Film Noir - Visual Motifs

Film noir is typically defined as "a style or genre of cinematographic film marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, and menace". However, film noir is an intricate topic that is still difficult to give a clear meaning to. However, it is mostly agreed upon that visual style is the consistent thread that unites the very diverse films that together comprise the phenomenon of film noir. Characteristic moods of film noir include: claustrophobia, despair, paranoia, and so on - all which are expressed through a films style.
When shooting a film, lighting is important because it helps set the mood of the film. For film noir, low-key lighting is popularly used. This is because low-key lighting creates areas of high contrast with rich, black shadows. This aids in setting the noir "mood". This technique of lighting and diffusion removes any element of softness or vulnerability from the film.
As for directional style in film noir, we often see off-angled, peculiar compositions of figures that are placed regularly in the film. This creates a feeling of unstableness- that anything in the film can drastically change at any given moment. The visually unstable environment created by the "dark mirror" of film noir gives the characters no moral base to be able to confidently operate.
Between low-angle shots, low-key lighting, and the dark, rich shadows accompanied by bizarre framing - we see these visual motifs regularly in films exhibiting film noir.

Film Noir

The Film Noir era is one of the most fascinating movements in cinematic history due to its harsh, honest representation of American life at the time. I believe that the darkness of these types of films and their qualities of mood and tone are very representative of the ways in which the morale of the nation can effect cinema. During the Depression, it was important to create films that were uplifting and lighter in mood; in the 1940s after the war, there was no longer a need for that verification for normalcy. Instead, the public desired a more honest view of America- feelings that correlated with the post war realism. The "hard boiled egg hero" was a great deal tougher than the sugar coated,  American cinematic heros the public was used to.

The ways that the films are shot, the lighting used and the actors are represented is very anti-traditional to what viewers were used to, components that contributed to the darkness of the type of film. They all make Film Noir stand out stylistically. An example is the extreme high angle long shot, an oppressive angle that looks down on its helpless victim like a rat in a maze. Directors would use bizarre, off angle comparisons of figures placed irregularly in the frame. In Beyond Reasonable Doubt the image of a typical couple in love was undercut by placing the couple in a weird, unbalanced positioning in the frame. All of these stylistic elements add to the perception of an unstable or unsafe world and the consistently dark mood of these films.

Film Noir is also interesting in that it is both a praised as one of the best periods in film but also the least known. I think that this can be attributed to the concept that people more often enjoy feel good movies with excitement. In the first reading, the author states that the main reason for the neglect of Film Noir is the fascination American film critics have with sociology, where Film Noir depends more on choreography.

Neoformalism- Christian Colletti

Neoformalist Film analysis

I found both of these readings to be interesting and shed light on some aspects of film analysis. Formalism, first used by the Russians, viewed films as artwork and they were artistic expressions that did not have a basis on reality. They were abstract and symbolic, and wanted to make the familiar seem strange to the viewer, a process they called defamiliarization.The formalist method doesn’t explain the film but simply calls your attention to it. The Neoformalist approach is different in that it attempts to explain nuances of the film. Thompson explains that film-watching is an experience separate from our everyday world. In our daily routines our mental energy is focused on things important to our well-being, like stopping at a red light so we don’t get in a car accident. Thompson believes that the spectator is an active participant when watching films and a reaction to a film is based on our previous experiences. These experiences are three types of “backgrounds”, our everyday world, how it relates to other artworks, and the practical purposes of the film. Our interpretation of a film changes as the backgrounds change. The reading gave a great example of Bonnie and Clyde, released in 1967. At the time, the violence in the film was shocking and caused a lot of controversy. If we saw it today we wouldn’t think of it as violent at all. In the Neoformalist approach, the active participation of viewers relies on physiological processes, and preconscious, conscious and unconscious thought processes. The viewer responds to a film based on these processes and their past experiences. I always felt like I passively watched a film, but this reading showed me that a lot more goes into it when watching a film.

Kristin Thompson: Neoformalism

Thompson's first chapter regarding the neoformalism approach to film analysis was intriguing and brought up interesting points about the history of the approach. I think one of the most thought-provoking aspects of reading essays about film analysis such as this one are interesting in terms of the way that film analysts think about film rather than normal audiences might. In regards to "high" versus "low" art, I feel as though most film analysts gravitate more towards films that are considered "high" art because they might be more creative, engaging, or provocative compared to the big-budget summer blockbusters that dominant the box office. This creates a disparity between the films that analysts choose to watch and the films that are the most widely seen. Of course, there is some overlap between those two categories, but in my mind, that just widens the gap between "high" and "low" culture. Thompson notes that film analysts will choose to watch films that pique their interest in some way, just as audience members select films based on their own personal preference when it comes to picking a movie to watch. That said, some of the approaches and methods that Thompson addresses in this chapter are applicable and useful for people who may not  be film analysts. Knowing the history of the neoformalist approach and the various methodologies are a good way for even the average viewer to increase their appreciation for film and "art for art's sake". I do think that there is some value, however, to challenge oneself and watch films that may not initially appeal to your tastes, just to expose your mind to new ideas and art forms while challenging preconceived notions one might have about various types of films.

