The movie has its suspenseful moments interspersed with clearer moments when one would still like to believe that Robert is a healthy preacher, just a little on the eccentric side. It is a story of a would be preacher who discovers a prisoners money secret and then decides to interfere in this family's life as a preacher. The public can only surmise that he is going to throw his charm at the simple town folk, who are unfortunately too stereotypic of the village idiot, in order to meet the wife of the punished prisoner, Peter Graves and then work himself into the family. Once he decides to taunt the kids for the knowledge of the money their dad left behind then it is clear as day that this is going to be the main story line. He never lets up in his chase for the money until Lillian Gish calls the authorities on him. That is after he attempts to dupe her with his metaphoric tale of love and hate which she does not fall for.

The movie drags on in places like when the children he is about to punish are rowing down a river and trying to escape his clutches. This was probably meant to increase the intrigue but that could have been shortened. It is stereotypic of people being duped to easily into believing just anyone who said he carried the word of the “Lord.” Winters played a surprising weak role falling into the priest's hand, a far cry from the gutsy dame in the Poseidon Adventure. Miss Gish, largely an actress of the silent period, personified the devout person who would nurture those who came from abandoned homes. This was a time in American history where social workers did not exist and there were no subsidized soup kitchens but there were some pious sorts who would foster these street kids. Luckily she is able to confront Mitchum with a rifle and good wins over evil again.

The film, which is directed by Robert Rodriguez (Desperado, From Dusk Till Dawn) and co-directed by comic writer and illustrator Frank Miller, sticks so tight to Miller’s original comic book series that many frames from the film follow the comic book panels exactly.

The film follows Miller’s original designs so closely that some critics are asking, “Why not just read the graphic novels?” You should read the graphic novels (“Sin City”, “The Big Fat Kill” and “That Yellow Bastard”), but that’s another review all together.

There are several reasons to see the movie. Amazing visual presentation is one. The movie is shot in black and white with brilliantly colored items strategically placed.  Like in Miller’s comics certain points of interest pop-out at the viewer; for example, a red dress, blue eyes, blonde hair and occasionally blood.

Big name stars giving top-of-the-line performances is another reason to go see this film. From Bruce Willis’s good cop in a bad situation to Benicio Del Torro’s bad cop (make that very bad cop) every actor gives a performance worth seeing.

Rosario Dawson also deserves mention for her portrayal as the ring-leader of Sin City’s band of tough prostitutes. Dawson has come a long way since her 2001 role in “Josie and the Pussycats.”

Keep in mind—“Sin City” is not for everyone.  It certainly earns its R rating with plenty of violence, sex, adult language and gore. But, it can be appreciated by comic book fans, action movie lovers and those looking for a change from the typical Hollywood film.

All these film noir techniques tie in with the theme of the movie. Rick's cafe is a popular place especially for the Americans. It is like a refuge for them. These people want to go back home but they can't. Their lives are filled with much despair and hopelessness. Also, the characteristic film noir moods of claustrophobia and paranoia are presented here. The military in Casablanca kind of harasses the people.

The type of lighting used for the leading lady however is not in keeping with film noir. The noir heroines are usually shot in harsh, direct, undiffused light. In Casablanca, Ingrid Bergman is always seen in diffused, glossy, close-ups which enhance her beauty. Casablanca is a very romantic movie. Romance emanates from Humphrey Bogart, Paul Henreid, and from their relationships with Bergman. It seems that the use of traditional diffusion of light on the heroine serves to add to the romance of the film whereas stark, harsh lighting would probably have the opposite effect.

An important aspect of Detour, and one without which no film noir would be complete, is the presence of the femme fatale (Vera). Her character differs significantly from the traditional fatal woman of A-features such as Murder, My Sweet and The Maltese Falcon. One reason for this is a resurgence of economic determinism. Vera is just as destitute as the hero (Al). She has been described as a "skid row femme fatale." This is somehow more realistic and less romantic than the glamorous sirens of fashion-conscious A-features. Accordingly, Vera inverts the traditional femme fatale role.

The revelation of the femme fatale's moral turpitude is also inverted. Taking Murder, My Sweet's Mrs. Grayle as archetypal, the femme fatale's usual method of subjecting the hero to her will is to seduce and flatter him until a relationship is formed on the basis of sexual  addition and misplaced trust. It is only later the she is glimpsed in her true light as manipulative and sadistic. Vera is quite different. She is immediately and openly hostile to Al and never relents, never believes his innocence. This disparity with A-features makes Vera seem like a harsh dose of reality in contrast to a romanticised stock-character. At least Phyllis Dietrichson's actions were intended to improve her future, and may be aligned with optimistic concepts of the American dream and individual enterprise. Vera has no future - she is dying of a fatal illness - and her imprisoning of Al is motivated by a more vindictive spirit, a sadistic impulse. She has nothing to gain but doesn't want to suffer alone.

Detour depicts this anxiety in extremis. Unlike the A-feature hero (Spade and Marlowe) Al's identity is not merely threatened by the femme fatale and finally wrested from her clutches (as in The Maltese Falcon). Al literally loses his identity, shedding it to take temporary refuge in Haskell's. This is symbolised by exchanging his clothes for Haskell's, but results in Al's arrest because he has also acquired his past sins, giving a dark, haunted tone to his impersonation.

As you read this, remember, this is just one man's opinion, albeit the opinion of an erudite, very knowledge film fan who's been writing about movies and movie-related topics on and off for decades. If you don't like my choices, feel free to compile your own Top Ten List. Hell, I think every film fan should have one. With that thought in mind, here are my top 10 films of all time. (Cue the triumphal trumpets off screen).

The Best Science Fiction Film of All Time:

2001: A Space Odyssey

Why? I've loved this film since childhood. I first saw it in 1968 and walked out the theater wondering what it all meant, yet I knew that I had seen greatness. Since it was first released, Stanley Kubrick's intellectual tour de force meditating on the nature of intelligence has had many competitors for the title of Best Science Fiction Film Ever, but no equals. The brilliance of the concept, which shows mankind evolving from apelike creatures to modern homo sapiens forced to do battle with an artificial intelligence of their own creation, coupled with the stunning visuals (courtesy of Douglass Trumbull, et al.), to say nothing to the trend-setting musical score and the technical advancements in film that it established, all make 2001 a recognized classic in the genre, and my pick as the Best Science Fiction Film of All Time.

Coming in at second place is Blade Runner, Ridley Scott's own rumination on the nature of what it means to be human is surrounded by what may be the best production design ever, amazing leaps in special effects techniques (courtesy of Douglas Trumbull, et al. yet again), and a superb score by Vangelis, make this my #2 Science Fiction Film. Coming in at #3 is Star Wars, George Lucas's bold reimagining of sci-fi swashbucklers like the Flash Gordon serials. This film broke new ground technically, was brilliantly directed, and gave new life to the space opera genre. Holding it back however, are cardboard characters, bad dialog, and several amateurish performances in lead roles. Still, this is a film that captivated millions and helped create a film empire for George Lucas.

My #4 pick is Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, possibly the best film about alien encounters ever made. It, too, broke new ground technically, thanks to Douglas Trumbull's magnificent special effects and some truly original model designs. Its story of an everyman (Richard Dreyfuss) who longs to journey to the stars is a story that almost anyone can relate to. John Williams' score is also one of his very best. Spielberg's script is definitely among his finest work, and this film is absolutely one of his best films ever, far better than the saccharine and obvious E.T. or the cold, and rather boring A.I. My #5 pick is another one by Ridley Scott, the boldly designed and terrifying Alien. Really more of a horror film than straight sci-fi, Scott's grisly masterpiece definitely made waves when it was released in 1978, and has been influencing production design in both horror and science fiction films ever since.

My numbers 6-10 include: The Empire Strikes Back (probably the best film in the series), Robert Wise's intelligent and thought-provoking The Day the Earth Stood Still, the visionary Things to Come, Luc Besson's The Fifth Element (One of those rare films that never run out of ideas. Even the costumes are funny!), and Clockwork Orange, another meditation by Stanley Kubrick on what it is that makes us human and moreover, what makes us choose good or evil.

Now when it comes to horror films, many people think The Exorcist is the greatest film of all time, and while I agree that it does offer some genuine shocks and is well-made and well-acted, I think it's rather overrated, based on the shock effects it had at the time. It's certainly in my top 10, but not in the top slot.

Best Horror Film of All Time

Bride of Frankenstein

James Whale's immortal Bride of Frankenstein is one of those rare sequels that are actually better than the original. This film has it all, incredible production design, good performances, especially by Karloff, Ernest Thesiger and Elsa Lancaster, superb mood and atmosphere, and a macarbrely witty script that still manages to shock and offend after all these years. It's a classic that has stood the test of time and will still be scaring the pants off people 100 years from now. For my second through tenth-best horror films, I've selected, The Omen (the original, not the remake), Robert Wise's restrained, intelligent and genuinely frightening The Haunting, Clive Barker's Hellraiser, the original Frankenstein, Karl Freund's Mad Love with Peter Lorre (You just can't get away from this guy, it seems). These are all horror films worthy of note, as is the first Exorcist, Hitchcock's Psycho, and George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, (Not only one of the best horror films, but also a savage satire of America's consumerist culture.).

Best Musical of All Time

Singin' in the Rain

Jumping from films designed to give you the shivers, let's look at the best musicals of all time. My pick should be an obvious choice to anyone: Gene Kelly's classic, Singin' In the Rain. What's not to like? It's got great songs, Gene's Kelly's signature dance number (in the rain, "natch), a terrific story, gorgeous color cinematography, Donald O"Conner's hilarious “Make "Em Laugh” dance number, plus Jean Hagen"s Lena Lamont is one of the funniest, and least talented villains in screen history. This is a film that just gets better every time you see it, and is worthy of the top slot in the musical category.

Rounding out the top ten, I chose: Cabaret, The Commitments (hilarious, moving, with a great ensemble cast of unknowns), Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (Possibly the best dance sequences of all time, plus great cinematography), Oklahoma, On the Town (The first musical filmed outdoors on location), The Wizard of Oz, Chicago, West Side Story (Another triumph by Robert Wise), Meet Me in St. Louis (old-fashioned yes, but moving, and with terrific songs), and The Gay Divorcee (Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers dancing. "Nuff said).

