Notorious - a film noir?

[Steve-O]

What are people's thoughts on Notorious? It's one of my favorites but is it noir?

I'm going to use some of the comments in this week's NOTW (since I have nothing yet this week!)

-Steve-O

[Jay M]

Hi Steve

I do not consider Notorious a Film Noir. It just doesn't have the fatalistic quality of true noir. There are elements in it that relate to noir: the heroine's predicament in particular, and the character played by Claude Rains have noir overtones. But the overall feel of the film is more of a romantic intrigue.

I do think that Hitchcock made a few Film Noir, including I Confess which tends to be ignored, but in my book Notorious is not Noir

[Andrew666]

I don't think these questions really have a 'yes' or 'no' answer. It's really more of a continuum. Some movies have more noir elements than others.

For me, Notorious would score about 6 out of 10 on the scale of noir. There are some things that I would see as being noir influenced -

sharp angular shadows,
some of Hitchcock's vertiginous shots
Both Grant and Bergman being the victims of forces bigger than they are
The crime element - the selling of the uranium
Objects which become fetishistic symbols - the key to the cellar
Hidden motivations that shift as the film unfolds
The conflict between desire and duty
Ingrid as a (reluctant) femme fatale to Alex
Alienation - when Ingrid feels she has been abandoned emotionally by Devlin
Twisted relationships such as Alex and his mother

On the other hand, there are elements that I find hard to accept as noir

The smoochy kiss (enjoyable though this was to watch)
the upbeat ending
the spy plot
the latin setting for the main story

Well, okay, maybe that's 7 out of 10.........

[dax]

I say not noir but what a great film. However, Andrew has good points about the noir elements in the movie.

[Roger Wade]

We are looking hard for noir elements in Notorious and because it is a (spy)thriller from the mid-1940s, you don't need to search long to find some, most of them already mentioned in the other reactions above and completely valid. But even when this film came from a studio that produced a lot of valuable noir (RKO), the main element that works against it as a typical noir is that Notorious is a big A-picture with the era's two most popular romantic stars (Grant and Bergman) who were definitely non-noir. It has the polished look of the Selznick touch, a bit like Rebecca: the big mansion, the evil older woman, glossy party, a dead person (Alicia's father) holding his grip over another.

OK, there were a few A-picture noirs with big stars in the 1940s (Double Indemnity and Laura come to mind) but most of the best noir rank between A and B-pictures and mostly B. And even in those two films the main stars had a lot of noir experience or were going to have in later years: Stanwyck, Dana Andrews, Gene Tierney, Edward G. Robinson.

The main element of considering Notorious as a sort of noir film is Hitchcock using two beautiful and extremely popular stars and gave them very flawed and complicated characters to act: Bergman was mostly a romantic heroine in those days but her Alicia is a woman with a double moral who goes through a lot of emotional changes during the film. Grant plays a dark agent who is or the tool in Alicia's destruction or the 'hero' who saves her from the Nazis and an early death. Both stars play these difficult roles with a great deal of finesse and shading. Let's say they were never closer to noir than in this film. Claude Rains on the other hand was already well into the genre and a year later did his big noir picture: The Unsuspected.

In my opinion Notorious is Hitchcock's most 'noirish' film of the 1940s but his real noir masterpiece is Vertigo, perhaps the last great film noir of the era. But that is another discussion.

[Steve-O]

“Truth was it wasn't film noir. The high-priced actors like Cary Grant back at the studios got all the lights. So ours was lit with cigarettes."

– Robert Mitchum on the dark look of Out of the Past

Mitchum was right. There was no film noir in the 1940s. There is now... and that's part of the problem – trying to classify what is film noir and what wasn't when looking back at movies out of the past.

There are many films that aren't as easy to put into the noir category as some of Mitchum RKO thrillers are. Notorious – starring “High-priced actor” Grant -- is one of them. Directed by the master and starring two of the biggest movie stars of all time. But is it a film noir?

