Talk:Film noir

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ErinR559980. Peer reviewers: Menaqui.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Identifying noir"
section it should be tagged/removed as appropriate. I'd encourage you to either tag the sentences or bring them to the talk page in this section so they can be discussed.--Crossmr (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This was an obviously well researched article but I believe some important points have been missed when discussing film noir. As was correctly stated, noir, Fr. for black was used intermittingly as a double entendre. The definition was black film. The reasons are both obvious, this was black and white film, and maybe a little more subtle; this was the first time in cinematic history the the hero sometimes got away with the crime, ie: Bette Davis in "The Letter" or Richard Widmark,in "Knight in the City". Up until this time it was thought that only the good guys won.Morals- you know. The large list of Film Noir from the 40's through the 50's was due in fact to a glut of young, up and coming directors that couldn't get A-list work. These were inexpensive (for the times) fims to create. And from these we got such A class assets as even Francis Ford Coppola, and Capra. What we find interesting considering special effects were few as compared to todays PC techno-wired world, was that just by using light in the right way you could create very impressive drama. Take a look at Edmund O'Brien in the movie DOA as he is lit from the ground up as he announces that he has just been murdered. And how many stagings were there when the criminal kid was caught with an irish cop directly behind him (With the cop's hand on the kid's shoulder) and a priest behind both just a little off center so you could see them foreground to background, 1-2-3.Film Noir continues today. I believe a perfect example is Pulp Fiction and or Reservoir Dogs. Or just grab Quentin Terrantino and throw him up on the screen. I just wanted to add this, not delete anything from the Wikipedia article. I personally appreciate the article's depth.


 * Don't take this comment the wrong way. But if Pulp Fiction is film noir then The Wizard of Oz is a costume drama. Kja er (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well the benchmark is here whether reputable media/literatur calls a particular movie film noir or not. Whether personally agree with that or not doesn't really matter for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the benchmark actually happens when the reader does the research. There is a separate article on Pulp Fiction, the movie.  In that article, some historians and critics consider it neo-noir.  According to that article, the following experts do not; Geoffrey O'Brien, Nicholas Christopher, and Foster Hirsch.  No one would say it is noir.  And note to author above of second paragraph, Richard Widmark was in a film called "Night and the City."  L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Danny Boyle and Trainspotting"
There really ought to be some mention of Danny Boyle's contribution to the modern dark cinema (neo-noir) movement, coming strongly out of the UK and Channel Four Films. Titles such as "Trainspotting" and "A Life Less Ordinary" are DEFINING films in the movement. I am literally shocked not to see Boyle and at least one of these films mentioned in this article. --Maximilian77 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Big Lebowski
Might it be worthwhile to mention the Big Lebowski as a noir parody? The Cohen brothers go so far as to include a private eye character who eventually directly expresses his admiration for the titular character for making all of the moves a noir private eye makes, and is flatly refused and ignored by the title character. Any noir fan who sees the scene immediately makes the connection, in my experience.210.174.6.89 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They talk about wanting to reference an incomprehensible Chandler story ala The Big Sleep as well. BUT there's already a lot of mention of the Cohens, so maybe we could use the space for other films. KellenT 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is running out of space on the internet an issue? :-) 173.174.85.204 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Eric

"Film noirs" or "films noirs"?
The article consistently renders the plural "film noirs." Shouldn't it be "films noirs"? Mind you, just before I wrote this, I got up and checked five or six dictionaries, and not one of them some much as addressed the plural. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza


 * Film noirs. There's a footnote regarding just this point. KellenT 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Or you could say "noir films", which avoids the awkwardness of "films noirs" and the strangeness of "film noirs". — Erik (talk • contrib) 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, "noir films" is fine, but so is "film noirs". There's no need to rewrite the article. As Kellen points out, we have a footnote explaining that "film noirs" is the first spelling given in Webster's. If you look at a lot of English-language books in the field, you'll see that it's the most common spelling of the plural there as well. "Strange" etymologically perhaps, but not practically: noir is now often used as a stand-alone noun.—DCGeist (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What I meant to propose was something that everyone could be comfortable with, since neither of the initially discussed terms strike a chord among all editors. "Noir films", I think, seems to be straightforward.  I'm not trying to say my term is right, and like you said the either of the other ones are fine.  Just seems like "noir films" would be the least challenged of the three, so we can avoid discussions like this (which are not new).  Unless "noir films" gets under people's skin somehow? :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting point. On a related point, I just did a search: we actually use "noir" as a stand-alone noun 31 times in the article (in constructions such as "classic noirs" and "B noirs")--and that doesn't count the additional dozen or so occurrences of "neo-noir", where "noir" is again unambiguously the noun root. I hope we can all agree that these are fine as is. So, adapting Erik's proposal, what do people think of replacing the occurrences of "film noirs" (or "film noir" when describing a specific example rather than the genre) with either "noir films" or "noirs" depending on context and readability?DocKino (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about usages of "film noirs" and counting "noir" as a stand-alone noun--which, doesn't really mean anything, as a noun is always part of a phrase and part of a clause, etc.--you're mistaken. Either we can construe "noir" as an adjective as it would be in French, or it can be the second half of a compound that just coincidentally has a space separating its segment. It is true that "films noirs" would be the French rendering, but the question of what part of speech "noir" represents (and therefore whether it should be inflected or not--we do not inflect adjectives except for degree) is not entirely clear. Cf. mother-in-laws v. mothers-in-law; Knight Templars v. Knights Templar. It seems to me when we have modifiers following nouns we tend to inflect the nouns and not the modifiers.


