Category: ENG0088

For this week’s discussion post, I was intrigued by the mention of a dream-like state, or the unconscious versus the conscious within the film. Notably, it was this scene at 1:07:00 in which Mike Vargas confronts Hank Quinlan and other American policemen on Quinlan’s planting evidence and dynamite.

I wanted to point out the framing of this shot, as Quinlan and Chief Gould stand between Vargas and Adair. Vargas and Adair are standing in the foreground with Quinlan and Gould in the background. The characters move back and forth from the foreground to the background- the three American policemen move from behind the camera, argue in foreground then stand in wait in the background. On the other hand, Vargas comes from behind the camera, argues with Adair in the foreground, but then exits to the left, never entering the background. The emptiness of the foyer, which lacks furniture and has distinct geometric architecture, and the echoing of the argument that enhances this ‘dream-like’ effect. Furthermore, Vargas and Adair are slightly offset, as Vargas is a little further from the camera (as seen by their feet), reiterating an unsettling effect due to the lack of symmetry. While Quinlan and Gould’s shadows are distinct and sharply defined, Vargas’ shadow is distorted by the bend in the ceiling and from the light diffusion from Vargas’ right side. This makes Vargas seem the most ‘dream-like,’ or unconscious of the four characters in the scene.

With these details in mind, Welles’ intention with the scene is to not only capture Adair and Vargas’ argument, but includes Quinlan and Gould standing between them and showcases the emptiness of the room they are in. The scene emphasizes the differences between American and Mexican police forces as they are in the movie. Namely, it is Vargas’ desire for justice and his morality that contrasts with Quinlan’s ego, reputation, and corruption.

The scene also relates to the racial divide between the two countries and the characters’ perception of race. Adair demands Vargas to kneel and apologize to Quinlan and Gould, attempting to belittle and undermine him. Of course, Adair’s command stems his position of power as a white man near the Mexican American border and highlights conflicts between white Americans and Mexican people.

For this week’s Doing Shots, I wanted to focus on the scene when Mike Hammer visits Carmen Trivago, friend of the deceased Nicholas Raymond, at the Hill Crest Hotel (56:00). For context, Hammer believes Trivago may have some information on Raymond’s death, who and why they would kill him. Hammer watches Trivago sing to an Italian record without Trivago noticing, then snaps one of the records to intimidate him. This scene is not monumental within the plot of the story, just a stop in Hammer’s goose chase for the box, but I was intrigued by the framing of the shot.

Throughout the scene, the two men are framed by the clothesline and Trivago’s hanging pants, and we can immediately contrast Trivago and Hammer’s clothing and homes. While Hammer lives in a spacious home, Trivago lives in a hotel or apartment style building on the second floor with a single room. Trivago’s home is messier, with shelves of records while Hammer’s home is minimally decorated. Furthermore, Trivago is wearing an old vest and plain white shirt while Hammer is wearing a working, more expensive suit. From this, we are meant to view Trivago as poorer and perhaps a ‘quack,’ spending his money on purchasing records and singing to himself. Furthermore, Trivago folds easily to Hammer’s threats on the record collection, prioritizing his records over his loyalty to Raymond. This contrasts the overemphasis on loyalty to family and friends within American culture.   

The framing adds to this characterization, often splitting the screen and the characters in half. Again, the hanging pants divide Hammer and Trivago into class status, wealth, and the audience’s perception of the characters. As with Joel Cairo in The Maltese Falcon, Trivago represents non-American ideals in contrast to the stereotypical American man. Trivago is perpetually anxious in the scene, flitting about in contrast to Hammer’s bored examination of Trivago’s home. Subsequently, Trivago has become a servant in his own home to Hammer, representing how the American people view Europeans, specifically Italian people. Trivago’s heavy (and not very good) Italian accent further place him as an outsider to American society, unable to garner wealth or move up in socioeconomic status. This reflects the immigrant outlook in America, as many immigrants are lured by the promise of wealth and the American Dream. However, many immigrants then face long immigration times, language barriers, and xenophobia when they do not present as an American-born person. While the audience is never told of Trivago’s entire story, we can infer that this character was used to directly contrast Mike Hammer’s ‘American-man’ status.

For this week’s ‘Doing Shots’ assignment, I wanted to point out this parallel between scenes: At 59:00 in the movie, Holly shows up drunk at Anna’s apartment and Anna gets out of bed, puts on her robe, and opens the door. Then at 1:10:00 in the movie, the international police show up to arrest Anna from her apartment and Anna again gets out of bed, puts on her robe, and opens the door. I was curious about why the director chose to reiterate Anna’s sequence of actions and what Reed was saying about Anna’s nature through this parallel.

