This is Noir?


Not in my book. How could they say that? Maybe if they had shown the trial that Dana Andrews was involved in I'd grudgingly say that it was but this was just pretty much a soap opera.

In the little I know about screenwriting one of the major rules is make your characters decisive. They should know what they want. This film doesn't go by this rule at all. For most of this film each character doesn't know what they want. Crawford could go with Andrews or Fonda. Fonda wants Crawford but it'd be OK if she went with Andrews. Andrews doesn't know if he should stay married or be with Crawford. Phooey!


I think I may be beginning to disappear. Away From Her

reply

I would submit that you have missed the point of the movie.

reply

Which is?

I think I may be beginning to disappear. Away From Her

reply

For most of this film each character doesn't know what they want. Crawford could go with Andrews or Fonda. Fonda wants Crawford but it'd be OK if she went with Andrews. Andrews doesn't know if he should stay married or be with Crawford.

reply

Thanks for repeating my post. How does that old saying go? Oh yeah, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. How is this noir?

I think I may be beginning to disappear. Away From Her

reply

It is noir because it is a dark movie. There is actually no such thing as "film noir" in the sense that Preminger (or anyone else until well after the 1950s) consciously set out to make "a film noir". "Daisy Kenyon" has the requisite moral ambiguity, sexual motivation and visual style to qualify it as "film noir" as the term is usually understood. If "Daisy Kenyon" is not film noir, in what way are "Pitfall" or "In a Lonely Place" film noirs? A film doesn't have to feature detectives to be considered an example of film noir.

reply

There were so many complaints, both on IMDB and elsewhere, about DAISY KENYON being classed as a "film noir", yet (as vonhangman points out) the term "film noir" is not a genre, but refers to a style of filmmaking, in which a morally ambiguous situation is played out in settings usually of heavy shadow and darkness. If you think of it that way, then DAISY KENYON certainly fits: it is a film about the post-war anxieties which beset so many people in the years after World War II. There were a lot of things to be concerned about: what we now call "post-traumatic stress syndrome" fuels the plots of such movies as CROSSFIRE, CORNERED, DEADLINE AT DAWN, and it is there in the Henry Fonda character in DAISY KENYON; the problematic status of women, because many women had embarked on careers only to find themselves displaced when the men returned from the war (and Daisy is a career woman who is feeling anxious about her career); the situation of race relations in the US, especially the treatment of Japanese-Americans (this is the case that Dan O'Malley - the Dana Andrews character - takes on, and it is discussed at length).

In terms of visual style: DAISY KENYON takes place in the 20th Century Fox studio sets that are supposed to represent New York City (as opposed to a movie like KISS OF DEATH where one of the selling points was the location shooting), and these are the same sets that were used by Preminger for LAURA (earlier) and WHERE THE SIDEWALK ENDS (later). In fact, in terms of visual style, mood, pacing, and the atmosphere of a corrupted city (the superficial world of cafe society, where Dan O'Malley waltzes in and calls everyone "honeybunch" and gets a table while "ordinary" people like Daisy and Peter wait on line), DAISY KENYON is actually the third panel of Preminger's triptych of New York City noirs.

reply

There are plenty of definitions of what is and what isn't film-noir. Some are better than others. I use to trust the list published by www.theyshootpictures.com in which some 800 films made between "Stranger on the 3rd Floor" and "Touch of Evil" are listed. Daisy Kenyon is one of them, although it doesn't belong to the 250 'hard-core' essential film-noirs among those 800.

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

reply

vonhangman says > It is noir because it is a dark movie.
I tend to agree with this definition of what a film noir is but I can also see why the OP did not feel this movie was a film noir movie.

Film noir is basically a movie that deals with the negative undertones of life. They usually focus on the lengths that some people will go to get their way; often to their detriment. The mood and tone of the movie is usually set by the lighting, music, and sets so people associate the look with the genre.

Daisy Kenyon deals with some heavy subjects but the element of ruthlessness and dogged determination is missing. I know a lot of people will disagree but the most manipulative of the characters is Peter but he's so charming and 'nice' we can forgive him.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

Foster Hirsch says in the commentary track that it is a "women's film," with noir-ish undertones like dark lighting and a feeling of dread and apprehension such as a crime could happen at any moment.

I wanna be sedated....

reply

One thing that appears to be missing, that is often a part of film noir, is the evil femme fatale, or, in some films, a vulnerable and needy woman who is going to pull the protagonist down (either by what a mess her life is, or because she's actually evil in disguise).

