Color Me Black And White

Before I get started, I have to be honest. I have not been terribly engrossed in the class for the past two weeks since we have been going over this film noir genre or style or whatever you want to call it. In fact, I have been bored for the most part until I saw Kiss Kiss Bang Bang this past Wednesday. Up until this point, I
found film noir to be this stale, unentertaining, so-not-colorful-in-so-many-ways-than-one genre. Even though Kiss Kiss Bang Bang kinda parodied film noir movies, it made me more interested and more appreciative of real film noir films. Plus, I got a really good laugh out of the movie! It made me see all the good things about film noir and not focus on the annoying things about it. If anything, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was a satirical instruction manuel to film noir. So when I went back to look at Out of the Past and Chinatown, I did not find them to be as humdrum or as unexciting as they were when I first saw them.
Anyway, over the past week, the debate of the status of film noir in movie history has been going on in our class. Up until this point, I had decided to stay out of the debate because a) I was not all that enthralled in the topic at that point and b) before this class, I had always thought of film noir as a genre so in my mind, there was no reason for a debate to begin with. Then I read Paul Schrader's "Notes on Film Noir" and Steve Neale's "Questions of Genre". After reading their thoughts, I was forced to think about what qualifies as a genre and what qualifies as a style. After much thought, I came up with my answer. A genre is a category of film (music, literature, or whatever floats your boat) that provides a criteria, strict or relaxed, to be classified for the benefit of the viewer. Style is the way one uses elements to make up your piece of art. For example, when we look at horror movies, we expect fear as a driving force in the movie. When we look at romance films, we expect love as the main source of energy. When we look at action flicks, we expect a semi-decent plot with million-dollar explosions, edge-of-your-seat car chases, and dangerous fight scenes. With that being said, I am going to have to side with Schrader on this one. Film noir is indeed a style and not a genre.

I say this because film noir does not create a set of criteria like genres do. It is possible for a movie to be a crime flick with film noir elements. Just like it is possible for a crime movie to have another set of elements. No matter what, that movie will be a crime flick. It is just up to the director to determine what style he will use in order to illustrate his movie. Get what I am saying? If not, Schrader explains it really well: "Film noir is not a genre. It is not defined...by conventions of setting and conflict, but...by...qualities of tone and mood."
Now while I have admittedly been very critical of film noir, I am grateful of its utilization of a strong, intelligent, beautiful, and dangerous woman - otherwise known as the femme fatale. This rejection of the conventional roles of women like devoted wife and loving mother was needed in order to diversify roles for women. However, when you really think about it, film noir still shows women as what men allows them to be. And when women become self-sufficient, independent, and powerful, they will be punished in the end. I guess the psychological power of the "male gaze" (aka male control) still rears its ugly head - even in film noir.

This Is A Man's World???

Many would argue that men rule the world and ultimately dictate society and its beliefs. Since cinema is a reflection of society, it is natural to deduce that films are styled from what Laura Mulvey's Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema called the "male gaze." In her essay, Mulvey employs psychoanalysis to determine the cinematic patterns of fascination that have shaped audiences. She uses psychoanalysis to explain the way in which the patriarchal society we live in influence and translate onto the films we watch.
In the blockbuster romance film, Titanic, we see a classic rich-girl/poor-boy love story that is driven by two opposing male or (male-influenced) forces: "Cal", the rich but controlling fiancé who wants "Rose" as a trophy wife and "Jack", the broke yet loving artist who wants "Rose" to break free of her degrading relationship with "Cal" and start a new life with him. In this film, the audience has to assume that the characters live in a "phallocentric society." According to Mulvey, this means that this is a society that standardizes the acknowledgement of men and their sexuality towards women. And anyone who has seen Titanic knows that for most of the part in the movie "Rose's" body is either being used as a life-size jewelry-decorated Barbie doll by the evil "Cal" or immortalized through "Jack's" male gaze during the famous nude drawing scene. In both cases, despite either character's intentions, they used "Rose's" body for pleasure for themselves.
Notice how neither male character's body is exploited or displayed in the same fashion as the female character. The answer is simple. Because according to Mulvey's "phallocentric society", everything must be geared towards fulfilling and strengthening the male ego and inhibiting any desires of women. That means that men are the dominant gender that controls women and their sexuality, and it does not feed the male ego when a woman is in charge of her own sexuality. Mulvey explains this as a fear through psychoanalysis. Even though the female figure is pleasant to the eye, she is to be controlled because she represents the lack of a phallus - a castration danger.
Both Christian Metz and Laura Mulvey touch on the same subject in their articles: scopohilia. Scopohilia is literally the "love of looking." When related to Hollywood cinema, the term suggests the male figures enjoying the women being gazed upon as objects, not as humans with their own thoughts and opinions. In her article, Mulvey identifies three "looks" that objectifies women. The first is the viewpoint of the male character and how he views the female character, which is usually satisfying to the male. The second is the viewpoint of the audience and how they view the female character. The third look is a combination of the two. The male audience adopts the same perspective as the male character and objectifies the female character as their own personal sex object. For example, when asked their favorite scene in Titanic, many men referenced to the scene where "Jack" draws a nude "Rose" donned in jewelry and being objectified by a man. This is a classic case where the male audience adopted "Jack's" perspective and made "Rose" their object of sexual desire and dominance.
When reading all of these articles, I found all this information to be very sexist and skewed in a way that does not capture all of what society is and what it can be. I am aware that this information is being communicated through a purely psychoanalytic view, but I do think that we do not give men or women enough credit for advances in gender equality. While I do think that in many ways we do live in a patriarchal society, women have made incredible strides with showing women in leading and dominating roles and men in more sensitive and emotional portrayals.

