This film might share some of that genre's characteristics, but this is clearly a psychological thriller. Time after time, people on this web site toss around the phrase "film noir" - anything black and white, shot on location in LA in the late 40s/early 50s, with a mystery or thriller component...those do not automatically make a film a member of the "noir" family.
shareThis flick is a crock of crap and unintentionally silly in parts, but far greater critics than I have said it is very definitely a Noir. To me it is noir "light" as it is overly melodramatic with a laughable ending. Too bad the great cinematographer John Alton wasted his abilities on it, but when studios ruled you did what you were told. This was made when the Noir cycle was coming to an end and so some may indeed see it as not a noir film, it is one, but just barely. If it hadn't have been for Sanders over the top performance, I would have tuned out long before the end. For my part, I would have liked to hear the "negress's" complete song as it would have lifted this above mulch.
Let it be unsaid: insignificance is the locus of true increpation.
I disagree with those critics. Melodrama, yes....noir, no. Shared characteristics can be found, but even the term "noir light" gives this film too much of a foothold in that genre.
I am curious as to the location of the apartment exteriors. It is always fascinating to utilize current street view maps, to see how the buildings have changed, or disappeared.
Why does it bother you so much? Ultimately, it is a forgotten and worthless exercise in emptiness.
Let it be unsaid: insignificance is the locus of true increpation.
I suppose for the same reason that you felt the need to respond for a second time.
It is one of the most abused terms on IMDb.
And you thrice. No matter, let's call the whole thing off.
Let it be unsaid: insignificance is the locus of true increpation.
Thrice, you have now joined me. It's how it goes, no? The old "why do you care so much?" taunt does indeed require a response, I'm afraid, as much as it pained me.
I wonder if this is something Joan should have played? Although I love how Barbara gets overwrought. She pretty much had a trademark on that!
shareIt's given in the movie's "filming locations" page as 939 S. Serrano Ave., Los Angeles, CA. Neither building seems to have changed much. The awning over her apartment building's entrance is gone and the road is painted differently is about all. Street View is helpful, but really neat is to see it in Google Earth. The buildings have been modeled in 3D and you can zoom around and see exactly how her apartment really was looking directly into his. His windows and balcony look exactly like they did in the movie.
shareAs clearly stated, the term is overused and abused, even by the definitive encyclopedia. That is "why (I am) so bothered." Fox Noir banner? I wouldn't put too much stock in anything done with those releases...
[deleted]
Nothing went zipping over my head, but how precious of you to think so. "Embracing many elements" still does not qualify it as a noir. You can make it as "plain" as you'd like, and I will disagree. So be it. My point was, and is, that labeling it on a DVD series as a "noir," does not make it necessarily so. Cheers.
share[deleted]
But can't U imagine what a monumental bore he'll be in the afterlife?
Let it be unsaid: insignificance is the locus of true increpation.
[deleted]
[yawn] What a monumental bore you must be, in life. Enjoy it.Just read his responses in the voice of George Sanders and add a John Alton-designed gleam to his eyes during a fanatical (extra) rant about "the TRUE noir!" delivered with a click of the heels and a Nazi salute. Et voila! The thread becomes vastly more entertaining.
OP, you are right. But people would rather fight and redefine the term rather than admit they are wrong.
sharePeople would rather abuse the term, than admit that they're incorrect. "Noir" has become a catch-all for dramatic black and white films of the late 40s/early 50s. It is a specific genre, not a generic one. "Noir" does not equal black/White + drama + night scenes.
share[deleted]
That would be the pot calling the kettle black, once again.
share[deleted]
No, I have an iPhone. And there is nothing quite so pitiful, as obsessing about MY posts in other areas. Again, you respond within two minutes yourself...are YOU homebound? Do you not realize the ridiculousness of your responses?
share[deleted]
I enjoyed the film. But I really enjoyed Ripshin and RafaelStorm going at it. Is there more of this on the site? I can spend and hour on that and many pick up a few more movie I haven't seen.
sharePeople would rather abuse the term, than admit that they're incorrect. "Noir" has become a catch-all for dramatic black and white films of the late 40s/early 50s. It is a specific genre, not a generic one. "Noir" does not equal black/White + drama + night scenes.
I'm on the right horse, and ride high, I will, dear
shareFilm Noir is a rather vague term that has no real definition. Is it a style, a form of story telling? That is open to endless interpretation. There often seems to be a check list of things a film should have to be noir. Dark stylized lighting, check.....a femme fatal, check.....and urban setting, check.....a hero lead to doom, check...etc.....How many of these items have to be checked off before its noir or not? I don't know.
Of course the people making these films would not have called them film noir, as the term did not yet exist. To them they were crime pictures or melodramas. Film noir was not really identified as a movement in American film until the late 1950's. Or at least Americans were not aware of it until then.
Is Witness to Murder film noir? I'm not sure I would identify it as such, but a strong case can be made for it. Surely it has many elements in common with The Stranger which is on top of many people's film noir lists.
Incidentally I would not classify any Hitchcock film as noir. Hitchcock's films are a genre unto themselves.
Doug
It has a distinct definition within the industry. I have two film history degrees - thanks for the lesson.
shareI've been working in the industry for 20 years. No one really agrees on all of the definitions of film noir. Its amusing that you mention you have two degrees in an industry where degrees are totally irrelevant.
Your welcome.
And, I've worked in the industry for 30 years - actively. Nothing is irrelevant, dear.
shareRipshin,
And I've actively worked in the industry for over five decades, dear -- both in front of and behind the camera -- and yes, there are two things that are truly irrelevant: film history degrees and pretentious bores who claim to be experts on what constitutes film noir. And why did you need two degrees? Didn't the first one get you in the commissary? Film history degrees are a dime a dozen, so you'll have to do better than that if you're trying to impress.
