Film Noir in Double Indemnity and Today

After reading both selections about film noir, it is clear to see that Double Indemnity is very important to the the entire time period of film noir. When the author split up film noir into three subcategories, Double Indemnity was deemed so significant that it didn't fall into just one, rather it was a transition film between the first and second. This make sense, as it didn't quite go "full gangster" on us but had some really important elements that made it a film noir, like the protagonist telling most of the story in flashbacks. Double Indemnity tells the story of a true crime happening to a regular person, something that sounds quite awful and shows a bit of the pessimism of this post-war era. However, we are left to assume his death when it comes to the end of the film, instead of us outright watching it. I also found it interesting how the second article focused on the importance of lighting, since I kept noticing this while viewing Double Indemnity. If I look back at the notes I jotted down from the film, I kept noting that the characters' intentions and true feelings often lied in the way they were lit in a particular scene, with the characters I wasn't sure about constantly speaking from the shadows. It's interesting that the author notes that even B film from the era of film noir are better than A films in other eras or genres. It's difficult to think about today, since do we have such a genre or more recent period of such consistent filmmaking? It seems like it's easier to make a critically acclaimed indie film than a huge blockbuster that both the general audience and the critics like. However, when it comes to these readings, it seems like film noir movies please just about everyone. The reason the author gives for this is the emphasis on style, and instead of trying to portray a certain theme in film, letting the film emerge through the style.