Talk:Film noir

"Identifying noir"

section it should be tagged/removed as appropriate. I'd encourage you to either tag the sentences or bring them to the talk page in this section so they can be discussed.--Crossmr (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This was an obviously well researched article but I believe some important points have been missed when discussing film noir. As was correctly stated, noir, Fr. for black was used intermittingly as a double entendre. The definition was black film. The reasons are both obvious, this was black and white film, and maybe a little more subtle; this was the first time in cinematic history the the hero sometimes got away with the crime, ie: Bette Davis in "The Letter" or Richard Widmark,in "Knight in the City". Up until this time it was thought that only the good guys won.Morals- you know. The large list of Film Noir from the 40's through the 50's was due in fact to a glut of young, up and coming directors that couldn't get A-list work. These were inexpensive (for the times) fims to create. And from these we got such A class assets as even Francis Ford Coppola, and Capra. What we find interesting considering special effects were few as compared to todays PC techno-wired world, was that just by using light in the right way you could create very impressive drama. Take a look at Edmund O'Brien in the movie DOA as he is lit from the ground up as he announces that he has just been murdered. And how many stagings were there when the criminal kid was caught with an irish cop directly behind him (With the cop's hand on the kid's shoulder) and a priest behind both just a little off center so you could see them foreground to background, 1-2-3.Film Noir continues today. I believe a perfect example is Pulp Fiction and or Reservoir Dogs. Or just grab Quentin Terrantino and throw him up on the screen. I just wanted to add this, not delete anything from the Wikipedia article. I personally appreciate the article's depth.

Don't take this comment the wrong way. But if Pulp Fiction is film noir then The Wizard of Oz is a costume drama. Kjaer (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Well the benchmark is here whether reputable media/literatur calls a particular movie film noir or not. Whether personally agree with that or not doesn't really matter for WP.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Danny Boyle and Trainspotting"

There really ought to be some mention of Danny Boyle's contribution to the modern dark cinema (neo-noir) movement, coming strongly out of the UK and Channel Four Films. Titles such as "Trainspotting" and "A Life Less Ordinary" are DEFINING films in the movement. I am literally shocked not to see Boyle and at least one of these films mentioned in this article. --Maximilian77 (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Big Lebowski

Might it be worthwhile to mention the Big Lebowski as a noir parody? The Cohen brothers go so far as to include a private eye character who eventually directly expresses his admiration for the titular character for making all of the moves a noir private eye makes, and is flatly refused and ignored by the title character. Any noir fan who sees the scene immediately makes the connection, in my experience.210.174.6.89 (talk) 11:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

They talk about wanting to reference an incomprehensible Chandler story ala The Big Sleep as well. BUT there's already a lot of mention of the Cohens, so maybe we could use the space for other films. Kellen^T 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Film noirs" or "films noirs"?

The article consistently renders the plural "film noirs." Shouldn't it be "films noirs"? Mind you, just before I wrote this, I got up and checked five or six dictionaries, and not one of them some much as addressed the plural. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Film noirs. There's a footnote regarding just this point. Kellen^T 15:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Or you could say "noir films", which avoids the awkwardness of "films noirs" and the strangeness of "film noirs". —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "noir films" is fine, but so is "film noirs". There's no need to rewrite the article. As Kellen points out, we have a footnote explaining that "film noirs" is the first spelling given in Webster's. If you look at a lot of English-language books in the field, you'll see that it's the most common spelling of the plural there as well. "Strange" etymologically perhaps, but not practically: noir is now often used as a stand-alone noun.—DCGeist (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to propose was something that everyone could be comfortable with, since neither of the initially discussed terms strike a chord among all editors. "Noir films", I think, seems to be straightforward. I'm not trying to say my term is right, and like you said the either of the other ones are fine. Just seems like "noir films" would be the least challenged of the three, so we can avoid discussions like this (which are not new). Unless "noir films" gets under people's skin somehow? :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 14:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. On a related point, I just did a search: we actually use "noir" as a stand-alone noun 31 times in the article (in constructions such as "classic noirs" and "B noirs")--and that doesn't count the additional dozen or so occurrences of "neo-noir", where "noir" is again unambiguously the noun root. I hope we can all agree that these are fine as is. So, adapting Erik's proposal, what do people think of replacing the occurrences of "film noirs" (or "film noir" when describing a specific example rather than the genre) with either "noir films" or "noirs" depending on context and readability?DocKino (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about usages of "film noirs" and counting "noir" as a stand-alone noun--which, doesn't really mean anything, as a noun is always part of a phrase and part of a clause, etc.--you're mistaken. Either we can construe "noir" as an adjective as it would be in French, or it can be the second half of a compound that just coincidentally has a space separating its segment. It is true that "films noirs" would be the French rendering, but the question of what part of speech "noir" represents (and therefore whether it should be inflected or not--we do not inflect adjectives except for degree) is not entirely clear. Cf. mother-in-laws v. mothers-in-law; Knight Templars v. Knights Templar. It seems to me when we have modifiers following nouns we tend to inflect the nouns and not the modifiers.

