Talk:Film noir/Archive 1

Editing etiquette
Could DCGeist please not flood the edit history page with myriad tiny changes, and instead make use of the preview function? I'll admit I've multipled a few times, but never to this extent! - Eyeresist 06:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There's no intent to flood, mate. It's simply the normal process that follows writing substantial amounts of new text: reorganizing, copyediting, proofreading, and making every link a good one. Given the length and complexity of the article, I think Wikipedia can be proud of how tight the language and how free of even tiny errors it is. Could you please refer me to the Wikipedia guideline on editing etiquette covering "myriad tiny changes" that you're referencing? I've looked in vain for it. Thanks. (By the way, check out this—Etiquette—for some helpful thoughts on assuming good faith and other nice things.) Best, Dan--DCGeist 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no "official" prohibition AFAIK. But it is a little inconvenient to compare article versions in History when there are over a hundred adjacent edits all by the same user. OTOH, I could understand that you might want to itemise various small changes for individual reference. For myself, I've acquired the habit of always previewing my changes, so I don't have to keep going back into Edit to add "just one more thing". Maybe it's just a case of different styles. As I said, I find it inconvenient, but it's not as if I can force anyone to change their behaviour for my convenience. Anyway, I've said my piece. Feel free to delete this thread. - Eyeresist 07:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, mate. There's "a hundred adjacent edits all by"...um...me, for two reasons: (a) while I do preview, I'm trained as a copyeditor/proofreader so I keep checking, and doublechecking, and 3xchecking even after I've done my best to enter clean copy, and (b) I've simply been the primary contributor to the article since June 20. You can flip back to June 18 and compare it then to what it is now to see what is meant by "primary." All the best, Dan --DCGeist 09:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Plural
Consistency question: the beginning of the article says the plural is "films noirs" but the link at the end is "films noir".


 * The latter is correct. Just "Noirs" is acceptable (without "film"). "Films Noirs" is very, very wrong, as is "Femmes Fatales" Zosodada 18:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It is Zosodada who is very very wrong. See here: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861690306/film_noir.html. 68.1.175.241 28 June 2005 05:57 (UTC)


 * I've always seen the latter, also, but I don't speak French. I think the adjective remains singular?  Ask user:Anthere or user:Brion VIBBER.  Koyaanis Qatsi


 * Hmm, I would say "films noirs". This is complicated by two things: one, there's no difference in pronunciation. Two, while I'm pretty sure "films noirs" is correct French (but check with a native speaker), the usage of borrowed terms in English sometimes differs subtlely from the original source. Of course, you can avoid the whole problem by saying "noir films". ;) --Brion 07:37 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Brion. Koyaanis Qatsi


 * Wow, anon. When in doubt I usually refer to authorities on the subject and do as the Romans do -- preferable in print in a major reference work (i.e. not the online Webster's). I didn't find the plural anywhere in the Oxford history or Film Comment. Either way is fine with me, the alternative does seem to be in regard to the original French language, but in English (this is the English Wikipedia) "film noir" is more correct. I would, however, fully expect to see "films noirs" in the French Wikipedia. Zosodada 29 June 2005 03:14 (UTC)

Also -- reposted here from my talk page:

"Films noirs" is correct in French; this is the English version of Wikipedia, thus 'Film noirs' -- as widely used in the English and American literature on the subject -- should be preferred. Try a more authoritative source than the Microsoft dictionary, perhaps a well-respected source of film literature, i.e. Oxford History of World Cinema; Film Comment; &c. It's obvious that someone feels very strongly about using the rules of the French language for an English trans-neologism within English text so I won't contribute to that page any longer (I don't feel it's quite that an important of a point to continue in an edit war with an anonymous brick wall). Feel free to refer to higher authorities on the matter than myself -- and higher authorities than the editors at the MSN dictionary (for a good dictionary I recommend the American Heritage and/or the OED). I understand the confusion on the matter and liken it to the discussion of "Tsunami/tsunamis" above. ''' Transliterations don't take the rules of the originating language with them when they travel, they are modified to fit the adoptive language. ''' Zosodada

Everybody in the world (EVERYbody) uses the correct (French) expression "films noirs" (and femmes fatales etc.) How come someone might think it could be "films noir"?


 * Perhaps they did a little research. Zosodada 18:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, snarky. And, too bad for you, wrong.  "Research" is not typing a phrase in Google and see what comes up and how frequently.  Wikipedia isn't here to perpetuate common errors just because they are common.  It is also common to use penultimate as though it meant "greatest" rather than "next to last."  Google some time, you'll see.  The fact is, in French, plural noun takes plural adjective.  Thus "films noirs" is correct.  For corroboration, see here: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861690306/film_noir.html. 68.1.175.241 28 June 2005 05:57 (UTC)


 * "Films noirs" is correct in French; this is the English version of Wikipedia, thus "Film noirs" or "films noir" -- as widely used in the English literature on the subject should be preferred. Try a more authoritative source than the Microsoft dictionary, i.e. Oxford History of World Cinema; Film Comment; &c. The following academic articles from the Film Noir Reader should be of interest: "Creativity and Evaluation: Two Film Noirs of the Fifties" by Robin Wood and "Mann in the Dark: the Films Noir of Anthony Mann" by Robert E. Smith.
 * Other articles cited as references also use both, with a tendency to go with "-noirs" as a general term and "films-" referring to specific films. A google search reveals about equal use for each method, but the articles using "films noirs" aren't as well written. 13:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC) - Zosodada

Some way above, Zosodada writes: ''I understand the confusion on the matter and liken it to the discussion of "Tsunami/tsunamis" above. Transliterations don't take the rules of the originating language with them when they travel, they are modified to fit the adoptive language.''

This is interesting, but according to my understanding (or possibly misunderstanding) of "transliteration", transliteration is irrelevant here. Further, the analogy with "tsunamis" (an entirely idiomatic English plural derivative of the singular/plural Japanese term tsunami) is not very informative, because the English {z} plural morpheme is a productive one (as children well know, cf "wug" and "wugs"), while postpositional adjective use in English is extremely restricted. (Yes, "notary public" and I imagine "notaries public", but not "toilet public", etc.) Film noir really is alien to English, at least as long as it is regarded as a noun plus an adjective.

In English, I can understand how one might have "noir films" or even "film-noirs", but "films noir" strikes me as bizarre. I can believe that it is used; however, it's by no means the only choice among writers of English commentary on the film noir. Just from the relevant books that happen to be on my shelves:


 * noir films (not italicized), used by
 * Silver and Ward, Film Noir


 * films noirs (italicized), used by
 * Christopher, Somewhere in the Night
 * Hirsch, Film Noir
 * Walker, Introduction to The Movie Book of Film Noir

-- Hoary 06:26, July 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Good points, but transliteration and transcription are keys to the problem. (In a broader sense, the word transliteration is used to include both transliteration in the narrow sense and transcription. Anglicizing is a transcription method.) "Films noir" works because the noun is pluralized, not the adjective. I believe Paul Schrader used that form in his notable Film Comment article (if my memory is serving me correctly). Zosodada
 * What the article currently suggests, that films noir is the correct way to pluralize film noir in French is incorrect. This at least needs to be rephrased, and should probably be moved further down on the page, perhaps even just given a link at the bottom in "See also" to something like French plurals. Theshibboleth 23:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow everyone, I just did a WikiGnome job without realizing that the plural question was such a big deal. I found many variations on the term throughout the article, and so made it "films noirs" throughout for consistency. I understand the transliteration/etc. arguments, and I have seen "films noir" as well as "films noirs" in various sources, but it seems to me that since the term (including the order of noun preceding adjective) is directly from the French, and without any changes in spelling or pronunciation, that the plural term should be correct according to the French language -- which pluralizes the adjective as well as the noun. :) Z Wylld 21:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that in the table of contents 'films noir' is used; for consistency with Z Wylld's revisions, I'm changing it to 'films noirs' Carl.bunderson 21:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I realise that being a fairly literate Englishman having lived in France for a quarter of a century doesn't make me an authority on anything but here is my four ha'porth...


 * 'Film Noir' and 'Noir Film' would not mean the same thing even if the words 'Noir Film' had ever been uttered by a french speaker in that order which is unlikely except maybe in poetry. 'Films Noirs' would probably be the plural preferred by 'Josèphe Publique' or 'le citoyen lambda' but - deep breath - 'Films Noir' would have a good argument for existence as one may refer to a film noir as simply a 'Noir' and, as a proper noun denoting a genre it need not carry the 's'.


