free counter with statistics Double Indemnity | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

DoubleIndemnity.jpg
How Could I Have Known That Murder Could Sometimes Smell Like Honeysuckle?


The Top 5 Noirs from the Classical Age: #1 Double Indemnity / Drew Morton

Pajiba Blockbusters | August 28, 2009 | Comments (28)


I would like to dedicate this retrospective to the “Save the UCLA Arts Library Petition” (AKA: Stop the closing of the library where Drew Morton gets his books so that he can continue to write thoughtful reviews like these). If you enjoyed the series and/or you’re a supporter of arts education, I strongly encourage you to sign the petition.

Here we are, at the end of our Pajiba film noir retrospective. While I’ll be unveiling my number one choice today, Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity (1944), I wanted to take a moment to express some regret. Despite my ground rules, I quickly realized that I had to leave some of my favorite noirs by the wayside: Robert Siodmak’s The Killers (1946), Jacques Tourneur’s Out of the Past (1947), Joseph H. Lewis’ The Big Combo (1955), and Robert Aldrich’s Kiss Me Deadly (1955). These four films are great noir and, if you’re a fan of the genre, I strongly encourage you to see them. Whittling down seventeen years into five films is not an easy task and there were a lot of wonderful films left on the other side of the canonical fence but, overall, I’m extremely satisfied with the result. At some point in the future, I hope we can try grappling with the neo-noir. Just give me a couple months before I sign off on that work week.

So what makes Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity the greatest film noir? First, and this is veering away from the text of the film itself for just a moment, Double Indemnity is significant for the very reason that it was amongst the films that originally inspired the French critics to coin the phrase. Throughout World War II, American films were not allowed to screen in the occupied country. In 1946, the floodgates opened and the simultaneous releases of John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon (1941), Edward Dmytryk’s Murder, My Sweet (1944), Fritz Lang’s The Woman in the Window (1944), Otto Preminger’s Laura (1946), and Wilder’s film hit the Parisian cinemas over the course of one summer. While the other films, with the exception of Laura, are inarguably noir, I would tend to agree with historian Eddie Muller’s proclamation that Double Indemnity is the quintessential film noir. Wilder’s film contains nearly every trope of the genre that you can think of: the femme fatale, existential fatalism, murder, the threat of feminine sexuality, hardboiled style, and an aesthetic drawn from German expressionism. While many of the other films in this retrospective contain several of these characteristics, Indemnity could, with perhaps the exception of Kubrick’s The Killing (1956), best them all on the paradigmatic noir balance sheet. Secondly, due to the film’s perfect assimilation of these elements, it refined and stabilized the mold for noirs to come. In fact, the cinematic legacy of Indemnity is so pivotal to the genre that the film has been paid homage in such successful neo-noirs as Lawrence Kasdan’s Body Heat (1981) and the Coen Brothers’ The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001).

For Indemnity, his third film as a director in Hollywood, Wilder adapted James M. Cain’s novella with the help of hardboiled novelist Raymond Chandler (who would also collaborate with Alfred Hitchcock on my number five pick, Strangers on a Train). The plot, unlike Robert Aldrich’s Kiss Me Deadly (1955) or, my number two pick, Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil (1958), is actually quite straightforward: bored but successful insurance salesman Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray) is lured by sultry housewife Phyllis Dietrichson (Barbara Stanwyck) into a murder plot. Neff sells Phyllis a life insurance policy for her husband (Tom Powers) that includes a “double indemnity” clause. In other words, if Phyllis’s husband were fall off a moving train, the insurance company would be required to pay double the insured amount. Together, Neff and Phyllis decide to help speed nature’s course by strangling Mr. Dietrichson and throwing his corpse from a moving train. Complications arise for the couple when Neff’s agency, led by his persistent colleague Barton Keyes (Edward G. Robinson), begins to suspect foul play. As the agency’s investigation intensifies, Neff and Phyllis begin to hatch individual plots to cover their own involvement. As you might have guessed, both plots involve deceit and murder.

