Noir and Chinatown

In Paul Schrader’s Notes on Film Noir, pessimism, cynicism, and darkness were the terms used to describe a new mood that had crept into American cinema in the late 1940s. This “tone” became quite popular during the time period, but yet Raymond Durgnat points out that “Film noir is not a genre.” Though subjective, I would argue that the noir was a specific kind of sub-genre of film in its own right and that noir cannot be replicated purely anymore.

The term genre is defined as a category of artistic composition, as in music, film, or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter. The definition is very loose in its interpretation. Most films today easily fall into one of the broad genres: comedy, horror, drama, action/adventure etc. Within these genres there are more specific labels for movies, which better describe films. For instance, today movies are specifically labeled romantic comedies, romantic dramas, etc. The drama genre is very broad. Noir is a form of drama having a unique, dark, pessimistic, and crime-based composition. So given the dictionary definition of genre it is fair to say that noir could at least be called a sub-genre. However, noir still separates itself.

Roman Polanski’s 1974 Chinatown does an exceptional job integrating noir elements. For the most part Chinatown has that dark pessimistic feel throughout. The shadows were always very noticeable, and the music was always eerie, dark, and suspenseful. A vast majority of the scenes take place at night. The film centers on the heated topic of water that dives into this mysterious investigation and involves crime and corruption. The topic of water is particularly interesting, giving its controversial and heated tension between opposing sides in the state of California. In the end, viewers are not left with a happy ending. All these components fall under noir.

So what is Chinatown lacking to be truly categorized as a noir film? Chinatown’s time period hinders it from truly being noir. Schrader states, “Film noir is an extremely unwieldy period.” In other words, noir’s same effects were very difficult to replicate or transfer in later time periods. The mentality of filmmakers and audiences in the noir period cannot be translated to the future. Because we as viewers are not in the immediate post World War II era we do not have the proper conditions or mind set to truly grasp the effects of a noir film. Watching noir films today does not give us the true taste the film had in its hay day. This time-correlated relationship between film and society in 1941-1953 cannot be duplicated.

Whether the noir is a subgenre or not is debatable. But, it can be more commonly agreed that noir cannot be purely replicated in present day form. Unlike broad genres, noir is directly time specific. Though elements of noir exist in some films today, its pure form and effects only existed in the 1940s and early 50s.

Dayan’s “True and False Origins”

Dayan wrote, “The true origin represents the cause of the image.” In other words, there is a reason/explanation/motivation/cause behind everything viewers see on screen. Pure forms of “true origin” can be illustrated in Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window

Rear Window takes place in city neighborhood, and primarily from the vantage point of crippled Jeff’s apartment. The movie does not change its setting. Furthermore, the camera’s angle is typically only in a few different positions. The causes and effects are explicitly basic and clear in nearly every aspect of the movie (e.g. Jeff spends all day in his home, so he starts spying on neighbors). One possible exception maybe the cause of how Jeff broke is leg in the first place (or maybe I just missed that detail).

Once the word murdered was uttered, the direction of the film was very clear. On a small shot to shot advancement scale, viewers were always able to see what Jeff was seeing. For instance, Jeff looks through his zoom camera lens to look at Thorwald and viewers then see what Jeff sees through the lens in the next shot. This allows viewers to follow Jeff’s thought process in predicting Thorwald to be a murderer. The logical progression is the true origin. Eventually all of the small series of cause and effect sequences (spy sequences) lead us to the climax, when Thorwald finally realizes he is being watched, which sparks the confrontation. These steps in shot progression assist in plot advancement, which further illuminate the true origin facet of film.

The true origin style can be predictable, which can be interpreted as good or bad depending upon the viewer. The form does allow films to be more focused and easier to follow. Intriguingly, Rear Window does not lose any thrill despite having true origins throughout.

Perhaps a better way to elucidate “true origin” is by contrasting it to “false origin”. A false origin does not offer viewers an explicit reason for actions seen on screen. Some prime examples of a “false origin” can be seen in certain scenes in Alfred Hitchcock’s Suspicion. For example, the scene in which the detectives are about to leave Lina’s home and Benson (one of the detectives) is lost gazing at a painting. The whole situation seems to lack purpose, in my opinion. It challenges viewers to derive a meaning from something that is unclear and does not seem to have a motivation for the actions taking place.

Another example is in the end when Johnny drives like a drunken mad man next to a cliff trying to kill Lina it seems, but afterwards he stops the car and tells Lina he loves her and everything appears fine(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOoaqbjDFnY 5:00- end). These actions cause the audience to ask themselves, “Why did Johnny do that?” That is the false origin. Johnny’s dishonest nature creates several false origins throughout the film. But, the false origins provide thrill. As a whole, Suspicion cannot truly be labeled with false origin because its story does have motivation through the plot. Instead it contains minor false origin sequences. A purely false origin film does not exist because there would be no purpose for story development and likely no chance of it becoming a film in the first place.

True and false origins are standard in film today. Both have serve discrete purposes. Hitchcock uses both in two films of the same genre, and does so effectively to create suspense and thrill.