Cinema and Taxonomy: the example of Film Noir

Recently, I have been going through material on the overall topic of representation in cinema, apropos my doctoral thesis which requires good insight in this controversial topic. An interesting but nevertheless problematic article was one on Gay men and lesbians in film noir, a argument that is to a certain level, plausible. This article developed an analysis not only on the image of homosexuality in noirs from the mid 40s to late 50s but also engaged in issues concerning structure, motifs, mise en scene and camera work. The ultimate aim was a system of classification of the films based on the subject of the article. 
However, I noticed two major errors which I believe are the backbone of taxonomy's crooked spine. One is a categorization of films based on thematic concepts and what is essentially interpretations of symbols (i.e noirs that reproduce the hysterical femme fatale are one separate category) and the other is neglecting the role of auteurs and of cinematic expression as a means of classifying films. In other words films are often classified into categories which don't reflect the artistic merit of a film but merely its themes and iconography (the "detective image" the chiaroscuro lighting and of course the ubiquitous femme fatale). Cinematic expression is so much more layered and we often understand it like we stereotype people, placing varied and different cultures under one umbrella while we need to dig deeper to understand them.

Film noir is like the musical genre of grunge. There has been only one real grunge band, Nirvana, which on its own formed the characteristics of grunge, while all other bands were hybrids that were not absolutely original. Arguably, noirs are so versatile a genre, that it is common place to use it as a departure point that will be infused by so many other elements, not entirely arbitrarily. Of course, according to my last example, there are only just a handful of noirs that are entirely original, always in regard to a classified set of labels.

Initially, noirs were pulp fiction, crime novels by Ramond Chandler and others. The term was coined by the French - Romans Noirs - black, dark if you may, novels because of the morose and bleak atmosphere. The first films were the Maltese Falcon by John Huston, the Big Sleep by Howard Hawks, Otto Preminger's Laura, Double Indemnity by Billy Wilder, Gilda by Charles Vidor, Robert Siodmak's The Killers , Jacques Tourner's Out of The Past and maybe a few more that I forget. The thematic motifs are so many and so diverse, that it would be pointless to attempt a classification of just these aforementioned films, not to mention tens of noirs that followed, defiantly breaking the rules (most memorably Blade Runner, a film that fails on every level as a film noir).

However, there is one issue that almost every academic and critic forget in their attempt to over analyze every film and to see it as a text, while a film is a film per se, a universe of its own: the films that are known above all as film noirs, with the image of the detective and the femme fatale, introduced subjectivity in ways unprecedented. We had seen before the 1940s subjectivity and specifically a subjective gaze, hence a personal and biased point of view, in films of Murnau (The Last Laugh) who placed the camera right in front of the drunk protagonist to project his gaze and lastly, in the very first silent films of Hitchcock, the first filmmaker to truly epitomize the subjective gaze. In Blackmail, after the female protagonist murders her rapist, she drifts in the streets of London and we witness what she does, through her eyes.

Her gaze becomes that of a fragmented woman who suffers from her crime. In order for us too perceive this, Hitchcock used visual effects, turning the seconds hand on the clock on Big Ben to resemble a hand holding a knife in stabbing motion. This concept was perfected in Vertigo, when Scotty followed Madelaine, who from that point on became the ultimate female presence, the untouchable female, the desire of the male gaze and of the camera eye that has transformed Kim Novak into an ethereal woman who can not be touched or perceived because she is unreachable for our central gaze, Scotty, the detective.

is Vertigo a noir?
I would say that it has certain traits of noirs, a fact that hardly holds any importance in an evaluation of Hitchcock's masterpiece, because Vertigo is a Hitchcock film, the work of an auteur whose films are a category on their own, unparalleled yet extremely influential. Here however we have pointed out one basic stylistic motif that combines theme and cinematic expression. It is therefore an idea that guides our understanding, assessment and celebration of film noir. Subjectivity is the cornerstone of every noir in terms of structure (plot)and expression. A noir is essentially a mystery that unfolds gradually, only to reveal to us a labyrinth that brings more questions with every answer. But why is it that this occurs? It may seem predictable in these days of saturation, even mundane, but in the years after the War, seeing a mystery as if the audience is perched on the shoulder of the detective was unique, exciting and fascinating. 

Each noir worldview was distorted, dark, mysterious, terrifying and yet exciting exactly for the reason that this was the impression of the detective. One may recall here a case of extreme experimentation on this concept with The Lady of The Lake by Robert Montgomery. In this film, the camera was literally poised on the actor and only in two mirror scenes do we see his face. The director, in an extreme case of applying the "rule", ultimately failed, since the outcome was very distant. This however comes to show how important this matter was for filmmakers. We could recall here Fincher's Seven, in no way a film noir, but still one that is loosely based on the genre. The mystery unfolds before our eyes but subjectivity is not key here. 

Nevertheless, the world is worth fighting for, although it is an ugly place. This is the ultimate subjective image that noirs create. It is important to point out that this thought is projected not in a patronizing manner, by "creating" a world that is objectively so, as though the director is telling us that this is how things are. The gaze of the detective bears all the terrifying sights of a noir: murder,deception and greed. These are all highlighted of course by mise en scene - the dark settings, black and white shadings, bizarre angles and the absence of almost any natural light which create a bleak atmosphere, that is not absolutely unrealistic - a fact in early expressionist films. Therefore, I could safely argue that film noirs were the first films to deliver to the screen the modernist visions of Marcel Proust and James Joyce, that inevitably influenced and shaped the Nouvele Vague: that we do not need to change the world, but see it through different eyes. This idea hardly ever is prominent in analyses and classifications of film noirs

To return to my idea of classification and to the beginning of this text, the article I was reading mentioned, on the premises of gays and lesbians in noirs, a number of Hitchcock films: Rope, Rebecca and Strangers on a Train. Of course, the two male protagonists of Rope have been often discussed in the context of sexual deviance and the relationship between the two males of Strangers is indeed open to interpretation (Bruno asks from Guy to kill his "father", what would Freud say?). Finally Rebecca's caretaker is a hysterical woman who behaves more like a male and could be lesbian (this is an interpretation and clearly a mistaken case of possible symbolism taken as a motif of noirs). It is at least an understatement to say that Hitchcock's films could be classified. 
Apart from vague descriptions (drama, adventure) even though film noir refers to characteristics of cinema, unlike comedy, drama etc., the only term that fits is in this case "a hitchcock film." Yes the men are wearing trench coats, and scotty follows Madeleine as the plot thickens, but after all, these are films of an auteur. The only term with which I could maybe agree is "modernist", one which contains references to innovation and which allows for further classifications in terms of cinematic expression and not only themes and iconography. It is for the lack of clarity on this matter that numerous films are labeled noir, just because we see a detective in a trench coat, accompanied by a dark jazz soundtrack. This is why Blade Runner is not a noir, but a more of a thesis on existential philosophy. 

The reason for this, the all seeing and revealing camera which reveals the schemes of the bad androids and of the "God" abandoning thus the gaze of the detective, so that instead of suspense and mystery, we have a case of a dramatic sci-fi film that debates binaries of God and Man, creator and creation, death and life etc etc, which are not per se bad but not a noir.