I think it's unnecessary to change them; the terms are rather well accepted in film literature in various forms (noir films/film noirs/noirs). If I had to choose, I'd choose the film noirs/noirs combo since they're more internally consistent and consistent with the other constructions (neo-noirs/classic noirs). Kellen^T 19:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Cf. the usual English plural of femme fatale - "femme fatales", not "femmes fatales", although our article prefers the latter. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a silly thread, really. "Noir films" sounds fine, but what about "films noir?" This seems like the most sensible choice of description that no one has mentioned. Have you all studied film?Burninggirl2003 (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not really about film, it's about language; specifically the way that plurals of non-English words and phrases are constructed. Usually the English plural rather than the foreign plural is best for use in English, which is why we say "octopuses" rather than "octopodes". With two-word phrases it's a bit more complex; the French plural would be "films noir." To me, "film noirs" sounds clumsy ("noirs" is a strange pronunciation). "Noir films" is a good compromise, as "noir" has acquired a somewhat independent status and generally means "film noir" even when used on its own.   pablo_hablo. 10:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed before, "film noirs" is the most prevalent usage and appears in many books both scholarly and popular on the topic. As our note indicates, "film noirs", "films noir", and "films noirs" (the actual French plural) are all considered acceptable in English; Webster's' lists "film noirs" first and that has been the spelling the article has consistently used for years now. There have been no developments in scholarship or language that compel any change here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DCGeist (talk • contribs)

I'm not advocating any change; none is necessary. I'm just responding to the suggestion that it is 'silly' to discuss this matter.   pablo_hablo. 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, all the dictionaries I checked didn't even address it. I do think that Burninggirl2003's "films noir" makes more sense from a language point than "film noirs." (Note that the accepted "correct" plural of "court martial" is "courts martial," but the dictionary I just checked acknowledges that "court martials" is getting to be usual.) But if the second has become usual in English, I have no problem with that--just wondered if there is a consensus. As for my own idea about "films noirs," I thought I remembered from French class that when you make the noun plural, you have to make the adjective plural, too--but I could misremember after 40+ years (especially since I studied it only under duress). 140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

And now I see the footnote, which seems to cover it very well (not to mention confirming my 40 year-old recollection of the French language). 140.147.236.194 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

And I see further that the French Wikipedia consistently uses "films noirs," again confirming my remnants of high school French. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Some things are sounding a bit subjective

Things such as "Neo-noir/Take 2: Sharon Stone as Catherine Tramell, a femme fatale for the 1990s—and the ages—in the smash box-office hit Basic Instinct" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.146.184 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

...and under SciFi Noir, there's this little tidbit - which is debatable, tacked on and really has nothing to do with anything else: 'Fincher's feature debut was Alien 3 (1992), which evoked the classic noir jail movie Brute Force.'--70.181.137.219 (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The first has been rewritten. The second is not "tacked on". It "really has to do" with something significant: the links between classic noir and latter-day variations on the genre.—DCGeist (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Essay tag

After some deliberation I have decided the {{essay}} tag is most appropriate for this article, although the {{refimprove}} or {{npov}} could also apply. The problem is this article keeps expressing opinions but giving no attribution whatseover, which runs afowl of core policies like WP:V and WP:N I consider the following lines to instances where, without any reference, this article makes opinionated claims:

• "Few neo-noirs have made more money or more wittily updated the tradition of the noir double-entendre than Basic Instinct..."
• "Perhaps no contemporary films better reflect the classic noir A-movie-with-a-B-movie-soul than those of director-writer Quentin Tarantino"
• "Joel and Ethan Coen have created one of the most substantial film oeuvres influenced by classic noir"
• "The mainstreaming of neo-noir is evident in such films as Black Widow (1987), Shattered (1991), and Final Analysis (1992)"
• "Like Chinatown, its more complex predecessor, Curtis Hanson's Oscar-winning L.A. Confidential (1997)... demonstrates an opposite tendency—the deliberately retro film noir; its tale of corrupt cops and femme fatales is seemingly lifted straight from a movie of 1953, the year in which it is set.
• "Martin Scorsese and screenwriter Paul Schrader brought the noir attitude crashing into the present day with Taxi Driver..."

