a nihilistic free market orientated age. Arhhh well.
Bobby J: It is wonderful to see you in print again, and it’s doubly gratifying that we are in complete agreement on this film, which I have always complained never reached me on an emotional level. I think you make a very good point there about neo-noir too, but I’ll leave Tony to respond.
Hey Bobby. As Sam says, nice to have your input here. We have discussed this before, and I think the only real issue between us is the ‘style’ debate.
I’m with Bobby J and Sam. I love noir and all the folks involved with this production, but Chinatown left me flat. It’s a film my husband and I can’t discuss long because he gets so mad that I don’t love it. Sorry. I think the mechanics of the corruption bore me, too much water treatment facilities, too little emotional punch.
I greatly prefer LA Confidential, as long as we’re in the “contestedly LA-based neo-noir” category.
Oh yes Jenny, like you I LOVE L.A. Confidential. That one works emotionally and intellectually. So you and Ben are not in agreement, eh? I know the feeling well. LOL!
Due to the link my comment maybe awaiting moderation
Hi! Allan, Tony, Sam Juliano and WitD readers,
I have linked what I think is a very interesting article about Roman Polanski’s film Chinatown and why is considered a neo noir or has elements noir…
http://www.sparknotes.com/film/chinatown/context.html
DeeDee 😉
…noir elements.
Here go the best definition of Neo-noir that I can find to date: I of course, placed in bold type the most important words…
Neo-noir (from the Greek neo, new; and the French noir, black) is a style often seen in modern motion pictures and other forms that prominently utilizes elements of film noir, but with “updated” themes, content, style, visual elements or media that “were absent”…
…in films noir of the 1940s and 1950s.
[Notes:(Hence, the reason that Roman Polanski’s Chinatown lacks all the “elements” that were present in film noir(s)]
The Revival of…or re-emerging of…
Film noir went through a decline in the late 1950s. People’s outlooks became sunnier, and films reflected this. The American economy was booming, and the dark films were no longer in vogue. Television was in, and film noir was thrown out for comedy series and Elvis musicals.
From the seventies onwards, a revival in film noir was beginning to take place. Feminism was on the rise, and governments were once again being portrayed as entities that could not be trusted. Vietnam and the Watergate Scandal had brought out the questioning instinct in the public, and films began to reflect this.
Because people were dismayed and distrustful of the government, and many felt a sense of alienation and confusion.
Below are good example(s) of films that ushered in the revival of film noir (called neo-noir) can be seen in Martin Scorsese’s 1976 film, Taxi Driver. Other more recent examples of films with elements of noir include Chinatown, Body Heat, Bladerunner, and more recently, the excellent The Last Seduction. (These were films with elements of noir….called neo-noir.)
The Manchurian Candidate (1962),
Chinatown (1974),
Body Heat (1981), and
Blood Simple (1985)
The Usual Suspects and
Ellroy’s L. A. Confidential (1997).
DeeDee 😉
Typo Correction:
I have linked what I think is a very interesting article about Roman Polanski’s film Chinatown and why [it] is considered a neo noir or has elements [of] noir…
This is an utterly brilliant proposal here Dee Dee, that would seem to have your original contention hitting th ebulls-eye.
“From the seventies onwards, a revival in film noir was beginning to take place. Feminism was on the rise, and governments were once again being portrayed as entities that could not be trusted. Vietnam and the Watergate Scandal had brought out the questioning instinct in the public, and films began to reflect this.”
Indeed!!! And CHINATOWN and all those other examples enforce the argument!
Dee Dee, I am a ‘classicist’ and see noir as restricted to the 40s and 50s. As for neo-noir as a category, it may be useful for comparisons, but it is self-limiting to the extent that neo-noir covers a multitude of sins. I think I place more value on films having a ‘noir sensibility’ – Sam Fuller’s early 60s movies for example.
As for The Last Seduction, I didn’t get past the first 15 minutes. It was not something I would wish to foist on anyone. The ugly banality was a turn-off and then the hand-in-pants scene had me reaching for the remote…
Hi! Sam Juliano, and WitD readers…
Oh! Yes, Sam Juliano,
All the questions/answers that you wanted to know about Polanski’s 1972 film Chinatown, but were afraid to ask…Just visit the link below:
http://www.sparknotes.com/film/chinatown/context.html
An excerpt from the article:Something about director Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, vivid color, and the newer genre.
“Chinatown, however, is a neo-noir film, and its departures from classic noir elements help to define the newer genre.
Most obviously, Polanski shot Chinatown with color film, and though his colors do appear especially vivid (Katherine Cross’s bright, spotless dress and Evelyn Mulwray’s rich, deep eyes, for example), color film precludes the contrast intensity that black and white film offers…”
DeeDee 😉
[Remember! the author of the article used the word…“Genre.”]
Hi! Tony,
Tony said,”Dee Dee, I am a ‘classicist’ and see noir as restricted to the 40s and 50s…
Tony, I consider myself a “classicist” too…but I’ am also aware of the fact, that there are followers of film noir who believe that “noir transcend” the classical film noir period.
…”As for neo-noir as a category, it may be useful for comparisons, but it is self-limiting to the extent that neo-noir covers a multitude of sins…”
Tony, not to sound as if I’am “echoing” your response, but I agree with you, this is the reason that I look upon neo-noir as being “infinite.”
(But, let me make this “clear” I do believe that there was a “transitional” period…from film noir to neo-noir.)
…”I think I place more value on films having a ‘noir sensibility’ – Sam Fuller’s early 60s movies for example…”
Once again, I do agree with you, films that are film noirs should have a “noir sensibility.
According to author Andrew Spicer, in a page from his book Film Noir he goes on to say:
“Any attempt at defining film noir solely through its ‘essential’ formal components proves to be reductive and unsatisfactory because film noir, as the French critics asserted from the beginning, also involves a sensibility, a particular way of looking at the world.”
Therefore, noir is not simply a certain plot line or a visual style achieved by camera angles and unusual lighting, Spicer says, It also involves a “way of looking at the world,” an outlook on life and human existence.
Andrew Spicer, Film Noir (Harlow: Longman, 2002),
That is why among film noir aficionados, they have created scales to determine whether the “noir sensibility” is presence.
Their scales are a list of criteria judging a film by human behavior or a way of living, especially a life of severe hardship …in films that are film noir.
Personally, I feel that their scales may not be 100% foolproof, but I feel it is “a step in the right direction” in determining whether the “noir sensibility” is presence.
However, when it comes to director Sam Fuller’s films I have only watched the 1953 film Pickup on South Street…starring Richard Widmark, Jean Peters, and Thelma Ritter. (A film in which I feel has a “noir sensibility”… )
Therefore, it is quite impossible for me to comment on the “noir sensibility” of director Sam Fuller’s films. Maybe with the release of his upcoming box set I will be able to become familiar with his (Director Sam Fuller) work on film.
…”As for The Last Seduction, I did not get past the first 15 minutes. It was not something I would wish to foist on anyone. The ugly banality was a turn-off and then the hand-in-pants scene had me reaching for the remote.”
Tony, as for director John Dahl’s 1994 film the The Last Seduction…starring Linda Fiorentino, Bill Pullman, and Peter Berg. I have never watched this film…
…Therefore, I ‘am unable to comment on any scenes from the film and the “predictability” or “boring ordinariness” of the film.
DeeDee 😉
This site very fantastic and tutorial !!
Well thanks very much for that “tugsat.” We are trying.