Best Western of All Time

The Great Train Robbery

The western has been one of the most important genres since the beginning of films, when Edwin S. Porter made The Great Train Robbery in 1903 (Shot in the wilds of New Jersey, no less!). And although the genre has fallen out of favor with producers and audiences in recent decades, the classic westerns are among the best films of all time. But towering over them, in my opinion, is one classic film: The Wild Bunch. This film is Peckinpah"s masterpiece, a moody, violent film with surprising moments of poetry and eloquence amid the shocking carnage. It's an example of world-class film-making, where the script, direction, acting, music, cinematography and editing all combine to produce a staggering impact that, despite many, many imitations and ripoffs, still leaves viewers breathless at the cathartic ending.

My runner up is John Ford's classic, The Searchers, a sprawling epic about loyalty, family, and the corrosive effects of vengeance. It features superb location photography, an excellent script, and the great John Wayne at the top of his game, backed up by a wonderful cast, including Jeffery Hunter, a very young Natalie Wood, Ward Bond, Ken Curtis, and the rest of John Ford's ever-reliable stock company. My third choice is another film from Peckinpah, Ride the High Country, which not only deserves to be ranked among the best Westerns of all time, but among the best films of all time. It's Peckinpah's other masterpiece in the genre, less violent than The Wild Bunch, but imbued with a quiet poetry all its own as it tells the story of two over-the-hill gunmen, Randolph Scott and Joel McCrea and their attempts to hang on to their dignity in a quickly-changing western landscape.

This is Class-A filmmaking all the way, with superb Lucien Ballard cinematography, a script that bristles with trenchant dialog, and an unbeatable cast of Western regulars, including Warren Oates, R.G. Armstrong, L.Q. Jones, James Drury, and Edgar Buchanan, superb as a drunken judge. My other choices for the top ten Westerns of all time include: John Sturges' The Magnificent Seven, Clint Eastwood's best film as a director, Unforgiven, Sergio Leone's epic and unforgettable Once Upon a Time in the West, John Ford's Stagecoach, High Noon, Blood on the Moon (Another classic from Robert Wise), and the TV miniseries, Lonesome Dove.

Best War Movie of All Time

Apocalypse Now

Depending on the world's political landscape, the popularity of war movies waxes and wanes, yet Patton, one of the very best war movies of all time, was made during the Vietnam era, which proved to be tremendously popular with both audiences and critics. And although Patton is a true classic, worthy of a place in my list, my choice for this honor goes to Francis Ford Coppola's beautiful, horrifying magnum opus, Apocalypse Now. Although it's not a perfect film, it comes close to capturing what Coppola referred to as, “the sensuousness of war.” More of a total sensory experience than a tightly structured narrative, it still commands the viewer's attention with its parade of gorgeous visuals, funny and grotesque characters, and a string of brilliant performances, including Martin Sheen's, Marlon Brando's, Dennis Hopper's, and the always-underrated Frederick Forrest.

Aside from Apocalypse Now, there are so many great war movies out there that it's almost impossible to narrow my list down to another nine contenders, but here goes. Among the greatest war films of all time, there's Patton, of course. Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan is a shattering epic with some of the most realistic combat sequences ever filmed, Kubrick's Paths of Glory is one of the most powerful anti-war films of all time, boasting superb performances, an intelligent script, and stunning war sequences that leave one in no doubt that war is, in fact, hell.

Rounding out my list of the top 10 war movies, I vote for Kubrick's funny and harrowing Full Metal Jacket and Das Boot, the ultimate film about submarine warfare, with no glamour, but plenty of tension, terror, and death to spare. Platoon remains Oliver Stone's best film, and one of the best Vietnam films, ever. And of course, no list of best war films would be complete without including the truly epic scope of The Longest Day, and Edward Zwick's epic and heartbreaking Glory.

Picking the Best Film Noir is nearly as impossible as selecting the best war movie, but let me slip my rod into my shoulder holster, don my trench coat and fedora, and I'll make a stab at it. For best film noir thrills, suspense, and world-class movie making, I nominate, M, Fritz Lang's classic about the last doomed hours of a child molester who's marked for death by Berlin's underworld. Peter Lorre's performance here is one of the great film performances ever, and brought Lorre (and Lang) international acclaim. Filling out my lineup of the best Film Noirs, I must absolutely include The Maltese Falcon, certainly among the finest hours for director John Huston and stars Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre (what, again?!) and the immortal Elisha Cook, Jr., one of the twitchiest, most dangerous gunsels ever.

By the way, although it's often been misused, the term gunsel is old-fashioned slang for a homosexual; it does not mean a gunman or gangster. Okay? Now get it straight. Anyway, I must also doff my fedora in the direction of Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, John Huston's The Asphalt Jungle (Sterling Hayden, Louis Calhern, and Sam Jaffe, at or near their peaks), the outrageous and trend-setting Kiss Me Deadly (the best Mickey Spillane adaptation of all time, and a career highlight for the talented Ralph Meeker). Also worthy of note in my ten best film noir lineup are Roman Polanski's Chinatown, a rare color noir, with great acting by Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway, and John Huston (a superb character actor when the mood struck him), and a brilliantly twisty script by Robert Towne that every aspiring screenwriter should be forced to read (at gunpoint, if necessary), The Big Heat, Fritz Lang's sadistic masterpiece of mob violence and equally tough police retribution, starred Glen Ford, Lee Marvin (pass the coffee, Lee!), and Gloria Grahame (another one of the greatest film noir dames).

I also nominated the lesser-known The Narrow Margin, a real nail-biter set aboard a train, with first-rate work by Charles McGraw and Marie Windsor (another of the all-time great film noir dames. See below for The Killing). Rounding out my top ten noirs is Kubrick's The Killing. Great story, ingenious editing, and an incredible noir cast that includes Sterling Hayden, Elisha Cook, Jr., Joe Sawyer, Marie Windsor, Timothy Carey, Ted DeCorsia, Vince Edwards and Joseph Turkel. My final top ten film noir is John Boorman's visionary Point Blank, one of the most influential and imitated films of the 60s, with great editing, icy cool cinematography, and a lead role tailor-made for the great Lee Marvin.

Best Fantasy Film

King Kong

Well, let's leave the seedy urban underbelly of the film noir universe for the world of Fantasy to name the Best Fantasy Film of All Time. Leading the pack is the immortal King Kong, the 1933 version, of course, though I really liked Peter Jackson's sumptuously mounted (albeit much too long) remake. Kong has it all: a terrific story, a beautiful heroine, a tall dark and scary leading man, and, once they get to Kong Island, almost non-stop action, with some of the most innovative special effects ever filmed. Even in the days of breathtakingly beautiful CGI, these old-school effects still have the power to thrill and astonish. Oh, and did I fail to mention Max Steiner's classic score for this masterpiece? One of the best films ever made, King Kong will live forever in minds of anyone who's ever seen it.

Next up on my list of best fantasy films is The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Although each of them is superb, taken in toto, Peter Jackson's three films rank as one of the greatest achievements ever in fantasy film and a unique and powerful piece of filmmaking. Not only are these films excellent realizations of J.R.R. Tolkien's detailed vision of a completely imagined fantasy universe, they're all technically innovative, boast great acting, art direction, editing and music. This series is a winner from the first moments of The Fellowship of the Ring down to the closing credits of The Return of the King. Done on a lesser scale, but still powerful, Frank Capra's It's a Wonderful Life has been making audiences laugh, cry and applaud for decades. It's so popular it's become a holiday perennial, with annual showings on TV at Christmas. Ridley Scott's Legend lost money when it was first released, but over the years, it's been acknowledged as a classic in the genre, less for its thin story and Tom Cruise's wooden acting than for its grand production design, Tim Curry's delicious performance as the demon Darkness, and the incredible atmosphere it creates.

Legend literally transports you to a fantasy world, and it's one of the most fully realized fantasy worlds ever put on screen. This is a film whose reputation, like Blade Runner's will only grow in the future. The Princess Bride may be the wittiest, best-written film on this list. This original, funny and engaging film, based on William Goldman's novel of the same name, proved that you could make a fantasy film for all ages. It's one of those films that never run out of ideas or witty banter. It is a delight.

The other films on my list of Top 10 Fantasy Films include two by Disney: Pinocchio and Fantasia, two of the most beautiful animated films ever made. Nightmare Before Christmas has finally attained classic status, and why not? It's got great songs, a truly innovative production design, and an original story that's sure to please audiences of all ages, though it might be a bit too intense for the smallest of small fry. Interestingly enough, Nightmare is still a merchandising powerhouse, spawning new products almost every week, and even inspiring certain demented fans (like AFI's Davey Havok) to have Jack and the other characters tattooed on their bodies. What a world! What a world! However, no list of the best fantasy films of all time would be complete without including Beauty and the Beast. No not the Disney musical, but Jean Cocteau's mesmerizing, dreamlike realization of this ancient fairy tale. It remains a treasure of world cinema, a film that every lover of fantasy must see at least once in his or her lifetime.

My final entry in this list is another classic, Douglas Fairbanks' silent version of The Thief of Baghdad. See it once and you'll understand why, especially if you can see it with the original tinting sequences restored and with a live orchestra playing the soundtrack. Now that's moviemaking!

Best Comedy of All Time

The General

Finally, what's life without a few good laughs? I mean laughter is the best medicine for what ails you, so let's take a quick look at THE BEST COMEDY OF ALL TIME. Rather than choose one of the modern classics, I vote for Buster Keaton's immortal tour de force, The General, surely one of the funniest, and best-directed comedies ever. With this action-packed Civil War comedy, Keaton showed himself to be a consummate filmmaker. The script, editing, and gags are all incredibly good. Keaton gives one of his best performances as a trouble-plagued engineer determined to get his train back from those villainous Yankees. Next in line is yet another film by the great Stanley Kubrick, Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.

Like other films listed in my top 10, this is one of those films where everything clicks, from the script to the cinematography and production design to the casting, even the timing of when it was released. It's one of the funniest films of all time about a very unfunny subject: nuclear warfare, and yet it's hilarious thanks to the dead-on script by Stanley Kubrick and Terry Southern, that is acted to a tee by Peter Sellers (in triple roles), Sterling Hayden, George C. Scott (superb in a rare comedy role), Keenan Wynn, Peter Bull, Slim Pickens (his best role ever!), and James Earl Jones in his film debut. Among the also-rans in my TOP TEN COMEDIES are: Duck Soup (It's the Marx Brothers in their absolute funniest film. Any questions?), Stanley Kramer's elephantine, but sidesplittingly funny It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World. (A note to my readers: Any time I'm in a really bad mood, all I have to do is watch the scene where Jonathan Winters demolishes the gas station single-handedly and my bad mood evaporates).

