Both Double Indemnity and The Hitch Hiker, according to the technical definition of film noir, which is a style or genre of cinematographic film marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, and menace, can be categorized as a film noir. But, comparing the films side by side, one seems like a true, dark, film noir, and the other seems like a cheap imitation.
In Double Indemnity, the whole air of the film felt like what a stereotypical film noir is like. It had the femme fatale, the murder, the crime, the dark nights, the suspense, the character development, the dark cinematic shots, the story, and the feeling that kept you on your toes. Even though from the beginning, Walter Neff was narrating and admitted to committing the murder, there was still a sense of question in the air of how and what the ultimate end for Walter would be. The story unfolded and through character development you can see how each of the main characters thoughts and motives really were. Double Indemnity kept you thinking, and was even a moral commentary on power and lust.
The Hitch Hiker was one of the slowest pace movies I have ever seen, and every aspect of the film was predicable. Nothing in the film felt like a film noir. The Hitch Hiker was barely even a crime drama. Even the title gives away everything that is going to happen in the movie. Right away the film starts saying, "This is the true story of a man a gun and a car. The gun belonged to the man. The car might have been yours...". The first shot gives away the plot of the movie. And without any story development before the action, right away, the hitch hiker Meyers gets in the car with Gil and Roy and holds them at gunpoint. The rest of the movie is summed up to them in the car, getting out of the car for food, getting back in the car, getting back out to sleep and then repeat. Nothing about the film kept me wondering what would happen. I knew that the killer hitch hiker would be caught and the two men would be safe because that is just the nature of most films. Good vs Evil. And in the 1950s, most of the time good would always win. From the start I could not wait for the movie to end. The only thing about The Hitch Hiker that makes it somewhat a film noir is how pessimistic it seemed, fatalism (the belief that all events are predetermined and therefore inevitable - AKA the predictability of the movie) and the menacing killer. Just because The Hitch Hiker follows the technical definition of film noir, by no means is it done well. The characters really had no development. Roy was the only one to show a bit of development but that was really only because he was under stress. But, any person in that same situation should have acted the same way, so nothing about it was original or surprising.
Double Indemnity was a film I really enjoyed watching, and held my suspense throughout. The Hitch Hiker on the other hand was boring, uninteresting, predictable, and made me want to pluck my eye out. The only thing these two films have in common is that they can both be categorized as film noir. But, in my own arrogant opinion, I think only one of these two films can be truly put under that category.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Double Indemnity - Femme Fatale
During the era of film noir, roughly between 1930 and mid 1940s, women in society were generally seen as housewives, cooks, maids, mothers and not seen as all that significant in the role of society besides the roles already chosen for them. Most of the time they are seen as fragile characters or seen as a damsel in distress. What is interesting about Double Indemnity is that while the women are shown as the housewives, they also hold an underlying unusual quality. This quality was one of a darker nature, known as "femme fatale", and was portrayed by the character of Phyllis Dietrichson.
Femme fatale can be described as a beautiful and seductive woman with a sense of mystery about her. A femme fatale brings the men who desire her to compromising, disastrous situations, and most of the time to their demise. This is the role played by Phyllis Dietrichson. She is a strong woman, confident in herself, and this is evident when seeing her for the first time. Walter Neff, an insurance salesman comes to the Dietrichson household to discuss auto insurance with Mr. Dietrichson, but when let inside the house by the main find that Mr. Dietrichson is not home, but there to greet him is Mrs. Dietrichson, standing at the top of the balcony in her towel, unfazed by the fact that another man was viewing her in such a way. When she comes down to meet Walter, then dressed, she discusses accident insurance, and right away Walter sees through her, and calls her out on her desires for her husband to be dead. Eventually, through both of their lusts and desires, they devise a plan to kill Mr. Dietrichson by making it seem like he fell off of a train to get a Double Indemnity sum from the accident insurance that Mr. Dietrichson was unware that Walter and Phyllis had made for him.
At first, Walter and Phyllis's plan seemed to go without a hitch, and it seemed as though their murder would go unnoticed. But the men and the insurance company begin to analyze the death and come up with the exact idea of how Mr. Dietrichson was murdered, they were just unsure of who was the accomplice alongside with Phyllis. Mr. Dietrichson's daughter Lola begins to meet with Walter occasionally and reveals that not only did Lola think that Phyllis killed her father, but that Phyllis was responsible for the death of her mother as well. This accusation brings Walter to realize that maybe Phyllis is not who she seems and does not truly love him.
