Where did I describe noir at all?
Well, by saying it was a genre rather than a cycle. (Other people were putting up specific criteria that described what they thought defined the boundaries of the genre.)
You can make a list of the things any genre is supposed to have, and then pull out half a dozen films which clearly count as Genre X but don't have them.
But noir is kind of an extreme example, don't you think? They're a lot more diverse than, say, westerns or disaster movies or war movies.
(It's the same kind of problem that science fiction novels have: mystery and romance and most of the rest of the genres are very strongly defined; but SF is so big and diverse, and it's so hard to define its core components, that many people prefer not to call it a genre at all.)
They're a lot more diverse than, say, westerns or disaster movies or war movies.
I'm not so sure that's true. At the very least, the conventions seem to change to reflect the current mood. Looking at Westerns, Silverado, say, looks at themes that would never have come up in the days of Roy Rogers.
Silverado, say, looks at themes that would never have come up in the days of Roy Rogers.
Themes, yeah -- those change over time plenty. But it takes place in the 19th C. west, right? Sere, wide landscape; clapboard houses in a "town" springing up in the middle of nowhere; men on horses with six-guns who whistle to signal their appreciation; lassoes; lone, taciturn heroes who posse up only reluctantly; stand-up show-downs; black-hattery.
(N.b. I haven't seen a Roy Rogers movie in a dog's age, so I'm extrapolating mostly from other 1950s-era westerns.)
Every genre has got its variations, reinventions, taking the body of an Impala and putting a Honda engine in it, etc. But even reinventions
have awareness of and reaction to the traditional constraints that have come before. If you set a western in space, you're still nodding to the established history of westerns. If you set a western in a drawing room, and strip it of the formal elements that traditionally define westerns, most people would say that it's no longer a western.
With noir, you'd get a spirited debate.
Well, by saying it was a genre rather than a cycle.
I didn't say that. I think maybe you're attributing someone else's posts to me. Or I'm having another schizoid moment.
Or I'm having another schizoid moment.
::decides now might be a good time to stop putting Skittles in Strega's pillbox::
Criterion really knows how to do a boxed set: [link]
Last night, S and I watched
The Station Agent
and fell madly in love with the film. It was similar in some ways to
Lost in Translation,
but with a less dream-like quality to it. Peter Dinklage was superb, and I really hope to see him in many more things. Patricia Clarkson and Bobby Cannavale were also fantastic. Cannavale in particular managed to create a character that was sypathetic and lovable, while at the same time being annoying and obtuse. No small feat. Highly recommended.
$650! Shit. (Although it's not really a bad price tag for 50 movies.) Plus, I already have a hanful of movies on that set. Still. *covets* I've seen only about a half of that collection, but have been wanting to see many of the other half for a while.
Criterion really knows how to do a boxed set
Wow, yeah that's impressive. At that prices it's $13 a movie (as opposed to $17 per a the SRP).
Criterion really knows how to do a boxed set
Want.
Especially since Criterion movies generally cost upwards of $25.
