Hardboiled (genre not John Woo)
- Thread starter IdleRich
- Start date
-
- Tags
- hard boiled woo
DLaurent
Well-known member
Night Editor it turns out I've seen at least twice before, that's what all the similar titles do to you, but I didn't mind as it's not a bad film. It would make a good pair with Woman in the Window, both being true noir, as a sexual obsession leads to doom and corrupt justice with the protagonist investigating his own crime or witness of a crime.
Under the Hays Code though, all the films tend to have a goofy ending tagged on, same as Stranger on the Third Floor. It's why I love Scarlet Street ending so much, as the guy is only haunted by his crime. In literature, I'm not sure the same applies and they can get away with more in literature? Some of the pulpy short stories by Steve Fisher tend to have gothic 'horror' twist endings instead for example.
Under the Hays Code though, all the films tend to have a goofy ending tagged on, same as Stranger on the Third Floor. It's why I love Scarlet Street ending so much, as the guy is only haunted by his crime. In literature, I'm not sure the same applies and they can get away with more in literature? Some of the pulpy short stories by Steve Fisher tend to have gothic 'horror' twist endings instead for example.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Although the build up was better than the actiony ending
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yesterday Blood Simple was on tv and we watched it. So long since I'd seen it, it might as well have been new to me, I couldn't remember at all what was gonna happen at any particular moment, and whenever I thought that I did it usually turned out to be my mind playing tricks on me. It was a lot darker and rougher than the film in my head... in fact, in many ways, it was simply quite different from what I expected.
After a little thought I put it in the Hardboiled thread; with most of their other stuff the level of distancing irony and humour combined with a perhaps deliberate attempt to not be pinned down means that even their most "genre" films such as Miller's Crossing are not true noirs, but I thought that Blood Simple did seem somehow real enough to be a genuine hardboiled neo-noir with a few unusual touches (of the kind which we would of course see again and again over the years and recognise as signatures of J&E).
Sure, if you somehow watched the film without knowing who had made it, you would definitely guess at either Coen brothers, or possibly one of their many many imitators, ie the things that make their films stand our were pretty much there, but not quite so much so, not so prominently and maybe not so confidently and maybe to be honest that's no bad thing. There were moments of humour, but I'd say that they were fewer and farther between and arose a lot more naturally than is sometimes the case, and to me that made them stronger and maybe funnier. Just simple things like when the jilted husband jumps in his car after a failed attempt at revenge and speeds away into the distance - only to come speeding back past the protagonists once more cos he's driven into a dead end.
I really liked the way that it was shot, the first scene was perfect, a car driving into a battering rainstorm with the camera in the back-seat, our two main characters only in silhouette, it really was like Hitchcock and there were many other similar moments, when digging a grave in the field and the starkness of the black sky with one man and a spade was very powerful. Many scenes with spinning fans, always a surprisingly static camera. It looked fantastic, very simple and powerful, but I can imagine that they considered it borrowed from other directors and so they moved away fromt that searching for their own.
Actually, having said that was the first scene, there was in fact one before it. A voice over which, if the film had been made last year, you just know would have been done by Woody Harrelson, but here was delivered perfectly by one of the sleaziest sleazy private detectives you're ever likely to see. And this was a recurring feeling for me - it seems that the Coen team grew too confident with the success that followed and the stylistic tricks rose higher and higher and overcame the films, an over-reliance on the same actors meant that their films became somehow stale. I don't care how good Frances Dortmand or Harrelson or John Turturro are - and they are good - there is just no way round the fact that when you see them your first thought is "oh there is Woody Harrelson - again". So while Blood Simple is a neo-noir with some extra touches, later efforts are often in danger of becoming a load of cool touches with a movie attached somewhere.
I actually think that Blood Simple may be one of their best films. There was a bit when one guy dies and I remember thinking that now he's gone there is really no way for anyone to reassemble the jigsaw, too many big pieces are missing and can't be found - and so it proved, there is no all-seeing detective or hero of any kind riding to the rescue. All that's left is a series of misunderstandings with a load of desperate and foolish people making stupid decisions because they don't have enough information about what really happened to make the right decisions. My only quibble would be that even given that, at times their actions didn't really seem to make sense, I get that they were confused and scared and so on but there was a lot of stuff they did that didn't really seem to be the thing that anyone would do in their position.
