Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography

Arthur, Paul. “L.A. Confidential”. Review of L.A. Confidential.  Apr 98, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p.41.   Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

In Arthur’s article of L.A. Confidential He first describes it as “dead serious about its historical backdrop, its relation to the generic lineage of noir storytelling.” He goes into detail about the characters and the actors who portray them, “the central characters are introduced in separate sequences offering three alternative versions of how cops make their way through a morass of graft, department infighting, occupational sadism, and media scrutiny.” He goes on to describes each character and the role in which each actor takes that character. It is a fine evaluation of what the movie is about.

Horsley, Lee. “The Development of Post-war Literary and Cinematic Noir”.  Film Noir. Crime     Culture Films. 30 Mar 2011. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr 2011.

Lee Horsley’s article tells how and when noir got started. How it started out with Gallimard translating British and American novels in the Serie Noire. He talks about the different types of figures that are a part of noir and what were some of the influences that made them what they are. It is an article that basically describes what noir is. It’s about the elements that make up noir from the protagonist to the detective to the femme fatale. It is a good example on the definition of noir.

Luhr, William. “BORDER CROSSINGS IN Out of the Past and LA Confidential”.  Bilingual     Review. Sep - Dec 1998, Vol.23 Issue 3, p.230-236. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.         Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

William Luhr introduces us to what he says is “the most original and enduring American film style, (film noir) which first appeared in the early 1940’s, that has undergone many permutation, and remains a strong presence in contemporary film. The essay examines border relations in two films from that tradition.” They are Out of the Past (1947) and LA Confidential (1997). Both films are presented through the views of the white male in the US and how both are going through erosions in their assumed cultural privilege. It shows how “other ways and peoples” have changed in American film and culture between the 1940’s and the 1990’s.

Phillips, Gene D. “Creatures of Darkness”. Lexington, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky.     2000. Print.

This section of the book talks about how LA Confidential is the best example of neo-noir in the 1990’s. Phillips talks about how it is compared to Chandler’s work. He links the characters in LA Confidential to those in Chandler’s novels.

Shefrin, Elana.  “Le Noir et le Blanc: Hybrid Myths in Devil in a Blue Dress and L. A.      Confidential.”  Literature Film Quarterly. 2005, Vol. 33 Issue 3, p172-181. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

The two movies in this article are “Devil in a Blue Dress (1995) and LA Confidential (1997) are contemporaneous Hollywood films that bear many similarities in time and space. Each has conceptualized the ethnographic perspective within a racially based sociohistorical mythos of post-World War II Los Angeles.” It compares the differences and similarities between the two histories “instantiated within the narration boundaries of the three quintessential American markers: the city of Los Angeles, the detective persona, and the femme fatale.”

L.A. Confidential research paper proposal

LA Confidential

The movie “A Confidential” is a wonderful example of noir. It has the classic aura of mystery with a shot of suspense. It has the writer Sid doing the classic voice over telling the story from the second person point of view. It has the detective (actually 2) and the femme fatale. In this story the protagonist is our femme fatale Lynn Bracken who works as a call girl, yet has goodness in her. There is the detective Bud White who is a clean cop albeit the fact that he uses violence to get the information he needs to wrap up his cases. Then there’s also the newly promoted Ed Exley. Ed strives to do the right thing when the other cops want him not to. The movie is focused in old Hollywood where we see a lot of Hollywood and Vine and there is the quality of the dark streets and crime but done in such a way as to make it neo noir. There is lightness in the lighting of the sets that isn’t conducive to classic noir. There seems to be more levity to the movie than what noir is. The music of noir is there as well as the tone of language you would expect to find. The movie focuses on the corruption of the LAPD and the things the officers to do to make it so. Organized crime plays a huge part in the movie which brings us back to where classic noir originated. It doesn’t start out in the clear way “Double Indemnity “did where you knew who the protagonist was and who wasn’t. It took a ways in the movie in order to discover which part was which, and that alone brought a sense of excitement to the movie. I didn’t think I was going to like the movie, but when all was said and done it was a terrific movie.

