If Double Indemnity isn't the epitome of film noir, I don't know what is. The film starts off with a man, who the audience doesn't know yet, on crutches, showing the fact that he was torn down both physically and mentally. (Could it be our protagonist our our femme fatale's husband??) The story takes place in dark and rainy Los Angeles, with the ever-present dark rooms and horizontal lines from the slight entrance of white into our buildings. Our story begins with our narrator, Walter Neff, recording a message regarding a murder that he, in fact, committed, and it was supposed to be the perfect murder. We then get a flashback of the story, and discover the whole truth. Phyllis Dietrich, our alluring housewife summarizes the femme fattale perfectly for she is provocative, flirtatious, and, eager to plot the murder of her husband. Her dialogue is witty as she uses several driving metaphors, regarding speeding as a way to show her flirtatious side, yet she ends up turning down Neff at first. They obviously have a sexual attraction to each other from the start, which quickly accelerates to a lust-filled adulterous relationship. Their idea to "commit the perfect crime" in order for their love to thrive and receive financial gain ends in failure for Neff tells us, "I killed him for the money and the woman. I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman." Neff is obviously a smart man, caught up in his love for Phyllis. He doesn't want to originally kill her husband because he knows all the tricks of the trade and the fact that she and he will never get away with it. She eventually convinces him to help her out, and he willingly agrees by persuading Mr. Dietrichson to get accident insurance. I'm interested to see how this film ends because I just finished reading The Postman Always Rings Twice, so I'd like to see the correlation between the two.
The dialogue just cracks in this film, doesn't it?
"Walter: You'll be here too? Phyllis: I usually am. Walter: Same chair, same perfume, same anklet? Phyllis: I wonder if I know what you mean. Walter: I wonder if you wonder."
We've talked about the visual elements of film noir (which Double Indemnity has in spades - the internal lighting, the shadows, all those venetian blinds), but I'd say that that the dialogue is just as important to the genre. Spitfire, slang-heavy sarcasm, just this side of campy ("How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?").
I've really been enjoying watching this film. I plan on rewatching the entire film in one sitting once we finish our screening in class. I've noticed that there are definite visual cues which cause it's classification to be a noir film, such as the black and white and emphasis on shadows. I've also noticed with the voiceover by Walter as he recounts his crime, that I generally associate the witty and sometimes sarcastic voiceover of the main character as an identifying factor of what I believe to be noir. I can't wait to continue watching this film in class.
Personally I find the genre to have a taut aesthetic, but the actual writing is mediocre. Dialogue between Phyllis and Walt is often overplayed, but whatever, its supposed to be dramatic. What I do love about this style of film is the immense amount of contrast between light and dark, with a majority of the scenes being so dark one can barely make out the action on screen. The lighting and cinematography within this film interest me most, and the immense amount of smoking makes me want a cigarette.
I'm really, really enjoying the film. It surprised me a little bit because I guess I thought that to be -truly- noir the protagonist had to be a hard-boiled detective type. As it is, Neff turned out to be just about the noirest noir guy that ever graced the screen. In regards to the writing, I think it's probably one of the film's strong suits. It's definitely overplayed, but what about the movie isn't? It's genuinely enjoyable to listen to everyone trade barbs and watch them chew scenery. I can't wait to finish it up.
I really loved the film. I have to say that by the end of it I was almost rooting for Walter. I think the movie totally plays into the idea of "women leading men astray". Phyllis completely uses Walter, which we don't find out until the end. I was honestly fooled by her just as much as Walter was. I did not expect her to be using him. I also really like the dialogue. I know some people are finding it kind of cheesy but I feel like without it, the movie wouldn't be the same. Lastly, I couldn't help but notice the shadows used throughout the movie. Especially the shadows of blinds, which obviously represents prison bars because Walter is getting himself into quite a bit of legal trouble.
I enjoyed the film a great deal more than I had expected to. I suppose it is because I have never seen a movie like it and was unsure what to expect, and was pleasantly surprised. I really loved the way the characters interacted with one another. The wit and banter kept me interested throughout the film even if the plot had not, though it did. I especially loved the conversations between Phyllis and Walt. I found it so hard to believer that there was and "love" involved at all but I was able to get past that and laugh at the over acted, yet under dramatic love scenes. I also enjoyed taking into account the subtle camera tricks that aided in my enjoyment of the film. The way the shadows and angles that allowed the viewer a peek into the impending plot. I had a hunch all along that Phyllis was using Walter but I had never thought for a second that she could have killed the original Mrs. D. I had almost hoped that Walt and Lola would fall in love even before I knew Phyllis was seeing Lola’s boyfriend. I would not mind seeing this movie again.
