Blog Entry # 7 (Option no. 2)

On the short stories “The Method” and “Morocco Junction 90210” the narrations are made from the first person point of view of the female characters who also happen to be the protagonist of the story. The narration is done by sequence with no use of flashback and just focusing on the current moment, I also thought that both women are very descriptive about everything and also find time to introduce themselves to the audience. The “Morocco Junction” is different from “The Method” involvement wise, because Minerva is narrating a story from another character, I am actually a bit confuse if she is really the protagonist and what really is her main topic on that narration, the place? The people? The job? Or Eloise? Or the whole Beverly Hills and everything about it. She talks about everything that at some point when I was reading it I thought that she is talking too much or talking to herself too much but I only get that feeling since there is not much dialogue involve.  While on “The Method”, Holly is the protagonist and the story actually revolves around her.

I know most of us like the stories, majority is women, it’s because we can relate to them. The narration has a lot of emotions involve and that’s not a surprise coming from a woman’s point of view. We sympathize along with Minerva about the tragic ending of Eloise and we witness how Holly’s love for Richard turns in to hatred. It is more effective to choose a girl as a protagonist because every one of us especially woman, suffer from gender discrimination. We are all aware of that even in the 40’s and that is why they created the idea of femme fatale. We have that idea in our head that women only play certain roles and obey rules in man’s world so if we put character like Holly it gives us more fatalistic effect and double the danger as compare when a man does it. “Yeah I was going to go far. Right to fucking prison…He sure as hell wasn’t thinking of me, walking away in handcuffs…To think I’d imagined he was really hot for me, wanted me. He hadn’t even seen me. He’d been fucking me and thinking of her... Now he’d see how special I was” (117) who would have thought that a simple girl, an aspiring actress and part time waitress would do such thing only because her heart got played and broken by a guy? Scary isn’t. A real work of noir indeed. Although we know that she commits a crime and kills him we still find ourselves rooting on her side thinking that Richard deserves it but once again, narrators controls and manipulate the audience, we did not even get the chance to know Richard’s side of the story, only Minerva and Mariah, and since Minerva is female the idea of being a victim works on her very well.

 As for the “Morocco Conjunction 90210” the quality of noir reflects on the tragic suicide ending of Eloise, her nightmare became reality when her illegitimate son died and her “precious” jewelries got stolen, the climax reach at the end of the story and I like how there is so much going on and a lot of revelations right after the story ends. The reason why she kill herself, her annual reunion, her college school, she sold all her fancy jewelry to raise her son she put up for adoption, a son that probably doesn’t know who she was, and now that her jewelry got stolen she chose to kill herself than deal with the public humiliation and destroy her family’s great reputation. Beverly Hills, the place itself is what driven her to kill herself. Aside from losing her son, her choice to commit a suicide for a plain and not so important reason is what evil for me, but I guess some people love their images more than their life.  Other than the suicide, I can’t define it as a work of noir, if you take Eloise’s suicide off the story, it will look just like a blog about Beverly Hills or just a journalist covering the glitz and glamour of that place.

Blog Entry # 6 (Neo noir from Classic Noir)

I only read few paragraphs on the article and the short story “Dangerous days” from Los Angeles Noir, so I am going to base my respond on that. First of all, Double Indemnity is the very first film noir I have ever seen or read. Everything that I know about noir is based on that movie/novel. As I was reading the article I learned that noir can also be horror, thrillers and science fiction. The article talks about a lot of movies I have no idea about but it seems to me that noir has a very broad categories, like how the article describe it, it is very stylish  and that’s where neo noir fall into that category an example of that is dangerous days. When I was reading it, first thing I notice is the use of words. It’s all gangsters up and very informal, I found it vulgar and offensive compare to classic noir like double indemnity where the words are more decent and picked carefully. I also notice that the settings on this novel are everywhere, an abandon house, a hotel, a parking lot but every place gives us a dangerous feeling that focus on the situation whereas double indemnity focus on the dark side area and emphasize the character’s emotions. The characters are quite a lot on this neo noir story too, and every one of them are mention by name and has a little bit of introduction even though that’s the first and last time were going to see from them, unlike double indemnity, every characters are important and plays a big role in the story. The femme fatale does not really play an important role to neo noir she cannot destroy the protagonist as much as she can on classic noir. Dangerous days is told from a third person view meaning each character is referred to as “she” or “he” “it or “they” balancing our judgment towards the characters, because we are basically hearing or knowing a story from someone who is not involve unlike classic noir like double indemnity and sunset boulevard, they have first view person and both of them are from the protagonist point of view, on sunset boulevard it was a series of flash back and a dead person is narrating it so it gives us an unrealistic idea. I also think that neo noir is in no need of psychological analysis from the audience, kind of like what you is what you get, as compare to classic noir where there’s always a subliminal message on everything that even a “moon” can dictates how the ending will go. That being said and compared, neo noir is derived and evolved from classic noir, that’s why it’s called neo noir or new black because it fits on today’s society, it’s aggressive, gruesome and full of actions. The new genre explores on life’s possible threats and danger, from everyone and every place so for me it’s more realistic and scary. Classic noir is more mellow, conservative and innocent. This transition has something to do with the constant change in our society. Both is still similar when it comes to crime that revolves around death, danger and that fatalistic effect to the audience, they just have a different way of expressing it. I personally like classic noir because it is less violent for me and more on emotions getting involve.

