Presentation Outline

Keith Campbell

Mr. Toth

English 101

May 21, 2013

Presentation Outline

·         Intro

o    The Matrix is the movie I have chosen to highlight as neo-noir.  In the far flung future of the 23^rd century, mankind war daily with brutal machines gifted, by humans, with Artificial Intelligence.  The one hope of the humans lies in a prophecy.  Will The One of the prophecy be found in time to save humanity from their own creations?

·         Characteristics of The Matrix that link it to Classic Noir

o    Characters

§  Ambiguous Protagonists

·         Thomas Anderson

o    Thomas is just trying to fit into the world around him while continually being pulled to the wrong side of the line by Neo and Trinity.  Thomas is a programmer for a respectable software company. 

·         Neo

o    Neo’s actions get Thomas into trouble.  Neo is a criminal computer hacker who makes illegal programs and sells them on the black market.

§  Femme Fatale

·         Trinity

o    Leads Thomas to his death to bring Neo fully to life.  She tempts Neo with knowledge of finding Morpheus and the truth about the Matrix.

§  Detective

·         Morpheus

o    Morpheus is searching for the prophesized “The One”.  He is the Captain of a hover-ship and a leader in the human resistance.

·         Neo

o    Neo is questing for Morpheus and the truth about the Matrix.

§  Antagonist

·         Agent Smith

o    Opposes the human resistance.  An apparent government agent, though in reality is a sentient enforcer program within the Matrix for the machines. 

o    Scenery and Lighting

§  Convoluted cityscapes

·         Show “Road” Picture

o    The camera cuts to a view of the road - a seemingly endless path shrouded in shadow and rain leading deeper into the heart of a maze-like city.

§  Shadows

·         Show “Alley” Picture

o    Notice the shadow of Agent Smith preceding him into the alley.  The scene shows Trinity on a fire escape above the alley, trapped.

§  Rain

·         Show “Bridge” Picture

o    Neo waiting for Trinity under a bridge in the rain.  The rain adds to the depressive atmosphere.

·         Elements of Neo-Noir

o    Current Societal Tensions

§  Fear concerning creating a possible contender species

·         Will the AI be benign or will they be serious competitors with mankind?

§  The Establishment versus The General Public

·         The illusion of control for the public

o    Everyone believes that they in control of their lives

o    In reality the machines control everything

o    Allusion to anxieties of the public concerning government control

§  Religious Anxieties

·         Does Neo represent Jesus?

·         Question of belief

o    Is belief a requirement for the Messiah to be real?

Blog Entry #8

ASSIGNMENT ONE

In the short stories The Kidnapper Bell and City of Commerce the authors use iconic Los Angeles landscapes to give readers a sense of place and realism. 

In Kidnapper, the Los Angeles River is the central landscape of the story.  Jim Pascoe writes of the area around the river having lots of graffiti and being made from concrete (Pascoe 220).  It helps the reader to envision what the Los Angeles River really looks like; dingy, dirty, and as grey as the rest of the city.  The river itself seems to almost be a character of the story as more detail was given for the river than our protagonist. 

In Commerce, Nick, the protagonist of the story, describes the City of Commerce as “the most ironically named place in America, which is saying a lot.”  He goes on to mention how presently gambling has become far more important than actual commerce in out titular city, as evidenced by the “three thousand gambling billboards I saw a week” (Pollack 230).   Neal Pollack also writes of the freeways in and around Los Angeles and how bad the traffic is. 

            

            ASSIGNMENT TWO

            Out of “The Gold Coast” section of Los Angeles Noir I would say that The Girl Who Kissed Barnaby Jones was the best example of noir, while What You See is the most difficult to classify as noir.

            In The Girl we have our protagonist, Tate, who seems to be a typical “everyman”, swayed by Cherie’s, our femme fatale, good looks, “like half the guys who walk into Burberry’s, though, I have a great big boner with Cherie’s name on it” (Phillips 287).  Cherie has a problem and she needs someone to help, and she uses her seductive nature in an attempt to get Tate to help her.  Tate, after the seduction is over and finds out what Cherie’s problem is, wants no part of it.  This is atypical for noir.  The protagonist usually is willingly brought into the plot by the femme fatale.  Once Tate has an opportunity to escape, he does so readily.  In the end, though, he is brought down by Cherie, which likely leads to her capture as well.