I already mentioned this in class, but I wanted expand upon the idea of the matches being significant between Walter and Keyes.
First, let me say I'm glad that the idea of a "father/son" relationship between Keyes and Walter was discussed. Until this was brought up, I couldn't find a good way to describe the relationship between these two men. This is why I think the matches are important; they represent such a relationship. Walter, being younger than Keyes, is represented as a witty, fast-talking insurance salesman, while Keyes, although witty and fast-talking himself, is presented more as a wiser, more knowledgeable person (hence, the "little man" that Keyes has inside of him). Keyes, at one point, lectures Walter on why people who commit insurance fraud will get caught, and although Walter pays attention, he tries to commit his own insurance fraud (and murder). I saw this as the proverbial father trying to explain life lessons to his son, who just doesn't pay attention. This is precisely why the matches are important; every time Walter and Keyes are together, Keyes needs a light - usually in the middle of a "lecture." I viewed this as Walter's turning away, ignorance, and pride that he knew better than Keyes. Nevertheless, in the final scene of the movie, it is Keyes who gives Walter a match, which symbolizes the idea that, perhaps, Walter should have paid attention to the "lessons" that were being laid at his feet.
Before watching Double Indemnity, I had anticipated that the masked violence through dark lighting and odd camera angles would inhibit my viewing of the film. However, I found that this aspect, along with the fast paced dialogue, allowed me to truly appreciate the noir genre. Although some of the dialogue may have been a little “campy,” it truly felt like authentic noir. These devices demonstrated how the genre hinges itself on acting, writing, and directing. Gratuitous violence would have felt out of place within this film. For instance, if the killing of Mr. Dietrichson had been shown onscreen, we would have been robbed of seeing Phyllis’s reaction to the murder. By having the camera focused on Phyllis, we get to experience the murder through her point of view. Also, neglecting to show the murder allows us to leave the scene up to our own imaginations.
If Double Indemnity isn't the epitome of film noir, I don't know what is. The film starts off with a man, who the audience doesn't know yet, on crutches, showing the fact that he was torn down both physically and mentally. (Could it be our protagonist our our femme fatale's husband??) The story takes place in dark and rainy Los Angeles, with the ever-present dark rooms and horizontal lines from the slight entrance of white into our buildings. Our story begins with our narrator, Walter Neff, recording a message regarding a murder that he, in fact, committed, and it was supposed to be the perfect murder. We then get a flashback of the story, and discover the whole truth. Phyllis Dietrich, our alluring housewife summarizes the femme fattale perfectly for she is provocative, flirtatious, and, eager to plot the murder of her husband. Her dialogue is witty as she uses several driving metaphors, regarding speeding as a way to show her flirtatious side, yet she ends up turning down Neff at first. They obviously have a sexual attraction to each other from the start, which quickly accelerates to a lust-filled adulterous relationship. Their idea to "commit the perfect crime" in order for their love to thrive and receive financial gain ends in failure for Neff tells us, "I killed him for the money and the woman. I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman." Neff is obviously a smart man, caught up in his love for Phyllis. He doesn't want to originally kill her husband because he knows all the tricks of the trade and the fact that she and he will never get away with it. She eventually convinces him to help her out, and he willingly agrees by persuading Mr. Dietrichson to get accident insurance. I'm interested to see how this film ends because I just finished reading The Postman Always Rings Twice, so I'd like to see the correlation between the two.
ReplyDeleteThe dialogue just cracks in this film, doesn't it?
ReplyDelete"Walter: You'll be here too?
Phyllis: I usually am.
Walter: Same chair, same perfume, same anklet?
Phyllis: I wonder if I know what you mean.
Walter: I wonder if you wonder."
We've talked about the visual elements of film noir (which Double Indemnity has in spades - the internal lighting, the shadows, all those venetian blinds), but I'd say that that the dialogue is just as important to the genre. Spitfire, slang-heavy sarcasm, just this side of campy ("How could I have known that murder could sometimes smell like honeysuckle?").
I've really been enjoying watching this film. I plan on rewatching the entire film in one sitting once we finish our screening in class. I've noticed that there are definite visual cues which cause it's classification to be a noir film, such as the black and white and emphasis on shadows. I've also noticed with the voiceover by Walter as he recounts his crime, that I generally associate the witty and sometimes sarcastic voiceover of the main character as an identifying factor of what I believe to be noir. I can't wait to continue watching this film in class.