If my statement that Double Indemnity is a paradigmatic noir will find any critics, it would probably be due to the fact that the film does not include a detective. Yet, the characters of Keyes and Neff both function as detectives. They both find themselves interpreting the evidence of Mr. Deitrichson’s death/murder. Yet, they both do so in a way that serves their own motives: Keyes wants to get the bottom of the case, as a traditional detective would, while Neff wants to re-route Keyes’s interpretive train of thought with the same evidence. Moreover, as film scholar Thomas Schatz has noted, Wilder and Chandler’s re-structuring of Cain’s novella (which was originally relayed in a linear fashion) onto a flashback structure “transforms the film into a detective story.” Yet, a noir is not quite the same as a detective story. While noirs often include detectives (official government officers or private investigators) as characters, a key characteristic of the genre is that it often pushes the viewer to identify with a character who is going through the process of becoming morally corrupted. That is the role Neff plays in Indemnity and, as Schatz notes, Wilder accentuates it through the flashback structure.

Wilder’s use of the Neff and the flashback, which also relies on the noir device of voice-over narration, emphasizes the trope of existential fatalism that we also found in Kubrick’s The Killing. Wilder begins the film with a car racing down the night soaked streets of Los Angeles. As the sequence progresses, we watch as Neff arrives at the insurance agency and begins to deliver his tale into Keyes’s Dictaphone. We see that he has been shot and he essentially delivers the climax of the film to the audience: “I killed Dietrichson. Me, Walter Neff, insurance agent, 35 years old, unmarried, no visible scars…until a little while ago, that is…I killed him for money and a woman and I didn’t get the money and I didn’t get the woman.” By structuring the narrative in such a way, Wilder undermines the outcome of the crime and plot in favor of providing Neff with the opportunity to assert his existence the only way he truly can: by taking command of the story. In doing so, Wilder pushes us down the path with Neff of coming to the realization of not who or what did him wrong but where he went wrong.

While Double Indemnity holds a substantial legacy for uniting many of the narrative and thematic tropes of the genre, it also helped solidify the aesthetic (thanks to cinematography John Seitz) that would be taken to extremes by Reed in The Third Man and Welles in Touch of Evil. Janey Place and Lowell Peterson visual analysis “Some Visual Motifs of Film Noir” is helpful here, as they create a taxonomy of visual characteristics exemplified in the genre ranging from low-key lighting, greater depth of field, and the “antitraditional” use of mise en scène. Indemnity contributes two key conventions of noir iconography. These additions, which would fall within the realms of Place and Peterson’s definition of “antitraditional” mise en scène, are the film’s extensive use of Venetian blinds and the use of a prop to symbolize sexual fascination (exemplified here by Phyllis’s anklet).

The Venetian blinds are first seen in the Dietrichson household, their bold shadowed bars cast across Walter Neff’s frame. These lines function as cues to the audience that his actions could land him in prison or to a worse fate. Wilder even goes so far to compose scene in which Neff is covered by the shadow of the blinds while Keyes, who is standing next to him, escapes their impressions. Neff even empathizes the significance of the blinds, stating that “the windows were closed and the sunshine coming in through the Venetian blinds showed up the dust in the air,” giving the introduction of this particular piece of iconography an obvious edge. As I noted in my review of Strangers on a Train, obstructing shadows are a key aspect of the noir aesthetic. As for the use of a prop as a symbol for sexual desire, Wilder utilizes Phyllis’s anklet as the key point of attraction between the two doomed lovers. When she emerges at the top of the staircase, the first image both Neff and the spectator are given access to is her robe clinging to her legs, the sparkling anklet serving as a beacon. When she emerges from her room properly clothed and Neff tells her “that’s a honey of an anklet you’re wearing,” Wilder uses Neff’s interest in the piece of jewelry as another way of expressing the saleman’s sexual desire (after all, the film could not be sexually explicit due to the Hollywood Production Code). Both Otto Preminger and Joseph H. Lewis would utilize the device similarly, be it through a portrait of Gene Tierney in Laura or a pistol and a William Tell routine in Gun Crazy (1950).

In a nutshell, what makes Wilder’s film the number one noir is that it set the trend, it perfected the formula. While films as disparate as Fritz Lang’s M (1931), Orson Welles’s Citizen Kane (1941), and Huston’s The Maltese Falcon all exhibit characteristics of noir, Double Indemnity was one of the first films to weave all those characteristics together. Wilder was one of the European directors that noir is so often associated with and he would, like fellow émigré Lang, produce additional films in the genre. Yet, neither Sunset Blvd. (1950) nor Ace in the Hole (1951) come close to the significance of Indemnity in the noir canon (I love Sunset, but it’s essentially a critique of Hollywood done in the noir aesthetic which nearly disqualifies it as a proper member of the noir genre). Double Indemnity is the quintessential noir, accept no substitutes.

