Film Noir: Reminiscent Works.

21-11-2006

Works reminiscent of different aspects of Film Noir

There are many common characteristics of the genre of film noir. This can range from the five features of noir to the lighting schemes. This exhibition is to attempt to capture elements of film noir in six pieces of art. Each piece in the exhibition compliments or contrasts another to give a whole sense of unity to the show.

Level 3: Poetry and Dream: Surrealism and Film: René Clair – Entr’acte (1924)

Entr’acte translates from French to ‘between the acts’. The name is a comical take on the interlude plays that come in between scenes where actors need to change or scenery needs to be adjusted. The film itself, twenty-four minutes in length, is an attack of surrealistic madness which blends together in a unique style to create a short piece of avant-garde chaos. The film contains scenes of urban life, a ballet dancer from below and a paper boat sailing across the rooftops, giving an idea what to expect. The lighting is done is a way to exaggerate emotion and to strengthen the mood of the scene, much like in film noir. The surrealists themselves admired detective stories (such as the criminal Fantômas) so there is homage to that within the film. It shows image manipulation that serves to create a very subjective sequence of seemingly unrelated scenes that come together to form some sense of everyday life. Some of the blending techniques, lighting techniques, scene switching, etc was incorporated by film noir directors and cinematographers that came a decade or two after this short film. This piece is the one that stands out in the exhibition in that it is a very surreal film that blends all the other aspects of the following pieces together to form something very close and yet very different to film noir.

 

Level 3: Poetry and Dream: Realisms: Meredith Frampton – Portrait of a Young Woman (1935)

 

This work, much in the same style as earlier artists such as Gainsborough and Van Dyck who also painted tradition full length portraits of women. The angle of the piece seems to a bit confusing with some of the areas painted from above and some painted from straight on, which adds to the subtle surreal element. The vase designed by Frampton emulates the physique of the woman and colours of the dress. It could be seen as a critique on metaphorically objectifying women. The string bass is also in the idealistic figure shape for a woman.

    Film noir came a few years after this painting, but the fashion hints that film noir and the painting are from similar periods in time. The painting really captures the elegance of the femme fatale through the very soft curves and colours. She is portrayed very gracefully but with a hint of fire signified by the confident pose and expression on the face. Really the only thing separating this painting from the film noir femme fatale would be a hat of some kind.

Level 5: States of Flux: Machine Eye: Lewis W. Hine - Workers in Tenements (1912)

Acting as a contrast to the Meredith Frampton painting, this shows another type of female in film noir, the housewife. Although not from the same era, the picture helps to demonstrate more the state of mind of the housewife character rather than what it was literally like for her. A very humbling overtone is shown in the picture which is demonstrated by the figures in retracted positions with their heads looking down. The lighting serves to create awkward shadows and illuminate certain objects to bring some kind of unity and dramatic appeal to the photograph. The housewife character in film noir is usually obedient of the husband and not as glamorous as the other types of single females. She is there to serve in the background, and is not as lit up.

Level 5: States of Flux: Machine Eye: Dorothea Lange – San Francisco (1933)

This is a complementary piece to the Meredith Frampton piece and the Lewis Hine piece. The men in the photograph are at an outdoor meeting in San Francisco. This shows the look of a typical male lead character in a film noir. This time, a hat is included as well as a long coat over a suit. The lighting is even similar to noir, coming in at dramatic angles to help achieve a mood. The men’s eyes are covered to give a certain mystery to them that film noir captures in the story. The ambiguousness of the character is stressed by having the character in partly darkness. We can sense some desperation in the character by the tightness of his hands and upright stance. The lead in a film noir is often a strong willed man on the outside but inside is always fighting with demons. The photo helps to compliment the characterization of the femme fatale and housewife of the former pieces by showing a strong, but desperate man.

Level 3: Material Gestures: Room 2: Jackson Pollock – Yellow Islands

Yellow Islands is a very fluid and intuitive painting that shows a wild abstract scene. This chaotic piece is not exactly something you will see in a noir literally like the three pieces above. However, it does share many characteristics of noir. If we take a film noir’s point of view, we could interpret the piece to represent different things. The chaos of the piece itself can be representing the chaos of the urban city life and settings in noir. High contrasts are something that can be seen literally in both noir and this painting. In 1947, Jackson Pollock said “When I am painting, I am not much aware of what is taking place”, much like the characters in noir. The dripping black in the centre is the blood from the murder which all the chaos seems to revolve around. The entire puzzle is masking the real culprit which the detective has to find. Everything is connected even though it seems hard to see where one thing starts and another thing ends which corresponds to the messy but structured storylines of noir.