            What You See, on the other hand, is a difficult story to follow.  Gabe, our “protagonist”, for lack of a better word, is clearly a slow thinker, perhaps even mentally challenged in some way, which makes the story unusual.  There is no real femme fatale, though his brotherly love for his friend, Marcus, causes him to work for Marcus, though the feeling clearly isn’t reciprocated by Marcus.  Marcus continually berates and tells Gabe to shut up.  Overall, I found this story to be more like an ordinary crime story, and a poor one at that.

Blog Entry #7

            In The Method and Morocco Junction 90210 we have two women as our protagonists.  They act as two different roles when compared to the traditional noir roles.  First, we have Holly in “The Method” as an ambiguous protagonist.  Second, we have Minerva, a hard-boiled detective in Morocco Junction 90210.  These roles, in the past, were almost exclusively male roles.  This role reversal goes further in The Method, but I’ll get to that in a minute.  I feel these roles are what make a story fall within noir, not who is filling these roles.

            In our first story, The Method, we meet Holly.  She has seemed to build a wall around herself to keep others out, but she wants to make it big more than anything else.  Fairly quickly we meet another role reversal, Richard.  He plays the role of the “femme” fatale, though in this case it would be homme fatale, or fatal man.  Richard lures Holly into what seems, at first, to be a simple scam; returning a formerly famous woman’s dog to her in hopes of getting a reward.  In reality, she finds out that Richard is trying to have Holly kill Mariah, the dog owner, because his former relationship with Mariah turned sour.  In the end, Holly kills Richard rather than Mariah, seemingly getting away with the murder.

            So, we have our ambiguous protagonist, our homme fatale, and our crime.  When discussing noir, these are the usual roles to fill when making a noir story. 

            Next, we have Morocco Junction 90210.  Our protagonist in this story, Minerva, is an information broker; just a fancy title for a detective.  Morocco Junction has no femme fatale, which is atypical for most noir stories.  We do, however, have a couple of apparent crimes; the death of Eloise Davis and, previously, the burglaries of many wealthy houses in Beverly Hills, one of which was the Davis’ home.  Minerva, through the course of the story, slowly begins to uncover the truth about Eloise’s death; it was a suicide brought on by the death of her unknown to everyone, even himself, illegitimate son. 

            In this story we have a typical detective role being fulfilled.  Minerva solves the mystery of circumstances surrounding Eloise’s death, yet in an effort to protect Eloise’s image, she doesn’t tell anyone.  She does this to fulfill her own code and that of Beverly Hills itself, “in Beverly Hills, the police don’t talk.  The victims don’t talk….  Why should I?” (144)

            These stories, collectively, are noir.  The roles may be filled by atypical people for the noir theme, but the roles themselves are what make the theme, not the people in the roles.

Blog Entry #6

Well, where to start.  Classic noir and neo-noir, on the surface, seem to evoke the same message of cultural and social anxiety relevant to their respective timeframes.  They do this through the mediums of fatalism, pessimism, obfuscation, and upheaval of specific gender roles.  Add to this the usual expressionistic styles; dark, gloomy, depressive atmospheres, and let’s not forget the classic “crime doesn’t pay attitude.  With all of that, we get the classic definition of film noir, yet neo-noir does most of this, yet so much more.

First, let’s take a brief look at classic noir.  Generally a male protagonist whom is usually fairly ambiguous, a sultry and seductive femme fatale, a strong and willful detective (who can be the protagonist, he usually, however, loses he strong and willful nature when interacting with our femme fatale), and a dark and shocking crime.  Add all of that together with a dark monotone world full of shadows and gloom and you have some of the quintessential noir films described in a nutshell.  They may deviate from one or two of the usual aspects, however the overall feel is still very much noir.

