Any Film Noir fans?

Looking over at my film library, I have a small red sticker on the cases of movies I enjoy watching more than once.
Some that are marked:

Nightmare Alley
Where the Sidewalk Ends
The Blue Gardenia
The Letter
Sweet Smell of Success
Is Nightmare Alley the relatively new film about carnies during the Depression. SO glum!
The Blue Gardenia is one I watched recently.
Saw Sweet Smell of Success years ago--great movie.
I agree. You can also see many of the classic noirs on YouTube. Look for any film directed by Robert Siodmak, or photographed by the great John Alton.

Also you can watch the "Czar of Noir"'s Eddie Muller do his brief intros and outros on TCM's Noir Alley. A great many of them are on YouTube.
Thanks for the recommendations. I'll check them out.
 

Is Nightmare Alley the relatively new film about carnies during the Depression. SO glum!
In my view the 1947 original --with Tyrone Power-- was the better film. FWIW, here's some commentary I wrote following watching the '21 remake:

Nightmare Alley (2021)

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Cate Blanchett, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, Rooney Mara, Richard Jenkins, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn.

Director: Guillermo del Toro; Screenplay: del Toro and Kim Morgan; DP: Dan Laustsen; Score: Nathan Johnson.

Going in, many know the basic premise from the 1947 film starring Tyrone Power, or from the 1946 novel by William Lindsay Gresham on which both films are based: A down-on-his-luck wanderer comes upon a carnival, where his fascination with the life style and its offer of employment eventually leads him to apprentice with a mentalist act. Although he is disgusted by a “geek” sideshow, where a crazed booze addled individual bites the heads of live chickens, he decides to stay on and learn the secret code of the clairvoyant act.

When he accidentally causes the death of the washed up mentalist in the duo, he and its female assistant decide to leave the carny in order to stage their own mentalist nightclub act that becomes very popular. During that time the protagonist meets up with a psychologist, which leads to their partnership in scamming wealthy society members out of large sums of money. The mentalist act devolves into psychic conjuring sessions which are eventually foiled, and the fate of all the participants start to unravel.

Although beautifully staged, photographed, and well acted, there are two chief deficits in the production. First was the miscasting of Bradley Cooper in the role of Stanton Carlisle. Referred to in the story as “the kid”, Cooper, at aged 46 was too old for the part. He also is not very capable of portraying a villainous cad, or one consumed by money that Tyrone Power did in the original. Leonardo DiCaprio was initially chosen and was in negotiation for the character before he dropped out. A better choice for the role of Cooper could have been Christian Bale, although both DiCaprio and Bale are likewise too old. There are any number of up and coming stars who would have better fit the bill.

Second, during the mid 1940s the public of that time was able to believe the notion of an individual who was crazed and debased enough by alcoholism to the point where he could degenerate into a carnival bestial “geek” who would bite the heads off of live chickens. And further, that a person could become an alcoholic capable of that slide simply by heavy drinking. This is not the case with audiences of the 21st Century. The novel and the ‘46 film were contemporary dramas. The 2021 film is a period piece. Because we’re asked to view those anachronistic notions with contemporary sensibilities, it creates a dichotomy that makes it difficult to believe the film.

The acting was of a high level that one would expect from such a dream cast. Stand outs were Willem Dafoe as the carnival boss, Toni Collette as Zeena, the partner in the traditional mentalist act, and Richard Jenkins as the wealthy tycoon mark, Ezra Grindle. Rooney Mara struck me as the embodiment of a 1940s lass. And Collete as Zeena was convincing as a grizzled carny. Blanchett as the psychologist was a little like a cadaver with heavy makeup, but her role was partly dependent on Carlisle’s believable allure for her, which simply was not convincingly demonstrated by Cooper.

Unfortunately there was no chemistry between Cooper and any of the three female leads. So we’re not convinced by the initial Carlisle/Zeena sexual attraction. Nor do we understand the basis of the love generated between Carlisle and the carny played by Mara, to the point where she is eager to leave the

carnival with Carlisle. Likewise it’s a strain to believe the relationship that quickly develops between Carlisle and the psychologist.

The cinematography was very captivating. However it’s interesting to note that the ‘46 film created the noir mood with lighting and camera angles, whereas the new film relied too much upon CGI to create the film’s dark patina. In fact there was too much use of CGI. The flames in the prologue as well as some of the special effects seemed a little transparent.

