Having read Paul Schrader's
Notes on Film Noir, please discuss
Double Indemnity and your choice of another film noir that Schrader talks about. Discuss, in at least 3-4 well-developed paragraphs, the films' implicit meanings and how the directors portray these meanings
cinematically. Be sure to use lots of visual examples (camera angles, shots, movement, editing, sequencing, lighting, mise en scene, etc.). Look at representation of the characters and issues. Ask yourself, Why? For example, Why did the director choose to light a scene a certain way?
In order to make this a manageable task, choose a 5-minute scene from each film and focus on that scene and how it relates to the film as a whole.
Remember, these exercises are preparing you for the Presentation assessment.
Be sure to read Schrader's essay and tie in some of what he says into your essay.
I'm looking forward to reading your essays. (Really, I am!)
The Film Noir genre was in its prime from 1941 to 1953, with influences well before (German Expressionism) and films that followed in its footsteps (gangster films etc). This films are characterized by dark and meaningful lighting, used to highlight their inherent themes of despair and disillusionment and individual statement on the digression of society. Two prime examples of this movement come in the form of Double Indemnity and Where the Sidewalk Ends.
ReplyDeleteBilly Wilder’s 1944 film noir classic, Double Indemnity, was a bridge between the genre’s war-time phase and its post-war phases. It was the first of the truly hard-boiled Film Noirs, centering around adultery, betrayal, and a cold-blooded murder, ultimately ending in the protagonist’s downfall. This film, like typical Film Noirs, emphasizes loss and nostalgia, as embodied by this memorable line spoken by the fallen protagonist, “I killed him for money and for a woman. I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman. Pretty, isn't it?” This represents the negative outlook and self-doubt often attributed to the anti-heros of this genre. In Double Indemnity, as in all Film Noirs, lighting is used to set a dark and dangerous tone, while creating meaning. An example of this is the scene in which Walter and Phyllis first meet. As they talk Phyllis is bathed in a diffused light and is lit from a backlight source. This gives the illusion that her head is crowned by a halo, giving an impression of goodness and purity, verified by her white attire. However, this goodness is merely a facade that hides her vicious nature. This is confirmed by the dark shadow cast by her as Walter discusses her husband, implying that she has an inner darkness hidden under her light appearance. In this scene Phyllis is intent on using this apparent goodness to gain sympathy and affection from Walter, who immediately succumbs to her, as made apparent by the shadows of the venetian blinds that are cast upon him as he enters the living room. These shadows indicate that by engaging in conversation with Phyllis, he is building himself into a prison of entrapment and certain destruction. The alternating light and dark stripes also indicate that although Walter is now good, a darker force (greed and desire spawned by love for Phyllis) will soon take over. This idea is confirmed minutes later when Walter says that he “watched it get dark and didn’t even turn on the light,” sealing his submission to evil and his subsequent downfall. This is reinforced by a shot of Walter carrying the murdered body, in which he is filmed from a low angle, implying a full transformation into a powerfully dark force. Phyllis’s ability to seduce Walter on the pretense of love and convince him to commit murder despite never really loving him defines Phyllis as a femme fatale, using her appeal to bring about the destruction of a previously innocent man. The use of a femme fatale and her hidden darkness touches on the greater implicit meaning of the film, the ability of appearance to act as a tool of false characterization. This represents both Phyllis’s deception of Walter and Walter’s deception of his boss and company, which speaks on the crumbling morals of society.