But overall, the film was so much more powerful and tense than I expected. It was lean and cut to the bone and all the moments mattered cos people really died and did so horribly and there were no jokes to hide behind when we saw it happen. A truly powerful film shot through with strong images, interesting characters and smart dialogue - and all of if so messy and confused and realistic.
I really feel that they lost their way a bit after this - all they did was change the emphases of the elements involved and while that no doubt made their style so recognisable and easy for others to catch a hold of and copy and spread their word for them and so on - it was part of what made them megastars really, but I have a feeling they could have made some better films if they had taken a slightly different path.
Well that's what I think just now anyhow. Would like to hear what everyone else thinks, about the film or about what I thought of the film.
After a little thought I put it in the Hardboiled thread; with most of their other stuff the level of distancing irony and humour combined with a perhaps deliberate attempt to not be pinned down means that even their most "genre" films such as Miller's Crossing are not true noirs, but I thought that Blood Simple did seem somehow real enough to be a genuine hardboiled neo-noir with a few unusual touches (of the kind which we would of course see again and again over the years and recognise as signatures of J&E).
Sure, if you somehow watched the film without knowing who had made it, you would definitely guess at either Coen brothers, or possibly one of their many many imitators, ie the things that make their films stand our were pretty much there, but not quite so much so, not so prominently and maybe not so confidently and maybe to be honest that's no bad thing. There were moments of humour, but I'd say that they were fewer and farther between and arose a lot more naturally than is sometimes the case, and to me that made them stronger and maybe funnier. Just simple things like when the jilted husband jumps in his car after a failed attempt at revenge and speeds away into the distance - only to come speeding back past the protagonists once more cos he's driven into a dead end.
I really liked the way that it was shot, the first scene was perfect, a car driving into a battering rainstorm with the camera in the back-seat, our two main characters only in silhouette, it really was like Hitchcock and there were many other similar moments, when digging a grave in the field and the starkness of the black sky with one man and a spade was very powerful. Many scenes with spinning fans, always a surprisingly static camera. It looked fantastic, very simple and powerful, but I can imagine that they considered it borrowed from other directors and so they moved away fromt that searching for their own.
Actually, having said that was the first scene, there was in fact one before it. A voice over which, if the film had been made last year, you just know would have been done by Woody Harrelson, but here was delivered perfectly by one of the sleaziest sleazy private detectives you're ever likely to see. And this was a recurring feeling for me - it seems that the Coen team grew too confident with the success that followed and the stylistic tricks rose higher and higher and overcame the films, an over-reliance on the same actors meant that their films became somehow stale. I don't care how good Frances Dortmand or Harrelson or John Turturro are - and they are good - there is just no way round the fact that when you see them your first thought is "oh there is Woody Harrelson - again". So while Blood Simple is a neo-noir with some extra touches, later efforts are often in danger of becoming a load of cool touches with a movie attached somewhere.
I actually think that Blood Simple may be one of their best films. There was a bit when one guy dies and I remember thinking that now he's gone there is really no way for anyone to reassemble the jigsaw, too many big pieces are missing and can't be found - and so it proved, there is no all-seeing detective or hero of any kind riding to the rescue. All that's left is a series of misunderstandings with a load of desperate and foolish people making stupid decisions because they don't have enough information about what really happened to make the right decisions. My only quibble would be that even given that, at times their actions didn't really seem to make sense, I get that they were confused and scared and so on but there was a lot of stuff they did that didn't really seem to be the thing that anyone would do in their position.
But overall, the film was so much more powerful and tense than I expected. It was lean and cut to the bone and all the moments mattered cos people really died and did so horribly and there were no jokes to hide behind when we saw it happen. A truly powerful film shot through with strong images, interesting characters and smart dialogue - and all of if so messy and confused and realistic.
I really feel that they lost their way a bit after this - all they did was change the emphases of the elements involved and while that no doubt made their style so recognisable and easy for others to catch a hold of and copy and spread their word for them and so on - it was part of what made them megastars really, but I have a feeling they could have made some better films if they had taken a slightly different path.