Del Toro’s direction was a good effort, but will probably not be ranked among his finest. Reportedly when he and Cooper met, there occurred not only a meeting of the minds, but rather an artistic marriage. From that point on the film was destined to be the product of that relationship-- I think to its detriment. Del Toro’s screenplay was actually a little more faithful to the book than was the ‘46 version, although both treatments of the picture made some significant departures. The current film’s long running time enabled delving into more aspects of the novel, but it also created a slow pace to the script which detracted from the story’s punch. Of the two, I prefer the ‘46 version. It was more compact and impressive.

Both version’s ending lines were similar, but neither existed in the novel. To me the actual final statement in the novel was much more on target, but the screenwriters could not resist using a larger than life show boat line.

WARNING: "nightmare alley" spoilers below

The ‘46 version: “Mister, I was made for it”. The 2021 version: “Mister, I was born for it”. The actual quote, “Of course, it's only temporary – just until we get a real geek" is far more fateful and fitting.
Doc’s rating: 6/10
 
In my view the 1947 original --with Tyrone Power-- was the better film. FWIW, here's some commentary I wrote following watching the '21 remake:

Nightmare Alley (2021)

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Cate Blanchett, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, Rooney Mara, Richard Jenkins, Ron Perlman, David Strathairn.

Director: Guillermo del Toro; Screenplay: del Toro and Kim Morgan; DP: Dan Laustsen; Score: Nathan Johnson.

Going in, many know the basic premise from the 1947 film starring Tyrone Power, or from the 1946 novel by William Lindsay Gresham on which both films are based: A down-on-his-luck wanderer comes upon a carnival, where his fascination with the life style and its offer of employment eventually leads him to apprentice with a mentalist act. Although he is disgusted by a “geek” sideshow, where a crazed booze addled individual bites the heads of live chickens, he decides to stay on and learn the secret code of the clairvoyant act.

When he accidentally causes the death of the washed up mentalist in the duo, he and its female assistant decide to leave the carny in order to stage their own mentalist nightclub act that becomes very popular. During that time the protagonist meets up with a psychologist, which leads to their partnership in scamming wealthy society members out of large sums of money. The mentalist act devolves into psychic conjuring sessions which are eventually foiled, and the fate of all the participants start to unravel.

Although beautifully staged, photographed, and well acted, there are two chief deficits in the production. First was the miscasting of Bradley Cooper in the role of Stanton Carlisle. Referred to in the story as “the kid”, Cooper, at aged 46 was too old for the part. He also is not very capable of portraying a villainous cad, or one consumed by money that Tyrone Power did in the original. Leonardo DiCaprio was initially chosen and was in negotiation for the character before he dropped out. A better choice for the role of Cooper could have been Christian Bale, although both DiCaprio and Bale are likewise too old. There are any number of up and coming stars who would have better fit the bill.

Second, during the mid 1940s the public of that time was able to believe the notion of an individual who was crazed and debased enough by alcoholism to the point where he could degenerate into a carnival bestial “geek” who would bite the heads off of live chickens. And further, that a person could become an alcoholic capable of that slide simply by heavy drinking. This is not the case with audiences of the 21st Century. The novel and the ‘46 film were contemporary dramas. The 2021 film is a period piece. Because we’re asked to view those anachronistic notions with contemporary sensibilities, it creates a dichotomy that makes it difficult to believe the film.

The acting was of a high level that one would expect from such a dream cast. Stand outs were Willem Dafoe as the carnival boss, Toni Collette as Zeena, the partner in the traditional mentalist act, and Richard Jenkins as the wealthy tycoon mark, Ezra Grindle. Rooney Mara struck me as the embodiment of a 1940s lass. And Collete as Zeena was convincing as a grizzled carny. Blanchett as the psychologist was a little like a cadaver with heavy makeup, but her role was partly dependent on Carlisle’s believable allure for her, which simply was not convincingly demonstrated by Cooper.

Unfortunately there was no chemistry between Cooper and any of the three female leads. So we’re not convinced by the initial Carlisle/Zeena sexual attraction. Nor do we understand the basis of the love generated between Carlisle and the carny played by Mara, to the point where she is eager to leave the

carnival with Carlisle. Likewise it’s a strain to believe the relationship that quickly develops between Carlisle and the psychologist.