CONTINUED:
ReplyDeleteIn the late 1940’s and early 1950’s Film Noir began to move away from its hard boiled predecessors. This new and final phase of the genre was more in-tune with suicidal impulse and self-awareness, as embodied by Otto Preminger’s 1950 noir Where the Sidewalk Ends. Although there is no femme fatale in this film, the protagonist is an anti-hero motivated by a women. However, instead of being urged into murder, as was the case in Double Indemnity, Detective Dixon is inspired by his love for Morgan to tell the truth. Dixon’s has a strong desire to stop the city’s crime and the criminals who get away with it, and he wishes to start by illuminating the truth surrounding the murder. This is emphasized by a scene towards the close of the film in which Dixon writes a letter of confession for the accidental murder. Dixon is initially in complete darkness as he thinks about the murder he committed and the self-hatred that stems from it (despite it being an accident). However, he then turns on a light, implying a conscious decision to redeem himself. Dixon’s face is therefore illuminated, but only the right half. This embodies the struggle between his mobster past and his desire for goodness, as discussed in his letter of confession. At the close of the letter the shot changes and Dixon’s face is now completely illuminated, as good has finally won. Despite Dixon’s desire for goodness and success at achieving it, Where the Sidewalk Ends is still exceedingly dark. The presence of murder, back room deals, rampant crime, and violence lurking in society result in a dark mood throughout the movie, with both people within the film and those viewing it losing hope in society. This embodies an essential question at the root of film noir and of the film itself, is anyone truly good?
Film Noir, an extremely influential movement in film history, is classified by its dark lighting that reflects the deeper themes of each movie. When watching these films the viewer easily recognizes the relationship between what is visual and what is more implicit. Obtaining its attributes originally from German Expressionism, it has created its own stance whose styles are still shown in movies today. Two very famous and direct examples of Film Noir are “Double Indemnity” and “Laura,” which were both produced in 1944.
ReplyDeleteBilly Wilder’s American 1944 Film Noir “Double Indemnity,” is noted for setting the standard for films that followed in that genre. Containing dark lighting, a femme fatale, a mysterious narrative, and negative themes, it is truly your classic Film Noir. The film is explicitly about Walter Neff, a successful insurance salesman who falls blindly in love with Phyllis Dietrichson, a manipulative women with a lot of baggage and a dark past. Implicitly, the film is focused on betrayal, doubt, murder, and the dangers of love. These themes are highlighted by the films presentation of constant darkness, shadows, setting, characters, and tone. An example when these devices are implemented are in the scene when Phyllis and Neff secretly meet in his apartment. Before Phyllis even arrives, the audience hears Neff’s non-diegetic voice-over as he states, “This wasn’t the end between her and me. It was only the beginning.” This single line sets the mood as something very negative and regretful. As he stands in his lightless living room, he knows that he has gotten himself into something bad, as does the audience. Seconds later the doorbell rings and Phyllis walks in. While she is still standing in the hallway outside of his apartment, she is very lit with a bright, white light. This represents how Neff feels that she is like a goddess or an angel. The moment she walks into his apartment, however, her entire body becomes a silhouette of darkness as if she is entering into an evil, corrupt place. We find out later that she is in fact not innocent, but in this instant Wilder makes it appear as if her innocence is being taken from her, rather than it being taken from Neff which is what is truly happening. As they approach the window in his living room (while dialogue is being exchanged), half of Phyllis’ face is lit while the other half is in shadow. This shows how although Walter only sees her beauty at this moment, she does have a dark side and is hiding something. He falls for her cheap look, which greatly relates to the feminist film theory as to how men look at women as an object of gaze and tend to ignore their inner evils. She is in fact a complex character with dark implicit motives, but that is not what is shown on the surface. As the scene goes on, Phyllis uses diction to convince Walter that she is innocent and that her husband is the only evil one. The director’s use of the close-up allows the viewer to sympathize with Phyllis as well. In this moment, you can clearly see her lit face filled with sorrow. Her visually recognized innocence transcends to Neff as she seduces and sways him to fall for her. Even though we find out that she never loved him, Phyllis makes it certain that she will forever be faithful to him. This essentially goes hand and hand with the implicit meaning of betrayal and the danger of love. This touches on the greater meaning of the film and its commentary on how society values physical appearance over someone’s true nature.