Thompson's "Neoformalist Film Analysis"

I like theory. As a Communications and English major, I kind of have to. I also like Kristin Thompson's writing - I find our textbook she wrote with Thompson extremely useful and clear. I don't know why, then, I'm having so much trouble with certain parts this essay. I can't seem to pin down the distinction between approach and method, other than that I think method might be more narrow, and that approaches have methods within them. As Thompson elaborates on her point I only get more and more lost and bogged down in the examples she provides. I'm also having trouble making the distinction between Formalism and Neoformalism, aside from the fact that the former is Russian and from the early 20th century, and the latter has made a comeback in the last few decades as the writings of silenced Russian thinkers begin to be translated into other languages. Perhaps the only distinction is that one is newer - explaining the Neo- prefix - than the other.

Details aside, I do find the majority of Thompson's ideas valuable and interesting. I love the notion of having to work for art, having to be an active participant in the experience, of aesthetic perception being an entirely different activity from everyday general awareness, an exercise in defamiliarization and analysis. Her discussion of connotative (implicit) ideas and denotative (explicit) ideas is familiar and easy, yet applied well to her argument. Many of the concepts in this essay Thompson covers in the textbook as well, but there's nothing wrong with a little reinforcement.

Thompson's Neoformalism

Kristin Thompson efficiently conveys her ideas regarding Neoformalism in her writing. I like how she, unlike Christie, discusses numerous different approaches to studying film. One in particular that I enjoyed reading about is the communications model of art. She elaborates on this model and discusses how art requires a spectator to make sense of its development. These ideas relate to different art realms throughout today’s society. In fact, Modern Art exhibits a great deal of such audience involvement. Moreover, this model conveys that each spectator must perceive each piece of art in a different, unique manner. This, Neoformalists believe, is what makes art truly beautiful. Now after studying such a model, it is more evident to me that films are produced with the basis that it is the audience’s job to analyze the film. It is likely that with this knowledge they will make particular decisions for the audience to work with.

Neoformalist Method

Neoformalism rejects the notion that art is a form of communication, but a vehicle that invites the spectator to defamiliarizes himself with his habitual perception of the world via cinema. This "approach" emphasizes leisure and relataebility.  I like this method of interpreting cinema because it emphasizes the viewer's personal experience while watching the film. With this approach, film is no longer constricted by psychology, sociology, linguistics, etc. I agree that when we categorize our analysis of film based on an ology or istic we are limiting our understanding of the film and ignoring essential aspects. Another idea I appreciated is that film is constantly in motion because realism is a set of conventions that conforms to a specific time period. For example, a 1900s audience would never look at The Wizard of Oz as a feminist film because that was not a relevant idea during that time. Now of course, everyone talks about feminism. But to make neoformalism work, we have to presume the piece of art exists outside of history in the context it was produced or watched. Therefore, we can say The Wizard of Oz was feminist (although I don't agree with that.) What I want to discuss more is the "Nature of Artwork" section of Thompson's essay. And "art as separate from the cultural framework because it requires a unique set of perceptual requirements" is a sentence I would disagree with. This breeches the question of what can we define as art and I would say art in its truest form is nature so nothing unique about that.

Neoformalism: The Truth Behind Modern Art

Among many brilliant master pieces framed artfully at the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York City sits one art installation that I will never forget. Isolated in a room surrounded by colorful imagery hung the most unexciting canvas I had even seen. It was plain white. At first glance I presumed it was empty, unpainted or unfinished, but at an acclaimed (and expensive) museum, nothing is there unintentionally. The longer I examined this portrait, the more frustrated I became. A plain white canvas? Please. I could do that.

After having read the chapter discussing neoformalism and its elements, I am able to identify the anger I felt day at the exhibit. At the time, I had been examining the painting through pure automatization; I drew conclusions based on only instinct and impulse. Had I viewed the image with a sense of defamiliarization, an approach that requires active spectatorship, I would have understood that true response requires seeing art on a different level. While this is much more difficult in practice, it is the most effective way to experience art.

Rather than holding the point of view that "art is for art's sake" (the only beauty within art is the notion of art itself), one should always strive to understand art in a scientific and literary way. It's a comprehensive way to form a meaningful analysis!

Fun with Neoformalist Perspectives

After reading Kristen Thompson’s article on Neoformalism, I feel I have gained another lens with which to analyze films. I do not think I will always observe films through this precise lens, but I feel more confident already with an understanding of neoformalism added to my repertoire. I really enjoy the idea posed by Thompson of significance through variance. This variance exists in unique aspects of art that would otherwise hold a routine and uniform role in “efficient” society. By isolating factors, especially with aesthetic facets of a work, differences can be highlighted and thereby further the plot motives or development. Under a neoformalist approach, it seems that each film can be analyzed in different fashions, all dependent on the content and composition in a particular movie. I found truth in the phenomenon of “defamiliarization” when looking at various films in such a manner, but I also found that this only bogged me down in my analysis, creating an unorganized network of perceptions in my mind. Perhaps this is just the wiring of my own mind, but I enjoy referring to aesthetics in films with a uniform basis as opposed to case-by-case basis.

Neoformalism reaction

Having read and learned about Neoformalism in the past, it was very interesting to come back to it months later and reanalyze it.  Many of the aspects that I had not understood about the film criticism in the past, cleared up to me after a second read.  The idea of an active spectator was perhaps my favorite aspect of the article.  In many ways this is one of the aspects of film that I love most, and I certainly agree with the notion that a majority of films are aware that a viewer is observing the plot and analyzing the story.  Films are made for the viewer; for the viewer to enjoy, to make him/her think and to create emotion in the viewer.  We know a film is powerful not by what we see on screen but how the film makes us feel.  I found the notion of director’s attempting to anticipate how his/her viewers will react to a specific device to be very interesting.  This concept reminded me of business marketing; but for film theory.  Producers of a product must cater to their customers.