Norman Jewison's The Russians are Coming, the Russians are Coming is too long, but it's also a real hoot, probably the second-best Cold War comedy of the 60s, and it's got Jonathan Winters, to boot, as well as Carl Reiner in his funniest film role, and Alan Arkin's excellent debut. I also really like Monty Python's Life of Brian, though many religious people think this film is highly offensive. Fuck "em if they can"t take a joke, I say. Brian is not only the funniest Monty Python film; it also has some very perceptive things to say about human gullibility and the silliness of organized religion. (You've got to work it out for yourselves, people!) It's almost an understatement to call Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot a masterpiece, but like many of the other films on this list, it's nearly perfect in every frame, and certainly ranks among the career highlights of Tony Curtis and Marilyn Monroe. My final comedies are the madcap Nothing Sacred and Harold Lloyd's eyepopping and hilarious Safety Last!

Best Drama

Gone With The Wind

I've got to wrap this up, so let's bounce on over to the last two categories. For the Best Drama of All Time: I vote for Gone With the Wind. It's got scope, it's got sweep, it's got Rhett and Scarlett, and was directed by Victor Fleming the same year he directed The Wizard of Oz. (Man, what a year, he had!) Citizen Kane deserves to be listed here for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who's ever seen it. My other runners up for Best Drama are: A Streetcar Named Desire (Tennessee Williams and Marlon Brando, need I say more?), Coppola's The Godfather I & II, and The Conversation (A brilliant and underrated film about paranoia and spying, with a superb performance by Gene Hackman), Spielberg's epic of the Holocaust, Schindler's List, Michael Curtiz's fabled Casablanca, 12 Angry Men, Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a Murder (his best film), and finally, To Kill a Mockingbird, a beautiful classic with a gentle soul and a wonderful message of tolerance and the hateful effects of racism.

Best Historical Epic

Lawrence of Arabia

I have no choice but to offer up David Lean's magnificent Lawrence of Arabia. This is another film that just gets better each time you see it, and I try to see it every few years because I like it so much. It may take liberties with historical fact, but in its artistry probably gives audiences a greater insight into the character of T.E. Lawrence than any mere documentary ever could. Superlative performances by Peter O'Toole in the lead role, with equally fine work by Anthony Quayle, Arthur Kennedy, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, Jack Hawkins, and Alec Guiness. The cinematography by Freddie Young, rarely equaled and never surpassed, is one of the things that give this film its epic sweep and sense of scope. A tour de force by all concerned.

Next, I nominate Kubrick's Spartacus, one of the best directed and most intelligent of the cycle of epics from the 50s and 60s. Kirk Douglas is nearly perfect and heads a powerhouse cast that includes Lawrence Olivier, Charles McGraw, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov, Woody Strode, John Ireland and Herbert Lom. My other choices for runners-up for the best Historical Epic include: David Lean's Bridge on the River Kwai, and Dr. Zhivago, both are excellent. And, as much as it pains me to say anything nice about Mel Gibson, his Braveheart is one of the most stirring and exciting epic films ever made. Rounding out my list of Best Historical Epics, I choose Peter Weir's Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Franklin Schaffner's Papillion, Warren Beatty's ode to Commies, Reds, Richard Attenborough's breathtakingly good biography of Ghandi, and finally, two films from the great D.W. Griffith, Birth of A Nation and Intolerance, the latter of which boasts some of the best editing and acting in any silent film.

Well, folks, love "em or hate "em, those are my choices for the 10 Best Films of All Time. If you disagree with my choices, then I strongly encourage you to make your own list. It's one of the most fun aspects of being a film fan, picking favorites and then arguing your choices with other film lovers. See you at the movies, folks.

• 1931

  • M

    Prototypical noir directed by Fritz Lang and starring Peter Lorre. In German with English subtitles. This is a German Expressionist film about a child murderer and is essential in helping viewers see the influence of German Expressionism film upon subsequent noir films in America.

• 1934

  • They Made Me a Criminal

    Interesting early noirish film directly by Busby Berkeley starring John Garfield as boxer on the lam and Claude Rains as his pursuer. The film begins in the corrupt city but soon makes the leap to the undefiled country where Garfield gets involved with the Dead End Kids who are working on a farm. Sunny noir.

• 1936

  • The Wrong Road

    Young lovers noir directed by James Cruze (The Great Gabbo, I Cover the Waterfront). Lionel Atwill wants the stolen $100,000 back but wants to help the misguided thieves even more. I’ve always believed in you kids from the very start.” See also You Only Live Once, Gun Crazy, They Live by Night, Side Street, etc.

• 1939

  • Convict’s Code

    Lambert Hillyer’s parolee noir. Falsely-accused ex-football star “Whiz” Tyler (Robert Kent) gets out of prison and wants to clear his name. Cinematographer Arthur Martinelli’s uses Expressionistic shadows to advantage. See Fritz Lang’s American noirs You and Me and You Only Live Once.


• 1944

  • Bluebeard

    Edgar G. Ulmer’s tale of horror. Perhaps thematically a noir but, though atmospheric, not a noir visually. John Carradine is the murderer who strangles the women he “paints.”

  • Lady in the Death House

    Steve Sekeley directed this film, most notable for its use of flashbacks. Its title (and thus basic situation) is its most noirish aspect. Stars Jean Parker who was also featured in Ulmer’s Bluebeard.


• 1945

  • Detour

    Ulmer’s noir masterpiece. Exemplary noir both in look and in theme. With Tom Neal as the hapless sap Al Roberts and Ann Savage as Vera, the femme fatale. Nasty noir.

  • Scarlet Street

    Fritz Lang’s remake of Jean Renoir’s La Chienne (The Bitch) from 1931. Scarlet Street is a wonderful noir starring Edward G. Robinson, Joan Bennett, and Dan Duryea. Though sanitized in the Hollywood way, this is true gutter noir. Even the ending irony is dark.

  • Strange Illusion

    Not to be confused with Anthony Mann’s noir Strange Impersonation of 1946. This is Edgar G. Ulmer’s Hamlet noir. A dream warns the young protagonist that his mom shouldn’t remarry, particularly the man who murdered his father. “Mother, no! This man isn’t Father!”

• 1946

  • Shock

    Evil doctor noir starring Vincent Price and Lynn Bari. Directed by Alfred L. Werker (He Walked by Night).
  

  • The Stranger

    Orson Welles directs and stars along with Loretta Young and Edward G. Robinson in this New England, disguised-Nazi noir. Compare to Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt (1943), the prototypical sunny noir compromised by the shadow of foreign menace.

  • The Strange Love of Martha Ivers

    Outstanding cast (Barbara Stanwyck, Kirk Douglas, Lizabeth Scott, and Van Heflin—all to have significant careers in noir films) in Lewis Milestone’s psychologically complex noir.

• 1947

  • My Favorite Brunette

    Parody noir with Bob Hope, Dorothy Lamour, and Peter Lorre. Directed by Elliott Nugent.

  • The Red House

    Absolutely fascinating though unconventional psychological noir starring Edward G. Robinson (Scarlet Street, The Stranger) and Judith Anderson and directed by Delmer Daves. Creates a noir atmosphere out of country sunlight.

  • Fear in the Night

    Hypnotism noir directed by Maxwell Shane and starring DeForest Kelley (aka Dr. “Bones” McCoy of Star Trek) and Paul Kelly (Crossfire, The File on Thelma Jordan, Side Street). Voiceover. Mirrors. Visually stylish. “All the evidence points to me!” theme. Plausible villain. From a Cornell Woolrich story. See Black Angel, The Blue Dahlia, The Blue Gardenia, etc.


• 1948

  • He Walked by Night

    Police (Jack Webb) pursue cop-killer (Richard Basehart) noir. Directed by Alfred L. Werker. Compare the ending of He Walked by Night with the ending of Carol Reed’s The Third Man out the following year. Its documentary nature also bears comparison with Jules Dassin’s The Naked City (also 1948).

  • The Amazing Mr. X

    Con-man noir with Turhan Bey, Lynn Bari (Shock), and Cathy O’Donnell (They Live by Night). Outstanding cinematography by John (“It's not what you light - it's what you DON'T light”) Alton. Directed by Bernard Vorhaus.
  

  • Inner Sanctum

    Twilight Zone noir—turns on a mystical prediction. Gritty sizzle noir directed by Lew Landers. With Charles Russell and Mary Beth Hughes (The Great Flamarion).

  • The Scar or Hollow Triumph

    Deeply ironic noir with Paul Henreid and Joan Bennett (Scarlet Street). Well directed by Steve Sekeley (Lady in the Death House).


• 1949

  • Jigsaw

    Fletcher Markle’s socially-conscious film about a conspiracy of extremists. Considered noir by some but lacks characteristic noir plot, characters, look, and tone. Stars Franchot Tone (The Man on the Eiffel Tower). Notable for multiple cameos by famous Hollywood actors and actresses (John Garfield, Henry Fonda, Marlene Dietrich, Burgess Meredith...) who supported the film’s moral and political viewpoint.

  • Port of New York

    Drug smuggling New York noir with Yul Brynner with hair. Directed by László Benedek. See Borderline.

  • Impact

    Impressive noir from Arthur Lubin starring Brian Donleavy, but it’s the women who dominate this film: Ella Raines as Marsha Peters, Anna May Wong as Su Lin, and Helen Walker, despicably delicious as Irene Williams. The film is Shakespearean in its ABA structure, the “green world” being Larkspur, Idaho, and San Francisco as the frame city.
  

  • D.O.A.

    Edmund O’Brien (The Killers, White Heat , The Hitch-Hiker) poisoned and dying in San Francisco as the film opens, the action of the movie is the search for the identity and the motive of his killer. Classic noir from Rudolph Maté.

  • Too Late for Tears

    Bryon Haskin directed this femme fatale noir that has Arthur Kennedy and Dan Duryea (Scarlet Street, Black Angel, The Great Flamarion) up against the deadly avarice of Lizabeth Scott (The Strange Love of Martha Ivers).

• 1950

  • The Second Woman

    Underrated noir with Robert Young and Betsy Drake. Atmospheric and psychological like The Red House. Chandleresque twists. Directed by James V. Kern.
  

  • The File on Thelma Jordan

    Barbara Stanwyck (The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, Double Indemnity, Clash by Night) as a femme fatale who grows a soul. With Wendell Corey as another of the helpless noir males who succumb to females whose hearts are in the wrong place. Directed by Robert Siodmak.