The cinematography was very captivating. However it’s interesting to note that the ‘46 film created the noir mood with lighting and camera angles, whereas the new film relied too much upon CGI to create the film’s dark patina. In fact there was too much use of CGI. The flames in the prologue as well as some of the special effects seemed a little transparent.

Del Toro’s direction was a good effort, but will probably not be ranked among his finest. Reportedly when he and Cooper met, there occurred not only a meeting of the minds, but rather an artistic marriage. From that point on the film was destined to be the product of that relationship-- I think to its detriment. Del Toro’s screenplay was actually a little more faithful to the book than was the ‘46 version, although both treatments of the picture made some significant departures. The current film’s long running time enabled delving into more aspects of the novel, but it also created a slow pace to the script which detracted from the story’s punch. Of the two, I prefer the ‘46 version. It was more compact and impressive.

Both version’s ending lines were similar, but neither existed in the novel. To me the actual final statement in the novel was much more on target, but the screenwriters could not resist using a larger than life show boat line.

WARNING: "nightmare alley" spoilers below

The ‘46 version: “Mister, I was made for it”. The 2021 version: “Mister, I was born for it”. The actual quote, “Of course, it's only temporary – just until we get a real geek" is far more fateful and fitting.
Doc’s rating: 6/10
Thank you, this is very interesting. I didn't even know about the first version, I'll try to check it out. The whole time I was watching it, and for days afterwards, I kept ruminating on it being a story that could probably only fit with the Depression.
 

[Nightmare Alley] Thank you, this is very interesting. I didn't even know about the first version, I'll try to check it out. The whole time I was watching it, and for days afterwards, I kept ruminating on it being a story that could probably only fit with the Depression.
Excellent point, Mercy. The nature of the story could have only happened in pre-war times. And that's another problem with the 2021 version. Contemporary films portraying decades old eras always over-stylize by exaggeration the settings, costumes, automobiles, hair styles, make-up, and the like. That's the case 99.5% of the time. A notable exception is Chinatown (1974). And there are others of course.

It always tickles me when I see a movie about, say, the 1950s. My usual thought is, "Hey, it wasn't like that at all"...:cautious:
 
Excellent point, Mercy. The nature of the story could have only happened in pre-war times. And that's another problem with the 2021 version. Contemporary films portraying decades old eras always over-stylize by exaggeration the settings, costumes, automobiles, hair styles, make-up, and the like. That's the case 99.5% of the time. A notable exception is Chinatown (1974). And there are others of course.

It always tickles me when I see a movie about, say, the 1950s. My usual thought is, "Hey, it wasn't like that at all"...:cautious:
Thanks for the comments, but my name is Marcy, not Mercy.
 
Just in case you see the movie 'Jail Bait'-1954 on one of the channels, just pass it by.
Directed by Edward D. Wood Jr. and that should explain why it's such a Bad Movie.
Acting, writing, direction and film angles are beyond sad.
Not sure of the budject, but it couldn't have been very much.

So many other movies that are worth your time, thought I'd throw out one to avoid.
 
Two questions ...... what exactly is a noir film ? What makes a film noir ?

And, what is AirTV
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/film noir

Film Noir is a type of crime film featuring cynical malevolent characters in a sleazy setting and an ominous atmosphere that is conveyed by shadowy photography …

AirTV is just the old free tv from the days before cable. The selection is limited but enough for me and the price is right. 😉🤭😂
 
I watched Gun Crazy (1950) this morning on Movies with my AirTV.
Oh yeah! One of the great noirs.

In Gun Crazy the cinematography was unusual and innovative for the time when it was filmed in 1949. There was lots of location footage, but what was interesting was how many scenes were shot with the camera in the back seat of a car (they used a stretch limousine), showing the action of the people in the front seat, and observing integral action occurring where they were driving-- a great long take. I wondered who the cinematographer was, so I looked him up. Sure enough, it was Russell Harlan, who photographed Witness for the Prosecution, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Hatari. The picture is worth watching just for Harlan's work.

John Dall co-starred with Peggy Cummings. He seemed too refined for the role, but yet he seemed very familiar. I couldn't place what else he'd been in. Then it came to me that he'd co-starred with Farley Granger in Rope. He was best at portraying sophisticated characters.

