I've heard so much about this movie, and being a HUGE fan of film-noirs, I'd like to know what makes this film listed as a film-noir on this site but not on Allmovie.com? On Allmovie.com they have it listed as a Black Comedy/Comedy Drama/Tragi-comedy and Media Satire. After reading the synopsis, I can see the satire/tragi-comedy aspect, but why film-noir?
shareIt's not a comedy. I've never read an alleged 'synopsis' of the movie, but - unlike you - I have seen it.
shareDon't trust your sources - this film is so not a comedy. Is it a film-noir? Let's consider the seven elements of a noir.
1. A crime - yeah Tatum's actions could be described as criminal
2. The perspective of the criminals, not the police - Yep, that's Tatum
3. An inverted view of traditional sources of authority, such as corrupt police - Plenty of those!
4. Unstable alliances and allegiances - Got these too.
5. The femme fatale--the woman who causes the downfall and/or death of a good man - Yes, though Tatum "ain't no damn good".
6. Brutal violence - Yep, though 50s style
7. Bizarre plot twists and motivations - plenty
So I guess it qualifies.
Definitely noir and certainly NOT a comedy!! And it's never a good noir unless there's a femme fatale. Jan Sterling definitely qualifies!!
"I cook with wine..sometimes I even add it to the food!"
I completely agree on this movie being a film noir, but for some odd reason it's not included in the noir "bible" Film Noir - An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style. Any thoughts on why?
Edit: Sorry, it is included, but under the alternative title "The Big Carnival". (a very inferior title in my opinion)
Philip Gerlee
Gothenburg
Sweden
What seven elements of film noir? Make those up out of your own head? Smells like original research to me.
Is this a film noir? Nope. Your 1st element gets this off to a very shaky start... a crime? Where? Nowhere. And, by the way, every element you describe can be found in early 1930s gangster films.
Often when viewing a movie from the 40's or 50's that happens to be in b/w, and a gun is seen and men are wearing fedora hats, inevitably certain types will start running around the room pointing at their TV shouting "it's a NOIR! It's a NOIR!!" This is not always the case.
If this movie were shot today with the same script, using the exact same shots except in color, no one would proclaim it a modern day noir.
Ouch! Seems my post really upset someone. BusterDog, I did not make up these seven points (I wish I did). They were pretty routinely taught when I studied film back in the 80s and they are around on sites now if you look. I'm not sure if I qualify to be one of your "certain types" but I can confirm that I rarely run around my living room pointing at my TV.
If you don't think the movie is a noir - fine. The term is subjective and means different things to different people. I would point out (as regresus attests) that it is included in "Film Noir - An Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style".
I never heard of those seven elements, but I would agree with them. Also the music and the general "feel" of the film would contribute to this being film noir.
A better question would be, "What about this film would make you believe it is NOT film noir?"
Off the top of my head, the answer would be, "Not much." I guess nobody got shot, only stabbed.
Thanks for the interesting list, prai. I would add:
8. Distinct visual style which may include the following:
a. Shot in black and white using dark colors to create contrast
b. Low-angle shots or tilted camera angle
c. Use of flashbacks or flash-forwards
d. Voice over narration
9. Dark themes in story
10. Characters have dark tone
11. Story, characters and overall mood are fundamentally pessimistic
I would agree that Ace in the Hole is film noir.
Whether invented by the poster or not (and they sound stupidly academic enough to have been taught in film class as claimed), I thought them pretty amusing. Although I have seen a number of different such lists, I think it's rather pointless when people start determining noir by running down a checklist. (Of course, whether or not a movie is noir or not is sort of pointless as compared with the inherent quality of the movie. But it's fun to debate.) I feel about noir the same way that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart felt about pornography in the '60s--I know it when I see it. Though certainly not as classicly noir as films like Double Indemnity or Out of the Past, Ace in the Hole is sort of noir IMO, in its cynicism and style (and noir is as much a style as a genre).
