Film Noir Reader: The Crucial Films and Themes

All in all, this is a worthy collection of two dozen or so essays on empty streets, shadowy lighting, calculating women, and doomed men, otherwise known as film noir. Why these cinematic downers keep commanding the scholarly attention they get is itself a matter of curious conjecture. But they do, and there must be a readership as this fourth entry in the publishing cycle demonstrates. I was prepared to pass this one up, figuring everything that needs saying has been said. But then I'm as hooked on the Walter Neffs and Kathie Moffetts of the world as the contributors are; so here I am, 20 bucks or so poorer, but reasonably happy with the deal. Sure, in the eyes of the beholder some essays are bound to be of lesser interest or quality than others. I myself wonder about the future of the project when it includes such diminishing returns as an essay on the trivia of title sequences, or the `noir-izing' of a technicolor western like Rancho Notorious. However, unlike reviewer Mira, I don't fault the authors for standard high-brow terminology like "capitalist patriarchy" or `misogyny"-- though I do fault the editors (not the authors) for failing to footnote such real esoterica as "diagetic" and "syntagmatic". Come on, Mira, no one picks up the fourth installment of a series like this expecting the prose level of Photoplay. Then too, Mira, just which contributors are guilty of "absurd ideological readings". You need to specify. Worse-- why are these readings "absurd'? That's a pretty strong charge, and you've got a thousand words to back it up. Otherwise, it looks like an ungrounded cheap shot, and who knows, maybe you can convince me in the process. As two of those presumably ideological essays stand, Hodges's and Humphrey's, respectively, they make a lot of sense to me. Hodges shows how war-time noir differs from post-war noir and how these changes reflect larger national happenings, while Humphries argues that post-war noir eventually fell victim to Cold War needs and what he calls the "liberal consensus". Humphries, in particular, makes provocative and well-reasoned points for anyone with interests beyond what's there on the movie screen. And as far as that goes, I would surmise both writers, with the concerns they have, lean toward the political left ( which I suspect is what really bothers reviewer Mira). But then, the dark side of noir has long attracted those suspicious of a social order where wealth stands as the ordering principle and people lacking that are left to dangle. Anyhow, #4 stands in my book as a worthy addition to the series, and I'll likely fork over another 20 or so if there's a #5.

As Alain Silver explains in the book's Introduction, "Film Noir Reader 4" is different in purpose from the previous Film Noir Readers. It focuses on key films and key themes, rather than attempting to be inclusive or comprehensive. In that spirit, Silver has included a few lists of the most important film noirs according to himself and others in the Introduction. "Film Noir Reader 4" contains 23 mostly modern essays, many apparently not previously published, presented in two parts. The paper the book is printed on is pure white, instead of the off-white of previous volumes, so the black-and-white stills look better. Part I, "Case Studies", includes 12 essays on key films. The films discussed are: "Double Indemnity", "Detour", "The Big Sleep", "Out of the Past", "The Unsuspected", "Gun Crazy", "D.O.A", "The Big Night", "Kiss Me Deadly", "The Big Heat", "The Big Combo", and "Touch of Evil". Glenn Erickson's enthusiastic and insightful essay "Fate Seeks the Loser: Edgar G. Ulmer's Detour" is particularly interesting. The same can be said for Kevin Hagopian's study of "The Big Sleep" and Stephen B. Armstrong's history of "Touch of Evil". Both films were radically altered by recuts, with the result of making them nonsensical. These carefully researched essays explain what was changed and why. Part II focuses on "Noir Themes", although I don't think that most of these can reasonably be called "key" themes. Eleven essays discuss a variety of themes that can be found or projected upon classic noir films, including psychodrama, images of women, noir antecedents, horror-noir, war noirs, left-wing politics in noir and crime films, hybrid noir-westerns, and noir title sequences. In other words, Part II is a catch-all. "Cat People", "Rancho Notorious" (in comparison to "The Big Heat"), and "Double Indemnity" are discussed in the most depth. I'm giving "Film Noir Reader 4" a lower rating than I gave the previous Film Noir Readers, because it is overwhelmed by the sort of absurd ideological readings that I haven't heard this much of since I studied film in college. The reader can't get far without running into dogmatic -and, I might add, eternally ill-defined- terminology like "patriarchal capitalism" and "misogyny". For grown persons to legitimize their socio-economic hang-ups by deliberately misrepresenting 60-year-old movies is pitiful. I am reminded of the reason director Fritz Lang left Germany: The Nazi Party liked his films so much that they offered Lang the opportunity to run the German film industry. His films were anti-fascist. Anyway, there are some good, informative, essays in "Film Noir Reader 4", and it's useful to present different interpretations. But these aren't so different, and I get the impression of scraping the bottom of the barrel.

This is the fourth reader in a series previously reviewed by me...I never thought the editors could find another 23 articles on "film noir," but they have successfully put together a new book organized in two parts: Case Studies and Noir Themes. The "Case Studies" section deals with essential film noirs like DOUBLE INDEMNITY, DETOUR, THE UNSUSPECTED & TOUCH OF EVIL. The articles are written by well-respected "noir" critics; but the second section on Noir Themes is far more fascinating, especially the article by Nicolas Saada, "Noir Style in Hollywood." There are two major errors in the text: (1) in a photo from ASPHALT JUNGLE, it is Marc Lawrence as Cobby in the background, not Anthony Caruso and in OX-BOW INCIDENT, it is Henry Morgan, not Frank who plays Art. Otherwise, I would certainly include this book in a list of related readings in any noir course that I teach. I have taught NOIR STYLE at Columbia University and CUNY, using my own book, NOIR, NOW & THEN (Greenwood Press, 2001) as the main text and have used all the FILM NOIR READERS in my courses. I would like to dedicated this review to Charles P. Mitchell who passed away suddenly this past January at the age of 55. He was an excellent noir scholar with a critical acumen and sense of humor that will be missed. His wife still runs their DARKER IMAGES VIDEO business in Millinocket, Maine, tracking down VHS & DVD recordings of the most elusive of noir films. Ronald Schwartz at [email protected]