 * I think it's unnecessary to change them; the terms are rather well accepted in film literature in various forms (noir films/film noirs/noirs). If I had to choose, I'd choose the film noirs/noirs combo since they're more internally consistent and consistent with the other constructions (neo-noirs/classic noirs). KellenT 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cf. the usual English plural of femme fatale - "femme fatales", not "femmes fatales", although our article prefers the latter. --  JackofOz (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a silly thread, really. "Noir films" sounds fine, but what about "films noir?" This seems like the most sensible choice of description that no one has mentioned. Have you all studied film?Burninggirl2003 (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really about film, it's about language; specifically the way that plurals of non-English words and phrases are constructed. Usually the English plural rather than the foreign plural is best for use in English, which is why we say "octopuses" rather than "octopodes". With two-word phrases it's a bit more complex; the French plural would be "films noir." To me, "film noirs" sounds clumsy ("noirs" is a strange pronunciation). "Noir films" is a good compromise, as "noir" has acquired a somewhat independent status and generally means "film noir" even when used on its own.  pablo hablo. 10:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been discussed before, "film noirs" is the most prevalent usage and appears in many books both scholarly and popular on the topic. As our note indicates, "film noirs", "films noir", and "films noirs" (the actual French plural) are all considered acceptable in English; Webster's' lists "film noirs" first and that has been the spelling the article has consistently used for years now. There have been no developments in scholarship or language that compel any change here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCGeist (talk • contribs)
 * I'm not advocating any change; none is necessary. I'm just responding to the suggestion that it is 'silly' to discuss this matter.  pablo hablo. 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, all the dictionaries I checked didn't even address it. I do think that Burninggirl2003's "films noir" makes more sense from a language point than "film noirs."  (Note that the accepted "correct" plural of "court martial" is "courts martial," but the dictionary I just checked acknowledges that "court martials" is getting to be usual.)  But if the second has become usual in English, I have no problem with that--just wondered if there is a consensus.  As for my own idea about "films noirs," I thought I remembered from French class that when you make the noun plural, you have to make the adjective plural, too--but I could misremember after 40+ years (especially since I studied it only under duress).    140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
 * And now I see the footnote, which seems to cover it very well (not to mention confirming my 40 year-old recollection of the French language).  140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
 * And I see further that the French Wikipedia consistently uses "films noirs," again confirming my remnants of high school French. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Some things are sounding a bit subjective
Things such as "Neo-noir/Take 2: Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell, a femme fatale for the 1990s—and the ages—in the smash box-office hit Basic Instinct" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.146.184 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

...and under SciFi Noir, there's this little tidbit - which is debatable, tacked on and really has nothing to do with anything else: 'Fincher's feature debut was Alien 3 (1992), which evoked the classic noir jail movie Brute Force.'--70.181.137.219 (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The first has been rewritten. The second is not "tacked on". It "really has to do" with something significant: the links between classic noir and latter-day variations on the genre.—DCGeist (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Essay tag
After some deliberation I have decided the essay tag is most appropriate for this article, although the refimprove or npov could also apply. The problem is this article keeps expressing opinions but giving no attribution whatseover, which runs afowl of core policies like WP:V and WP:N I consider the following lines to instances where, without any reference, this article makes opinionated claims: I guess most of these claims are probably mostly accurate, but they're still opinions. We need to know whose opinions they are... otherwise this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. These are just some examples... although if they are addressed I will consent to removing the essay tag. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Few neo-noirs have made more money or more wittily updated the tradition of the noir double-entendre than Basic Instinct..."
 * "Perhaps no contemporary films better reflect the classic noir A-movie-with-a-B-movie-soul than those of director-writer Quentin Tarantino"
 * "Joel and Ethan Coen have created one of the most substantial film oeuvres influenced by classic noir"
 * "The mainstreaming of neo-noir is evident in such films as Black Widow (1987), Shattered (1991), and Final Analysis (1992)"
 * "Like Chinatown, its more complex predecessor, Curtis Hanson's Oscar-winning L.A. Confidential (1997)... demonstrates an opposite tendency—the deliberately retro film noir; its tale of corrupt cops and femme fatales is seemingly lifted straight from a movie of 1953, the year in which it is set.
 * "Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Paul Schrader brought the noir attitude crashing into the present day with Taxi Driver..."


 * With or without your "consent", the essay tag has been removed. The article is copiously sourced. You are arguing that several assertions require recasting or inline citations. That's fair--please tag those individually within the article so they can be specifically addressed. DocKino (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to convert to fact tags, fine... but the essay tag still applies until at least these problematic claims are addressed. Having a bunch of references in some parts doesn't excuse having an essay in other parts... it's not like I could add my own unreferenced opinion to Barack Obama just because the article, in general, is "copiously sourced". I suggest you actually address my concerns or leave the tags up... trying to dance your way out of a content complaint really won't work with me, if you check my edit history. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have checked your edit history. I see you've been editing on Wikipedia for less than three months. That explains a lot. Spare us the edit summary lectures about what's "unacceptable". What "works with you" is of little concern to anyone, as are your notions about the import of your "consent" and your interest in dancing. What works for the encyclopedia is what counts. When you learn to take yourself less importantly, come on back. DocKino (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So this has devolved into because you've been active on Wikipedia for longer, you get to do whatever you want with articles? You're becoming very incivil and ignoring the content issue. I'm not going to go away just because you make rude comments. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * DocKino, this is an unacceptable violation of the Civility policy. Please stop making comments in this vein, and consider striking out the personal attacks above. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your incivility is completely inappropriate DocKino. There are now three editors, counting myself and the one who re-added the essay tag most recently, who agree that the article devolves into an essay and should be cleaned up. Your incivility and attacking a fellow editor based on how long he has been editing Wikipedia does nothing to help your case. Your condescending tone and blatant incivility on your post above dated 18:12 29 June does not "work for the encyclopedia" and therefore you should take care to avoid such behavior in the future. The   Seeker 4   Talk  18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the article reads as an essay. Also, 35 inline citations for an article of this length is a pretty weak showing. Citing and quoting the classic noir theorists directly shouldn't be too hard. KellenT 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who agree that the essay tag was clearly valid and necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And so the Film Noir article is written in the style of film noir? -- SunDog |  Talk 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One more here who agrees that the essay tag is needed. And I hope I don't come across as incivilly to newbs as did DocKino. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've addressed each of the points raised by Chiliad at the beginning of this thread. If there are other, similar concerns, I have ready access to most of the major sources and am happy to address them. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Angel Heart not included as iconic modern example
How can we discuss the genre and not put in the classic modern film Angel Heart this is the ultimate illustration of film noir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.35.246 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Additions?
The movie Mulholland Falls could be covered too (not to be confused with Mulholland Drive). And would The Reflecting Skin qualify as a film noir? 84.174.236.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC).