BTW, an earlier poster had numerous factual errors concerning the Production Code. It was not implemented in 1941, but in July 1934. (The Code itself was written in the late '20s, but was not taken very seriously or strictly enforced until 1934.) This was a reaction to protests spearheaded by the Catholic League of Decency. While early gangster movies were among the films being protested, the movement was not limited, or primarily aimed at, such films. Movies with a frank treatment of sex, such as Babyface, were at least as prominent. And while I'm sure that someone somewhere protested The Roaring Twenties (a great film BTW), it is flatly wrong to cite it as a film that helped bring about the Code. The Roaring Twenties was released five years after strict enforcement enforcement of the Code began, was subject to the Code, and was approved by the Hays Office that implemented the Code. Indeed, The Roaring Twenties is an example of the changes wrought by the Code in gangster movies: not only is the protagonist is relatively sympathetic (he becomes a gangster by accident, never personally kills anyone, and attempts to act for good at the climax)), but he clearly pays for his actions at the climax.
So you didn't think AITH was film noir? I thought this movie was definitely in the genre of "classic" film noir. It qualified even though it wasn't in an urban setting and it wasn't a typical noir type crime. I think lists came out because in order to categorize a new genre, people had to define the characteristics of the films themselves. People did not set out to make film noir nor make it by going by a list. However, the lists did help distinguish the characteristics of films that were considered film noir in order to make it a genre. The poster mentioned the seven elements of film noir and his list helped him categorize the movie. I would argue there are more than seven elements (the exact number isn't important), but without the elements, we would not be arguing about this now. Neo noir may have only some of the elements of classic film noir and would have its own characteristics to define it as neo noir.
I understand people like to argue their points about what constitutes film noir, but without a list of elements, we would not have a definition of what it is nor a genre.
I would cast my vote with this being film noir. But, not nearly so obviously as some of the better known examples.
Yeah, I agree that checklists of identifying characteristics is a lousy way to go about evaluating a film, but yes, there does need to be some starting place for discussion and evaluation and I guess that looking for some identifying qualities on some list is not the worst way to go about it. It's not the best either.
I like the "I'll know it when I see it" approach, too, but if I had to quantify my opinion, I would probably go back to some of those lists and cite the qualities that would cause me to evaluate a film as noir or not.
While we're at it, isn't the Jan Sterling character, Lorraine Minosa something of a femme fatale? Her motives are definitely suspect and she does more or less exert some influence on Douglas' Tatum?
Anyone on this discussion from NYC? I saw a terrific off-Broadway production of a new musical, "Floyd Collins" about the very similar events surrounding famous Floyd Collins' entrapment/entombment in a cave, which spawned one of the first-ever media frenzies. They mention it in Ace In The Hole and the events in Ace In The Hole closely mirror the Floyd Collins story. The stage musical play, "Floyd Collins" was actually quite wonderful. Just wondering if any other fans of Ace In The Hole got to see this. This would have been late 1990s, off-Broadway, NYC, one of the "Theatre Row" houses on West 42nd Street (forget which one now - "Playwrights Horizons" maybe?).
Excellent list of "diagnostics" of a film-noir, prai.
I think this film is definitely film-noir. Kirk Douglas's extreme cynicism and "snarliness" are perfectly consistent with the genre. Usually, film-noirs play out in cities - shadowy, dark, the dirty underside of life, exposed. I think the physical setting of this film is what leads some to question whether this is a "true" film-noir. If the action were transplanted to the city, the more usually encountered film-noir setting with its dark atmosphere, I guess the film's true film-noir character would be more evident, and accepted as such. The unique setting of this film does not in any way diminish it's noir quality and even, on the otherhand, makes for a very dfferent and even unique noir film.
Those are solid elements of a noir but I hope you don't follow those too closely!
My definition is noir is a style that brings a mood, and it just so happens those elements bring that mood.
There are plenty of noirs that have maybe only 4 of those elements.
"Gambling is illegal at Bushwood sir... and I never slice"
Yeah, if you take the same story elements and set it in a big city, with mostly nighttime scenes, it wouldn't even be a close call; it would clearly be perceived as noir.
shareDepair, disillusion and death. The template for film noir and this movie qualifies.
shareBased on how this movie's strong-willed protagonist takes the convention of the femme fatale and turns it upside-down, I would describe "Ace In The Hole" as a counter-noir. Like, as a response to the noir genre, maybe even a critique/satire on the genre.
In any case, this was an incredible movie with incredible meaning, the deepest thing I've watched in months.