CONTINUED:
ReplyDelete“Laura,” directed by Otto Preminger in 1944, is another exceptional example of Film Noir. Much like your typical Film Noir, it is a murder mystery love story. The protagonist is not your classic femme fatale, unlike Phyllis in “Double Indemnity.” Compared to Wilder’s film, this one is actually a lot less dark. However, the implicit meaning is just as mysterious. In the last scene, Laura’s true innocence is finally revealed. All throughout the film, the narrative goes back and fourth tossing the idea of Laura’s true nature but you find that she really is good. As she slowly walks through her dark apartment towards her bright bedroom, Preminger shows how Laura is escaping the darkness. She is essentially leaving the bad and entering into some sort of haven. The camera is not static as it follows her to what looks like a kind of promise land. As she reaches her room, the camera swiftly shifts to the closet where Lydecker is hiding. As he opens the door he is silhouetted in complete darkness, revealing his true nature. He is the jealous murderer, once again after Laura, which is now clear to the audience due to the context and lighting. In the shadows, he retrieves the gun and heads towards Laura’s bright bedroom, where she is getting ready for bed. As he loads the gun and walks towards her, the camera is at a very low angle showing his power in that moment. He feels empowered and believes that if he can’t have Laura, no one can. Seconds later, he shoots but misses allowing time for McPherson to come to her rescue. As the detectives shoot Lydecker to his death, he says “Goodbye, Laura. Goodbye, my love,” emphasizing his deafeat. The camera is now positioned at a low angle up at Laura, showing her new found empowerment and freedom. She marches out of the open frame revealing that life will go on and that this is not the end. This connects to the implicit meaning of the dangers of love, and that it can make people do crazy things. It also comments on societies inability to know the difference between good and evil. As a general theme of Film Noir, “Laura” as well as “Double Indemnity” question the true nature of man and touch on more negative aspects of life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn Billy Wilder’s film noirs “Double Indemnity” and “Sunset Boulevard” the use of lighting and camera angles are employed for the use of characterization. According to Paul Schrader’s “Notes on Film Noir” one of the main themes of noir is “a passion for the past and present, but also a fear of the future”. The scene where Walter first meets Phyllis is important to the understanding of the rest of the film. Walter is shown from a low angle as Phyllis is shown from a high angle (match cuts as they look at one another), so there is already a sense of superiority towards Phyllis, as she does use Walter like a pawn throughout the film. Also, the lighting on Walter is harder, giving him starker features, and making him more human. On the other hand, Phyllis is covered in soft lighting, making her features less noticeable, and less human. The venetian blinds cast shadows on the two as if they were entrapped in a prison, and the match cut to Walter provides Phyllis for an escape. All Phyllis really had is material objects – which is evident when we see her shoes before herself as she walks down the stairs to talk to Walter – but Walter is a way out.
ReplyDeleteWilder uses this technique in “Sunset Boulevard”. The film is about a young, aspiring Hollywood screenwriter, Joe Gillis, who secretly ghost writes a screenplay for ex-silent screen actress, Norma Desmond. At first Joe is the more relatable character, down on his luck and struggling to have a career, and so he is shown in harder lighting; Desmond is obsessed about her past as a star and her supposed “return to the screen” and lives almost in a dream world, and she is shown in softer lighting. However, towards the end of the film there is a scene where Desmond breaks down crying and Joe gives no response (we already know he is just in it for the money), and he is then given soft lighting, dehumanizing him and separating him from the viewer. Joe is also rarely shown in an eye-level shot, and almost always being shown in a high angle or low angle, switching between feelings of superiority and inferiority whether it is moral or power – but rarely can the audience directly connect with him.