 * However, and this is the most important point, as we see in the case of 'a naïve man', where 'naïf' might be better, the fact is that the English usage need not reflect the Gallic origins.


 * I hope that's put the cat among the pigeons... Jigsawpuzzleman 21:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to throw my vote for what little it's worth behind 'films noirs'. Point 1: as we all know, in "noun adjective" situations we pluralize the noun. I don't think we need to argue this; think of notaries public or governors general. Point 2: The phrase is taken from the French, yes, but the parts of speech remain 'noun adjective' once they're in English. Although not a perfect parallel, a decent case to look at for this rule is the phrase "coup d'etat", also taken from the French. It is pluralised, of course, as "coups d'etat"; 'coup' is the noun, and it is always the noun that is pluralised, as we have already established. The point is that the words remained the same part of speech that they were in French, that is, it did not become "coup d'etats", to which "film noirs" is tantamount. Point 3: (this is a point that I really tried to worm my way out of, because I'd have preferred "films noir") We keep the French plurals when we borrow phrases. Think of coups d'etat, agents provocateurs, aides-de-camp, anciens regimes, belles epoques, bons mots, bons vivants, coups de grace . . . I could go on.
 * I also suggest we add a section on pronunciation if we're going to use the correct plural, 'films noirs', as they have in many other articles about borrowed phrases; this will avoid the problem that I'm sure a lot of you are afraid of, that of unilingual anglophones wandering around pronouncing their esses.
 * Also, to all those who argue whatever side you're on based on "such-and-such reliable source uses x plural"; a reliable source for film criticism is not necessarily a reliable source for language. We do not toil here to perpetuate the poor usage of others, even the grammatical misdeeds of those more learned than us. Unless someone cares to argue that we do not in fact use French plurals for French phrases, I don't see what use stacking up the film experts on any side will do.
 * Apologies for mistakes, misanthropy, or combativeness. Just throwing in my tuppence.
 * Edit:Sorry for longwindedness; a summary: As I've listed above, phrases borrowed from French almost invariably use the French plural. If you'd care to rebut (here's lookin' at you, Z), kindly give some evidence or perhaps some examples. more notes: I'm talking about borrowed nouns, so don't bring up naïve; that's irrelevant. I mean establish me a pattern of borrowed French nouns where the French plural is not used. Kai 05:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Did anybody look at English plural - Defective Nouns - Compound? The question then becomes, "What is the head?" It looks to me as if "films noir" is the correct plural, given that "noir" is the adjective and cannot be considered as a noun even when used as the idiomatic abbreviation. Of course, when used in this way, "noir" would be correctly pluralised to indicate the number. I'm off to change all "film noirs" to "films noir"... Gordon | Talk, 13 August 2006 @09:59 UTC

Many might have hoped there would be no need to revisit this controversy, but perhaps it was inevitable. As the usage note now included in the article states, there are valid arguments to be made for "films noirs," "films noir," and "film noirs." The case for each is worthy of respect. The division of opinion demonstrated in the colloquy above is reflected in the published literature: usage in academic texts is deeply split, primarily between "films noirs" and "films noir," while in more popularly oriented texts "film noirs" predominates. There is no one critical text in the field that may be considered the ultimate authority; the leading encyclopedia, Silver and Ward's, as noted by editor Hoary above, uses "noir films," a dodge that may be regarded as artful or crude (see editor Jigsawpuzzleman's comment above), while the book widely regarded as the most significant scholarly text on noir, Naremore's More Than Night, uses "films noirs." The most recently published book in the field, Holm's Film Soleil, uses "film noirs." As the controversy finally concerns a matter of spelling in an English-language text (i.e., this Wikipedia article), and since the movies that are the topic of discussion are primarily American, the closest we can come to an ultimate, objective authority is the leading dictionary of American English: Merriam-Webster's.--DCGeist 17:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Casablanca?
Is Casablanca a film noir? I notice a Casablanca spoof is mentioned in the spoof section, but never Casablanca itself. If Casablanca is film noir it definitely deserves a mention in this article.

No, the current consensus is that Casablanca is not a film noir. Most compilers of serious encyclopedic sources proffering canons of the genre do not regard the movie as a noir (see Silver and Ward; Ottoson; Tuska). Likewise, major comprehensive film information/review sources such as imdb.com and Time Out Film Guide do not associate Casablanca with their respective film noir categories. That said, this is, again, the current consensus, and opinion on the noir status of Casablanca could change as it has for many other films of the era. As for Play It Again, Sam, the spoof you refer to, it references not only Casablanca but a number of roles of Humphrey Bogart's in other films, such as The Big Sleep, that are widely regarded as noir.--DCGeist 07:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Genre vs. Style
The article currently states that Film noir is a 'genre', but this is the wrong definition because it is more correctly defined as a film 'style' that can be found in many genres. The 'classical' films noir are the films that the French critics (who coined the term) were referring to: somber American Post WWII crime or thriller films that featured frustrated men and a femme fatale with low-key lighting -- but films noir does not stop there. Film noir is defined most simply and commonly by its low-key lighting, which is related to style and not genre. As a style, films noir has been applied to many genres (the crime genre, sci-fi genre, western genre) in every decade since WWII. Much later films noir (example: Blade Runner, Aliens, Mulholland Dr.) are not an homage to the 50s but are proper examples of film noir. If no one objects, I'll edit the article (so it defines and refers to films noir as a ‘style’) because right now the article often contradicts itself by saying it is a genre and then giving examples from many different genres.Paradiso 10:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Attending to this. Zosodada 18:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jun-Dai 29 June 2005 04:33 (UTC) Film noir is not a "style". It can sometimes be called a movement, and it is usually called a genre. To call it a style implies that the main string that holds noir films together is something in the style of the films, but more than that it is actually the setting and outlook. As a style, film noir is not really distinct from the German Expressionist films, or the gangster films of the thirties, or other expressionist-influenced films like Citizen Kane and Rebecca. Genre really just means "category", and in any case, film noir is as much of a genre as any category of filmmaking is. Jun-Dai
 * Film noir is a style defined by its stylistic traits (e.g., low key lighting) that has been applied to many different genres from crimes to westerns to sci-fi and other genres as well. So it is best defined as a style that can be found any genre. Paradiso 5 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
 * Jun-Dai 5 July 2005 15:34 (UTC) Film noir is not really defined solely (or even mainly) by its stylistic traits. If that were the case, there would be nothing separating it from (as I mentioned above) the gangster films of the 30s or the German Expressionist films of the 20s and 30s.  On the contrary, the genre of film noir is generally highly stylized, but is mostly defined by its bleak outlook and criminal element.  More importantly, all noir films are crime films, even if some are also sci-fi or westerns (are there western noirs?).  Similarly, sci-fi films and westerns are defined by their settings and can easily be romantic comedies, neo-noir films, heist films, etc.  Genres are not simply a logical subdivision of the form, they are various means of categorization many of which intersect.  There are sci-fi films of all genres, just as there are comedies of any number of genres, or musicals, or even westerns.
 * If you are excluding neo-noir in the definition of noir (the normal approach), then there are very few film noir sci-fi films (I suppose Kiss Me Deadly would count), no musicals, few to no comedies, few to no westerns. They're all crime films, and they don't play around much with other well-known genres.  Once you incorporate neo-noir (which does include sci-fi films, comedies, etc.), then you've got another problem with your definition, which is that they are no longer limited to what is known as noir style.  Insomnia, Chinatown, and any number of other well-known noirs do not have the low-key lighting and other stylistic traits that classic noir has become known for.  In this way, noir is not best defined as a style, and while elements of noir could theoretically be found in any genre (something that neo-noir films have long toyed with), in practice it was limited to a very small set of them, with a handful of well known archetypal storylines.  Jun-Dai


 * <User:RobertS 2 May 2006 19:58

According to James Monaco in American Film Now is Film noir not a genre at all, it is a style.

To the anonymous user who keeps reverting the page
Jun-Dai 6 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)
 * You could at least defend your reversions here. There haven't been any arguments here to counter the points that I have come up with, and if you're not willing to discuss the issue, then please stop reverting the page!
 * Incidentally, for genre, American Heritage gives "A category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a distinctive style, form, or content." Seems to fit the concept of noir quite well.