I put that question out there to see if there's a consensus. What I found – as I usually do when discussing film noir – was that there are many ways to define film noir.

As noir as it gets

Zet Torbjörn Astner on Facebook:

“As noir as it gets! But please notice that it's very much the story of one extremely lonely woman in a world where, except for Claude Raines's mother, after Ingrid's arrival in Rio, you see hardly any other women at all. (Well, there's that great party-scene of course, but after that) She reminds me of characters in Bresson-movies: Joan of Arc, even Mouchette. And of course Marnie and Janet "Marion Crane" Leigh in Psycho - the loneliness of these women is as heartbreaking as frightening.”

Scientific

Andrew666 at Back Alley adds up the individual elements to to see how noir Notorious is:

For me, Notorious would score about 6 out of 10 on the scale of noir. There are some things that I would see as being noir influenced -

sharp angular shadows,
some of Hitchcock's vertiginous shots
Both Grant and Bergman being the victims of forces bigger than they are
The crime element - the selling of the uranium
Objects which become fetishistic symbols - the key to the cellar
Hidden motivations that shift as the film unfolds
The conflict between desire and duty
Ingrid as a (reluctant) femme fatale to Alex
Alienation - when Ingrid feels she has been abandoned emotionally by Devlin
Twisted relationships such as Alex and his mother

On the other hand, there are elements that I find hard to accept as noir

The smoochy kiss (enjoyable though this was to watch)
the upbeat ending
the spy plot
the Latin setting for the main story

Well, okay, maybe that's 7 out of 10...

Andrew's point about the famous kiss is interesting.

Too big to be a noir

Noir got its distinctive look and sounds when it was skirting censorship rules. Clever dialog and having most of the sex and violence happen in the shadows were a necessity then (especially when making James M. Cain's Double Indemnity and The Postman Always Rings Twice into movies). The film makers behind Notorious didn't have to play by the same rules – the kiss Andrew mentions is proof.

“In 1946, MGM claimed that a lengthy kiss between John Garfield and Lana Turner in The Postman Always Rings Twice was timed with a stopwatch to make sure it did not exceed censorship regulations. In the same year, the Selznik studio announced that Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman's extended embrace in Notorious – an embrace accompanied by a good deal of low-voiced conversation – was the longest kiss in screen history”

– More Than Night: Film Noir and Its Context by James Naremore

So while noir film makers avoided censorship, guys like Hitchcock and Selznik could actually change the rules.

Big budget films with big stars – say many – just can't be noir. Or can they? Some noir fans at Facebook would classify it as a rare big-budget noir.

Bud Palmer on Facebook:

“There are low budget (B Movie) Noir films and big budget (A movie) ones. Notorious, I believe, is the later.”

Others would disagree. Jörn von Gummersbach:

“What a coincidence. I've watched it some days ago for the first time. My girlfriend and me checked nearly 50 Noirs up to now, and we both have the opinion, that this film is NOT Noir. Sure, it has some elements, but the parts don't add to a Noir how we see it. Hitch has made only one real noir and that's Strangers on a Train.”

The Film Noir Encyclopedia calls the movie a romantic thriller but notes “Hitchcock incorporates familiar film noir themes” but other don't find the film fatalistic enough. Jay M. at the Back Alley writes “It just doesn't have the fatalistic quality of true noir. There are elements in it that relate to noir: the heroine's predicament in particular, and the character played by Claude Rains have noir overtones. But the overall feel of the film is more of a romantic intrigue.”

It was in Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid

When the Steve Martin spoof, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid came out in 1982 the term “film noir” wasn't as popular use even among movie critics. Although the film today is clearly a homage to film noir, at the time of its release even Siskel and Ebert didn't use the term film noir when describing it. Almost 30 years later almost all the films snipped for use in the comedy are considered noir – including Notorious. I know more than one film fan who became obsessed with film noir after trying to see all the movies seen in Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid. I know this isn't the strongest case for Notorious but I think it's a valid one. If it's in Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid it's probably noir.