CONTINUED:
ReplyDeleteAlthough only made six years apart and by the same director, it is interesting to see how “Sunset Boulevard” represents the advances in film noir from previous films like “Double Indemnity”. In “Double Indemnity” the protagonist is given a way to obtain both the woman and the money and all he has to do is commit a murder. In “Sunset Boulevard” the protagonist is given a way to obtain the money, but by doing so he must give up the woman, his dreams, and essentially his life. In “Double Indemnity” Walter does commit the murder but in the end he does not get what he wants and it proves (most likely) fatal. However, in “Sunset Boulevard” Joes decides to give up the money for nothing other than to get his life back, but in the end this proves fatal as well. Like Phyllis at the start of “Double Indemnity” Joe is trapped; towards the end of “Sunset Boulevard” Joe is shown on a screen with darkened edges, as if someone were literally watching him through a peephole. As both films were directed by Wilder it is almost like “Sunset Boulevard” is answering the question: What if the protagonist in a film noir, like “Double Indemnity”, did decide to take the high road, would they be any better off? Like film noir as a whole, the answer is somewhat bleak. Keeping with the pessimistic moods of the time, these two film show that in the end it really does not matter what you choose, whether you get the money or not, because you will still end up at the same destination. Death, like money, is a reoccurring idea in film noirs, but like money it is kept objectified. The narrators of film noir are usually, whether literally or figuratively, speaking from the dead and often the only way the audience can identify with film noir narrators is through narration – which shows their more human side. The fear of death is a common theme in noir and by experiencing it firsthand the narrator can easier fill the gap between themselves and the audience; and with both films the audience can relate to the characters who are trying to improve their life at any cost.
So far, I like what I'm reading! For those of you who haven't written your response yet (due Wed. 1/19!), these three responses (Flora's, Ellie's, and Alex's) are excellent. Please note that they have tied in what they read (in Schrader's essay) with analysis of their 2 films, using plenty of visual evidence to back up what they say. I like that I see the necessary vocabulary to show that they understand cinematic language.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to reading the rest of your responses!
According to Paul Schrader, an American screenwriter and director, film noir is not a genre. Rather than being defined by the conventions of setting and conflict, film noir is more widely classified by its less obvious qualities of tone and mood. Indeed, it’s the qualities of tone and mood that ties two very different movies, “Double Indemnity” (1944) and “Memento” (2000), together. While the films were released fifty six years apart, they are linked by the classic components of film noir including the usage of a femme fatale, bleak settings, unreliable time sequences, and an emphasis on equal lighting between the setting and the actors.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most stylistically appealing and mysterious sequences in “Double Indemnity” takes place in the first five minutes of the film. From a multitude of slightly high angles, the viewer is entertained with a series of shots of car frantically speeding through slick, wet city streets at night, ignoring all traffic signals and sliding precariously through dangerous situations with seemingly little regard for safety. When the car finally skids to a stop, a gentlemen dressed in a dark trench coat limps out and as he makes his way into an unnamed building, the camera angle slowly evolves into a series of eye level shots of the back of the man. Our first real glimpse at the man is as he marches across a balcony and projects a menacing black shadow of his figure slightly ahead of him on the wall. Schrader lists equal lighting emphasis as a characteristic of film noir, accentuating a hopeless mood. This mood is further insinuated for the final two minutes of the scene during which the man speaks into a tape recorder with shadows surrounding him. It is also interesting to note that a majority of the action taking place in this sequence comes from inside the frame rather than camera movement. This opening sequence sets the tone and mood for the remainder of the movie, as the man flashes back to previous events for the majority of the remaining film.
“Memento” also shares the overlapping characteristics of film noirs. Most notably, “Memento” supports Schrader’s belief that a complex chronological order is frequently utilized in film noirs. This is best represented in the longest black and white sequence of the movie, where the viewer is finally privy to action taking place in chronological order. To symbolize and further emphasize this, Christopher Nolan, the director, reverts to the traditional film noir style of film shot in black and white. During this scene, the main character, Leonard, murders the man that he believes has raped and murdered his wife. Periodically throughout the scene, Leonard flashes back to color “memories” of his wife that he has retained. Unlike “Double Indemnity”, Nolan relies more heavily on pronounced low and high angles to indicate inferiority and superiority between characters. Like “Double Indemnity” the camera moves very little, allowing the action happening in the frame to create movement. Similarly, “Memento” also relies on light to cast shadows around the main character further implying his immoral standing in society.
