SCREEN-L Archives

January 1996, Week 3

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ulf Hagberg <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:06:17 +0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (129 lines)
>Donald:
>
>There seems to be some misunderstanding of what 'definitions' are for, and
>hence why Damico's has proven to be exceptionally useful - unlike others -
>to FILMMAKERS wishing to make films having the FEELING which we associate
>with the classic examples of film noir.  Damico's definition is not
>intended to encompass every film anyone has ever referred to as an example
>of the genre, any more that Aristotle's definition of 'tragedy' was
>intended to be exhaustive of conversational use no matter how ill-informed
>or foolish.  Rather, it is intended as a prescription for future use of
>the term, superceding less-precise former uses, which has the testable
>advantage of better distinguishing the wheat from the chaff.  For example,
>it divertes a filmmaker's attention away from the irrelevance (or better:
>accoutremental nature) of the often-contradictory attributions of visual
>'style' which have been diversely claimed for films of the genre, or the
>gender-specific roles of so many of the early examples of it, enabling
>filmmakers to create works which, while appearing superficially distinct
>from the tradition, can be felt to be identifiable identifiable with it.
>That's exactly what definitions are for, and the only testable way of
>distinguishing among suggested alternatives!  In short, until a more
>USEFUL tool than Damico's is proffered for filmmakers (revised as
>suggested), I shall use the one he has constructed and credit him not only
>for having constructed it, but for recognising what such constructions are
>for - in exactly the sense, and for exactly the same reason, that WRITERS
>continue to credit Frye for having constructed generic specifications
>remarkably more useful than any of their predecessors.
>
>Evan William Cameron                            Telephone: 416-736-5149
>York University - CFT 216 (Film)                Fax:       416-736-5710
>4700 Keele Street                               E-mail:    [log in to unmask]
>North York, Ontario
>Canada  M3J 1P3
>On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Donald Larsson wrote:
>
>> Evan Cameron suggests the following:
>>
>> >The only useful specification of 'film noir' I know was offered by James
>> >Damico in FILM READER, Vol. #2 (February 1978, issue #3), mimicking the
>> >example set by Northrup Frye on other dramatic genres.  As given, it rea=
ds:
>>
>> >"Either because he is fated to do so by chance, or because he has been
>> >hired for a job specifically associated with her, a man whose experience
>> >of life has left him sanguine and often bitter meets a not-innocent woma=
n
>> >of similar outlook to whom he is sexually and fatally attracted.  Throug=
h
>> >this attraction, either because the woman induces him to it or because i=
t
>> >is the natural result of their relationship, the man comes to cheat,
>> >attempt to murder, or actually murder a second man to whom the woman is
>> >unhappily or unwillingly attached (generally he is her husband or lover)=
,
>> >an act which often leads to the woman's betrayal of the protagonist, but
>> >which in any event brings about the sometimes metaphoric, but usually
>> >literal destruction of the woman, the man to whom she is attached, and
>> >frequently the protagonist himself."
>> >
>> >Unlike Frye, Damico is seemingly tone-deaf with respect to sentence
>> >structure, and uses 'sanguine' where he obviously means its opposite,
>> >'cynical'.  But if you take the time to restructure his clauses into
>> >intelligible discourse, eliminating the gender specifications along the
>> >way (thus retaining the form without arbitrarily restricting it to its
>> >engendered paradigm), you will come close to catching the core compositi=
on
>> >of the 'film noir' tale, even in its present mismanifestations.
>>
>> ----
>> This definition is interesting, but no less problematic than any other
>>  definition
>> of "film noir."  Aside from the fact that it says nothing about film *sty=
le*,
>> usually regarded as a key component of "noir," whatever its definition, t=
he
>> statement fails to cover many cases.  It certainly applies well enough to
>>such
>> films as DOUBLE INDEMNITY and THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, as well as =
some
>> versions of "neo-noir" like BODY HEAT.  But it doesn't apply at all or
>>applies
>> only with some generous stretching to such films as SUNSET BOULEVARD, THE=
Y
> LIVE
>> BY NIGHT, NIGHTMARE ALLEY, or IN A LONELY PLACE, to name only a few from =
the
>> 1940s.  Neither does it apply to such films of the 1950s as  THE ASPHALT
>> JUNGLE, THE BIG KNIFE, KISS ME DEADLY or TOUCH OF EVIL.
>>
>> One might say of noir what Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography:
>> "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it."
>>
>>
>> Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
>>
   ----
   Donald and Evan:
 
Maybe these definitions are to narrow. It might be useful to take a look at
Barbara Deming=B4s definition of main-characters as refered in Robert Sklar=
=B4s
 
"Movie-made America" which is as follows :
 
"The hero who sees nothing to fight for; the hero who despairs making a
life for himself; the hero who achieves succes but finds it empty; and the
malcontent who breaks with the old life, only to find himself nowhere."
 
This might widen up the discussion, and it certainly applies to a variety
of so called film noirs.
 
Ulf Hagberg
University of Karlstad
Sweden
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
 
>> ----
>> To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-=
L
>> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>>
>
>----
>To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
>in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2