  • Borderline

    William A. Seiter noir about drug trafficking stars Claire Trevor (Murder, My Sweet; Born to Kill; Raw Deal,) working for the police. She gets involved with two criminals: Raymond Burr (Raw Deal, Pitfall, The Blue Gardenia) and then Fred MacMurray (Double Indemnity). Begins as noir, transforms to comedy. “It Happened One Noir.” See The 39 Steps.
  

  • Quicksand

    Irving Pichel’s unrelenting noir starring Mickey Rooney whose lust for Jeanne Cagney leads him to theft to feed her greed. Also with Peter Lorre (M, Quicksand, My Favorite Brunette, Beat the Devil). Downward-spiral noir. See also Detour, Pitfall, The File on Thelma Jordan, etc.
  

  • Panic in the Streets

    Chase noir with Richard Widmark (Kiss of Death, Road House, Night and the City, No Way Out, Don’t Bother to Knock, Pickup on South Street) as the chaser and plague-ridden Jack Palance (Sudden Fear) as the chased. With Barbara Bel Geddes, Paul Douglas and Zero Mostel. Directed by Elia Kazan.

  • The Man on the Eiffel Tower

    Paris chase noir directed and starring Burgess Meredith. With Charles Laughton as Georges Simenon’s Inspector Maigret and Franchot Tone as the Nietzschean villain Johann Radek. Compare Radek with Harry Lime in Carol Reed’s Viennese noir The Third Man, also 1949.


• 1951

  • Cause for Alarm!

    Brilliant Loretta Young film, noir because of its nightmarish, noose-tightening plot. Directed by Tay Garnett (The Postman Always Rings Twice¬). A subset of sunny noir; one might call it suburban noir.

• 1952

  • Kansas City Confidential

    John Payne taking revenge against the men who framed him: Jack Elam, Lee Van Cleef, and Neville Brand under the leadership of Preston Foster. The gang doesn’t know each other. They’ve always worn masks! Coleen Gray as the love interest. Outstanding noir. Iconic images abound.


• 1953

  • Beat the Devil

    Parody noir scripted by Truman Capote. Only slightly more serious than My Favorite Brunette. Top notch cast (Humphrey Bogart, Jennifer Jones, Gina Lollobrigida, Robert Morley, Peter Lorre), top notch director (John Huston).

  • The Hitch-Hiker

    Wonderful noir directed by Ida Lupino, star herself of many classic noir films (High Sierra; They Drive by Night; On Dangerous Ground; Road House; The Man I Love; Beware, My Lovely; and her own directorial effort The Bigamist). The small cast all brilliant: Edmond O’Brien (The Killers, White Heat, D.O.A.), Frank Lovejoy, and William Talman as Emmett Myers, the psychopath kidnapper who sleeps literally with one eye open.


• 1954

  • Suddenly

    Psychotic-killer noir starring Frank Sinatra as John Baron, would-be presidential assassin. With Sterling Hayden (The Asphalt Jungle, The Killing) as the good guy. Small town noir. The infiltration of big city evil. Anticipates The Rifleman.

All films are available on the internet.

See The Internet Movie Database for detailed information on individual films.

Stills by Bill Yarrow from public domain versions of the films

This information is current as of April 30, 2008

It ' s almost impossible for someone to define what is a film noir so I will just try to describe it, rather than define it. Personally speaking, a film noir can be described as more of a sense of a mystic atmosphere than a “ type ” of filming. Boarding the borders of what is characterized as film noir, I would say that it is a “ dark film ” . Literally, film noir means “black film ” in French, and the main reason is perhaps because of it ' s melancholic atmosphere. Totally depicting the almost “ doomed ” period before the World War II, the film noir was a depiction of a sinful story under the shadow of alienation, moral corruption, double-crossing, guilt and evil. In other words, one could say that “ film noir ” is the depiction of the underworld, with it ' s main characters focusing on the figures of detectives, gangsters and, of course, the anti-heroin of “ femme fatale ” .

This stereotype is being described in this specific essay, on an attempt to figure out how it has changed throughout the three periods of “ film noir ” from the " 40s until today.

Mostly though the main question is why the stereotype figure of femme fatale has survived as one of the most desirable film characters. In this essay I will attempt to present that this specific figure has influenced the women " s way of “ acting ” today in their everyday life, or even better the way women today want to be seen.

For this reason, there will be presented and described three representative movies from each period. From the classic one of the " 40s- " 50s is the “ Out of the past ” of 1947, with Robert Mitchum and Jane Greer, in the leading roles, directed by Jacques Tourneur. The second movie from the neo-noir period of 1960-1970 is the 1964 ' s film “ The killers ” with Lee Marvin, Angie Dickinson and Ronald Reagan, directed by Donald Siegel. Last but not least, the nowadays film noir cinema will be represented by the “ Basic instinct ” of 1992, with Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone under the direction of Paul Verhoeven.

The reason for these movies being selected is mostly because they depict in the most suitable way the figure of the femme fatale. The anti-heroin of femme fatale presented in the above mentioned movies, define the power and the way social changes affected women ' s role. Personally, I believe that these movies show the ultimate feminine strength that affected the men ' s almost “ weakness ” to rule them. Men are toys of the femme fatale ' s irresistible allure. It ' s a game of the women ' s power over the men. Even though the latter believe, that they can finally conquer them, still, they cannot. But in the end men are captivated by this untouchable “ dream ” . This, though, will be analytically presented and explained later on.

Instead of an Intro

Why would someone though, be interested in a stereotype that exists for so many years in cinema? Would it be easier if we just let it be? What if this specific stereotype would be in fact the pattern of the modern woman? Could this be true?

Lets commence by saying that a modern woman wants power, money, credit for her work, and of course, the absolute freedom. Man, on the other hand needs to be the master of the game. He wants the same things. So what is the solution when a stereotype is a “ man ” in a woman ' s body? The ultimate embody of the two sexes find their answer of that timeless question on the figure of femme fatale.

One of the “ bad guys ” of the film noir is in fact the guy, all people want to became or to reign. In this specific essay I will attempt to enlighten this character that I think, it affected the most, the way people are acting today in their every day life. Even though there have been many decades since the first " invasion ” of the femme fatale " s stereotype in cinema through film noirs, my guess is that now we can almost clearly see the results of this figure in real life.

Starting back from the 40s I will try to prove that nowadays real characters have been in a way subconsciously formed under the veil of a femme fatale. Always getting what she wants. And always want more than she can gets.

The Selection of the Movies

The main reason for choosing these three specific movies is that they all have to do with a “investigation ” style story. In particular, there is a sort of battle between the main character of a detective/killer and the anti-character of the opposite field - the femme fatale. The common point on these three movies is that, the mystery that the detective/killer tries to solve is the one that the character of femme fatale secretly hides from him. And all this mystery has to do with unsolved cases of the past that arise in the present out of the blue, looking for their finale solution. There is a saying “ No one can escape of his past ” and that is exactly what these films share.

As far as the male/female peculiar couple of characters is concerned, the main intriguing point is the contradiction between them. And that what makes them interesting. Two totally different worlds live and act in a same parallel. The underworld of each era. The battle between the legal and the illegal, constantly changing positions. The immoral femme fatale stereotype and the moral detective/killer colliding in the dark universe of the underworld. The peculiar in this case is that the male character has to give up his morality and follow the dirty paths of the femme fatale. While at the same time the immoral female stereotype bears her own legal style in a corrupted world. They both fight against all their personal and social norms, trying to achieve their own personal goals: the femme fatale to keep her secrets sealed and the detective/killer to solve the mystery. The main point though, is that the only mystery that a detective has to solve is the femme fatale ' s one. More analytically, one could claim that the main mystery in the film noirs is the femme fatale stereotype itself. For the hero, on the other hand, it is almost « unacceptable » not to solve a mystery and on that point they run against each other on the opposite sides but on the same field. It seems as a paranoia but it ' s a matter of love and hate. A situation from which no one can escape or survive, at least totally unscathed.

In these three movies, though one can see the changes of the stereotype of femme fatale throughout the years. The effects of the social changes have almost enforced this specific figure to “ compromise ” in a way with the necessities of each era. Or even better to evolve in certain periods.

Some Basic Thoughts

In the first movie the femme fatale seems to act like a victim in order to seduce the detective. She usually uses her feminine “ innocence ” to persuade him. On the contrary in the last one, the “ Basic Instinct 1 ”, a femme fatale does not have that need. Instead, she uses her ultimate feminine power to make him believe her. That ' s the main difference that society « imposed » in the femme fatale figure. The woman is totally independent and now she is using her strength to impose herself. That specific change occurred in the early 70 ' s and specifically with the feministic movement.

From now on, women ' s position would never be the same. From the 70 ' s since now the stereotype of femme fatale stands for herself. In the same way that women gained their position in the industrial world by taking part in the labour society, the “ new woman”achieves her goals in the contemporary consuming society.

All these changes are in fact the “ relics ” of a post-modern society overwhelmed by riots, revolutions and confrontations. And probably that ' s the main reason that film noir and the stereotype of femme fatale managed to survive in cinema. The cynicism and the corruption of contemporary society are totally depicted in the film noir.

The Birth of Femme Fatale

The first appearance of femme fatale lies back in the early 40 ' s. The eruption of the World War II called for men to enrol in the military service. That automatically meant that the industry world would come into a decline unless there were found people to fill in them. These people were the housewives of the 30 ' s who in a way were forced to take up the men ' s position in the industry. This evolutionary “ themes ” were the first steps for women to chase their own lives and finally a brand new role in a man ' s world. The previous stereotype of the housewife, who was raised by her family with the only goal to take care only of her family, was now substituted by a dynamic, independent woman. This revolution is known as the “ Rosie-the-Riveter ” syndrome.

When men returned from the battlefield, they had to face the new reality of women no longer been weak and dependant on them. This new stereotype, although a bit weird at the start, gave men the chance to start wondering about the primitive archetype of “femme fatale ” . The independent, strong, desirable woman that could achieve anything she wanted. And the new woman was almost fulfilling that “ dream ” .

That was the “ birth of femme fatale ” . The strength was lying on her sexuality. On her power to achieve by actions whatever she desired. Almost a new “ vamp ” deadly woman from the 20 ' s movies but on a human body. The femme fatale stereotype was a necessity for that era exactly because the world needed a powerful “ substitute ” to replace the soldiers. So this specific figure won the need of the world to keep on moving. And in the same way that this figure appeared in the everyday life, in the same way it invaded in cinema. The time was better than the appropriate one, since a new “ genre ” in cinema was starting its own journey. The birth of film noir “ collided ” with the birth of the femme fatale stereotype.