Sources

Arthur, Paul. “L.A. Confidential”. Review of L.A. Confidential.  Apr 98, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p.41.   Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

Luhr, William. “BORDER CROSSINGS IN Out of the Past and LA Confidential”.  Bilingual     Review. Sep - Dec 1998, Vol.23 Issue 3, p.230-236. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO.         Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

Phillips, Gene D. “Creatures of Darkness: Raymond Chandler, detective fiction, and film noir”    Lexington, Ky. The University of Kentucky. 2000. Print.

Rider, Van. “Film Noir”. Crime Culture Films. 30 Mar. 2011. Academic Search Premier.   EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

Shefrin, Elena. “Le Noir et le Blanc: Hybrid Myths in Devil in a Blue Dress and L.A.        Confidential”. Literature Film Quarterly, 2005, Vol. 33, Issue 3, p.172-181, 10p.        Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Apr. 2011.

To be or not to be?

The two stories I chose were “The Girl Who Kissed Barnaby Jones” and “Kinship”. The first one seemed more noir than the second in the way that Cherie called Tate to come over to help her with something. She tried to get him to do something he wasn’t comfortable with thereby causing him to have to choose between right and wrong. It starts on page 295, when Cherie starts telling Tate that he will help her dispose of the man’s body. He even goes so far as to shoot at him for not wanting to help her. In this way I feel that this story has more if the noir feel. The second story, and did anyone notice that there were no quotation marks at all in the entire story? What is that all about?  I felt this story didn’t live up to noir because there wasn’t the femme fatale/protagonist play going on. This story felt like it was one brother helping another. I didn’t at all have the choosing right or wrong element to it. But was more about the family loyalty thing. No one asked Tomas for help, he took it upon himself to avenge his cousins’ son. On page 308, Tomas gets the man that beat up Manny in his truck and then takes him to where Manny is so that he could pay him back. At the end when Manny couldn’t do it Tomas does it for him

Down and Out in LA

In the Kidnapper Bell, Jim wanted sex from his girlfriend (although he was married) so he spiked her beer. He gets dragged into something he had no part of and then played detective to find the sister. In City of Commerce, the guy is a gambler. He has a streak of good luck then bad luck. There doesn't seem to be anything the same about the two stories. But looking at the two men as the protagonists of the stories it would seem that both of them weren't that successful in their endeavors. They both start out thinking they were going to have a good time then something happens that turns that around. They both end up not looking so good. Although in the first story Jim did have choices to make and he made the wrong ones, in the second there weren't any choices to be made. They seemed to be made for him. The similarities I see are that both men are just two unlucky guys.

There's a difference in the meaning

The contrasts between the novel and the film are evident in that the film is able to show the qualities that make noir what it is. The novel hinders those effects because it’s hard to show shadows lets say through words. Those who are unfamiliar to noir wouldn’t be able to understand the elements that are in noir by just reading the book. They would have to see the movie in order to get it. In the book the ending is some far fetched to me. To murder and then to have Keyes send them off on a cruise isn’t the way these things happen. The film has a more believable ending. A price must be paid when a life is taken, not a reward given. Justice was served in a more appropriate way in the film. The significance of the man on crutches is an illustration of the main idea of the film. Mr. Dietrichson is on crutches when his murder takes place with Walter presenting himself on crutches in order to show that Dietrichson was on the train when in fact he wasn’t. It’s the one clue that was used to take the switch of who is who. With the name of the film being Double Indemnity and the insurance connection, it all symbolizes the meaning of the movie.

The Best of The Two

Out of the two stories I liked The Method the best. I thought it was much more expressive with its details and it had more suspense. The character of Richard is secretive because I never truly knew who he was. There was more speculation about how he knew McKay and what their relationship was about. Was he McKay’s lover or was he the elusive Anthony. As for Holly, I see her as the out of work actress but in reality I found her to be the “take what I can get” villain. At first sight she seems to be a nice Midwest kid, but as the story unfolds she turns into someone who is out for herself. She was smart not to trust Richard with the powder by giving it to the rats. But she poisons him before his true identity is revealed. She became cold and calculating after she figures it is poison and not some sedative she was going to give to McKay. I would have liked it better had I known who Richard was. Morroco Junction 90210 was too dry for me. There was no excitement to it. I found it boring

change of blog name

hey guys, I'm really noirdarkness. There's where you'll find my blogs. Noirdarkness1957 was an old one