"The term itself is vague. For German Expressionism was less a unified style than an attitude, a state of mind."
-Horst Uhr, introduction, "Masterpieces of German Expressionism" (1982)
"Film noir is not a genre. It is not defined, as are the western and gangster genres, by conventions of setting and conflict, but rather by the more subtle qualities of tone and mood. It is a film 'noir', as opposed to the possible variants of film gray or film off-white."
-Paul Schrader, 'Notes on Film Noir' (1972)
Guy Budziak makes film noir woodcuts in high-contrast black and white. He tops the "Roots of Film Noir Prints" section of his web site with the quotes from Uhr and Schrader above. I'm assuming Guy Budziak is the artist's real name, but even if it isn't, it's an appropriately noirish moniker. And he knows his stuff. Budziak writes: "My woodcuts reach back to the very earliest origins of film noir, insofar as it was the woodcut that most accurately conveyed the German Expressionist sensibility."
His love of noir is rooted in his love of black and white:
What's interesting about black and white as opposed to color is this: color more accurately depicts what we all see in visual reality. The same cannot be said of black and white, of course. So in a sense everything filmed in black and white is unreal, or perhaps can be construed as an alternative reality, but not one that we experience naturally.See Budziak's gallery of prints, from such films as "Nightmare Alley," "Touch of Evil," "Out of the Past," "Ossessione," "Le Samourai" (a color noir!) at "Film Noir: Woodcuts by Guy Budziak."
I agree with Schrader that noir is not a genre as much as a style of making films that often fall into the crime category but do not necessarily have to do with crime, more with mood. Of course separating films by the style they're made in does bring you close to a genre classification. But it is true that while Westerns have very specific characters and locales, noirs do not. By a stretch, one could classify Crimes and Misdemeanors as a noir even though it has nothing to do with private dicks.
But to the website. The woodcuts are fantastic. I especially like Touch of Evil and Nightmare Alley.
Excellent post Jim.
I too agree that judging a film as noir is more a sensibility that the director brings to a film than fitting it to a pre-dedined template.
I also find it hard to imagine a film noir that is not in black & white.
"But it is true that while Westerns have very specific characters and locales, noirs do not."
That is not true. Noirs do have a set of characters (the femme fatale! the set-up PI! the criminal mastermind! loads of crazy women!).
I attended a class at film school, where our term paper had to determine whether noir was a genre or just a style. It was a while ago, but I think I came to the conclusion that it's genre, because it is able to merge with science fiction, thus creating the tech noir films (such as Blade Runner).
But these genre mixtures are always problematic, I mean, what about Westworld? Is that a sci-fi western?
One of the best film noirs I've seen, is the Norwegian original version of "Imsomnia". It takes place in Northern Norway where the sun never sets during the summer - constant light. Like God watching you.
Another example: "Strange Days" was full of splashy color and vibrant action, but it was definitely a noir movie in its mood and outlook.
I would agree with Schrader that the film noir is not defined by particular narrative or stylistic tropes, but instead by moods, themes, smoke levels, and shadow.
This actually indirectly addresses an issue in film criticism that perhaps doesn't receive the attention it warrants, and that is this question: what constitutes film genre?
This is a broad questions, but it seems (to me, at least) that critics rarely confront the implications of genre labels. Labels rarely have anything to do with the actual films themselves. They instead exist to help us whittle the experience of watching and interpreting the movie down to a manageable size so that we can arrange easily "place" the film.
The implications for this line of thinking (one that constitutes much of our interpretive schemata) are many, especially since many genre definitions boil down to plot details, which thus instructs viewers to prize plot over all else. And as we all know, plot is one of the more insignificant aspects of cinematic experience.
This actually indirectly addresses an issue in film criticism that perhaps doesn't receive the attention it warrants, and that is this question: what constitutes film genre?
I share your trepidation, Ted. This is how I recently defined good horror to someone:
"I believe good horror is, as you say, making the characters (and audience) feel vulnerable, stripping away all the safe trappings we've come to expect as automatic. When the safety net is gone, when you're in completely unknown moral territory... THAT is true horror."
With a few word changes, however, this is also how I define good Westerns, and for that matter good crime stories: People put into uncharted moral territories where "the authorities" no longer exist as an infallible concept, forced to make seemingly impossible or no-win decisions.
It just so happens that Westerns, horror, and crime stories are my favorites of the "Genres," so my definition of those three genres may say more about me than about them. I have no idea how I tell the difference between the three, but somehow I do...
I can't say I agree with Paul Schrader that Film Noir isn't a Genre. Film Noir is everything and nothing, depending on how you look at it.
Film Noir was a social film movement of the 1940's & 50's similar to Italian Neo-Realism & French Wave because it reflects social undertone. Only these films were still made within a well established studio system and production code, they still carry Hollywood/American trademarks.
It is a film cycle only because it has a beginning and end, commonly 1941-1958. The times changed and so did the films.
Film Noir has an obvious style which is its most recognizable trademark, black & white, obscure camera angels, mostly shadow, and urban settings etc.
In 2007 we can look back and say "oh, that's a film noir" only because a film has particular characteristics of Film Noir. Film's nowadays that are "Film Noir" or more like Neo-Noir are such only because the filmmakers are consciously striving for that style. Where as in 1940's under the cirumstances that the films were being made (economic, social) those were the products of the times.
So while "Genre" may be a loose term in this particular case. It cannot be down right dismissed. Take for example Blade Runner. It is a Science fiction Noir, it was made in the 80's and takes place in the future. How can that be labeled noir unless it carries with it many Noir Conventions, lighting, setting, characters. While these are stylized characteristics of noir they at the same time become genre conventions when put together in a certain way.
great post jim.
i agree about the comments you hhave made but there isn't enough info about artists and dates etc etc. but all in all brilliant points