For those of you just tuning into the “The Top 5 Noirs from the Classical Age” retrospective, you may want to check out the rest of the series:

#5: Alfred Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train
#4: Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing
#3: Carol Reed’s The Third Man
#2: Orson Welles’s Touch of Evil

Drew Morton is a Ph.D. student in Cinema and Media Studies at the University of California-Los Angeles. He has previously written for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and UWM Post and is the 2008 recipient of the Otis Ferguson Award for Critical Writing in Film Studies.


Agora Trailer | Robin Williams Wedding Banned



Comments

(reposting from earlier thread)
FYI, there are 3 upcoming Noir festivals in the SF Bay area, including a big screen showing of The Third Man

Click my name for more info.

Posted by: Drake at August 28, 2009 11:49 AM

Outstanding choice.

Posted by: TK at August 28, 2009 11:49 AM

Drake,

Thanks for the info. I've heard great things about the SF fests in the past. I really should drive up the coast one of these days.


TK,

Merci beaucoup.

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 28, 2009 11:58 AM

I once disrupted a showing of this at my university theater by laughing uncontrollably at the sunglasses.

I've since heard a theory that because sunglasses were not commonly used in 1944, they actually could serve as an effective disguise, as most people were unaccustomed to seeing someone's eyes shielded. The inability to see such a common visual identifier would be disorienting.

I don't know if I buy that, but it's the kind of thing that appeals to me. I always try to watch an old movie as though I was a contemporary audience member.

Posted by: sansho1 at August 28, 2009 12:00 PM

Dammit, 2,500 miles from San Francisco.

I'll have to check my library for some of these (I've seen three, and they could use seeing again), but in the meantime, Drew, are you aware of anyone selling noir DVD sets that might include any or all of these films?

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy), at August 28, 2009 12:02 PM

Fine work, Drew. I'm beginning to understand why one of my favorite films, The Big Sleep, didn't make the cut.

I went a reading with crime writer Duane Swierczynski this week and he defined hardboiled as "tough" while noir meant "fucked." In other words, hardboiled stories focus on hard men hacking their way through a hard world, while noir stories feature protagonists who can't win, or for whom winning looks a lot like losing. Do you think those are accurate definitions?

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at August 28, 2009 12:03 PM

With My 3 Sons and the Flubber movies being most people's memories of Fred MacMurray, it's hard to remember that he was usually cast as the heavy in his early films.

I remember laughing when he said he was 35. I guess people looked older then. He was only about 36 when he filmed it.

I also remember wanting an ankle bracelet when I was 11 or 12, and my mother said, "No, only bad girls wear those." I wonder which came first? Did this movie inspire bad girls to wear anklets, or did Barbara Stanwyck wear an anklet because that's what bad girls wore?

Posted by: BWeaves at August 28, 2009 12:05 PM

Thank you again Drew, for a wonderful series. I've got some movie watching to do.

Posted by: Cindy at August 28, 2009 12:14 PM

Yes! Haven't even read the piece yet, but THANK YOU for choosing this one as #1! Completely rewatchable today. With the economy the way it is, it might even be more relevant and plausible than it was in '44. MacMurray is amazing in this.

Posted by: jason at August 28, 2009 12:19 PM

Of course this had to be number one; there's just no other film that represents noir so perfectly. What does it say about my mental state that every time I see this movie mentioned I let out an involuntary sigh?

Posted by: Tori at August 28, 2009 12:20 PM

Bucdaddy,

They're all done by different studios unfortunately. Warner Brothers has put out 4 of the best film noir box sets I've seen for the money. Yet, none of the titles on in this retrospective are included. Here's an Amazon link to the first and strongest set:

http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Collection-Asphalt-Jungle-Murder/dp/B000244F2S/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1

"Strangers on a Train" is on a 2-disc WB set. Very nice edition.

"The Killing" is an MGM title, no extras but very cheap.