I guess most of these claims are probably mostly accurate, but they're still opinions. We need to know whose opinions they are... otherwise this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. These are just some examples... although if they are addressed I will consent to removing the essay tag. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With or without your "consent", the essay tag has been removed. The article is copiously sourced. You are arguing that several assertions require recasting or inline citations. That's fair--please tag those individually within the article so they can be specifically addressed. DocKino (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to convert to fact tags, fine... but the essay tag still applies until at least these problematic claims are addressed. Having a bunch of references in some parts doesn't excuse having an essay in other parts... it's not like I could add my own unreferenced opinion to Barack Obama just because the article, in general, is "copiously sourced". I suggest you actually address my concerns or leave the tags up... trying to dance your way out of a content complaint really won't work with me, if you check my edit history. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have checked your edit history. I see you've been editing on Wikipedia for less than three months. That explains a lot. Spare us the edit summary lectures about what's "unacceptable". What "works with you" is of little concern to anyone, as are your notions about the import of your "consent" and your interest in dancing. What works for the encyclopedia is what counts. When you learn to take yourself less importantly, come on back. DocKino (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So this has devolved into because you've been active on Wikipedia for longer, you get to do whatever you want with articles? You're becoming very incivil and ignoring the content issue. I'm not going to go away just because you make rude comments. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DocKino, this is an unacceptable violation of the Civility policy. Please stop making comments in this vein, and consider striking out the personal attacks above. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your incivility is completely inappropriate DocKino. There are now three editors, counting myself and the one who re-added the essay tag most recently, who agree that the article devolves into an essay and should be cleaned up. Your incivility and attacking a fellow editor based on how long he has been editing Wikipedia does nothing to help your case. Your condescending tone and blatant incivility on your post above dated 18:12 29 June does not "work for the encyclopedia" and therefore you should take care to avoid such behavior in the future. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that the article reads as an essay. Also, 35 inline citations for an article of this length is a pretty weak showing. Citing and quoting the classic noir theorists directly shouldn't be too hard. Kellen^T 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who agree that the essay tag was clearly valid and necessary. DreamGuy (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And so the Film Noir article is written in the style of film noir? -- SunDog | Talk 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

One more here who agrees that the essay tag is needed. And I hope I don't come across as incivilly to newbs as did DocKino. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed each of the points raised by Chiliad at the beginning of this thread. If there are other, similar concerns, I have ready access to most of the major sources and am happy to address them. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Angel Heart not included as iconic modern example

How can we discuss the genre and not put in the classic modern film Angel Heart this is the ultimate illustration of film noir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.35.246 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Additions?

The movie Mulholland Falls could be covered too (not to be confused with Mulholland Drive). And would The Reflecting Skin qualify as a film noir? 84.174.236.166 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC).

I was going to create a new section on my proposal but I'll just add to this... I think that the Bantam Street production Dark and Stormy Night (2009) should be added to the Parodies section. For those that have seen the movie or clips of it, do you think it could be classified as a film noir? BTW, I've seen the movie and it rocks (the two "Skeleton" movies are awesome as well). Venku Tur'Mukan (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Do any sources refer to it as a noir parody, or relate it to film noir in a similar way?—DCGeist (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Translation of "film noir"

The long-standing, and indisputably literal, translation of "film noir" as "black film" in the lead section was recently challenged. I don't love that one of the two sources of support for the challenge (in favor of "dark film") is the Encyclopedia Britannica--ideally, we're supposed to outdo them, not rely on them, right?

In any event, the translation of "black film" is very well established. I do believe Alain Silver and Elizabeth Ward's noir encyclopedia is universally regarded as the leading reference book on the topic. On the first page of its introduction, we find this passage:

"Film noir" is literally "black film"...