Jun-Dai


 * Paradiso has already defended it once. You can also read the wikipedia definitions of film genre vs film style as I've already asked.  Some resources call "film noir" a genre because they are blind to the obvious lack of intellectual boundaries required to do so, or just lump everything descriptive together as "genre" to sound inty-lectual.  It is a style, a way of making film, not a subject matter like you have in a western or science fiction (which can be done in the "noir" style) - the only way it could become a genre is if you are going to screen pieces of black celluloid!  Read and learn and stop being childish - and wantonly resistant to taking in what you've already been told, and to expanding your mind accordingly. Zosodada


 * Jun-Dai 6 July 2005 20:33 (UTC) And according to those (fairly hokey, I might add) definitions of film genre and style that you have provided links to, "film noir" is still a genre. It is defined primarily by its subject matter, settings, and themes and secondly by its visual style, dialogue, acting, or anything else that you seem to feel fits into the notion of "film style".  What's more, a good number of entries on that "film genre" list are not at all genres by that very definition.  Comedy and slapstick are modes of filmmaking, but they do not define the content of the films that fall into those categories (Dr. Strangelove and Blazing Saddles share very little in the way of similary of content).  Yet we call them genres.  There's nothing pseudo-intellectual about using the term genre to define film noir.  On the contrary, the problem comes in when people try to restrict the definition of genre in unconventional ways, particularly as the term really just defines a category, and is itself ignorant of whether that categorization is based on style, content, or technical implementation.  Rather than being patronizing, I suggest you reexamine the very links you've provided for me, or better yet, find some more credible ones:  . Jun-Dai

Jun-Dai 6 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the characterization of "control-freak vandalism". I've provided reasoned arguments for my edits, and you have simply reverted all of my changes wholesale, regardless of whether they have to do with the genre/style debate.  You, on the other hand, have provided little support for your argument, adopted an extremely patronizing tone, and reverted without explanation.  Are you trolling?

Jun-Dai


 * Hardly trolling. I set up the Film styles category and routed (re-routed) the most obvious styles stuck under Mooovie genres.  Both Paradiso and I have stated why this is a style and not a genre, as does the article content itself.  Reasoned arguments.  Your only response has been to say, in effect, "no they're not" and "a genre can be anything you want it to be", and so you keep reverting it.  In fact, I even offered a compromise of putting it in *both* categories, and you *still* reverted it.  There are plenty of reasons to call FN a style, moreso than a genre.  You simply won't accept any of them as valid because you do not wish to:  hence, "control-freak".  And as far as patronizing tones, they do tend to be aroused by impulsive, childlike behaviors, including reactionary reversions of other wikipedians. 12.73.194.3 7 July 2005 20:25 (UTC)


 * Jun-Dai 7 July 2005 21:00 (UTC)
 * Judging from your response, you haven't even read my comments. I've given a much more detailed response that you have indicated--it's all up there in this thread.  I have avoided simple contradiction (your first characterization of my arguments), and I never stated in fact or in effect that "a genre can be anything you want it to be".  Rather, a genre is, by pretty much any definition I can find outside of the Wikipedia, a category of works based on any number of conventions relating to subject matter (e.g., tragedy), premise (e.g., science fiction), affect (e.g., horror or comedy), or style (e.g., German Expressionism).  Look it up in a dictionary, look it up in a reference book on literary terms, look it up in a film reference book.
 * More importantly, every time I've reverted your changes, I gave a clear explanation as to why I did so. You, on the other hand, have reverted out of hand with nothing by way of explanation except to reiterate your comment that it is a style and not a genre, for which you have not provided any reasoning and evidence, except to say that elsewhere on the wikipedia it is made clear (it is not) and that as a noir film can be of any genre (historically this has not been the case) it is therefore not a genre itself (even though many genres on the genre list you cite, such as comedy or science fiction, can be of almost any other genre on the list).  You have provided no argument outside of this, and nothing to support even that argument from outside of the Wikipedia (or, upon serious examination, even from within the Wikipedia).  It's not a matter of me not accepting the "plenty of reasons" to call FN a style as valid, you simply haven't provided those reasons in the first place.  They aren't even there for me to call invalid!
 * From this, it should be clear that you are the one behaving in a child-like manner. I'm not sure if Mel Etitis and Pharos would appreciate your characterization of their reversions as "reactionary", but yours is much more so, as it is the reversion that undoes all of my changes, whereas their (and my) reversions are merely to undo your reactionary reversions.  I'm not going to bring up "control-freak," because to characterize you as such would require making assumptions about your personality beyond what your persona is here, and I don't know you.
 * I am open to further discussion on the topic, especially as there is a lot of discussion to be had about film noir as a style/genre, but you have so far been unwilling to respond to any of my points. I don't intend to make any more reversions of the page myself, nor will I bother to continue to contribute to the article until you have relaxed your stubbornness on the matter, and allowed someone else on the Wikipedia to revert the article and reflect whatever decisions we as editors can agree on as the appropriate categorization of the category of film noir, whether it be genre, style, movement, or what have you.  Part of the reason for this is that I have a number of contributions in the version that you have reactionarily reverted over that have nothing to do with this discussion of genre vs. style.  I'm not sure why you've overwritten them.
 * Jun-Dai

Hirsch, in "Dark Side of the Screen", discusses this same genre/style problem. I think he concluded that film noir was unique in being a film genre defined by attitude rather than setting. The clichéd visual aspects of film noir have been (slightly) over-emphasised. - Eyeresist 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Couple of problems
"After 1945, film noir adopted the neorealist look, and scenes were shot in real city locations, not in the studio; a perfect example of this being the film which is often referred to as the archetypal film noir, Double Indemnity."

This chronology doesn't make a lot of sense because Double Indemnity was released in 1944.

Also, Young Frankenstein a film noir? To make this claim would push the invention of film noir back to 1931 and James Whale's Frankenstein and its sequels, which are the object of parody in Young Frankenstein. Film noir may have developed out of German expressionism, but they aren't the same. 68.1.175.241 28 June 2005 05:54 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you're finding items to fix, please do so. Zosodada 29 June 2005 03:16 (UTC)


 * I'm raising them for discussion first. I'd rather not make these changes on my own authority alone.  If I did I'd start making crazy changes, like saying the plural of film noir is films noir or film noirs just because I couldn't find the plural in a reference book.  68.1.175.241 29 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)


 * Try the references at the bottom of the page. -- Zosodada

Morality
Could someone with more understanding of existentialism and such things help elaborate on how this influenced film noir? I created a morality section, but it is very short right now. --L. 20:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Source of the Nomination
I stumbled across anther wikipedia article on existentialism in which it is argues that Truffaut and the Cahiers du Cinema are primarily responsible for describing the genre.. Under the section Film directors. Would that not be worse mentioning here, and also the source of that article?

Voice-over narration
Why no mention of VO narration? The films of the classic film noir period all use this device. --malber 18:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * VO Narration is mentioned under the still from Out of the Past.
 * Since the caption lists "noir hallmarks" it seems that these should be listed somewhere in the article. I remember one of my film professors vehemently would not consider a picture film noir unless it included all of these characterics. This may be a controversial issue among film buffs, but I think it would be important to list these critera as it is safe to say that film noir is a very distinctive style defined by these narrow characteristics.--malber 20:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Voice-over was used a lot more in film noir than in other genres, to the point of becoming a cliche, but I'd say that at least 50% of films noirs don't actually use voice-overs. (OTOH, I don't think any of the oft-cited characteristics of film noir will be found in EVERY example - they're not all B/W, there isn't always a femme fatale, etc.) - Eyeresist 09:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Noir Films
The list of neo-noir films seems to have a big, gaping hole in it. It seems that the successful mid-1990s film "L.A. Confidential" has been left off. It is a prime example of the film noir style. When it came out, it had very few big name actors in it, and a reletively unknown director. Why is it not featured here?

