Roberto Rebouças Prates Filho
Professor Kuntz
Film 6A, Discussion 1F
30 May 2018
Film Noir: A Deeper Look into the Profile of a Criminal
Art has the fascinating power of moving people in widely different ways, as it means something unique for every viewer. In spite of its inherent subjectivity, some trends within film have become clear throughout cinema history. In some special cases, a film movement will be so original that it will defy the common standards for filmmaking and produce exceptionally creative films. From the beginning of the 1940’s until the mid-1950’s, Americans experienced an increased number of crime films that were pessimistic in mood, theme, and subject, focusing on the harsh world of private investigators, police detectives, and criminals (House 62). These films were part of a movement later defined as film noir, a term that usually refers to the black-and-white crime films that shared this pessimistic mood and tone in the forties and early fifties. Film noir has memorable visual characteristics, such as an urban setting, black-and-white coloring, low-key lighting, and contrast. But, more importantly, film noir redefined the moral aspects of the protagonist, straying away from the typical Hollywood hero and the gangster trend from the thirties, and moving toward a more realistic portrayal of characters. By exploring dark themes and controversial characters, film noir exposes how the malleable human character is dependent on context and circumstance; but ultimately judges the characters’ actions under a traditional, patriarchal lens.
An important characteristic of the noir movement is that the traditional “bad guy” was now an ordinary citizen, instead of an evil gangster whom the average viewer could not relate to. This shift from a career criminal to someone relatable, like the viewer, or his or her family, or coworkers broke the moral pattern prevalent in films back in the 1940’s. As Winfried Fluck claims in his article Crime, Guilt and Subjectivity in Film Noir: “There is the possibility at any given moment that even the respectable citizen may become a criminal, given the right combination of desire and chance encounter” (Fluck 392). Film noir followed gangster movies from the thirties, such as Little Caesar, The Public Enemy, and Scarface. The storyline of these earlier crime films was centered around famous gangsters—for example, Scarface was about the life of Al Capone. This focus on those who could be easily seen as simply “bad people” by the general public created a clear barrier between the awful crimes committed by them and the “good people”, represented by the average viewer. By showing that average citizens could also commit heinous crimes like murder, film noir put the American viewer in the hot seat, implying that the criminal could be anyone, given the appropriate circumstances. Disrupting the idea of inherent good or evil made film noir a more accurate representation of human nature than the black-and-white perspective on a person’s character. Many so-called “upstanding citizens” have done wrong at some points in their lives, whether that is cheating at school, not paying taxes, having an affair, or shoplifting. While those are not as horrible as being a gangster who has taken dozens of lives, they are condemnable acts nonetheless. It is not because most people are good that they are bound to only do respectable things, and film noir helped deconstruct this idea that only inherently bad people and high-profile criminals do bad things, throwing rocks on the glass ceilings of all Americans.
By shifting the ideas of good and bad from characters’ nature and into actions performed by them, film noir sheds light on the inner weaknesses that people have and might unleash the “evil” inside of them, given the right circumstances. Winfried Fluck claims that “the guilt of the characters who have committed a crime (or seem to have done so) consists in an inner weakness which prevents them from resisting the lure of desirable objects [money or a woman]” (Fluck 392). This points the question of moral ambivalence to anything we may desire—which in film noir is usually money or a woman. Regardless of whether we desire someone else’s partner, or money that we did not fairly earn, we all desire things we do not have. There are often societal guidelines keeping us from getting what we want, some of which are morally convincing enough to prevent us from pursuing them, for example a married man falling in love with another woman, a common scenario in film noir. The institution of marriage is a barrier to this relationship, but the main question is: how strong is this barrier? The answer relies on each character’s morals, and whether he will in fact pursue that woman is going to be a reflection of those morals. In the context of these temptations, film noir exposes the weaknesses that lead ordinary people to commit terrible crimes. Anyone can all be pushed into doing something they had never thought of before depending on how great the incentive is. Although films cannot actually make us go through the situation ourselves and judge it from the character’s perspective, good films can immerse us in that universe just deep enough that we can wonder what we would do if we were under those circumstances—would we be the bad guys too?
Circumstances that lead people to deviate from the moral values in society are aggravated by an ubiquitous stylistic pattern in film noir, the urban setting. This environment alienates the characters, making them more likely to commit crimes and questionable acts. Brian McDonnell in his book Encyclopedia of Film Noir discusses the part played by the city environment on the alienation of characters from society: “This aspect of the nature of the city, pessimistic in tone, is reflected in its often solitary inhabitants…loners alienated in and by the city, which is impersonal and isolating” (McDonnell 49). As cities developed in the twentieth century, more people moved from small towns for better career opportunities. Los Angeles was the most relevant example of this migration—people from all over the country who wanted to make it in the movie industry moved there, making it the second largest city in the United States. As a result, many people lived in Los Angeles without their families and friends, lacking a supportive emotional foundation. This transition was certainly difficult for those who moved to the city, creating a sense of loneliness and estrangement. The feeling of alienation from society separates the characters from not only the people who are not outcast, but also from the prominent moral code that those people follow. This artificial distance therefore makes the characters more likely to cross the moral line, which they always do in film noir.