Similarly, the entry on film noir in one of the leading industry lexicons--Kevin Jackson's The Language of Cinema--begins like this:

film noir or film noir, sometimes abbreviated to noir literally "black film"

So...we might decide to say "black film" or "dark film", but it's definitely not "dark film" instead of "black film". DocKino (talk) 03:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"Noir" has a variety of meanings, but most generally and literally "black". "Dark film" is a more loose translation. In Silver's translation of Frank's article, the term is left as: "noir" films. It's not wrong to have "dark film" listed, but only in addition to "black film". Kellen^T 10:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Here are some sources that use the "dark film" definition...

• Encyclopedia Britannica article on film noir defines term as "dark film" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/206993/film-noir
• EICAR, The International Film School of Paris, says "Film noir...Dark film, a genre coined by French critics for some American films with low key lighting and latitude usually conveying a solemn mood. Still in use to refer to moody films, often detective films. This term refers both to the visual style and the story." http://www.eicar-international.com/definition-film-noir.html
• The visual story: seeing the structure of film, TV, and new media By Bruce A. Block 2001 ... on page 94, he says.....

  "film noir. The term, coined by the French, means "dark film"...

• Encarta encyclopedia http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_781533102/film_noir.html

  Film Noir, term (meaning literally “black film”, although “dark film” seems more appropriate and evocative)

• Video production techniques: theory and practice from concept to screen By Donald L. Diefenbach 2007

  on page 91, he says "Film noir, French for "dark cinema" or "dark film"

• An introduction to literary studies - Mario Klarer - 1999 - 166 pages... on page 59, it says "After World War II, film noir ("dark film") developed..."

...As far as making the decision, I don't think that we should try to act as translators and debate what the dictionary definition of "noir" is (it means black, dark, and a range of figurative meanings, such as macabre). I think we should do research on what published, reputable books, encyclopedias, articles claim that "film noir" is translated. Remember that the goal in Wikipedia is verifiability, not "truth". If we go for truth, then we'll have a huge argument with one person saying "well, I have an MA in French, and I think that "noir" translates as XXX", and another person will weigh in with "Yeah, but I have a doctorate in French, and I believe that "film noir" means YYY". OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is good, we can improve the citations. Let's dump the encyclopedia references, though. They're secondary or tertiary sources here. Instead, we can use the Block reference, Klarer works too. Go ahead and change the lead to "(french for black film or dark film)" and add citations for "dark film", DocKino can add citations for "black film" if they're not already in the article. Kellen^T 15:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may weigh in here: As I pore over the literature as part of the Good Article review process, I have yet to find a single book or major essay in the field of noir scholarship and criticism that translates "film noir" as "dark film"; when a translation is offered, it is invariably "black film". While some general-interest texts may go "dark", the sort of authoritative sources the article relies on are unanimous—the proper translation is "black film". I propose that this sole translation be restored to the lede; we can retain the footnote, and I can add one or two more high-quality sources for "black".—DCGeist (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As a provisional measure, I've expanded the citation to articulate the point above. I still believe both focus and professional credibility in the relevant field would be served by providing just the one translation.—DCGeist (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've made this change, while retaining the "dark film" references in the note. Hope this is generally acceptable.—DCGeist (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fantastically comprehensive

Kudos to the authors of this article. It’s clearly organized, eminently readable, and almost overwhelmingly complete. –jacobolus (t) 21:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why none Frank Miller's pictures? Or Rodrigez "Sin City" film? Neonoir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.66.146.49 (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

/* Merger proposal */

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: The conclusion was to not merge Labattblueboy (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

---

The article for film noir already covers neo-noir and in greater detail than the separate article, therefore the two articles should be merged.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 18:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. I think neo-noir is characterized by the employment of more advanced cinematic techniques than film noir. The replacement of a traditionalist production set of codes with a more progressive ratings system helped neo-noir films add new dimensions of subject and visual matter. I don't think neo-noir shouldn merely be viewed as a sub-set of film noir, the transition of 40s and 50s fil noir to neo-noir has also profound social implications that couldn't be explored in depth if it was merged with the outstanding article on film noir. Mark Conrad's The Philosophy of Neo-Noir makes a clear distinction between the two in page 120. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Chat  06:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: The summary of neo-noir in this article, which I largely authored, is extensive, but it is intended as a summary. Neo-noir is a sufficiently broad and significant topic to merit its own article. It has one that is, admittedly, inadequate to the topic at the moment, but I think expansion and improvement of that article is preferable to the proposed merger.—DCGeist (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Support. Principally there is nothing wrong with having a separate neo noir article. However given the current scope and to avoid unnecessary redundancy a merger is indeed a better solution at this stage. Aside from the scope there is also an additional technical reason. Film noir is vague term and indeed much of what some call neo noir others simply view a normal continuation of film noir. In other words not everybody really makes a distinction between film noir and neo noir.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Oppose If anything, material from the Noir article should be moved here in the interests of expanding both.μηδείς (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dicko and the almost edit war