Through a series of events, Walter comes to realize that Phyllis will be the fall of him, and that
she needed to be put to an end. He goes to visit her and she reveals that she never loved him and had been using him all along to get rid of her husband, and how she wanted to get rid of Lola and how she had killed Mr. Dietrichson's first wife. Phyllis shoots Walter as an attempt to kill him, but only hits his shoulder. Walter then shoots Phyllis and leaves the scene. The ending moments of the film are of Walter talking out his whole story in his boss Keyes's office.
These chain of events really illuminate Phyllis Dietrichson's character as a morally corrupt woman who holds great desires and is willing to take down anyone who gets in her way. This is what really defines those known as the femme fatale. The femme fatale idea goes against what the typical role of women is seen as and is evident throughout the film of Double Indemnity.
Femme fatale can be described as a beautiful and seductive woman with a sense of mystery about her. A femme fatale brings the men who desire her to compromising, disastrous situations, and most of the time to their demise. This is the role played by Phyllis Dietrichson. She is a strong woman, confident in herself, and this is evident when seeing her for the first time. Walter Neff, an insurance salesman comes to the Dietrichson household to discuss auto insurance with Mr. Dietrichson, but when let inside the house by the main find that Mr. Dietrichson is not home, but there to greet him is Mrs. Dietrichson, standing at the top of the balcony in her towel, unfazed by the fact that another man was viewing her in such a way. When she comes down to meet Walter, then dressed, she discusses accident insurance, and right away Walter sees through her, and calls her out on her desires for her husband to be dead. Eventually, through both of their lusts and desires, they devise a plan to kill Mr. Dietrichson by making it seem like he fell off of a train to get a Double Indemnity sum from the accident insurance that Mr. Dietrichson was unware that Walter and Phyllis had made for him.
At first, Walter and Phyllis's plan seemed to go without a hitch, and it seemed as though their murder would go unnoticed. But the men and the insurance company begin to analyze the death and come up with the exact idea of how Mr. Dietrichson was murdered, they were just unsure of who was the accomplice alongside with Phyllis. Mr. Dietrichson's daughter Lola begins to meet with Walter occasionally and reveals that not only did Lola think that Phyllis killed her father, but that Phyllis was responsible for the death of her mother as well. This accusation brings Walter to realize that maybe Phyllis is not who she seems and does not truly love him.
Through a series of events, Walter comes to realize that Phyllis will be the fall of him, and that
she needed to be put to an end. He goes to visit her and she reveals that she never loved him and had been using him all along to get rid of her husband, and how she wanted to get rid of Lola and how she had killed Mr. Dietrichson's first wife. Phyllis shoots Walter as an attempt to kill him, but only hits his shoulder. Walter then shoots Phyllis and leaves the scene. The ending moments of the film are of Walter talking out his whole story in his boss Keyes's office.
These chain of events really illuminate Phyllis Dietrichson's character as a morally corrupt woman who holds great desires and is willing to take down anyone who gets in her way. This is what really defines those known as the femme fatale. The femme fatale idea goes against what the typical role of women is seen as and is evident throughout the film of Double Indemnity.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
M. Police Vs Thieves
In the German film M by Franz Lang, a juxtaposition is present through the entirety of the story between the police officers and the thief guild, who are both going after the child murderer, the Mörder. Both the police and the thief guild have their own agenda's for going after the murderer. The police are there to restore peace to the people, provide justice, and to stop the murders of little children. On the other hand, the thief guild wants to take the murderer off the streets for another reason. Because of the murders, the police had increased activity on the streets, making it harder for the thieves to provide a living for themselves, however unhonorable they attempt to do so. Also, by capturing the murderer, the so called reputation would rise for the thieves to show people that not all criminals are child murderers. The most compelling reason for the thieves to go after the murderer is their conviction of who they believe to be an honorable human being. Even in the modern world, in prisons, there is somewhat of a moral code among the prisoners. Any of the prisoners who has been convicted of harming a child is thought of as no longer being a human. Even the criminals have a sense to understand even the most basic of morals.
The juxtaposition of these two forces is showing the way that each group of society responds under stress and believes that the murderer should be treated. For once, the police and the criminals have a common goal. In a way, they are almost working together. The criminals do not want the polices involvement in finding the murderer, but by capturing him, they are taking the murderer off of the streets, which is the ultimate goal of the policemen. These comparisons are there to show that even the most opposing figures can have a common ground.
