Misplaced Pages

Talk:Film noir: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:03, 22 December 2007 editDCGeist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,204 edits →First Subheading?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 10:52, 20 November 2024 edit undoKuyalanz (talk | contribs)238 edits →Figures actor: new sectionTag: New topic 
(366 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Film noir, Talk:}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{Film|class=A|importance=Top}}
|action1=GAN
{{FAOL|Hebrew|he:סרט אפל}}
|action1date=3 October 2009
{{Archive box|:]}}
|action1link=Talk:Film noir/GA1
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=317665924


|action2=FAC
== French film noir in the late 1930s ==
|action2date=20:21, 28 February 2010
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Film noir/archive1
|action2result=promoted
|action2oldid=346786025


| topic = film
Hi, I just wanted to see what other editors thought about incorporating some of the content below in the Film Noir article. It discusses the use of the term "film noir" to refer to French films in the late 1930s. This paragraph is from the ] article, about the French film critic who coined the term "film noir":
| currentstatus = FFA
''Charles O’Brien’s research indicates that the term “film noir” was used in French film reviews and newspaper articles in 1938 and 1939, to refer to French films such as Quai des brumes by Marcel Carné (1937) and La Bête humaine, by Jean Renoir (1938). O’Brien states that he found a “dozen explicit invocations of film noir” in the late 1930s, such as the paper L'lntransigeant, which called Quai des brumes a "film noir” and the newspaper Action française, in which a January 1938 film review by Francois Vinneuil called Le Puritain "un sujet classique: le film noir, plongeant dans la débauche et le crime." (“a classic subject: the film noir, plunging into debauchery and crime”).
| maindate = October 2, 2011
^ Charles O'Brien. Film noir in France: Before the Liberation . From filmmuseum, Spring 1996 Available at: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:QAIQ3W8LZoQJ:www.filmmuseum.at/jart/projects/fm/releases/de/resources/textarchiv/TexteDownload/Foyertexte/Foyer_Film-noir-in-France_OBrien.pdf+%22nino+frank%22+critic+film&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=19'' <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 16:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


|action3=FAR
:I think it's a fine idea to include. We just have to be careful not to confuse the demonstrable fact--that the term was used by French critics to describe certain French films of the 1930s and then repurposed to describe certain American films of the 1940s--with the contestable claim (never well-evidenced) that one set of films actually influenced the makers of the other set. I think one sentence at the appropriate point in the "Prehistory of noir" section can cover it well.—] 17:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
|action3date=2018-09-09
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Film noir/archive1
|action3result=demoted
|action3oldid=858748917
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Film|Filmmaking-task-force=yes}}
}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
*]
*]
*]
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Tracer Bullet) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Tracer Bullet","appear":{"revid":48486207,"parentid":48365007,"timestamp":"2006-04-14T22:48:20Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":49488868,"parentid":49488561,"timestamp":"2006-04-21T19:47:50Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}}


==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
== First sentence ==
] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-08-16">16 August 2021</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2021-12-08">8 December 2021</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ]. Peer reviewers: ].


{{small|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 21:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
The first sentence currently reads:
== "Identifying noir" ==
:''Film noir is a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those focused on sex and corruption.''
section it should be tagged/removed as appropriate. I'd encourage you to either tag the sentences or bring them to the talk page in this section so they can be discussed.--] (]) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
"Focused on sex" doesn't sit well with me. It's not so much that it's incorrect, as that it's too open to too many different interpretations. The most direct interpretation of this sentence would be that "film noir" describes porno movies that include themes of crime and corruption. I would recommend:
:''Film noir is a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those where moral ambiguity is a prominent theme.''
] 15:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


This was an obviously well researched article but I believe some important points have been missed when discussing film noir. As was correctly stated, noir, Fr. for black was used intermittingly as a double entendre. The definition was black film. The reasons are both obvious, this was black and white film, and maybe a little more subtle; this was the first time in cinematic history the the hero sometimes got away with the crime, ie: Bette Davis in "The Letter" or Richard Widmark,in "Knight in the City". Up until this time it was thought that only the good guys won.Morals- you know. The large list of Film Noir from the 40's through the 50's was due in fact to a glut of young, up and coming directors that couldn't get A-list work. These were inexpensive (for the times) fims to create. And from these we got such A class assets as even Francis Ford Coppola, and Capra. What we find interesting considering special effects were few as compared to todays PC techno-wired world, was that just by using light in the right way you could create very impressive drama. Take a look at Edmund O'Brien in the movie DOA as he is lit from the ground up as he announces that he has just been murdered. And how many stagings were there when the criminal kid was caught with an irish cop directly behind him (With the cop's hand on the kid's shoulder) and a priest behind both just a little off center so you could see them foreground to background, 1-2-3.Film Noir continues today. I believe a perfect example is Pulp Fiction and or Reservoir Dogs. Or just grab Quentin Terrantino and throw him up on the screen. I just wanted to add this, not delete anything from the Misplaced Pages article. I personally appreciate the article's depth.
::Pondering... Of course you're right in the hypothetical. The use of "sex" in the current sentence accords perfectly with one of the ''Wesbter's'' definitions of ''sex'': "sexually motivated phenomena or behavior"—which, aside from crime itself, is the narrative element most often central to movies described as "film noirs." Granted, that is the number 3 definition of ''sex''. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking that ''film noir'' describes a certain brand of porno, but as you suggest, it's possible.


:Don't take this comment the wrong way. But if ''Pulp Fiction'' is ''film noir'' then ''The Wizard of Oz'' is a ]. <strong><span style="color: rgb(0, 72, 55); font-weight: bold; font-family: times cy;">Kj<span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">a</span>er</span></strong> (]) 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
::Here's my thought on the recommended substitution—"moral ambiguity" comes up frequently in discussions of noir when the elements frequently at play are in fact sympathy with and/or attraction to the immoral. Is there any ambiguity about the moral status of Howard Neff's behavior in ''Double Indemnity''? No: his actions are very, very bad. But we're rooting for him. He might have been a (marginally) good person in the past, but that's not why we're on his side; it's because we appreciate his motivation. Speaking of whom, How about Phyllis? She's presented as downright evil. But very attractive. Similarly for ''White Heat'': Cagney's character is bad, crazy bad. No ambiguity in moral status. But he's the most attractive person on screen.
------------
::Well the benchmark is here whether reputable media/literatur calls a particular movie film noir or not. Whether personally agree with that or not doesn't really matter for WP.--] (]) 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


: Well, the benchmark actually happens when the reader does the research. There is a separate article on Pulp Fiction, the movie. In that article, some historians and critics consider it '''neo-noir'''. According to that article, the following experts do not; Geoffrey O'Brien, Nicholas Christopher, and Foster Hirsch. No one would say it is noir. And note to author above of second paragraph, Richard Widmark was in a film called "Night and the City." ] (]) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. ] (]) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
::For the opposite side of the coin, take another classic: ''Dark Passage''. Yes, Bogart's character has been convicted of a crime and then escapes from prison. Lauren Bacall's character harbors him illegally. But these are clearly good people. Bogart was falsely convicted; Bacall believes in his innocence and has fallen in love with him. Their moral status is entirely unambiguous; we root for them in an uncomplicated way to succeed in their nominally illegal activities. Of course, like ''sex'', ''moral ambiguity'' may be interpreted differently, but--in the absence of a complex analysis of audience sympathies and the philosophical relation of legal codes to moral behavior--I think most people relate the term to the characters' status: "moral ambiguity" means it's very difficult to identify the characters as essentially good or bad. Before the 1950s, and movies like ''Night and the City'' and ''Touch of Evil'', I think this kind of basic moral ambiguity is less than common in noir. ''Out of the Past'' might be a good test case. I don't see it as particularly ambiguous. Mitchum's character is sexually motivated to do a lot of bad things. But he's framed, represented both at beginning and end, as an essentially good person. Thoughts?


== "Danny Boyle and Trainspotting" ==
::The rhetorical punch of the existing sentence serves a purpose, but if there is a real possibility of it being misread, it can certainly be changed. Maybe starting this way: ''Film noir is a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those focused on sexual motivations and X,'' or ''Film noir is a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those in which sexual motivations and X are central.''
There really ought to be some mention of Danny Boyle's contribution to the modern dark cinema (neo-noir) movement, coming strongly out of the UK and Channel Four Films. Titles such as "Trainspotting" and "A Life Less Ordinary" are DEFINING films in the movement. I am literally shocked not to see Boyle and at least one of these films mentioned in this article. --] (]) 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
::—] 22:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


==The Big Lebowski==
:::Good points. I guess ''my'' point wasn't that there's any realistic possibility of the word "sex" being misunderstood by anyone, but rather that it just looks wrong. You're right that "moral ambiguity" is about equally as broad and vague as "sex". But thanks to that vagueness, it ''does'' apply to all of your examples, because it applies to the audience's reaction to a movie as well as the characters in a movie: If a (presumably non-evil) audience is rooting for an evil anti-hero, that's a form of moral ambiguity. Likewise if a (presumably law-abiding) audience agrees that a character is doing the right thing when he breaks the law. I think most people include that interpretation in their understanding of what "moral ambiguity" means. And with that inclusion, it fits film noir a lot better than "sex" or "sexual motivation" do. In addition to the unavoidable "titter factor" of dropping the word "sex" onto people's laps, there's also the fact that "sexual motivation" is "central" to maybe 90% of ''all'' movies/stories/novels/plays/actual events/epic poems/knock-knock jokes/etc. (okay, maybe only 60% of knock-knock jokes). So in that sense it's just plain incorrect to use it as an identifier of noir. "The protagonist is motivated by sexual obsession" would be a lot more specific to noir, but of course that would exclude too many noirs. I still think "moral ambiguity" coupled with "crime" does the best job (in a single sentence) of separating noirs from other movies. ] 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Might it be worthwhile to mention the Big Lebowski as a noir parody? The Cohen brothers go so far as to include a private eye character who eventually directly expresses his admiration for the titular character for making all of the moves a noir private eye makes, and is flatly refused and ignored by the title character. Any noir fan who sees the scene immediately makes the connection, in my experience.] (]) 11:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
: They talk about wanting to reference an incomprehensible Chandler story ala The Big Sleep as well. BUT there's already a lot of mention of the Cohens, so maybe we could use the space for other films. ]<sup>]</sup> 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
::Is running out of space on the internet an issue? :-) ] (]) 00:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Eric


== "Film noirs" or "films noirs"? ==
::::Excellent observations. It's the good point colloquy! Bulleting it:
The article consistently renders the plural "film noirs." Shouldn't it be "films noirs"? Mind you, just before I wrote this, I got up and checked five or six dictionaries, and not one of them some much as addressed the plural. ] (]) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
::::*Americans need to be cured of their (yes, our) goddamn "titter factor" when it comes to sex, which produces all sorts of social inanities and perversions. Can only be done by normalizing straightforward, non-tittery discussions of the topic and usage of the word.
::::*You're absolutely right about the ubiquitous "centrality" of sexual motivation. I'd say that noir is distinguished in most (never all) cases by an ''emphasis'' on it. Relative to noir (and taking into account transformations of both the genre and the broader culture over time), almost all other narrative forms prevalent in U.S. mass media either romanticize or more coyly skirt around the sexual motivations at their core.
::::*Point taken about "moral ambiguity." I resist it because I think it would be much more interesting for people to recognize that what they're doing when they fall for noir is not really "aesthetically appreciating the moral ambiguity of the characters" but "being attracted to the immoral behavior of the characters (thus bringing into question one's own moral position)," but you're probably right about the way most people articulate this to themselves and others.
::::*Sacrificing rhetorical strength for conceptual precision, how about: ''Film noir is a cinematic term used primarily to describe stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly those that emphasize sexual motivations and moral ambiguity.'' I'd even go for ''moral ambiguity and sexual motivations'', which reverses the true priorities as I see it, but is a stronger-sounding sentence.
::::—] 02:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
:::::I'll buy that as a good compromise (in either order). ] 11:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
::::::Maybe I'll rotate them like a good gyro.—] 20:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


: Film noirs. There's a footnote regarding just this point. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
== When did the term "film noir" come into popular usage in the US? ==


::Or you could say "noir films", which avoids the awkwardness of "films noirs" and the strangeness of "film noirs". —] (] • ]) 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
In the commentary track on the DVD of '']'', James Ursini says that the term "film noir" was largely unknown in the United States until the late 1970s. Is that correct? It seems late. --] 00:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:It probably just meant that popular culture didn't pick up the term until the late 70's. Maybe it was only used by the film school and film-making community? --] 01:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:: French critic ] is generally thought to have been the first to use it and apply it to Hollywood movies. He first used it in an article in 1946 . As the main article says, it wasn't generally known as a term, even by the people making the "noir" films, until quite a bit later. -- ] 02:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
:::I knew that, but I had assumed that the term was reasonably well known among US film buffs and critics by the mid-60s, at the latest. For example, the Misplaced Pages article ] says in the first sentence that the 1974 film featured elements of film noir. Would that have been mentioned in any American newspaper reviews of Chinatown when it was released? --] 08:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


:::Yes, "noir films" is fine, but so is "film noirs". There's no need to rewrite the article. As Kellen points out, we have a footnote explaining that "film noirs" is the first spelling given in ''Webster's''. If you look at a lot of English-language books in the field, you'll see that it's the most common spelling of the plural there as well. "Strange" etymologically perhaps, but not practically: ''noir'' is now often used as a stand-alone noun.—] (]) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I did some "research" on Google and I think I've answered my own question. Petra Désirée Nolan’s (chapter 2, notes 31 and 32) says that the term ‘film noir’ was “appropriated into an Anglo-American discourse in the late 1960s”, citing the 1968 book ''Hollywood in the Forties'' (ISBN 0498069281) by Charles Higham and Joel Greenberg. Also an article by James Naremore tends to confirm the importance of the 1968 Higham and Greenberg book in introducing the term, although both Nolan and Naremore mention that Webster’s Dictionary gives 1958 as the first time the phrase ‘film noir’ appeared in English. However, from the TLS mentions that Julian Maclaren-Ross had written an attack on the genre in 1947. --] 10:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


::::What I meant to propose was something that everyone could be comfortable with, since neither of the initially discussed terms strike a chord among ''all'' editors. "Noir films", I think, seems to be straightforward. I'm not trying to say my term is ''right'', and like you said the either of the other ones are fine. Just seems like "noir films" would be the least challenged of the three, so we can avoid discussions like this (which are not new). Unless "noir films" gets under people's skin somehow? :) —] (] • ]) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


:::::It's an interesting point. On a related point, I just did a search: we actually use "noir" as a stand-alone noun 31 times in the article (in constructions such as "classic noirs" and "B noirs")--and that doesn't count the additional dozen or so occurrences of "neo-noir", where "noir" is again unambiguously the noun root. I hope we can all agree that these are fine as is. So, adapting Erik's proposal, what do people think of replacing the occurrences of "film noirs" (or "film noir" when describing a specific example rather than the genre) with ''either'' "noir films" or "noirs" depending on context and readability?] (]) 18:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
== Neo-Film Noir ==
::::I think this term should be clearly defined in the article.~Anon <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 21:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


::::::If you're talking about usages of "film noirs" and counting "noir" as a stand-alone noun--which, doesn't really mean anything, as a noun is always part of a phrase and part of a clause, etc.--you're mistaken. Either we can construe "noir" as an adjective as it would be in French, or it can be the second half of a compound that just coincidentally has a space separating its segment. It is true that "films noirs" would be the French rendering, but the question of what part of speech "noir" represents (and therefore whether it should be inflected or not--we do not inflect adjectives except for degree) is not entirely clear. Cf. mother-in-laws v. mothers-in-law; Knight Templars v. Knights Templar. It seems to me when we have modifiers following nouns we tend to inflect the nouns and not the modifiers.
== 35 Notable... Notes ==
This is not appropriate material for a main article (opinionated, unsourceable, subjective, verbose) so I'm putting it here.


::::::: I think it's unnecessary to change them; the terms are rather well accepted in film literature in various forms (noir films/film noirs/noirs). If I had to choose, I'd choose the film noirs/noirs combo since they're more internally consistent and consistent with the other constructions (neo-noirs/classic noirs). ]<sup>]</sup> 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
{{fnb|1}} There is no completely objective way of establishing the most appropriate length for a list of notable films in a particular field or for deciding on the criteria for inclusion. A list of 20 films from the 1940s and 15 from the 1950s (reflecting the relative number of noirs detected by latter-day critics in each decade) provides comfortingly round numbers and a scope large enough to include (almost) all the classic film noirs claimed to be essential yet small enough not to overwhelm the reader intent on a self-education in noir from the ground up.


::::::::Cf. the usual English plural of ] - "femme fatales", not "femme'''s''' fatales", although our article prefers the latter. -- ] (]) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The methodology employed to identify "notability"—restated later in the text of the article as "enduring fame"—relies on 's function. With the "first" (''Stranger on the Third Floor'') and "last" (''Touch of Evil'') classic noirs guaranteed inclusion into the rosters of 20 and 15, the list of notables is based on the IMDb-identified film noirs most highly rated by that site's users, with a minimum vote count of 2,000 for the 1940s and (reflecting the lower awareness of later noir) 1,000 for the 1950s, and a minimum average "rating" of 7.1 (out of a possible 10).