 * I was going to create a new section on my proposal but I'll just add to this... I think that the Bantam Street production Dark and Stormy Night (2009) should be added to the Parodies section. For those that have seen the movie or clips of it, do you think it could be classified as a film noir? BTW, I've seen the movie and it rocks (the two "Skeleton" movies are awesome as well). Venku Tur&#39;Mukan (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do any sources refer to it as a noir parody, or relate it to film noir in a similar way?—DCGeist (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that things must be referenced, what if the reference is wrong? I have worked my way through films noir, using this article as a guide and watching the movies. I added "Alphaville" to the Parodies section for the simple reason that it is, as I explained in a comment on the article for that movie. ("Professors Heckyl and Jeckyl," for instance.) I am currently watching "Wonder Man" (1945), the Danny Kaye movie, and it has nothing to do with film noir, being a musical comedy and comedic ghost story that happens to have the noir actor Steve Cochrane playing a minor part as a gangster. However, "Silver and Ward (1992), p. 332" is given as a reference that this film is a noir parody, which suggests to me that Silver and Ward don't know noir or never saw the movie. "Wonder Man" does not belong in this article at all. I'm removing it, despite the reference. 173.174.85.204 (talk) Eric
 * I see that someone has put "Wonder Man" back in the article. Whatever. I explained the reasons for taking it out. 162.89.0.47 (talk)Eric —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Another. In "The Big Steal", Mitchum makes fun of himself with some dialog about how he says 'Umm-humm" (breaking the wall) and there are jokes about being unable to speak understandable Spanish to Spanish speakers, but that doesn't make the film a parody. This movie is not very good, but bad scripting, bad plot, bad acting (at times) and bad direction don't make a movie a parody. I'm not making any more changes to the article. Evaluate and comment, please. 173.174.85.204 (talk) Eric —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

And another. How is "Murder by Contract (1958), ... a deadpan joke on noir"? This is simply a straightforward story of a guy who becomes a hit man and can't execute his last contract. There are no parody-like elements in it, at all. This is actually a fairly good movie with a "bleak" ending as the article says. I am very tempted to remove this from the article, but it does qualify a film noir in many ways, such as camera angles and dialog. The final "target" that the hit man can't kill could be the "femme fatale." ... Now, on the other hand, "His Kind of Woman" with Robert Mitchum has a lot of noir elements, but Vincent Price, who is serious at first, turns in a fine comedy performance later as a parody of the "American who gets things done" if I may call it that. That itself doesn't make it a noir parody, but apparently Howard Hughes couldn't cut out Price's performance when he ruined the movie in other ways, as described in the article about it. No changes to the article. I realize this is original research but I ain't got time to write a book. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Eric

Translation of "film noir"
The long-standing, and indisputably literal, translation of "film noir" as "black film" in the lead section was recently challenged. I don't love that one of the two sources of support for the challenge (in favor of "dark film") is the Encyclopedia Britannica--ideally, we're supposed to outdo them, not rely on them, right?

In any event, the translation of "black film" is very well established. I do believe Alain Silver and Elizabeth Ward's noir encyclopedia is universally regarded as the leading reference book on the topic. On the first page of its introduction, we find this passage: "Film noir" is literally "black film"... Similarly, the entry on film noir in one of the leading industry lexicons--Kevin Jackson's The Language of Cinema--begins like this: film noir or film noir, sometimes abbreviated to noir  literally "black film" So...we might decide to say "black film" or "dark film", but it's definitely not "dark film" instead of "black film". DocKino (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Noir" has a variety of meanings, but most generally and literally "black". "Dark film" is a more loose translation. In Silver's translation of Frank's article, the term is left as: "noir" films. It's not wrong to have "dark film" listed, but only in addition to "black film". KellenT 10:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Here are some sources that use the "dark film" definition...
 * Encyclopedia Britannica article on film noir defines term as "dark film" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/206993/film-noir
 * EICAR, The International Film School of Paris, says "Film noir...Dark film, a genre coined by French critics for some American films with low key lighting and latitude usually conveying a solemn mood. Still in use to refer to moody films, often detective films. This term refers both to the visual style and the story."   http://www.eicar-international.com/definition-film-noir.html
 * The visual story: seeing the structure of film, TV, and new media By Bruce A. Block 2001 ... on page 94, he says.....
 * "film noir. The term, coined by the French, means "dark film"...
 * Encarta encyclopedia http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781533102/film_noir.html
 * Film Noir, term (meaning literally “black film”, although “dark film” seems more appropriate and evocative)
 * Video production techniques: theory and practice from concept to screen By Donald L. Diefenbach  2007
 * on page 91, he says "Film noir, French for "dark cinema" or "dark film"
 * An introduction to literary studies - Mario Klarer - 1999 - 166 pages... on page 59, it says "After World War II, film noir ("dark film") developed..."
 * ...As far as making the decision, I don't think that we should try to act as translators and debate what the dictionary definition of "noir" is (it means black, dark, and a range of figurative meanings, such as macabre). I think we should do research on what published, reputable books, encyclopedias, articles claim that "film noir" is translated. Remember that the goal in Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth". If we go for truth, then we'll have a huge argument with one person saying "well, I have an MA in French, and I think that "noir" translates as XXX", and another person will weigh in with "Yeah, but I have a doctorate in French, and I believe that "film noir" means YYY". OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent, and I sincerely hope that your idea "I don't think that we should try to act as translators and debate what the dictionary definition of "noir" is" is adopted. It is certainly correct. Unfortunately, here in the 20-tens, we are going to get people who ask, "Why is it called 'film noir' when all the actors are white?" 173.174.85.204 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Eric


 * This is good, we can improve the citations. Let's dump the encyclopedia references, though. They're secondary or tertiary sources here. Instead, we can use the Block reference, Klarer works too. Go ahead and change the lead to "(french for black film or dark film)" and add citations for "dark film", DocKino can add citations for "black film" if they're not already in the article. KellenT 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may weigh in here: As I pore over the literature as part of the Good Article review process, I have yet to find a single book or major essay in the field of noir scholarship and criticism that translates "film noir" as "dark film"; when a translation is offered, it is invariably "black film". While some general-interest texts may go "dark", the sort of authoritative sources the article relies on are unanimous—the proper translation is "black film". I propose that this sole translation be restored to the lede; we can retain the footnote, and I can add one or two more high-quality sources for "black".—DCGeist (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As a provisional measure, I've expanded the citation to articulate the point above. I still believe both focus and professional credibility in the relevant field would be served by providing just the one translation.—DCGeist (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've made this change, while retaining the "dark film" references in the note. Hope this is generally acceptable.—DCGeist (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantastically comprehensive
Kudos to the authors of this article. It’s clearly organized, eminently readable, and almost overwhelmingly complete. –jacobolus (t) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why none Frank Miller's pictures? Or Rodrigez "Sin City" film? Neonoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.146.49 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

