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.
Megan, I liked your insight about the novel being appropriate for film noir. My take on the subject was the opposite from yours. I think that the film was more in the category of film noir than the novel, but when I read your intake on it, it had me contemplate over my decision. Now that I think of it, perhaps both the novel and film do fall under film noir, in completely different ways. At first I didn’t like how the novel’s ending left you asking questions. It just had me confused. But when you mentioned it being “mysterious, cruel and devious all at once” it all makes sense. I also liked how you said, “the feeling of suspense is still there even after you have read the novel,” which as a reader, I did feel.
ReplyDeleteMegan, I loved your description of Mr. Neff and how you input that he comes off as a dark character from the start. I too believe he is a character with much hidden dark traits that definitely become visible when he murders the man. I also feel as if Mr. Neff carried a burden or something, like if maybe he did something evil in the past? Since he knew exactly how to plot the murder. The lighting and the shadows presented in the film do give me that evil feel, it's as if I'm enjoying a good Frankenstein movie where weird things could happen. Very well done.
ReplyDeleteI really really loved you're description about the man hobbling on the crutches. I never really looked at it like that until I read this. I think you did an awesome job it was a very good post, great job
ReplyDeleteThank you, Guys!
ReplyDelete