A great film, and one of the greatest noirs. I love that long take sequence while the couple were driving to the bank heist. Very innovative for its day.

Peggy Cummins was such a sweet Irish lassie to play such a psychopathic femme fatale killer. And the kinky sexual turn-on from guns and murder was pretty suggestive for 1950.

I'm sure that the screen writers for Bonnie and Clyde (1967) were strongly influenced by this landmark film.
 
Two questions ...... what exactly is a noir film ? What makes a film noir ?
...
There are varied opinions about noir. But it's trustworthy to say that film noir as a movement kicked off with Bogart in The Maltese Falcon (1941), and was pretty wound down after Welles' Touch of Evil (1958). There were actually many examples of noir type stories and photography all the way back to the silents. But the movement's heyday was circa 1948-1952.

But the noir ethos is pretty well summed up by the "Czar of Noir", Eddie Muller who described noir stories (and I paraphrase) as featuring a person who is tempted to do something illegal or immoral, and knows he shouldn't, but he does it anyway, and pays a price for it.

Common traits of noir are chiaroscuro black & white moody photography, city streets and alleys, a femme fatale, and Damon Runyon like characters slinking around in danger.

But overall it is the bleakness and dark themes that dominate classic noir.
 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/film noir

Film Noir is a type of crime film featuring cynical malevolent characters in a sleazy setting and an ominous atmosphere that is conveyed by shadowy photography …

AirTV is just the old free tv from the days before cable. The selection is limited but enough for me and the price is right. 😉🤭😂
Oh -OK I have watched many of them then, just didn't know that I was watching Noir. Thanks.

I might try antenna TV again, see what's out there in my area . I have heard it's not much ??
 
Oh -OK I have watched many of them then, just didn't know that I was watching Noir. Thanks.

I might try antenna TV again, see what's out there in my area . I have heard it's not much ??
I get about 40 channels but much of it is reruns from the last fifty or sixty years which is fine for me.

I miss the wide assortment of news available on cable.

A while back my apartment complex started providing basic cable and Wi-Fi as a part of our rent. I’m thankful for the Wi-Fi but the basic cable seemed like a never ending sales pitch to upgrade. The thing that I really enjoyed was a short season of a drama called Parish.

Good luck!
 
Kanopy is celebrating "Noirvember" this month. Kanopy is a free streaming service for those who do have a library card. Not all libraries are connected with Kanopy so you will have to check with your local library. Even outside of "Noirvember" , Kanopy offers a nice selection of movies in the "Film Noir category".
 
As it turns out, I watched two Noir films earlier today. Both Bogart films.

Dark Passage and the Maltese Falcon.....

So yes I am a fan of them. To bad there are not more of them.
 
As it turns out, I watched two Noir films earlier today. Both Bogart films.

Dark Passage and the Maltese Falcon.....

So yes I am a fan of them. To bad there are not more of them.
I agree, RGP. I'll guess that there were 400-500 classic noirs, probably more if you include the real low "B" pictures. RKO probably made the most.

There have been some great neo-noirs, like Chinatown and Body Heat, but it would be difficult to make a similar noir today, for the simple reason that the notion of right and wrong are out the window. Morality has disappeared. And when they do a period film noir imitation they're almost always way over-stylized to the point of caricature. A good example? Nightmare Alley (2021).
 
I love film noir.
Probably my favorite, after the previously mentioned, Double Indemnity is:

"Too Late for Tears," In which Lizabeth Scott plays such an evil housewife she even scares noir's favorite thug, Dan Duryea.

978238819.jpg
 
I agree, RGP. I'll guess that there were 400-500 classic noirs, probably more if you include the real low "B" pictures. RKO probably made the most.

There have been some great neo-noirs, like Chinatown and Body Heat, but it would be difficult to make a similar noir today, for the simple reason that the notion of right and wrong are out the window. Morality has disappeared. And when they do a period film noir imitation they're almost always way over-stylized to the point of caricature. A good example? Nightmare Alley (2021).
I'll have to look and see if that Nightmare Alley is in / on my menu .

Thanks.
 
I'll have to look and see if that Nightmare Alley is in / on my menu .

Thanks.
If you can swing it, I'd recommend watching the original film from 1947 with Tyrone Power. IMO it's a better picture than the modern one, despite the recent one's benefit of modern techniques.
 


Back
Top