However, it can be argued that this element is there, it's just that the genders are reversed.

Daisy is our protagonist, and Dana Andrews' character is the sucking vortex of need, mess, selfishness and danger.

reply

practicepiano says > One thing that appears to be missing, that is often a part of film noir, is the evil femme fatale, or, in some films, a vulnerable and needy woman who is going to pull the protagonist down (either by what a mess her life is, or because she's actually evil in disguise).
That overall sinister or foreboding feeling that's usually a staple of film noir movies is also missing. The only time I was worried something bad was going to happen was when Daisy took off in her car in the snow but that could hardly qualify for what I'm talking about. As far as a vulnerable and needy woman, that was Lucille, Dan’s wife. Some may say she had her reasons but she was the only real bad guy in the movie.

Watching film noir movies, I usually have an anxious, uneasy feeling that was just not there with this movie. Still I can see why people have gone both ways on whether or not it is a film noir. None of that came to mind when I was watching it but if I had been told ahead of time I was going to be watching a film noir movie, I'd have said after it ended that it was not what I would call film noir.

it can be argued that this element is there, it's just that the genders are reversed.
To call the Dan character the reversed femme fatale of the movie is a stretch. I don't think he is. Daisy's involvement with him did not bring tragedy or negativity into her life. She was not a tragic figure who made bad decisions as a result of being with him. Dan was a fairly nice guy. He didn't beat Peter up or even try to manipulate the situation. He was who he was and, even though he was cheating on his wife, he wasn't a bad guy. The portrayal of the wife, the way she behaved towards, treated, and used the children made her unsympathetic in my view. He was cheating on her but I didn’t like her and could see why he didn’t want to be with her. It’s no excuse for cheating but I understood his motives.

Daisy is our protagonist, and Dana Andrews' character is the sucking vortex of need, mess, selfishness and danger.
Clearly you have a very negative impression of Dan. It's not an impression I share. I don't condone cheating but Daisy knew very well he was married and had children. She kept seeing him and wanted to marry him. She had a lot of complaints but she kept taking him back.

It was clear early on that Dan was just in it for the sex. He always made excuses for not socializing with the only people with whom they could be seen. He always cancelled dates but didn't mind rearranging his schedule to spend time alone with her. He never took any action to leave his wife and he didn't mind that she was seeing other men. She knew all this and it frustrated her but she kept right on seeing him.

When another man, one she wasn't really even interested in, Peter, came along and basically did the same thing, except in a more subtle, underhanded way, she went along with his wishes and married him. In his case, he wasn’t getting the sex, which he wanted, so he had to marry her.

One could say Daisy was never really in love with Dan. She had the guy and wanted to keep him but all she really wanted was a man of her own; a husband. She always said Dan wasn't sensitive or humble enough and he wasn't free but once he met all those conditions, she wasn't interested. She already got what she wanted, a husband.

If she ever really loved Dan, Peter could never have come along and changed her feelings for him that easily. She even admitted to Peter after they were married that Dan was still on her mind and she had to fight to let him go. Even if she had grown to love Peter, it's hard to believe what they had replaced her love for Dan. I think she was just fearful Dan would end up not marrying her or would later find himself bored with her as he had with Lucille. Their love wasn't based on anything more than attraction; that's all they had.

In the end, she made the right decision for herself – only it wasn’t really her decision at all. It was Peter’s. That's why I call him manipulative. He knew how to read and control her. He knew she wasn’t interested so he acted like he was rejecting her. She had the element of wanting what she couldn’t have so it worked. Peter was lonely and just wanted someone to be with. It wasn’t so much her but she’s the one he met and the one he wanted. He knew if he fought or competed with Dan, he’d lose so he tricked her.

Daisy was ready to settle down so she settled for Peter; the sure bet; the man who married her. That’s no different than Dan with Lucille; someone he married, most likely, due to his business relationship, or desire for a relationship, with her father. He stayed with her for the same reasons.

Along the way, Dan evolved. He realized he wanted a different life but Daisy thought he was running from his responsibilities. I disagree. The way Dan was before was his way of not dealing with responsibility; later, he met it head on; even setting up practice for himself. Peter was the one she should have worried about. He had problems and seemed to have a lot of secrets.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

No, this is not film noir. Black & white does not equal film noir. This is a romance, and basically a soap opera with good acting and directing. The characters are complex, two of them not sure what they really want, but none of them has the "moral ambiguity" of a typical noir. I'm not sure where the impression came from that this is film noir; IMDB calls it a drama/romance.


The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it.-Oscar Wilde

reply