Ultimately, in the end, the criminals do hand the murderer over to the police, and the murderer has a trial under the court of law. The point of the movie is not necessarily showing the fate for those who commit murders, but pointing out that they shouldn't have happened in the first place.
The juxtaposition of these two forces is showing the way that each group of society responds under stress and believes that the murderer should be treated. For once, the police and the criminals have a common goal. In a way, they are almost working together. The criminals do not want the polices involvement in finding the murderer, but by capturing him, they are taking the murderer off of the streets, which is the ultimate goal of the policemen. These comparisons are there to show that even the most opposing figures can have a common ground.
Ultimately, in the end, the criminals do hand the murderer over to the police, and the murderer has a trial under the court of law. The point of the movie is not necessarily showing the fate for those who commit murders, but pointing out that they shouldn't have happened in the first place.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Sherlock Jr. Scene Analysis
In the last third of the movie Sherlock Jr., there is a scene where the detective, Sherlock Jr., jumps out of the window and into women's clothing to disguise himself from his pursuers. The scene starts out with a wide shot where Sherlock Jr. pops his head out of the car that he jumped into to ride to the location with the man who stole the pearls. When Sherlock Jr. pops his head out, he sees that there is another hitchhiker on the car, hits him on the head, and leaps out of the vehicle to see who the hitchhiker is.
The camera cuts to a full shot behind the car, showing that the hitchhiker is just a friend in disguise, with a circular package that contains a dress, with which Sherlock Jr. arranges in a fashion that can easily be accessed.
Next, the scene cuts to a three quarter shot of the man who stole the pearls in a room of men who he is trying to sell the pearls to. The men are quite excited over the pearls, and this shows that the pearls are indeed of great value. The scene cuts back to the full shot of Sherlock Jr. and he points in the other direction for the other man to hide. After, the camera shows a full length shot of the front of the building, which Sherlock Jr. runs in front of, and places the circular dress package in the window, and then he proceeds to stand and sway in front of the door, to draw attention to himself to the men on the inside.
The scene cuts back to the three quarter shot of the men in the building, and as they have seem to come to an agreement, the man who stole the pearls turns to leave, but then turns back when he notices Sherlock Jr. standing in the doorway. Next, the scene cuts to a mid shot of Sherlock Jr. to show that he is still standing and swaying in the doorway. The scene goes back to the shot of the men, and they leave their positions to get Sherlock Jr. The scene cuts back again to Sherlock, and he is shown from the side getting snatched into the doorway. Once again, the scene is back to the same shot of the room with the men, and Sherlock has been pulled in, searched and they take his gun. To show that he is not someone to be messed with, he takes the man who standing to the left's pocket watch even thought that same man just stole his. This shows Sherlock Jr. is sly, and they trade pocket watches back. Next, a mid shot of the man who took Sherlock's pocket watch is shown and then the scene cuts back to the shot of the room, where the man who stole the pearls points to another room, which when Sherlock looks in, he seems quite frightened. The scene cuts to a full shot of the other room where a man is in a full sized cage. After, the shot goes to a mid shot of Sherlock and the pearl thief, and then a text screen appears saying "That's a detective. When he's dead I'll put you in there," with the indication that the pearl thief said it. After, the shot goes back to Sherlock and the pearl thief. Then the screen shoots to another text post with the pearl thief saying, "And now I'll tell you where our little sweetie is this minute!" After, the shot goes back to Sherlock and the man where the man begins to describe where the woman is.
A fade in establishing shot of a barn and a car is shown and a man is forcibly taking the woman into the building. Next, a mid shot of inside the building is shown, he locks her in and she distressed she jumps up. This cut scene indicates that this is where the woman is being held. The scene cuts back to the same shot Sherlock Jr and the thief, and a text box comes up with the thief saying, "And she's there waiting for me." Back to the shot of Sherlock and the thief, he points to himself, indicating that the woman is there for him, and then gestures back to the man in the cage, meaning that Sherlock Jr will be locked inside while the thief goes to his woman.
This all leads up to the gag or the stunt shot. Next, the shot goes to outside the building where Sherlock is. The shot is somewhat of a long shot, but so that it shoes both the side and the front of the building, where the dress package is still sitting in the window. The side of the building fades away to show what is going on the interior, while still showing the exterior. This is not saying the side physically melted away, but to show what is going on the inside while still showing the outside of the building. Back to the scene of Sherlock and the thief, the thief waves the pearls in Sherlock Jr.'s face to brag, and in that moment, Sherlock snatches the pearls, jumps out the window through the package, and because the dress was inside, Sherlock is now wearing that dress as a disguise. The men in the building run outside, but cannot find Sherlock Jr. because they do not realize that he is now in the woman's clothing.