/* Merger proposal */

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: The conclusion was to not merge Labattblueboy (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article for film noir already covers neo-noir and in greater detail than the separate article, therefore the two articles should be merged.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think neo-noir is characterized by the employment of more advanced cinematic techniques than film noir. The replacement of a traditionalist production set of codes with a more progressive ratings system helped neo-noir films add new dimensions of subject and visual matter. I don't think neo-noir shouldn merely be viewed as a sub-set of film noir, the transition of 40s and 50s fil noir to neo-noir has also profound social implications that couldn't be explored in depth if it was merged with the outstanding article on film noir. Mark Conrad's The Philosophy of Neo-Noir makes a clear distinction between the two in page 120. -- Marco Guzman, Jr Chat  06:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The summary of neo-noir in this article, which I largely authored, is extensive, but it is intended as a summary. Neo-noir is a sufficiently broad and significant topic to merit its own article. It has one that is, admittedly, inadequate to the topic at the moment, but I think expansion and improvement of that article is preferable to the proposed merger.—DCGeist (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Principally there is nothing wrong with having a separate neo noir article. However given the current scope and to avoid unnecessary redundancy a merger is indeed a better solution at this stage. Aside from the scope there is also an additional technical reason. Film noir is vague term and indeed much of what some call neo noir others simply view a normal continuation of film noir. In other words not everybody really makes a distinction between film noir and neo noir.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anything, material from the Noir article should be moved here in the interests of expanding both.μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dicko and the almost edit war
I agree mentioning or quoting Dicko might not be justified and is definitely not need. However I don't agree with deleting his book from the sources or further reading list after it is fairly recent academic publication on the overall subject, which to me at first glance at least justifies an entry under further reading.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It is and has been listed under further reading and has never been removed. DocKino (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I just looked at the deletion in version comparison, without noting that it was listed twice before. Nevermind then--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

La Série Noire
I'm not a habitual Wikipedian, so excuse me if I'm transgressing any conventions.

It's my understanding that Nino Frank's use of the adjective "noir" in his famous article is a reference to a series of translations of American crime novels published in France from 1945 that used distinctive black covers, and were known collectively as "la série noire" ("the black series") and individually as "romans noirs" ("black novels"). This is very much like the use of "Gialli" in Italian to refer to the style of novels originally published in yellow covers.

While the choice of black for the book covers was surely no accident, and the connotations of the colour relate clearly to the themes of a typical film noir and the chiaroscuro style of cinematography, Frank's use of the word is simply drawing an analogy between the content and style of the films and the content and style of the novels via the colour of the novels' covers. This is discussed in various published sources (for example, Anne-Françoise Lesuisse's "Du Film Noir au Noir") and clarifies the translation of "noir" as "black" (rather than "dark").

The French "film noir" Wikipedia page and the English Wikipedia page for hardboiled fiction both mention La Série Noire, as does Nino Frank's English Wikipedia page. Shouldn't it be mentioned here?

82.123.197.46 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you have the sources at hand you could edit/add it yourself, but please no unsourced edit. However it might have to be taken in account as well that nowadays (at least in German) the term "la série noire"/"the black series"/"schwarze Serie" is also used to simply denote the string of Hollywood crime movies rather than any related novels.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 82's understanding of the relation in nomenclature between film noir and la série noire is accurate and easy enough to source if we wanted to add it. It was my sense that this was a level of detail too minute and tangential to include in this overview article on the film style; it also does not fit readily into any particular section of the article's current structure. However, if the consensus is that it should be included, I have no problem with that at all--I'd just want us to work out here where would be best.—DCGeist (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Would a subsection "Origin of the Term" under the current "Background" section be appropriate? Most of the second paragraph of the current article could then be included under that heading. It seems to me that "why noir?" is a natural question to ask. A more thorough discussion of the origin and history of the term would seem to have a place in an article of this scope. 82.123.197.46 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Yakuza
The Yakuza would slot into 70s-80s film noir although its cult following exceeded its box office. 122.148.41.172 (talk)

The Crow = neo-noir?
Could «The Crow» (1994, starring Brandon Lee), be considered as a Neo-Noir film? Throughout the internet there are some sources pro, and some sources anti. In my opinion it just is or isn't. Is it that easy to explain, or is the aforementioned film a borderline case? 「Robster1983」 ☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜ 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Tech noir
Should tech noir be linked here, or explained in brief? Wnt (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pornographic Picture unrelated to article for some time.
I am shocked to see a front page article with a pornographic picture that had nothing to do with Film Noir, I hope someone can relink the original photo back to its original picture. 5:50 2 October, 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.215.20 (talk)


 * Porno image removed. Correct image reference is Image:BigComboTrailer.jpg false image ref was File:BigComboTrailer.jpg
 * Maybe someone needs to watch their 'file' and 'image' tag editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.0.242 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Assorted vandals have been replacing the Big Combo trailer with pornographic images, but these have different file names. The prefix has nothing to do with it, see WP:IMAGE. Favonian (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys, it seemed very innapropriate to have a featured page with scenes of pornography unrelated to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.215.20 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood
The lead seems to suggest the criteria for film noir, is that it is a hollywood movie, I don't think that is true. Tinynanorobots (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on your definition. There are noir-ish films made in other countries but classic film noir were only made in Hollywood. The term was invented to describe films made in Hollywood. See the section on Film_noir -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. Not all classic films noir were made in Hollywood.  The Third Man, British, 1949, directed by Carol Reed, is classified as a classic film noir of the classic period.  This is a British film, part of which was filmed in postwar Vienna.  The American Film Institute's 10 Top 10 included it as # 5 in its Mystery section.  (Three of the films listed there are films noir; The Maltese Falcon, Laura, and the Third Man.)  L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree as well. The French noir films are just as good as Hollywood. "Bob le Flambeur," "Ascenseur pour l'chafaud" (Elevator to the Gallows) and "Shoot the Piano Player" are all classics. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Eric