I have removed The Matrix from the list of neo-noirs ("Neo" - geddit?). While it has a dark visual style, particularly at the beginning, it doesn't have the attitude of a noir film - no lonely, doomed protagonist, no-one being undone by greed or sexual obsession, no scheming vamp. I've replaced it with Minority Report, which has ***SPOILER*** a convoluted detective story and a doomed patsy for a hero, plus themes of guilt and paranoia. - Eyeresist 02:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to recommend "Derailed" (2005) to be added to the list of Neo Noir films. Clive Owen (talk about film noir faces!) and Jennifer Aniston star. While listed as a drama/thriller on IMDB, it has many noir elements such as: family man caught up into the web of a femme fatale, twist of fate, betrayal, and seduction. He digs himself into a deeper and deeper hole, and must fight like heck to climb back up. (Much like Dick Powell's plight in "Pitfall", (1948).) Plus, it's dark and atmospheric, involving dark alleys and a dingy hotel. - Brix6 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Brix. Derailed is already named in List of film noir. However, while unquestionably a noir—as you describe—it doesn't meet any of the general qualifications for specific coverage in the main article: (a) notable commercial success, (b) notable aesthetic innovation, (c) part of the oeuvre of a famed director, (d) part of the oeuvre of a director or screenwriter closely associated with noir, (e) based on the work of a major hardboiled/noir writer, and/or (f) exceptionally illustrative of a particular point about noir. All of the neo-noir films discussed in the article meet one of these qualifications; almost all, more than one. Derailed, unfortunately, meets none. Best, Dan—DCGeist 00:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Referenced punctuation?
The "Precursors" section contains a comma splice, but it seems to be a quote(?) or at least referenced material. "According to James Monaco in American Film Now, Film noir is not a genre at all, it is a style." ... Is there a reason (such as quote-tampering) that the second comma is not changed to a semicolon? --Grant M 03:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Can somebody help me?
The Film noir page used to contain a reference to a visual concept that was present in many films noirs - that the setting (what we see through the lens) represents a character's mental state (for example, a disorienting angle, or a messy room). It is a French phrase, and I believe it starts with an "m." I even remember the article for the concept said it was the name of a band, but I can not remember what the concept itself is called. Does anyone know?

You refer to what are generally regarded as two different concepts in film studies: (a) a disorienting angle that represents a character's mental state is an example of what is commonly referred to as subjective camera—other such examples might include a blurry shot (representing a drunk or sleepy character's perspective) or a distortedly wide-angle shot (representing a drugged or paranoid character's perspective); (b) a messy room or other aspect of physical setting—whether real or imagined—that represents a character's mental state is an example of what is most properly referred to as expressionistic mise-en-scène. Perhaps that is the French phrase beginning with "m" that you were trying to recall—though "mise-en-scène" alone simply refers to the overall composition of what is visible on film; in those cases where the composition is significantly expressive of a character's state of mind, the mise-en-scène becomes "expressionistic." Hope this is of some help. —DCGeist 20:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! "Mise-en-scène" is the word I was looking for, but you're right, I didn't realize it applied to any sort of composition of what is visible on film. And thanks for defining it, as opposed to subjective camera. That was a lot of help. You learn something new every day!

Hard-boiled
I noticed that the (undefined) phrase "hard-boiled" occurs six times in this article. Personally, after seeing it for the third or fourth time I began to be distracted from the article's content. I wonder of a synonym might be found to replace a few of these hard-boileds?

Cinematic mode -- wtf?
I like the fact that it's no longer "cinematic style" in the first sentence, but what the hell do we mean by "cinematic mode" (the link just goes to genre)? Can't we use a more standard term, like, say genre? I recognize the fact that there's a good deal of dispute over what the specificity of "film noir" is, but "mode" is hardly the standard term for it. Jun-Dai 19:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree, though personally I'm in favor of "cinematic style". I think noir demonstrably extends beyond the boundaries that the word "genre" denotes, but "style" is a much less constraining word. KarlBunker 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that noir extends beyond the boundaries implied by genre. Genre just implies that there are "boundaries" (by which I mean defining characteristics.  I'm not quite sure if that's what you mean), and not really anything about what those boundaries are.  Style, on the other hand, is generally defined in opposition to content, and while people disagree whether noir is defined principally by its content, or equally by content and style, defining it is a style implies that there isn't anything content-related that defines noir (which would make it very hard to separate noir from German Expressionism, 30s gangster films, along with others).  Personally, I think of noir as being principally defined by content, because I feel that the style of noir is a natural fit for its content, which in turn came out of the hard-boiled detective novels.  The quintessential noir films of the early forties are not those that perfectly embodied what was to become "noir style", but rather those that embodied the world view.  _Citizen Kane_ embodied noir style as much as any noir film (because of its heavy borrowings from German Expressionism), even the ones that were so saturated with it that they felt like parodies (Big Combo, Touch of Evil, Lady from Shanghai, The Sweet Smell of Success, etc.), and yet it isn't really considered a noir film--and certainly not a quintessential one--because it doesn't so much have a bleak worldview as a dark investigation into one man's twisted life.  Other people in the film had problems because they had touched his life, not because the world was crushing them.  It's missing that "which way is up" sort of moral outlook.
 * Mode, on the other hand, just confounds me. I don't know what is meant by it, and it doesn't ring a bell for me anywhere as a conventional term for what kind of categorization noir is (then again, I never came close to finishing the noir readers, so maybe there is some convention for it that I don't know about). Jun-Dai 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mode, on the other hand, just confounds me. I don't know what is meant by it, and it doesn't ring a bell for me anywhere as a conventional term for what kind of categorization noir is (then again, I never came close to finishing the noir readers, so maybe there is some convention for it that I don't know about). Jun-Dai 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's beautifully stated, but on reflection, isn't this whole business of "the world crushing" the characters of noir more of, yes, a critical convention than an actual description of anything essential about the films? Let's think of two films that are not only among the most famous of all noirs but among the best-known of Hollywood movies, two films that--in this contentious field--EVERYone agrees are noir, two films regarded as influential both on later classic noirs and noirs of the post-classic era, two films no one ever thinks of calling parodies: Laura and The Big Sleep. Are "bleak worldviews" really essential to them? Are the characters we care about really "crushed by the world"? What can be said for certain is that in each case the hero walks off with one of the sexiest women in America. Crushing!


 * What I observe is critics using that sort of gloomy language (a) out of habit and (b) because, in a certain intellectual context, it inflates their importance (that is, the importance of the movies and, consequently, themselves). To call the movies exciting, sexy, and visually beautiful seems less serious--that dissertation might just not cut it. I'm not denying that there are a number of other, highly regarded movies now thought of as film noirs that are very "dark" in comparison to the two central examples I've discussed. The question remains, What of it? Are Double Indemnity and D.O.A., for example, really trying to impart a "bleak worldview" to the viewer, or are they coming up with different takes on the thriller, the suspense film, that excite us in different ways than the Hollywood norm? And take a look at those two films again--there's a lot of humor and sex in both. Why do audiences really love these movies? Is the way they are conventionally talked about by most critics truly relevant to the experience of watching them? Or is the conventional description of their content, perhaps, a bit misleading? Best regards, Dan--DCGeist 18:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll have to watch those two before I can respond to that--I haven't seen Laura, and I barely remember The Big Sleep, unfortunately. However, I suspect any film taken from a hard-boiled novel pretty much automatically gains entry into the genre :-)  I am pretty hard-pressed to think of a noir film that I have seen and do remember that doesn't have a pretty strong "world-crushing" element to it.  This isn't to say that the films always have unhappy endings, but simply that the standard forces of good (the police, the courts, friendship, etc.) are undermined--turned incompetent, or worse: malicious and corrupt--and that happiness is either unattainable (wiping clean one's guilty conscience) or something very remote (e.g., getting to a foreign country with that suitcase full of money).  Another two points that are not minor is that noir films are always crime films, and that nobility is rarely prized in characters, except where characters are heroic in their own sort of way (e.g., Rick in Casablanca).  That said, I've never found a suitable definition of film noir that excludes I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, so certainly the place and time of film noir seems as much a part of its definition as any of its characteristics, which would in my mind make it more of a movement than a genre, style, or anything else.  But the Wikipedia is not the place for such primary research, and there isn't enough support for it as a movement in the critical world for us to term it that in the article (this is probably because it is missing one normal criterion for a movement--a body of theory or writing underpinning it.  Noir lacks the willful desire to change cinema and the writings to back it up that the New Wave and Neorealism have).  Jun-Dai 07:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some crime virtually always takes place, yes (of course, some crime takes place in tons of movies no one considers noir), but "always crime films"? I don't know. I give you three major movies many consider noir: The Lost Weekend, In a Lonely Place, Sweet Smell of Success. I think of them, respectively, as a "social problem" picture, as a tragic romance, and as a...hmm...simply a great, sophisticated drama, aiming well-honed darts at certain aspects of American politics and business. Would you really call them crime films? Or would you, perhaps, not consider them film noirs?