Firstly, I thought of this robe as part of Anna’s ‘armor’ against the international police and Holly. This extends to represent her guarded nature and reservations against Holly’s advances. Secondly, I thought this robe represents Anna’s, as all women in film noir, need to perform to utilize the male characters around her. However, unlike previous femme fatale characters, Anna is removed from these assumptions of manipulation because she is wholly loyal to Harry Lime. In this film, it is impossible for Anna to become the ‘fall guy’ or pinned as the main villain such as in The Maltese Falcon or Double Indemnity. Instead, Anna seems to be guilty of being too loyal to Lime and by extension is guilty of his crimes. She is put in contrast against Holly Martins, the all-American western hero archetype when she stays loyal to Lime even after his (second) funeral. In the watcher’s eye, she might become a villain for rejecting Holly’s romantic pursuits. Once again, it is nearly impossible for a female lead in film noir to be anything but a villain, reflecting our own societal expectations of women.

I’d also like to compare Holly and Harry in their relationships with Anna. Harry Lime manipulates Anna by forging her papers for her, using her loyalty and love to protect himself. Lime’s manipulation reinforces his villainy but does not acquit Anna. On the other hand, Holly uses Anna to try to boost his inflated, hero-archetype-obsessed ego. In short, Holly tries to deport Anna in what he thinks is protecting the “damsel in distress”. How then, if Anna is emotionally manipulated by Lime and lawfully manipulated by Martins, does she become a villain? The answer is that she rejects Holly Martins, going against the clean-cut assumptions of an American audience that Holly deserves Anna’s loyalty after killing Lime. But what does it mean for a man to deserve a woman’s loyalty? This notion only reinforces the subtle objectification of women in romantic relationships as objects of sexual desire and conquest.

I realize that I speak less about cinematography/lighting etc. in this week’s Shot, but I feel that this topic is especially important when we notice increasing misogynist views in young men. I refer to what people claim is a current ‘male loneliness epidemic,’ where women are no longer inclined to date men who objectify and sexualize them. In this logic, women are naturally to blame for leaving a generation of men lonely, rather than blaming men with obscene and off-putting views regarding women. While today’s media such as TikTok and Youtube become platforms for outspoken sexists, it is interesting (but not surprising) to see parallels in the film noir genre.

While watching Out of the Past, I noticed two main points- a. the heavy use of outdoor settings and b. the inclusion of more non-white actors/characters. Mainly, what does it mean for a film in 1947, with a mainly white cast and white director, to feature a scene in a black jazz bar? What does it mean for Jeff Markham/Bailey to receive crucial information from Eunice at this bar? And what does it mean for Jeff and the owner/manager of the bar to be old friends?

            For this week’s film scene analysis, I reference the scene at 16:00, where Jeff Markham looks for Eunice Leonard at a black establishment:

            This sequence of scenes, starting with a close-up of the trumpet player and band, acknowledges and highlights the increasing prominence of black Americans in the 1940s-1950s. The scene in the jazz bar portrays a thriving black community, alive with culture, wealth, and jazz (that will establish America’s musical presence on international stages). The scene features pairs of wealthy couples dancing, drinking, and relaxing, with Eunice and her husband sitting at a table. Here, Markham’s back is to the camera, while the focus is on Eunice and her husband. The couple is well-dressed, and our attention is brought to Eunice’s flowery hairpiece. The hairpiece is a light color, along with the neckline details on her top and her gloves on the table. We can imagine these details as white or a light pink, in contrast to Markham’s solid black overcoat as a man firmly in the working class. In total, the scene and clothing are meant to highlight Eunice Leonard and her husband’s wealth as a mirror to a growing black community.

            Furthermore, director Jacques Tourneur uses the working hierarchies in the scene to speak on black Americans in the workforce. Firstly, Eunice describes a close working relationship between herself and Kathie, describing how Eunice would have left with her boss and asking if Markham was hired by Whit. It’s clear that Eunice is somewhat protective of Kathie, hesitant to tell Markham details about her whereabouts if he intended to harm her. However, Eunice used to work for Kathie, in some capacity, reestablishing the power dynamic between races during Eunice and Kathie. Secondly, this scene features two other black characters to note: the owner that shows Markham to Eunice’s table and the waiter that serves the table. Here, we see a socioeconomic relationship between three black characters (the owner, the patrons, and the waiter) that also exists between races. In featuring three separate economic classes in this scene, the director highlights that black people are gaining socioeconomic footholds in the economy. At the same time, many lower-paying jobs (the waiter in Out of the Past, the janitor in Double Indemnity) are taken by people of color where the workers are still taken advantage of by a white capitalistic structure, even in a black establishment.

            For the ‘Doing Shots’ of Wilder’s Double Indemnity, I was struck by the scene at 1hr 43min timestamp. (I will try to find a better picture of the scene)

            In this still, Walter Neff is confessing/not confessing his story into the Dictaphone for Keyes to find. However, toward the end of the film, Neff’s face is more haunted and coated with sweat from the gunshot wound. With the camera placed over his shoulder, Neff looks back towards us and the camera, making eye contact with the viewer. His face takes up most of the frame in a diagonal, and the whites of his eyes are stark against the office’s dark lighting. We can see Neff recognize someone, his expression shifting from exhausted to alert or scared. Soon, it is revealed that Neff sees Keyes in the doorway.