Film noir is considered a brilliant and revelational period in the world of film making, however is too often overlooked. As Raymond Durgnat pointed out and Paul Schrader restated in his essay, film noir is not a genre, but rather the quality and characteristics of a movie based around the tone and mood. While Double Indemnity holds its reputation of the definite turning point from old film noir to the postwar realism that is most commonly recognized today, less popular noirs such as Howard Hawks’ The Big Sleep need also be noted for their contributions to the development of newer genres (gangster) and use of stylistic techniques with lighting and shot types. Although both were produced in the late nineteen forties, when film noir was at its peak, they differ in “look”, while still each holding the essential and conventional noir dispositions. Thus, these two are perfectly contrasting examples of film noir’s lack of definition.
ReplyDeleteWith Double Indemnity a darker crime began to make its way into cinema and brought with it new lighting techniques that followed this trend. A case of more artistic and meaningful lighting was also brought into play, as the themes and narrative grew darker so did the lighting and contrast. With postwar disillusionment affecting the public, these themes and styles commonly reflected their viewers’ feelings.
Realism was also a distinguishable factor after the Second World War and impressed a change in plot along with the interpretation of the audience. By utilizing more realistic situations, like crime of passion as exemplified most film noirs (Double Indemnity, Blood Simple), and resisting the melodrama of earlier noir, noir film makers provided the public with more relatable characters: soldiers newly home, small businessmen, housewives neglected by ungrateful husbands, and all others falling under the normal status. Realism onscreen, however, did not always accompany the more practical narratives, taking The Big Sleep for example. Although its production followed that of Double Indemnity by two years, The Big Sleep carried more of a studio look, from mise en scene to lighting. Even the conclusion to The Big Sleep differed from the conventional late noir, in that it ultimately lacked a femme fatale and left the protagonist seemingly heroic. Double Indemnity is in this way completely opposite, deeming it’s advocates more destructive and poisonous. Despite their obvious differences, these two films without a doubt display aspects of Paul Schrader’s noir stylistics.
Within an early scene from The Big Sleep, too much can be identified regarding Schrader’s stylistics, yet some points can be countered by it’s earlier film noir characteristics. The scene in which private eye Philip Marlowe follows a man back to his house while spying on his employer’s daughter can be argued both against and for the theory of these stylistics. As Marlowe pulls up to the house, parking on the street out front, the way his face is illuminated serves as an implicit meaning in its own. While Schrader’s idea argues that the actor’s face is often blacked out and blended in to the dark and shadowy setting, representing hopelessness and creating a fatalistic mood, the light casted on our protagonist’s face and his face alone let’s the audience know that he, like this lighting technique, does not follow the traditional noir pattern. Viewers can now assume that Philip Marlowe is in fact the hero and will prevale in the end, unlike the most conventional noir characters. Traits of this scene that do indeed follow Schrader’s list include the glistening street as it pours rain continuously and violently, the flash of light accompanied by a women’s shriek, and the German expressionist inspired house on which Philip is spying. Inside the house the patterns continue as low lamps and ceiling lights are seldom made use of. Both this film and Double Indemnity share the romantic narration (“I love you, I guess”) and complex chronological order so characteristic of noir films.
ReplyDeleteDouble Indemnity, being the basis and maybe even definition of noir film, utilizes most if not all of Schrader’s suggested qualities, however what is most interesting to analyze is the familiarity of the characters not seen in The Big Sleep, whose main character is a detective commonly faced with the crime and corruption film noir brings. Double Indemnity brings together two more common characters: an insurance salesman and a jobless wife bound to her home by an overworked, under appreciative spouse. In the scene where main character Walter first returns to the Dietrichsons’ and converses with a flirtatious Phyllis Dietrichson, the size and beauty of the Calafornia home stretches slightly past the norm, however is brought back into public relativity through a goldfish bowl decorating the back of the sofa, Phyllis’ cheesey blonde wig, and, of course, her infamous anklet. This also symbolizes the femme fatale’s morals and how low she is willing to go, and although the fact that she is later shadowed by the imprisoning, bar-like blinds, the audience finds it impossible to sympathize with such a gaudy character. This goes to show that such details can change the viewer’s perspective and opinions through implicit meaning, whether they are conscious of it or not.