Now, let’s take a look at neo-noir.  Gone (usually) are the dark monotone landscapes, now replaced with vibrant and colorful high-definition; gone (usually) is the crime doesn’t pay attitude, now replaced with a “take all you can and give nothing back” attitude; yet we still see parallels that equate the new school with the old school.  While sometimes the visual aspect isn’t dark, the social aspect more than makes up for it making the film still dark and gloomy.  With the loss of society’s perceived innocence, we gained darker and grittier stories to accompany us.  Gone are the ambiguous sexual innuendos and the minor, yet still shocking for the times, violent actions.  Now we have blatant sexual themes and overt over-the-top violent actions.  Sometimes these elements are even intertwined for an orgy of the senses, perhaps showing how desensitized we as a society have become that we need the over-the-top to connect to these films at all.  Sometimes we lose the overall ambiguous protagonist, in place of a cocksure and strongly moral hero.  I’ve used the term “moral” somewhat loosely, as our hero’s morals may or may not conform to society’s morals, which is still a staple of noir.  Sometimes our protagonist fulfills the role of the femme fatale, a role traditionally left to an antagonist.  Overall, neo-noir takes the roles and conventions of classic noir to new extremes in a more a la carte style.  Perhaps we have only a couple aspects in neo-noir film that can be paralleled to its classic counterpart, but that is okay.  Noir has always been tricky to define, and nothing has changed about that, the overall definition has just broadened a bit.

After all is said and done we still have dark films sharing society’s anxieties in expressionistic ways.  The overall essence that defines noir is still very much prevalent and alive, however, the films, as well as the audience, has changed with the times.

Blog Entry #5

In Roger Ebert’s review of Double Indemnity on his website, rogerebert.com, he writes about the confusion of how and why Walter and Phyllis even bother killing Mr. Dietrichson, “they never seem to really like each other all that much, and they don't seem that crazy about the money, either. What are they after?”  He goes on to say how shallow Walter and Phyllis are, and how their motives all feel like pretenses when they just seem to want to kill someone together.  He continues by saying that the real emotion of the movie lies elsewhere, in Walter’s fear of discovery and his feelings for Keyes.  He concludes by lauding Billy Wilder and his exceptional ability to direct classic noir movies.

This review, overall, is favorable to the movie, however, it is written rather scathingly and acidly when discussing Phyllis and Walter, as though Ebert was physically disgusted with their characters.  While I cannot share his contemptible view of Phyllis and Walter, I can say I felt the confusion.  They were well portrayed, and Fred MacMurry and Barbara Stanwyck do a great job making their characters believable insofar as they were written.  It is true that it was difficult to actually feel their lust for each other, and the money, yet the movie seems to have much less of a focus on that in favor of the relationship of Walter and Keyes.  It just seems that they went from love/lust to hate in about 90 seconds flat.  I blame that more on the writing than on the acting.  Perhaps Raymond Chandler was more adept in witty dialogue and less versed in the back-and-forth of a believable romantic dialogue.  I haven’t read any of Chandler’s other works, so I am unsure if this is the case.  It really is hard to truly see why they even bothered to kill Mr. Dietrichson in the first place, other than what they stated.  It just doesn’t come across as believable.

In contrast, Walter and Keyes’ relationship is deep and full of mutual respect, in not love.  It is difficult to say if this love between them is more father-son, brotherly, or even slightly homosexual in nature.  Films in the 1940’s were rather ambiguous about such things as they were considered taboo topics, and had to be inserted through innuendo.  Throughout the movie we can see Walter being pulled between two polar points, Phyllis and Keyes, from Phyllis pulling Walter in to the murder to Keyes trying to get Walter to be his assistant.  In classic noir style, Walter goes down for what he has done, but not before Keyes shows his love and respect for Walter, despite what he had done.