 * Great point, by the way, about I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. It strikes me as a better example of the "classic film noir" than many designated classic film noirs.--DCGeist 08:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken, re: The Lost Weekend and In a Lonely Place. Sweet Smell of Success, though, is about crime--the crime of slander (used in a particularly corrupt way).  I wouldn't really consider it a "crime film," either though, so point taken there as well.  It might be argued that The Lost Weekend and In a Lonely Place so much epitomize the hopelessness of noir that they don't really need to be crime films to fit into the category.  Then again, I don't consider them the epitome of noir (though others probably do), even if they epitomize the hopelessness; I think of them as being a bit more peripheral than that.  Similarly, Leaving Las Vegas doesn't really come readily to mind when I think of neo-noir--certainly not the way that modern, noir-ish crime films do, e.g., Chinatown, Blade Runner, The Man Who Wasn't There, L.A. Confidential, etc.
 * Another way to look at it is that noir is in many ways, really just a collection of archetypal stories (heist films, detective stories, corruption scandals, boxer films, spouse-murderers, etc.) that share a common bleakness, in which case almost all of those archetypes are crime film archetypes and the exceptional ones are films about excessive self-destructive behavior. Of course now we're falling into the trap that all forms of categorization fall into: if you define the category by starting with the objects that are usually considered to be a part of it, then you have the trouble where you can't clearly define that category.  On the other hand, if you start by defining the category and trying to fit the films into it, you'll find that you can't fit all of the films generally thought of as belonging to that category without exploding the definition wide open.  Defining film movements is a bit easier, because you can base it off of the stated intentions of the directors, rather than trying to align observations of the works themselves with the popular conception of the category.  That said, while I might have made my point too absolute, I think it's only a little bit of a stretch to consider noir a subcategory of crime, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the first person to do it.
 * One way to think about the noirishness of the content of a film is to imagine it re-filmed in color with bright lighting (think of the original Insomnia, if you've seen it). Would you consider it a neo-noir?  For most noir films that I can think of at the moment, the answer would be yes.  For many others, however, they would probably cross over a line somewhere into something that was no longer noir.  Jun-Dai 09:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pretentious, muddled writing
Here's one sentence from the current article:

"The preliminary warning is also well advised: attempts, no matter how lengthy, to define this field whose roots, outgrowths, and very nature are inveterately diverse tend to result not just in the sort of generalizing that comes with all acts of definition, but simplicity over and beyond."

This is really bad writing. "Also well advised" is a bureaucratic cliche; "the sort of generalizing that comes with all acts of definition" is trite; "inveterately" is misapplied; and the final clause is simply incomprehensible. The biggest problem I have with Wikipedia isn't the lack of reliability, as the press likes to emphasize; it's that Wikipedia seems to be a sanctuary for puffed-up would-be writers.

Yeah, I know... why don't I shut up and improve the page if I think I'm so smart? I tried that on a couple of pages, and some illiterate overwrote my changes. There's a lot of solid content here -- what this place needs are some professional (paid) editors to revise the content and then freeze it. Visitors should be invited to contribute content, not final words. (That's how it works with professional writers in real publications.) Of course that might water down Wikipedia's vanity incentive.


 * Such a vehemently stated opinion. Which leaves us to wonder, Why would a person of such strong convictions and powerful judgment wish to remain anonymous? Let us know who you are; while you're at it, tell us the the names of the "couple of pages" you worked so hard to improve, so we can compare your writing talents with those of the sorry "illiterate" who crushed your faith in Wikipedia.


 * Addressing your particular concerns:


 * Let the bureaucrats do what they like. If "well advised" is good enough for William Shakespeare (Titus Andronicus, act IV, scene ii), surely it's good enough for Wikipedia.


 * You refer to the phrase "the sort of generalizing that comes with all acts of definition" as "trite." Do you know what "trite" means? Merriam-Webster defines it as "hackneyed or boring from much use." Have you read the quoted phrase often? Please provide a citation. Just one. Or perhaps you feel the idea that all acts of definition necessitate generalizing is an obvious one; that's why the phrase you quote is preceded by "not just." It helps to actually read before you pontificate.


 * "Inveterately" is the adverb form of "inveterate," which Merriam-Webster defines as "firmly established by long persistence." Please explain how that's "misapplied" in this sentence that has troubled you so.


 * If you honestly can't comprehend the phrase "simplicity over and beyond"—with its echo of "oversimplifying," which appears in the "preliminary warning" this awful sentence references—then I'm afraid there may be no hope for you at all.


 * Best, Dan —DCGeist 18:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, so "well advised" is a bureaucratic cliche and it's used by Shakespeare. That doesn't really help us here, where it is unnecessary, passive, and POV.  Not really a big deal, but the sentence as a whole is pretty bad (in this context).  It's not encyclopedic; it's stylized and obfuscated, and it obscures a meaning that doesn't really seem useful in this article. Jun-Dai 20:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you ever read any of the classic articles that made the Encyclopedia Britannica both the most popular and the most respected encyclopedia on Earth? Are you familiar with Diderot and d'Alembert's great Encyclopédie? There's no essential contradiction at all between "encyclopedic" writing and "stylized" writing. "Obfuscation" and "obscurity" (or--yikes!--"obscurantism") are, of course, grave sins in the context of almost any communicative effort. What precisely do you find obfuscated and/or obscured? Spell it out and surely that can guide us to an improvement.


 * Remarkably, you make four comments about li'l ol' "well advised." Let's take them in turn:


 * Reiteration of "bureaucratic cliche": Do we have to surrender our right to use any phrase--however meaningful--just because it's taken up--often meaninglessly--in certain benighted contexts? Why should we be deprived of the full possibilities of the English language because of what's (supposedly) going on in the eldritch realms of bureaucratese?
 * "Unnecessary": In literary analysis, we speak of a word or phrase as "unnecessary" when its removal would cause no change to the meaning of the sentence or larger passage in which it occurs. Clearly, removal of "well advised" would substantially alter the meaning of the sentence.
 * "Passive": C'mon, Jun-Dai. We're not in grade school anymore. We've learned how to use the active voice, and now--as adults--we're perfectly free to construct sentences with the passive voice where appropriate.
 * "POV": Ah.... That's the crux, in'it? So: Is the point controversial? Taken one way, the passage simply says to pay heed to the seminal writers in the field and watch out for definitions of noir that are over-simplistic. More frankly: Do you believe the standard current definitions of film noir should be taken at face value? When you (or at least when I) Google "film noir," the first site that comes up is Film Noir. Here's a representative passage by site author Tim Dirks: "The primary moods of classic film noir were melancholy, alienation, bleakness, disillusionment, disenchantment, pessimism, ambiguity, moral corruption, evil, guilt, desperation and paranoia." That's how a lot of American critics (including very respected, very credentialed ones) talk about film noir--their definitions tend to leave out all the sex, humor, renegade attitude, and sensual pleasure of noir's high style that maybe, j-u-s-t maybe, have something to do with these films' enduring popularity. So then: Do we allow the Wikipedia reader to assume that such narrow, um, pretentious and muddled ("evil" is a mood!) but orthodox definitions are valid and should guide their viewing experiences? Or do we find a way, without throwing specific critics to the mat, to encourage readers to reserve judgment until they see a fair number of the movies and decide for themselves? I believe it's our intellectual responsibility to do the latter. If you disagree, let's discuss. If you agree but don't like my method, how do you think we should go about it?


