The DePalma Scarface is very conscious about all these elements and hits every genre element for a ganster film. It was a popular genre in the thirties and has been a source for many movies (and series) since. But it is very distinct from Noir.

When I was making gangster movies, we didn't even HAVE chainsaws!

I also dislike Lebowski. On viewing one I was underwhelmed. On viewing two, I was also underwhelmed. The humor makes me laugh some, but not in a way that makes me care as much as everybody else seems to care.

Gangster movies are always concerned with dynamics and relations within the gang. Noir movies almost always isolate the protagonist, and pull them out of their social stratum, pulling them down generally because of one stupid mistake (generally sex) or often random fate.

So why limit one of these types of film to a specific time period?

If the definition of genre is "A category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a distinctive style, form, or content," how is noir not a genre? Especially with all of the common elements that Tom listed.

Elements of Film Noir:

Yeah, I would dispute this list. This is exactly why you can't call Noir a genre. These are all stylistic elements that have accrued to Neo-Noir, but you can find many, many instances where canonical Noir movies don't exhibit key elements of this laundry list.

A true femme fatale, a woman who primes the pump for fatal things to happen.

Not every noir has a femme fatale. Not even close. Neo-Noirs almost always do.

A sense of fate or even predestination that transcends mere contrivance. Film noir characters exist in a closed world, even if they are fleeing cops over hundreds of miles. Their options are very limited.

This is hardly a description of a genre convention. It does get after a major defining aspect of Noir, but that sense of Fate is just as applicable to Tragedy. And not every Noir takes place in a closed world. The Kansas City Story or Ace in the Hole depend on a larger social context.

Implicit social protest. If people and institutions did what they were supposed to, we wouldn't have these problems.

This is true of any movie that has any kind of subtext.

xpost--

ITA with Megan. If "cycle" is distinct from "genre" because the former has a specific time period associated with it, I cry foul.

Noir aspects aside, LEBOWSKI is one of those movies like REPO MAN or THE PRINCESS BRIDE or tons of MONTY PYTHON where a line will pop into my head due to what's going on at the moment, and I won't be able to refrain from quoting it aloud (although I'm a bit more circumspect with the more profane bits). I've had entire conversations that way with certain friends.

Yeah, I would dispute this list. This is exactly why you can't call Noir a genre.

By those standards, I'm not sure you can call anything a genre.

So why limit one of these types of film to a specific time period?

Gangsters films were understood as a genre as they were being made. Those genre conventions can be used in different ways in different eras. If you say every Gangster movie is implicitly a critique of capitalism, then The Sopranos is (on one level) very much about upper middle class aspirations.

Noir, like the French New Wave, was not understood as a genre as it was being made. The studios were making melodramas and crime thrillers and detective stories. But because of the era in which they were made, many of these movies - across many genres - exhibited a commonality of tone and theme. Not their styles and forms, but the way they expressed the era.

A sense of fate or even predestination that transcends mere contrivance. Film noir characters exist in a closed world, even if they are fleeing cops over hundreds of miles. Their options are very limited.

No happy ending. If characters seek redemption, they either don't find it or find it only in death.

I always think these two are the elements most important to the *content* (if not form) of film noir. A sense of... spiritual nihilism, perhaps. The character may struggle to atone for their sin/distance themselves from the crime, but it never works. For example, I always think of "A Simple Plan" as fairly noirish, despite the fact that it's set in a rural area, not a city, and the predominant colour in the film is the white of the snow instead of the black of the night.

I also remember having a debate about this when I was discussing Veronica Mars with some folks online -- it gets called high school noir a lot, but despite a lot of noir elements, the show has a stubborn core of optimism and a genuinely loving, rewarding relationship between the protagonist (Veronica) and her father, which feels out of place for a noir.

Does any classic noir film have a happy ending? Hmmm. I guess "Laura" has a happy ending of a sort, but it always feels wrong to me.

Noir, like the French New Wave, was not understood as a genre as it was being made.

I really think this is apples and oranges, term-wise. The term New Wave emerged before NW directors even made films to describe the Zeitgeist of a new France emerging from the ashes of WWII. It described the directors (all from a new generation of filmmakers) rather than the films themselves.