This seems like a silly thread, really. "Noir films" sounds fine, but what about "films noir?" This seems like the most sensible choice of description that no one has mentioned. Have you all studied film?] (]) 10:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This procedure led to a "perfect" 19 films for the 1940s and a "perfect" 15 films (including ''Touch of Evil'') for the 1950s. One substitution was made in each case. Though identified by IMDb as a film noir, there is not presently a critical consensus that '']'' (1941), directed by Alfred Hitchcock, qualifies for inclusion in the category. In addition, Hitchcock is already represented four times on the notables list. The highest rated film with at least 1,000 votes was substituted: ''The Set-Up'', which pleasingly introduces both a significant noir director and star to the list. If the replacement bar had been set at 1,500 votes, the substitute would have been one of two lower-rated films: '']'' (1940)—another borderline case, like ''Suspicion''—or, failing that, '']'' (1944; covered in the article).
:It's not really about film, it's about language; specifically the way that plurals of non-English words and phrases are constructed. Usually the English plural rather than the foreign plural is best for use in English, which is why we say "octopuses" rather than "octopodes". With two-word phrases it's a bit more complex; the French plural would be "films noir." To me, "film noirs" sounds clumsy ("noirs" is a strange pronunciation). "Noir films" is a good compromise, as "noir" has acquired a somewhat independent status and generally means "film noir" even when used on its own. &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="color: #c30;">].</sub> 10:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
::As has been discussed before, "film noirs" is the most prevalent usage and appears in many books both scholarly and popular on the topic. As our note indicates, "film noirs", "films noir", and "films noirs" (the actual French plural) are all considered acceptable in English; ''Webster's''{{'}} lists "film noirs" first and that has been the spelling the article has consistently used for years now. There have been no developments in scholarship or language that compel any change here.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:::I'm not advocating any change; none is necessary. I'm just responding to the suggestion that it is 'silly' to discuss this matter. &nbsp;<span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="color: #c30;">].</sub> 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
::::As I said, all the dictionaries I checked didn't even address it. I do think that Burninggirl2003's "films noir" makes more sense from a language point than "film noirs." (Note that the accepted "correct" plural of "court martial" is "courts martial," but the dictionary I just checked acknowledges that "court martials" is getting to be usual.) But if the second has become usual in English, I have no problem with that--just wondered if there is a consensus. As for my own idea about "films noirs," I thought I remembered from French class that when you make the noun plural, you have to make the adjective plural, too--but I could misremember after 40+ years (especially since I studied it only under duress). ] (]) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
::And now I see the footnote, which seems to cover it very well (not to mention confirming my 40 year-old recollection of the French language). ] (]) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
:::And I see further that the French Misplaced Pages consistently uses "films noirs," again confirming my remnants of high school French. ] (]) 15:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza


==Some things are sounding a bit subjective==
In the case of the 1950s exchange, the imperative was not exclusion, but inclusion: ''Night and the City'', for reasons described in the article, is treated by almost all film historians as an American film noir; furthermore, it is regarded by almost all critics who have published extensively in the field as one of the finest movies of the type. Though fewer than a thousand IMDb viewers have entered an opinion on it, those that have rate it very highly, and it is fair to say that any critic would be shocked to see it excluded from a list of notable examples of classic noir. The movie dropped in its favor was '']'' (1955): (a) it was the lowest-rated film with fewer than 1,500 votes; (b) star Humphrey Bogart is already represented six times on the list; (c) no published critics regard it as a prime example of the form; and (d) the leading encyclopedia in the field, Silver and Ward's, does not conclusively state that it is a noir. In terms of historical notability, based on the critical literature, the most important film missing from the list is probably ''Murder, My Sweet'' and the most important missing director is certainly ] (covered in the article). Of those films on the present list professional critics would be most likely to sacrifice in favor of ''Murder, My Sweet,'' some would forego ''High Sierra'' (insufficiently noir in style), others ''The Lost Weekend'' (insufficiently noir in plot), still others ''The Stranger'' (insufficiently noir in provocation).
Things such as "Neo-noir/Take 2: Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell, a femme fatale for the 1990s—and the ages—in the smash box-office hit Basic Instinct" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


...and under SciFi Noir, there's this little tidbit - which is debatable, tacked on and really has nothing to do with anything else:
Actors are listed as "significant noir performers" according to different criteria for stars and supporting players: The former are listed as significant if they were star-billed in at least three film noirs total or in two films on the notables list (stars of listed films who do not qualify as significant noir performers are named in parentheses). The latter are identified as significant (and thus named) if they appeared in at least five film noirs total—the name of one nonqualifying supporting player is included: Lee Marvin appeared in only two movies now regarded as film noirs of the classic period, but his performance as Vince Stone in ''The Big Heat'' is one of the most renowned villainous turns in the chronicles of noir. An accounting of the most important missing star or featured actors would include at least ], ], ], ], ], and heavies ] and ]. Character actor ] appeared in no fewer than a dozen classic noirs.<br />
'Fincher's feature debut was Alien 3 (1992), which evoked the classic noir jail movie Brute Force.'--] (]) 04:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


:The first has been rewritten. The second is not "tacked on". It "really has to do" with something significant: the links between classic noir and latter-day variations on the genre.—] (]) 10:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
{{fnb|2}}A fifth fundamental question on which there is little agreement—What is the preferable ] of "film noir"?—becomes a matter of controversy in a collaborative project such as Misplaced Pages. There are valid arguments to be made for and against "films noirs" (the spelling in the original French), "films noir" (arguably the most grammatical English), and "film noirs" (the most prevalent usage). Individual writers and publishing concerns are free to select any one of the three styles according to their own preferences. In Misplaced Pages, however, a group of writer-editors with different and often strongly held opinions on the matter must agree to use a common style. As the matter of controversy comes down to the spelling of a word and the topic of discussion is primarily American, the standard reference authority is the leading dictionary of American English, ]. The latest edition of '']''—acknowledging all three aforementioned styles as acceptable—gives as the preferred spelling "film noirs." That is the style used in this article.


== Essay tag ==
:Both of the issues discussed in these notes--what belongs in "a list of notable films" and what is the correct/best plural of "film noir"--come up often in editing discussions. Having a clearly laid out rationale for the article's current position on these issues therefor makes perfect sense. Furthermore, no valid reason has been given for removing this material. In the case of the "film noirs" discussion, the note is neither opinionated, nor unsourceable, nor unsourced, nor subjective, nor verbose. In the case of the notable films note, it is inevitably based somewhat on opinion, since it's impossible to have such a list without drawing on opinion. Likewise, since the issue is complex, discussing it at some length is necessary. The discussion is deeply researched and about as well-sourced and non-subjective as it was practical to make it. ] 10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
After some deliberation I have decided the {{tl|essay}} tag is most appropriate for this article, although the {{tl|refimprove}} or {{tl|npov}} could also apply. The problem is this article keeps expressing opinions but giving no attribution whatseover, which runs afowl of core policies like ] and ] I consider the following lines to instances where, without any reference, this article makes opinionated claims:
::I agree with you in all respects regarding it not being "opinionated, unsourceable, subjective, verbose" <i>however</i> I believe it is still too "meta" to be in the main article. It is a discussion of the process of the article and that after all is the entire point of the talk pages. ] 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
* "Few neo-noirs have made more money or more wittily updated the tradition of the noir double-entendre than Basic Instinct..."
* "Perhaps no contemporary films better reflect the classic noir A-movie-with-a-B-movie-soul than those of director-writer Quentin Tarantino"
* "Joel and Ethan Coen have created one of the most substantial film oeuvres influenced by classic noir"
* "The mainstreaming of neo-noir is evident in such films as Black Widow (1987), Shattered (1991), and Final Analysis (1992)"
* "Like Chinatown, its more complex predecessor, Curtis Hanson's Oscar-winning L.A. Confidential (1997)... demonstrates an opposite tendency—the deliberately retro film noir; its tale of corrupt cops and femme fatales is seemingly lifted straight from a movie of 1953, the year in which it is set.
* "Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Paul Schrader brought the noir attitude crashing into the present day with Taxi Driver..."
I guess most of these claims are probably mostly accurate, but they're still opinions. We need to know whose opinions they are... otherwise this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. These are just some examples... although if they are addressed I will consent to removing the essay tag. --] (]) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


:With or without your "consent", the essay tag has been removed. The article is copiously sourced. You are arguing that several assertions require recasting or inline citations. That's fair--please tag those individually within the article so they can be specifically addressed. ] (]) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
== Thumbnail size ==
::If you want to convert to fact tags, fine... but the essay tag still applies until at least these problematic claims are addressed. Having a bunch of references in some parts doesn't excuse having an essay in other parts... it's not like I could add my own unreferenced opinion to ] just because the article, in general, is "copiously sourced". I suggest you actually address my concerns or leave the tags up... trying to dance your way out of a content complaint really won't work with me, if you check my edit history. --] (]) 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I have checked your edit history. I see you've been editing on Misplaced Pages for less than three months. That explains a lot. Spare us the edit summary lectures about what's "unacceptable". What "works with you" is of little concern to anyone, as are your notions about the import of your "consent" and your interest in dancing. What works for the encyclopedia is what counts. When you learn to take yourself less importantly, come on back. ] (]) 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::::So this has devolved into because you've been active on Misplaced Pages for longer, you get to do whatever you want with articles? You're becoming very incivil and ignoring the content issue. I'm not going to go away just because you make rude comments. --] (]) 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::::DocKino, this is an unacceptable violation of the ] policy. Please stop making comments in this vein, and consider striking out the personal attacks above. Thanks. --] (]) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Your incivility is completely inappropriate DocKino. There are now three editors, counting myself and the one who re-added the essay tag most recently, who agree that the article devolves into an essay and should be cleaned up. Your incivility and attacking a fellow editor based on how long he has been editing Misplaced Pages does nothing to help your case. Your condescending tone and blatant incivility on your post above dated 18:12 29 June does not "work for the encyclopedia" and therefore you should take care to avoid such behavior in the future. ]&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: I also agree that the article reads as an essay. Also, 35 inline citations for an article of this length is a pretty weak showing. Citing and quoting the classic noir theorists directly shouldn't be too hard. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Add me to the list of people who agree that the essay tag was clearly valid and necessary. ] (]) 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello there! I noticed that this article makes use of forced thumbnail size on, well, every image. As forced thumbnail sizes hinder the user preferences from working, I've removed them. However, ] my edit.


And so the Film Noir article is ] in the style of film noir? --<span style="color: red; font-family: cursive">]</span> | <span style="font-size:9px; vertical-align:top">]</span> 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me cite the Manual of Style (]):


One more here who agrees that the essay tag is needed. And I hope I don't come across as incivilly to newbs as did DocKino. ] ] ] 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
*Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their ], with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:


:I've addressed each of the points raised by Chiliad at the beginning of this thread. If there are other, similar concerns, I have ready access to most of the major sources and am happy to address them. Best, Dan.—] (]) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
:* On images with extreme aspect ratios
:* When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
:* When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region


==Angel Heart not included as iconic modern example==
If there are no objections, I'll remove the forced thumbnail sizing again tomorrow. <font color="#FF8000">]</font> (] ° ]) 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
How can we discuss the genre and not put in the classic modern film ] this is the ultimate illustration of film noir. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


==Additions?==
:Objection. First, 99% of users never visit "preferences;" second, 90% of the remaining 1% never notice the "thumbnail size" setting; third, that preference setting only allows for a single size, which, for both design considerations and readability, isn't appropriate for all images; fourth, MOS, especially WRT trivia like this, is not God; fifth, I don't see any intrinsic benefit to that preference setting--are there users out there who just ''really like'' their images to be 250 pixels wide, no more and no less? ] 19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The movie ] could be covered too (not to be confused with ]). And would ] qualify as a film noir? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 08:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:I was going to create a new section on my proposal but I'll just add to this... I think that the Bantam Street production ] (2009) should be added to the Parodies section. For those that have seen the movie or clips of it, do you think it could be classified as a film noir? BTW, I've seen the movie and it rocks (the two "Skeleton" movies are awesome as well). ] (]) 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
::Using the default size looks fine to me, I don't see that the article is helped by inconsistent image sizes. Also, those notes are pretty wordy, aren't they? --] 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


:::Open any paper book or magazine and see if all the images that are mixed in with text (as opposed to full-page images) are the same size. It's a li'l ol' thing called "design." ] 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC) ::Do any sources refer to it as a noir parody, or relate it to film noir in a similar way?—] (]) 09:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, I've heard of it. Thanks for your sarcasm. In my opinion, as a full-time professional designer, enforcing a consistent size for the images in this article was an improvement. --] 21:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::But seriously, have it your way. The article's abundant editorializing and original research are a much bigger issue than the image layout. --] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Although I agree that things must be referenced, what if the reference is wrong? I have worked my way through films noir, using this article as a guide and watching the movies. I added "Alphaville" to the Parodies section for the simple reason that it is, as I explained in a comment on the article for that movie. ("Professors ]," for instance.) I am currently watching "Wonder Man" (1945), the Danny Kaye movie, and it has nothing to do with film noir, being a musical comedy and comedic ghost story that happens to have the noir actor Steve Cochrane playing a minor part as a gangster. However, "Silver and Ward (1992), p. 332" is given as a reference that this film is a noir parody, which suggests to me that Silver and Ward don't know noir or never saw the movie. "Wonder Man" does not belong in this article at all. I'm removing it, despite the reference. ] (]) Eric
::::::The point is not that users use preferences, the point is that they CAN use the preferences - if you didn't stop them. In magazines (not that magazines are relevant, but the same goes for encyclopaedias anyways) all the images are indeed mixed in with the text. What's the point of that statement? I'm not attempting to make them "full-page images", I'm attempting to give them a consistent size guided by the user preferences. The ] lays out the style that is to be used in Misplaced Pages articles in order to have a consistent look, and it says they are to be guided by user preferences except in special cases (outlined above). The MoS represents the consensus decision made by the Misplaced Pages community - if you have issues with the MoS, bring them to the talk page of MoS.
:I see that someone has put "Wonder Man" back in the article. Whatever. I explained the reasons for taking it out. ] (])Eric <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::Now, what images do you think don't do well in 180 pixels' width (the default setting)? I've browsed them through over and over and I don't see your point. And I think we can all agree that a consistent image width looks good in an article, no? <font color="#FF8000">]</font> (] ° ]) 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Another. In "The Big Steal", Mitchum makes fun of himself with some dialog about how he says 'Umm-humm" (breaking the wall) and there are jokes about being unable to speak understandable Spanish to Spanish speakers, but that doesn't make the film a parody. This movie is not very good, but bad scripting, bad plot, bad acting (at times) and bad direction don't make a movie a parody. I'm not making any more changes to the article. Evaluate and comment, please. ] (]) Eric <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 21:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::?!? You "''think we can all agree that a consistent image width looks good in an article''"? If you think that, why do you think I said the exact opposite of that? Why do you think your edit was reverted by another editor? Why do you think this discussion is even taking place? This, plus the major misunderstandings of my earlier comment that you display in your first paragraph, suggest to me that you aren't paying much attention here. ] 10:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


And another. How is "Murder by Contract (1958), ... a deadpan joke on noir"? This is simply a straightforward story of a guy who becomes a hit man and can't execute his last contract. There are no parody-like elements in it, at all. This is actually a fairly good movie with a "bleak" ending as the article says. I am very tempted to remove this from the article, but it does qualify a film noir in many ways, such as camera angles and dialog. The final "target" that the hit man can't kill could be the "femme fatale." ... Now, on the other hand, "His Kind of Woman" with Robert Mitchum has a lot of noir elements, but Vincent Price, who is serious at first, turns in a fine comedy performance later as a parody of the "American who gets things done" if I may call it that. That itself doesn't make it a noir parody, but apparently Howard Hughes couldn't cut out Price's performance when he ruined the movie in other ways, as described in the article about it. No changes to the article. I realize this is original research but I ain't got time to write a book. ] (]) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Eric
:(de-indent) I am definitely paying attention. ] of not paying attention, could you instead clarify your earlier statement so I understand what you mean?
:I did understand that you didn't agree that a consistent image width looks good, as you quite clearly stated "that preference setting only allows for a single size, which, for both design considerations and readability". However, I was hoping you would have re-considered. In any case, design considerations are individual (taste is individual), but I do think we can at least agree that some sort of design consistency should be followed throughout the encyclopedia? There seems to be a quite general consensus that most images in an article should have the same width, see for example the featured articles ] (which has two exceptions: a picture of a skeleton that has an ''extreme aspect ratio'', and a picture of a coin which is 40px wider than the standard size and might as well be shrunk), ] (where none of the images have any width specification), ], etcetera.
:I don't see any reason as to why any of the picture in ] should have a width specification: there are no images with extreme aspect ratios; no images where a small region of an image is relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region; and there are no detailed maps, diagrams or charts.
:Letting user preferences guide the image size is the most natural solution, there's simply no reason as to why not. "Design considerations" are hardly an issue, not only because they are quite individual, but especially considering statements such as ''In my opinion, as a full-time professional designer, enforcing a consistent size for the images in this article was an improvement.'' (]). <font color="#FF8000">]</font> (] ° ]) 11:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


== Translation of "film noir" ==
::I'd love to continue to discuss this burning issue of global importance, and I was especially looking forward to trying to teach you how to read, but unfortunately I just died of boredom. ] 13:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The long-standing, and indisputably literal, translation of "film noir" as "black film" in the lead section was recently challenged. I don't love that one of the two sources of support for the challenge (in favor of "dark film") is the ''Encyclopedia Britannica''--ideally, we're supposed to outdo them, not rely on them, right?


In any event, the translation of "black film" is ''very'' well established. I do believe Alain Silver and Elizabeth Ward's noir encyclopedia is universally regarded as the leading reference book on the topic. On the first page of its introduction, we find this passage:
:::I'm going to consider that your withdrawal from this discussion and as thus a "surrender". The other participants - myself and Dystopos - seems to agree that user preferences should be in force even in this article, and as thus quite a consensus has a emerged. With this as basis, I will now remove the fixed widths. Suggesting specific exceptions is the next step. <font color="#FF8000">]</font> (] ° ]) 17:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
<blockquote>
"Film noir" is literally "black film"...
</blockquote>
Similarly, the entry on film noir in one of the leading industry lexicons--Kevin Jackson's ''The Language of Cinema''--begins like this:
<blockquote>
'''''film noir''''' or '''film noir''', sometimes abbreviated to '''noir''' literally "black film"
</blockquote>
So...we ''might'' decide to say "black film" ''or'' "dark film", but it's definitely not "dark film" ''instead of'' "black film". ] (]) 03:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


: "Noir" has a variety of meanings, but most generally and literally "black". "Dark film" is a more loose translation. In Silver's translation of Frank's article, the term is left as: "noir" films. It's not wrong to have "dark film" listed, but only in addition to "black film". ]<sup>]</sup> 10:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
:It appears that good design is a subjective matter. Since ] prohibits an individual user from controlling an article, we are required to share that responsibility. Perhaps a more constructive way to participate would be to suggest specific exeptions to the MOS guidelines that would improve this article. --] 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


::Hi, Here are some sources that use the "dark film" definition...
::I concur. However, I have already browsed through the article several times in order to find images that could do better with a fixed width, and I've found none. Any suggestions from your part? Or from ]? <font color="#FF8000">]</font> (] ° ]) 17:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
::*Encyclopedia Britannica article on film noir defines term as "dark film" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/206993/film-noir
::*EICAR, The International Film School of Paris, says "Film noir...Dark film, a genre coined by French critics for some American films with low key lighting and latitude usually conveying a solemn mood. Still in use to refer to moody films, often detective films. This term refers both to the visual style and the story." http://www.eicar-international.com/definition-film-noir.html
::*The visual story: seeing the structure of film, TV, and new media By Bruce A. Block 2001 ... on page 94, he says.....
::*:"film noir. The term, coined by the French, means "dark film"...
::*Encarta encyclopedia http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781533102/film_noir.html
::*:Film Noir, term (meaning literally “black film”, although “dark film” seems more appropriate and evocative)
::*Video production techniques: theory and practice from concept to screen By Donald L. Diefenbach 2007
::*:on page 91, he says "Film noir, French for "dark cinema" or "dark film"
::*An introduction to literary studies - Mario Klarer - 1999 - 166 pages... on page 59, it says "After World War II, film noir ("dark film") developed..."
::...As far as making the decision, I don't think that we should try to act as translators and debate what the dictionary definition of "noir" is (it means black, dark, and a range of figurative meanings, such as macabre). I think we should do research on what published, reputable books, encyclopedias, articles claim that "film noir" is translated. Remember that the goal in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not "truth". If we go for truth, then we'll have a huge argument with one person saying "well, I have an MA in French, and I think that "noir" translates as XXX", and another person will weigh in with "Yeah, but I have a doctorate in French, and I believe that "film noir" means YYY". ] (]) 11:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


:Excellent, and I sincerely hope that your idea "I don't think that we should try to act as translators and debate what the dictionary definition of "noir" is" is adopted. It is certainly correct. Unfortunately, here in the 20-tens, we are going to get people who ask, "Why is it called 'film noir' when all the actors are white?" ] (]) 21:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Eric
The "fixed-width" faction are ignoring the realities of Internet design: you have no control over the settings of your readers' computers, their browsers, or their display parameters. Thus the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style says that you should not try to over-control the readers' browsing experience. Your design choices seem to be based on the print world, where these things can be set. How do you think they look when your audience may vary by a factor of two or more in the pixel width of their displays? Please stop setting fixed widths. --] 17:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


::: This is good, we can improve the citations. Let's dump the encyclopedia references, though. They're secondary or tertiary sources here. Instead, we can use the Block reference, Klarer works too. Go ahead and change the lead to "(french for ''black film'' or ''dark film'')" and add citations for "dark film", DocKino can add citations for "black film" if they're not already in the article. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
:A lot of misleading rhetoric has been used by those supporting a change of the article's long-standing visual style. The Misplaced Pages Manual of Style does not constitute "rules"; it is not policy, but a guideline. It is also--this is going to shock you--a wiki; changes are made in the manual all the time that do not reflect a consensus of the community, even those participating in the manual's Talk page. At any rate, matters of readability and layout clearly encompass much broader issues than the specific problematic image types the manual discusses. The images have been selected and sized in this case with an eye toward the overall readability and layout of the article--as demonstrated not least by their stability over the past six months. In cases of articles where no design sensibility has been established, resorting to user-preference sizing may well be the best solution. Please go police those.—] 19:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


