The Silver Screen Oasis

This coming Wednesday, August 17, TCM is offering up Humphrey Bogart as their Star of the Day, with at least six of the thirteen pictures featured pretty much in the film noir camp:
THE BIG SLEEP (46), HIGH SIERRA (41), THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT (41), IN A LONELY PLACE (50), THE MALTESE FALCON (41), and BEAT THE DEVIL (54).

IN A LONELY PLACE, from director Nicholas Ray is perhaps the most noir of the group and BEAT THE DEVIL, although ostensibly a black comedy, has enough noir elements to qualify it as somewhat noir. Hawks' THE BIG SLEEP is, well, Chandler, which somehow manages to seal that deal. The two Raoul Walsh films (HIGH SIERRA and THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT) tend to challenge our perceptions of the noir style a little but succeed at convincing us of their noirness on their own energetic terms. And it's probably pointless to stir up the old debate about the FALCON. Sure it's noir. And sure it's a great film. But is it a great film noir?
Some of Bogart's other notable noirs not featured on Wednesday would be: THE BIG SHOT (42), DARK PASSAGE (47), DEAD RECKONING (47), KNOCK ON ANY DOOR (49), THE ENFORCER (51), and THE HARDER THEY FALL(56).

Any way you slice it, Bogart is one of the true reigning icons of noir.

Thanks Dewey for telling us!

High Sierra is still very underrated among Bogart's body of films, even though it's the one that sold him to the public as a leading man. There have been countless arguments as to whether its status should be classified as Noir or Gangster, but to me it's a transitional work that has its feet in both worlds.

Right as rain, Ark. A nocturnal blend of gangster romanticism and
burgeoning noir sensibilities...
[youtube][/youtube]

I enjoy all of these films (except BEAT THE DEVIL, who's comedy - whether black or not - never really gels) and would not consider any of them noir. There is no sense of fatalism that any of the characters are being pushed to their doom. MALTESE FALCON and HIGH SIERRA are terrific crime films, THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT is part of Warner's melodramatic workingman dramas that they had been doing since sound arrived. IN A LONELY PLACE is a psychological drama and I am adamant that BIG SLEEP is not even close to noir. Howard Hawks did not make film noir. He made Howard Hawks films. He filled his movies with charismatic stars and incredibly entertaining scenes. He made them in many different genres. This would be in the detective genre.

You really think there is no fatalistic sense of Roy Earle being pushed to his doom?

Or Dix Steele slowly, inexorably pushing himself toward his own doomed fate? Or were
you being factitious?
[youtube][/youtube]

Gary wrote:
MALTESE FALCON and HIGH SIERRA are terrific crime films, THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT is part of Warner's melodramatic workingman dramas that they had been doing since sound arrived. IN A LONELY PLACE is a psychological drama and I am adamant that BIG SLEEP is not even close to noir. .... This would be in the detective genre.

You are correct. But they are also noir. Every film noir is something else as well -- crime melodrama or psychological drama or detective story or mystery or Western or horror or something. That is why film noir itself is not a genre, but rather a theme that is often expressed in certain stylistic ways.

I call MALTESE FALCON one of THE great American movies. Does it signify all the elements that make up noir? Maybe not. But it's dark. It's unpredictable. It's murderous. As John T. Chance said in another genre, "I'd hate to have to live on the difference!"

"Falcon" has the slickest pace I've ever seen. The dialogue is almost musical. The intimate look is downright claustrophobic. If there's one very small issue, it's the lack of visual imagery. The movie is all talk. The talk is just about the best I've heard. But something to look at would be nice!

That's an interesting point, Red. I never ever thought about it at all.

The movie is so fast paced and crisp that it never occurred to me that it doesn't have much of a "look". It is sort of closer to crime film than noir visually, however, lots of curtains blowing in the breeze, and lengthening shadows are used throughout the film - visible light sources, like small lamps, cast huge shadows. The sign bearing the names Spade and Archer is in the background, or reflected, and the way the camera is tilted upward from underneath people's faces, so you can see the ceilings...these are the things I do notice about the "style" of The Maltese Falcon.

I always get the idea that it is a very definite version of San Francisco. But all in all, it's not particularly interesting, visually, it's simply a backdrop for the excitement the actors generate. The characters rule and create their environment. Did Huston ever make a movie in which the backdrop was more exciting or contrived than the actors? The Dead, maybe? The Treasure of the Sierra Madre? The Misfits? How about The African Queen? No, the actors are all important in Huston, it seems to me, the way that these weird characters act when they come together, as opposed to when they are on their own. The backdrop may be specific, but visual dazzle, style or decor never takes top place in a Huston film. This is not to say he doesn't have a style, but it is not frilly or overly colorful. It's all to do with camera angles and faces, I think.

I agree 100%. And the clip here illustrates that pretty well. The lighting,
although attractive, is flat and simply ignores any attempt at an
expressionistic look. Most of the interiors are like that. Huston's never
really been thought of as a stylist, per se, and his films ultimately bare
that out. Compared to many RKO films from the same period, THE
MALTESE FALCON seems a litle old-fashioned. But it's still noir.
(Seems that YouTube has made it impossible to embed any Maltese
Falcon clips; you'll need to follow a link. Sorry.)
[youtube][/youtube]

JackFavell wrote:You really think there is no fatalistic sense of Roy Earle being pushed to his doom?

Earle was a career criminal embarking on one last job against his better judgement, but he still went ahead with it. He was in control. He pushed himself to his doom. Noir hero's generally get swept up in situations that they have no control over because it's a violent and unpredictable world. So, no, I don't see a correlation between Earle's sense of doom and film noir anymore than I do with the pilots from WINGS, THE DAWN PATROL or ONLY ANGELS HAVE WINGS who sense that they may not return from their next flight.

Dewey1960 wrote:Or Dix Steele slowly, inexorably pushing himself toward his own doomed fate? Or were
you being factitious?

What doomed fate was that? He lost his girl because he couldn't control his own paranoia anger. I'm sure that was a fate that Mitchum's character in OUT OF THE PAST (47) would had given his eyeteeth for.

Here's Bogart photographed in a more typical noir fashion from 1947
in John Cromwell's DEAD RECKONING with Lizbeth Scott standing in
for Lauren Bacall so to speak. Even tho this Columbia film isn't in the iconic
league as the Warner Bros noirs from the same period, it has the more genuine
look...
[youtube][/youtube]