Contributing to the moral ambivalence in film noir is also the tool of voice-over, used to give the characters power to tell the story through their own lenses, which allows them intimacy with the viewers and provides a closer perspective on the ambivalence of ethics in that universe. With voice-over, a subjective point of view is established in the narrative, and through that the main character looks back and tries to explain the circumstances under which led him to become guilty or falsely accused (Fluck 390). Facts are generally known in film noir, but the way in which guilt operates is more complex—that is, although we know what the characters did, we do not know whether or how we should judge them, partly because voice-over allows us to see things from the criminal’s eyes. The subject of guilt is discussed in the film Adam’s Rib, a film that depicts two married lawyers, each arguing one side of the same case: a wife who shot her adulterous husband. The question is not whether she did it or not but how badly she should be punished given all the circumstances. Even though there is an objective legal framework that predicts a certain level of punishment for a person who shoots another, the story seems to change when we learn about the specific people and circumstances involved. For this reason, it is often fair and helpful to look at these incidents on a case-by-case basis. In film noir, having the perspective of the perpetrator narrated on screen presents the audience with his version of the facts. The version includes rationalizations of the facts and justification for his actions. This subjectivity in the male protagonist’s point of view facilitates empathy towards him, further blurring the boundaries between good and evil.
In spite of its original take on the concepts of morality, film noir’s treatment of women was very typical for the time, with their endings advocating for the traditional ideas of family. Film noir showed the two classic stereotypes of women: the femme fatale and the traditional wife. The femme fatale was a key character in many films noir, bringing up ideas of feminism back in the forties, and a threat to the patriarchy in American families. The femme fatales were the main female characters of these movies and not only had sexual powers but also ambition and looked for independence and freedom (Hordnes). Under this light, film noir could be seen as empowering, as it displayed powerful women in important roles, who were not defined by their fathers or husbands, straying away from the typical stereotype of the wife, or any woman under the patriarchy. Films noir were not the first movies to explore the sexual role of women; Theda Bara was known for playing the “Vamp” in the twenties, a woman with sexual powers who used them to control men. All these characters gave the American public a glimpse of what on-screen feminism would look like decades later, helping adapt people to women playing stronger roles both in films and in reality. However, in the end, most of these women in film noir met a dreadful fate (Hordnes). Although film noir shows these strong female characters, by destroying them in the end, it is ultimately sending the message that any deviation from the social norms would be fatal. The demise of the femme fatale marked the victory of the family, implying the victory of the wife and all the paradigms associated with the traditional ideas of family and patriarchy.
Film noir also defended patriarchy by punishing the men who became obsessed with the femme fatales, a relationship that would threaten the traditional norms of family relations. Men had a choice in these films: to marry a woman and live a life that would be characterized as unexciting within that universe, or to give in to the femme fatale and be eventually destroyed (Hordnes). Because these were the only choices the male protagonist had, there was basically no way to succeed in the end. The essence of marriage in these movies would set men up for for failure. They were expected to marry a woman and become a family man, but because domestic life was depicted as boring and uninteresting, men were heavily inclined to give in to temptation, represented by the femme fatale. The monotony of domestic life does not accurately represent all the marriages, but it speaks to every person that has had a long relationship. Although most days can be exciting and fun, it is virtually impossible to sustain a years-long relationship that has only had good and exciting moments. In film noir, these marital crises constitute a favorable scenario for adultery. Just as life sometimes gives the characters incentive to steal or murder, it also gives them opportune moments to cheat, making it seem like it is justified since their marriage is unhappy. The men in film noir usually fall for the femme fatale, and that brings unfortunate consequences for both the adulterous husband and his other woman—they end up being destroyed somehow (Hordnes). These consequences act like a moral lesson for the characters involved, condemning adultery and supporting traditional family values.
Film noir offers context into the situations that might make any upstanding citizen deviate from their morals and commit horrible crimes, such as the feeling of alienation or an unexciting marriage. With this insightful perspective, the characters gain another psychological layer that distances them from the single-minded, psychopathic villains from most films and approximates them to most of the audience—overall good people, but with flaws and inappropriate desires. These imperfections are usually characterized as temptations to which the characters give in, like any person might in a moment of weakness. But, far from conveying the idea that acting wrongfully is acceptable, film noir ultimately punishes those who murder, steal, and cheat. Walter Neff exemplifies this downfall when he talks about the murder in Double Indemnity: “I killed him for money and a woman—I didn’t get the money and I didn’t get the woman” (Wilder 1944). This punishment reveals that, in spite of the deeper character development, film noir still relied on typical moral stereotypes, which was revealed through the eventual failures of immoral characters.
Works cited:
Hordnes, Lise. "Does Film Noir mirror the culture of contemporary America?." Oriental Art 1 (2011): 035.
Fluck, Winfried. “Crime, Guilt, and Subjectivity in ‘Film Noir.’” Amerikastudien / American Studies, vol. 46, no. 3, 2001, pp. 379–408. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/ 41157665.
House, Rebecca R. “NIGHT OF THE SOUL: AMERICAN FILM NOIR.” Studies in Popular Culture, vol. 9, no. 1, 1986, pp. 61–83. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23412901.
Wilder, Billy, director. Double Indemnity. Paramount Pictures, 1944.
Mayer, Geoff, and Brian McDonnell. Encyclopedia of Film Noir. Greenwood Press, 2007. Print.