Film Noir: The Encyclopedia

[Steve-O]

A great reference book (though I'll keep the old one I have because they've removed all the reference tables.)

I'm a bit surprised by some of the selections (some noirs have been added in the Classic section, some removed):

added:

A bunch of Westerns (including Blood on the Moon, Perused)
Sci-fi : Invaders from Mars, The Day the Earth Stood Still
a bunch of Bs that weren't listed previously -- including only one of the Whistler movies

They've also expanded the classic noir era to the mid 60s. Added titles including: Pretty Poison, Cape Fear, Johnny Cool

and managed to list a movie I've never heard of: Calling Dr. Death

[Bob]

Steve -

Imo, the definitive encyclopedia of noir has yet to be issued, and, perhaps, will never be. I'd love to see a noir book that covers not just American films (which are in the majority), but all foreign noirs from the early 40s to early 60s. It would be a monumental undertaking. Especially so, since the term "film noir" is used so loosely. I just returned from another trip to San Francisco where I had the opportunity to see an obscure 1950 Monogram film, SIDESHOW at the Roxie B Noir Festival. Of all the films the Roxie was showing , SIDESHOW was the only one that I don’t have a copy of, so I was eager to see it. The film is hardly a noir, but when it's categorized as such for marketing purposes it makes it that much more difficult to ever put together a definitive compendium on the subject. SIDESHOW, like many of the other pedestrian B films of the 40s and early 50s is a crime film, with flaccid direction, perfunctory camera set-ups and flat lighting, all things that make most of these films barely watchable. Maybe that's why films like DETOUR and DECOY, two true noirs that came out of the B movie factory, stand out like a sore thumb.

[Steve-O]

Steve -

Imo, the definitive encyclopedia of noir has yet to be issued, and, perhaps, will never be. I'd love to see a noir book that covers not just American films (which are in the majority), but all foreign noirs from the early 40s to early 60s. It would be a monumental undertaking. Especially so, since the term "film noir" is used so loosely. I just returned from another trip to San Francisco where I had the opportunity to see an obscure 1950 Monogram film, SIDESHOW at the Roxie B Noir Festival. Of all the films the Roxie was showing , SIDESHOW was the only one that I don’t have a copy of, so I was eager to see it. The film is hardly a noir, but when it's categorized as such for marketing purposes it makes it that much more difficult to ever put together a definitive compendium on the subject. SIDESHOW, like many of the other pedestrian B films of the 40s and early 50s is a crime film, with flaccid direction, perfunctory camera set-ups and flat lighting, all things that make most of these films barely watchable. Maybe that's why films like DETOUR and DECOY, two true noirs that came out of the B movie factory, stand out like a sore thumb.

I agree Bob. The perfect book isn't out there.

With that said it's hard for people to just select American noirs from the classic era. Take NOTW for example. When people want to write an article for NOTW their first or second pick -- when they first decide to write one -- is usually a film either a borderline noir or not noir at all. I think picking one of the dozens of noirs not done yet (the obvious low-hanging fruit) is just not that tempting. It took 5 years before I could get anyone to write about Touch of Evil! (and the article is fantastic, if you haven't read it.)

[Hard-Boiled-Rick]

Film Noir The Encyclopedia (2010) is an excellent reference book about American film noir and neo-noir. The editors (James Ursini, Alain Silver, Elizabeth Ward, and Robert Porfirio) are to be praised for their comprehensive review, and significant contributions to understanding American film noir.

However, the reference book has a serious flaw.

As Bob points out, Film Noir The Encyclopedia does not address film noir outside the United States.

Oddly, the editors ignore film noir from other countries. The editors do not recognize the existence of international film noir. If reviewing international film noir was beyond the scope of the book, why did the editors not simply say so in the preface? To exclude international film noir is baffling, and detracts from this reference book. One wonders why the editors take a narrow view of film noir.

The editors assert their thesis that film noir is an ‘indigenous American form.’ Perhaps this is why the editors ignore international film noir.

But, the editors do not offer a clear explanation or defense of what makes film noir an indigenous American form. How can they when they do not present measures of comparison, including international film noir? Defining is often an exercise in comparing, contrasting, and classifying. Asserting a thesis without conducting a comprehensive review of the literature (and films), would receive poor marks in academic circles and large business. Simply saying film noir is a ‘reflection of American cultural preoccupation in film form’ does not make it so.

Film noir was not an exclusive, indigenous American movement. Film noir was a universal movement.

American cinema of the 1940s, and 1950s did not have a monopoly on the visual style of film noir, nor protagonists’ alienation, destructive obsession, and moral ambiguity. The binding elements of film noir, as defined by the editors, appear in many international films. M (Lang -1931), The Third Man (Reed -1949), Stray Dog (Kurosawa -1949), Rififfi (Dassin 1955), Les Diaboliques (Clouzot – 1955), Elevator to The Gallows (Malle- 1958). They are clear examples of classic film noir… a small sample of a large body of international film noir.

Also, the editors’ examination of M is puzzling. Strangely, the editors include a review of Losey’s M (1951), but not Lang’s M (1931). The latter is clearly as film noir as the former. Hello? In a brief sidebar about German Expressionism and Proto-Noir, the editors classify Lang’s M as proto-noir, but do not offer a clear definition of proto-noir, nor do they review this important film. If one accepts Lang’s M as film noir, and an influence on the film noir movement, then film noir was not born in Hollywood, as the editors assert.

The evidence is clear. A thorough review of the literature and films clearly points to a significant body of classic international film noir that flourished in 1930s, 40s, and 50s outside Hollywood, primarily in Britain, France, Germany, and Japan.

Certainly, Hollywood studios produced a large volume of classic film noir, compared to the studios of other countries. Why? The explanation is straightforward. Authoritarian regimes and World War 2 knocked out major overseas studios and caused its cinema artists to flee for the hills of Hollywood. Throughout WW2, Hollywood was the only major film production center running in partial freedom. In 1930s and 1940s, the rest of world’s major film studios fell under the control of Nazis, Fascists, Imperialists, and Communists, which restricted most of its film production to state propaganda. Apart from Hollywood, only Britain’s studios stood alone during the war, but were limited in their wartime production. Given its large émigré artistic population, fleeing persecution, Hollywood’s not producing a large cycle of film noir would have been bizarre.

The editors’ denial of international film noir reminds of the cold war, when the U.S. did not formally recognize The People's Republic of China for 30 years after its founding in 1949. Denying existence does not make it go away. Eventually it has to be recognized. But the editors still seem stuck in the geo-isolationism of the 1970s.