Well that's what I think just now anyhow. Would like to hear what everyone else thinks, about the film or about what I thought of the film.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yeah that's how I felt. I think that, perhaps subconsciously, I had this thought in my head that cos it's a Coen Brothers film, nothing would really land that hard or affect me that much, cos there is always this protective layer of irony in their films that distances you from the action to a certain extent. I mean, I don't think I'd realised that that was how I felt until these heavier blows started landing. Of course any film can have a "tense" scene where the hero is trying to creep somewhere or hide from a baddie or dispose of something on the road as cars go by... but in one film that scene doesn't really bother you and in another it has you holding your breath... to my surprise Blood Simple was much nearer to the latter end of the scale... and as I realised that, I understood that I had been assuming it would be at the other end.
And this is what I was trying to get at when I say it's a noir with Coenesque touches, rather than the type of film that simply became Coen Brothers' own genre.
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yesterday I watched a film called Faster and I would like to jot down my thoughts on it. I could probably fit those thoughts into a number of threads, but, as one of the first thoughts I had while watching was "why can't they make good hardboiled films any more?" I decided it fitted in here as well as any place.
And to me it was a hardboiled film, or a wannabe hardboiled that ended up scrambled. The plot concerns a gangster who has just served ten years in prison for a crime he did commit and now he's out, looking for revenge. It features Billy Bob-Thornton as a very dodgy cop - and I thought he was very good in that role, the best thing about the film really.
One of the main problems is the vengeful protagonist who is played by The Rock. Now I've no problem with that guy, he does some things really well, it's just that his range is limited, he can really only play two characters and neither of them are this. Sure, if you want a solid looking action hero or a kind of comedy action hero for a kids film he's your guy, there is no-one better, but he is just never ever gonna be cool, much less sinister. When he tries to look mysterious he just looks vacant, when he tries to look inscrutable he looks constipated.
At the start of the film he gets out of gaol and says some tough final words to the governor which shows you - if you ever doubted it - that prison hasn't broken him, then he goes to where his car - a supercool muscle car that could be a Mustang or maybe a Dodge Charger something really fucking sweet like that - has been waiting for him, keeping itself clean and oiled and full of petrol so that he can just get in and drive really fast down an empty road looking more constipated than you've ever seen and apparently really angry about it. When he gets to where he's going he gets out of the car and storms across a road with about ten lanes, but he storms slowly enough that in every single lane a driver has to slam on the anchors so they don't wreck their car by crashing into a rock. And then he storms into an open-plan office, shoots some guy in the face and fucks off.
And that scene with cliche after cliche is really terrible, it's sort of the opposite of a good hardboiled film which pulls off the trick of somehow being way to cool and perfect to be true, while somehow seeming to be brutally real and gritty. I dunno how they manage that and neither does this director apparently.
I almost switched off at that point but I didn't and it does get better, but all the way through it's struggling to get back to zero from the negative position it put itself in here, climbing ladder after ladder to cancel out that enormous snake.
There is also a weird hitman who seems like he escaped from a Coen Brothers film, he speaks to his psychiatrist on the phone but it's not a device to give us the plot as in Sopranos, it's just a quirk of this guy to give him a personality - and it feels as though they get bored of that plot point and stop mentioning it after a while.
Anyway, can anyone answer the question at the top for me?
And to me it was a hardboiled film, or a wannabe hardboiled that ended up scrambled. The plot concerns a gangster who has just served ten years in prison for a crime he did commit and now he's out, looking for revenge. It features Billy Bob-Thornton as a very dodgy cop - and I thought he was very good in that role, the best thing about the film really.
One of the main problems is the vengeful protagonist who is played by The Rock. Now I've no problem with that guy, he does some things really well, it's just that his range is limited, he can really only play two characters and neither of them are this. Sure, if you want a solid looking action hero or a kind of comedy action hero for a kids film he's your guy, there is no-one better, but he is just never ever gonna be cool, much less sinister. When he tries to look mysterious he just looks vacant, when he tries to look inscrutable he looks constipated.
At the start of the film he gets out of gaol and says some tough final words to the governor which shows you - if you ever doubted it - that prison hasn't broken him, then he goes to where his car - a supercool muscle car that could be a Mustang or maybe a Dodge Charger something really fucking sweet like that - has been waiting for him, keeping itself clean and oiled and full of petrol so that he can just get in and drive really fast down an empty road looking more constipated than you've ever seen and apparently really angry about it. When he gets to where he's going he gets out of the car and storms across a road with about ten lanes, but he storms slowly enough that in every single lane a driver has to slam on the anchors so they don't wreck their car by crashing into a rock. And then he storms into an open-plan office, shoots some guy in the face and fucks off.