The character of a dangerous, powerful, dark woman ruled in many film noir movies, in the sense that film noir ' s main feature was the underworld of shadows and mystery, and the femme fatale could more than anything fit in a world of double-crossing and seduction.

An Introduction to the Femme Fatale Figure

A femme fatale is mostly defined as “an irresistibly attractive woman, whose purpose is to allure and seduce a man in order to make him commit a murder or some other kind of crime”. Always mysterious, manipulative, and simultaneously, gorgeous and unbearably desirable, the figure of femme fatale in film noirs, have a sinful past, a self destructive present and an unknown future. This ambiguous, but still marvellous, figure of cinema has rejected the usual and commonly accepted norms of society on the grounds of family life and housewife. Being almost the definition of corruption and danger, though always leading an independent way of living, a femme fatale sets herself on the edge. There is the spot where she always finds her victims. In the shadows, in the dark, almost always in rainy black and white nights at the notorious areas of some cities, the femme fatale needs no more than a look to make her next unsuspected victim struggle for the rest of his life between the good and the evil.

This anti-heroin, with the mysterious, usually totally unknown or vague past, is supposed to be one of the bad guys. For me, is one of the necessary figures in cinema. An ambiguous character of film noir, not only following her fatale mistakes, but even drugging her co-protagonists with her, into a predestined, destructive ending. The only difference is that a femme fatale usually seeks for this ending as a remedy and a way out of her self-destructive life. In fact, as a “ catharsis ” like in the ancient Greek tragedies, trying desperately to find her personal freedom. Though on the other hand, her victim is unaware of the consequences of following her in the dark paths, she always leads him.

Constantly using her sexuality to gain power, a femme fatale is a dark, almost sadistic figure which takes advantage of her protagonist ' s weakness to save herself. Pecan past, no repentance and ruthless cunning are some of the main characteristics of the stereotype of femme fatale in film noir.

The evolutionary femme fatale through film noir:

The Classic Period: “Out of the Past”

The classic period of film noir began in 1941 and reached its pick in 1957. A period totally effected by the results of War World II. As shown above women had to be in charge for the period that men were serving the military. That was their first win in the battle between the sexes. Now they could ask for more.

“Out of the past ” is a perfect example for the femme fatale ' s character of the early 40 ' s. Kathy Moffat (Jane Greer), a woman that steals 40.000 “ grants ” from her gangster boyfriend (Kirk Douglas) is been missing. The detective Jeff Bailey

( Robert MitchUm) is hired to locate her and bring her back. But the story changes when he falls in love with her. After a series of adventures and unanswered questions, he realizes that he is the victim of a well organised frame up. And that ' s a mystery he has to solve on his own, no matter how it will cost him. The only person that knowS all the secrets is the “femme fatale ” that he loves.

The first appearance of the femme fatale figure in this movie is when she comes in the “ La mar azul ” bar in Acapulco Mexico. Seductive looks, dynamic way of walking and a cigarette as soon as she sits are the primal characteristics. “ I don ' t want a guy ” is her “ clincher”line to the detective. A line that shows more than anything her independent and powerful character. She acts like a man but looks like a gorgeous creature, almost having fallen from heaven. She does not care about social norms but instead she is the one that all the other “ leftovers ” of the housewife figure envy, if not hate. She takes initiatives and refuses to settle. Seducing the main character is not difficult though he is a sensible, strong man. The mystery that this woman carries makes him almost blind, able to double- cross, not only the man that hired him but his partner, too. He has already crossed the line between the good and the bad but he no longer cares as long as she is with him.

The figure of femme fatale is strongly shown in this film in the scene at the cabin that the two heroes meet. The detective ' s partner has followed him after the double-crossing and a fight between them is not a surprise. Then she looks at the detective and tells him “ Why don ' t you break his head, Jeff? ” . The two partners start to fight over her when she overtly kills the detective ' s partner. “ You wouldn ' t have killed him “ she says with no guilt, when he asks the reason.

But the detective himself can ' t understand what is that, that this woman has and magnetises him so much. Making him unable to act sensibly. This is ultimately shown when he says “ There was still something about her that got me. A kind of magic, I don ' t know ”. That ' s exactly the main point for the femme fatale ' existence and strong presence in cinema. They all wonder what does she has and makes people forget their personality.

The Battle Between the "Good"' and the "Bad" Woman

What makes the femme fatale even more irresistible is the comparison with the innocent woman ' s feature. The former housewife ' s stereotype is depicted in this movie by Anna. The immoral past and the rightful present of the detective ' s life makes the femme fatale an everlasting stigma. His girlfriend Anna is loyal, honest, kind with an innocent face and a pure heart. Always admiring his decency and power. Always depending on him and looking high on his way of living. Even admiring his secret past and promising to be always there for him, no matter what. She refuses to believe, that he has committed two murders, when they are trying to frame him, and she tell him “ Everything you say to me I believe ” . The absolute loyal figure of a kind woman that follows the social stereotypes and norms. Her only sin is that she loves him and in a way disobeys his parents orders to keep on seeing him. She even accepts his love for Kathy when he almost admits that he still thinks about her. She forgives him everything a long as they can be together.

On the other hand, the femme fatale is her opponent on a war to win the hero ' s heart. A war that is totally uneven. The powerful and alluring femme fatale owns his heart even if they are not together. She will always win the stereotype of the kind woman maybe because the adventure she offers in the hero ' s life is more interesting and passionate than a simple way of living in a “ small house on a lake ” . Even if the detective claims in the beginning of the movie that the only thing he would wish for is to marry the kind Anne, in the end he leaves her for the intriguing Kathy. It ' s above his power to act in another way. Even if he has feelings for Anne, he would never refuse the mysterious Kathy.

The conflict between the good and the bad in the women ' s character raises in the end of the movie when Anne forgives him, when she asks the boy that works with him if the detective was about to leave with Kathy and he nodes positively. He has abandoned her for a woman that killed him. And that makes the comparison even harder. The femme fatale shoots him when she has to confront the police. It ' s her only way out to survive but like in ancient Greek tragedies the catharsis comes with her death by a policeman.

That ' s one of the great differences between the first femme fatale stereotype of the classic period and the ones that followed. This early figure had to die in the end, in a way that would be an example / punishment, since the society was not ready to accept her “victory ” in the end. The audience had accepted her as a character in the cinema but it was too premature to deal with the fact, that this specific stereotype would have win over the loyal and moral housewife ' s model. There had to be a sort of “ payback ' time for her. She had to be punished for her sins. That totally changed throughout the years since society learned and mostly accepted the fact that “ bad guys ” do exist.

The Neo-Noir Period: “The Killers”

The 60 ' s and the 70 ' s is an era stigmatised by the war in Vietnam, social revolutions, conflicts and democratisation of nations. A period of sexual liberation and woman ' s emancipation. On that path, the film noir movies had to step on and evolve, on grounds that seemed even like “ nostalgic memories from the past ” . A past that now was formed in a post modern frame of commercialisation and cynicism. The former sense of black and white rainy small places where in a way “ replaced ” by a more aggressive and violent scenery of shooting and craven for money. Corruption in a society that was experimenting in the dangerous filed of “ putrescence ” . In a period overwhelmed by political, social and economic crisis, the film noir movies “ attached ” their themes on this atmosphere.

“ The Killers ” is a film noir of the so called “ neo - noir ” period of cinema that depicts exactly all those neo- liberal figures. The female figure of femme fatale, the “ satanic”woman is more liberated and powerful. She is not afraid to “ go for ” the big business. And the only way to succeed is to seduce the protagonist, a car racer named Johnny North.

Sheila Far, performed by Angie Dickinson, is an unconditional woman, who gets whatever and whoever she wants, without considering the costs or the potential consequences. She curves for power, money and success. She is Jack Browning ' s girl (Roland Reagan ' s last performance in cinema). A gangster living out of stealing. When he want ' s to do big business she is the perfect catch for the unsuspected Johnny North. With her alluring and irresistible way she makes him fall in love with her and in the end be a part of the “ colpo grosso ” . After seducing him she persuades him to steal the money from the gangster so that they can spend it together but that is just another trap that he falls in unconditionally. This is the story that two killers, performed by Lee Marvin and John Cassavetis, are trying to solve when they are hired to kill Johnny North. The victim is dead but 1 million dollars is missing.

The femme fatale stereotype in that particular movie is no more a dark woman hiding behind a man ' s power. She is attractive and aggressive. She is more active and her key-point is her sexuality. The sexual liberation of the 60 ' s has find her “ representative ” . The femme fatale exposes her sexuality and takes initiative when it comes to the game of power. She knows how to act without fear and hesitance. She is not just a pathetic creature of the 40 ' s, that functions in the background. Now she has her own place in neo-noir films, she is a leading main character.

She is more of a “ boy scout ” , loves action, danger and winners. In one of the beginning scenes Sheila turns to Johnny and tells him “ Do I make you nervous? ” . Later on she responds “ nothing scares me ” . These two lines show exactly how the character of femme fatale has altered in comparison to the classic era. The “ retro ” style of the first period has been transformed in a new “ fast and furious ” way of acting.

Her manipulative way is totally represented by her line “ All my life I was around losers. I need winners. ” And that " s exactly was she is going for. The typical of the, sort of , neo- femme fatale is that she always says what the male wants to hear. More liberated and with a provocative manner, she keeps on betraying, not only her first victim Johnny North but even the gangster/lover in order to rescue herself. The last scene of the movie is typical of her reaction. Lee Marvin eventually reaches to the end of the mystery and finds them. When he tries to kill her she turns to him begging for her life and says “ Please. I didn " t want to, he made me do it. I had no choice ” . Even in the last moment, she desperately tries to save herself by double crossing her “ official lover ” .

But even though society of the 60 ' s and 70 ' s had already experienced betrays and unsolved mystery stories, still it was not the right timing to accept the femme fatale stereotype winning in the end. That " s one of the things that remain the same as back in the early days of film noir. There has to be a catharsis. Her been killed by the assassin is the only way for the cinema to be “ safe ” .

What Has Changed?

Generally speaking, the neo noir films of the 60 " s and 70 ' s had as main theme shooting stories with gangsters, stealing and gambling. The neo femme fatale, always on the bad guys ' side, is more commercialised. She is “ engulfed ” by the over consuming new society and leads a more cosmopolitan life. Money, jewellery, expensive clothes are some of the typical points of the femme fatale figure in neo noir period.

Nonetheless, a basic difference at the neo noir films is that even though the stereotype of femme fatale has been established in cinema as a main character, in this particular era there are not that many films with femme fatales. Peculiar as it may sound, the stereotype of the satanic woman had her own place in the cinema but still a small amount of movies to be in.