Level 3: Poetry and Dream: Juan Muñoz Room: Juan Muñoz – Raincoat Drawing

Raincoat Drawing is one of around forty drawings of empty rooms. The arrangement resembles a set in a play or film so is ideal for noir. The setting is not quite as extravagant as typical noir indoor setting but it helps to contrast against the overly busy outdoor setting. This is quite the opposite of the Pollock piece in which interpretation is the most important factor. The piece is quite calming with not much going on except for in the painting with a rather sinister looking tree and possible figures on the left of it. The high contrast of the room to the furniture also adds a ghostly uneasiness like the tension that is built in noir. ‘If the drawings succeed in conveying an emotion, it’s because they might give the sense that something has happened or is going to happen’, Muñoz said. ‘Either you’re too early or too late. It's always the wrong moment.’ This sums up the menacing tinge in the air in this seemingly peaceful scene.

Many aspects of noir have been explored in this exhibition. The characterization of the femme fatale, housewife and lead male, the surrealistic film making style and dramatic lighting effects, chaos of the city and disturbing overtones have all been touched on. Of course it is impossible to capture noir in a series of six paintings or to analyse the six pieces only in relation to noir, but they do seem to have similarities in their features.

Laura: A Film Noir Analysis

Don't ask why... Not especially well written, but I figure what's the point of these old essays sitting on my desktop? Maybe some student can make use of it? The next few essays will be random pieces I wrote a long time ago on history or art. These weren't written for the sake of writing and they're severely less eloquent I feel than I am capable of now.

24-10-2006

To what extent are Gledhill’s five features of noir evident in Laura? At what points in your view do they diverge from Gledhill’s model?

Film noir is a fairly recognisable style but much harder to explain. Gledhill outlines in the 1980 publication, Women in Film Noir that in her opinion, there are five common features of film noir. Gledhill’s article is accurate of the general trends in noirs although the emphasis is on feminism and females in noirs. I will outline these features and then evaluate how well (or not so well) the 1944 Otto Preminger film Laura fits these five features.

   The first feature of film noir outlined by Gledhill is ‘Investigative narrative structure’. Essentially, this is the ways in which the male lead, often a detective investigates in search of the truth.[1] This is done through neutral questioning of the characters in the film. The detective character usually works out who the culprit is before the audience does and goes on an elaborate scheme to expose him. This adds to the suspense of film noirs.

       The second feature of film noir is flash-backs and voiceovers. The voiceover is often from the point of view of the protagonist. The voice of the protagonist gives us a linear way of thinking and allows us to see the thoughts and reactions of the character. We are given the opportunity to see if the events we see are any different to the events that the voiceover character describes. The flash-back device is used to disrupt the linear flowing plot. It is an effective device for suspense as the character may seem in a certain mood and we are left wondering what will happen in the flashback to take the character to where he is.

   The third feature of noir is point of view. Point of view often works with voiceovers as we often automatically relate better to the voiceover character. There is often a struggle for dominance within the more technical aspects of the film (like screen time, camera angles, etc) in an attempt to give a certain individual’s point of view. Often since we do not see the entire picture, we only get fragments of characters or events that have happened from different people’s subjective stories.

   The next feature of noir is the characterisation of the heroine. She is often portrayed as a beautiful femme fatale who is independent. Usually, at least more than one male character (if not all), desires her. Since sexuality was strictly forbidden to be shown literally, a lot more subtle suggestions and hints have to be used. The femme fatale often distracts the straight-arrow detective who is trying to piece the clues together. This character contrasts with the good housewives, the victims and in some noirs, the evil money-hungry girlfriends[2]. Since Gledhill’s article is from a feminist perspective, I would assume from a neutral perspective, this feature of noir would just be ‘characterisation’. Detective characters are lone rangers who are often straight arrows that also become obsessed with the heroine. They usually are flawed emotionally in someway. The culprit is usually well hidden as the culprit throughout the film, although there are visual clues. Often everyone in the film has a reason for the murder.