Does it matter if it's a noir?

Does it matter if it's noir or not? No. We routinely feature movies at Film Noir of the Week that aren't 100-percent noir. Should we be obsessed with trying to categorize movies or should we just appreciate that these old movies aren't forgotten? Personally, I would say the movie isn't noir. But it is one of my favorite films so I have no problem discussing it here.

I'll end this week's article with one final quote. This one from Amy Sullivan on Facebook:

“I see it as a Noir and I honestly can't think of another film that has a more astoundingly beautiful looking couple than Grant and Bergman... it's a brilliant film and easy on the eyes.”

My thought exactly.

[Steve-O]

Thanks for your input guys. Some excellent thoughts. I've used a few quotes from here on this weeks article.

[Movie Memories]

Sorry for the late post on this thread, but I'm just catching up.

Should we be obsessed with trying to categorize movies or should we just appreciate that these old movies aren't forgotten?

This would echo my feelings toward old movies regardless of the genre. Do not let them be forgotten! They are cultural heirlooms to be passed on from generation to generation.

As for the noir that we all love - half the enjoyment, beside watching the films, is the discussion they provoke. What is, or isn't noir, will most likely never be written in stone.

[Roger Wade]

"Sure, it has some elements, but the parts don't add to a Noir how we see it. Hitch has made only one real noir and that's Strangers on a Train.

Yes, Strangers on a Train had slipped my mind; definitely noir: a leading man who is not altogether very clean in his motives, a colourful villain, the original novel by Patricia Highsmith is already one of the great noir psychological thrillers of the 1950s. These combined with a screenplay co-written by Raymond Chandler are enough reasons to qualify Strangers as a Film Noir. Under any other director this film would certainly be called noir but Hitchcock adds enough of his personal touches to make it stand out: some highly tense moments like the searching for the lighter, the murder of Guy’s wife, the tennis match near the end and the carousel going berserk (even when it looks a little fake with all these projection shots). Also, the film contains more humour than the average noir: Bruno’s bizarre mother, the society lady (Norma Varden) at the party who gets a kind of almost sexual kick of getting strangled (until it becomes real), the little boy having the ride of his life in the round-a-bout.

As for the noir that we all love - half the enjoyment, beside watching the films, is the discussion they provoke. What is, or isn't noir, will most likely never be written in stone.

So true! Once you are conditioned in this genre, you can search (and will find) noir elements in westerns, war films, melodramas and perhaps even musicals from that period. It doesn’t really matter, it only ads up to the fun of enjoying these films. Even after over 60 years they will always find a new audience.

[MFPhoto]

Great debate. And now my take.

I do not consider Hitchcock a noir director, although he certainly influenced the genre. The reason, as I have stated before, is Hitchcock’s use of humor as a dramatic tool. It came from his sense of irony, as well as the Shakespearian influence on his films. (Hey, there are some pretty funny lines in Hamlet and Macbeth!) But though his film structure is usually different, film noir directors took freely from Hitchcock - primarily the innocent man on the run.

However, Hitchcock did dabble in film noir on a few occasions. Notorious is one of those exceptions. Actually, it is a combination of several genres, including the spy film and the romantic thriller. But what makes me classify this film as noir is the theme of the innocent hero, or in this case heroine, who is forced to confront evil on evil’s own terms. Ingrid Bergman’s character is in a sense forced to prostitute herself for the sake of bringing down a Nazi war criminal. Prior to this mission, we do see her drunk as she first meets Cary Grant, but we can attribute that to her reaction to her father being convicted of treason. It is certainly indicated that sometime prior to the film’s opening, Bergman’s character is an upstanding woman of character. But now she has to wallow in the filth of the real world. I think someone said above that this movie lacks the grittiness of a film noir. Considering what happens to Bergman’s character, I disagree.

Of course, in the mid- to late 1940’s no one was really setting out to make a film noir. It wasn’t planned. It just happened.