 * —DCGeist 21:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

He Walked By Night/"True Crime"
For those interested in the 9/4/06 editing exchange between me and the anonymous contributor (and to that contributor, of course, should s/he return to this article), here is the mesage I left on the anonymous one's talk page:


 * (1) No creditable source establishes that this film [He Walked By Night] was indeed based on fact. Silver and Ward note that the film "announc[es] the case to be a true story in which 'only the names' have been changed" (p. 121). Ottoson says the film is "supposedly based on files from the Los Angeles Police Department" (p. 81). One of the screenplay writers, Crane Wilbur, also has the story credit. If you can identify an actual case it was based on, that would be an important contribution and we can certainly add it to the article.
 * (2) If you would read the article more carefully, Naked City is already discussed very much in the vein you want to both above and below where you thought to add it.
 * (3) I'm afraid you're wrong about "true crime" film noir as a "recognized" style, at least in the way you wished to discuss it. No leading noir critic uses the term to describe the films we're covering here (really--try to come up with one citation). "Police procedural," yes--which I've added, based on your very worthwhile decision to expand the discussion of Mann. "Documentary-style" (or "semi-documentary") as the description of Naked City has read for a long time now--also yes. But "true crime" both as a phrase and, conceptually, as a pulp-based story source doesn't really enter the discussion of Hollywood crime dramas until the so-called syndicate exposé films of the 1950s like Slaughter on Tenth Avenue and Chicago Confidential--and, concerning those, there is no consensus about whether most of them qualify as "noir" or not.
 * (4) If you want to make a case for expanding the list of 35 films, please read the logic for the current list in the Notes section and then make your case on the Discussion page. We all have films that we think are particularly significant or wonderful (I think The Brothers Rico points the way toward the paranoid conspiracy thrillers of the 1960s and 1970s and Gun Crazy is one of the great examples of location shooting of the era, etc.) How large exactly do you believe this list should be and how should the criteria be changed, in a way that treats all of our special favorites fairly and objectively, in order to expand it?
 * (5) It would certainly help communications (and credibility) if you'd identify yourself.

Best, Dan —DCGeist 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Very First Film Noir Story
I think this would have to be "The Pardoner's Tale" from the Canterbury Tales. Three rather repulsive men find a stash of gold and they all manage to kill each other over it in a nasty and ironic way. It's all there. Cranston Lamont 18:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Teen noir"/"kid noir"
Here are the final messages from the exchange posted on Jonathan F's and my respective talk pages when this issue came up some months ago. There was no repsonse to my final message then or since, before his edit to the article earlier today (October 10, 2006):


 * You inspired me to do a little more research, and I could find no reputable source describing either VM or Brick as "kid noir." They're clearly "teen noir," as a variety of sources suggest. "Kid noir" seems entirely plausible for Fallen Idol, as well as for The Window (to which a couple people attach the phrase) and maybe two or three others. Not sure there's enough there at any given time or of any particular note to raise it as a concept. (Unless Night of the Hunter is "kid noir"!) What are your thoughts?--DCGeist 09:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The citation was put in to source the usage of kid noir (the definition you've rewritten is theirs), not the specific characterizations of VM and Brick as such. This article (http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1786062,00.html) echoes the usage of the WP article, but this is sort of besides the point. Silver and Ward are not as literal in applying the term kid noir as you might think: Gleaming the Cube (!) and, if I remember correctly, Drugstore Cowboy are listed as examples (would then The Candy Snatchers be? :-D). However, the extent to which Silver and Ward's definition of kid noir has been paraphrased provides only sufficient background for the two examples already provided; you're right then that The Fallen Idol wouldn't warrant inclusion under the definition rendered in WP (not to mention that kid noir is discussed in the book's neo-noir section).--Jonathan F 20:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. It sounds like Silver & Ward's usage of "kid noir" simply lumps together a set of movies that happen to feature, um, protagonists under the age of 30 (Drugstore Cowboy??) that hardly constitute an important current in the history of noir, let alone an observable trend of any particular time. About par for their course as intellectuals. "Teen noir" as used in the article--though, as you explain, ultimately deriving from S&W's "kid noir" definition (which was not enquoted when I began editing, which of course it should have been if it is was literally theirs)--does actually describe what appears to be an emerging trend. Best, DCGeist 20:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The facts remain: (a) Silver and Ward discuss "kid noir"; virtually all current commentators describe Veronica Mars and Brick as "teen noir"; (b) in an extensive reading of the current literature (see recent Veronica Mars thread in Talk:List of films noirs), not one critic has been found discussing contemporary "teen noir" who references either Silver and Ward or--perhaps more importantly--any of the films they survey (in other words, not one critic has made any connection between the films Silver and Ward call "kid noir"--Bad Boys (1983), Dangerously Close (1986), Gleaming the Cube (1988), etc.--and the current examples of "teen noir"); (c) no other major critics contemporary with Silver and Ward (who were writing in 1992) recognized their supposed field of "kid noir" films at the time; and (d) the definition of "teen noir" now given in the article does not paraphrase any definition offered by Silver and Ward for "kid noir," but is based on a reading of the current literature discussing the recent film and ongoing TV series. Silver and Ward's "kid noir" concept relates in only the most tenuous way to current-day "teen noir" and to general critical appraisal of film noir as a whole--if it must be referred to, acceeding to Jonathan F's wishes, mention in the "References and further reading" section is the appropriate place.—DCGeist 23:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Aziz on "sci-fi noir"
[Note: Since the following was entered here, one of Aziz's specific observations has been reincorporated into the consideration of sci-fi noir in the article.—DCGeist 08:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)]

Nazamo's addition of material on sci-fi noir extensively quoting Lancaster University professor Jamaluddin Bin Aziz has been moved here for the moment for several reasons:


 * Given the contentiousness of theoretical writing on noir, it's seemed desirable to not (a) let any one voice predominate and (b) to quote, briefly, only well-established and often-referenced scholars and texts. Aziz is a new contributor to the field, not yet cited regularly, if at all; the quoted work has not even been published, but is a chapter from a 2005 doctoral dissertation. Though a popular website has seen fit to reproduce it (and it's an intelligently written piece), in Wikipedia language, it's not (at least yet) a "notable" contribution to the field of film noir scholarship.


 * The selection may be taken to suggest that Aziz has introduced or popularized the terms "future noir" and/or "techno noir." However, see, for example, Noir, Now and Then: Film Noir Originals and Remakes (1944-1999) (2001), by Ronald Schwartz, p. xiii; Culture and Technology (2003), by Andrew Murphie and John Potts, p. 107.


 * Unfortunately the two quoted notions that would add most to the discussion in the current film noir article are both highly problematic: (a) the statment that noirs "set in a post-apocalyptic world '...restructure and re-represent society in a parody of the atmospheric world usually found in noir’s construction of a city - dark, bleak and beguiled'” actually comes from a discussion of a novel (Ambient) and does not reference any movies—it's not unreasonable, intellectually, to connect it with current movies, but that's a definite interpretative leap, which would need to be spelled out, and is clearly out of place here; (b) the argument about sci-fi crossing the generic threads of noir and gothic horror is interesting, but relies heavily on Alien, which is located by most other critics entirely within sci-fi and horror, without any mention of noir; the concept, as well, is clearly adopted from the much better established Lee Horsley--see this excerpt from Horsley's book The Noir Thriller (2001)


 * The other quotes are certainly serviceable, and it might be appropriate to use one of them in this article. As a whole, however, this selection is much better suited as the basis for an expanded, stand-alone article on sci-fi noir/future noir that could discuss (a) many films, (b) in detail, and (c) survey the theoretical discussion in this developing field.

Text in question:

Lancaster University professor Jamaluddin Bin Aziz uses the term "future noir" to describe the fusion of the science fiction film genre with other film genres such as the gothic thriller and film noir. Bin Aziz states that this hybrid genre “... encapsulates a postmodern encounter with generic persistence, creating a mixture of irony, pessimism, prediction, extrapolation, bleakness and nostalgia.” Films Bin Aziz cites as examples of future noir include Blade Runner, Twelve Monkeys, Dark City and Minority Report. Future noir films use a protagonist who is “...increasingly dubious, alienated and fragmented”, at once “dark and playful like the characters in Gibson’s Neuromancer”, yet still with the “...shadow of Philip Marlowe...”

Future noir films that are set in a post-apocalyptic world “...restructure and re-represent society in a parody of the atmospheric world usually found in noir’s construction of a city - dark, bleak and beguiled.” Future noir films often intermingle elements of the gothic thriller genre, such as Minority Report, which makes references to occult practices, and Alien, with its tag line ‘In space, no one can hear you scream’, and a space vessel, Nostromo, “that hark[s] back to images of the haunted house in the gothic horror tradition.” Bin Aziz states that films such as James Cameron’s The Terminator are a sub-genre of ‘techno noir’ that create “...an atmospheric feast of noir darkness and a double-edged world that is not what it seems.”