Film noir was a movement that began to take form and become big after the German Expression movement. As told by the article film noir was a movement that involved and was known for the dark imagery and mysterious suspencfil setttings and plots. Also film noirs films are also known to be films that effect the audience emotionally through the use of the tone and moods that are created in these films. Most of the moods and tones are dark and suspanceful. Two moies that follow these indications of a film noir are Double Indemnity and Laura.
ReplyDeleteThere are some minor indications that encountered in film noir films and three of these that had a presence in both of these films were the use of the shadows, the shadow and light shining through blinds on windows ,and the over powering of smoke filling the screen. There is a scene early in the film in which McPhearson and Lydecker and Shelby are going up the stairs to check Laura's apartment for a key and as they are going up the stairs there is a very unique usage of lighting that creates ery dark and multiple shadows. I think that this aspect of film noir was used like this in this scene to add suspense and also i think its there to symbolize the "death" of Laura(at this point you think that Laura is dead). Another scene is when Mcohearson and Laura are talking to each other and they enter the room and she sits down and he turns a very bright light right on her face and this creates this very interesting contrast between the background and blankness that is craeted by the light on her face. Also when Laura makes her first appaerance as still being alive and she walks in the room with McPearson and he is looking at the picture of Laura on the wall and the lighting arouund the picture is off i think to sy,bolize her death, but then when she walks into the room she turns the lights on which was ery film noir because of the lighting and i think it also symbolized the mark of her being alive. I feel that the use of shadows was the most important aspect of film noir that was used in the film because as i was watching i realized that Lydecker has this shadow that follows him and i think that this was hre to represent his other self which was the murderer. His physical body was himself and his shadow was the murderer. I also notice right before Lydecker is killed there is a constant use of shadows as they ran into the house to kill him shadows were very pronounced!!(also realized that there was no blood after he was shot lol)
In comparison, Double Indemnity was a film noir film that was based off of a murder also but i felt that Laura was lighter weighted in its tone that it created. Both films kinda followed the idea of the lack of chronological sequence of events because both of these films involed and was practically based off of flashbacks. DI was all based on flashbacks and had a little more complicated plot then Laura, but they both had the same film noir structure and was just filled in with different details to create two different stories. A scene in DI that i remember and stayed in my main not just as an aspact of film noir but also symbolization and haf meaning was when the shadow of the blinds that are common in film noir were reflected in the forground of the male main character and i think that this was to symbolize the idea that he was trapped(jail). The lighing in these films really can put emphisis negatively and positively on characters. You would never think that light could have such an impact on the emotion that the viewer feels but in this movement it was comon to be able to accomplish this and both of these fims were successful.
(cont.)Another thing i noticed was the transitioning between scenes in Laura and there was a repetitive use of the fade and i was told that this is usually used just to represent that passing of time but i felt that this transition was used between some shots that didnt ned that type of transition but i think that this had a mena ing of the importance of time in the film, not the iewers time but the suspence that was created made it so that inthe world of the movie time was very important and precious because the viewer is always kept on their toes wondering what was going to happen next. I also realized that it was common that the mystery wasnt just one path but that the mystery also inclued that debate of who exactly did the murder and certain shots wpuld push you one way, then your opinion could be easily changed in the next scene.
ReplyDeleteAs an oerall feeling film noir is a vey interesting moement but i honestly enjoy watching these films(i tend to fall asleep during film) but i stayed awake for both of these films for the most part so the contrast of lighting and the suspence kept me wanting to watch and see what the ending of the film would bring which i found out in the two films wrer death.