February 25, 2009
30 S. Court St. Apt. 4
Athens, OH 45701
Clear Concepts
To Whom It May Concern:
I am interested in applying for the Chemical Engineering position available in the R&D Department. The company’s development and manufacturing of Photovoltaic equipment is an area to which I would be able to apply my strengths and previous experiences.
Please see my attached resume. I believe I would excel in the R&D department, as I already have research experience. By working on an undergraduate research project and planning my own experiments, I have learned critical multi-tasking, time-management and organizational skills. My research experience has also taught me to adapt quickly to new technology, and the importance of experimental design. Aside from my research experience, I have gained valuable team-working experiences through heat transfer process design projects and general engineering experimental design projects. My position as a peer mentor has also enhanced my communication and organizational skills.
Aside from my strong work ethic, my research experience along with my communication and team-working skills make me a well-suited candidate as a Chemical Engineer in the R&D Department. I will contact you again by March 10 to assure that you have received all my necessary application materials. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Courtney Abram
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Notes on B Film Noir
Paul Kerr made many interesting points on the origins of many qualities of film noir. Prior to reading this essay, I, like many critics that Kerr writes about, thought that film noir was mostly a result of the movie industry’s “unmediated reflection of an all-pervading postwar gloom” (p. 108) and of “an audience that no longer needed cheering up” (p. 108). Kerr goes on to attribute film noir qualities not to public attitude and ideology, but rather, to the current economics of the industry. This idea makes sense, as it is obvious that most noir films were low-budget. The darkness and scenery of these movies, along with the montages that commonly appear in them can all be attributed to the fact that the directors and producers did not have much money to work with.
Kerr also goes on to say that film noir is not characterized by content, character, setting and plot, but by style (p. 110). To be completely honest, I do not agree with that observation. Yes, noir films are characterized by contrast lighting and sharp camera angles, and certain qualities that make them obviously low-budget films. However, unlike Kerr, I would definitely characterize them not only by style, but also by the characters, content, setting and plot. In almost every film noir movie that I have analyzed, including Out of the Past, and Double Indemnity, I have mentioned how the characters and certain recurring themes in these movies are characteristic of noir films. The femme fatale appears in almost every noir film, and, as far as I know, these were the first films that such a character appeared in (although I could be wrong, I’m no film expert). Aside from other common character types, the idea that ‘one cannot escape his or her past’ also seems to come up over and over again in film noir. Therefore, I do not possible see how to characterize film noir only in terms of style. I realize that this was only a very small portion of the essay, but it was just something that stuck out to me.
Detour is obviously a B film noir. Kerr mentioned that due to money shortages, filming was often rushed and an entire movie was shot over the course of a week. Perhaps this was one of the issues that the director of Detour had to face, as I felt that the acting was often not believable in some of the scenes. For example, in the beginning of the movie, Al is describing his new romance with Sue as “the most beautiful thing,” yet as he does so, he still seems depressed. Then, when he speaks to Sue on the phone after receiving the ten dollars in the club, he seems overly-ecstatic (which I thought was fake and cheesy). Maybe if the actors had more time to film the movie, these scenes could have been performed better.
Detour definitely displayed one of the recurring themes of film noir. Although I have yet to see the end of the movie, I am almost certain that Al will never be able to escape his situation with Mr. Hasco. Al will never escape his past, and no matter where he goes, “fate will stick out a foot to trip him.”
Kerr also goes on to say that film noir is not characterized by content, character, setting and plot, but by style (p. 110). To be completely honest, I do not agree with that observation. Yes, noir films are characterized by contrast lighting and sharp camera angles, and certain qualities that make them obviously low-budget films. However, unlike Kerr, I would definitely characterize them not only by style, but also by the characters, content, setting and plot. In almost every film noir movie that I have analyzed, including Out of the Past, and Double Indemnity, I have mentioned how the characters and certain recurring themes in these movies are characteristic of noir films. The femme fatale appears in almost every noir film, and, as far as I know, these were the first films that such a character appeared in (although I could be wrong, I’m no film expert). Aside from other common character types, the idea that ‘one cannot escape his or her past’ also seems to come up over and over again in film noir. Therefore, I do not possible see how to characterize film noir only in terms of style. I realize that this was only a very small portion of the essay, but it was just something that stuck out to me.
Detour is obviously a B film noir. Kerr mentioned that due to money shortages, filming was often rushed and an entire movie was shot over the course of a week. Perhaps this was one of the issues that the director of Detour had to face, as I felt that the acting was often not believable in some of the scenes. For example, in the beginning of the movie, Al is describing his new romance with Sue as “the most beautiful thing,” yet as he does so, he still seems depressed. Then, when he speaks to Sue on the phone after receiving the ten dollars in the club, he seems overly-ecstatic (which I thought was fake and cheesy). Maybe if the actors had more time to film the movie, these scenes could have been performed better.
