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.

Blog Entry #2

Borde and Chaumeton wrote of the qualities of film noir in the article “Towards a Definition of Film Noir”.  In this article, they defined the qualities to be “nightmarish, weird, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel.”  Double Indemnity personifies the majority, if not all, of these traits.  They go on to state that “film noir is [crime] from within; from the point of view of the criminal.”  Again, Double Indemnity falls within this defining characteristic.  Borde and Chaumeton state that “In every sense of the word, a noir film is a film of death”.  Death, through the vehicle of murder, is the essence of Double Indemnity’s plot. 

Let’s breakdown the qualities as defined by Borde and Chaumeton.  Double Indemnity is “nightmarish” because it deals with the brutal murder of an innocent man for the gain of others.  Mr. Nirdlinger is killed by his wife, Phyllis, and his insurance agent, Walter Huff, to gain the premium from his accident insurance.  The insurance has a double indemnity clause, hence the title for the book, should Mr. Nirdlinger die from a train accident.  Phyllis and Walter orchestrate an “accidental” death with hopes of collecting big.  “Weird” can well describe the remarkable lengths Phyllis and Walter go to attempting to not only commit the murder, but to cover-up their involvement as well.  “Erotic” hasn’t flavored the book much up to this point, but it may still as I read more.  “Ambivalent” perfectly describes Walter’s, our protagonist, relationship with Phyllis following the murder of her husband.  Their relationship takes a definite “love-hate” swing immediately following the staging of the “accident”.  One quote from the book stuck out at me regarding that, it was Walter, writing as the narrator, which said “I loved her like a rabbit loves a rattlesnake”.  Finally, we have “cruel”.  The merciless murder of Mr. Nirdlinger fulfills this quality.

Another characteristic of the style is point of view, usually from that of the criminal.  The story is told by our protagonist, Walter Huff.  He kills a man simply for a monetary gain.  Nothing more, nothing less.  As he tells his story you get the impression that he has genuine remorse and guilt regarding the murder of Mr. Nirdlinger.  However, he cannot simply take it back, so he must continue on, no matter how conflicted he feels about it after the fact.  I am anxious to see the conclusion of his story, and how he deals with it all.

Lastly, we have death.  So far, only one death has happened in the book, that of Mr. Nirdlinger.  I speculate that by the end there will be at least one more, judging by the opening of the book.  The line was “That was how I came to this House of Death that you’ve been reading about in the papers.”  I could be wrong, but I doubt it.  In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Walter killed Phyllis by the end of the book.  He seemed to become paranoid about her towards the end of chapter 8.  She is the only one that can finger him in the crime.  Likewise, he can rat on her as well, though he likely wouldn’t, as he was the one that committed the actual murder.  She was just an accomplice. 

In the end, I am sure that this book will live up to the style of film noir.  It has, thus far, been a traditional example of the genre, and I see no chance that it will fall short of that.  

Blog Entry #1

                I feel that Film Noir is just that; Movies that are “black” in nature.  Dark in theme, mood, and context define the genre.  The black and white that the movies were shot in give a gloomy feel.  Crime gives the overall dangerous tone to the movie.  Even the heroes of the films tend to be more “anti-hero” than true hero. Cynical, moody, broody, and jaded at the world in general, they usually fight the good fight anyway or even sometimes forced into it due to circumstances.  The villains are usually corrupt to their core, focused entirely on greed, lust, power, or ambition.

                Visually, the movies are dark and gloomy, full of shadow and rainy weather.  Dense urban sprawl gives a maze-like feeling of being trapped, where every turn looks the same as the one prior.  Even newer films are sometimes shot in black and white to enhance the overall gloomy feel.  The lack of true color makes the grey seem to fade in with the black, making it hard to see the bright-side of anything.

                The heroes are sometimes closer to villains themselves, yet have at least one or two saving qualities that make up for it.  A strong sense of justice or just being full of black humor can endear one to an audience, even if his means are nearly bad as the villains they are going against.

                Current Noir differs from the past usually because they aren’t shot in black in white, though this is not always the case.  The overall feel and tone of the current generation of Noir is the same, even if the settings are more relevant to the times.  Futuristic sci-fi and modern urban have become the new style for Noir.  Few movies are made in this style anymore, however.  The overall feeling is that they won’t be successful to spend any money on.  These movies are left the Independent film industry, and are likely all the better for it.