Superstitions stated it best, so it looks like you didn't win the game of one-upmanship you attempted to play with him...dear. His pair is bigger and you lost, so you'll just have to accept the fact that once in awhile there will be others who know more about film than you. If well-known film critics, who got to where they are without the dubious distinction of having a "film history degree" -- I'm sorry, but I can't even write those three words without chuckling -- have differing views and opinions on which films are noir or not, then one should take your subjective views and opinions with the same grain of salt. Personally, I don't consider "Witness to Murder" to be a noir film, but that's just me. Then again, maybe my opinion shouldn't be taken seriously either because I don't have even one film history degree, let alone two!
The main problem I have with self-proclaimed "film historians" as well as those who are actually proud of having a film history/cinema studies degree -- other than the fact that they're generally anal and annoying people -- is that they're usually so busy analyzing, dissecting, and overthinking a film that they forget to simply enjoy it (or not) and this defeats its purpose. Tell that to your instructors at the next reunion, Ripshin, and while you're at it, ask them how they feel about the old adage: "those who can, do; those who can't, teach." (Before I receive angry replies from irate teachers, let me state that I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for teachers in general. They're underpaid and overworked professionals who truly make a difference in the lives of others, whether they realize it or not. I'm referring specifically to film history/studies teachers who seem to think they invented film itself -- Mr. Edison has nothing on them. A more pretentious, insignificant breed you'll never encounter. If you want to witness blatant examples of boorishness, subjectivity, and ego run amok, spend 15 minutes with a film history/studies teacher. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I've yet to hear of or encounter any.)
Just curious, Ripshin: are your two film history degrees on a wall next to your "I Love Movies!" certificate and "Official Film Historian" badge? Keep telling yourself that they matter and maybe one day they will. Until then, try listening to those such as superstitions who actually know what they're talking about and maybe you'll learn something that can't be found in a classroom.
But, sweetie, I didn't get mine (theory/history) at a community college - USC's Critical Studies. I received two degrees - one in film production, and the other in film criticism/history, to better understand the field. Several well-known specialists in the various genres, were at our disposal at USC. Most had written the preferred books on the subjects.
You are really riled up, so I imagine that this is a very sensitive subject for you, for some reason. Are you bothered by fellow people in the industry who were educated prior to entering the field? Five decades, huh? In front of the camera, too! A stunt man? An extra?
I have no desire to compare sexual organs, and I didn't lose whatever it is that you think I lost.
"Film Noir," again, is the most abused and misunderstood of the film genres. The Internet, filled with hordes of
"wanna-be" film historians, has followed IMDb into the ridiculous mislabeling confusion.
Actually, I'm just starting this movie but in principle I'm sympathetic to your point. A few years back they - the issuing companies - were calling everything 'noir'. Made the term 'film noir' increasingly meaningless.
For me a nearly essential element in a noir is character motivation. Usually they are driven by something they're powerless to resist. Fred MacMurray falls for Barbara Stanwyck and the otherwise nice guy is driven to murder her husband. Not a big deal if people want to call it a film noir, but this doesn't look (20 minutes in) to have a twisted motivation mojo working. Like you said, a psychological thriller.
edit:
Just finished it and I'm definitely in the 'not a noir' camp. The George Sanders character has a grab bag of psychological issues, but they're not pulling him in directions he doesn't want to go. He's a happy and contented crazy. Stanwyck has to deal with John Law thinking she's nuts, but that's more to do with plot demands than a realistic reaction to the situation. Let's face it, the cops are pretty lazy and incompetent in this one. It LOOKS like a noir, but that's going to happen when John Alton is the director of photography.
[deleted]
The cinematography is DEFINITELY Film Noir style, big time... with strong contrasts between light and dark, being predominantly dark. One can argue about the characters and the story and if they fit the definition(s) of Film Noir - but imo the story and characters are close enough and combined with visual look of the film there certainly is very strong case of claiming it Film Noir.
It is Film Noir. There.
"There"? Hardly. MGM musicals were lighted like the Technicolor dramas, but that doesn't put them in the same category.
Recommendation Resist typing "IMO" with anything that you post. It undercuts your statement. Poor form.
MGM musicals were lighted like the Technicolor dramas, but that doesn't put them in the same category.
I stopped after the first two sentences. I have two film degrees, and one of my professors at USC, was a film noir "specialist."
No, this isn't a noir.
You're a troll and that is the sole purpose of this thread. The only "argument" you have offered thus far is that this film is a "thriller" instead of "Film Noir" - when in fact most of the Film Noir are crime thrillers...
shareYou don't know the facts, and you are scrambling to make sense. I am not a troll. I am a film professional, with two film degrees. One in production, and one in film history (The Masters). I have worked in the industry for 30+ years.
And musicals can be dramas, science fiction, etc. We are talking about a specific genre, which people love to alter in hindsight.
Your "argument" is ludicrous.
You don't know the facts, and you are scrambling to make sense. I am not a troll. I am a film professional, with two film degrees. One in production, and one in film history (The Masters). I have worked in the industry for 30+ years.
And musicals can be dramas, science fiction, etc.
We are talking about a specific genre, which people love to alter in hindsight.
You are rambling, at this point. However, I LOVE the fact that I have annoyed you.
Any 10 year-old can claim a Masters? Don't know what world that you live in.
Stop babbling.
You are rambling, at this point
However, I LOVE the fact that I have annoyed you.
"Pinpoint"? Aunt Biddy, is that you? "Cool as a cucumber?" God, you must be 80.
I LOVE that I continue to get responses from you. I have succeeded.
it's a film noir.
share