Detour definitely displayed one of the recurring themes of film noir. Although I have yet to see the end of the movie, I am almost certain that Al will never be able to escape his situation with Mr. Hasco. Al will never escape his past, and no matter where he goes, “fate will stick out a foot to trip him.”
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
"The Dilemma of the Dead Lady"- Not Pulp Fiction, but rather, Noir Fiction.
As far as the pulp stories we have read from The Black Lizard Big Book of Pulps, I think “The Dilemma of the Dead Lady” is the darkest story yet. In the foreword to the story, Woolrich is described as a “master of noir fiction” (p. 406) and based on this story, I would agree. I would definitely classify “The Dilemma of the Dead Lady” as noir fiction rather than pulp fiction; there is no “good guy” in this story, unlike in other pulp stories we have read, and it is full of darkness and suspense from beginning to end. No matter how evil the villains were in the other pulp stories, there were always a few characters with some moral standards. However, in “The Dilemma of the Dead Lady,” there are no moral characters at all. Woolrich succeeded in portraying Babe Sherman as a ruthless, evil villain (I would even go as far as to say he was so evil, he gave me the chills). Even Fowler, the supposed detective and only hope of a “good guy,” turns out to be a criminal. This story is more similar to a noir film, rather than a pulp story.
As I mentioned previously, Babe Sherman is one of the most evil characters I have yet to read about. What makes Babe’s character even more interesting is the fact that he seems to sense his own demise as he brings it on himself. His blatant actions portray him as evil; however, Woolrich adds little descriptions that make Babe seem cowardly and afraid as well. After Babe murdered the girl, he “wasn’t as cool as he looked, by any means, but he wasn’t as frightened as a decent man would have been, ether” (p. 410), and he even spoke to the dead body as “a defense mechanism, to show himself how unfrightened he was” (p. 410). It seems as though Babe is trying to convince himself from the very beginning that he is capable of following through with this horrible crime scheme, but really in fact, knows he will eventually be brought down. As the story continues, Babe feels his own death coming on. Every time some type of suspense occurs in the story, Babe feels as though he “died a little then inside himself” (p. 417). I think that these subtle insecurities contribute to the drama and suspense of the story.
I also found the ending of the story to be satisfying, not in the sense that “good prevailed over evil,” but in the sense that Babe receives the ultimate punishment. Once he discovers that Fowler was a criminal as well, it becomes obvious that Babe could have avoided any altercation with him, and been able to fully commit his evil crime, which is a torturous thought to him. Success would have been his had he been a bit more patient. However, like in almost all noir films and pulp stories, Babe, the criminal, got the punishment he deserved in the end.
Questions:
Did Fowler truly know Babe was hiding a body in his chest?
As I mentioned previously, Babe Sherman is one of the most evil characters I have yet to read about. What makes Babe’s character even more interesting is the fact that he seems to sense his own demise as he brings it on himself. His blatant actions portray him as evil; however, Woolrich adds little descriptions that make Babe seem cowardly and afraid as well. After Babe murdered the girl, he “wasn’t as cool as he looked, by any means, but he wasn’t as frightened as a decent man would have been, ether” (p. 410), and he even spoke to the dead body as “a defense mechanism, to show himself how unfrightened he was” (p. 410). It seems as though Babe is trying to convince himself from the very beginning that he is capable of following through with this horrible crime scheme, but really in fact, knows he will eventually be brought down. As the story continues, Babe feels his own death coming on. Every time some type of suspense occurs in the story, Babe feels as though he “died a little then inside himself” (p. 417). I think that these subtle insecurities contribute to the drama and suspense of the story.
I also found the ending of the story to be satisfying, not in the sense that “good prevailed over evil,” but in the sense that Babe receives the ultimate punishment. Once he discovers that Fowler was a criminal as well, it becomes obvious that Babe could have avoided any altercation with him, and been able to fully commit his evil crime, which is a torturous thought to him. Success would have been his had he been a bit more patient. However, like in almost all noir films and pulp stories, Babe, the criminal, got the punishment he deserved in the end.
Questions:
Did Fowler truly know Babe was hiding a body in his chest?
Sunday, February 1, 2009
The Femme Fatale "with the silver eyes" doesn't fool all the men...
For the most part, the characters in pulp stories and noir films are all very similar. Each film or story has a detective who is stoic and clever, and one of two types of female characters- the first of which is the “damsel in distress” who needs to be rescued, and the second is the “femme fatale” who uses her good looks to fool men and further some sort of criminal scheme. I found the characters in “The Girl with the Silver Eyes” to be typical of pulp fiction, although this story did differ from other pulp stories in the interactions of the detective and the femme fatale.