ReplyDeletePersonally I find the genre to have a taut aesthetic, but the actual writing is mediocre. Dialogue between Phyllis and Walt is often overplayed, but whatever, its supposed to be dramatic. What I do love about this style of film is the immense amount of contrast between light and dark, with a majority of the scenes being so dark one can barely make out the action on screen. The lighting and cinematography within this film interest me most, and the immense amount of smoking makes me want a cigarette.
ReplyDeleteI'm really, really enjoying the film. It surprised me a little bit because I guess I thought that to be -truly- noir the protagonist had to be a hard-boiled detective type. As it is, Neff turned out to be just about the noirest noir guy that ever graced the screen. In regards to the writing, I think it's probably one of the film's strong suits. It's definitely overplayed, but what about the movie isn't? It's genuinely enjoyable to listen to everyone trade barbs and watch them chew scenery. I can't wait to finish it up.
ReplyDeleteI really loved the film. I have to say that by the end of it I was almost rooting for Walter. I think the movie totally plays into the idea of "women leading men astray". Phyllis completely uses Walter, which we don't find out until the end. I was honestly fooled by her just as much as Walter was. I did not expect her to be using him. I also really like the dialogue. I know some people are finding it kind of cheesy but I feel like without it, the movie wouldn't be the same. Lastly, I couldn't help but notice the shadows used throughout the movie. Especially the shadows of blinds, which obviously represents prison bars because Walter is getting himself into quite a bit of legal trouble.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the film a great deal more than I had expected to. I suppose it is because I have never seen a movie like it and was unsure what to expect, and was pleasantly surprised. I really loved the way the characters interacted with one another. The wit and banter kept me interested throughout the film even if the plot had not, though it did. I especially loved the conversations between Phyllis and Walt. I found it so hard to believer that there was and "love" involved at all but I was able to get past that and laugh at the over acted, yet under dramatic love scenes. I also enjoyed taking into account the subtle camera tricks that aided in my enjoyment of the film. The way the shadows and angles that allowed the viewer a peek into the impending plot. I had a hunch all along that Phyllis was using Walter but I had never thought for a second that she could have killed the original Mrs. D. I had almost hoped that Walt and Lola would fall in love even before I knew Phyllis was seeing Lola’s boyfriend. I would not mind seeing this movie again.
ReplyDeleteI already mentioned this in class, but I wanted expand upon the idea of the matches being significant between Walter and Keyes.
ReplyDeleteFirst, let me say I'm glad that the idea of a "father/son" relationship between Keyes and Walter was discussed. Until this was brought up, I couldn't find a good way to describe the relationship between these two men. This is why I think the matches are important; they represent such a relationship. Walter, being younger than Keyes, is represented as a witty, fast-talking insurance salesman, while Keyes, although witty and fast-talking himself, is presented more as a wiser, more knowledgeable person (hence, the "little man" that Keyes has inside of him). Keyes, at one point, lectures Walter on why people who commit insurance fraud will get caught, and although Walter pays attention, he tries to commit his own insurance fraud (and murder). I saw this as the proverbial father trying to explain life lessons to his son, who just doesn't pay attention. This is precisely why the matches are important; every time Walter and Keyes are together, Keyes needs a light - usually in the middle of a "lecture." I viewed this as Walter's turning away, ignorance, and pride that he knew better than Keyes. Nevertheless, in the final scene of the movie, it is Keyes who gives Walter a match, which symbolizes the idea that, perhaps, Walter should have paid attention to the "lessons" that were being laid at his feet.
Before watching Double Indemnity, I had anticipated that the masked violence through dark lighting and odd camera angles would inhibit my viewing of the film. However, I found that this aspect, along with the fast paced dialogue, allowed me to truly appreciate the noir genre. Although some of the dialogue may have been a little “campy,” it truly felt like authentic noir. These devices demonstrated how the genre hinges itself on acting, writing, and directing. Gratuitous violence would have felt out of place within this film. For instance, if the killing of Mr. Dietrichson had been shown onscreen, we would have been robbed of seeing Phyllis’s reaction to the murder. By having the camera focused on Phyllis, we get to experience the murder through her point of view. Also, neglecting to show the murder allows us to leave the scene up to our own imaginations.
ReplyDelete