"The Third Man" had two Criterion releases. The latest (on DVD and Blu-Ray) has an amazing transfer and some great extras (commentary by Tony Gilroy and Steven Soderbergh, commentary by Dana Polan, and a handful of great docs).

"Touch of Evil" is a Universal disc. The 50th Anniversary set is one of my favorite DVDs.

"Double Indemnity" is another Universal title, out on a two-disc set, and includes some great commentary tracks, a TV remake of the film, and a decent doc.

TracerBullet,

I would tend to agree. Roger Ebert said of noir in his "Detour" review: "The difference between a crime film and a noir film is that the bad guys in crime movies know they're bad and want to be, while a noir hero thinks he's a good guy who has been ambushed by life."

I think hard boiled detective films, "The Big Sleep" included, often contain noir elements. Yet, the main character is not morally corrupt or will not experience moral corruption during the film. To me, that's a key aspect of the genre. While most hard boiled detective films keep away from that, perhaps due to the production code (depicting morally ambiguous police officers was a touchy issue), "Kiss Me Deadly" and some others do. So it's not an overall rule that hard boiled cannot be noir.

The "Double Indemnity" set and the third WB noir set(http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Collection-Border-Incident-Dangerous/dp/B000FI9OCW/ref=pd_bxgy_d_text_c) have some great docs on noir included in their features in which directors (Chris Nolan, Christopher McQuarrie) and writers (James Ellroy, Frank Miller) discuss what they think it is.

BWeaves,

Not sure about the anket although I wish you had gotten one. ;)

Cindy,

Thanks again!

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 28, 2009 12:23 PM

Just want to add that I have really enjoyed this series of reviews. Touch of Evil is one of my favorite films, and I need to rewatch this one sometime soon.

Posted by: Drake at August 28, 2009 12:38 PM

"create a taxonomy of visual characteristics exemplified in the genre ranging from low-key lighting, greater depth of field, and the “antitraditional” use of mise en scène.

*eye splat* That's a great bit of verbal gymnastics right there. Fuck Knowles!

"a key characteristic of the genre is that it often pushes the viewer to identify with a character who is going through the process of becoming morally corrupted."

I agree. The post WW II American Man having his values called into question.
He has killed. He's witnessed atrocites. He's seen moral ambiguity, and brings it all back home, like a plague, to a world that does not understand his dilemma.

" Wilder uses Neff’s interest in the piece of jewelry as another way of expressing the saleman’s sexual desire (after all, the film could not be sexually explicit due to the Hollywood Production Code)."

If the Code didn't invent fetishism, it certainly furthered the cause.

Posted by: Odnon at August 28, 2009 1:19 PM

Odnon,

I actually stole that line from my Master's comprehensive exam answer in which I discussed noir and genre theory. I was glad to finally put some of that headache to some practical use!

And God bless the code, it had its problems, but it also pushed filmmakers to be creative.

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 28, 2009 1:29 PM

Well played, sir!

Is there a book/thesis/blog/ about the pros and cons of the code? I agree with you about the creative ways to get around it. Sometimes, I actually lament that creativity, so sadly lacking in the modern "poop, fart, and boner" set who are crapping out "unrated" movies today.

Thank godtopus I have Pajiba to elevate me!

Posted by: Odnon at August 28, 2009 2:35 PM

Od,

I cannot recommend James Naremore's "More Than Night" enough. It's a wonderful text on noir and it deals with the code extensively

Check out these for a more code-central readings:

Thomas Doherty: Pre-Code Hollywood
Lee Grieveson: Policing Cinema
Lea Jacobs: The Wages of Sin (she also had an article self-regulation in "The Velvet Light Trap").
Richard Maltby: Various Articles

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 28, 2009 2:42 PM

Sweet! Thanks Drew!
The List is copied, pasted, and printed out.

Posted by: Odnon at August 28, 2009 5:45 PM

I just updated the series to add a dedication to the UCLA Arts Library. The California state budget is being slashed left and right and the UC system wants to take away the library where I get the majority of the books to write these reviews. Please take a moment to show your support!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-the-ucla-arts-library

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 28, 2009 5:48 PM

Although The Third Man is my favorite film in this list, Double Indemnity is a worthy noir #1. I remember first watching this and getting a huge kick out of that rat-a-tat-tat dialogue.

