One of the enjoyable discussions at the recent Condor SF convention was about noir on television and naturally the topic shifted to film noir in general. An important aspect to any discussion about noir films is that the definition is applied to the classics retroactively. While the term was first coined in 1946 it wasn’t until the 1970s, well after the classic period of noir cinema, that the notion gained general acceptance. That means when the filmmakers were making movies like Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, or Asphalt Jungle they were not setting out to make film noir. This lack of an accepted definition means that one of the hotly contested areas of discussion is what is noir anyway?

Usually this breaks down into two major camps, those who advocate style and those of emphasize content.

The style adherents maintain that it is the general mood, elements, and cinematography that best defines film noir, with the most strict supports even advocating that it simply is not possible to have a true noir that is in color.

For those support the content arguments, of which I count myself, it is the story details and for me the nature of the characters that best define the genre. While the impressive and German Expressionism inspired photography of Double Indemnity is perfect for the mood of that film it is the appetite for money and sex and how that appetite destroys the characters that makes it a noir in my opinion. It is more than the use of sharp shadows and stark contrasts that make a property truly a noir.

In my opinion Polanski’s Chinatown is very much a noir as is L.A. Confidential, even though both are in color and make use of brilliant sunny Southern California settings to contrast the corruption and decay hiding under the surface. I would also count Blue Velvet as an example of the genre while the style remains very much Lynch’s own and not a homage to the classic noirs.

Perhaps, the best argument against a stylistic definition is with one of my favorite films, Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid. From the comedic minds of Carl Reiner and Steve Martin the movies is a farcical parody of the genre. Shot is black-and-white with all the deep shadows and sharp contrasts Dead Men apes the style perfectly. It has it because much of the film utilizes clips from classic noirs and with careful staging and editing presents these scenes as all taking place within their own movie. It is a project that could only be created by people who love this particular genre and it is fiercely funny.

But is it noir?

I would argue it is not, though it perfectly captures the style of a noir the content, parody and farce, place it far afield from those dark and cynical stories. So to me if you have a film that captures the style but cannot be considered a film noir then the definition must be more than style, it must include content.