::::If I may weigh in here: As I pore over the literature as part of the Good Article review process, I have yet to find a single book or major essay in the field of noir scholarship and criticism that translates "film noir" as "dark film"; when a translation is offered, it is invariably "black film". While some general-interest texts may go "dark", the sort of authoritative sources the article relies on are unanimous—the proper translation is "black film". I propose that this sole translation be restored to the lede; we can retain the footnote, and I can add one or two more high-quality sources for "black".—] (]) 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
::<code><sarcasm></code>Yay, revert war!<code></sarcasm></code> DCGeist, are you entirely certain that the ''have been selected and sized in this case with an eye toward the overall readability and layout of the article''? To me, it seems that ] a lot of new images and changing the size of at least one of the older ones, and noone bothering to fix it. , all images were of the same width (250px) except three, where there was no higher resolution available. Of course you have every right to defend your actions, but remember ].
::Regarding their "stability over the past six months" - that's not only an overstatement, but practically a lie. Since you added all those new images (in the diff linked above), someone - I won't bother to check whom - has added , and even changed the width of existing ones. This all over a timespan of, dundundun, less than five months.
::Now that we've done dealing with ''misleading rhetoric'', I still wonder - why do you insist on fixing their widths? Not only is the Manual of Style against you, examples of Misplaced Pages's featured content are against you, and also a majority of the participants in this discussion. I agree with ] that "a more constructive way to participate would be to suggest specific exeptions to the MOS guidelines that would improve this article". Can we agree on that? <font color="#FF8000">]</font> (] ° ]) 22:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


:::::As a provisional measure, I've expanded the citation to articulate the point above. I still believe both focus and professional credibility in the relevant field would be served by providing just the one translation.—] (]) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
:::Please say you're joking when you accuse me of "practically a lie." Yes, you're correct that I could and should have said "four-and-a-half months" rather than six months; if you truly believe my estimation practically constitutes a lie, we can end the discussion right now.
:::Second, you have misrepresented the issue. At the edit point you refer to, all of the images were of the same width except ''four'' (not three, as you stated--would you like to be accused of lying for that? Your miscalculation is of a factor very similar to mine). Much more to the point, (a) ''all'' of the images had designated sizes then and (b) the four that were set at sizes different from the norm were set larger for evident design reasons--in particular, emphasis at the beginning and the end of the article text, as well as the two cases of "blowing up" smaller images.
:::Lastly, you seem very impressed by qualifications. I've managed to participate productively on Misplaced Pages for over a year and a half (I'm sure you can get it down to the precise day to make sure I'm not lying) without once trying to bowl anyone over with my professional qualifications. I don't care whether Dystopos designs houses, model trains, or even ''Vogue'' magazine for a living—just as magazine design is barely relevant to Misplaced Pages, as you said, so are editors' claims of extracurricular expertise. However, here's some immediately relevant credentialization since you seem to admire this sort of thing—I am the primary contributor and designer of five Misplaced Pages articles that our peers have promoted to Featured Article status in the past 5 months and 16 days (no lie!): ], ], ], ], and ]. In all of those cases, I designated image sizes before the articles were nominated for Featured Article status. In the entire history of the vetting of those articles in the Featured Article Candidacy process (and, in the case of ''B movie'', the Featured Article Review process as well), not a single reader has ever objected to the designated image sizing. I suggest that the evidence demonstrates that my experience in Misplaced Pages Featured Article design is much more relevant than editors' brandishing of professional qualifications. And I reiterate that the guidelines you are attempting to impose, though they may be helpful in general, especially for editors without an interest in visual design, will reduce the overall readability and layout of this article.—] 23:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
* I mentioned my extra-Misplaced Pages qualifications because you implied that design was a concept foreign to me. I should not have taken that bait. I do not mean to argue that my profession gives me authority in this dispute. Likewise the status of other articles in which you have formatted images is not quite the issue at hand. The issue at hand is that there is a disagreement between equally-qualified and approved editors on how best to present an array of illustrations within this long survey article. In my opinion a consistent format does not detract from the visual appearance of the article and supports the idea that these frame captures are part of a series of elements which serve the same purpose. Ideally they might be aligned in a sidebar, but using the tools at hand, the thumbnail markup seems well-suited. May I suggest that we try to keep the argument within the context of the article and back off from using the dispute as a pissing contest between personal approaches to design. It may be that common ground is more easily discovered. --] 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::Fair enough. Do let us keep the dramatis personae straight, however: please remedy your misrecollection—you raised your profession not in response to me, but in response to editor RedSpruce. The fact that he happens to agree with me does not mean he ''is'' me, just as you are not editor Jobjörn, despite the fact that you agree with each other.
::That said, the best I can do for the moment is agree to disagree. RedSpruce and I, both long-term contributors to the article, believe one approach to the article's design best serves its readers and thus the primary mission of the encyclopedia, which is informing readers about topics in which they are interested. You, Jobjörn, and (briefly) OrangeMike, all new to the article, believe another approach best serves this article's readers and/or the cause of transarticle visual consistency, a cause of arguable merit and even more arguable practicality. The design approach of the article is well-established and continues to be supported by two long-term contributors; a consensus to change that well-established design approach has clearly not formed to date. I agree with all of the points that RedSpruce raised in his first comment in this thread; I anticipate continuing to agree with all of them, especially as not one of you has seriously challenged them. In sum, I believe that mindful sizing of thoughtfully selected and arranged images, as is the case here, maximizes the experience of more readers than does automated sizing and thus much better serves Misplaced Pages's mission. I will, however, go to the trouble of conducting an empirical test: I will create a sandbox version of the page with automated image sizing, approach a few Misplaced Pages readers with computer/browser setups different from my 12" iBook/Safari arrangement, ask them to compare the two versions, and see which they find more inviting and readable. If the results of this test support your position, I will readily admit it and revise mine, as the bottom-line job here is to serve our readers.—] 10:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


::::::OK, I've made this change, while retaining the "dark film" references in the note. Hope this is generally acceptable.—] (]) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
:::That said, I don't believe there are any way we can reach a consensus in this discussion - all points that can be raised have repeatedly been raised by both sides. While I still think the article looks nicer when the images all have the same width (except under circumstances outlined above), this discussion hardly leads anywhere and is as thus quite pointless. I'll be following the discussion though - perhaps I'll drop a line later.
:::Oh, and one more thing: I am not very impressed by qualifications, I am impressed by constructive suggestions, such as "a more constructive way to participate would be to suggest specific exeptions to the MOS guidelines that would improve this article" (which happened to have been suggested by a user that had qualifications).
:::Best wishes to y'all and long live the 'pedia! <font color="#FF8000">]</font> (] ° ]) 12:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
::::I apologize for misattributing RedSpruce's comment. Frankly, I wouldn't care about the size of the images except that I happened upon the dispute and shared my opinion and I believe that the resolution should be made through seeking consensus - not only between the parties directly represented here, but between the design demands of this article and the guidelines cited from the manual of style. The apparent claims of ownership of the article based on long-time contributions are without merit. The assessment of one point of view as more "thoughtful and practical" is plainly subjective. What is missing here is any reasoning behind the design approach which you continue to claim "best serves" Misplaced Pages's readership. On the other hand, the reasoning behind adopting consistent image sizes has been presented, and the guideline contains reasoning for allowing users to specify how pages will be displayed. Perhaps if we can move the discussion away from personal conflict, claims of expertise, and unstated "approaches" to design, then we can understand, through your approach, what factors might lead us to reach consensus on exceptions to the auto-size guideline. --] 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::The only people who have raised "claims of ownership" in relation to the article are you and editor Jobjörn. Reference to the amount of time and energy certain editors have spent on an article has nothing to do with ownership, but with familiarity with the article's history and structure. I know that when I come upon an article that interests me and I want to make a substantial change of the sort you advocate here, I look to see if there are any editors intimately involved with the article, consult with them, and weigh their opinions more heavily than I do those of editors with only passing interest. Your practice may fairly be different, but that's no excuse for raising "claims of ownership" where there have been none.


== Fantastically comprehensive ==
:::::As for reasoning: The reasoning behind adopting automated image sizing has been challenged on multiple points by RedSpruce at the beginning of this thread, without effective refutation. The reasoning behind nonautomated image sizing in this case is, once again, that a mindful approach to image selection, arrangement (vis-a-vis both the relevant text and the other images), and sizing maximizes the experience of more readers than does automated image sizing. I can not prove this assertion, but I can provide strong evidence for it: the five articles I am primarily repsonsible for designing, all with nonautomated image sizing, that have been promoted by Misplaced Pages editors and registered readers to Featured Article status in the past five months--I note again that not a single one of those readers, and more than thirty different ones were involved, expressed a preference for automated sizing.


Kudos to the authors of this article. It’s clearly organized, eminently readable, and almost overwhelmingly complete. –] ] 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::In sum, the evidence I have tells me that when it comes to image sizing, good design better serves the community than automation, which, I am sure, is better than bad design. As I indicated above, I am willing to gather more evidence. I imagine you might like to raise the hobgoblin of "subjectivity" again now. The issue is moot: virtually every observable element of Misplaced Pages, whether text or image, is the result of "subjective" choices. We judge things on Misplaced Pages on subjective bases constantly--this writing is factually correct, but awkward: edit it; this writing is good, but not good enough for a Featured Article: vote object; this image is attractive, but this one is more instructive: substitute it. These are all subjective assessments and procedures. Misplaced Pages is the result of all our subjective inputs. For instance, a choice to concentrate one's efforts on bringing automated image sizing to this article rather than to any of thousands of other ones that might arguably benefit from it is a subjective choice. Just as choosing to rely on a specific passage in the Manual of Style, which is a guideline, rather than, say, ], which is policy, is a subjective choice.—] 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Why none Frank Miller's pictures? Or Rodrigez "Sin City" film? Neonoir. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Detour (1945 film)==


== /* Merger proposal */ ==
I placed ] in the list of the most notable 35 film-noir films (Changed to 36), however it was removed as ''POV''. However using the function noted above (Country:USA, genre:film noir, period 1940-1949, minimum 2000 votes) it reaches the criteria where ] and ] fail to meet that criteria (though I appreciate 'Stranger's..' historical importance). It seems that despite it being dismissed as an '' unjustified addition to stable'', it's more justified than some of the 'Perfect 19' on the list. ] 08:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


The result of the move request was: The conclusion was to '''not merge''' ] (]) 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for following up. As you might surmise from the vote count (2,076 as I write this), ''Detour'' just passed the 2,000 bar. No question it meets the criteria, making an "imperfect" 20 on top of ''Stranger on the Third Floor''. ''Suspicion'' (one of my favorite films) stays out, and now...deep breath...out goes ''The Set-Up'' (''also'' one of my favorite films). I'll make all the necessary changes to the note, etc. Thanks again. Best, Dan—] 09:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


----
:: Thanks for that, keep up the good work. You'll need to corral a few people into voting on ''The Set-Up'' :-) ] 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


The article for ] already covers ] and in greater detail than the separate article, therefore the two articles should be merged.--] (]) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
== FOR SHAME!!! ==
:'''Oppose'''. I think neo-noir is characterized by the employment of more advanced cinematic techniques than film noir. The replacement of a traditionalist production set of codes with a more progressive ratings system helped neo-noir films add new dimensions of subject and visual matter. I don't think neo-noir shouldn merely be viewed as a sub-set of film noir, the transition of 40s and 50s fil noir to neo-noir has also profound social implications that couldn't be explored in depth if it was merged with the outstanding article on film noir. Mark Conrad's '''' makes a clear distinction between the two in page 120. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #C6930A;padding:1px;"> ] ] </span></small> 06:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:'''Oppose:''' The summary of neo-noir in this article, which I largely authored, is extensive, but it is intended as a summary. Neo-noir is a sufficiently broad and significant topic to merit its own article. It has one that is, admittedly, inadequate to the topic at the moment, but I think expansion and improvement of that article is preferable to the proposed merger.—] (]) 06:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
:'''Support'''. Principally there is nothing wrong with having a separate neo noir article. However given the current scope and to avoid unnecessary redundancy a merger is indeed a better solution at this stage. Aside from the scope there is also an additional technical reason. Film noir is vague term and indeed much of what some call neo noir others simply view a normal continuation of film noir. In other words not everybody really makes a distinction between film noir and neo noir.--] (]) 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
:'''Oppose''' If anything, material from the Noir article should be moved here in the interests of expanding both.] (]) 22:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


==Dicko and the almost edit war==
I'm considering using ] from now on instead since because it is the same as Misplaced Pages except with out the vandalism and bias. THIS PAGE has been copied from the Reference article on film noir. See here.http://www.reference.com/search?q=film%20noir
I agree mentioning or quoting Dicko might not be justified and is definitely not need. However I don't agree with deleting his book from the sources or further reading list after it is fairly recent academic publication on the overall subject, which to me at first glance at least justifies an entry under further reading.--] (]) 10:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


:It is and has been listed under further reading and has never been removed. ] (]) 18:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:Um, reference.com takes its material from Misplaced Pages, not the other way around. Quoting from :
::Oh I just looked at the deletion in version comparison, without noting that it was listed twice before. Nevermind then--] (]) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
:<blockquote>Reference.com is produced by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC, a leading provider of language reference products and services on the Internet. It features reference material from Crystal Reference, The Columbia Encyclopedia, '''and Misplaced Pages''' plus Lexico's On This Day.</blockquote>
:(Emphasis mine.) So, no plagiarism here, I think. ] <sup>/]/</sup> 23:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


== La Série Noire ==
My condolences, It just seemed unusual to me. Thanks for the update.] 00:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a habitual Wikipedian, so excuse me if I'm transgressing any conventions.


It's my understanding that Nino Frank's use of the adjective "noir" in his famous article is a reference to a series of translations of American crime novels published in France from 1945 that used distinctive black covers, and were known collectively as "la ]" ("the black series") and individually as "romans noirs" ("black novels"). This is very much like the use of "]" in Italian to refer to the style of novels originally published in yellow covers.
::Um, yeah. As the person responsible for writing most of the current content of this article, let me assure you that it's reference.com that's doing the copying--as they properly credit Misplaced Pages, there is no issue of plagirism here.—] 05:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


While the choice of black for the book covers was surely no accident, and the connotations of the colour relate clearly to the themes of a typical film noir and the chiaroscuro style of cinematography, Frank's use of the word is simply drawing an analogy between the content and style of the films and the content and style of the novels via the colour of the novels' covers. This is discussed in various published sources (for example, Anne-Françoise Lesuisse's "Du Film Noir au ''Noir''") and clarifies the translation of "noir" as "black" (rather than "dark").
== "Aziz, Jamaluddin Bin" from sources? ==


The French "film noir" Misplaced Pages page and the English Misplaced Pages page for ] fiction both mention La Série Noire, as does ]'s English Misplaced Pages page. Shouldn't it be mentioned here?
nothing much really, but that name is usually an Arabic naming which usually is used by Malay Muslims. The "Bin" or "bin" is not part of the name, but means "the son of". Thus Jamaluddin bin Aziz will mean "Jamaluddin the son of Aziz". I propose dropping the "bin" from the name and just use "Aziz, Jamaluddin". ] 11:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
:His work is published under the name Jamaluddin Bin Aziz, so it's hardly appropriate for us to alter that in any way.—] 16:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
: Well if you have the sources at hand you could edit/add it yourself, but please no unsourced edit. However it might have to be taken in account as well that nowadays (at least in German) the term "la série noire"/"the black series"/"schwarze Serie" is also used to simply denote the string of Hollywood crime ''movies'' rather than any related novels.--] (]) 14:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


:: 82's understanding of the relation in nomenclature between ''film noir'' and ''la série noire'' is accurate and easy enough to source if we wanted to add it. It was my sense that this was a level of detail too minute and tangential to include in this overview article on the film style; it also does not fit readily into any particular section of the article's current structure. However, if the consensus is that it should be included, I have no problem with that at all--I'd just want us to work out here where would be best.—] (]) 19:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
== "Thirty-five notable American film noirs of the classic period" ==


::: Would a subsection "Origin of the Term" under the current "Background" section be appropriate? Most of the second paragraph of the current article could then be included under that heading. It seems to me that "why ''noir''?" is a natural question to ask. A more thorough discussion of the origin and history of the term would seem to have a place in an article of this scope. ] (]) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
A couple of editors have argued for the removal of this list from the article, with the following reasons given in edit summary comments:
#"subjective (what is notable? why 35?)"
#"redundant with ]"
#"this article is too long"
Re. #1: A number of objective criteria are carefully described in the footnote attached to the list. Some subjectivity remains, but so what? That doesn't prevent the list from being a useful, interesting and valuable addition to the article.<BR>
Re. #2: There is no comparable list in the ] article; that article seeks to list ''all'' film noirs, without singling out the most notable ones.<BR>
Re. #3 Whether an article is "too long" is entirely subjective. Since a list like this one can easily be skipped over, it adds absolutely nothing to the "burden" of a reader who would prefer a shorter article.<BR>
In short, no valid reason has been presented for removing this list. Personally, I want it kept in, so please don't delete it again without discussing the issue here. ] 23:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
*Re number 1: 35 is a completely pointless and made up number. 35 is not recognized anywhere as having any significance as a number in a list. Top ten? Top 20? Top 50? Top 100? These traditionally are recognized for these sorts of lists. 35? No. This is nothing but 35 movies that someone happens to like. They keep getting put back in by one editor who initially repeatedly refused to offer anything other than gibberish as a reason. This list of 35 is not a list of "the most notable ones." It's a list compiled by ] and it has no place here. Find a reliable source that says these are the 35 most notable film noirs and then we'll talk. In the meantime, this is nothing more than what amounts to somebody's pick of favorite films, which has no place in an encyclopedia article.
*Re number 2: If you want to arrange ] in some way other than it is then take it up on that page. A list of films stuck in the middle of an article is out of place. And again, this is a list of films taken from an article with no indication that they are considered by any reliable source to be "the most notable" of the genre.
*Re number 3: the article with the list is 88 KB long. That is a ''long article''. The list adds nothing to an understanding of the topic that ] doesn't cover. ] 03:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


== The Yakuza ==
:#The fact that you consider 35 to be a less-magical a number than 10, 50 or 100 doesn't strike me as relevant. The statement "This is nothing but 35 movies that someone happens to like" is obviously incorrect if you read the footnote. The list does not fit the definition of ], as there is no "A and B, therefore C" synthesis.
The Yakuza would slot into 70s-80s film noir although its cult following exceeded its box office. ] (])
:#After arguing that this list "has no place in an encyclopedia article," you then argue that it can be moved to another article.
:#The list obviously ''does'' add to an understanding of the topic. For anyone wishing to learn about film noir, one of the first steps will be to view those films that are widely considered to be the "most notable" examples of the style.
:#You don't respond to DCGeist's edit summary comment noting that there are numerous internal references in the article to the list, and therefor to simply remove the list leaves the article in a vandalized state.
::] 12:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


== The Crow = neo-noir? ==
::: What "numerous internal references"? I only see one, the footnote trying to explain the list of 35 titles -- ] 14:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Could «The Crow» (1994, starring Brandon Lee), be considered as a Neo-Noir film? Throughout the internet there are some sources pro, and some sources anti. In my opinion it just is or isn't. Is it that easy to explain, or is the aforementioned film a borderline case? ]]</font> 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