Marlene Dietrich photograph
I'm pretty sure the photograph of Marlene Dietrich used in the 'Cinematic sources' section is a promo shot for Morocco and not for Der Blaue Engel (as it says in the caption). Could anyone check up on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.210.203 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC) It looks like she did wear the same suit in Morocco. You'll have to do some research and find out which file that is a publicity shot for -- SteveCrook (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Check the DVD cover. No sign of her wearing a top hat in Morocco -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, i just thought she wore this outfit while singing 'Quand L'Amour Meurt' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO0h190oboE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.210.100 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please sign your contributions
 * This is my error, I believe, which I'll now correct. She unquestionably wears this outfit in Morocco. I just watched the entire English-language version of The Blue Angel, and she does not wear this sort of tuxedo in that film.—DCGeist (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Raging over Bull
DCGeist has been stubbornly refusing to accept the changing of to the more direct so I've been forced to bring this to Talk. The article is full of films that are "acknowledged masterpieces", and if the article were to get sidetracked with mentioning accolades after every notable film then it would get quite cluttered indeed. Besides of which, it's odd that Raging Bull would be the only one that mentions AFI's ranking and not Citizen Kane. But regardless, there's no reason for Raging Bull to have the more verbose praising in the article and the cowriter credit instead of release year goes against the prose of the rest of the article.--Remurmur (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The turn of the decade brought Scorsese's black-and-white Raging Bull (cowritten by Schrader); an acknowledged masterpiece—the American Film Institute ranks it as the greatest American film of the 1980s and the fourth greatest of all time—it is also a retreat, telling a story of a boxer's moral self-destruction that recalls in both theme and visual ambience noir dramas such as Body and Soul (1947) and Champion (1949)."
 * "The turn of the decade brought Scorsese's black-and-white Raging Bull (1980), telling a story of a boxer's moral self-destruction that recalls in both theme and visual ambience noir dramas such as Body and Soul (1947) and Champion (1949)."
 * I can see the value in mentioning it as the AFI's greatest film of the 1980s. The overall ranking kind of goes with it. Maybe focus the sentence on the 1980s mention? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In addition,
 * Remurmur claims the article is "full of...acknowledged masterpieces"? Is it really? As with other celebrated genres, I'd say film noir is marked by a large number of very good to excellent films that, for all their virtues, do not individually transcend the status of industrial product; the genre's reputation by no means hinges on many "acknowledged masterpieces."
 * Remurmur's initial edit summary—that the current content reflects "excessive gloating" over Raging Bull—indicates that the editor misunderstands not only the word "gloating", but the passage, as well. The discussion of the film's general critical status serves as necessary balance to its more pertinent and relatively objective characterization as an aesthetic "retreat".
 * While Citizen Kane is an important influence, it is not generally regarded as a noir (classic or neo), so its AFI ranking is irrelevant here.
 * Schrader is mentioned because he is regarded as one of the most important neo-noir screenwriters; he is also one of the most important early theorists of noir. Others filmmakers mentioned directly in their capacity as screenwriters include Robert Towne, Joe Eszterhas, Dennis Potter, and David Ayer.
 * A side note on attitude and self-perception: If my desire to preserve properly sourced material that was present when Featured Article vetting took place is to be labeled "stubborn", Remurmur, how shall we characterize your previous efforts to remove it without discussion?—DCGeist (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the focus on content, please. (Goes for both of you.) Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Erik. Eighty percent of my bullet points addressed content; 20 percent addressed Civility, which is policy.—DCGeist (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, it just helps to ignore the tone and address the content directly. Like the policy says, "be understanding and non-retaliatory". To get back on topic, I assume that mentioning the overall ranking is an extension of AFI labeling Raging Bull the best film of that decade? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well reading the arguments here the first question comes into my mind is: "Does it really matter ?" There's no important disgreement regarding content that's really worth fighting about, but an argument about a single line that in doubt works either way, so it seems to be more a taste and ego thing. In that sense the title is rather well picked, but it kinda questions its own creator as well.