—DCGeist 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sub-headings
The sub-heading "What is it" and "So what is it ?" are not really encyclopedic, are they ? We need something more formal. -- Beardo 15:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree, they are very silly. Other than that, the article is fantastic, but those headings aren't very good. Why not name the first one "Overview" and the latter one "CHaracteristics of Film Noir", for instance Oskar 15:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What qualifies stylistically as "really encyclopedic" or not is certainly debatable. I'd pose a different question: Would you say the average reader is likely to learn more from a nonspecific title such as "Overview" or from something like the current title? "Noir—What is it?" not only clearly indicates the subject matter of the section, but underscores one of the most important facts about film noir: there are endless questions about what it is, or whether it's anything "real" at all...and it does that without advancing a particular POV on the arguments. That seems much more useful than "Overview" and thus more encyclopedic in the sense that really matters. Don't we agree that it's more important that an encyclopedia be useful and educational than that its language accord with passing fashions in what constitutes "encyclopedic style"? —DCGeist 22:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style—What is it?
I tend to react strongly on this topic because the whole notion of what's "really encyclopedic" gets tossed around very loosely on Wikipedia, often as an official-sounding way of saying, "That's not how I would have written it." I don't believe that characterizes Beardo or Oskar, who are serious contributors, but the simple fact is that there is nothing about "Noir—What is it?" that is, either by Wikipedia guideline or by some phantom of objectivity, "not really encyclopedic." It's helpful to be reminded from time to time what the Wikipedia guidelines really say about what's "really" encyclopedic. Here's the relevant passage from Article development (aka "How to write a great article"):
 * Keep the article in an encyclopaedic style: add etymology or provenance (when available), look for analogies and eventual comparisons to propose. Be objective: avoid personal comments (or turn them into general statements, but only when they coincide), don't use personal forms (I found that...)

In the primary Manual of Style, the single advisory about what fails to "sound...encyclopedic" cautions to "Avoid self-referential pronouns." The single advisory about the preferability of "formal writing" suggests that the use of contractions be avoided. There are a few more specific points on writing style in Guide to writing better articles, mainly "avoid using jargon," "avoid peacock and weasel terms," and pay heed to Strunk's directive to make "every word tell." In sum, the Wikipedia guidelines are no bar at all to lively, engaging writing. There is no requirement that language be paint-by-numbers. This is not the sterile World Book Encyclopedia, but something much more useful and involving. Take advantage of that fact. While Wikipedia articles are not the place for extravagant rhetorical exercises, neither should there be a pressure to meet some lowest common denominator of stylelessness. What we say here MUST conform to the facts, but there is no need for the way we say it conform to some bloodless, pseudo-objective un-style. Write about something that excites you and on which you can be informative and--without advancing a particular POV--write about it in an exciting and informative way. That's the best way to serve the reader (which is the goal, right?). And...if you happen not to favor something like "Noir—What is it?", come up with a phrase just as pertinent and more interesting.—DCGeist 08:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The section "Noir—What is it?" has been tagged with Template:Essay-entry, but no case for that characterization (which is extremely vague to begin with) has been made. Template:Essay-opinion actually says something concrete and is based on the standard Merriam-Webster's Dictionary definition of "essay." It also asks the tagging editor to support the tag with "a discussion on the article's talk page citing examples of how the article advances a particular interpretation, along with external evidence or a prima facie analysis of the content demonstrating that it is limited or personal. The fact that a single editor or small group of editors may have contributed the bulk of a given article or section is no proof that it offers a biased interpretation—a case built on external authority and/or self-evident citation should be made." Template:Essay-entry announces nothing but "That's not how I would have written it," and—without a case backing up its insinuation that the article is not "written as an encyclopedia entry"—does nothing to support what should be our mutual goal: making the article as effectively informative as possible.—DCGeist 21:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Neo-noir merger proposition
There's been no case made for this merger proposal. I'll briefly say I oppose it: the film noir article is clearly designed to survey the entire history of film noir, from its aesthetic roots, through the first readily identifiable examples of the form in the 1930s, through the classic era of the 1940s and 1950s, through the post-classic years to the present. Given that the "neo-noir era" is well into its fifth decade, the current length of its coverage in the article seems appropriate. The neo-noir article certainly could be expanded, in order to provide coverage outside the scope of the film noir article: detailed discussion of specific neo-noirs and their interrelationships, a detailed survey of definitions and theoretical considerations of the contemporary field, the connections between neo-noir filmmaking and contemporary hardboiled/noir fiction writing, etc. The neo-noir section here might be used as a guideline for some of that, but needs to remain in this article to give a comprehensive picture of the film noir field.—DCGeist 16:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. KarlBunker 17:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I support the merger. The film noir article requires no detailed discussion of neo-noir but an overview. Interested parties can and will click to the main article (Neo-noir), which has long been in need of well-researched fleshing out. That's in keeping with the format of Wikipedia. Jonathan F 22:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What are those opinions based on? The definition of Film Noir itself is so amorphous that is seems entirely open to debate to state that up to the year 19xx is "regular" film noir, and after that year is this other thing, "neo-noir," which belongs in its own article. Rather than arguing that the Neo-noir article needs fleshing out, one could just as easily argue that it should be deleted as "such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" (per Deletion policy). KarlBunker 01:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What are those opinions based on?
 * The existence and usefulness of
 * The definition of Film Noir itself is so amorphous that is seems entirely open to debate to state that up to the year 19xx is "regular" film noir, and after that year is this other thing "neo-noir," which belongs in its own article.
 * I don't think it's quite that hard to pin down. Being knowledgeable or fluent in discussing it simply requires good film scholarship. And just how open are we talking about when we argue the end of film noir? Hopefully, xx = 58 ± 1. Can you summon any film writings that say the "error" should be larger?
 * Rather than arguing that the Neo-noir article needs fleshing out, one could just as easily argue that it should be deleted as "such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" (per Deletion policy).
 * Those arguments would be on about as equal a footing as Obi-Wan and Anakin were on Mustafar. Minor branches of study don't usually bear the fruit of book length publications (e.g. Neo-noir: the new film noir style from Psycho to Collateral, http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip059/2005007671.html) nor would they register (okay, enough with the fruit analogy) so many considerations in a university film noir bibliographical resource (http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/Noirbib.html). I concede that longer treatments of neo-noir tend to be found within books that deal mainly with the classical period, and I confess that I find it cute that the stills on the main page go from black-and-white to color as you scroll down the page (of course someone had to jack it all up by adding more greyscale pics towards then end), but to insist that the neo-noir section stay in the main article, you are underutilizing the versatility of Wikipedia and perhaps also holding on too tightly to a page that just might benefit from the contributions of more diverse editors. Not to mention that WP keeps implying to me that the article is overlong. (And don't tell me about bloat—did you just read that sentence I wrote?) Jonathan F 06:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, given that the "neo-noir era" has now lasted 48 ± 1 years, its coverage in the current film noir article precisely constitues an "overview," not a "detailed discussion." And again, I'm of the opinion that the neo-noir article certainly could be expanded, in order to provide coverage outside the scope of the film noir entry: detailed discussion of specific neo-noirs and their interrelationships, including greatly expanded coverage of subgenres and crossovers; a detailed survey of definitions and theoretical considerations of the contemporary field, including the dissemination of film noir motifs into a wide range of modern-day noncinematic media; the connections between neo-noir filmmaking and contemporary hardboiled/noir fiction writing, etc. Given (a) the joys of "good film scholarship," (b) the importance of the neo-noir field, and (c) the desire of "more diverse editors" to contribute in this area, why isn't any good work being done on the neo-noir article, do you think? Given (a), (b), (c), and (d) the failure of the merger proposal, can we look forward perhaps to you getting to work on it soon?—DCGeist 16:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really think of the merger proposal as failing—more that it came and went unnoticed. So later on it might be due for a revival, like a film that never got the recognition it deserved. Last night I was fantasizing about maybe making a FA out of the neo-noir page, but for now, there are too many things to do outside of Wikipedia, such as watching movies. Jonathan F 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Essay entry
Because this article appears to rely on primary sources (the films), a practice that should be minimized (see below), contributors and editors should mind these parts of the WP:OR policy:


 * Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are relatively rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or Braunfeld v. Brown). An article or section of an article that relies on primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be exceptionally careful to comply with both conditions.


 * It also excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, their personal analysis or interpretation of published material, as well as any unpublished synthesis of published material, where such a synthesis appears to advance a position or opinion an editor may hold, or to support an argument or definition s/he may be trying to propose. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article.