== Tech noir ==
::::I found three other direct references to the list in a quick search; I expect there are more. More important than that, there are dozens of references to the "classic style" or a film being "one of the classics" or "classic noirs", etc. Without the list, a reader would rightfully wonder just which films the article is referring to as "classic," and what criteria it used to apply that label to those films. ] 17:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Should ] be linked here, or explained in brief? ] (]) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
::*Sorry, I should have said "this is nothing but a list of movies that a bunch of people like," since it was devised by using IMDB listings. It is original research because it takes data from multiple sources (IMDB and various critics) and synthesizes it to present the list. The data was tinkered with by whoever put the list together, removing and substituting films. I did not suggest moving the list to another article. I suggested making complaints about how ] is organized to that page. And while I agree that viewing films is a good way to learn about films, your repeated contention that this list constitutes "the most notable" is ''not supported within the article by reliable sources '''as required for inclusion on WIkipedia'''''. Any unsourced material is subject to removal at any time. ] 17:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


== Pornographic Picture unrelated to article for some time. ==
::::''All'' good articles in WP are an amalgamation of multiple sources. And all WP articles inevitably contain some degree of creative synthesis by the people who wrote them.
I am shocked to see a front page article with a pornographic picture that had nothing to do with Film Noir, I hope someone can relink the original photo back to its original picture. 5:50 2 October, 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::At no point have you described or mentioned any way in which this list is a detriment to the article. Instead you're claiming that--by your interpretation--it breaks the letter of a WP rule. And that's an argument that would carry more weight if it came from someone who had at least enough experience to indent his comments correctly. Until and unless you can make a more compelling argument, I'm not sure this discussion is worth continuing. ] 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Leaving aside the pointless personal attack, ] is not simply "the letter of a WP rule." It is a non-negotiable policy. Original research has no place here ''at all''. Your repsonse to that is basically "no it isn't" and name-calling. ] 18:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


:Porno image removed. Correct image reference is Image:BigComboTrailer.jpg false image ref was File:BigComboTrailer.jpg
Otto4711 is right. The list should be removed from this article. It is not in keeping with the tone and policies of Misplaced Pages for an article to include a list like this derived from editors' searches on IMDb (or some other online database) using criteria selected by Misplaced Pages editors. What's especially telling is the lengthy footnote explaining the methodology for compiling the list. The list and how it was compiled are interesting (in my opinion) and would be suitable for publication in a blog or some other online publication, but not an encyclopedia. --] 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
:Maybe someone needs to watch their 'file' and 'image' tag editing? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


::Assorted vandals have been replacing the ''Big Combo'' trailer with pornographic images, but these have different file names. The prefix has nothing to do with it, see ]. ] (]) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
:I'm also in agreement that this list is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article under Misplaced Pages policy. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


::: Thanks guys, it seemed very innapropriate to have a featured page with scenes of pornography unrelated to the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Redspruce, ] is clearly against you on this one. A ] list of the ] film noir productions might be in order, but not the arbitrary, ] version you have tried to insist upon. Reverting to this version against consensus repeatedly is not the way to convince your peers of its merit. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


== Hollywood ==
* I am in agreement that any listing that introduces a claim (these films are the most notable) needs to come from an independent, verifiable authority. The footnote explaining the author's methodology is a description of ] ''par excellence''. --] 19:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The lead seems to suggest the criteria for film noir, is that it is a hollywood movie, I don't think that is true. ] (]) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
: It depends on your definition. There are noir-ish films made in other countries but classic film noir were only made in Hollywood. The term was invented to describe films made in Hollywood. See the section on ] -- ] (]) 21:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
: No, I disagree. Not all classic films noir were made in Hollywood. The Third Man, British, 1949, directed by Carol Reed, is classified as a classic film noir of the classic period. This is a British film, part of which was filmed in postwar Vienna. The American Film Institute's 10 Top 10 included it as # 5 in its Mystery section. (Three of the films listed there are films noir; The Maltese Falcon, Laura, and the Third Man.) ] (]) 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. ] (]) 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


:I disagree as well. The French noir films are just as good as Hollywood. "Bob le Flambeur," "Ascenseur pour l'chafaud" (Elevator to the Gallows) and "Shoot the Piano Player" are all classics. ] (]) 21:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Eric
::Well, ain't this turning into a party. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me in what way the article is better without this list. I can name plenty of reasons why it's better with it:
::*The list is useful for students of noir who want to see the classic examples of the style
::*For those who have already seen a few of the films on the list, it helps them come to an understanding of the unifying concepts of noir
::*The list is interesting
::Many of the precepts of Misplaced Pages make it clear that the project is opposed to the notion of "rules for rules' sake." See for example ], ] and ]. The quality of an article is supposed to come first. But rules for rules' sake is what is all that is being preached here. No one is talking about the quality of the article.
::Furthermore, it's not clear that any rule is being broken. In a biography article, it might be said that "most biographers state that this person was XX, though a minority have said he was YY." Is that "synthesis" from multiple sources to be considered "original research"? Of course not; and neither is this list.
::] 19:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
:::* Misplaced Pages has three policies on content: Neutrality, verifiability and no original research. Your list violates all three to some degree. Misplaced Pages has one fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and that is consensus, which is clearly mounting against the inclusion of this list. --] 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Your arguments for keeping are incredibly weak Red. Just becuase something is possibly useful or interesting doesn't mean it meets the ]. ] about all kinds of things is extremely interesting, and can often not be found elsewhere, but it still fails Misplaced Pages's test for inclusion. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


== Marlene Dietrich photograph ==
:::::...And I'm '''still''' waiting for some argument for removal that goes beyond "rules is rules." But I guess I can stop waiting, 'cause it's not going to happen. The list is not my work BTW; I was just trying to protect what I consider to be a good part of a fine article. I can see I made a mistake in opening the issue to discussion, since, for some reason, that only served to attract the attention of a "concensus" of intellectually constipated parrots. Oh, well. ] 10:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the photograph of Marlene Dietrich used in the 'Cinematic sources' section is a promo shot for ] and not for ] (as it says in the caption). Could anyone check up on that? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* The "rules is rules" argument is pretty strong here, since the list is a shining example of what does NOT belong in Misplaced Pages. If you want to familiarize yourself with the arguments for why original research should be removed, then just read ]. Also, you shouldn't call me names (but that's a separate issue.) --] 12:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
: Check the . No sign of her wearing a top hat in ''Morocco'' -- ] (]) 21:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
::Well, i just thought she wore this outfit while singing 'Quand L'Amour Meurt' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO0h190oboE <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::Please sign your contributions<br />It looks like she did wear the same suit in ''Morocco''. You'll have to do some research and find out which file that is a publicity shot for -- ] (]) 07:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
::::This is my error, I believe, which I'll now correct. She unquestionably wears this outfit in ''Morocco''. I just watched the entire English-language version of ''The Blue Angel'', and she does not wear this sort of tuxedo in that film.—] (]) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


== Raging over Bull ==
:* Seriously, this "note 1" is a detailed account of how original research has been performed for this article. It's blatantly inappropriate to include a list derived in this manner. --] 12:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
] has been stubbornly refusing to accept the changing of
*"The turn of the decade brought Scorsese's black-and-white '']'' (cowritten by Schrader); an acknowledged masterpiece—the ] ranks it as the greatest American film of the 1980s and the fourth greatest of all time—it is also a retreat, telling a story of a boxer's moral self-destruction that recalls in both theme and visual ambience noir dramas such as '']'' (1947) and '']'' (1949)."
to the more direct
*"The turn of the decade brought Scorsese's black-and-white '']'' (1980), telling a story of a boxer's moral self-destruction that recalls in both theme and visual ambience noir dramas such as '']'' (1947) and '']'' (1949)."
so I've been forced to bring this to Talk. The article is full of films that are "acknowledged masterpieces", and if the article were to get sidetracked with mentioning accolades after every notable film then it would get quite cluttered indeed. Besides of which, it's odd that ''Raging Bull'' would be the only one that mentions AFI's ranking and not ''Citizen Kane''. But regardless, there's no reason for ''Raging Bull'' to have the more verbose praising in the article and the cowriter credit instead of release year goes against the prose of the rest of the article.--] (]) 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
:I can see the value in mentioning it as the AFI's greatest film of the 1980s. The overall ranking kind of goes with it. Maybe focus the sentence on the 1980s mention? ] (] &#124; ]) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
::In addition,
::*Remurmur claims the article is "full of...acknowledged masterpieces"? Is it really? As with other celebrated genres, I'd say film noir is marked by a large number of very good to excellent films that, for all their virtues, do not individually transcend the status of industrial product; the genre's reputation by no means hinges on many "acknowledged masterpieces."
::*Remurmur's initial edit summary—that the current content reflects "excessive gloating" over ''Raging Bull''—indicates that the editor misunderstands not only the word "gloating", but the passage, as well. The discussion of the film's general critical status serves as necessary balance to its more pertinent and relatively objective characterization as an aesthetic "retreat".
::*While ''Citizen Kane'' is an important influence, it is not generally regarded as a noir (classic or neo), so its AFI ranking is irrelevant here.
::*Schrader is mentioned because he is regarded as one of the most important neo-noir screenwriters; he is also one of the most important early theorists of noir. Others filmmakers mentioned directly in their capacity as screenwriters include Robert Towne, Joe Eszterhas, Dennis Potter, and David Ayer.
::*A side note on attitude and self-perception: If my desire to preserve properly sourced material that was present when Featured Article vetting took place is to be labeled "stubborn", Remurmur, how shall we characterize your previous efforts to remove it without discussion?—] (]) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
:::*Let's keep the focus on content, please. (Goes for both of you.) ] (] &#124; ]) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
::::*Thanks, Erik. Eighty percent of my bullet points addressed content; 20 percent addressed ], which is policy.—] (]) 14:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
:::::*I know, it just helps to ignore the tone and address the content directly. Like the policy says, "be understanding and non-retaliatory". To get back on topic, I assume that mentioning the overall ranking is an extension of AFI labeling ''Raging Bull'' the best film of that decade? ] (] &#124; ]) 14:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Well reading the arguments here the first question comes into my mind is: "Does it really matter ?"
There's no important disgreement regarding content that's really worth fighting about, but an argument about a single line that in doubt works either way, so it seems to be more a taste and ego thing. In that sense the title is rather well picked, but it kinda questions its own creator as well.


Imho it is a good idea to edit featured articles in a conservative fashion, i.e. avoid changes in particular in matter of taste, style and minor details unless there's a real need for it. If an article has a featured status you can assume that the current content, style and details were vetted and agreed upon by many authors, hence you shouldn't tinker with that unless you have good reason to do so. Correcting errors or adding new important/relevant information would be such a good reason, but slight differences in taste, style or minor details are not.--] (]) 14:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
==List (new discussion)==
As RedSpruce has rightly pointed out, the inclusion of a listing of notable film noirs would be helpful to the article. Let's use our energy to collaborate on a way to do that without violating Misplaced Pages's policies on content, shall we? --] 20:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


== Lost Highway - 1996 or 1997? ==
: is IMDB's list of the most popular film noirs in a vote by their users. While this is not a ], it might a good starting place for a search. I can also provide a list (I own the collection) of the film noirs included in ] recently released collection. The might also be a great starting point. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Under the section, 1980's and 1990's, there is a side bar. It states that Dub Driving is a musical piece from the David Lynch film Lost Highway, 1996. The separate article on another page on Lost Highway states that the release date for that movie is January of 1997. Well, which is it? How come there are these inconsistencies on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. ] (]) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
:*I'm honestly unclear as to why there needs to be a separate list within the article. There are dozens of films linked through the text of the article already and any list is likely to simply attract additional entries as people add their own personal favorites. Why not just include a link to ] and leave it at that? ] 23:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Well, I think honestly right now it's in the interest of appeasing Red. But I would prefer a prose section, and information on what are considered the most well-known, if not the best, film noir is encyclopedic. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
::::There's no call for appeasement. If a more or less canonical list exists, then it should be discussed (or at least linked). And if there's not, surely much of the research done by RedSpruce could be re-cast in a more suitable form (forgoing the claims of which are most important and focussing on what each film brought to the genre, with proper citations). --] 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


=== Tagging for the POV push in the lead ===
==Pluralization==
DancingPhilosopher‎ has added their POV push to the lead. Tagged. I will leave this up briefly for comment, then remove it unless there is support from the community.] 23:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
* The following was included on the main article as a note. Since it refers to a convention on style adopted for the Misplaced Pages article itself, I am reproducing it here in the form it took before I rewrote it:
:In doubt i suggest to reset the article to its original state before this last series of edits. This was a very well maintained article with featured article status, such an article should be edited in conservative manner and large edits (in particular rewriting the lead) without consensus should be avoided.--] (]) 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
::<small>"A fifth fundamental question also prompts little agreement: What is the preferred ] of "film noir"? There are valid arguments to be made for and against "films noirs" (the spelling in the original French), "films noir" (arguably the most grammatical English), and "film noirs" (the most prevalent usage). Individual writers and publishing concerns are free to select any one of the three styles according to their own preferences. In Misplaced Pages, however, a group of writer-editors with different and often strongly held opinions on the matter must agree to use a common style. As the matter of controversy comes down to the spelling of a word and the topic of discussion is primarily American, the standard reference authority is the leading dictionary of American English, ]. The latest edition of '']''—acknowledging all three aforementioned styles as acceptable—gives as the preferred spelling "film noirs." That is the style used in this article."</small> --] 20:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
::I did. However, this POV bit has been restored. I will not ] over this kind of trivia. Perhaps an interested editor will.] 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:* Follow-up. Since my changes have been reverted, I will explain myself further. Notes about style guidelines adopted by consensus for a particular article belong on the Talk Page, not in the article itself. See ]. In the event that editors ignore consensus and make ill-advised "corrections", it will be just as easy to revert their changes and refer in the edit summary to discussion on the talk page, or to relevant guidelines from the ]. --] 15:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Ok I reset the article now, since 2 different editors have raised doubts regarding the latest changes, which in addition resulted in a maintenance tag for a featured article. I'd to ask other editors to discuss any related changes here first and seek consent before performing large edits on a featured article.--] (]) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
:::And rules is rules, regardless of what makes sense or works or is rational. Yawn. Can't you go be a pain in the ass on some other article? ] 15:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Ah, a much deeper reset... I came on the article late. Much... MUCH better. Thank you.] 00:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
::::The context in which original research and self-referential notes make sense is in an authored publication. Though the rules are not unbreakable, neither are they arbitrary. --] 12:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::It is indeed much better, but only in terms of English language, style, and academic essay-like verbosity.
:::::I agree this is MUCH better for the purposes of writing an academic (teacher assigned) essay on the topic with a typically academic dissection of ''problems of definition'' ], which is perceived by teachers as an evidence of "critical" approach to the definition, but is it?
:::::I wanted to change that because it is MUCH ''worse'' for an ordinary courius reader who '''deserves''' a more concise, encyclopeadic information and my edits' layout offered to readers a clearly listed (sections about) identyfing characteristics.
:::::Not useful for writing an academic (teacher assigned) essay on the topic? Well, encyclopedia should offer clearly listed (sections about) identyfing characteristics and students should do their homework by themselves (or should I write "alone", I appologize but the English language is not my native language), using their own ] skills. Don't you agree?
::::: ] <sup>]</sup> 07:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::Note quite, readability for "ordinary readers" is one of the goals of WP, but it is not the only one and imho it comes after an an academic correct description. WP is not supposed tp provide a "dumbed down" that becomes one sided or borderline false. If the definition is problem and there is no clear (scholarly) agreement in literature, then this information belongs in the article (amomng other see ]). Whether WP makes homework easier for students is not really WP's concern. WP strives for being a useful reference for students as well, but writing articles in such a way that it is harder for student's to cheat with their homework (cut & paste) is no criteria for writing articles in WP. The other thing that being a ] (star at the top right) means the article was thoroughly looked over by a larger number of editors/coworkers, who all came to the conclusion that the article is very good in its current form. Hence it usually makes sense to avoid large edits and changes in style.--] (]) 11:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
::::::*Reviewing DancingPhilosopher's response, I don't see any WP-consensus-based arguments in support of the changes. DP... is there any Misplaced Pages guideline you feel we should follow that is not being followed? I would again point to the ] document as a good one to review.] 03:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


=== Removal of the identifying bit. ===
==Request for Comment:Thirty-five notable American film noirs of the classic period==
This section has been changed *greatly* since the GA review, and I am not at all sure the changes, most especially this latest change in removing the plot-based description, are an improvement. I have restored this once, but it has been removed again. I'll leave it out, briefly, unless there is further support for removal. It seems key.] 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
: I agree see above.--] (]) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


==The German filmmakers fleeing from Nazis and the historical context parallels==
* I'm responding to the RFC which I saw today. It appears that the issue has already been resolved by discussing notable examples of the genre at relevant points in the article, and adding a list from a respected source. Can the RFC be removed at this point? ] 15:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
The essay-like structure that is apparently found by everyone (except me) appropriate for the encyclopedic article will stay. I admit to having made mistake by not taking my edits to Talk page before making such an extensive change to the ] article, but there are still two questions I'd like to hear an answer to.


Firstly, how come there is no place in the lede for acknowledging that the genre is not entirely home-grown product, i.e. it was the Germans fleeing from Nazis that adapted for screen the hardboiled fiction?
* There is disagreement about whether the section indicated, and its accompanying note, represent original research and, if so, whether the benefits of having the list outweigh the negatives. --] 12:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Secondly, how come the parallels between two historical contexts (police in Nazi Germany persecuting not only the "ordinary" criminals, but also those suspected to be Jews, including some of the German filmmakers, such as ], and, in the New World the corrupted police in the ] period, that the protagonists had to - in addition to crime perpetrators - deal with in the hardboiled fiction) that must have motivated the Germans, is of no importance according to the ] version of the article? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
*As an independent voice who came here through a posting at ], I completely agree with the editors who are contesting the list of 35 notable American film noirs of the classic period. To compile such a specific list that is not pre-established by any independent, secondary source is a clear violation of Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Adding a footnote describing the ] of the information does not make this list OK for inclusion; the criteria to determine "comfortingly round numbers and a scope large enough to include (almost) all the classic film noirs" is completely subjective and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. An editor does not get to decide what is "useful for students of noir"; film noir ought to be steeped in plenty of reliable sources that these can be used instead of one editor's subjective judgment to write about the most notable film noirs of a specific time period. —] (] • ]) - 16:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:I don't see an essay-like structure. You might review the ] document for help understanding the goals and methods of reaching them for Featured Article status, and the remarks back when the article reached that status.