Blog entry # 5

On his film review “Dvd Playback” written by Kenneth Sweeney about Double Indemnity he claims that Double Indemnity represents the most perfect example of the film noir-thriller on the 1940’s, he based it on the cinematography worked by John Seitz, together with the directors Hans Drier and Hal Periera, they created a landscape of stark contrasts, dark corners and multi layered shadows. Although this is not the first film noir of its kind, a lot of people consider the visual texture of Double Indemnity to be the hallmark of the genre; he also talks about the setting of the film that makes the movie more effective. Sweeney stated that the “consistent use of sharply contrasting lighting, sparely decorated locations, bold shafts of light diffused through window blinds or cigarette smoke, and a generally expressive, darker slant on the proceedings was a stark departure from the highly saturated look that characterized the growing number of color films at the time”. I agree with the author because the setting itself speaks for the movie and it has an impact to the audience. Seitz use monochromatic schematic with a nearly infinite gray scale that fits and heightens the tension of the dark narration made by Walter Neff. The gray scale looks very pleasing that mirrors what the film looked like in the 1940’s. The cinematography and the settings are effective enough for the film to be nominated in an Academy Award and became an inspiration to other film of Noir. Sweeney also mentioned about the speech delivered in the beginning of the film by Robert Osborne which he thinks very unnecessary among with the commentaries that tend to be repetitive. This article focuses more on the settings and I couldn’t agree more with Sweeney, the movie cover all the visual elements to make it as a work of noir, like the low-key lighting, most of the scenes are shot with this to give emphasize to the evilness especially on the scene where Walter is at his office confessing about the crime he just did, the movie also used a lot of low angle shots to show power especially with the femme fatale Phyllis Dietrichson and also the sharp focus every time their showing her face as a sign of her hardness or brittleness. I also learned that they did a television remake but Sweeney described it as laughable and jaw dropping dull. I wonder why he felt that way on a television version, I would think that it will be better because there is more than enough time to explore the movie more in depths and I also wonder if it has a different ending like the novel and the film. According to Sweeney 60 years after its first release the movie die down and lost its slick and black hearted charm. Nevertheless Double Indemnity is regarded by many as the first true film noir, with its dark tone visually and thematically that is brilliantly done and express through lighting and set up.

Blog enrty # 4. (Questions # 1 & 5)

1.         Discuss the contrasts between the endings of the novel and the film.  Which ending seems more appropriate for film noir?  Why?

The ending of the story Double Indemnity on the book and on the film has two different ideas and set up. On the film, Phyllis shot Walter at her house, he came closer and dare her to do it again on a closer range but she did not, she confess her love to him instead but he shot her in reply to that. I think this ending is more appropriate for a film noir because there is more actions and death involve, it is more darker and evil, just because the audience thinks that Phyllis deserve to die. It is even better because Walter kill her himself, the guy who killed for her and the one she manipulated like a puppet. Walter executed the revenge for all the people she killed. The book on the other hand, seems too dramatic for me for a work of noir. The ending where they’re at the boat and she started to talk about marrying him, and Walter thinking about all the people she killed, after all they have been through it is kind of disappointing for them to just give up and commit a suicide. Not only that the ending leaves us a lot of questions and keeps us hanging there but I also thought that they end it in a boring way.

 5.        During the title sequence, a man on crutches hobbles towards the camera.  Explain the significance of this image.  Who in the story does this man represent?  Why would this be an appropriate image to show at the beginning of the film?  How does this sequence anticipate later developments in the film?

            A man wearing a suit and a fedora hat with his crutches both represents Mr. Dietrichson and Walter Neff. I think the significance of that image dictates the fate of Walter Neff. Walter impersonates Dietrichson by wearing the same clothes he did and pretending he is on the same situation like him. He killed him not knowing that his life will be in danger as well. The image is dark and we can’t really see who he is, if you have not read the book and it’s your first time to watch the movie, it will lead you with so many questions and not until the end of the movie will it make sense to you. I also want to emphasize the crutches; I think it’s a sign of weakness, especially of Walter, crutches are for support and in Walter case it suggest that he does not have a full power of himself. The fact that he got manipulated and controlled by a girl and actually kill for her shows his weak will as a man. He is like a boy who received a candy (kiss) from her and willing to do everything after that. I also notice that the man is walking towards the camera; I thought of it like as if he is welcoming his death, he is slowly sinking and he’s aware of that, he knows his doomed so might as well face all the consequences.