Blog Entry #4

            The ending of the film Double Indemnity falls within the style of film noir to a much greater degree than its novella counterpart.  In the novella, Walter and Phyllis aren’t brought to justice in the traditional manner.  Barton Keyes, in an apparent effort to save face for the insurance company, “allows” Walter to get away, only to be confronted by Phyllis while on a cruise to Mexico that was supposed to be his getaway.  Once they realized that they had been recognized by the crew of the ship, they decide to kill themselves by jumping overboard in the night.  While this is a suitably dark ending, it doesn’t fall within the norm for film noir, where the “bad guys” usually end up paying for their actions in a more “normal” way.  “Of course, the old motto of the pre-War shorts from MGM, “Crime doesn’t pay,” is still the order of the day and there must be moral retribution.” –Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton, “Towards a Definition of Film Noir”

            Using Borde’s and Chaumeton’s definition of the norms for film noir we see that the movie ending is much more within the average scope of film noir endings.  At the end of the movie we see Keyes walking in on the end of Walter’s confession to him using Keyes’ dictation machine.  Walter then attempts to leave, asking that Keyes wait to call the police for a couple of hours so Walter can get to Mexico and safety.  Walter collapses on his way out.  Keyes walks up to him, and Walter knows that his time is up.  At this point Keyes has an ambulance called to come take care of Walter, not to mention bringing the police along with them.  The film ends with Keyes lighting Walter’s cigarette, a reversal of what is seen throughout the rest of the movie.

            Double Indemnity uses another film noir staple while telling its story; the flashback.  “Narratives are frequently complex and convoluted, typically told with flashbacks…” –Filmsite.  The movie, as well as the book, shares the story of Walter by Walter himself, using a long flashback sequence.  The difference between the two is the method of which is used.  In the book, Walter is writing out his story to be left behind after he has killed himself with Phyllis on their cruise to Mexico.  In the movie, however, we see Walter speaking into a dictation machine in Keyes’ office.  He is leaving his confession for Keyes, and then he intends to flee to Mexico, though he gets caught in the end.  This narrative style is used to produce a feeling of fatalism, which is a common trait for noir.  Because we know the outcome prior to the end of the movie, as well as the book, we know that Walter is trapped not matter what happens.  This lends to the feeling of fatalism, even if we are rooting for Walter to get away with it.

Blog Entry #3

Keyes, Barton Keyes.

In James M. Cain’s Double Indemnity, Barton Keyes exemplifies the film noir role of the “hard-boiled detective”.  The protagonist of the story, Walter Huff, says about Keyes, “Keyes is head of the Claim Department, and the most tiresome man to do business with in the whole world.  You can’t even say today is Tuesday without he has to look on the calendar, and then check if it’s this year’s calendar or last year’s calendar, and then find out what company printed the calendar, and then find out what company printed the calendar, and then find out if their calendar checks with the World Almanac calendar.”  This statement shows that Keyes takes nothing for granted, and is tireless in his pursuit that all facts are straight before accepting even something as mundane as the day of the week. 

When the claim for Mr. Nirdlinger came in, Mr. Norton, the owner on the insurance company, believes that Mr. Nirdlinger’s death was a suicide.  Keyes stated, “I have nothing to go on.  Nothing but those tables and my own hunch, instinct, and experience”.  He knew that Mr. Nirdlinger was murdered.  He said to Huff, “you know, and you don’t even know how you know”. 

“Hard-boiled, by definition from Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “devoid of sentimentality: tough”.  Keyes personifies “hard-boiled” even further by showing how tough he is throughout the majority of the story.  I say ”majority” because he takes a bit of a small change towards the end.  Or does he?  As we read about Huff’s scheme, we already know that Keyes is going to find out about Huff’s involvement in the death of Mr. Nirdlinger.  What we don’t know, and what actually takes us by surprise, is how he finds out. I won’t spoil it, in case anyone reading has yet to finish the story, but when he does find out, our perception of his character changes.  He went from a hard-nosed justice seeker, to a friend willing to risk everything to “save” his friend.  Or at least it seems that way at first.

I use the term “save” rather loosely, as he really only saves him from being incarcerated.  I believe that Keyes knew, or at least had a hunch, of what would happen to Huff and Mrs. Nirdlinger following the events of the truth coming to the public light.  It’s just that good sense of reason, deduction, and gut instinct coming into play again.  At the end of the day, justice is carried out, and that is all the Keyes really wanted.  He wanted his company off the hook for the “accidental” death of Mr. Nirdlinger, and he wanted those responsible for the death to get their comeuppance.  By aiding Huff after he knew of his involvement, he achieved just that.

In the end, we have a man who is jaded by his experience, has a strong sense of justice, and can tell from pure instinct when someone is being dishonest.