The only thing I found a little lacking was the chemistry between Walter and Phyllis. There seemed to be an intended resonance to that final scene between the two of them that just didn't hit on all cylinders for me. (I have a very similar problem with the end of The Maltese Falcon.)

I wonder if the Code affected my ability to enjoy some of these older films, because some of the classics play more dated to me than others, and that does seem to relate directly to the nature of the material and what needs to be veiled.

That all said, it's a great film with a great ending. It satisfies this cynic a great deal.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at August 28, 2009 7:24 PM

Darth,

Re: Chemistry

You should check out Roger Ebert's Great Movies essay. He has an interesting take on it.

I know the code affected my opinion (I hated Shadow of a Doubt and even Vertigo for the longest time because the climaxes seemed so oddly handled). Then I learned about the code. I think you just have to try to put them in historical context and then deal with your criticisms. It's somewhat unfair to apply a modern frame of mind to them.

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 28, 2009 8:19 PM

Drew,

Thanks for the tip on the Ebert essay. That was a good read. I'm not sure it solves the problem for me in terms of my personal investment in the film; it makes it seem more like an arch exercise than a grounded story. It does certainly address my issue, however.

I agree that applying a modern frame of mind to many of these films is not fair, but I suppose I appreciate film first and foremost on the personal level as opposed to the academic or historical level. Civilization and our general societal mores have advanced in the last 50 years, and I'm thankful that there is an increased freedom of expression in the cinema, even if restrictions did in some cases enhance films or engender greatness. In general I'm a guy who likes people to say what they mean - or for subtext to at least be an artistic choice as opposed to the result of any sort of gag rule.

Both Vertigo and Shadow Of A Doubt worked for me the first time I saw them. I can see what you mean about the endings - especially the latter - but whatever my personal threshold is I gave them a pass. I consider Vertigo one of the greats and would like to watch Shadow Of A Doubt with one of my nieces someday. :- )

[Edit about an hour after I wrote this but before I submitted it: Coincidentally given the phone conversation I just had, which might have been the oddest conversation I've ever had - I can sort of see the doing-it-for-the-sake-of-its-own-thing aspect as believable. It was like I was in a David Lynch film, and I plunged right in for its own sake, just like Walter and Phyllis.]

Posted by: DarthCorleone at August 28, 2009 10:20 PM

Darth,

I agree that we bring the personal to film and experiences in general first. I just was trying to argue that its a good habit to try to historicize a piece from there.

"Shadow of a Doubt" and "Vertigo" have grown on me since first viewing. Still not my favorite Hitchcock (I prefer early Hitchcock almost any day of the week, although I do love "Rear Window" and "Psycho").

I was gonna write something else, but I seem to have forgotten....

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 29, 2009 12:26 AM

Drew,

Much as I've enjoyed this series, I have a suggestion that might have made it better. If it's at all possible, when you're writing about the play of light and shadow, and angles, and camerawork in general, any stills or clips you could include to illustrate your points would be helpful. I've seen three of these movies (and maybe four, I have a very vague memory of seeing MacMurray play an unsavory character in something) but it's been a long time, and only once or twice at most, and some of the scenes and shots you mention are difficult for me to conjure out of my memory.

In the meantime, I seriously need to hit the "Suspense" section at the library and watch these again. I refuse to pay whatever exorbitant price Comcast demands for anything but the minimum basic, so I don't have access to TCM or AMC. It's kind of a shame movies have migrated completely off the networks, chopped up by ads and bastardized though they were. I'm old enough to remember when it was a huge deal when some big theatrical release aired on a net for the first time, and when the middle of the night was reserved for running old movies instead of infomercial crap. And, of course, "Chiller Theater" on Saturday nights.

God, I'm old.

Posted by: , (TCFKAB) at August 29, 2009 1:06 AM

Did you purposefully refuse to take any other but english movies in consideration for this list??? Or was it out of ignorance?

#1 Lâge d'or (Bunuel - France, 1930)
#2 Mysterien eines Frisiersalons (Engels, Brecht - Germany, 1923)
#3 Meshes of the Afternoon (Deren - USA, 1934)
#4 Black Moon (Malle - France/Germany, 1974)
#5 Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie (Bunuel - France, 1972)

Posted by: dulaine at August 29, 2009 3:48 AM

Those aren't noir films, dork. If you're going to show up just to insult someone's hard work, at least know what you're talking about.

