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.
I disagree completely! I believe that this film is definitely more than just "technically" a film noir. Yes there is no femme fatale, yes the story and setting are very different, but at heart is still embodies the noir genre. Is is dark, foreboding, and contains guns, murderers, cop chases, and more! The classic noir is set in a city or a place where the characters can feel boxed in, and yes the desert setting of this film goes against that. Something that this film DOES accomplish with the setting is that is creates a sense of lonely isolation, so it entraps the characters by being TOO wide open! This is a spin on the typical noir setting but it achieves the same effect on its characters.
ReplyDelete