Talk:Film noir/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Editing etiquette

message: 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)
thread_title:  Casablanca? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  To the anonymous user who keeps reverting the page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Morality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neo-Noir Films 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Referenced punctuation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can somebody help me? 

message: 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)
thread_title: He Walked By Night/"True Crime"

message: 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)
thread_title: The Very First Film Noir Story

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Teen noir"/"kid noir" 

message: [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)
thread_title:  Aziz on "sci-fi noir" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Sub-headings 

message: 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Encyclopedic style—What is it?

message: 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#Veronica Mars); (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#Katia Ismailova (1994)); (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#Kitano noir). 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)
thread_title:  [[Children of Men]]/General question of noir status 

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