            I wanted to use this scene to discuss Walter Neff’s relationship with the viewer and compare it to the other relationships in previous films. In The Maltese Falcon and Murder, My Sweet, the male lead is a private detective, morally gray yet firm in his beliefs, and is portrayed as an average looking middle class man. However, in Double Indemnity, Neff is not a private detective, and his morals are easily susceptible to Mrs. Dietrichson’s seduction. Neff is situated within the laws of the insurance industry, rather than the police. Thus, the insurance business acts as the same oppressive entity the male lead is fighting against. Furthermore, the viewer and male lead in previous films were discovering a murder plot that is outside of themselves, both equally as lost within the villains’ schemes. However, Walter Neff is the villain in the murder and slowly reveals the plot while leaving the viewer in the dark. In previous films, we know that the male lead represents the viewers: middle class, morally grey, and thrown into the midst of a mystery. When Walter Neff looks directly at the camera, he emphasizes that we are not a mirror to the male lead, and that we are separate entities. This breaks the trust between the viewer and male leads, breaking the trope of passive or incompetent male characters (like Marlowe).

            Double Indemnity solidifies its place as a cornerstone film in the Film Noir genre, its narrative style and male lead combating rules established by other films. Namely, the film adds a new sense of mistrust in the viewers, which will change how the audience will suspect the male lead in future films. The male lead is no longer trapped within the ‘blank slate’ that he was previously in, instead able to take on selfish motivations of his own.

Murder, Misalignment, and Mystery: For Week 4’s scene analysis, I chose the scene where Ann and Marlowe are talking in the bar, when Ann tries to convince Marlowe to drop the case in exchange for $1000.

            In this shot, I wanted to highlight the importance and underlying text of the director’s choice in lighting, the lack of symmetry, and how the characters are lit. Notably, Ann is covered in shadow as she leans back in the booth- hiding her face as the light filters behind her through the wooden panel. However, the small lamp on the table between the characters does not illuminate Ann’s right profile. Secondly, the viewer is meant to be uncomfortable by the lack of symmetry in the shot. The table and doorway are slightly off center to the right, while Marlowe and Ann lean leftward. The shot seems off-kilter and unbalanced, and this staging is intentional.

The framing in the shot is emphasizes Ann’s discomfort in playing the “femme fatale” character, as both her behavior and the scene staging are unbalanced. Similarly, the lack of natural lighting from the table lamp causes confusion- shouldn’t we see Ann’s right-side profile like we see Marlowe’s? When Ann leans forward into the light, the shot balances out- the characters’ bodies mirror the lines on the table and both the doorway behind and the lamp in front of the characters become centered. Thus, the viewer deduces that Ann is projecting a faux darkness to appear deceitful, mysterious, or manipulative.

            The sudden readjustment into balance and harmony (both in scene framing and in how the characters are lit) highlights the instant attraction between Marlowe and Ann. Unlike Mrs. Grayle / Velma’s sexual appeal, the directors portray Ann as quiet, non-sexual, conservatively clothed, and perhaps too devoted to her father. And yet, Marlowe, our morally good film noir detective, is attracted to her innocence- both sexual and moral. So, what does Ann represent in this film? If Velma and the jade necklace are objects of desire for the male characters, what does it mean for Marlowe to blindly (literally blindfolded) announce his love for Ann? Marlowe’s blind confession solidifies that Ann is not his object of desire for her beauty or ability to validate his maleness, as Marlowe has already proven himself by solving the case. What does it mean for Marlowe to be in love with Ann?

The Falcon and Feminine Figures:

For this week’s scene analysis, I chose the scene where Sam Spade confronts both Brigid and Joel in his apartment at 36:23:

I was first struck by the perspective of the camera and how this choice impacts our understanding of Sam Spade and film noir leads in general. The camera is placed behind Sam Spade, such that we cannot see his face and expressions. Instead, this implies that we are in the same position as Sam, uncovering the mystery of the Maltese Falcon as he is. Furthermore, he is placed in between Brigid and Joel, seemingly debating who to trust or believe. The two villains are portrayed as choices on opposite sides of the screen, showing us that Sam must choose between the two characters.

Brigid is sitting on the wide arm chair on the left, seemingly relaxed but there is unmistakable tension in her shoulders. Her posture hints that she is uncomfortable, her gaze flits guardedly between Joel and Sam. Opposite her is Joel, who is instead standing and smoking. Behind him, his shadow appears on the wall. At first, he is the only character who is doubled, whose criminal nature is revealed by the darkness projected by the lights. Then, as Brigid stands to hit him, her shadow also rises- thus also foreshadowing the same criminal nature and her involvement with Miles’ murder.

It is interesting to note the gender implications of the scene, where two of the most feminized characters are pitted against each other. Joel represents a ‘Middle Eastern’ masculinity, which is diminished by Sam Spades ‘American’ masculinity while Brigid is a classic American beauty or ‘knockout.’ I’m curious as to what their confrontation means, and what this scene implies for generalized gender norms. Brigid stands taller and slaps Joel- does this imply that American women are more socially dominant than non-American men? Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to matter who ‘won’ or ‘lost’ the fight, it is only Sam’s decision that defends Brigid and throws Joel to the police. Regardless of the fight’s outcome, Sam has the most power as the embodiment of American masculinity and its implicit power.