>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]