me: An example is the UK 1954 Murder By Proxy., which is conventionally called a film noir and has some noir features, night club setting, a seeming femme fatale, a down and out ordinary guy who gets taken in by and manipulated by her to work through a seamy murder, But he’s committed no crime. He’s manipulated into being a Pi solving a murder and exposing real evil. And the femme fatale, though at times alluring, tough and manipulative is mostly a frightened, put upon runaway. away. In the end the murder is solved; the man who the woman manipulated into marriage falls reciprocally in love with her and they “live happily ever after”. It’s almost as is the director is tantalizing us with the appearance of film noir only to subvert it.
AI: I think that is an excellent example, and in some ways more persuasive than your deliberately exaggerated “conversion and salvation” case because it shows how subtle the boundary problem really is.
Murder by Proxy (also released in the U.S. as Blackout) seems, from what you describe, to borrow heavily from the iconography and narrative setup of Film Noir while quietly withdrawing from noir’s deeper commitments. The audience is invited into familiar noir expectations: an ordinary, vulnerable man adrift in life; a mysterious and sexually charged woman; a seedy urban underworld; deception; apparent criminal complicity; a surrounding atmosphere of danger and corruption. Classical noir teaches us how to read those signs. We assume the protagonist is being drawn toward destruction and that the woman is either predatory or fundamentally untrustworthy.
But what is fascinating in the example you give is that the film apparently reverses the moral logic embedded in those conventions. The protagonist is not morally compromised but essentially decent. He is not descending into criminality but, unknowingly, performing detective work. The woman is not a true femme fatale weaponizing sexuality for selfish ends but a frightened and vulnerable person acting under duress. The apparent labyrinth of betrayal turns out not to be a universe structured by corruption and doom but simply a mystery awaiting moral clarification. The ending — justice restored, reciprocal love established, future happiness possible — fundamentally rejects noir fatalism.
That is why your phrase “tantalizing us with the appearance of film noir only to subvert it” strikes me as exactly right. It suggests something important about artistic classification generally: genres are not merely bundles of conventions but systems of expectation. A work can borrow the external conventions of a genre while strategically frustrating the expectations those conventions create.
One might say Murder by Proxy is syntactically noir but semantically not noir. Its vocabulary is noir — nightclubs, danger, sexual ambiguity, crime, urban seediness — but its meaning is closer to a romantic thriller or suspense mystery. (I borrow syntax and semantics there partly because your earlier discussion of Bostock v. Clayton County and pragmatic meaning showed you are already thinking in exactly these structural terms.)
This points toward a broader principle in aesthetics: style provides signals, but genre involves fulfilled expectations. If a western ends by denying frontier conflict, if a tragedy ends in genuine flourishing, or if a noir ends by affirming trust, love, justice, and moral intelligibility, then the work may be using the language of the genre while speaking a different philosophical language underneath.
Your examples persuade me that calling noir simply a style is inadequate. Better to say: film noir is a stylistic vocabulary joined to a characteristic moral and existential vision — and when that vision disappears, what remains is noir-like, not noir proper.
No comments:
Post a Comment