That is maybe one of the consequences of the 60 ' s -70 ' s disturbed period of worldwide political crisis. Cinema was more interested in exposing political scandals, awaking people on matters concerning the war and the social being. But even on a " restricted " area like that there has been a major change. The neo femme fatale is no longer in need of an opposite female stereotype in order to stand on the screen. She has her own place and she does not have to participate in a “ good vs. bad woman ” debate to earn her role. She is the evil, diabolic and manipulative woman with no comparisons. The new femme fatale has been introduced herself to the new era of industrialised world where money and power are the key - words. Romance, even in a pervert way that a femme fatale can express it, has surrendered and given its place to possession and contention.

Contemporary Film Noir: The 80s Until Today: “Basic Instinct 1”

Contemporary cinema , always inspired by society, is characterised by the human curve for sex. The ultimate liberation of sexual taboos on that period is now established. Everything has to do with sex and power. Taking but not giving. Homosexuality is no longer a disgrace. Unconditional almost fetishist sex, with no restrictions, boundaries and shame is the main point. Exclusiveness in love has been replaced by constantly altering lovers. The disclosure of a new disease, called AIDS, shows exactly the wide range of sexual revolution that began in the 80s and still has not found its pick. Drugs, sex and “ fun ” are the new characteristic of the contemporary society.

The culture of consumption, that has began in the 70s, now has to do with a sort of “human consumption ” . Style, attitude and the way of looking are the basic representatives. Being cool, fancy, and all these in the most sexual way. Sexuality that is no longer hidden under insinuations and narrations but ultimately exposed on the screen.

Nonetheless, the invasion of psychology and psychoanalysis as the new trendy tendency of the 90s has influenced the cinema of the new period. The new film noir is still detective stories and unsolved mysteries but now they have to do with the way a pervert mind works. It has to do more with exploring a pervert mind rather than discovering a well hidden story. One could possibly claim that the only witness to the unsolved and still unrevealed secret is the mind rather than the eyes.

Under all these social changes, the 80s were the perfect timing for the femme fatale stereotype to disclosure itself. Having already a long past, now it ' s the time to regain its almost former glory. But now the chance is even better since the social norms have been altered so hard that the femme fatale does not need any excuses. She acts for herself without having the necessity to be forgiven by society. And the most important thing is that in contemporary cinema the figure of femme fatale can survive. Now the society is ready to let her be. But still when did she care about it?

The Revenge of the Femme Fatale

The brutal, evil, obsession, and almost “ animal ' instincts with no fear, regrets or guilt are the characteristics of the femme fatales in “ Basic Instinct 1 ” . The main difference on that film is that there is more that one diabolic and dark female figure. The “ epic ” thriller of the 90s is the revelation of the femme fatale in a period where sex crimes were the favourite theme of this era ' s cinema. Seduction is her ultimate weapon and she knows how to use it, driving her male protagonist, insane.

The writer Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone) is getting involved in a murder of a famous rock star. The unsolved mystery of sex, drugs and rock n ' roll is a case to be solved by detective Nick Curran. A detective, known as the Shooter due to his fatal mistakes of the past, deals with his personal drama of being aggressive, former drug user and alcoholic. To solve these he is forced to be under psychiatric surveillance by her former lover Dr. Elizabeth Garner, performed by Jeanne Tripplehorn. A series of accidental coincidences that have to do with murders will lead him to the conclusion that the famous writer is a killer. But he can ' t resist her seductive charm and falls into her trap. While investigating, he realizes that his personal life is a part of the game that he plays between the writer and the psychiatrist. Lesbian lovers from the past and an obsession story of the ex Lisa Hoberman, present Dr Garner, for Catherine Trammell will lead him to an inane labyrinth.

The First Femme Fatale

The main figure of femme fatale in Basic Instinct is the main suspect, Catherine Trammell. Wealth, drugs, unconditional sex and a girlfriend are the basic characteristics. Strong and powerful, the ultimate female figure, the untouchable dream of all men, even though she is the main suspect for murder, make her irresistible to everyone. She does not care about feelings, norms, restrictions. The only thing she wants is sex. Her aggressive but still calm attitude makes her the master of the game. She totally exposes her sexuality, and now nudity and pornographic scenes are a part of the film. The weird plot of the movie swaps between her innocence and her guilt. In the beginning all the incidents lead to her being the main suspect of the murder and she in a way, encourages, though denies, having committed it. “ It teaches you how to lie ” she says to the detectives when they ask her about the book she writes (totally depicting the murder) just before the interrogation. “ I like men who give me pleasure. Games are fun ” is her respond when they ask her about her sexual life. No fear, no stress, no regrets. Mere sex, usually kinky and violent is her way of presenting herself. She plays with the detective ' s mind and though he is not an easy victim, he totally surrenders.

… and the Second Femme Fatale

One of the main differences in the film noir movies of the last period is that they can have more than one femme fatales. The “ Basic Instinct 1 ” is a movie where this specific figure is obvious. The liberated, non-conservative contemporary society of the 90s is ready to accept more than one “ bad girls ” . The second figure of femme fatale in this movie is the ex-girlfriend of Catherine Trammel (Sharon Stone), named Dr. Elisabeth Garner, that now works as a doctor in the police. And that is a great « abnormality » and contradiction in the movie. A totally intriguing point for the plot. In fact, I would claim that this female figure is the main femme fatale of the movie.

She used to be obsessed with her former lover and classmate in college and after having restricted orders against her, she decided to change her name. So Lisa Hoberman, now became someone else. New present for a secret past. The first time that we can understand her character as a femme fatale is when the detective Nick Curran investigates her past. He figures out that her ex husband had also died in unclear circumstances some years ago. That ' s maybe the first attempt of the screenplay to focus on her as a femme fatale. Her dark past is one of the main “ stigmas ” that betray her as a lethal woman.

He is absolutely revealed of her deadly character when she frames and eventually kills “cold blood ” a colleague of hers, when he starts to dig up her past. But catharsis is inevitable and she is being killed by her ex lover and main hero of the movie performed by Michael Douglas. Some of her main quotes in the movie, while trying to persuade him that Catherine Trammel is a murderer, show her remorseless way of acting. But I will focus on “She seduces people, she manipulates people. ” , “ she ' s evil, she ' s brilliant ” , which are her lines to Michael Douglas when he asks her about the mysterious stories of her past and her relation with the main suspect. Her ruthless way of attempting to put the blame on Catherine Trammel by totally distorting their past together in the college is once again one of a femme fatale ' s “ hidden ” cards to win this battle of survival.

… or Maybe even a Third One?

The paradox in “ Basic Instinct 1 ” is that one can find even a third femme fatale in the movie. That is the character of Roxy( performed by Leilani Sarelle), Catherine ' s Trammel lesbian lover. Even if her part in the movie is small, you can see that she acts as a genuine femme fatale. She kills herself on an accident while trying to kill detective Nick Curran because he stole her lover. Ruthless and deadly, even though a bit clumsy and not a winner in the game of survival or reign. I would call her a femme fatale , or better a potential one, since she really walks a path of mystery and darkness. She attempts to murder the man that is on her way, even though not successfully. Her only weakness is that she lets her jealousy reign her mind and that is what leads her to her death. She has all the potential to became a great femme fatale but maybe three deadly figures would be too much, at least for one movie.

Femme Fatales Fulfill the dream?

The main thing in the femme fatales of the “ Basic Instinct 1 ” is that even though the society was ready for them, still there is no much room for all of them. One can conquer the story but two are more than enough. The basic characteristic of the femme fatale of the new age is that she ultimately represents the modern human being. Selfish, cruel, ruthless, aggressive. A true hunter. Never cares about anyone or anything. Willing to do what it takes in order to succeed. All these figures are those that represent the contemporary way of acting. In a society where we are tough to step on others in order to achieve our goals, to do anything it takes- no matter how irrational or wrong this is- the stereotype of femme fatale is maybe the only “ normal ” character. She is the ultimate representation of contemporary ' s needs for success and survival. It may sound weird- even stupid- and maybe some will stand up and scream that that ' s not the way people are taught to act today but at least that ' s what most people try to do. Money, personal success, drugs, mystery and unscrupulous methods are what a femme fatale is made of and nowadays, society “ offers ” her all the opportunities to do so.

I would dare to claim that maybe that ' s one of the main reasons that the stereotype of femme fatale is so “ wanted ” up until today. No one wants to be a looser. No one wants to be the victim and definitely no one wants to be seen as the background character of a hero's life. We all want for ourselves to be dominants, masters of the game and femme fatale is the master.

Our society today calls for total commitment to ourselves. Ultimate devotion to goals of wealth, luxury and power. In a world where people are counted as figures, on how much they cost or not, femme fatale will survive. And that ' s because she knows how to get anything she wants to. That ' s why contemporary world is the revenge of this specific stereotype. She can exist in cinema- let alone in everyday life- as a totally desirable character, no matter how lethal she may be. That intriguing characteristic is the paradox and, simultaneously, the explanation of the stereotype of femme fatale. And that ' s probably why people love and hate her so much … .

In addition, the last period of film noir movies, and especially the nineties , totally permitted to the femme fatale stereotype to go in front, to move to the fore of the story. Strong women do exist in reality but in cinema they are not that fascinating if they don ' t have an exciting but always mysterious past.

Masculine Side

Living in a man ' s world it was inexplicable for them to be something less than a woman. It's not socially racial, but more of a human reaction when loosing power. In the same sense, a man could never just admit that he is the victim and he can surrender to a woman, even if she is a femme fatale. The male protagonist is provoked to solve the mystery that she carries and that ' s exactly why he lets himself been allured so easily. Men are supposed to be the strong sex and when this power is being threatened, they have to find a way to get it back. The only way is to follow the femme fatale and reveal her. In fact the only way is to “ read ” her, to be able to make her " easy " to be understood, simple just like other women.

The paradox in the man ' s case is that even though they love the mystery a femme fatale bares, still under no circumstances can they tolerate it, at least consciously. They want to be able to “ solve ” this game, that they play, but in the same time they are in a constant battle inside them. When the evil and the good “ crush ” onto each other , it ' s the time when the femme fatale appears.

But the question is why do real men feel so weak though ready to enslave this untouchable dream of femme fatale? My though is that men love power and feel really victimised when they realize that they can just not have it all. The femme fatale is in fact the enemy, and the man ' s nature calls for constant winning. Being unable to be caught and in a way “untouchable ” makes men want her more.

