The philosophy of neo noir pdf

Carlos –

A thought provoking rough draft but one that is not really in line with the

requirements of the prompt for the final essay. There’s a kernel of a fascinating

argument here but a substantial amount of revision will be required in order to

bring it in line with the course requirements. I think you do have an intriguing

take on noir and these two films, but what you wish to say is either very

confusing or too general. I read the essay several times and I am still not really

clear on what you are trying to say overall. I wonder if it might make sense for

you to get in touch with the Writing Fellows at QC and ask them to help refine

your discussion. I say this because I think it is clear that you have a very

sophisticated understanding of the films, genre and cinema in general - but it is

expressed in a manner that makes it difficult, for me at least, to figure out what

you are trying to say a lot of the time. I’m wondering if this could be due to

having a lot to say and not being sure of how to construct the argument, which

seems to be wide ranging. Or, maybe it is something more straight forward. This

was an issue with the first essay but is really accentuated here where there are

quite a few passages where I really don’t know what you’re getting at or how it

is related to Film Noir. The rough draft of the MidTerm was much clearer, even

though there were some issues with accuracy regarding the movie; it was a much

simpler argument, so maybe that has something to do with why this essay is

much harder to follow.

Perhaps some of that might have to do with my lack of familiarity with Black

Mass. I have not seen this film - only heard of it, though I have seen The Departed

more than once. I am curious as to whether you cleared this topic with me or not

- I didn’t see it on the Classroom site and couldn’t find it in my email. I don’t

have a way to watch this film - or at least I didn’t before having to evaluate this

rough draft. And, to my knowledge, it is not a Neo-Noir but rather a Gangster

film. You talk about gangster films when discussing the roots of noir, which is

fine and not inappropriate, but as discussed in the podcasts and on the blog,

there is a critical difference between Gangster Films and Film Noir. The Departed

is a Gangster Film meets Police Film (usually called Crime Film) - those are

related of course with the difference being in the identity of the protagonist.

What makes The Departed so interesting and really so great is that it merges the

two so that the main characters are both Gangsters and Cops at the same time.

And another main character - Frank - is a Crime Lord and working for the FBI.

So The Departed is many things but what it is ultimately, is a film about genre, and

narrative and identity. But it is not really a Film Noir.

Now, that’s not to say The Departed is not appropriate for the course. I would

certainly have okayed it as a topic - I think I did for someone else FWIW - but it

would need some provisos. Like most of Scorsese’s crime movies, there are noir

influences and noir elements, with Mean Streets probably being the best examples

of this use of noir influence in the context of the Gangster Film. Only Taxi Driver

is a film by him that could be considered singularly a Noir - in fact, it is probably

one of the essential 1970s Neo-Noirs, a film that helped define just what a Neo-

Noir is. And that has a lot to do with the questions regarding sexuality that are

integral to all manifestations of the genre. Note how none of that is present in The

Departed - there is no narrative of sexuality - but there is one of morality, which,

as discussed in the podcasts and blogs is the other key part of noir. It’s that

component - morality - that is at the crux of the definitional conundrum here - in

other words, is The Departed a Neo-Noir due to how it frames the issue of

morality? Perhaps that is the case with Black Mass, too. The Departed is really a

Gangster and Crime film, but due to the concern with morality it is definitely a

neo-noir on some level. It might not be a total neo-noir but it has a lot of the

elements. (Really, thinking about all of Scorsese’s films to a certain extent - there’s

a little noir in almost all of them even King of Comedy and Age of Innocence).

So what to do next would be to reread the prompt. It asks you to consider the

legacy of noir - so you’d have to think about about The Departed fits within that

tradition. How is this seeming Gangster/Police Film hybrid influenced by noir so

that we may see elements of Neo or Classic Noir? That could be enfolded into

your larger argument about the film (though I am not sure what that argument

is, to be honest). What is it that you are trying to say about The Departed when it

comes to Film Noir? Second, while I would suggest getting rid of Black Mass

since you don’t really talk about it, you can keep it if you want to do so. But you

would have to explain why you are comparing it to The Departed. Basically if

you want to keep both films, you would have needed to define better the overall

argument you are making in terms of presenting a rationale for the comparison

of the two films on the one hand, and the overall purpose of your discussion on

the other. In a certain sense, it is obvious because they’re both set in Boston and

are about duplicity and deception in both the law enforcement and criminal

worlds. And it’s been well established that Frank is based upon Whitey Bulger.