There is comedy. It's pitch black, but there are many satrical black comic elements.
It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah...
it has elements of noir to it but i don't think its a pure noir in the same sense that other films are. it's more a black comedy/satire/morality tale.
shareI see it as borderline and won't disagree with either those who consider it noir or with those who don't. Film noir isn't purely definable. More importantly, I believe this will appeal to lovers of noir, whether or no it fits the individual's definition of noir.
"What's the most you ever lost in a coin toss?"
yes it has all the story elements of noir, but it is really a satiric DARK look at the media, and way ahead of its time for it. (so yeah, it's a "comedy" but I didn't laugh . . . unlike, say, Strangelove).
But what makes it noir for me is the way it was shot - the scenes in the mine, the shadows cast by Douglas on others when he speaks to them, the last shot absolutely make it a Noir.
Wilder was The Man.
See it to believe it.
----------------------------
"The Universe is full of intentions"
maybe someone can identify for us some of the examples of comedy from this tragic tale. Okay, there may be a few places where characters say funny things to each other, but is there any comedy per se in this scathing film? If there is (and it's been a couple of years since I saw it all) please bring to the fore a few salient examples of what makes this a comedy, black or otherwise. As for satire, it must be one of the rare non-funny satires. It's tone is certainly mordant with regard to the newspaper business (I love the sign on the Albuquerque paper's wall: Tell the Truth).
As for film noir, my heart tells me no, even though I am no expert and many here disagree. Too much New Mexico sun and daytime carnivals. There's hardly any crime thriller feel here, hardly any night shots and not a lot of shadows in play. That said, it is gritty (all that sand and dust) and tragic, though not in a tough guy, but in a sad way. It's actually emotionally difficult to watch Leo in that hole. My sense of noir is more pulp and less real-life human tragedy.
Correct! And black comedy's are not noirs.
shareTest its categorization against the ahem criteria for docu-drama. Referenced in the film is the 1925 media and tourism carnival that sprang up when Floyd Collins became trapped in a cave in Kentucky and, eventually, died.
Maybe the blackest moment in the film occurs when the trapped man's wife stops the old woman from praying for his rescue because her help is needed to wait on customers. The newspaper publisher is also painted in high moral contrast to the other characters.
In terms of the look/cinematography of the film, I would say it has some noirish elements. In terms of tone/worldview, it's about as noir as it gets.
"I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd."
Film Noir to me always raised moral issues through lurid and sensational material usually with a corrupted protagonist, and "Ace in the Hole" addresses sensationalism and corruption directly. It's definitely a noir. Every stitch of the film stylistically fits into the noir language, and the main character is as morally corroded as it gets. It's a film that contains greed, a femme, a murder, and exploitation which are all themes consistently explored in the genre.
shareFilm NOIR was in invention of HOLLYWOOD SCREENWRITERS when the PRODUCTION CODE(A document going back to the 1940's to curtail sex and violence in movies and keep the government out of the industry.) listed that there could not be a known GANGSTER in film.- There was Christian outrage to SCARFACE(1932) and later silent community protests in places like Lincoln Nebraska to The ROARING TWENTIES(1939). Mind you in those times a films would get 10 prints at most and would go state to state... Some films played for 9 years without any state getting it twice.
Film Noir gets around that by putting seemingly ordinary people through a moral, ethical and even spiritual conundrum. In Ace in the Hole you have just that... Thus making it an early Neo-Noir...(And this is also why we don't have a Film Noir until 1941-the year of the Production Code).
Neo-noirs are defined less by violence and more by a characters internal anguish.
Scorsese spoke about this in great detail in his film "A Personal Journey Through American Movies." He taught at NYU for three years before he made his first film. I SUGGEST ALL OF YOU SEE THAT FILM BEFORE I SEE PEOPLE ON HERE CALLING BRILLIANT FILMS LIKE THIS DARK COMEDIES...
Yes it's film noir. If one accepts the premise one may act selfishly as long as no one gets hurt and one's motives are innocent. One could accept it's alright to seek a sensational story, walk over other's feelings, enlist the help of the authorities, prolong the story to sell papers, etc. However all those could be morally acceptable actions turn black and their moral unacceptability is demonstrated.
share