To sum up, maybe it ' s a goal that men need to have in order to move on. My thought is like, if they succeed in captivating her soul that would automatically mean the end of an era. And if they did that, what would be the next to captivate? On the thought that a femme fatale - even though for sure would lead them to a disastrous path- is the ultimate “genre ” of feminine. It may sound peculiar but the utopia of enslaving a woman that was “made ” never to be enslaved for, is men ' s untouchable dream of always wondering “what if? ” . Subconsciously they would never want to make her theirs just because they would be afraid of the consequence that after a femme fatale there is nothing. To cut a long way short, it ' s like a vicious circle with no beginning and no end. Or even though as an excuse to always look for something. I would compare it with those who always travel around in a constant hunting of gold, even though they know that the possibility to find it is minor. They just need a new challenge, and a femme fatale is always a challenge.

Feminine Side

The stereotype of femme fatale has been more than a challenge though. The minute men think about femme fatales as a “ potential ” trophy of their strangle to gain them, the exact same time all the non- femme fatales wants to became one of those.

By the women emancipation and, especially, sexual and social liberation, the so- called “weak sex ” stormed into a world that was ready for them to just take it. The stereotype of femme fatale bears all these contradictive feelings. Femme fatales are not afraid of going and get what they want, and that " s the feeling that contemporary women curve for. They want this power, or even better they need it. Maybe it " s relics from the past, back at eras when men used to have the power and now women need to feel that they can do it on their own. But in a weird way. The most possible, at least for me, thing is that the femme fatale represents all these women who never had the guts or the methods, or even the chance, to make their lives better, so this mysterious, deadly, almost sadistic woman embodies their frustrated hopes and dreams.

In addition, women have a love and hate relationship with the femme fatale figure, and that happens mainly out of jealousy. I strongly believe, that the game of power can ' t be taught. Instead you are born with it. As a result, a femme fatale with all this uncontrollable and turbulent character fulfils every woman ' s dream of winning the game of the sexes. Though in the same time women feel repulsive against femme fatales probably because they just can act like them. Even though femme fatales lead a self destructive life, women would wish to have at least a moment of real power rather than a whole life of oppression.

Epilogue

Ancient Greeks used to say that the three most destructive, yet most fascinating “elements” were “ fire, woman and sea ” . This phrase integrates the femme fatale stereotype in the film noir movies. They are dangerous and destructive yet inconsiderable to exist without them.

Women ' s liberation of men ' s “ chains ” , in a way, was in fact the first step for women to prove mostly to themselves that they can do it on their own. But still, that counted only for the real world. Cinema may be a mirror of life but still it needs something more exciting to gain and sustain its glory. The dark atmosphere of film noir needed a powerful, fearless and vicious feminine figure to compete against the stereotype of the always settling housewife. And not only that. It needed a figure that would be more vicious than a man too. An unbeatable component that would last till the end.

The paradox with the femme fatale figure is that even if in most of the films- at least in the ones of the first and the second period that I describe in that essay- it gets what it deserves with their death, still it remains a main heroin. Even death is not enough to depreciate her power. And this occurs mostly because death is like the ultimate solution for the story. Or maybe is the only solution for the story in film noir movies. It ' s awkward to think about it but a femme fatale never looses. She can only , in a way loose, if she dies, which means that she can practically do nothing. And that ' s a battle she wins. The only way to “ get rid ” of her power is to kill her. Catharsis is only done by her death, since human strength just can ' t beat her.

Out of the … Present

The stereotype of femme fatale in the first period of film noir was more than daring in the period of the 40s. In the movie “ Out of the past ” there are elements that proclaim the revolution of the this feminine stereotype. Back then though it was too premature for a figure like that to stand on its own in a period where women were still under men ' s shadow. The only method for this figure to exist was through comparison with the “ good”woman ' s figure. The one of the innocent, prudent and always loyal housewife. In the first period, and specifically speaking in the “ Out of the past ” movie, this comparison is more than crystal clear. I pinpointed before the basic measures that the screenplay uses in order to make the femme fatale “ bearable ” in the story.

But as the whole world was changing, cinema was following all these “ cosmic ” alterations. In the 60s and mostly 70s, the world was facing a series of new things. From wars, to economic crisis, and from sexual revolution to women ' s emancipation. It ' s natural that the interests in cinema where about to change too. Though in these specific eras the stereotype of femme fatale is not so predominant, there are still movies that she leads a vital role. The main reason for that is that feminism called for women ' s need to be treated as equal and not be treated as dark personas who needed to use seductive and alluring method in order to succeed what they wanted to. Women were at the first line and a femme fatale is now competing against man without being in a need to use the “ good feminine figure ” to exist. Now they were equal to men and a femme fatale could compete them face to face, still by using her sexuality but not as an insinuation any more.

With all this history behind her the femme fatale of the 80s, and especially nowadays, was ready to reign in the cinema of film noir. No more hiding, no more sneaking. Totally independent, liberal and fearless, the new femme fatale exposes herself and almost makes her male partner a foul out of himself. Or even better, she obviously, and with no regrets or shame, treats him like her own personal toy. But that was what she was always doing. Manipulating and using, almost abusing, him. Since, the main difference now is that she clearly does not care if the male acknowledges it or not. She jut provokes him openly making him feel meaningless, small and powerless.

To cut a long way short, the femme fatale figure is a stereotype of the unfulfilled and that 's why I think it managed not only to survive throughout the years but even triumph her own presence in the world of cinema. Cinema is a fairytale of believable or not stories which curves for the unknown and the unbeatable heroes. Under these circumstances the sadistic figure of femme fatale is an anti-heroin that earned her own reign in the underworld and dark road of film noir movies. The only mystification is “ if contemporary society fulfils the goals of the femme fatale figure does this mean that she is done? And if so, what ' s next?”.

In an important essay James Demico wrote that the typical noir narrative involves:

A man whose experience of life has left him sanguine and bitter [and who] meets a not-innocent woman of similar outlook to whom he is sexually and fatally attracted. Through this attraction, either because the woman induces him to it or because it is the natural result of their relationship, the man comes to cheat, attempt to murder or actually murder a second man to whom the woman is unhappily or unwillingly attached (generally he is her husband or lover), an act which brings about the sometimes metaphoric but usually literal destruction of the woman, the man to whom she is attached and frequently the protagonist himself.

The narrative of a typical A-noir, Double Indemnity, follows this outline very closely: Walter Neff is seduced by Phyllis Dietrichson and persuaded to kill her husband. After the murder their relationship deteriorates, culminating in a mutual shooting. Detour passes all these signposts - the disillusioned protagonist (Al), the femme fatale (Vera), the dead man to whom she is attached (Haskell). But there are several important differences which make Detour's narrative even more tragic and deplorable. Firstly, the man in Vera's past is not her husband but a driver who stopped for her while she was hitchhiking, and whose aggressive attempts at seduction forced her to retaliate by scarring his hand. He is therefore far from being the wronged husband of Double Indemnity.

Haskell's death is accidental. This might suggest that it is free of the dark overtones of Double Indemnity. Noirceur, however, resumes its dominance by the fact that the event still initiates Al's destruction, despite his innocence. While Neff was persuaded to commit murder, and therefore deserved his end, Al is simply an honest man who became involved by chance and hasn't yet met Vera. The blame for his downfall cannot therefore reside with an immoral woman who is punished at the conclusion of the narrative with death, thereby ensuring that justice is done. In Detour there is no justice, only luck ('Sure, all bad!'). It is the notion that Al is a victim of cruel fate rather than a cruel protagonist that gives Detour its dark resonance. Clearly, the "mysterious force" Al feverishly warns us of is more formidable than the machinations of any single character.

In many ways this narrative had been dictated by economic factors, and much of Detour's noirceur can be seen to derive from budgetary considerations. Paul Kerr has noted that "B units [were] compelled to carve our distinctive and identifiable styles for themselves in order to differentiate their product." This led to Detour becoming overtly noir in order to stand out among top-billing A-features. It achieved this to such an extent that Hossein Amini has written, "even the label film noir doesn"t do justice to the sheer blackness that pervades its story.'

Detour employs only three sets, plus some location shooting and stock footage. It is feasible that Martin Goldsmith may have based his script around scenarios that induce an intense claustrophobia, since these would require minimal sets, props, costumes, and actors, and would not strain the budget. The result is several lengthy interior scenes such as that in the hotel room, in which only two characters feature. This scene's purpose is to depict Al's claustrophobic reaction to being imprisoned by Vera, an effect which Detour, with its paucity of production values, was ideally suited for. The cramped, impoverished set highlights Al and Vera's drastic situation as they eke out the money stolen from Haskell. Each character wears only one costume for the majority of the film, and Al in particular becomes increasingly dishevelled. This emphasises their sense of being destitute and on the run. Kim Newman has written, "this is a film whose literal poverty seeps into every frame, suggesting the nightmare of a main character whose very life is low budget."

As well as being cheaper, low-key lighting in many scenes invests them with the fatalistic, restless mood characteristic of both A and B noirs. But Detour takes the technique to extremes. When Al is informed by his girlfriend, Sue, that she is leaving him for Hollywood, the scene is conducted in an oppressive black welter of darkness and fog. The sifting clouds of blackness seem to forebode of Al's imminent destruction, obscuring him as Sue walks away and leaving him groping about for answers. The severance of their relationship, and Al's dark fate, is emphasised when the light above the nightclub door is extinguished as they leave.

This scene appears to have been filmed at night, with only enough lighting to pick out the actors. B-movies frequently had short shooting schedules since equipment was often rented. For Detour, famously shot in six days, night-shooting would have been obligatory. Genuine "night-for-night" shooting gave a deeper blackness than the twilight-shooting used in A-features (e.g. Marriott's murder in Murder, My Sweet). Detour's paucity can thus be understood as creating an effect that is much more congruent with the noir spirit than are the conventions of A-feature production.