Under Your Suspicion

Let's be honest: romance movies are cheesy. Film noir romance movies can be down right preposterous and absurd. Life does not go into slow motion when you see your lover after a prolonged absence. A full orchestra does not play in the background when you share your first kiss. And there are no wind machines to provide a classic breeze through your hair when you see an attractive person from across the room. Yet we see all of these elements in love story after love story after love story, and that does not stop the legions of audiences that flock to these films to rekindle their own ideas about love and romance.
In Alfred Hitchcock's Suspicion, many summaries indicate this movie as a suspenseful, psychological thriller. And while that may be, this is as much of a romance movie than any of the other two genres. With great help with the not-so-subtle acting of Joan Fontaine (with the aid of Hitchcock's directing, of course), the not-so-believable writing of Samson Raphaelson, Joan Harrison, and Alma Reville, and the not-so-realistic grand orchestra music that played nearly every time "Johnnie" and "Lina" embraced, Hitchcock's Suspicion is a love story first and a psychological thriller second.
In Suspicion, we meet a charming "Johnnie" who manages to make "Lina" fall in love with him and marry him. However, nearly right after the honeymoon, "Lina" finds out that her Prince Charming has a shady past that includes embezzling money and possibly murder. After a friend of theirs die suspiciously, "Lina" becomes more than convinced that her husband is after her. However, after being given a eerily-glowing glass of milk and a frighteningly trip down a coastal road, "Lina" realizes that "Johnnie" did not kill their friend and that "Johnnie" was planning on committing suicide to save himself from his collected debts and his wife from the shame of an incarcerated husband.
One would really have to look at the movie themselves and not judge it based off a synopsis to realize that this is a love story. The biggest give away was Cary Grant's ("Johnnie") and Joan Fontaine's ("Lina's") acting. Even in the darkest of moments, such as when two police officers arrived at "Lina's" home to investigate "Beaky's" death, you could see the conflict of love and fear in "Lina's" eyes. In the scene when "Johnnie" makes it to the ball and "Lina's" notices him, the exaltation between the two of them leaps off the screen.
Hitchcock makes great use of narrative space in Suspicion. The scene that jumps out at me is the infamous glowing milk scene. The shadows played well up against the few pockets of light that shined through the glass ceiling from above. Of course, the best piece of lighting is the light that emanates from the glass milk. Prior to that scene, "Johnnie" had been fascinated with untraceable poisons, which provided a good hint to the audience that "Johnnie" was going to poisoned "Lina". However, since 'untraceable' is not that exciting visually to an audience. The glowing milk was a screaming piece of narrative to let the audience know that something was amiss in this situation. As "Johnnie" approached the top of the stairs, the milk became brighter, which hinted that the revelation of "Johnnie's" true intentions were going to become plain and seen for Lira (including the audience).
This was a great movie. The over-the-top antics did grate my nerves, but one has to take into account the times that the movie was made in and how that was the standard back in those days.