Each one of theses cuts and scenes all build up to that one shot, where Sherlock Jr. gets away. The way Keaton directs and shoots each shot seems ahead of his time, using techniques that were not the norm for films of the time. His trick shot and gags were innovators for film, and pushed the film industry into a new age.
The camera cuts to a full shot behind the car, showing that the hitchhiker is just a friend in disguise, with a circular package that contains a dress, with which Sherlock Jr. arranges in a fashion that can easily be accessed.
Next, the scene cuts to a three quarter shot of the man who stole the pearls in a room of men who he is trying to sell the pearls to. The men are quite excited over the pearls, and this shows that the pearls are indeed of great value. The scene cuts back to the full shot of Sherlock Jr. and he points in the other direction for the other man to hide. After, the camera shows a full length shot of the front of the building, which Sherlock Jr. runs in front of, and places the circular dress package in the window, and then he proceeds to stand and sway in front of the door, to draw attention to himself to the men on the inside.
The scene cuts back to the three quarter shot of the men in the building, and as they have seem to come to an agreement, the man who stole the pearls turns to leave, but then turns back when he notices Sherlock Jr. standing in the doorway. Next, the scene cuts to a mid shot of Sherlock Jr. to show that he is still standing and swaying in the doorway. The scene goes back to the shot of the men, and they leave their positions to get Sherlock Jr. The scene cuts back again to Sherlock, and he is shown from the side getting snatched into the doorway. Once again, the scene is back to the same shot of the room with the men, and Sherlock has been pulled in, searched and they take his gun. To show that he is not someone to be messed with, he takes the man who standing to the left's pocket watch even thought that same man just stole his. This shows Sherlock Jr. is sly, and they trade pocket watches back. Next, a mid shot of the man who took Sherlock's pocket watch is shown and then the scene cuts back to the shot of the room, where the man who stole the pearls points to another room, which when Sherlock looks in, he seems quite frightened. The scene cuts to a full shot of the other room where a man is in a full sized cage. After, the shot goes to a mid shot of Sherlock and the pearl thief, and then a text screen appears saying "That's a detective. When he's dead I'll put you in there," with the indication that the pearl thief said it. After, the shot goes back to Sherlock and the pearl thief. Then the screen shoots to another text post with the pearl thief saying, "And now I'll tell you where our little sweetie is this minute!" After, the shot goes back to Sherlock and the man where the man begins to describe where the woman is.
A fade in establishing shot of a barn and a car is shown and a man is forcibly taking the woman into the building. Next, a mid shot of inside the building is shown, he locks her in and she distressed she jumps up. This cut scene indicates that this is where the woman is being held. The scene cuts back to the same shot Sherlock Jr and the thief, and a text box comes up with the thief saying, "And she's there waiting for me." Back to the shot of Sherlock and the thief, he points to himself, indicating that the woman is there for him, and then gestures back to the man in the cage, meaning that Sherlock Jr will be locked inside while the thief goes to his woman.
This all leads up to the gag or the stunt shot. Next, the shot goes to outside the building where Sherlock is. The shot is somewhat of a long shot, but so that it shoes both the side and the front of the building, where the dress package is still sitting in the window. The side of the building fades away to show what is going on the interior, while still showing the exterior. This is not saying the side physically melted away, but to show what is going on the inside while still showing the outside of the building. Back to the scene of Sherlock and the thief, the thief waves the pearls in Sherlock Jr.'s face to brag, and in that moment, Sherlock snatches the pearls, jumps out the window through the package, and because the dress was inside, Sherlock is now wearing that dress as a disguise. The men in the building run outside, but cannot find Sherlock Jr. because they do not realize that he is now in the woman's clothing.
Each one of theses cuts and scenes all build up to that one shot, where Sherlock Jr. gets away. The way Keaton directs and shoots each shot seems ahead of his time, using techniques that were not the norm for films of the time. His trick shot and gags were innovators for film, and pushed the film industry into a new age.
Introduction
Hi! My name is Grace Hill. I am an Electronic Media student at the University of Cincinnati. I love watching and analyzing films and shows, even though I do not make time for it as often as I would like. My favorite movie is Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Enjoy my blog posts for the class Going to the Movies: 20th Century Cinema!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)