I feel the section I've tagged violates the latter. For example, concerning the description of film noir as "'oneiric, strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel....'", to state that "in five decades it has hardly been bettered as a concise description of the noir mode as perceived by a plurality of critics" appears to be a personal view rather than a fact. It's hard for me to imagine where this appreciative consensus would be found and partly because that description, while charming, is so unspecific that it could just as well apply to girls (substituting in the word "dreamy"). I'm joking people.


 * While many critics refer to film noir as a genre itself, others argue that it can be no such thing....A more analogous case is that of the screwball comedy, widely accepted by film historians as constituting a "genre"...

The part of the paragraph that follows the second quoted line is personal analysis and since I did not see in the edit summaries User:Andrew Tudor, from my own article "Genre" (joking), it constitutes original research, per the quoted policy. You get the idea.

Jonathan F 22:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing original or unusual about the comparison between screwball comedy and film noir, and it has never been a source of scholarly dispute. A sample reference has been added to the References section.


 * As for the statement that the initial definition in the seminal book on the subject "has hardly been bettered as a concise description of the noir mode as perceived by a plurality of critics," that's a pretty straightforward observation of fact. Are you aware of any authoritative source declaring that there is a concise description of noir that (a) is superior and (b) would be agreeable to a plurality of critics? The fact that Borde and Chaumeton's definition is "charming" but "unspecific" perhaps says much less about them than it does about this thing we call "film noir."—DCGeist 02:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing original or unusual about the comparison between screwball comedy and film noir, and it has never been a source of scholarly dispute. A sample reference has been added to the References section.
 * Thanks for the reference. It's not veracity of your statements that's troubling, it's that they genre theorize. Perhaps someone had made a similar comparison between French New Wave and film noir (or, um, pornography and film noir): if the first time it appeared was on Wikipedia, then that would constitute original research and it would have to be removed. So we thank you for pointing out a precedent. In doing so, we are keeping with WP:CITE, which reads:
 * In general, even if you are writing from memory, you should actively search for authoritative references to cite. If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject — you will not be around forever to answer questions. The main point is to help the reader and other editors.


 * As for the statement that the initial definition in the seminal book on the subject "has hardly been bettered as a concise description of the noir mode as perceived by a plurality of critics," that's a pretty straightforward observation of fact. Are you aware of any authoritative source declaring that there is a concise description of noir that (a) is superior and (b) would be agreeable to a plurality of critics?
 * I see no way for that statement to be qualified, unless it can be shown that several writers on film noir quote that description and then indicate their satisfaction with it. I really don't see the value in that quotation, honestly, aside from some type of nostalgic, aesthetic value. (Now it could just as well describe David Lynch movies. Seriously.) And to find a short definition of film noir, "superior" to this "definition" or otherwise, would of course be a trap because film genres are notoriously inhospitable to brief definitions. See "The Idea of Genre in the American Cinema" by Edward Buscombe and "A Semantic/Syntactic Approach to Film Genre" by Rick Altman for more on this. Jonathan F 05:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First things first: as an experienced Wikipedia contributor, you should know that there's no excuse for making comments of the nature of yours (suggesting another editor "hijacked" material) in an edit summary, at any time. What's more, you've misused the edit summary in this way (a) when no personal insult was paid to you and (b) on a topic that's completely off subject. The last point is readily addressed: 12 days ago, I opened a thread above and gave a detailed response to your concerns relating to "teen noir" and "kid noir." You have been and remain free to reply at any time--you have not...until your edit summary. As for how to redress the fundamental misstep here, that's between you and your good will.
 * Concerning the matter at hand: you've now stipulated that you "don't see the value" in quoting the initial definition in the seminal book in the field, the book that is cited favorably in virtually every subsequent book on the subject to this present day. I suggest that your acknowledged point of view on this matter is much farther from the mainstream than what you identify as a "personal view" currently expressed in the article.
 * PS: I think your observation that this formative definition could apply, with little adjustment, to both girls and David Lynch movies gets, perhaps unintentionally, at something essential about film noir. And I'd warrant Lynch would agree.
 * Best, Dan.—DCGeist 16:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay, alright. Best to you too. Jonathan F 22:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Children of Men/General question of noir status
On the matter of whether to include this film as a recent example of sci-fi noir, the only source that the editor has been able to adduce (and the only one of even a semiprofessional nature I've been able to find) is from the personal website EmmanuelLevy.com. I call the source "semiprofessional" because while Levy apparently makes his living as a film scholar, it seems clear that his opinions about current films are not being published and that no one but him is paying to have these opinions posted on the Internet. In addition, neither Levy nor director Cuaron ever expressly refers to Children of Men as a noir. Blade Runner is referred to as a noir in the review and Cuaron is quoted contextually thus: "Aiming to dissociate himself from seminal sci-fi works, Cuaron has described his film as 'anti-Blade Runner.'" The one other mention of noir is this: "According to star Michael Caine...Cuaron gave the film a more 'real newsreel effect' than your quintessential film noir." So...we have one semiprofessional source strongly implying that the movie has something to do with noir.

In comparison, see Talk:List of films noirs for what a brief amount of online research came up with in other cases where there is or might be a question about a particular piece's noir status: (1) The status of the TV series Veronica Mars was questioned. An online search quickly turned up four major professional sources and a leading webzine that explicity and with detail identifies the show as a noir (see Talk:List of films noirs); (2) Looking to see if there was a contemporary example from Russia, an online search turned up five professional sources unambiguously identifying Katia Ismailova as a noir (see Talk:List of films noirs); (3) The status of three films directed by Takeshi Kitano was challenged. In the case of one of those films, Boiling Point, an online search turned up two professional critical sources supporting its noir status and the data that it was included in a noir film festival (see Talk:List of films noirs). Three professional sources of noir identification seems a reasonable minimum to ask for any new movie to be covered in the film noir article.—DCGeist 17:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Mild POV
"Greatest performance" and "unforgettable" are both subjective statements. Shouldn't they at least have citations? --Masamage 04:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We're dealing with aesthetic artifacts and their creators here. A majority of statements about them will arguably be "subjective." The test is whether the statements are (a) noncontentious and (b) reasonably easy for the average reader to find support for. The statements in question easily pass both parts of that test (and, it is significant that the description is not "greatest performance," it's "perhaps their greatest performances.") To go down the road you suggest, we would have to start with the very first caption in the article, which has existed virtually without alteration for at least six months: Would you seriously argue that we need a citation for the description of the still as "demonstrat[ing] the visual style of film noir at its most extreme"? That's "subjective." And then there's the statement "John Alton, the film's cinematographer, created many of the iconic images of film noir." Who says? Subjective! Is Der Blaue Engel properly described as "mordant"? That's a subjective term. How 'bout as a "melodrama"? There's no objective test for what is or isn't a melodrama. Do we need a cite for the word "quintessential" to describe the noir status of Out of the Past? And so forth...


 * Ultimately, the article has to stand on a comprehensive knowledge of the literature in the field and a fair summary representation of it. Again, the tests are whether anyone fairly conversant in the field would find any unqualified and unbalanced statement contentious and whether anyone interested enough to read the article would have any difficulty verifying that a qualitative statement was well-founded. Best, Dan—DCGeist 04:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I buy that. The examples you give are pretty indisputible, and you're right that 'iconic' (for instance) is an adjective that is both useful and necessary for this sort of thing. So I'm content with the article in general.
 * I think the only one I'll still quibble about is "unforgettable", which seems to make a statement about quality, not just about significance (which is what the others are doing). For instance, if I changed it to "one of the least forgettable of all noir scores" it would mean the same thing, but the POV tint (in the opposite direction) is a little more obvious. That's why I thought 'famous' was a better word--any reader can prove that, as you describe.
 * What do you think? --Masamage 05:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. Good call. Best, D—DCGeist 05:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool; I'll switch that one back, then. (And I'm entirely too entertained by this inverted-compliment thing. "You're the least ugly woman I've ever seen!") --Masamage 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Avoid peacock terms is useful for determining what language is appropriate. Jonathan F 08:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on "Ownership of articles"
Editors, please refer to Ownership of articles when it applies. Jonathan F 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Editors, please do not make negative insinuations by posting links to WP policy pages. If you have a complaint about the content of a page or the actions of an editor, make your complaint in plain language and support it with rational arguements. KarlBunker 18:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)