Re: Re : RARA-AVIS: Motel Noir

From: Steve Novak (Cinefrog@comcast.net)
Date: 15 Jul 2009

  • Next message: Laurent Lehmann: "Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Motel noir..."

    Bien dit....precisely...it is a mecanism in which all the cogwheels are defined and set...crazies included...none of these characters are questioning, themselves, existence, raison d¹être...they act along their own set and since there is a strong plot it creates tension in the viewer...but nothing in these characters is disturbing, challenging, upsetting their own existence, their own validity...and/or ours by the same token...and nothing in shooting style, acting (and casting), edit...leads us another way...

    Enough...

    Montois reaching cocktail hour...(I should say apéritif...)

    On 7/15/09 10:47 AM, "jacquesdebierue" <jacquesdebierue@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > --- In rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rara-avis-l%40yahoogroups.com> ,
    > "Jeff Vorzimmer" <jvorzimmer@...> wrote:
    >> >
    >>> > > Steve, I agree with you. The movie Psycho is not noir. The Bloch book is
    >>> not noir either. It's a horror thriller (!). By the way, the book is
    >>> excellent, better than the movie.
    >> >
    >> > Then nothing by Bloch would be considered noir. Do the psychotic characters
    >> somehow disqualify it from being noir?
    >> >
    >
    > The presence of crazies per se does not disqualify a work from being noir (The
    > Killer Inside Me, and many others), but my instinct tells me that Psycho is
    > not noir. There is no existential predicament in that movie.
    >
    > mrt
    >
    >
    >

    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Jul 2009 EDT