While it is more archetypally noir, this scene is scarcely realistic, the fog seeming rather theatrical. But instead of detracting from the scene's effectiveness, the highly stylised setting enhances it. It is conducive to a more "artistic" mode of filmmaking than conventional Hollywood is generally perceived to be. The overt theatricality of these scenes has been interpreted in the distorted light of German Expressionism. Detour's director, Edgar G. Ulmer, was an assistant to Expressionist auteurs Murnau and Lang, and his films (along with noir in general) show their influence in the use of chiaroscuro and oblique lines. Some commentators have even suggested that low budgets encouraged B-units to "compensate with complicated plots and convoluted atmosphere. Realist denotation would have thus been de-emphasised in favour of expressionist connotation." This argument lends credibility to the suggestion Goldsmith's script deliberately focussed on situations that a low budget would not hinder. The use of Al's confessional monologue triggers highly subjective flashbacks with a paranoid, hallucinatory feel. Certain cheaply executed effects, such as the giant cardboard coffee cup and the constrictive night of a back-projection machine, evoke his increasing delirium, giving a dark and harassed quality to the film. At one point Al announces that we probably don't believe his story. This generates a sense that he is not a dependable and objective surrogate for the audience in the way that Philip Marlowe is. The A-feature hero remains untarnished by his experiences, while Al's are more corrupting and hopeless. His monologue is not a rational account of events delivered to the police (as in Murder, My Sweet) but a confession blurred by self-pity and elaboration. The lack of a lucid, shared viewpoint between audience and protagonist contributes to Detour'snoirceur by negating any faith in the hero or his explanation. Al's remark generates the suspicion that every flashback (i.e. most of the film) could be a lie. profound

These features perhaps verify the view that "as a “poverty row quickie,” Detour is a film that does not need to affirm conventional values and can embrace the subversive implications of film noir more completely than many more obviously distinguished productions." Central to this is a rebuke of the "American dream" that is unrivalled by the noirceur of typical A-features. Double Indemnity (and Scarface and Public Enemy) exhibits a private enterprise ethos that solicits audience sympathy for the criminals. These A-features seem to be dramatised accounts of the chase for the illusive notion of the American dream. They are escapist entertainment, and their depiction of a character prepared to do anything in order to succeed causes them to exude the same romantically tragic fascination of Gatsby's green light. Of course, they also imposed a conventional "crime-doesn"t-pay' death-scene as a moral condemnation of the criminal's activities. Detour has no such moral closure: Al's arrest, rather than death, is shrouded in ambiguity and redolent with the fear of an uncertain fate. Furthermore, Al has no similar urge to succeed. From the very beginning he demonstrates a fatalistic and cynical outlook as well as signs of mental instability: observe his crazed interpretation of a Brahm's waltz at the piano. Therefore, even before he has become embroiled in the noir scenario he has rejected the American dream and been beaten into submission by the overwhelming harshness of the world. This is manifested in his scorn for things normally indicative to the American dream: his incomprehension of Sue's desire for fame; his abhorrence of money ('What was it? A piece of paper crawling with germs.') and his use of baseball metaphors to lament the state of the world, baseball usually being associated with aspiration.

An important aspect of Detour, and one without which no film noir would be complete, is the presence of the femme fatale. Vera fulfils this role, but her character differs significantly from the traditional fatal woman of A-features such as Murder, My Sweet and The Maltese Falcon. One reason for this is a resurgence of the economic determinism already discussed. Vera is just as destitute as Al, a detail that may have been written into the script so that her costume would not look out of place. She has been described as a "skid row femme fatale," and, as well as being cheaper, this is somehow more realistic and less romantic than the glamorous sirens of fashion-conscious A-features. Accordingly, Vera inverts the traditional femme fatale role.

The classic A-feature (e.g. Murder, My Sweet) revolves around a hero whose attention is divided between a plain, brunette "good girl" (Anne Riodan) and a glamorous blonde femme fatale. Detour, in contrast features a good girl who is a blonde and glamorous singer and who the hero loves. The femme fatale is a "good girl gone wrong" whom he describes as possessing, "a beauty almost homely, its so real." This reverses the typical situation: Vera's character, founded on the "good girl" stereotype but exhibiting the behaviour of the femme fatale, implies that all women pose a threat to men and male dominance.

The revelation of the femme fatale's moral turpitude is also inverted. Taking Murder, My Sweet's Mrs. Grayle as archetypal, the femme fatale's usual method of subjecting the hero to her will is to seduce and flatter him until a relationship is formed on the basis of sexual addition and misplaced trust. It is only later the she is glimpsed in her true light as manipulative and sadistic. Vera is quite different. She is immediately and openly hostile to Al and never relents, never believes his innocence. This disparity with A-features makes Vera seem like a harsh dose of reality in contrast to a romanticised stock-character. At least Phyllis Dietrichson's actions were intended to improve her future, and may be aligned with optimistic concepts of the American dream and individual enterprise. Vera has no future - she is dying of a fatal illness - and her imprisoning of Al is motivated by a more vindictive spirit, a sadistic impulse. She has nothing to gain but doesn't want to suffer alone.

All films noirs can be seen to dramatise male post-war anxiety about women assuming a more dominant position in society. The femme fatale embodies this concept, while heroes mirror the dismay felt by veterans returning home to find women in an alarming position of authority. Detour depicts this anxiety in extremis. Unlike the A-feature hero (Spade and Marlowe) Al's identity is not merely threatened by the femme fatale and finally wrested from her clutches (as in The Maltese Falcon). Al literally loses his identity, shedding it to take temporary refuge in Haskell's. This is symbolised by exchanging his clothes for Haskell's, but results in Al's arrest because he has also acquired his past sins, giving a dark, haunted tone to his impersonation.

Al is conspicuously less heroic than his A-feature counterparts Spade and Marlowe, both of whom are struggling for the eventual triumph of justice. Their actions are motivated by a hope for a better society; Al has no such enthusiasm. This is evident in his dismissal of Sue's hopes he will someday play at Carnegie Hall and his incessant self-pitying narration. Detour has no hero, the mood is one of constant despair, evoking a world in which there is nothing the individual can do since it "will outlast and negate even his best efforts."

In conclusion, though elements of darkness pervade all films noirs, whether A or B- features, Detour exhibits an unprecedented facility for exploiting its low budget to darkening effect. The result is a darker film which is more in tune with the noir spirit, and which is free to present subversive values in accordance with a contemporary trend felt by many in the wake of World War Two, and identified by Paul Schrader: "audiences and artists were now eager to take a less optimistic view of things". Central to this is Vera, who inverts a traditional film noir concept to create a viciously darker femme fatale. Detour's narrative structure adapts that of the typical film noir to allow a near-psychotic narrator to imbue each event with a hallucinatory and sordid noirceur.

A woman loves her daughter and would do anything to please her. She starts her own business and she eventually marries a man she doesn't love when her daughter wants a better life. Someone ends up being murdered, but who did it? Mildred Pierce is a classic murder mystery with a twist ending.

Thoughts on the movie

I liked the fact that this was a mystery. As I've mentioned in previous articles, I love mysteries. This one was a good one in my opinion. Even though I saw the twist of the murder coming in the beginning, I liked how the writers made it possible for the killer to be anyone. Other movies I've seen made it possible for me to figure out what was going to happen. It helps how I suspected almost everyone in the movie. LOL!

I enjoyed the acting in this movie. I thought that Joan Crawford did a good job as Mildred Pierce. I do however think that it wasn't believable that she turned into a weakling because of her daughter Veda. Veda didn't really look that threatening that Mildred couldn't handle her. Speaking of Veda, I thought she did a good job too. I have never seen any of Ann Blyth's work before, but I was really impressed by her acting. I thought the other actors and actresses did good jobs too.

Here are some questions I had about the movie

Did Burt (Mildred's first husband) have an affair

It's established that Mildred's husband was spending time with another woman. Mildred and Burt were having financial problems during their marriage. They fought over it. Burt tried to warn Mildred about the snooty way the kids (Veda and Kay) were acting. That made Mildred mad and she told him to go to his female friend. Mildred and Burt split up. It's never established whether or not Burt was having an affair. It seemed to me like they were still in love with each other even after they split up. He seemed like he was jealous of her moving on wit Monty (Mildred's new husband).

Why was Veda obsessed with money

Throughout the movie, Veda is obsessed with money. The rest of the family wasn't like that so why did she act like that? There was a point in the movie where she expected her mother to marry a man she didn't love in order to live the rich life. Did the writers want Veda to come off snobby or was she just a person who wanted a better life?

Everyone forgot about Kay

While Mildred was away with Monty, her daughter Kay got sick. When she came home, Burt told her that Kay was sick. Kay had pneumonia. Luckily Mildred was able to see Kay and say goodbye before she died.

Once Kay is gone, she is never mentioned again. There isn't even a funeral for Kay. I assumed that Mildred, as well as her family, would have mentioned her again. Kay's family seemed to really love her while she was alive so I was surprised that no one mentions her. I think that Mildred would have named the restaurant after Kay. It would have been a good way to keep her memory alive.

Why would Mildred put up with Veda

Veda is a horrible person in the movie. You can see early signs of this when she reacts to a dress Mildred bought for her. Veda complained to Kay about the dress not being stylish enough for her. Mildred overhears this and walks away. At the time Mildred bought the dress for her, she was going through financial problems. Despite that, she wanted to make Veda happy. Veda wasn't even grateful that Mildred went to the trouble of spending money on her.

Once Mildred and Burt broke up, she had to support her kids. Mildred ended up getting a waitressing job. Veda didn't like this. She seemed embarrassed that her mother was a waitress. She guilted Mildred into opening up a restaurant sooner than she wanted.

Fast forward a few years and Veda snuck off and got married. She didn't even have the decency to invite her mother to her wedding. Mildred had to just find out about it. When Veda's marriage didn't work out, she expected her mother to bail her out of it. Veda used a manipulation tactic to get out of the marriage and get money out of it. I won't spoil it for you. When Mildred found out about what Veda did to trick her husband, they got into a fight. Veda confessed that she wanted to get away from her and have a better life than the one she provided for her. Veda also had the gall to slap Mildred during their argument. Needless to say, Mildred kicked her out of the house.

Mildred ended up missing Veda and she wanted her to come back home. Veda gave her a hard time because she didn't want to live the life that Mildred was living. To get Veda to come back, Mildred married Monty. They dated briefly when she bought her restaurant from him. They broke up because he was a slacker and he was spending too much time with Veda. Anyway, Mildred wanted to buy the house that Monty was staying in and he let her. She also wanted Monty to marry her even though she didn't love him. Once Mildred got the house and the husband, Veda finally went home. Veda does another cruel thing to Mildred that I won't spoil. I will tell you that it is important to the murder mystery.

I think Mildred must have had a lot of patience to put up with Veda's horrible behavior. Her behavior reminds me of a character named Sarah Jane from the movie Imitation of Life. She treated her mother badly and she's ashamed of her mother's background. That is how Veda is too.

The twist ending

As I mentioned earlier, the movie has a pretty good twist ending. After Veda's birthday party was over, Monty was killed. The identity of the killer is revealed in a flashback at the end of the movie. All of the suspects have motives for killing him.