Posted by: sansho1 at August 29, 2009 6:32 AM

Dulaine,

I set the rules back in the first review (Strangers on a Train) and theorized my approach using noir theory though out (see "The Third Man" for a discussion regarding international noir influences).

First, the films you list don't fall into the classical period described.

Secondly, while these are some great titles, their noir qualities could be debated.

Third, while I disagree with many theorists that noir is purely an American expression (which is why I chose a British noir as well), the international ancestors (German expressionism, French poetic realism) aren't quite 100% noir. I would tend to argue that noir went international after the classical period, particularly in the French new wave.

You might want to read the entire retrospective (or at least research the country of origin of all the films) before implying that the critic's is ignorant.

Buc,

I almost thought about included pics or film clips. I'll keep it in mind for the future!

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 29, 2009 9:35 AM

Drew,

I'm sorry to have used the term "ignorance" that was rude and inapropriate - bloody hell, I didn't mean to insult you, though - if you are offended, whatsoever, I apologize.

I did ignore the first review and with that missed the fact that you "will only be covering the classical age of the film noir". My bad.

Still, I disagree on some points:
Let's take Fritz Lang for example. You said yourself that "M (1931!! - not in the classical age) [...] exhibit[s] characteristics of noir". Although that does not necessarily make the film a noir - it does show that noir was international before the classical period. Also, just because Lang immigrated and worked in the U.S. afterwards does not mean he and his work became purely American.

One criteria that is missing in any of the five movies I have listed is the detective part. The plot itself has nothing to do with a detective story. Inarguably this makes it impossible to classify them as a film noir - if you decide to use a strict definition of "noir".

But honestly, I think that may be a bit too easy. "Black Film" isn't exactly as descriptive as "surrealistic" (which all five movies could be classified with) "sociocritical" (which all five movies could be classified with) - even a widely used word like "avantgarde" is more specific than "black film". There isn't an agreement on how to define "film noir".

I know it's thin ice I'm walking on, but if we take Durgnats ("The film noir is not a genre, as the Western and gangster film, and takes us into the realm of classification by motif and tone") classification into account and combine it with e.g. Higham and Greenbergs description of tone and motif (NOT THEIR CLASSIFICATION AS A GENRE) "stories of fatal women and desperate men […]. A world was created, as sealed off from reality as the world of musicals and of Paramount sophisticated comedies, yet in its way more delectable than either" - I really don't see how that excludes "Lâge D'or" (Irrational, impossible love, provoking attack against middle-class values, society's empty ethics are deconstructed, the rich, the church, government and the army are being ridiculed - all "sealed off from reality" with a dark almost threatening tone).

Of course, since you set the rules you set, I was wrong with my choice of movies - but regarding your secondly and third I find them debatable.

Posted by: dulaine at August 30, 2009 2:46 AM

Dulaine,

I appreciate your conscientiousness.

1941-1958 marks the classical period according to noir historian Paul Schrader. I used his definition for the sake of simplicity so yes, "M" would not stand within the period (and its often considered a predecessor, not a full fledged noir).

As I noted in the "Indemnity" review and in my above comment, I don't feel that the detective is a necessary trait of a noir. They often come along for the ride, but I would posit that there is a difference between a hard boiled detective film (Maltese Falcon) and a noir. Specifically, my thematic definition of noir involves the corruption of morality. While this occurs in some noir/detective films (Kiss Me Deadly, The Big Heat), I think the Production Code kept a lot of noirs from applying those traits to government officers.

As for the description of noir as being a genre, movement, or tone, I would tend to describe it as Rick Altman does in his book "Film/Genre." Noir is a generic adjective (a tone or approach) that became a noun (genre) over a period of time. I think what marks noir as not being a movement is that it continued on temporally and geographically as critical and cultural appreciation snowballed. Thus, a movement became a genre.

I'd have to watch "L'Age D'Or" within the objective of applying my criteria to it. Yet, again drawing on my first rule as elaborated by Schrader, I would disqualify it from this list because it was released 11 years before the classical period began.

Posted by: Drew Morton at August 30, 2009 3:45 AM