I agree mentioning or quoting Dicko might not be justified and is definitely not need. However I don't agree with deleting his book from the sources or further reading list after it is fairly recent academic publication on the overall subject, which to me at first glance at least justifies an entry under further reading.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It is and has been listed under further reading and has never been removed. DocKino (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I just looked at the deletion in version comparison, without noting that was listed twice before. Nevermind then--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

La Série Noire

I'm not a habitual Wikipedian, so excuse me if I'm transgressing any conventions.

It's my understanding that Nino Frank's use of the adjective "noir" in his famous article is a reference to a series of translations of American crime novels published in France from 1945 that used distinctive black covers, and were known collectively as "la série noire" ("the black series") and individually as "romans noirs" ("black novels"). This is very much like the use of "Gialli" in Italian to refer to the style of novels originally published in yellow covers.

While the choice of black for the book covers was surely no accident, and the connotations of the colour relate clearly to the themes of a typical film noir and the chiaroscuro style of cinematography, Frank's use of the word is simply drawing an analogy between the content and style of the films and the content and style of the novels via the colour of the novels' covers. This is discussed in various published sources (for example, Anne-Françoise Lesuisse's "Du Film Noir au Noir") and clarifies the translation of "noir" as "black" (rather than "dark").

The French "film noir" Wikipedia page and the English Wikipedia page for hardboiled fiction both mention La Série Noire, as does Nino Frank's English Wikipedia page. Shouldn't it be mentioned here?

82.123.197.46 (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if you have the sources at hand you could edit/add it yourself, but please no unsourced edit. However it might have to be taken in account as well that nowadays (at least in German) the term "la série noire"/"the black series"/"schwarze Serie" is also used to simply denote the string of Hollywood crime movies rather than any related novels.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

82's understanding of the relation in nomenclature between film noir and la série noire is accurate and easy enough to source if we wanted to add it. It was my sense that this was a level of detail too minute and tangential to include in this overview article on the film style; it also does not fit readily into any particular section of the article's current structure. However, if the consensus is that it should be included, I have no problem with that at all--I'd just want us to work out here where would be best.—DCGeist (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Would a subsection "Origin of the Term" under the current "Background" section be appropriate? Most of the second paragraph of the current article could then be included under that heading. It seems to me that "why noir?" is a natural question to ask. A more thorough discussion of the origin and history of the term would seem to have a place in an article of this scope. 82.123.197.46 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Yakuza

The Yakuza would slot into 70s-80s film noir although its cult following exceeded its box office. 122.148.41.172 (talk)

The Crow = neo-noir?

Could «The Crow» (1994, starring Brandon Lee), be considered as a Neo-Noir film? Throughout the internet there are some sources pro, and some sources anti. In my opinion it just is or isn't. Is it that easy to explain, or is the aforementioned film a borderline case? 「Robster1983」^{☞ Life's short, talk fast ☜} 15:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Tech noir

Should tech noir be linked here, or explained in brief? Wnt (talk) 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pornographic Picture unrelated to article for some time.

I am shocked to see a front page article with a pornographic picture that had nothing to do with Film Noir, I hope someone can relink the original photo back to its original picture. 5:50 2 October, 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.215.20 (talk)

Porno image removed. Correct image reference is Image:BigComboTrailer.jpg false image ref was File:BigComboTrailer.jpg

Maybe someone needs to watch their 'file' and 'image' tag editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.249.0.242 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Assorted vandals have been replacing the Big Combo trailer with pornographic images, but these have different file names. The prefix has nothing to do with it, see WP:IMAGE. Favonian (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys, it seemed very innapropriate to have a featured page with scenes of pornography unrelated to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.215.20 (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hollywood

The lead seems to suggest the criteria for film noir, is that it is a hollywood movie, I don't think that is true. Tinynanorobots (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It depends on your definition. There are noir-ish films made in other countries but classic film noir were only made in Hollywood. The term was invented to describe films made in Hollywood. See the section on Film_noir#Problems_of_definition -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Marlene Dietrich photograph