And that scene with cliche after cliche is really terrible, it's sort of the opposite of a good hardboiled film which pulls off the trick of somehow being way to cool and perfect to be true, while somehow seeming to be brutally real and gritty. I dunno how they manage that and neither does this director apparently.
I almost switched off at that point but I didn't and it does get better, but all the way through it's struggling to get back to zero from the negative position it put itself in here, climbing ladder after ladder to cancel out that enormous snake.
There is also a weird hitman who seems like he escaped from a Coen Brothers film, he speaks to his psychiatrist on the phone but it's not a device to give us the plot as in Sopranos, it's just a quirk of this guy to give him a personality - and it feels as though they get bored of that plot point and stop mentioning it after a while.
Anyway, can anyone answer the question at the top for me?
IdleRich
IdleRich
Further to that post Basic Instinct was on telly a couple of days ago and I suppose that counts as a neo-noir, certainly it has a femme-fatale and a detective who is in over his head.
Compared to older ones it doesn't have the stylishness that pervades the whole thing, but I guess that is always the case with noir films made after the classic era, that look has gone and so films wanting the noir feel have a choice between recreating it at the expense of realism, or not doing that and sacrificing the specific look that made noir films noir.
Basic Instinct certainly goes for the latter. There is no attempt at noir style, in fact no overarching style at all. Sure Sharon Stone is always well dressed with the white coat and scarf combo (though apparently she forgot her knickers), but the rest of them are just average Joes in nondescript nineties tat.
Anyway, I suppose the plot is decent-eniugh, satisfyingly twisty-turny but it does feel a bit as though you're led through it by the hand with each actual twist quite predictable when it happens (at least it seems that way now, in the 90s when I first saw it I'm sure each caught me completely on the hop).
(Mild spoilers follow for anyone who has never seen it)
Also, although I guess the inevitability of his doom is part of any tragic story of this kind, I found it a little frustrating watching him stumbling around, always a few steps behind where he should be.
In the end it's not a bad film in itself I suppose but if you watch it hoping to scratch the same itch that all your favourite noirs did then you're gonna be disappointed. It's basically best to forget about any neo-noir tag and watch it just as a solid sex-drama-mystery.
Compared to older ones it doesn't have the stylishness that pervades the whole thing, but I guess that is always the case with noir films made after the classic era, that look has gone and so films wanting the noir feel have a choice between recreating it at the expense of realism, or not doing that and sacrificing the specific look that made noir films noir.
Basic Instinct certainly goes for the latter. There is no attempt at noir style, in fact no overarching style at all. Sure Sharon Stone is always well dressed with the white coat and scarf combo (though apparently she forgot her knickers), but the rest of them are just average Joes in nondescript nineties tat.
Anyway, I suppose the plot is decent-eniugh, satisfyingly twisty-turny but it does feel a bit as though you're led through it by the hand with each actual twist quite predictable when it happens (at least it seems that way now, in the 90s when I first saw it I'm sure each caught me completely on the hop).
(Mild spoilers follow for anyone who has never seen it)
Also, although I guess the inevitability of his doom is part of any tragic story of this kind, I found it a little frustrating watching him stumbling around, always a few steps behind where he should be.
In the end it's not a bad film in itself I suppose but if you watch it hoping to scratch the same itch that all your favourite noirs did then you're gonna be disappointed. It's basically best to forget about any neo-noir tag and watch it just as a solid sex-drama-mystery.
Last edited:
craner
Beast of Burden
I started watching Hollywood noir back in 2006 but apart from the odd highlight (Touch of Evil, In a Lonely Place, Ava Gardner in The Killers and Gloria Grahame in Crossfire), I found them pretty boring to watch. Which is odd, because I can literally enjoy almost any giallo you put in front of me.
craner
Beast of Burden
IdleRich
IdleRich
It's not really about the plots as a rule - more about fast-talking tough guys and street slang and hard-drinking broads, pet doctors injecting morphine and flashy gangsters in shadowy lighting. Plots tend to be an afterthought and, as famously in the case of The Big Sleep, often don't make sense.
Last edited:
Terrifying Bogie.
craner
Beast of Burden
Yeah, really nasty piece of work. Grahame is superb, like she always was.