:"1st" - Nothing in the world is "entirely home-grown product". And "it was the Germans fleeing from Nazis that adapted for screen the hardboiled fiction?" - because that is not what the source quoted said, and it is certainly not what the wider published information says.
*'''Retain for the time being''': Indeed, the list does not represent preferred Misplaced Pages style. It was generated as a replacement for a purely subjective list consisting of multiple editors' favorite noirs that had existed for some months if not years. While some editors and readers have clearly found the present list useful and informative, ideally it can be removed, ''after'' the significant information is fully integrated into the article's main text and, especially, more coverage is given to leading noir stars and character actors. At present, to simply delete the list does more harm than good.—] 18:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


:"2nd" - Because this is an encyclopedia,not an essay... drawing parallels as tenuous as those would not fly.] 16:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
*Could the list be retained if there was a change of wording to remove the OR portion of it. e.g ''based on the votes of IMDb, the following films are the most acclaimed of the genre''. ] 19:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


::Your reply to my 1st question reads "because that is not what the source quoted said". If you happen to imply I have made it up, then, please, read . What do you see? Do you see under the chapter titled "Out of the Past" the quite long list of Austro-German filmmakers' names? Now, how does the sentence end? It ends with the following words "(...) worked on film noirs." The next sentence reads: "Two émigrés - Robert Siodmak and Fritz Lang - are absolutely central to the development of film noir". Further, on page 32, you can read "their film noirs can (...) be regarded as ]s, as ''over-writing'' fatalist ] socio] and expressionist aesthetics onto the American crime film."
:*It's unclear how you're suggesting OR elements could be removed from the list. Simply rewording the description of how the list was arrived at doesn't change its essential nature.—] 19:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::You claim the proposed parallels being "too tenuous". But are they? If they are, how come then (on page 48) the author cites as valid opinion that "many of the horror films (are) displaced articulations of the physical trauma of the ]". And a few sentences later, the author claims "Similarly, the film noir might be seen as displacing the psychological traumas of the WW II" (and, of course, psychological traumas of the Nazi and Fascist regimes preceding the WWII, ]). The parallels, you claim to be too tenuous, are, in fact, in accord with the scientific findings the research on ] provided. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
::* I believe he is suggesting that by removing the ''claim'' that the 35 films listed are of particular note, that the factual information contained within the list is neutral and verifiable. I am inclined to believe that the suggestion shows progress toward a satisfactory compromise. --] 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


==WorldCat Genres==
:'''Delete''' - of course it violates OR. But more importantly for the quality of the article as a whole: if there are particularly notable noirs, discuss their impact and innovation ''in the text''. ] 22:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
{{User:Maximilianklein/wcgenres|film-noir}} ] (]) 23:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


==First image==
:'''Get rid of it'''. This is not informative, it's just a fanboy list. It calls the films "notable" but doesn't explain ''why'' they're notable. If they're notable, write about their significance within the main body of the article. If you can't think why they're significant, then why are they there? ] 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The screen grab of ''The Big Combo'' is the only image demonstrating the characteristic visuals of the genre included in the article, and is thus ideal for the opening. For that reason I have reverted the change of IP 108.65.152.120, a few hours ago, to an image of Humnphrey Bogart from the trailer of ''The Maltese Falcon''. We already have two images of Bogart in the article, which given the need to represent the whole genre, is sufficient. The image of him with Lauren Bacall from ''The Big Sleep'' could be better, but Wikimedia Commons does not contain another photograph of them together from that film. There are some superior images of them from ''To Have and Have Not'' and ''Dark Passage'' which are potential substitutions. ] (]) 06:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


== Batman? ==
I have deleted the list for several reasons. First of all, the above discussions seems to indicate the consensus is not to include it. Second, it probably violates ]. Third, according to the footnote, it relied fairly heavily on IMDb, which is a contentious enough source when used for objective information, much less subjective opinions. Fourth, the fact that the list requires a footnote many paragraphs long (practically a whole section unto itself!) in order to justify itself is probably a good indicator that the section cannot stand on its own - a section's existence should not have to be propped up by its own footnotes. Fifth, there is already a ] which seems to be doing the job decently at the moment, and this list is linked to in the See Also section of this article. Finally, as I have already mentioned, inclusion of notable noirs should be done through to text of the article, in order to create context for their importance, rather than as a subjective list. Please feel free to comment if you disagree on all these points. Thanks, ] 21:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
While admittedly there are dark overtones to The Dark Knight films, I don't see how a Batman film can be called a film noir. It's about a comic book character. They've got huge budgets and millions spent on special effects. They are cartoonish. Just because a protagonist has inner conflicts and lives in a claustrophobic, depressing environment, doesn't make a movie a film noir. Typically, in a film noir, the hero does not put on a rubber suit and fight crime against comic book villains. What's next, Spiderman? ] (]) 23:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


: Quite so. Removed the '']''/'']'' reference. ] (]) 23:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
===List based on National Film Registry===
::Batman possibly could be characterized as neo-noir which sometimes is used for other genres outside the classic film noir that have extensively applied noir elements or probably more often as genre noir like tech-noir, sf-noir or comic noir, the latter three might be a good fit for movies like Batmen, Daredevil (more the series than the movie), Watchmen or Sin City. --] (]) 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
The NFR list is a much better, reliable, and respected way to accomplish this goal. I'm still not certain that it could hold up to a FAC - it probably would be better included within the larger film noir list article, but I'm not bothered enough to delete it. I'll merely re-nag: better that these films be ''discussed in the article'' in the context of the subject. I would also '''strongly''' recommend dropping everything from the list aside from the titles and years - otherwise it leaves the list open for endless re-editing and crufting when others add more actors and other positions such as producers and cinematographers (both of which can easily be argued to be just as important in the continuity of the noir tradition). Best leave the filmmaker info for the films' individual articles. Thanks, ] 05:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I recently tried to get mention of "noir"' into ''The Batman'' article, but was shot down. -- ] (]) 06:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


== Batman (1989) Tim Burton.. How is this not in the '80's section? ==
:I'm going to restore the supplementary info on several bases:
:*Providing directors names is a standard means of identifying films in all sorts of reference contexts.
:*Adding the names of the distributing studios and of cinematographers wouldn't be a bad idea at all. I'm not convinced that producers' names would constitute a helpful additon; I'm also not convinced anyone would ever feel compelled to add them.
:*The "rules" for identifying actors are reasonably objective; the decision-making process behind them is not much more "arbitrary" than the decision-making process behind the exclusion or inclusion of any other sort of article content. The transparency of that process--instituted, in fact to ward off cruft--is not ideal, but I believe that's outweighed by the information value of listing the names, especially the supporting players (and some of the now half-forgotten stars) who feature repeatedly in noir. Naming them here should be very helpful to readers seeking to identify some of the leading stock players of classic noir (which they can do in many cases by cross-referencing with the images in the actors' articles). These character types and the actors who regularly played them are essential elements of the cycle.
:*I don't believe the list as presently constituted will, in fact, attract cruft. So...let's put it to the test. If it actually does, I'm happy to change my opinion on how, or even if, it should appear.
:—] 23:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Matter of fact, Joker (Nicholson) points out several times, the noir asthetic regarding Basinger's character (Vicki Vale) and her reporting of the war in the Corto Maltese (Fictional Country) Burton's movies in general, as a matter of fact have the dark gritty atmosphere that should be regarded as noir, but Batman especially being it's American Crime action/Drama. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::But how does it add to an article on a film genre? I'm certain that there are directors and actors who have worked extensively in the genre, but since the list itself is constrained by the need to be reliably and neutrally sourced, the listed films don't necessarily point towards that. Again - I'm worried that the list is taking away energies that could be spent on the films discussed in the article. And extensive information only invites cruft not only here, but as a precedent for other pages. If the film titles were followed by information specifically pertinent to noir, that would be more acceptable. For an example, see the details provided for the films listed in the ], in which the details discuss the release formats - clearly relevant to the article topic. Supplying the directors and stars is thoughtful, but does little to the noir article, and offers nothing that shouldn't already exist in the films' own articles. ] 23:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


:In his review, ] complained about Burton's first film being basically ''drenched in the style of noir'', which Ebert saw totally in contradiction to the optimistic superhero genre, as Ebert found that "the essence of film noir is that there are no heroes anymore". So there you have an authoritative source for the 1989 film being noir in style, which 1992's ''Batman Returns'' even more emphasized. Nolan's ''Batman Begins'' still has a few sparse nods to the noir lighting and Art Deco designs of Burton's two films, but that's about it. He wouldn't follow up on it with his next two Batman films. Schumacher's films were sorta "darkish", but much more of a silly pop art affair.
:::* I'm not particularly worried about attracting cruft. Enough folks are actively reversing unjustified minor changes to this page anyway. I am a bit concerned that we're still ignoring the purpose of the list within the article. As many have commented, it would be better to incorporate references to films within the text so that their importance to the genre is explained. ("]" should be improved or restructured to serve the related, but different purpose of providing a listing of notable examples). Since these all have their own Misplaced Pages entries, the listing of cast, crew and production details is unnecessary as reference. -- However, I wonder if a smaller-format listing could still be useful as a template within the "Classic era" section of the article.. something like this:


:I think that not recognizing what Burton's two films are is largely due to some idiots lumping the great Burton Batmans in with the Schumacher crap. The Burton Batman series once had in its own article on Misplaced Pages separate from the Schumacher series, but then obviously members of the website ''Batman on Film'' got hold of it who equal the Burton greatness with the Schumacher trash simply because of one single incident in ''Batman Returns'' where Batty throws a small firecracker after a thug in passing, which they find utterly repugnant and "totally in contradiction to the fundamental idea that The Bat never kills".
{| align="center" width=94% style="text-align:center; font-size:87%; clear:both"
| colspan="0" align="center"|
! style="background-color: #DBDABA; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;" | <span style="font-size: 14px;">'''Classic-era ''film noirs'' in the ]'''</span><br/>
|-
! width="55" bgcolor=#ffffff style="background-color: #DBDABA; font-size: 11px;"|]
| style="background-color: #F5F5EC;" |
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']'' |<br>
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']''


:Also, if we're including the two Burton Batmans (as said, they're literally drenched in the noir and seminal German expressionist style, and we have Ebert confirming that), we must also include the one film which, as is easy to source (Burton admits to it and specifically hired this earlier film's cinematographer), fundamentally influenced the Burton Batmans as well as The Coens's ''The Hudsucker Proxy'', ''The City of Lost Children'', and ''Dark City'' in that regard, and that is Terry Gilliam's '']'' (1985). There are idiots who group ''Brazil'' as well as ''The City of Lost Children'' in with steampunk, simply upon the fact "it's, uh, sorta dark, and dude, it's got rusty metal in it, man!", when both films really scream Decodence aka ], a genre which was heavily built upon the style of ''Brazil'' and how the film is basically uber-noir, Art Deco, and German expressionism, only in color. ''Brazil'' used to be in this article, but over time, people have removed it without giving any rationale. --] (]) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
|-
!style="background-color: #DBDABA; font-size: 11px;"|]
|style="background-color: #F5F5EC;" |
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']'' |<br>
'']'' |
'']'' |
'']''
|}


Provide the source and you can add the films yourself. By the way, the ] article could use some attention and more solid examples of what it includes. ] (]) 07:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
That's superb. I'll immediately replace the text-based list with it. One point: while I too personally prefer to italicize "film noirs," the established form here as well as per ''Webster's'' as an assimilated loanword is to keep it roman.—] 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
* Glad you liked it. The title would look better spanning across both columns, but I couldn't figure out the borrowed code well enough to make that happen. --] 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:*I do think the template would be most effective at the end of ''The classic period'' section, just above ''Film noir outside the United States''. Thoughts?—] 01:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::* I agree. --] 05:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
:::*Done.—] 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
::Yeah, I have a thought... actually it's more of an observation, ] isn't a film noir, it's a straight up gangster film. I like the NFR list but the White Heat inclusion annoys me. -- ] 06:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
:::It's undoubtedly a very important entry in the lineage of the gangster film, but its inclusion here is beyond specific debate, even as it demonstrates the essentially nebulous definition of film noir in general. The fact is ''White Heat'' has been included in every reputable canon of noir published in the last forty years, from Durgnat to Schrader to Silver and Ward to Ottoson to Tuska. Indeed, most overviews of the genre/cycle/classic period treat it as a standout example of film noir.—] 06:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
::::How could all dem mugs be so wrong? -- ] 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Can we please have someone reformat this so that the heading is above the other columns rather than in a third column of its own? I'd do it myself but I can't for the life of me figure how tables work in Misplaced Pages format. ] (]) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::Have fixed the header positioning, hope it's acceptable now. ] (]) 21:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


==Pretty Little Liars ==
==B-movie "in spirit"==
* The article makes liberal use of the idea that many of the classic noir films released as headline projects are more like B-movies in spirit. Discussing this as part of an overarching critical history is one thing, but applying the term "B in spirit" to individual films without citation is another. --] 22:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


USA Today has a good review of a new television episode which was filmed in noir style aimed at a young audience ] (]) 04:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
:Not sure quite what you have in mind here. The pivotal sentence appears to be this: "Most of the film noirs of the classic period were low- and modestly budgeted features without major stars (B-movies either literally or in spirit), in which writers, directors, cinematographers, and other craftsmen found themselves relatively free from the typical big-picture constraints." That clearly does ''not'' refer to "films released as headline projects"--it covers true B movies as well as the many noir "intermediates" (aka "programmers," "A/B pictures"), with minor stars such as ].—] 22:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
::* I have in mind these statments:
::::*"''Sweet Smell of Success'' was clearly not made on the cheap, though, like many other cherished A-budget noirs it might be said to have a B-movie soul."
::::*"''Criss Cross'' exemplifies how Siodmak brought the virtues of the B-movie to the A noir.
::::*"Perhaps no contemporary films better reflect the classic noir A-movie-with-a-B-movie-soul than those of director-writer Quentin Tarantino."
::These demonstrate to me that the authors of this article are putting forth a critical argument regarding the "soul" of the films discussed. In my opinion, such an argument should be attributed to a verifiable source, or omitted. The use of weasel words ("clearly", "might be said", "perhaps") only masks the originality of the argument. --] 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I couldn't agree more with this assessment. The weasel words in the article annoy me and help prevent it from moving out of the "B" class rating. -- ] 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


== Still reads like an essay ==
=="Stranger on the Third Floor" - weasel worded...==
"The movie now most commonly cited as the first "true" film noir is ] (1940)" This needs to be cited. The weasel word "commonly" needs to go. To keep "commonly" and the like in there I need to know which critics say this, how many critics say this etc. -- ] 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:* This particular claim has citations, but in general I agree. Your help in reducing these original claims will be appreciated. --] 01:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
::*Say, how did that "claim" become "original"?—] 02:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
:::* strike "these" from my above comment. --] 04:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


For all the reasons that have been stated in past years. There are many opinions stated as facts, without references. The writing style is at best flowery and loquacious, and frequently devolves into academic pomposity. Some examples:
== The Salton Sea ==
Would The Salton Sea count as film (neo-) noir? ] 16:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
==Fair use rationale for Image:Blue velvet scene isabella rossellini.jpg==
]
''']''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under ] but there is no ] as to why its use in '''this''' Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the ], you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with ].


"Where Polanski and Towne raised noir to a black apogee by turning rearward, director Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Paul Schrader brought the noir attitude crashing into the present day with Taxi Driver (1976), a crackling, bloody-minded gloss on bicentennial America."
Please go to ] and edit it to include a ]. Using one of the templates at ] is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.


"A manifest affiliation with noir traditions—which, by its nature, allows different sorts of commentary on them to be inferred—can also provide the basis for explicit critiques of those traditions."
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on ]. If you have any questions please ask them at the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->


] (]) 05:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
] 02:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
:Well both cases seem to be properly sourced (rather than being simply an WP editors view). True, various opinions are not explicitly stated as such, but with artistic topics most description, assessment and categorization are always opinions anyhow and as long as they don't deviate from the mainstream it isn't usually necessarily to explicitly state them as attributed opinions.
:"Academic pomposity" can be personally annoying but as long as it correctly reflects the overall academic assessment of the topic and is sourced it is acceptable (art encyclopedia and rereference use that to a degree as well).
:Note also that the article was reviewed and got the excellent article status (presumably in this form). Meaning, what you consider as "essayist", "pompous" or "opinionated" seems to be sanction by the community and considered appropriate for the article's subject.


:Now if aside from your 2 given examples there are other "opinion" sections, which are not properly sourced for real, that would be a different issues and something that may have to be fixed. But for that you need to lost concrete cases, that indeed have no sources or misrepresent their sources.--] (]) 07:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
== Tone issues ==


== TCM free online course on film noir, begins June 1, 2015 ==
There are some subjective tone issues I'm noticing in a quick read through of this. For example referring to "memento" as "fantastically twisted" or the caption under the blade runner picture including the phrase "It may be 2019, but this is the world of noir, so it's still raining in Los Angeles.". These reek of editorial bias or almost advert like text. Unless these phrases are coming from a reliable source they, and any like them need to be cleaned up. Even if they are coming from a reliable source they need to be written in a more appropriate manner.--] (]) 16:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I know this talk page isn't a forum, but I saw this and thought Wikipedians might be interested in and/or benefit from it: https://www.canvas.net/browse/bsu/tcm/courses/film-noir. -- ] (]) 04:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
:You may have a point with the first item, but the second is not a value judgment placed upon a film, but rather a matter of stylish and clever writing--something that should not be considered out of place or inappropriate in Misplaced Pages. And a total of 2 items (1 possibly valid) isn't sufficient grounds to flag the whole article. ] (]) 23:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
:: You claimed in your edit summary that you disagreed, and yet agreed here with my first issue and removed the tag without actually cleaning up the text. I don't see the second as a matter of stylish and clever writing. It comes across as flippant and the type of comment reserved for some kind of popcorn review.--] (]) 03:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:::I said you ''may'' have a point with the first issue, and I said that a single possibly-valid issue isn't sufficient grounds to flag the whole article. I can understand how you might dislike the tone of the image-captions; it's a matter of taste. Based on the history of the article and past discussion around that point, yours is a minority opinion. ] (]) 15:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:I humbly AGREE with Wikepedian RedSpruce. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::The playful tone of this article is unusual, different from almost any other Misplaced Pages article. I kind of like it in the abstract; the wordplay, clever phraseology and so forth make for fun reading and an interesting perspective on the subject. However, it does not comply with the guideline ]. Stylish and clever writing is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --] (]) 12:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


==Terms, genre==
::::::You're correct that such sins as style, cleverness and creativity are contrary to the guideline ]. Happily, however, WP is sensible enough to also have guidelines such as ] and ]. ] (]) 14:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
"", writes ]. Yes, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. However, encyclopedia entries are often helped by clarification of relevant terms. (I'm sure that this one is.) And the new version --
:''a ] genre characterized by stylish ] ], particularly such that emphasize cynical attitudes and ]s''
seems wrong to me. Rather, FN is very often but not always found in the genre of crime film (we see it in other genres too); and it's characterized by a certain kind of visual style and/or a moral ambiguousness or uncertainty. To quote this very WP article: "While many critics refer to film noir as a genre itself, others argue that it can be no such thing". -- ] (]) 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
:no idea why this got changed, I reset it to the original version now. Using the term genre is contradicting the rest of the lead which states that its state as a genre is disputed.--] (]) 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
::We are discussing whether this article is about a film genre, right? I hold it is. This is supported by the article being categorized as a ] and carries an instantiation of a template that lists Film genres and contains Film Noir in that list. I hold it is a genre. But even if it was not, the article is still not about a term. --] (]) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
:::I think there is a bit of confusion here, let me state a few points with regard to sentence in the lead:
:::*a) The original formulation was already used in the featured article version, so sanctioned by a larger number of experienced editors. So in doubt it shouldn't be changed unless there is a really pressing or convincing reason to do so.
:::*b) It is of absolutely no consequence whether you, me or any other individual editor considers film noir to be a genre. What matters here is what reputable external (ideally scholarly) sources say and among there is an open debate whether film noir is to be seen as a genre or not.
:::*c) (Potential) issues of category system are not a problem of this article and we don't adapt articles to categories.
:::*d) Even if you see it as a genre, the description as term (as in technical term) is nevertheless correct as well.
:::--] (]) 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
::::Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Therefore it is not about words or terms. Yes, clarification of the meaning of the article title may be valuable. This is not a valid argument for writing in the article that the article is about a word or a term. Well, there are legitimate articles about words. But this article is not about the word or the term, it is about the category. The lead says so already. So the first sentence should not contradict this. To say that ''the description as term (as in technical term) is nevertheless correct as well'' is not an argument. It is just a restatement of the wanted conclusion. --] (]) 18:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'm not quite what weird formalism you are trying to pursue here. If you think encylopedias do not describe technical terms, you are mistaken. Nor does a formal and enforced artificial separation between "word", "term" and the "concept" make much sense here. "cinematic term" is perfectly fine here and is no contradiction to the use of "category" later on and as I said before that wording was already used in the featured version of the article. Not to the mention that "term" is common choice of words in reputable sources on the subject (, , , , etc.)--] (]) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