I'm pretty sure the photograph of Marlene Dietrich used in the 'Cinematic sources' section is a promo shot for Morocco and not for Der Blaue Engel (as it says in the caption). Could anyone check up on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.210.203 (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Check the DVD cover. No sign of her wearing a top hat in Morocco -- SteveCrook (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, i just thought she wore this outfit while singing 'Quand L'Amour Meurt' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO0h190oboE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.241.210.100 (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions
It looks like she did wear the same suit in Morocco. You'll have to do some research and find out which file that is a publicity shot for -- SteveCrook (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

This is my error, I believe, which I'll now correct. She unquestionably wears this outfit in Morocco. I just watched the entire English-language version of The Blue Angel, and she does not wear this sort of tuxedo in that film.—DCGeist (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Raging over Bull

DCGeist has been stubbornly refusing to accept the changing of

• "The turn of the decade brought Scorsese's black-and-white Raging Bull (cowritten by Schrader); an acknowledged masterpiece—the American Film Institute ranks it as the greatest American film of the 1980s and the fourth greatest of all time—it is also a retreat, telling a story of a boxer's moral self-destruction that recalls in both theme and visual ambience noir dramas such as Body and Soul (1947) and Champion (1949)."

to the more direct

• "The turn of the decade brought Scorsese's black-and-white Raging Bull (1980), telling a story of a boxer's moral self-destruction that recalls in both theme and visual ambience noir dramas such as Body and Soul (1947) and Champion (1949)."

so I've been forced to bring this to Talk. The article is full of films that are "acknowledged masterpieces", and if the article were to get sidetracked with mentioning accolades after every notable film then it would get quite cluttered indeed. Besides of which, it's odd that Raging Bull would be the only one that mentions AFI's ranking and not Citizen Kane. But regardless, there's no reason for Raging Bull to have the more verbose praising in the article and the cowriter credit instead of release year goes against the prose of the rest of the article.--Remurmur (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see the value in mentioning it as the AFI's greatest film of the 1980s. The overall ranking kind of goes with it. Maybe focus the sentence on the 1980s mention? Erik (talk | contribs) 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition,

• Remurmur claims the article is "full of...acknowledged masterpieces"? Is it really? As with other celebrated genres, I'd say film noir is marked by a large number of very good to excellent films that, for all their virtues, do not individually transcend the status of industrial product; the genre's reputation by no means hinges on many "acknowledged masterpieces."
• Remurmur's initial edit summary—that the current content reflects "excessive gloating" over Raging Bull—indicates that the editor misunderstands not only the word "gloating", but the passage, as well. The discussion of the film's general critical status serves as necessary balance to its more pertinent and relatively objective characterization as an aesthetic "retreat".
• While Citizen Kane is an important influence, it is not generally regarded as a noir (classic or neo), so its AFI ranking is irrelevant here.
• Schrader is mentioned because he is regarded as one of the most important neo-noir screenwriters; he is also one of the most important early theorists of noir. Others filmmakers mentioned directly in their capacity as screenwriters include Robert Towne, Joe Eszterhas, Dennis Potter, and David Ayer.
• A side note on attitude and self-perception: If my desire to preserve properly sourced material that was present when Featured Article vetting took place is to be labeled "stubborn", Remurmur, how shall we characterize your previous efforts to remove it without discussion?—DCGeist (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Let's keep the focus on content, please. (Goes for both of you.) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, Erik. Eighty percent of my bullet points addressed content; 20 percent addressed Wikipedia:Civility, which is policy.—DCGeist (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I know, it just helps to ignore the tone and address the content directly. Like the policy says, "be understanding and non-retaliatory". To get back on topic, I assume that mentioning the overall ranking is an extension of AFI labeling Raging Bull the best film of that decade? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well reading the arguments here the first question comes into my mind is: "Does it really matter ?" There's no important disgreement regarding content that's really worth fighting about, but an argument about a single line that in doubt works either way, so it seems to be more a taste and ego thing. In that sense the title is rather well picked, but it kinda questions its own creator as well.

Imho it is a good idea to edit featured articles in a conservative fashion, i.e. avoid changes in particular in matter of taste, style and minor details unless there's a real need for it. If an article has a featured status you can assume that the current content, style and details were vetted and agreed upon by many authors, hence you shouldn't tinker with that unless you have good reason to do so. Correcting errors or adding new important/relevant information would be such a good reason, but slight differences in taste, style or minor details are not.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)