Blog 7

If I had to select one of these two stories to recommend to a friend, I would definitely say "The Method."  I feel I can relate to these stories more than I did to Double Indemnity. I really liked the female narration in both stories, and the fact I live in Los Angeles, and these stories are more modern, I felt like they were real, like I was watching a news segment.  I really liked the intenseness of "The Method," I was very interested the entire story.  The female protagonist, Holly, was a badass! (sorry there is really no other word to describe her) She was cut-throat, and was not about to let some scum bag walk all over her!  I liked how she figured out she was being used by Richard, went and used him one last time, and them killed him.  She basically got revenge before anything really happened to her. I like the realness of the story line: a young girl struggling to make it in hollywood, waiting tables, renting a room with an old woma, tangled up with a bad guy. This is a story that frequents LA.  I felt there as never a dull moment in "The Method," so I would absolutely recommend that to a friend. 

As for "Morocco Junction," it was a little more difficult to follow and I got bored throughout.  I felt like the ending was just kind of thrown together, like maybe the wirter didn't quite know how to tell the audience why the Eloise committed suicide.  It felt very rushed and unrealistic that just by looking at a piece of jewelry Minerva would unravel the entire mystery. It felt sort of like a cheesy lifetime movie, but less appealing.  Basically, the only things I liked about this story is the fact there was a character named "Meghan" (lol) and that the author referenced Jamba Juice! I also thoght it was somewhat interesting that this is the first noir story I have read that has suicide vs. murder, and the woman who killed herself was really the only "bad guy," aside from the theives. That being said, I felt it was mostly dull and the most interesting part, the ending, felt like the author was late for a deadline.  I would most likely not recommend this story to a friend.

Blog 6

This article gave a great in depth insight into the differences and likeness of the two.  Where classic noir has a femme fatale, an ambiguous protagonist detective type male, crime and black and white setting, neo-noir is not so cookie-cutter.  Because it has been said before that noir is hard to define, neo-noir is no differentm they are difficult to pin point.  Neo-noir is typically graphic with the use of strong language and vulgarity to display emotion and characters' thoughts, where in a classic noir language is insinuative but never blatantly said, these thoughts and emotions are usually depicted by shadows and scenes, refelective of the inward character.  The femme fatale is not emphasized and usually gets away with whatever deviant crime she has conjured up.  The poor sap who is caught in her trap realizes he has been taken for a fool probably just as it's too late and is at the will of the femme fatale.  Neo-noir is violent and gruesome, which I am certain has a lot to do with society and how we are so desensitized to these sorts of things now.  Classic-Noir was considered outrageous for its time, where watching a Classic-Noir film now, it is so innocent and mild compared to a Neo-Noir or any other film of our time for that matter.  Classic-noir told by a voice over, and as a flash back feels as though you are listening to a story from the past, where as it seems most neo-noirs are told in a first person narrative and feel as though it is in real time. Neo-noir and classic-noir are similar in that they still revolve around a crime scene and they both address current social anxities.

Blog 5

In the freelance article "Notes on film: Double Indemnity" by Thomas Caldwell, he proposes the film "is regarded by many as the first true film noir...[and] is also one of the best." Caldwell does a great job breaking down elements of film noir, that would be easily understood by a first time reader who has no idea what film noir is about.  He touches on several qualities of film noir such as the femme fatale, the detective type leading male, the darkness and venetian blinds, and provides detailed examples on how Double Indemnity incorporates each. He also goes on to describe the background and history of film noir and how it came to be known in American film genre to"...reflect both the post World War II survival at all cost mentality plus the ruthless desire to overcome any obstacle by any means necessary."  Caldwell has a great way of explaining the relation of the film's characters and roles to the era of the film and what was taking place at that time in history, what with the war, and role reversal of women in power.  He states "The women in these films were tough, independent, intelligent and cunning. They used their sexuality to their advantage and often wielded considerable power over men. Although the femme fatales often met their doom at the end of these films (thus restoring perceived social order) they were powerful and empowered for the other 95% of the film."  This was very true to the times post World War II with the women having to do a lot of work in place of the men at war, when the men returned, they found women were no longer just a 'Susie home-maker' and no longer wanted to be treated as such.  Although I have become familiar with the elements of film noir, this article clarified some relations of the genre to the era and why it was so relevant and popular at the time.  It almost makes me wonder if men were not fans of this type of film in that time period. I wonder if the men thought that this type of film would encourage women to strive for power. Even though in the end, as stated by Caldwell, the women often got what they deserved, "thus restoring perceived social order," I feel as though men would be opposed to the films message portraying women as having the upper hand.  Or maybe, because in the end the femme fatales were defeated, the directors and writers did this intentionally as a way to discourage women; kind of portraying the message to them of "if you try to stay in power, bad things will happen." So many elements and qualities of film noir have deeper meaning than what is originally perceived, it really makes me think: what is the true moral of the story, what is the underlying message they really are trying to get across?

Blog 4 (Q.5, Q.1)

As the shadow of a man on crutches hobbles toward the camera, a suspenseful tune plays, introducing the emotion of the film.  The man on crutches represents more than just Mr. Walter Neff, he represents his struggle versus evil, with what is morally correct versus corrupt. Shadows play a huge role in the film, they are displayed in nearly every scene from beginning to end.  Some more noticeable than others, but watching the film closely, they are present primarily when depicting some sort of evilness or evil thought lurking within a character. I really appreciate the low-key lighting and use of shadowing in the film; when the malevolence of a character overpowers the good, the directors have darkness overpowering the light.  The use of shadows in Double Indemnity represents danger, evil, and moral corruption.  This was an appropriate opening scene because it foreshadows the man Mr. Neff becomes.  From the start of the film, you know there is darkness in him.  It is apparent in the first few minutes of the film where he is the shown only from the back, clothed in darkness, a view often given to deranged characters.  We do not actually see his face until he flips on the light in the office to record his confession, even then his face is covered in the shadow from his hat, suggesting the darkness within Mr. Neff in the first couple minutes of the film.  The opening scene later plays a greater significance to the story as we learn Mr. Neff is on crutches only to portray to onlookers that Mr. Diethrichson had indeed, boarded the train, all the while knowing he murdered the man not ten minutes prior.

The contrast between the ending of the film versus the novel is evident.  The film ends with a much more abrupt, straight to the point death for Phyllis, and a lingering bullet wound to the chest for Walter; which we know by his collapse at the end, does him in.  Whereas in the novel, the ending is more devious, a little more criminal minds type.  Keyes sends Phyllis and Walter away to be the jury in their own trial so to speak, and decide their own sentencing.  They either can chose a life of guilt, in fear and on the run, or death.  The film, they just die which is kind of predictable and boring, which are not qualities of film noir.  Because the novel ends leaving it's audience questioning their fate, it is a more appropriate ending for the genre of film noir.  It is mysterious, cruel and devious all at once, which definitely stereotypes film noir.  It keeps the heir of suspense even after we have finished reading.