:::::It's widely believed that some phenomenon called ''film noir'' exists. Even those who reject this would concede that the terms widely used. Asked to agree, for the sake of argument, that the phenomenon does exist, no moderately well informed person would dispute that '']'' is an example and '']'' is not. All in all ''film noir'' needs an article. Beyond this, matters quickly get fuzzy. I've read intelligent arguments by well informed people that '']'' is an example and other arguments that it isn't, that '']'' is an example and other arguments that it isn't, etc. Considering all of this, it would be myopic and perverse of Misplaced Pages to decide on one among the competing understandings of the term meant and to dismiss alternative interpretations as either mere misunderstandings or matters for a dictionary to sort out. There's nothing particularly unusual about this, either; just think of disputed terms from pop social psychology: ''id, ego, superego, anomie, alienation'', etc. Each of these needs an article, and the article must be in some ways very unlike a good article on something whose meaning is fairly clear cut, such as Odense, Austin Maestro, or Gallium. -- ] (]) 22:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
==First Subheading?==
I don't think that "Noir - What is it?" is a very good title. It seems somewhat unprofessional. Perhaps something more like "Characteristics of Film Noir" would be better. ] (]) 11:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


== New book on film noir ==
:Your proposed title is actually an appropriate one for a section that focuses on the characteristics of film noir. And behold, there is such a section: ]. The title ''Noir—What is it?'', far from being "unprofessional," in fact accurately describes the content of its respective section, which addresses the common question of basic definition.—] (]) 16:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


::I agree that the title as is sounds unprofessional--hardly the the kind of title one would find in an encyclopedia. Why not just call it "Definition" or "Definition of Film noir"? ] (]) 17:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC) The Maltese Falcon to "Body of Lies": Spies, Noirs, and Trust by Robert von Hallberg, 2015, University of New Mexico Press ] (]) 20:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:::Because, just as the section explains, there is no generally agreed upon definition, merely a nebulous set of characteristics. Which is why there is this repeatedly asked question about noir: What is it?—] (]) 06:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104224706/http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/08/108/081085676Xch1.pdf to http://chapters.scarecrowpress.com/08/108/081085676Xch1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130218203603/http://www.koreanconfidential.com/koreanpowfilmnoir.html to http://www.koreanconfidential.com/koreanpowfilmnoir.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217064144/http://www.articledestination.com/Article/Korean-War-Film-Noir--the-POW-Movies/12753 to http://www.articledestination.com/Article/Korean-War-Film-Noir--the-POW-Movies/12753
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330053905/http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2005/02/28/hammett/index.html to http://dir.salon.com/story/books/feature/2005/02/28/hammett/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202113605/http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/Articles-Summer05/JemAziz1.html to http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/Articles-Summer05/JemAziz1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060803235034/http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/NeoNoir.html to http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/NeoNoir.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061007085926/http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/Noir%20Thriller%20Intro.html to http://www.crimeculture.com/Contents/Noir%20Thriller%20Intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 15:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

== english ==

How to connect wifi in china ] (]) 12:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

So.What now? ] (]) 12:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
:Please ask this at some other website. -- ] (]) 12:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
==New Boris Ingster article needs more biography, references, photo==
An article was recently created for film noir innovator ], director of '']''. This new article needs more biographical information about his studies in Russia in the 1920s, his work with ] in 1930 in France, and his 1930s screenwriting in the US. More quality sources are needed, and a non-copyrighted or fair use photo of Ingster would be good. Thanks.<small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 20:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
:All articles need work? I'm not sure why you are posting this. ] (]) 20:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
::I am soliciting film noir-interested editors to work on a new article (created a few days ago) which is pertinent to film noir. Ingster has been called the director of the first noir. <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #00F,-4px -4px 15px #49F;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F80,-4px -4px 15px #F08;">]</span></small> 20:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, all of the accounts of the editor that wrote this page are long blocked. ] (]) 21:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

== Proposed merge of ] into ] ==

"Bad girl movies" is a completely unsourced list of noir films. I propose that any sourced content (possibly nothing) be merged into ], and the page redirected. ] (]) 18:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
:Pinging {{Ping|UnhappyCanuck}}, {{Ping|Atlantic306}}, {{Ping|Khazar2}}, {{Ping|Dfgarcia}}, all of whom have been active on that article's talk page in the past. ] (]) 18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
::{{done}} Since there were no objections, and the page was still unsourced, I've redirected the page here. There was no referenced content, so nothing was merged. ] (]) 16:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

==Wiki Education assignment: 22S-DIS STD-M114- Variable Topics in Performance and Disability Studies==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/UCLA/22S-DIS_STD-M114-_Variable_Topics_in_Performance_and_Disability_Studies_(spring) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ], ] | start_date = 2022-03-28 | end_date = 2022-06-10 }}

<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 03:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)</span>

===Student contribution moved here===
], ], ], and ]:

The following student contribution makes some good points, but there are problems with grammar, formatting, sources, and an added image that should be corrected before it is made a part of the ] article. --] (]) 11:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

<nowiki>== Film Noirs and Disability ==</nowiki>
]
Film noirs have a deep relationship with disability no matter for the representation of the beauty, excitement, inspiring or foreshadowing the side stories. In fact, there were lots of stereotypes when looking at disability within film noirs.

<nowiki>=== '''Film noir’s relations with disability''' ===</nowiki>

From a journal “''Phantom Limbs: Film Noir and the Disabled Bod''y”<ref>{{Cite book |url=Lesbian and Gay Studies, vol. 9 no. 1, 2003, p. 57-77. Project MUSE |title=}}</ref> by Michael Davidson from the ''GLQ:A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies''. In many noir examples, Many disabled characters played whether a supporting roles, evil roles or the cameo role. The boy who's deaf (Dickie Moore<ref>{{Citation |title=Dickie Moore (actor) |date=2022-03-19 |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dickie_Moore_(actor)&oldid=1077975943 |work=Misplaced Pages |language=en |access-date=2022-06-06}}</ref>) played multiple roles in the movie “''Out of Past''<ref>{{Citation |title=Out of the Past |date=2022-05-01 |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Out_of_the_Past&oldid=1085658368 |work=Misplaced Pages |language=en |access-date=2022-06-06}}</ref>” from 1947, protecting the main character also pushing the story line. Movie “''The Fallen Sparrow''”<ref>{{Citation |title=The Fallen Sparrow |date=2021-10-03 |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Fallen_Sparrow&oldid=1047982465 |work=Misplaced Pages |language=en |access-date=2022-06-06}}</ref> from 1943, the “man who limps” was the evil character perhaps got killed at the end. In “''The Blur Dahlia''” <ref>{{Citation |title=The Blue Dahlia |date=2022-03-20 |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Blue_Dahlia&oldid=1078279569 |work=Misplaced Pages |language=en |access-date=2022-06-06}}</ref>from 1946, a disabled soldier that returned from World War II Johnny Morrison(Alan Ladd) found out his wife has been unfaithful to him which made him killed her.

Disability played an important role in film noir. From the article "''Concerto for the Left Hand: Disability and the Defamiliar Body.'' <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Gaedtke |first=Andrew |date=2009-12 |title=The Politics and Aesthetics of Disability: A Review of Michael Davidson's<i>Concerto for the Left Hand: Disability and the Defamiliar Body</i> |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2979/jml.2009.33.1.164 |journal=Journal of Modern Literature |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=164–170 |doi=10.2979/jml.2009.33.1.164 |issn=0022-281X}}</ref>''"'' from ''Journal of Modern Literature.'' Disability is the central point in film noir, it is very inspiring since in film noir the disabled body gives audience the same viewing pleasure as the female body.

In numerous noir films, being disabled marked as a sexual inscrutability. Film theory has focused on mantis-like features of the femme fatale characters, and most of their husband were in a disabled state. For example, In Double Indemnity (1944) Mrs. Dietrichson’s husband is on crutches; in The Lady from Shanghai (1948) Elsa Bannister’s husband wears braces and uses a cane; in ''Walk on the Wild Side'' (1962) Jo’s husband’s legs have been amputated, and he pulls himself around on a dolly<ref>{{Cite book |last=Chivers |first=Sally |url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1346785 |title=The problem body: projecting disability on film |last2=Markotic�� |first2=Nicole |date=2010 |publisher=Ohio State University Press |isbn=978-0-8142-7085-1 |location=Columbus |language=English |oclc=986885213}}</ref>.

{{reflist|talk page}}

== Vulgar auteurism ==

I removed "vulgar auterism" from the See also section. It's defined as "championing or reappraising filmmakers, mostly those working in ''horror'' and ''action'' genres...assessing 'unserious' artistry of popcorn cinema..." Doesn't sound like film noir to me, and the term must not be in the article or it wouldn't be in See also. -- ] (]) 07:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

== Convoluted sentence ==

In the 6th paragraph of the Classic period section, Directors and the business of noir sub-section, there is this sentence: "Serving as producer, writer, director and top-billed performer, Hugo Haas made films like Pickup (1951), The Other Woman (1954) and Jacques Tourneur, The Fearmakers (1958). "Jacques Tourneur" is not a film Hugo Haas made. I assume the sentence is trying to say Jacques Tourneur made The Fearmakers in a manner simmilar to the way in which Haas made his films, but it's going to need some more words, and I don't want to be the one to add them because I really don't know exactly what the editor was trying to say. Any thoughts? -- ] (]) 21:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

== Films noir ==

Since the lead uses "films noir" for the plural of "film noir", I've edited the rest of the article to reflect this. -- ] (]) 06:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

== Noir/neo-noir ==

It would be nice to have some consistency between this article and the Neo-noir one - there is rather a tangle of confusing overlap as they stand at the moment. ] (]) 08:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

== Figures actor ==

i also need add some popular noir actor of all time so ] (]) 10:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 10:52, 20 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Film noir article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Former featured articleFilm noir is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED] This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 2, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 3, 2009Good article nomineeListed
February 28, 2010Featured article candidatePromoted
September 9, 2018Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconFilm: Filmmaking
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.
Archiving icon
Archives

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Tracer Bullet) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ErinR559980. Peer reviewers: Menaqui.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Identifying noir"

section it should be tagged/removed as appropriate. I'd encourage you to either tag the sentences or bring them to the talk page in this section so they can be discussed.--Crossmr (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This was an obviously well researched article but I believe some important points have been missed when discussing film noir. As was correctly stated, noir, Fr. for black was used intermittingly as a double entendre. The definition was black film. The reasons are both obvious, this was black and white film, and maybe a little more subtle; this was the first time in cinematic history the the hero sometimes got away with the crime, ie: Bette Davis in "The Letter" or Richard Widmark,in "Knight in the City". Up until this time it was thought that only the good guys won.Morals- you know. The large list of Film Noir from the 40's through the 50's was due in fact to a glut of young, up and coming directors that couldn't get A-list work. These were inexpensive (for the times) fims to create. And from these we got such A class assets as even Francis Ford Coppola, and Capra. What we find interesting considering special effects were few as compared to todays PC techno-wired world, was that just by using light in the right way you could create very impressive drama. Take a look at Edmund O'Brien in the movie DOA as he is lit from the ground up as he announces that he has just been murdered. And how many stagings were there when the criminal kid was caught with an irish cop directly behind him (With the cop's hand on the kid's shoulder) and a priest behind both just a little off center so you could see them foreground to background, 1-2-3.Film Noir continues today. I believe a perfect example is Pulp Fiction and or Reservoir Dogs. Or just grab Quentin Terrantino and throw him up on the screen. I just wanted to add this, not delete anything from the Misplaced Pages article. I personally appreciate the article's depth.

Don't take this comment the wrong way. But if Pulp Fiction is film noir then The Wizard of Oz is a costume drama. Kjaer (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Well the benchmark is here whether reputable media/literatur calls a particular movie film noir or not. Whether personally agree with that or not doesn't really matter for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, the benchmark actually happens when the reader does the research. There is a separate article on Pulp Fiction, the movie. In that article, some historians and critics consider it neo-noir. According to that article, the following experts do not; Geoffrey O'Brien, Nicholas Christopher, and Foster Hirsch. No one would say it is noir. And note to author above of second paragraph, Richard Widmark was in a film called "Night and the City." L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Danny Boyle and Trainspotting"

There really ought to be some mention of Danny Boyle's contribution to the modern dark cinema (neo-noir) movement, coming strongly out of the UK and Channel Four Films. Titles such as "Trainspotting" and "A Life Less Ordinary" are DEFINING films in the movement. I am literally shocked not to see Boyle and at least one of these films mentioned in this article. --Maximilian77 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Big Lebowski

Might it be worthwhile to mention the Big Lebowski as a noir parody? The Cohen brothers go so far as to include a private eye character who eventually directly expresses his admiration for the titular character for making all of the moves a noir private eye makes, and is flatly refused and ignored by the title character. Any noir fan who sees the scene immediately makes the connection, in my experience.210.174.6.89 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They talk about wanting to reference an incomprehensible Chandler story ala The Big Sleep as well. BUT there's already a lot of mention of the Cohens, so maybe we could use the space for other films. Kellen 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Is running out of space on the internet an issue? :-) 173.174.85.204 (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Eric

"Film noirs" or "films noirs"?

The article consistently renders the plural "film noirs." Shouldn't it be "films noirs"? Mind you, just before I wrote this, I got up and checked five or six dictionaries, and not one of them some much as addressed the plural. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Film noirs. There's a footnote regarding just this point. Kellen 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Or you could say "noir films", which avoids the awkwardness of "films noirs" and the strangeness of "film noirs". —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, "noir films" is fine, but so is "film noirs". There's no need to rewrite the article. As Kellen points out, we have a footnote explaining that "film noirs" is the first spelling given in Webster's. If you look at a lot of English-language books in the field, you'll see that it's the most common spelling of the plural there as well. "Strange" etymologically perhaps, but not practically: noir is now often used as a stand-alone noun.—DCGeist (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What I meant to propose was something that everyone could be comfortable with, since neither of the initially discussed terms strike a chord among all editors. "Noir films", I think, seems to be straightforward. I'm not trying to say my term is right, and like you said the either of the other ones are fine. Just seems like "noir films" would be the least challenged of the three, so we can avoid discussions like this (which are not new). Unless "noir films" gets under people's skin somehow? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting point. On a related point, I just did a search: we actually use "noir" as a stand-alone noun 31 times in the article (in constructions such as "classic noirs" and "B noirs")--and that doesn't count the additional dozen or so occurrences of "neo-noir", where "noir" is again unambiguously the noun root. I hope we can all agree that these are fine as is. So, adapting Erik's proposal, what do people think of replacing the occurrences of "film noirs" (or "film noir" when describing a specific example rather than the genre) with either "noir films" or "noirs" depending on context and readability?DocKino (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
If you're talking about usages of "film noirs" and counting "noir" as a stand-alone noun--which, doesn't really mean anything, as a noun is always part of a phrase and part of a clause, etc.--you're mistaken. Either we can construe "noir" as an adjective as it would be in French, or it can be the second half of a compound that just coincidentally has a space separating its segment. It is true that "films noirs" would be the French rendering, but the question of what part of speech "noir" represents (and therefore whether it should be inflected or not--we do not inflect adjectives except for degree) is not entirely clear. Cf. mother-in-laws v. mothers-in-law; Knight Templars v. Knights Templar. It seems to me when we have modifiers following nouns we tend to inflect the nouns and not the modifiers.
I think it's unnecessary to change them; the terms are rather well accepted in film literature in various forms (noir films/film noirs/noirs). If I had to choose, I'd choose the film noirs/noirs combo since they're more internally consistent and consistent with the other constructions (neo-noirs/classic noirs). Kellen 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Cf. the usual English plural of femme fatale - "femme fatales", not "femmes fatales", although our article prefers the latter. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a silly thread, really. "Noir films" sounds fine, but what about "films noir?" This seems like the most sensible choice of description that no one has mentioned. Have you all studied film?Burninggirl2003 (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really about film, it's about language; specifically the way that plurals of non-English words and phrases are constructed. Usually the English plural rather than the foreign plural is best for use in English, which is why we say "octopuses" rather than "octopodes". With two-word phrases it's a bit more complex; the French plural would be "films noir." To me, "film noirs" sounds clumsy ("noirs" is a strange pronunciation). "Noir films" is a good compromise, as "noir" has acquired a somewhat independent status and generally means "film noir" even when used on its own.   pablohablo. 10:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
As has been discussed before, "film noirs" is the most prevalent usage and appears in many books both scholarly and popular on the topic. As our note indicates, "film noirs", "films noir", and "films noirs" (the actual French plural) are all considered acceptable in English; Webster's' lists "film noirs" first and that has been the spelling the article has consistently used for years now. There have been no developments in scholarship or language that compel any change here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DCGeist (talk • contribs)
I'm not advocating any change; none is necessary. I'm just responding to the suggestion that it is 'silly' to discuss this matter.   pablohablo. 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
As I said, all the dictionaries I checked didn't even address it. I do think that Burninggirl2003's "films noir" makes more sense from a language point than "film noirs." (Note that the accepted "correct" plural of "court martial" is "courts martial," but the dictionary I just checked acknowledges that "court martials" is getting to be usual.) But if the second has become usual in English, I have no problem with that--just wondered if there is a consensus. As for my own idea about "films noirs," I thought I remembered from French class that when you make the noun plural, you have to make the adjective plural, too--but I could misremember after 40+ years (especially since I studied it only under duress). 140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
And now I see the footnote, which seems to cover it very well (not to mention confirming my 40 year-old recollection of the French language). 140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
And I see further that the French Misplaced Pages consistently uses "films noirs," again confirming my remnants of high school French. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Some things are sounding a bit subjective

Things such as "Neo-noir/Take 2: Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell, a femme fatale for the 1990s—and the ages—in the smash box-office hit Basic Instinct" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.146.184 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

...and under SciFi Noir, there's this little tidbit - which is debatable, tacked on and really has nothing to do with anything else: 'Fincher's feature debut was Alien 3 (1992), which evoked the classic noir jail movie Brute Force.'--70.181.137.219 (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The first has been rewritten. The second is not "tacked on". It "really has to do" with something significant: the links between classic noir and latter-day variations on the genre.—DCGeist (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Essay tag

After some deliberation I have decided the {{essay}} tag is most appropriate for this article, although the {{refimprove}} or {{npov}} could also apply. The problem is this article keeps expressing opinions but giving no attribution whatseover, which runs afowl of core policies like WP:V and WP:N I consider the following lines to instances where, without any reference, this article makes opinionated claims:

  • "Few neo-noirs have made more money or more wittily updated the tradition of the noir double-entendre than Basic Instinct..."
  • "Perhaps no contemporary films better reflect the classic noir A-movie-with-a-B-movie-soul than those of director-writer Quentin Tarantino"
  • "Joel and Ethan Coen have created one of the most substantial film oeuvres influenced by classic noir"
  • "The mainstreaming of neo-noir is evident in such films as Black Widow (1987), Shattered (1991), and Final Analysis (1992)"
  • "Like Chinatown, its more complex predecessor, Curtis Hanson's Oscar-winning L.A. Confidential (1997)... demonstrates an opposite tendency—the deliberately retro film noir; its tale of corrupt cops and femme fatales is seemingly lifted straight from a movie of 1953, the year in which it is set.
  • "Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Paul Schrader brought the noir attitude crashing into the present day with Taxi Driver..."