   The final aspect of noir is the visual style. This includes things like lighting schemes and camera-angles. This often goes with the other features such as characterisation, in which the femme fatale is often always bathed in light and point of view, where the angles are often from the protagonist’s view. The lighting is also important for the more shady characters that are often in the shadows. A character that is higher up the social ladder is often seen to be on a higher plane literally than other characters and take up more of the screen during shots. Obviously, these are just general trends that Gledhill has noticed and are not the tick-lists in which film noir has to follow. Because of this, each noir follows the features in some ways, but also has its own defining uniqueness.

        Laura contains all the five features to different extents. The investigative narrative structure is clearly evident through the detective, Mark McPherson played by Dana Andrews. Throughout the film, this character questions and plays games with the other characters. His questioning of all the characters is quite forward since he’s there to do his job and not care what other people think, as shown by him not being phased by Lydecker’s forward suggestions. “Did it ever strike you that you're acting very strangely? It's a wonder you don't come here like a suitor with roses and a box of candy - drugstore candy, of course. Have you ever dreamed of Laura as your wife, by your side at the Policeman's Ball or in the bleachers? Or listening to the heroic story of how you got a silver shinbone from a gun battle with a gangster?[3] Since we do not have his voiceover, often the audience is also left in the dark to wonder what his intentions and next actions are going to be. Because of the lack of voiceover, we do loose some sense of the investigative narrative as we do not have an insight to McPherson’s thoughts. He doesn’t take sides until he truly falls for Laura. When Vince Price comes in and says that he has not slept a wink since it happened, McPherson responds with "Is that a sign of guilt or innocence, McPherson?" [4] The narrative on the whole is effective with some epic lines amidst the common pleasantries. “And thus, as history has proved, Love is Eternal. It has been the strongest motivation for human actions throughout centuries. Love is stronger than Life. It reaches beyond the dark shadow of Death. I close this evening's broadcast with some favourite lines...Brief Life - They are not long, the weeping and the laughter, love and desire and hate. I think they have no portion in us after we pass the gate...They are not long, the days of wine and roses. Out of a misty dream, our path emerges for a while, then closes within a dream..”[5] The lines uttered in the pre-recorded radio broadcast that plays while the real Lydecker gets a shotgun to kill his love. This ambiguous speech sums up not only Laura, but the majority of noirs that deal with the sexual and love relationships between man and woman.

     There is only one main flashback in Laura where Lydecker describes his history with Laura. Since we are told from Lydecker’s perspective, we really get a sense of his feelings for Laura. Every scene she is in, in the flashbacks, she seems like an idealized exaggeration. “But it was her own talent and imagination that enabled her to rise to the top of her profession and stay there. She had an eager mind always. She was always quick to seize upon anything that would improve her mind or her appearance. Laura had innate breeding. But she deferred to my judgment and taste.”[6] He speaks of her fondly, but also as more of a disciple or possession than a partner. Lydecker seems to be the character that we are led to believe as the protagonist for the first few minutes. He starts the film with a voiceover; the flashback is from his point of view, again with a voiceover. This may have been done to make him seem like a less obvious suspect. Despite being the voiceover character, it is hard to identify with him as he has an aura of uneasiness. He watches McPherson like a voyeur in the opening scene and invites him into his bathroom. It also ties in with point of view as it is Lydecker’s point of view for a small proportion of the film. Laura for half the film is only ever given to us from different people’s point of view, whether it is Lydecker, Price, the maid or Anne. And since all these characters idealize Laura to some level, we do not get a glimpse of the real Laura until she returns.

    Laura is not really a femme fatale in the traditional sense of the phrase. She is quite timid and refrains from being rude. She does possess qualities of a femme fatale like the independence, ambitiousness and (willingly or unwillingly) infatuating all the main male characters in the film. All the other main characters are quite stereotypical; there’s the rich, snobbish, jealous old man, the playboy boyfriend, the maid who would go to any lengths to protect Laura and her desperate aunt. Jealousy is a common theme in noirs and one that is often the cause of the murder as in the case with Laura. Lydecker destroys painter that Laura was with and eventually the thought of her with anyone else drives him to murder. “Do you think I'm going to leave it to the vulgar pawing of a second-rate detective who thinks you're a dame?”[7] Some of the characters also have some link with objects. Lydecker for example owns the grandfather clock and dies just as the face of the clock shatters. McPherson has a little toy he plays with when he is stressed out. These subtle differences are probably put in to differentiate the characters from their similar counterparts from other films, and to also add a metaphorical relationship to the objects.