But it still needs to be explained for the purpose of the assignment why it makes

senses to compare them. When one compares films, one has to be very specific in

explaining why the contrast is warranted.

If you want to make this argument, this comparison between these three films, it

has to be delineated much more directly and cogently. Basically you have to

argue that there is something interesting to be learned by looking at them in

tandem and that this something is a particular issue that crops up in noir films -

something that is revealed about the genre as exemplified by these three

intriguing and classic genre texts. When doing a comparison it’s always

necessary to present a rationale for contrasting films, since it’s never self-evident

(even if it’s obvious - as it is here). So why have you chosen these particular

films? What makes a comparison between these movies so interesting and

informative? What’s similar and different about them that a comparison would

reveal and what would it tell us about gender in this genre? Are you making

some kind of larger argument about noir or genres, or how the conventions of

noir? Being clearer about it would structure the argument better and provide

some sense of what is to be learned in a larger sense from the films.

That leads to the second concern, which derived from the first - you need a thesis

statement related to that defined argument. While each individual point makes

sense, the paper lacks a larger, overarching thesis and argument. In fact, the

paper lacks unity because there is no comprehensive thesis statement. Everything

seems relevant even when it doesn’t make sense - it just remains for you to

attend to building an argument in a methodical and comprehensive manner.

Otherwise, at times it seems that you are not really engaging the assignment as

written, which is to consider how we see Noir or Neo-Noir (or both) elements in

a film and what that tells us.

Third, as indicated in the margins, there are a great many places where you need

to be more specific and point directly to scenes in the film that demonstrate that

what you’re saying is accurate. In fact, you talk about both films in a somewhat

general manner and don’t cite enough specific scenes, dialogues and actions to

demonstrate that what you’re saying is accurate. Can you find some more

concrete examples that support your views? More importantly you need to be

more precise when you talk about the movies, their themes and characters. As

stated above, quite a few times, it’s not at all clear what you’re getting at.

Fourth, you’re might focus upon the question of morality with greater depth

because that can get to the heart of why The Departed is in the tradition of noir,

or is a Neo-Noir. As depressing as gangster films tend to be and how cynical or

nihilistic its gestures and configurations might be, they’re nowhere near as

downbeat as this film. In fact, the film is really about the idea of morality and

having a moral code - that’s the point of the criminal as cop/cop as criminal

narrative device. As we’ve discussed, the noir protagonist usually has some sort

of moral sense and moral code. What is the moral code that is being illustrated

here through the characters of Billy and Colin? How can we see them in terms of

the traditional noir protagonist? What do they share with someone like Spade,

Marlowe, or perhaps, more fittingly, someone like Skip or Hammer? How are

they different from them and what are the implications of these divergences? In

other words, what is the ultimate point about morality itself that Scorsese is

trying to make by using neo-noir conceptions of morality? How does neo-noir

permit more ambiguity to enter the narrative than the traditional noir film? After

all, there is a great deal of ambiguity in each of the characters, even someone like

Frank Costello.

Then there is the big-ticket item: how is the film, in some way, a commentary on

noir itself? What makes a neo-noir a neo-noir is that it brings the subtexts of

sexuality and morality and deviance to the surface, and also comments upon

them and the genre of noir. So how is the film also about morality in that sense?

What might account for the changes to the genre that Scorsese has wrought? It’s

quite a different world in 2006 than in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s – how is the

film reflective of the generic transformation of noir and what might that suggest?

What happens to those typical noir questions and concerns and themes when

you can show things that were previously censored and when you can have

more complicated portrayals of moral dilemmas and ambiguity? This also relates

to the potentially interesting notion you have regarding masculinity and

morality, the former of which you only note in passing. How are they connected?

How does the film outline and delineate deviance? The other big ticket item is

the philosophy of existentialism, which underpins noir. (The scene in the diner

between Colin and Frank illustrates this). How does the film’s philosophical

basis square with noir. Believe it or not, all of Scorsese’s films are deeply

philosophical so what’s going on with that here?