Imho it is a good idea to edit featured articles in a conservative fashion, i.e. avoid changes in particular in matter of taste, style and minor details unless there's a real need for it. If an article has a featured status you can assume that the current content, style and details were vetted and agreed upon by many authors, hence you shouldn't tinker with that unless you have good reason to do so. Correcting errors or adding new important/relevant information would be such a good reason, but slight differences in taste, style or minor details are not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Lost Highway - 1996 or 1997?
Under the section, 1980's and 1990's, there is a side bar. It states that Dub Driving is a musical piece from the David Lynch film Lost Highway, 1996. The separate article on another page on Lost Highway states that the release date for that movie is January of 1997. Well, which is it? How come there are these inconsistencies on Wikipedia? L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging for the POV push in the lead
DancingPhilosopher‎ has added their POV push to the lead. Tagged. I will leave this up briefly for comment, then remove it unless there is support from the community.User talk:Unfriend12 23:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In doubt i suggest to reset the article to its original state before this last series of edits. This was a very well maintained article with featured article status, such an article should be edited in conservative manner and large edits (in particular rewriting the lead) without consensus should be avoided.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did. However, this POV bit has been restored.  I will not wp:edit war over this kind of trivia.  Perhaps an interested editor will.User talk:Unfriend12 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok I reset the article now, since 2 different editors have raised doubts regarding the latest changes, which in addition resulted in a maintenance tag for a featured article. I'd to ask other editors to discuss any related changes here first and seek consent before performing large edits on a featured article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, a much deeper reset... I came on the article late. Much... MUCH better.  Thank you.User talk:Unfriend12 00:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is indeed much better, but only in terms of English language, style, and academic essay-like verbosity.
 * I agree this is MUCH better for the purposes of writing an academic (teacher assigned) essay on the topic with a typically academic dissection of problems of definition ad nauseam, which is perceived by teachers as an evidence of "critical" approach to the definition, but is it?
 * I wanted to change that because it is MUCH worse for an ordinary courius reader who deserves a more concise, encyclopeadic information and my edits' layout offered to readers a clearly listed (sections about) identyfing characteristics.
 * Not useful for writing an academic (teacher assigned) essay on the topic? Well, encyclopedia should offer clearly listed (sections about) identyfing characteristics and students should do their homework by themselves (or should I write "alone", I appologize but the English language is not my native language), using their own critical thinking skills. Don't you agree?
 * DancingPhilosopher my talk 07:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note quite, readability for "ordinary readers" is one of the goals of WP, but it is not the only one and imho it comes after an an academic correct description. WP is not supposed tp provide a "dumbed down" that becomes one sided or borderline false. If the definition is problem and there is no clear (scholarly) agreement in literature, then this information belongs in the article (amomng other see WP:NPOV). Whether WP makes homework easier for students is not really WP's concern. WP strives for being a useful reference for students as well, but writing articles in such a way that it is harder for student's to cheat with their homework (cut & paste) is no criteria for writing articles in WP. The other thing that being a featured article (star at the top right) means the article was thoroughly looked over by a larger number of editors/coworkers, who all came to the conclusion that the article is very good in its current form. Hence it usually makes sense to avoid large edits and changes in style.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reviewing DancingPhilosopher's response, I don't see any WP-consensus-based arguments in support of the changes. DP... is there any Wikipedia guideline you feel we should follow that is not being followed?  I would again point to the wp:FA document as a good one to review.User talk:Unfriend12 03:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the identifying bit.
This section has been changed *greatly* since the GA review, and I am not at all sure the changes, most especially this latest change in removing the plot-based description, are an improvement. I have restored this once, but it has been removed again. I'll leave it out, briefly, unless there is further support for removal. It seems key.User talk:Unfriend12 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree see above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The German filmmakers fleeing from Nazis and the historical context parallels
The essay-like structure that is apparently found by everyone (except me) appropriate for the encyclopedic article will stay. I admit to having made mistake by not taking my edits to Talk page before making such an extensive change to the featured article, but there are still two questions I'd like to hear an answer to.

Firstly, how come there is no place in the lede for acknowledging that the genre is not entirely home-grown product, i.e. it was the Germans fleeing from Nazis that adapted for screen the hardboiled fiction?

Secondly, how come the parallels between two historical contexts (police in Nazi Germany persecuting not only the "ordinary" criminals, but also those suspected to be Jews, including some of the German filmmakers, such as Fritz Lang, and, in the New World the corrupted police in the Prohibition period, that the protagonists had to - in addition to crime perpetrators - deal with in the hardboiled fiction) that must have motivated the Germans, is of no importance according to the featured version of the article? DancingPhilosopher my talk 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see an essay-like structure. You might review the wp:FA document for help understanding the goals and methods of reaching them for Featured Article status, and the remarks back when the article reached that status.


 * "1st" - Nothing in the world is "entirely home-grown product". And "it was the Germans fleeing from Nazis that adapted for screen the hardboiled fiction?" - because that is not what the source quoted said, and it is certainly not what the wider published information says.


 * "2nd" - Because this is an encyclopedia,not an essay... drawing parallels as tenuous as those would not fly.User talk:Unfriend12 16:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your reply to my 1st question reads "because that is not what the source quoted said". If you happen to imply I have made it up, then, please, read this. What do you see? Do you see under the chapter titled "Out of the Past" the quite long list of Austro-German filmmakers' names? Now, how does the sentence end? It ends with the following words "(...) worked on film noirs." The next sentence reads: "Two émigrés - Robert Siodmak and Fritz Lang - are absolutely central to the development of film noir". Further, on page 32, you can read "their film noirs can (...) be regarded as palimpsests, as over-writing fatalist Weimar sociopsychology and expressionist aesthetics onto the American crime film."
 * You claim the proposed parallels being "too tenuous". But are they? If they are, how come then (on page 48) the author cites as valid opinion that "many of the horror films (are) displaced articulations of the physical trauma of the First World War". And a few sentences later, the author claims "Similarly, the film noir might be seen as displacing the psychological traumas of the WW II" (and, of course, psychological traumas of the Nazi and Fascist regimes preceding the WWII, without any doubt whatsoever). The parallels, you claim to be too tenuous, are, in fact, in accord with the scientific findings the research on transgenerational trauma provided. DancingPhilosopher my talk 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres
Maximilianklein (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

First image
The screen grab of The Big Combo is the only image demonstrating the characteristic visuals of the genre included in the article, and is thus ideal for the opening. For that reason I have reverted the change of IP 108.65.152.120, a few hours ago, to an image of Humnphrey Bogart from the trailer of The Maltese Falcon. We already have two images of Bogart in the article, which given the need to represent the whole genre, is sufficient. The image of him with Lauren Bacall from The Big Sleep could be better, but Wikimedia Commons does not contain another photograph of them together from that film. There are some superior images of them from To Have and Have Not and Dark Passage which are potential substitutions. Philip Cross (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Batman?
While admittedly there are dark overtones to The Dark Knight films, I don't see how a Batman film can be called a film noir. It's about a comic book character. They've got huge budgets and millions spent on special effects. They are cartoonish. Just because a protagonist has inner conflicts and lives in a claustrophobic, depressing environment, doesn't make a movie a film noir. Typically, in a film noir, the hero does not put on a rubber suit and fight crime against comic book villains. What's next, Spiderman? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Quite so. Removed the Batman Begins/The Dark Knight reference. Philip Cross (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Batman possibly could be characterized as neo-noir which sometimes is used for other genres outside the classic film noir that have extensively applied noir elements or probably more often as genre noir like tech-noir, sf-noir or comic noir, the latter three might be a good fit for movies like Batmen, Daredevil (more the series than the movie), Watchmen or Sin City. --Kmhkmh (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I recently tried to get mention of "noir"' into The Batman article, but was shot down. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Batman (1989) Tim Burton.. How is this not in the '80's section?
Matter of fact, Joker (Nicholson) points out several times, the noir asthetic regarding Basinger's character (Vicki Vale) and her reporting of the war in the Corto Maltese (Fictional Country) Burton's movies in general, as a matter of fact have the dark gritty atmosphere that should be regarded as noir, but Batman especially being it's American Crime action/Drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.102.162 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * In his review, Roger Ebert complained about Burton's first film being basically drenched in the style of noir, which Ebert saw totally in contradiction to the optimistic superhero genre, as Ebert found that "the essence of film noir is that there are no heroes anymore". So there you have an authoritative source for the 1989 film being noir in style, which 1992's Batman Returns even more emphasized. Nolan's Batman Begins still has a few sparse nods to the noir lighting and Art Deco designs of Burton's two films, but that's about it. He wouldn't follow up on it with his next two Batman films. Schumacher's films were sorta "darkish", but much more of a silly pop art affair.