      The visual style is something that is very apparent in Laura. The sharp contrasts and dramatic lighting is blatant throughout the film. Laura is often bathed in light, which there is a small parody off within the film where McPherson questions Laura with a heavy lamp in her face which she objects to. Even when the Lamp is turned off, her face is still illuminated. This scene contrasts with the final scene where Lydecker is hiding in the shadows in the kitchen where he is in shadow waiting. These small details help us form the personality of characters on a more subconscious level. Another scene that stands out in a surreal way is the scene when Laura returns after the detective falls asleep mesmerised by her portrait. You are left wondering if it is McPherson’s dream or reality.

     So in conclusion, although Laura contains elements of all five features of noir in someway, it does go beyond enough to make it not completely formulaic and unoriginal. One of the strongest divergences is that the heroine is not a real femme fatale. The dream-like quality of the whole film is also very progressive of future more ambitious films to come. The necorphilic love relationship between McPherson and the assumed-to-be-dead Laura also pushes boundaries. The film was not made to be a noir so you can tell that there are no actual guidelines that Otto Preminger has gone through to produce this film. He did not make this film to fit Gledhill’s five features 36 years later. Despite this, the film obviously had things in common with other mystery-type thrillers of the time which show through; the snappy wise-cracking detective, jealousy, harsh lighting, the playboy boyfriend, the confident heroine, flashbacks, voiceovers and subtle sexuality.

Filmography

Laura (1944) – Otto Preminger

Bibliography

Women in Film Noir ed. E.Ann Kaplan (1980), Klute 1: A contemporary film noir and feminist criticism – Christine Gledhill.

---

[1] Women in Film Noir, E.Ann Kaplan, 1980, Klute 1

[2] Women in Film Noir, E.Ann Kaplan, 1980, Klute 1

[3] Laura (1944), Otto Preminger

[4] Laura (1944), Otto Preminger

[5] Laura (1944), Otto Preminger

[6] Laura (1944), Otto Preminger

[7] Laura (1944), Otto Preminger

SLU Artshow

I'm doing some artwork for a Sri Lanka Unites artshow the SLU group is hosting sometime in the future. Started it today and this is the progress. I'm sure someone's thought of this idea before. I've heard and totally understand than Sinhalese friends are uncomfortable with the tiger emblem because of the associations and in all honesty, I don't think many Tamils are comfortable with the association of the Sri Lankan flag with the Government of Sri Lanka. So yeah fairly basic idea Tiger + Lion = Tiglon....

Symbolism aside, both just incredible animals and a combination of the two is even better especially if I just take some artistic liberties and just amalgamate anything I like in either.

The other idea floating around in my head is of more substance but it is going to be pretty hard to pull off. Hopefully it will materialise because it's much better....

Skit [2]

While compiling the half finished articles on my desktop, I realised they were mostly to do with philosophy, politics, faith, religion and superstition. This is purely because they're such interesting topics for me. The most important questions about life. So just a preface to avoid the "militant atheist/lefty" label that is given as libel to  opposing opinions.

My Art Showcase

Online gallery of a range of creative work including photography, traditional and digital art, minor graphic design work and a bunch of architecture related pages. Check it!

My Design Gallery

The Inevitable Fields of Red

13 - 07 - 11


Terrorism is a loaded word that is defined as violent acts intended to create fear with disregard or deliberate targeting of civilians. The boundaries drawn are already very blurred, as any act of violence by a group will have some component of fear. The UN bombing of Gadaffi's palace has a component of fear the world hopes will discourage his supporters. The fear aspect of the definition I feel is therefore misleading, and in any case, is far too complicated to pigeonhole real world acts and circumstances into. The word itself has been and will be used controversially. As the saying goes; one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. State authorities have begun using the term to delegitimize opposition as the instant negative connotations associated with the word have been drilled into our brains throughout the last decade (even Gaddafi has been using the word against those that disagree) as buzzwords that are said to provoke a “feeling” in us. Don’t fall for it…