I guess most of these claims are probably mostly accurate, but they're still opinions. We need to know whose opinions they are... otherwise this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. These are just some examples... although if they are addressed I will consent to removing the essay tag. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With or without your "consent", the essay tag has been removed. The article is copiously sourced. You are arguing that several assertions require recasting or inline citations. That's fair--please tag those individually within the article so they can be specifically addressed. DocKino (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want to convert to fact tags, fine... but the essay tag still applies until at least these problematic claims are addressed. Having a bunch of references in some parts doesn't excuse having an essay in other parts... it's not like I could add my own unreferenced opinion to Barack Obama just because the article, in general, is "copiously sourced". I suggest you actually address my concerns or leave the tags up... trying to dance your way out of a content complaint really won't work with me, if you check my edit history. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have checked your edit history. I see you've been editing on Misplaced Pages for less than three months. That explains a lot. Spare us the edit summary lectures about what's "unacceptable". What "works with you" is of little concern to anyone, as are your notions about the import of your "consent" and your interest in dancing. What works for the encyclopedia is what counts. When you learn to take yourself less importantly, come on back. DocKino (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
So this has devolved into because you've been active on Misplaced Pages for longer, you get to do whatever you want with articles? You're becoming very incivil and ignoring the content issue. I'm not going to go away just because you make rude comments. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
DocKino, this is an unacceptable violation of the Civility policy. Please stop making comments in this vein, and consider striking out the personal attacks above. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Your incivility is completely inappropriate DocKino. There are now three editors, counting myself and the one who re-added the essay tag most recently, who agree that the article devolves into an essay and should be cleaned up. Your incivility and attacking a fellow editor based on how long he has been editing Misplaced Pages does nothing to help your case. Your condescending tone and blatant incivility on your post above dated 18:12 29 June does not "work for the encyclopedia" and therefore you should take care to avoid such behavior in the future. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I also agree that the article reads as an essay. Also, 35 inline citations for an article of this length is a pretty weak showing. Citing and quoting the classic noir theorists directly shouldn't be too hard. Kellen 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who agree that the essay tag was clearly valid and necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And so the Film Noir article is written in the style of film noir? -- SunDog | Talk 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One more here who agrees that the essay tag is needed. And I hope I don't come across as incivilly to newbs as did DocKino. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed each of the points raised by Chiliad at the beginning of this thread. If there are other, similar concerns, I have ready access to most of the major sources and am happy to address them. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Angel Heart not included as iconic modern example

How can we discuss the genre and not put in the classic modern film Angel Heart this is the ultimate illustration of film noir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.35.246 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Additions?

The movie Mulholland Falls could be covered too (not to be confused with Mulholland Drive). And would The Reflecting Skin qualify as a film noir? 84.174.236.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

I was going to create a new section on my proposal but I'll just add to this... I think that the Bantam Street production Dark and Stormy Night (2009) should be added to the Parodies section. For those that have seen the movie or clips of it, do you think it could be classified as a film noir? BTW, I've seen the movie and it rocks (the two "Skeleton" movies are awesome as well). Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Do any sources refer to it as a noir parody, or relate it to film noir in a similar way?—DCGeist (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that things must be referenced, what if the reference is wrong? I have worked my way through films noir, using this article as a guide and watching the movies. I added "Alphaville" to the Parodies section for the simple reason that it is, as I explained in a comment on the article for that movie. ("Professors Heckyl and Jeckyl," for instance.) I am currently watching "Wonder Man" (1945), the Danny Kaye movie, and it has nothing to do with film noir, being a musical comedy and comedic ghost story that happens to have the noir actor Steve Cochrane playing a minor part as a gangster. However, "Silver and Ward (1992), p. 332" is given as a reference that this film is a noir parody, which suggests to me that Silver and Ward don't know noir or never saw the movie. "Wonder Man" does not belong in this article at all. I'm removing it, despite the reference. 173.174.85.204 (talk) Eric

I see that someone has put "Wonder Man" back in the article. Whatever. I explained the reasons for taking it out. 162.89.0.47 (talk)Eric —Preceding undated comment added 17:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Another. In "The Big Steal", Mitchum makes fun of himself with some dialog about how he says 'Umm-humm" (breaking the wall) and there are jokes about being unable to speak understandable Spanish to Spanish speakers, but that doesn't make the film a parody. This movie is not very good, but bad scripting, bad plot, bad acting (at times) and bad direction don't make a movie a parody. I'm not making any more changes to the article. Evaluate and comment, please. 173.174.85.204 (talk) Eric —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

And another. How is "Murder by Contract (1958), ... a deadpan joke on noir"? This is simply a straightforward story of a guy who becomes a hit man and can't execute his last contract. There are no parody-like elements in it, at all. This is actually a fairly good movie with a "bleak" ending as the article says. I am very tempted to remove this from the article, but it does qualify a film noir in many ways, such as camera angles and dialog. The final "target" that the hit man can't kill could be the "femme fatale." ... Now, on the other hand, "His Kind of Woman" with Robert Mitchum has a lot of noir elements, but Vincent Price, who is serious at first, turns in a fine comedy performance later as a parody of the "American who gets things done" if I may call it that. That itself doesn't make it a noir parody, but apparently Howard Hughes couldn't cut out Price's performance when he ruined the movie in other ways, as described in the article about it. No changes to the article. I realize this is original research but I ain't got time to write a book. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC) Eric

Translation of "film noir"

The long-standing, and indisputably literal, translation of "film noir" as "black film" in the lead section was recently challenged. I don't love that one of the two sources of support for the challenge (in favor of "dark film") is the Encyclopedia Britannica--ideally, we're supposed to outdo them, not rely on them, right?

In any event, the translation of "black film" is very well established. I do believe Alain Silver and Elizabeth Ward's noir encyclopedia is universally regarded as the leading reference book on the topic. On the first page of its introduction, we find this passage:

"Film noir" is literally "black film"...

Similarly, the entry on film noir in one of the leading industry lexicons--Kevin Jackson's The Language of Cinema--begins like this:

film noir or film noir, sometimes abbreviated to noir literally "black film"

So...we might decide to say "black film" or "dark film", but it's definitely not "dark film" instead of "black film". DocKino (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Noir" has a variety of meanings, but most generally and literally "black". "Dark film" is a more loose translation. In Silver's translation of Frank's article, the term is left as: "noir" films. It's not wrong to have "dark film" listed, but only in addition to "black film". Kellen 10:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Here are some sources that use the "dark film" definition...
  • Encyclopedia Britannica article on film noir defines term as "dark film" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/206993/film-noir
  • EICAR, The International Film School of Paris, says "Film noir...Dark film, a genre coined by French critics for some American films with low key lighting and latitude usually conveying a solemn mood. Still in use to refer to moody films, often detective films. This term refers both to the visual style and the story." http://www.eicar-international.com/definition-film-noir.html
  • The visual story: seeing the structure of film, TV, and new media By Bruce A. Block 2001 ... on page 94, he says.....
    "film noir. The term, coined by the French, means "dark film"...
  • Encarta encyclopedia http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781533102/film_noir.html
    Film Noir, term (meaning literally “black film”, although “dark film” seems more appropriate and evocative)
  • Video production techniques: theory and practice from concept to screen By Donald L. Diefenbach 2007
    on page 91, he says "Film noir, French for "dark cinema" or "dark film"
  • An introduction to literary studies - Mario Klarer - 1999 - 166 pages... on page 59, it says "After World War II, film noir ("dark film") developed..."
...As far as making the decision, I don't think that we should try to act as translators and debate what the dictionary definition of "noir" is (it means black, dark, and a range of figurative meanings, such as macabre). I think we should do research on what published, reputable books, encyclopedias, articles claim that "film noir" is translated. Remember that the goal in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not "truth". If we go for truth, then we'll have a huge argument with one person saying "well, I have an MA in French, and I think that "noir" translates as XXX", and another person will weigh in with "Yeah, but I have a doctorate in French, and I believe that "film noir" means YYY". OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, and I sincerely hope that your idea "I don't think that we should try to act as translators and debate what the dictionary definition of "noir" is" is adopted. It is certainly correct. Unfortunately, here in the 20-tens, we are going to get people who ask, "Why is it called 'film noir' when all the actors are white?" 173.174.85.204 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Eric
This is good, we can improve the citations. Let's dump the encyclopedia references, though. They're secondary or tertiary sources here. Instead, we can use the Block reference, Klarer works too. Go ahead and change the lead to "(french for black film or dark film)" and add citations for "dark film", DocKino can add citations for "black film" if they're not already in the article. Kellen 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If I may weigh in here: As I pore over the literature as part of the Good Article review process, I have yet to find a single book or major essay in the field of noir scholarship and criticism that translates "film noir" as "dark film"; when a translation is offered, it is invariably "black film". While some general-interest texts may go "dark", the sort of authoritative sources the article relies on are unanimous—the proper translation is "black film". I propose that this sole translation be restored to the lede; we can retain the footnote, and I can add one or two more high-quality sources for "black".—DCGeist (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As a provisional measure, I've expanded the citation to articulate the point above. I still believe both focus and professional credibility in the relevant field would be served by providing just the one translation.—DCGeist (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've made this change, while retaining the "dark film" references in the note. Hope this is generally acceptable.—DCGeist (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantastically comprehensive

Kudos to the authors of this article. It’s clearly organized, eminently readable, and almost overwhelmingly complete. –jacobolus (t) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why none Frank Miller's pictures? Or Rodrigez "Sin City" film? Neonoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.146.49 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

/* Merger proposal */

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The conclusion was to not merge Labattblueboy (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article for film noir already covers neo-noir and in greater detail than the separate article, therefore the two articles should be merged.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I think neo-noir is characterized by the employment of more advanced cinematic techniques than film noir. The replacement of a traditionalist production set of codes with a more progressive ratings system helped neo-noir films add new dimensions of subject and visual matter. I don't think neo-noir shouldn merely be viewed as a sub-set of film noir, the transition of 40s and 50s fil noir to neo-noir has also profound social implications that couldn't be explored in depth if it was merged with the outstanding article on film noir. Mark Conrad's The Philosophy of Neo-Noir makes a clear distinction between the two in page 120. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  06:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose: The summary of neo-noir in this article, which I largely authored, is extensive, but it is intended as a summary. Neo-noir is a sufficiently broad and significant topic to merit its own article. It has one that is, admittedly, inadequate to the topic at the moment, but I think expansion and improvement of that article is preferable to the proposed merger.—DCGeist (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Support. Principally there is nothing wrong with having a separate neo noir article. However given the current scope and to avoid unnecessary redundancy a merger is indeed a better solution at this stage. Aside from the scope there is also an additional technical reason. Film noir is vague term and indeed much of what some call neo noir others simply view a normal continuation of film noir. In other words not everybody really makes a distinction between film noir and neo noir.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose If anything, material from the Noir article should be moved here in the interests of expanding both.μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dicko and the almost edit war

I agree mentioning or quoting Dicko might not be justified and is definitely not need. However I don't agree with deleting his book from the sources or further reading list after it is fairly recent academic publication on the overall subject, which to me at first glance at least justifies an entry under further reading.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is and has been listed under further reading and has never been removed. DocKino (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh I just looked at the deletion in version comparison, without noting that it was listed twice before. Nevermind then--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

La Série Noire

I'm not a habitual Wikipedian, so excuse me if I'm transgressing any conventions.

It's my understanding that Nino Frank's use of the adjective "noir" in his famous article is a reference to a series of translations of American crime novels published in France from 1945 that used distinctive black covers, and were known collectively as "la série noire" ("the black series") and individually as "romans noirs" ("black novels"). This is very much like the use of "Gialli" in Italian to refer to the style of novels originally published in yellow covers.

While the choice of black for the book covers was surely no accident, and the connotations of the colour relate clearly to the themes of a typical film noir and the chiaroscuro style of cinematography, Frank's use of the word is simply drawing an analogy between the content and style of the films and the content and style of the novels via the colour of the novels' covers. This is discussed in various published sources (for example, Anne-Françoise Lesuisse's "Du Film Noir au Noir") and clarifies the translation of "noir" as "black" (rather than "dark").

The French "film noir" Misplaced Pages page and the English Misplaced Pages page for hardboiled fiction both mention La Série Noire, as does Nino Frank's English Misplaced Pages page. Shouldn't it be mentioned here?

82.123.197.46 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if you have the sources at hand you could edit/add it yourself, but please no unsourced edit. However it might have to be taken in account as well that nowadays (at least in German) the term "la série noire"/"the black series"/"schwarze Serie" is also used to simply denote the string of Hollywood crime movies rather than any related novels.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
82's understanding of the relation in nomenclature between film noir and la série noire is accurate and easy enough to source if we wanted to add it. It was my sense that this was a level of detail too minute and tangential to include in this overview article on the film style; it also does not fit readily into any particular section of the article's current structure. However, if the consensus is that it should be included, I have no problem with that at all--I'd just want us to work out here where would be best.—DCGeist (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Would a subsection "Origin of the Term" under the current "Background" section be appropriate? Most of the second paragraph of the current article could then be included under that heading. It seems to me that "why noir?" is a natural question to ask. A more thorough discussion of the origin and history of the term would seem to have a place in an article of this scope. 82.123.197.46 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Yakuza

The Yakuza would slot into 70s-80s film noir although its cult following exceeded its box office. 122.148.41.172 (talk)

The Crow = neo-noir?

Could «The Crow» (1994, starring Brandon Lee), be considered as a Neo-Noir film? Throughout the internet there are some sources pro, and some sources anti. In my opinion it just is or isn't. Is it that easy to explain, or is the aforementioned film a borderline case? 「Robster1983」 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Tech noir

Should tech noir be linked here, or explained in brief? Wnt (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pornographic Picture unrelated to article for some time.

I am shocked to see a front page article with a pornographic picture that had nothing to do with Film Noir, I hope someone can relink the original photo back to its original picture. 5:50 2 October, 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.215.20 (talk)

Porno image removed. Correct image reference is Image:BigComboTrailer.jpg false image ref was File:BigComboTrailer.jpg
Maybe someone needs to watch their 'file' and 'image' tag editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.0.242 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Assorted vandals have been replacing the Big Combo trailer with pornographic images, but these have different file names. The prefix has nothing to do with it, see WP:IMAGE. Favonian (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks guys, it seemed very innapropriate to have a featured page with scenes of pornography unrelated to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.215.20 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood

The lead seems to suggest the criteria for film noir, is that it is a hollywood movie, I don't think that is true. Tinynanorobots (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on your definition. There are noir-ish films made in other countries but classic film noir were only made in Hollywood. The term was invented to describe films made in Hollywood. See the section on Film_noir#Problems_of_definition -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
No, I disagree. Not all classic films noir were made in Hollywood. The Third Man, British, 1949, directed by Carol Reed, is classified as a classic film noir of the classic period. This is a British film, part of which was filmed in postwar Vienna. The American Film Institute's 10 Top 10 included it as # 5 in its Mystery section. (Three of the films listed there are films noir; The Maltese Falcon, Laura, and the Third Man.) L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree as well. The French noir films are just as good as Hollywood. "Bob le Flambeur," "Ascenseur pour l'chafaud" (Elevator to the Gallows) and "Shoot the Piano Player" are all classics. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Eric

Marlene Dietrich photograph

I'm pretty sure the photograph of Marlene Dietrich used in the 'Cinematic sources' section is a promo shot for Morocco and not for Der Blaue Engel (as it says in the caption). Could anyone check up on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.210.203 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Check the DVD cover. No sign of her wearing a top hat in Morocco -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, i just thought she wore this outfit while singing 'Quand L'Amour Meurt' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO0h190oboE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.210.100 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Please sign your contributions
It looks like she did wear the same suit in Morocco. You'll have to do some research and find out which file that is a publicity shot for -- SteveCrook (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
This is my error, I believe, which I'll now correct. She unquestionably wears this outfit in Morocco. I just watched the entire English-language version of The Blue Angel, and she does not wear this sort of tuxedo in that film.—DCGeist (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Raging over Bull

DCGeist has been stubbornly refusing to accept the changing of

  • "The turn of the decade brought Scorsese's black-and-white Raging Bull (cowritten by Schrader); an acknowledged masterpiece—the American Film Institute ranks it as the greatest American film of the 1980s and the fourth greatest of all time—it is also a retreat, telling a story of a boxer's moral self-destruction that recalls in both theme and visual ambience noir dramas such as Body and Soul (1947) and Champion (1949)."

to the more direct

  • "The turn of the decade brought Scorsese's black-and-white Raging Bull (1980), telling a story of a boxer's moral self-destruction that recalls in both theme and visual ambience noir dramas such as Body and Soul (1947) and Champion (1949)."

so I've been forced to bring this to Talk. The article is full of films that are "acknowledged masterpieces", and if the article were to get sidetracked with mentioning accolades after every notable film then it would get quite cluttered indeed. Besides of which, it's odd that Raging Bull would be the only one that mentions AFI's ranking and not Citizen Kane. But regardless, there's no reason for Raging Bull to have the more verbose praising in the article and the cowriter credit instead of release year goes against the prose of the rest of the article.--Remurmur (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see the value in mentioning it as the AFI's greatest film of the 1980s. The overall ranking kind of goes with it. Maybe focus the sentence on the 1980s mention? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In addition,
  • Remurmur claims the article is "full of...acknowledged masterpieces"? Is it really? As with other celebrated genres, I'd say film noir is marked by a large number of very good to excellent films that, for all their virtues, do not individually transcend the status of industrial product; the genre's reputation by no means hinges on many "acknowledged masterpieces."
  • Remurmur's initial edit summary—that the current content reflects "excessive gloating" over Raging Bull—indicates that the editor misunderstands not only the word "gloating", but the passage, as well. The discussion of the film's general critical status serves as necessary balance to its more pertinent and relatively objective characterization as an aesthetic "retreat".
  • While Citizen Kane is an important influence, it is not generally regarded as a noir (classic or neo), so its AFI ranking is irrelevant here.
  • Schrader is mentioned because he is regarded as one of the most important neo-noir screenwriters; he is also one of the most important early theorists of noir. Others filmmakers mentioned directly in their capacity as screenwriters include Robert Towne, Joe Eszterhas, Dennis Potter, and David Ayer.
  • A side note on attitude and self-perception: If my desire to preserve properly sourced material that was present when Featured Article vetting took place is to be labeled "stubborn", Remurmur, how shall we characterize your previous efforts to remove it without discussion?—DCGeist (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I know, it just helps to ignore the tone and address the content directly. Like the policy says, "be understanding and non-retaliatory". To get back on topic, I assume that mentioning the overall ranking is an extension of AFI labeling Raging Bull the best film of that decade? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well reading the arguments here the first question comes into my mind is: "Does it really matter ?" There's no important disgreement regarding content that's really worth fighting about, but an argument about a single line that in doubt works either way, so it seems to be more a taste and ego thing. In that sense the title is rather well picked, but it kinda questions its own creator as well.

Imho it is a good idea to edit featured articles in a conservative fashion, i.e. avoid changes in particular in matter of taste, style and minor details unless there's a real need for it. If an article has a featured status you can assume that the current content, style and details were vetted and agreed upon by many authors, hence you shouldn't tinker with that unless you have good reason to do so. Correcting errors or adding new important/relevant information would be such a good reason, but slight differences in taste, style or minor details are not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Lost Highway - 1996 or 1997?