 * I think that not recognizing what Burton's two films are is largely due to some idiots lumping the great Burton Batmans in with the Schumacher crap. The Burton Batman series once had in its own article on Wikipedia separate from the Schumacher series, but then obviously members of the website Batman on Film got hold of it who equal the Burton greatness with the Schumacher trash simply because of one single incident in Batman Returns where Batty throws a small firecracker after a thug in passing, which they find utterly repugnant and "totally in contradiction to the fundamental idea that The Bat never kills".


 * Also, if we're including the two Burton Batmans (as said, they're literally drenched in the noir and seminal German expressionist style, and we have Ebert confirming that), we must also include the one film which, as is easy to source (Burton admits to it and specifically hired this earlier film's cinematographer), fundamentally influenced the Burton Batmans as well as The Coens's The Hudsucker Proxy, The City of Lost Children, and Dark City in that regard, and that is Terry Gilliam's Brazil (1985). There are idiots who group Brazil as well as The City of Lost Children in with steampunk, simply upon the fact "it's, uh, sorta dark, and dude, it's got rusty metal in it, man!", when both films really scream Decodence aka Dieselpunk, a genre which was heavily built upon the style of Brazil and how the film is basically uber-noir, Art Deco, and German expressionism, only in color. Brazil used to be in this article, but over time, people have removed it without giving any rationale. --2003:71:4E07:3E91:DCC:7627:F97C:7567 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Provide the source and you can add the films yourself. By the way, the Dieselpunk article could use some attention and more solid examples of what it includes. Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty Little Liars
USA Today has a good review of a new television episode which was filmed in noir style aimed at a young audience Bachcell (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Still reads like an essay
For all the reasons that have been stated in past years. There are many opinions stated as facts, without references. The writing style is at best flowery and loquacious, and frequently devolves into academic pomposity. Some examples:

"Where Polanski and Towne raised noir to a black apogee by turning rearward, director Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Paul Schrader brought the noir attitude crashing into the present day with Taxi Driver (1976), a crackling, bloody-minded gloss on bicentennial America."

"A manifest affiliation with noir traditions—which, by its nature, allows different sorts of commentary on them to be inferred—can also provide the basis for explicit critiques of those traditions."

157.182.105.1 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well both cases seem to be properly sourced (rather than being simply an WP editors view). True, various opinions are not explicitly stated as such, but with artistic topics most description, assessment and categorization are always opinions anyhow and as long as they don't deviate from the mainstream it isn't usually necessarily to explicitly state them as attributed opinions.
 * "Academic pomposity" can be personally annoying but as long as it correctly reflects the overall academic assessment of the topic and is sourced it is acceptable (art encyclopedia and rereference use that to a degree as well).
 * Note also that the article was reviewed and got the excellent article status (presumably in this form). Meaning, what you consider as "essayist", "pompous" or "opinionated" seems to be sanction by the community and considered appropriate for the article's subject.


 * Now if aside from your 2 given examples there are other "opinion" sections, which are not properly sourced for real, that would be a different issues and something that may have to be fixed. But for that you need to lost concrete cases, that indeed have no sources or misrepresent their sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

TCM free online course on film noir, begins June 1, 2015
Yes, I know this talk page isn't a forum, but I saw this and thought Wikipedians might be interested in and/or benefit from it: https://www.canvas.net/browse/bsu/tcm/courses/film-noir. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Terms, genre
"Wikipedia is not about terms but about phenomena (and possibly concepts)", writes Ettrig. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. However, encyclopedia entries are often helped by clarification of relevant terms. (I'm sure that this one is.) And the new version --
 * a film genre characterized by stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly such that emphasize cynical attitudes and sexual motivations

seems wrong to me. Rather, FN is very often but not always found in the genre of crime film (we see it in other genres too); and it's characterized by a certain kind of visual style and/or a moral ambiguousness or uncertainty. To quote this very WP article: "While many critics refer to film noir as a genre itself, others argue that it can be no such thing". -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * no idea why this got changed, I reset it to the original version now. Using the term genre is contradicting the rest of the lead which states that its state as a genre is disputed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We are discussing whether this article is about a film genre, right? I hold it is. This is supported by the article being categorized as a Category:Film genres and carries an instantiation of a template that lists Film genres and contains Film Noir in that list. I hold it is a genre. But even if it was not, the article is still not about a term. --Ettrig (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there is a bit of confusion here, let me state a few points with regard to sentence in the lead:
 * a) The original formulation was already used in the featured article version, so sanctioned by a larger number of experienced editors. So in doubt it shouldn't be changed unless there is a really pressing or convincing reason to do so.
 * b) It is of absolutely no consequence whether you, me or any other individual editor considers film noir to be a genre. What matters here is what reputable external (ideally scholarly) sources say and among there is an open debate whether film noir is to be seen as a genre or not.
 * c) (Potential) issues of category system are not a problem of this article and we don't adapt articles to categories.
 * d) Even if you see it as a genre, the description as term (as in technical term) is nevertheless correct as well.
 * --Kmhkmh (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore it is not about words or terms. Yes, clarification of the meaning of the article title may be valuable. This is not a valid argument for writing in the article that the article is about a word or a term. Well, there are legitimate articles about words. But this article is not about the word or the term, it is about the category. The lead says so already. So the first sentence should not contradict this. To say that the description as term (as in technical term) is nevertheless correct as well is not an argument. It is just a restatement of the wanted conclusion. --Ettrig (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite what weird formalism you are trying to pursue here. If you think encylopedias do not describe technical terms, you are mistaken. Nor does a formal and enforced artificial separation between "word", "term" and the "concept" make much sense here. "cinematic term" is perfectly fine here and is no contradiction to the use of "category" later on and as I said before that wording was already used in the featured version of the article. Not to the mention that "term" is common choice of words in reputable sources on the subject (,, , , etc.)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's widely believed that some phenomenon called film noir exists. Even those who reject this would concede that the terms widely used. Asked to agree, for the sake of argument, that the phenomenon does exist, no moderately well informed person would dispute that Out of the Past is an example and The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer is not. All in all film noir needs an article. Beyond this, matters quickly get fuzzy. I've read intelligent arguments by well informed people that The Maltese Falcon is an example and other arguments that it isn't, that Sunset Boulevard is an example and other arguments that it isn't, etc. Considering all of this, it would be myopic and perverse of Wikipedia to decide on one among the competing understandings of the term meant and to dismiss alternative interpretations as either mere misunderstandings or matters for a dictionary to sort out. There's nothing particularly unusual about this, either; just think of disputed terms from pop social psychology: id, ego, superego, anomie, alienation, etc. Each of these needs an article, and the article must be in some ways very unlike a good article on something whose meaning is fairly clear cut, such as Odense, Austin Maestro, or Gallium. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