    As someone who does not prescribe to a deity, I hold the opinion that not all life is equal. Humans, I believe are more important than other animals, just as a cow is more important than a fly. Even such proponents of the 'all life is sacred' philosophy such as a Buddhist or Hindu would save the life of a human child over a pup. Within the homo sapien sapiens species, further classifications on importance can be dictated by the moral character of a person. Put simply, I believe the life of a good person is worth more than of a bad person. While I hold that opinion, I would never condone the murder of any innocents. Terrorists kill innocents and for that reason I will never back a terrorist organisation. With that said, people have to look at causes and whether there are any real justifications for actions. Painting everyone with the same ignorant brush is not an accurate analysis of a situation nor is it an effective way to resolve the issues. It is also a naive Bush-like (his administration came up with the phrase 'War on Terror' and classified an enormous variety of violent groups together under the label 'terrorist') way to deal with a problem that will elevate simple earthly conflicts to grand universal arenas as if there is some eternal fight between good and evil that terrorists are on the wrong side of. In the real world, there are shades of grey, in fact thousands of shades of thousands of colours, some of which are impossible to compare. Some 'terrorists' want insane, ridiculous ends while others want something legitimate that they may be entitled to. If we first take a look at actually insane terrorists, these are generally (in today's world) extremist Muslims with unrealistic demands like the total eradication of infidels. They are willing to throw their lives away not because they are brave men with a personal stake in the fight through years of injustice (they believe they will be rewarded when they die - not bravery) but because they are weak-willed and indoctrinated. They fight their cosmic wars because of their interpretations of out-dated sacred texts (the only thing that differentiated middle-class, westernised Osama Bin Laden from his siblings was his religiosity…). If those texts never existed, neither would they. They are not fighting for any worldly reason that can be justified to any objective observer. On the other hand of the debate are groups like Hamas and the Tamil Tigers. Do they kill innocents? Yes, and that is wrong. Do they have any sort of worldly justification? Again, yes. If you take a group's land away or treat them as second class citizens in their own countries, you are asking for trouble. Would you corner and beat a lion only to blame it for biting your hand off?
 
       Last week Channel 4 aired their documentary on war crimes committed by the Sri Lankan government in the final weeks of an epic 26 year old civil war as well as atrocities committed by the Tamil Tigers (LTTE). The horrible wrong-doings on the government's part are the second large unpunished acts of minor genocide (I hesitate to use the word) in the last 30 years carried out by the Sinhalese majority on the Tamil minority. Those not versed in Sri Lankan history, the first occurred in July 1983 (known as Black July). As with a lot of conflicts worldwide, it was a result of colonial rule and the inevitable departure. The Europeans preferred Tamils and would have them in positions of power (universities and politics were English dominated and due to missionary camps being set-up in the North and East of Sri Lanka, the Tamil-heavy areas, Tamils rose disproportionately to importance), which with independence was subsequently reversed to make Tamils legally and socially unequal to the Sinhalese. They could no longer get a decent education or job and Sinhalese was made the only national language with the 1956 'Sinhala Only Act'. From independence onward, there were countless reasonably minor explosions of tension including mob attacks, ethnic riots, arsine, etc. The real start of the conflict can be traced to an attack on and death of 15 army soldiers in 1983. Over the course of July that year, the retaliation from the Sinhalese civilian population was astronomical, with thousands of Tamils rounded up and murdered, while hundreds of thousands were left homeless as they had to flee the violence (the reason there are so many Tamils in the UK, Canada and other parts of Europe). Essentially, government support was unofficially given to the mobs as they were equipped with voter registration lists to identify the location of Tamils. Weak-willed actions such as unforced curfews were declared which were seen as more a partial face-saving tactic that actual deterrent. Can you imagine a government sitting back while one ethnicity of citizens slaughtered another? From that point on, the relationship between the two language ethnicities has been bloody and brutal with the rise of a number of Tamil militant groups.