Under the section, 1980's and 1990's, there is a side bar. It states that Dub Driving is a musical piece from the David Lynch film Lost Highway, 1996. The separate article on another page on Lost Highway states that the release date for that movie is January of 1997. Well, which is it? How come there are these inconsistencies on Misplaced Pages? L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC) L. Thomas W. L. Thomas W. (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Tagging for the POV push in the lead

DancingPhilosopher‎ has added their POV push to the lead. Tagged. I will leave this up briefly for comment, then remove it unless there is support from the community.User talk:Unfriend12 23:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

In doubt i suggest to reset the article to its original state before this last series of edits. This was a very well maintained article with featured article status, such an article should be edited in conservative manner and large edits (in particular rewriting the lead) without consensus should be avoided.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I did. However, this POV bit has been restored. I will not wp:edit war over this kind of trivia. Perhaps an interested editor will.User talk:Unfriend12 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok I reset the article now, since 2 different editors have raised doubts regarding the latest changes, which in addition resulted in a maintenance tag for a featured article. I'd to ask other editors to discuss any related changes here first and seek consent before performing large edits on a featured article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, a much deeper reset... I came on the article late. Much... MUCH better. Thank you.User talk:Unfriend12 00:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It is indeed much better, but only in terms of English language, style, and academic essay-like verbosity.
I agree this is MUCH better for the purposes of writing an academic (teacher assigned) essay on the topic with a typically academic dissection of problems of definition ad nauseam, which is perceived by teachers as an evidence of "critical" approach to the definition, but is it?
I wanted to change that because it is MUCH worse for an ordinary courius reader who deserves a more concise, encyclopeadic information and my edits' layout offered to readers a clearly listed (sections about) identyfing characteristics.
Not useful for writing an academic (teacher assigned) essay on the topic? Well, encyclopedia should offer clearly listed (sections about) identyfing characteristics and students should do their homework by themselves (or should I write "alone", I appologize but the English language is not my native language), using their own critical thinking skills. Don't you agree?
DancingPhilosopher 07:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Note quite, readability for "ordinary readers" is one of the goals of WP, but it is not the only one and imho it comes after an an academic correct description. WP is not supposed tp provide a "dumbed down" that becomes one sided or borderline false. If the definition is problem and there is no clear (scholarly) agreement in literature, then this information belongs in the article (amomng other see WP:NPOV). Whether WP makes homework easier for students is not really WP's concern. WP strives for being a useful reference for students as well, but writing articles in such a way that it is harder for student's to cheat with their homework (cut & paste) is no criteria for writing articles in WP. The other thing that being a featured article (star at the top right) means the article was thoroughly looked over by a larger number of editors/coworkers, who all came to the conclusion that the article is very good in its current form. Hence it usually makes sense to avoid large edits and changes in style.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Reviewing DancingPhilosopher's response, I don't see any WP-consensus-based arguments in support of the changes. DP... is there any Misplaced Pages guideline you feel we should follow that is not being followed? I would again point to the wp:FA document as a good one to review.User talk:Unfriend12 03:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the identifying bit.

This section has been changed *greatly* since the GA review, and I am not at all sure the changes, most especially this latest change in removing the plot-based description, are an improvement. I have restored this once, but it has been removed again. I'll leave it out, briefly, unless there is further support for removal. It seems key.User talk:Unfriend12 23:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree see above.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The German filmmakers fleeing from Nazis and the historical context parallels

The essay-like structure that is apparently found by everyone (except me) appropriate for the encyclopedic article will stay. I admit to having made mistake by not taking my edits to Talk page before making such an extensive change to the featured article, but there are still two questions I'd like to hear an answer to.

Firstly, how come there is no place in the lede for acknowledging that the genre is not entirely home-grown product, i.e. it was the Germans fleeing from Nazis that adapted for screen the hardboiled fiction?

Secondly, how come the parallels between two historical contexts (police in Nazi Germany persecuting not only the "ordinary" criminals, but also those suspected to be Jews, including some of the German filmmakers, such as Fritz Lang, and, in the New World the corrupted police in the Prohibition period, that the protagonists had to - in addition to crime perpetrators - deal with in the hardboiled fiction) that must have motivated the Germans, is of no importance according to the featured version of the article? DancingPhilosopher 12:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an essay-like structure. You might review the wp:FA document for help understanding the goals and methods of reaching them for Featured Article status, and the remarks back when the article reached that status.
"1st" - Nothing in the world is "entirely home-grown product". And "it was the Germans fleeing from Nazis that adapted for screen the hardboiled fiction?" - because that is not what the source quoted said, and it is certainly not what the wider published information says.
"2nd" - Because this is an encyclopedia,not an essay... drawing parallels as tenuous as those would not fly.User talk:Unfriend12 16:03, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Your reply to my 1st question reads "because that is not what the source quoted said". If you happen to imply I have made it up, then, please, read this. What do you see? Do you see under the chapter titled "Out of the Past" the quite long list of Austro-German filmmakers' names? Now, how does the sentence end? It ends with the following words "(...) worked on film noirs." The next sentence reads: "Two émigrés - Robert Siodmak and Fritz Lang - are absolutely central to the development of film noir". Further, on page 32, you can read "their film noirs can (...) be regarded as palimpsests, as over-writing fatalist Weimar sociopsychology and expressionist aesthetics onto the American crime film."
You claim the proposed parallels being "too tenuous". But are they? If they are, how come then (on page 48) the author cites as valid opinion that "many of the horror films (are) displaced articulations of the physical trauma of the First World War". And a few sentences later, the author claims "Similarly, the film noir might be seen as displacing the psychological traumas of the WW II" (and, of course, psychological traumas of the Nazi and Fascist regimes preceding the WWII, without any doubt whatsoever). The parallels, you claim to be too tenuous, are, in fact, in accord with the scientific findings the research on transgenerational trauma provided. DancingPhilosopher 13:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Misplaced Pages page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of film-noir. It might be useful to look at for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

First image

The screen grab of The Big Combo is the only image demonstrating the characteristic visuals of the genre included in the article, and is thus ideal for the opening. For that reason I have reverted the change of IP 108.65.152.120, a few hours ago, to an image of Humnphrey Bogart from the trailer of The Maltese Falcon. We already have two images of Bogart in the article, which given the need to represent the whole genre, is sufficient. The image of him with Lauren Bacall from The Big Sleep could be better, but Wikimedia Commons does not contain another photograph of them together from that film. There are some superior images of them from To Have and Have Not and Dark Passage which are potential substitutions. Philip Cross (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Batman?

While admittedly there are dark overtones to The Dark Knight films, I don't see how a Batman film can be called a film noir. It's about a comic book character. They've got huge budgets and millions spent on special effects. They are cartoonish. Just because a protagonist has inner conflicts and lives in a claustrophobic, depressing environment, doesn't make a movie a film noir. Typically, in a film noir, the hero does not put on a rubber suit and fight crime against comic book villains. What's next, Spiderman? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite so. Removed the Batman Begins/The Dark Knight reference. Philip Cross (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Batman possibly could be characterized as neo-noir which sometimes is used for other genres outside the classic film noir that have extensively applied noir elements or probably more often as genre noir like tech-noir, sf-noir or comic noir, the latter three might be a good fit for movies like Batmen, Daredevil (more the series than the movie), Watchmen or Sin City. --Kmhkmh (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I recently tried to get mention of "noir"' into The Batman article, but was shot down. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Batman (1989) Tim Burton.. How is this not in the '80's section?

Matter of fact, Joker (Nicholson) points out several times, the noir asthetic regarding Basinger's character (Vicki Vale) and her reporting of the war in the Corto Maltese (Fictional Country) Burton's movies in general, as a matter of fact have the dark gritty atmosphere that should be regarded as noir, but Batman especially being it's American Crime action/Drama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.102.162 (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In his review, Roger Ebert complained about Burton's first film being basically drenched in the style of noir, which Ebert saw totally in contradiction to the optimistic superhero genre, as Ebert found that "the essence of film noir is that there are no heroes anymore". So there you have an authoritative source for the 1989 film being noir in style, which 1992's Batman Returns even more emphasized. Nolan's Batman Begins still has a few sparse nods to the noir lighting and Art Deco designs of Burton's two films, but that's about it. He wouldn't follow up on it with his next two Batman films. Schumacher's films were sorta "darkish", but much more of a silly pop art affair.
I think that not recognizing what Burton's two films are is largely due to some idiots lumping the great Burton Batmans in with the Schumacher crap. The Burton Batman series once had in its own article on Misplaced Pages separate from the Schumacher series, but then obviously members of the website Batman on Film got hold of it who equal the Burton greatness with the Schumacher trash simply because of one single incident in Batman Returns where Batty throws a small firecracker after a thug in passing, which they find utterly repugnant and "totally in contradiction to the fundamental idea that The Bat never kills".
Also, if we're including the two Burton Batmans (as said, they're literally drenched in the noir and seminal German expressionist style, and we have Ebert confirming that), we must also include the one film which, as is easy to source (Burton admits to it and specifically hired this earlier film's cinematographer), fundamentally influenced the Burton Batmans as well as The Coens's The Hudsucker Proxy, The City of Lost Children, and Dark City in that regard, and that is Terry Gilliam's Brazil (1985). There are idiots who group Brazil as well as The City of Lost Children in with steampunk, simply upon the fact "it's, uh, sorta dark, and dude, it's got rusty metal in it, man!", when both films really scream Decodence aka Dieselpunk, a genre which was heavily built upon the style of Brazil and how the film is basically uber-noir, Art Deco, and German expressionism, only in color. Brazil used to be in this article, but over time, people have removed it without giving any rationale. --2003:71:4E07:3E91:DCC:7627:F97C:7567 (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Provide the source and you can add the films yourself. By the way, the Dieselpunk article could use some attention and more solid examples of what it includes. Dimadick (talk) 07:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Pretty Little Liars

USA Today has a good review of a new television episode which was filmed in noir style aimed at a young audience Bachcell (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Still reads like an essay

For all the reasons that have been stated in past years. There are many opinions stated as facts, without references. The writing style is at best flowery and loquacious, and frequently devolves into academic pomposity. Some examples:

"Where Polanski and Towne raised noir to a black apogee by turning rearward, director Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Paul Schrader brought the noir attitude crashing into the present day with Taxi Driver (1976), a crackling, bloody-minded gloss on bicentennial America."

"A manifest affiliation with noir traditions—which, by its nature, allows different sorts of commentary on them to be inferred—can also provide the basis for explicit critiques of those traditions."

157.182.105.1 (talk) 05:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Well both cases seem to be properly sourced (rather than being simply an WP editors view). True, various opinions are not explicitly stated as such, but with artistic topics most description, assessment and categorization are always opinions anyhow and as long as they don't deviate from the mainstream it isn't usually necessarily to explicitly state them as attributed opinions.
"Academic pomposity" can be personally annoying but as long as it correctly reflects the overall academic assessment of the topic and is sourced it is acceptable (art encyclopedia and rereference use that to a degree as well).
Note also that the article was reviewed and got the excellent article status (presumably in this form). Meaning, what you consider as "essayist", "pompous" or "opinionated" seems to be sanction by the community and considered appropriate for the article's subject.
Now if aside from your 2 given examples there are other "opinion" sections, which are not properly sourced for real, that would be a different issues and something that may have to be fixed. But for that you need to lost concrete cases, that indeed have no sources or misrepresent their sources.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

TCM free online course on film noir, begins June 1, 2015

Yes, I know this talk page isn't a forum, but I saw this and thought Wikipedians might be interested in and/or benefit from it: https://www.canvas.net/browse/bsu/tcm/courses/film-noir. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Terms, genre

"Misplaced Pages is not about terms but about phenomena (and possibly concepts)", writes Ettrig. Yes, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. However, encyclopedia entries are often helped by clarification of relevant terms. (I'm sure that this one is.) And the new version --

a film genre characterized by stylish Hollywood crime dramas, particularly such that emphasize cynical attitudes and sexual motivations

seems wrong to me. Rather, FN is very often but not always found in the genre of crime film (we see it in other genres too); and it's characterized by a certain kind of visual style and/or a moral ambiguousness or uncertainty. To quote this very WP article: "While many critics refer to film noir as a genre itself, others argue that it can be no such thing". -- Hoary (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

no idea why this got changed, I reset it to the original version now. Using the term genre is contradicting the rest of the lead which states that its state as a genre is disputed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
We are discussing whether this article is about a film genre, right? I hold it is. This is supported by the article being categorized as a Category:Film genres and carries an instantiation of a template that lists Film genres and contains Film Noir in that list. I hold it is a genre. But even if it was not, the article is still not about a term. --Ettrig (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of confusion here, let me state a few points with regard to sentence in the lead:
  • a) The original formulation was already used in the featured article version, so sanctioned by a larger number of experienced editors. So in doubt it shouldn't be changed unless there is a really pressing or convincing reason to do so.
  • b) It is of absolutely no consequence whether you, me or any other individual editor considers film noir to be a genre. What matters here is what reputable external (ideally scholarly) sources say and among there is an open debate whether film noir is to be seen as a genre or not.
  • c) (Potential) issues of category system are not a problem of this article and we don't adapt articles to categories.
  • d) Even if you see it as a genre, the description as term (as in technical term) is nevertheless correct as well.
--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Therefore it is not about words or terms. Yes, clarification of the meaning of the article title may be valuable. This is not a valid argument for writing in the article that the article is about a word or a term. Well, there are legitimate articles about words. But this article is not about the word or the term, it is about the category. The lead says so already. So the first sentence should not contradict this. To say that the description as term (as in technical term) is nevertheless correct as well is not an argument. It is just a restatement of the wanted conclusion. --Ettrig (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite what weird formalism you are trying to pursue here. If you think encylopedias do not describe technical terms, you are mistaken. Nor does a formal and enforced artificial separation between "word", "term" and the "concept" make much sense here. "cinematic term" is perfectly fine here and is no contradiction to the use of "category" later on and as I said before that wording was already used in the featured version of the article. Not to the mention that "term" is common choice of words in reputable sources on the subject (, , , , etc.)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
It's widely believed that some phenomenon called film noir exists. Even those who reject this would concede that the terms widely used. Asked to agree, for the sake of argument, that the phenomenon does exist, no moderately well informed person would dispute that Out of the Past is an example and The Bachelor and the Bobby-Soxer is not. All in all film noir needs an article. Beyond this, matters quickly get fuzzy. I've read intelligent arguments by well informed people that The Maltese Falcon is an example and other arguments that it isn't, that Sunset Boulevard is an example and other arguments that it isn't, etc. Considering all of this, it would be myopic and perverse of Misplaced Pages to decide on one among the competing understandings of the term meant and to dismiss alternative interpretations as either mere misunderstandings or matters for a dictionary to sort out. There's nothing particularly unusual about this, either; just think of disputed terms from pop social psychology: id, ego, superego, anomie, alienation, etc. Each of these needs an article, and the article must be in some ways very unlike a good article on something whose meaning is fairly clear cut, such as Odense, Austin Maestro, or Gallium. -- Hoary (talk) 22:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

New book on film noir

The Maltese Falcon to "Body of Lies": Spies, Noirs, and Trust by Robert von Hallberg, 2015, University of New Mexico Press Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Film noir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Film noir. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

english

How to connect wifi in china Fu yuan yu 21 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

So.What now? Fu yuan yu 21 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Please ask this at some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 12:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

New Boris Ingster article needs more biography, references, photo

An article was recently created for film noir innovator Boris Ingster, director of Stranger on the Third Floor. This new article needs more biographical information about his studies in Russia in the 1920s, his work with Sergei Eisenstein in 1930 in France, and his 1930s screenwriting in the US. More quality sources are needed, and a non-copyrighted or fair use photo of Ingster would be good. Thanks.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

All articles need work? I'm not sure why you are posting this. Ceoil (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
I am soliciting film noir-interested editors to work on a new article (created a few days ago) which is pertinent to film noir. Ingster has been called the director of the first noir. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 20:30, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, all of the accounts of the editor that wrote this page are long blocked. Ceoil (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Bad girl movies into Film noir

"Bad girl movies" is a completely unsourced list of noir films. I propose that any sourced content (possibly nothing) be merged into Film noir, and the page redirected. pburka (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @UnhappyCanuck:, @Atlantic306:, @Khazar2:, @Dfgarcia:, all of whom have been active on that article's talk page in the past. pburka (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done Since there were no objections, and the page was still unsourced, I've redirected the page here. There was no referenced content, so nothing was merged. pburka (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 22S-DIS STD-M114- Variable Topics in Performance and Disability Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 10 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ppprru (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Kyleighkimbrell, Erikp246.

— Assignment last updated by Elyonn (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Student contribution moved here

Ppprru, Kyleighkimbrell, Erikp246, and Elyonn:

The following student contribution makes some good points, but there are problems with grammar, formatting, sources, and an added image that should be corrected before it is made a part of the film noir article. --Jeremy Butler (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

== Film Noirs and Disability ==

File:FilmNoir(Disability).jpg
Film Noir within the social injustice towards the disabilities groups

Film noirs have a deep relationship with disability no matter for the representation of the beauty, excitement, inspiring or foreshadowing the side stories. In fact, there were lots of stereotypes when looking at disability within film noirs.

=== '''Film noir’s relations with disability''' ===

From a journal “Phantom Limbs: Film Noir and the Disabled Body” by Michael Davidson from the GLQ:A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies. In many noir examples, Many disabled characters played whether a supporting roles, evil roles or the cameo role. The boy who's deaf (Dickie Moore) played multiple roles in the movie “Out of Past” from 1947, protecting the main character also pushing the story line. Movie “The Fallen Sparrow” from 1943, the “man who limps” was the evil character perhaps got killed at the end. In “The Blur Dahlia” from 1946, a disabled soldier that returned from World War II Johnny Morrison(Alan Ladd) found out his wife has been unfaithful to him which made him killed her.

Disability played an important role in film noir. From the article "Concerto for the Left Hand: Disability and the Defamiliar Body. " from Journal of Modern Literature. Disability is the central point in film noir, it is very inspiring since in film noir the disabled body gives audience the same viewing pleasure as the female body.

In numerous noir films, being disabled marked as a sexual inscrutability. Film theory has focused on mantis-like features of the femme fatale characters, and most of their husband were in a disabled state. For example, In Double Indemnity (1944) Mrs. Dietrichson’s husband is on crutches; in The Lady from Shanghai (1948) Elsa Bannister’s husband wears braces and uses a cane; in Walk on the Wild Side (1962) Jo’s husband’s legs have been amputated, and he pulls himself around on a dolly.

  1. . {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. "Dickie Moore (actor)", Misplaced Pages, 2022-03-19, retrieved 2022-06-06
  3. "Out of the Past", Misplaced Pages, 2022-05-01, retrieved 2022-06-06
  4. "The Fallen Sparrow", Misplaced Pages, 2021-10-03, retrieved 2022-06-06
  5. "The Blue Dahlia", Misplaced Pages, 2022-03-20, retrieved 2022-06-06
  6. Gaedtke, Andrew (2009-12). "The Politics and Aesthetics of Disability: A Review of Michael Davidson'sConcerto for the Left Hand: Disability and the Defamiliar Body". Journal of Modern Literature. 33 (1): 164–170. doi:10.2979/jml.2009.33.1.164. ISSN 0022-281X. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. Chivers, Sally; Markotic��, Nicole (2010). The problem body: projecting disability on film. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. ISBN 978-0-8142-7085-1. OCLC 986885213. {{cite book}}: replacement character in |last2= at position 9 (help)

Vulgar auteurism

I removed "vulgar auterism" from the See also section. It's defined as "championing or reappraising filmmakers, mostly those working in horror and action genres...assessing 'unserious' artistry of popcorn cinema..." Doesn't sound like film noir to me, and the term must not be in the article or it wouldn't be in See also. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Convoluted sentence

In the 6th paragraph of the Classic period section, Directors and the business of noir sub-section, there is this sentence: "Serving as producer, writer, director and top-billed performer, Hugo Haas made films like Pickup (1951), The Other Woman (1954) and Jacques Tourneur, The Fearmakers (1958). "Jacques Tourneur" is not a film Hugo Haas made. I assume the sentence is trying to say Jacques Tourneur made The Fearmakers in a manner simmilar to the way in which Haas made his films, but it's going to need some more words, and I don't want to be the one to add them because I really don't know exactly what the editor was trying to say. Any thoughts? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Films noir

Since the lead uses "films noir" for the plural of "film noir", I've edited the rest of the article to reflect this. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Noir/neo-noir

It would be nice to have some consistency between this article and the Neo-noir one - there is rather a tangle of confusing overlap as they stand at the moment. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Figures actor

i also need add some popular noir actor of all time so Kuyalanz (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Film noir: Difference between revisions Add topic