New book on film noir
The Maltese Falcon to "Body of Lies": Spies, Noirs, and Trust by Robert von Hallberg, 2015, University of New Mexico Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Film noir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104224706/http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/08/108/081085676Xch1.pdf to http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/08/108/081085676Xch1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218203603/http://www.koreanconfidential.com/koreanpowfilmnoir.html to http://www.koreanconfidential.com/koreanpowfilmnoir.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217064144/http://www.articledestination.com/Article/Korean-War-Film-Noir--the-POW-Movies/12753 to http://www.articledestination.com/Article/Korean-War-Film-Noir--the-POW-Movies/12753
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330053905/http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2005/02/28/hammett/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2005/02/28/hammett/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Film noir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202113605/http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/Articles-Summer05/JemAziz1.html to http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/Articles-Summer05/JemAziz1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060803235034/http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/NeoNoir.html to http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/NeoNoir.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007085926/http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/Noir%20Thriller%20Intro.html to http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/Noir%20Thriller%20Intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

english
How to connect wifi in china Fu yuan yu 21 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

So.What now? Fu yuan yu 21 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please ask this at some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

New Boris Ingster article needs more biography, references, photo
An article was recently created for film noir innovator Boris Ingster, director of Stranger on the Third Floor. This new article needs more biographical information about his studies in Russia in the 1920s, his work with Sergei Eisenstein in 1930 in France, and his 1930s screenwriting in the US. More quality sources are needed, and a non-copyrighted or fair use photo of Ingster would be good. Thanks. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * All articles need work? I'm not sure why you are posting this. Ceoil  (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am soliciting film noir-interested editors to work on a new article (created a few days ago) which is pertinent to film noir. Ingster has been called the director of the first noir. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, all of the accounts of the editor that wrote this page are long blocked. Ceoil  (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Bad girl movies into Film noir
"Bad girl movies" is a completely unsourced list of noir films. I propose that any sourced content (possibly nothing) be merged into Film noir, and the page redirected. pburka (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging, , , , all of whom have been active on that article's talk page in the past. pburka (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Since there were no objections, and the page was still unsourced, I've redirected the page here. There was no referenced content, so nothing was merged. pburka (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 22S-DIS STD-M114- Variable Topics in Performance and Disability Studies
— Assignment last updated by Elyonn (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Student contribution moved here
Ppprru, Kyleighkimbrell, Erikp246, and Elyonn:

The following student contribution makes some good points, but there are problems with grammar, formatting, sources, and an added image that should be corrected before it is made a part of the film noir article. --Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

== Film Noirs and Disability == Film noirs have a deep relationship with disability no matter for the representation of the beauty, excitement, inspiring or foreshadowing the side stories. In fact, there were lots of stereotypes when looking at disability within film noirs.

=== Film noir’s relations with disability ===

From a journal “Phantom Limbs: Film Noir and the Disabled Body” by Michael Davidson from the GLQ:A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies. In many noir examples, Many disabled characters played whether a supporting roles, evil roles or the cameo role. The boy who's deaf (Dickie Moore ) played multiple roles in the movie “Out of Past ” from 1947, protecting the main character also pushing the story line. Movie “The Fallen Sparrow” from 1943, the “man who limps” was the evil character perhaps got killed at the end. In “The Blur Dahlia” from 1946, a disabled soldier that returned from World War II Johnny Morrison(Alan Ladd) found out his wife has been unfaithful to him which made him killed her.

Disability played an important role in film noir. From the article "Concerto for the Left Hand: Disability and the Defamiliar Body. " from Journal of Modern Literature. Disability is the central point in film noir, it is very inspiring since in film noir the disabled body gives audience the same viewing pleasure as the female body.

In numerous noir films, being disabled marked as a sexual inscrutability. Film theory has focused on mantis-like features of the femme fatale characters, and most of their husband were in a disabled state. For example, In Double Indemnity (1944) Mrs. Dietrichson’s husband is on crutches; in The Lady from Shanghai (1948) Elsa Bannister’s husband wears braces and uses a cane; in Walk on the Wild Side (1962) Jo’s husband’s legs have been amputated, and he pulls himself around on a dolly.

Vulgar auteurism
I removed "vulgar auterism" from the See also section. It's defined as "championing or reappraising filmmakers, mostly those working in horror and action genres...assessing 'unserious' artistry of popcorn cinema..." Doesn't sound like film noir to me, and the term must not be in the article or it wouldn't be in See also. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Convoluted sentence
In the 6th paragraph of the Classic period section, Directors and the business of noir sub-section, there is this sentence: "Serving as producer, writer, director and top-billed performer, Hugo Haas made films like Pickup (1951), The Other Woman (1954) and Jacques Tourneur, The Fearmakers (1958). "Jacques Tourneur" is not a film Hugo Haas made. I assume the sentence is trying to say Jacques Tourneur made The Fearmakers in a manner simmilar to the way in which Haas made his films, but it's going to need some more words, and I don't want to be the one to add them because I really don't know exactly what the editor was trying to say. Any thoughts? --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Films noir
Since the lead uses "films noir" for the plural of "film noir", I've edited the rest of the article to reflect this. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)