       Even that simplified version of history shows why such groups as the LTTE exist. More importantly, it shows that addressing the problem will require more than the disbanding of the LTTE. If your son hits your daughter for throwing his toy at him and breaking it, you don't only just discipline your son. He reacted to the situation. In the real world, he reacted out of necessity or perceived necessity. I'm not saying what the son did was right, just that to resolve the issue, both parties need to make fundamental changes. Even until today, not one person has been charged with any crimes relating to Black July 1983 or the war crimes outlined by Channel 4. It is easy to see why some Sri Lankan Tamils may become angered when their home country and country of ethnic origin (at least for a few hundred years) is complacent and even the cause of destroying large portions of their own people. So much so that they would openly wave the flags of and associate themselves with those that kill innocents (LTTE). Every son of a murdered Tamil in 1983 grew up with an intense hate and desire for independence. A counter argument may take the form of 'peace is always the better option', but if you look throughout history, the number of battles won by peaceful means is outnumbered by the battles won involving violence by probably 10,000:1.  Peace is the better situation to exist in, no doubt, but not really an effective tool to get to such a state for most conflicts (at certain times in history). In fact, peace really only works (in pre-communication boom history) as a tool when you have majorities (i.e. most Indians wanted independence from the British, all African-Americans wanted equal rights, most Libyans and Egyptians wanted their leaders out). Things have to be brought to a standstill to achieve any form of substantial change (see tube strikes, etc). When it is 10% of a population, the other 90% will go on living their lives or quell the noise and it will be totally ineffective in showing up on the international radar. Unless the world is looking at you, the majority can do and post-fabricate any story they want. I do not see a peaceful march on August 1983 making any difference or receiving any global attention.

     It is looking hopeful that with communication as it is nowadays, the effectiveness of peaceful dissent is increasing. Although the world is watching closer, people have a tendency to become desensitised to and disinterested in distant struggles (as we've seen with Libya). There are still further steps that need to be made to increase peaceful change, but there can be no violent resolution to this conflict anymore. I do not see any future where the army after becoming overwhelmed by the violence, decide to surrender to the LTTE's demands.  I fear the exposé by Channel 4 (during the final weeks, hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankan Tamils were marching against these atrocities in London alone. For them, the Channel 4 documentary was not really revelatory. People wonder why groups lean towards violent methods when hundreds of thousands marching with the number stretching into the millions world-wide barely registers as a blip in the news cycle while one targeted bomb attack can fill the headlines for weeks) will probably add some fuel to the flame on both sides and push back chance of peace and prosperity a number of years. Despite this, justice is fairly important, even if the previous massacre is perceived as too long gone to prosecute (though they're still rounding up Nazis....). Legal bodies have a much higher code to live by, which is why situations with governments engaging in vulgar acts are infinitely worse than those perpetrated by private groups. Under the definitions of terrorism, both the Sri Lankan government and LTTE have engaged in actions used to create fear with total disregard for civilian lives, yet only side is legally named as 'terrorists'...

      When you hear words like terrorist or communist, please look a little further than the programming we're all wired to react with. The real world is not a Frank Miller graphic novel with morally absolute characters and black and white extremes. Everyone has a reason for their actions, no matter how terrible and while those reasons rarely justify extreme violence, they are symptoms of a deeper problem. The American kids who walk into schools and kill other students, no matter how awful, had their reasoning. If we just see them as pure evil entities, we will never address the issue of what caused them to act in such a way in the first place. It all depends on what you wish to achieve; if you need someone to point the finger at, carry on with the blanket definitions, but if you wish to prevent such actions in the future, a little more thought will be needed. To move forward, we need to evaluate validity of reasoning and analyse what needs to changed….on all sides.
    PS. Personally I do not see the benefit of a two state solution. As every country world-wide is becoming more globalised and integrated with each other, forming gigantuous legislative bodies (EU, NATO, etc), does Sri Lanka really need to be one of the few backtracking? Whether two state or not, Tamils and the Sinhalese still have to live side by side, and exclusive nationalism on either side will only complicate the situation. There needs to be heavy repercussions for any racially motivated crimes. There needs to be more integration between the two peoples until if people wish for an ethnic battle, they will have to be willing kill their neighbours or their own son's wife, etc. Tamils closing themselves off with a separate country will only help to stir the feelings of injustice that any Tamil with a memory that goes back to the 1983 or 2009 will have, into manifesting as violent thoughts. Two countries with a very recent history of ill-will and violence, with two separate ethnicities and languages inhabiting the same island will never end well... 

Skit [1]

All the articles before were written for a news and culture website as a volunteer journalist. www.theupcoming.co.uk
From here on in, it's me writing for no good reason :)