It seems as though in most pulp stories or noir films involving a femme fatale, this seductive female character manages to deceive (even if only very briefly) the detective or protagonist of the story. We have not read many pulp stories with a femme fatale, but in almost all of the noir films we have watched, this has been the case. However, in “The Girl with the Silver Eyes,” Jeanne Delano, the heartless femme fatale, does not manage to fool the unnamed detective. After attempting to convince him of her motives and intentions in the murder of Burke and the other men, she attempts to fool the detective by admitting that she has “played with” men in the past, but is now intrigued and attracted to the detectives seeming disinterest in her. As the reader, it would be easy to believe Jeanne’s story at first. Personally, I was not fooled by her excuses, as I expected her to be the same as every other femme fatale we have come across- lying and deceiving until the very end. However, I also expected the detective to believe her for a moment, and give in to her seduction. As I mentioned previously, all the detectives we have come across have fallen into this trap, and I expected this one to do the same. I found it surprising, but definitely satisfying, when the detective called her a liar and resisted her temptation.
After reading this story, I continue to notice a distinct difference between film noir and pulp stories, even though the characters seem to be very similar. It seems as though had “The Girl with the Silver Eyes” been a noir film originally, rather than a pulp story, the detective probably would have been deceived by the femme fatale’s lies, and probably destroyed in some way in the end (I realize that this is a somewhat broad generalization, but it just seems like the protagonists in film noir commonly manage to die in the end). However, because the story is a pulp story rather than a noir film, good prevails over evil and the detective is able to punish the femme fatale rather than be destroyed by her.
It seems as though in most pulp stories or noir films involving a femme fatale, this seductive female character manages to deceive (even if only very briefly) the detective or protagonist of the story. We have not read many pulp stories with a femme fatale, but in almost all of the noir films we have watched, this has been the case. However, in “The Girl with the Silver Eyes,” Jeanne Delano, the heartless femme fatale, does not manage to fool the unnamed detective. After attempting to convince him of her motives and intentions in the murder of Burke and the other men, she attempts to fool the detective by admitting that she has “played with” men in the past, but is now intrigued and attracted to the detectives seeming disinterest in her. As the reader, it would be easy to believe Jeanne’s story at first. Personally, I was not fooled by her excuses, as I expected her to be the same as every other femme fatale we have come across- lying and deceiving until the very end. However, I also expected the detective to believe her for a moment, and give in to her seduction. As I mentioned previously, all the detectives we have come across have fallen into this trap, and I expected this one to do the same. I found it surprising, but definitely satisfying, when the detective called her a liar and resisted her temptation.
After reading this story, I continue to notice a distinct difference between film noir and pulp stories, even though the characters seem to be very similar. It seems as though had “The Girl with the Silver Eyes” been a noir film originally, rather than a pulp story, the detective probably would have been deceived by the femme fatale’s lies, and probably destroyed in some way in the end (I realize that this is a somewhat broad generalization, but it just seems like the protagonists in film noir commonly manage to die in the end). However, because the story is a pulp story rather than a noir film, good prevails over evil and the detective is able to punish the femme fatale rather than be destroyed by her.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
"About Kid Deth" Brings a Sense of Resolution
“About Kid Deth” met most of the “requirements” of the mystery story, according to Raymond Chandler. One of the aspects I especially liked about the story was the fact that it “punished the criminal in one way or another, not necessarily by operation of the law” (p. 37).
There were multiple criminals in this story, including Gil Nasser, Charlie Gay, and Lou Rands, and all of them received some sort of punishment in the end. Most of them, however, did not recieve punishment directly from the law. According to Chandler, criminals do not need to receive punishment from the law, just so long as the detective of the story “resolves the consequences of the crime” (p. 37). In this story, Kid Deth was the detective. Sarlow, an actual police detective, was following this case as well, but he was not the one to figure out the actual roles of Charlie Gay and Gil Nasser, making Kid the true detective. Kid resolved the mystery of who tried to frame him and of who killed Bess.
Neither the law, nor Kid Deth, punished Nasser, Charlie Gay, or Lou Rands. They actually murdered each other, or were murdered by other gang members (with the exception of Nasser, who was shot by Sarlow because he was about to shoot Kid Deth). Because Kid did not have to kill anyone, he was able to remain a relatively innocent character. Although he was a criminal in the lawful sense of the word, he was not a criminal who deserved to be punished in this story, and it was for this reason that I believe he was able to go free in the end.
Kid Deth, serving as the detective of the story, resolved the mysteries in “About Kid Deth”. The criminals were punished, leaving a sense of resolution to the story.
There were multiple criminals in this story, including Gil Nasser, Charlie Gay, and Lou Rands, and all of them received some sort of punishment in the end. Most of them, however, did not recieve punishment directly from the law. According to Chandler, criminals do not need to receive punishment from the law, just so long as the detective of the story “resolves the consequences of the crime” (p. 37). In this story, Kid Deth was the detective. Sarlow, an actual police detective, was following this case as well, but he was not the one to figure out the actual roles of Charlie Gay and Gil Nasser, making Kid the true detective. Kid resolved the mystery of who tried to frame him and of who killed Bess.
Neither the law, nor Kid Deth, punished Nasser, Charlie Gay, or Lou Rands. They actually murdered each other, or were murdered by other gang members (with the exception of Nasser, who was shot by Sarlow because he was about to shoot Kid Deth). Because Kid did not have to kill anyone, he was able to remain a relatively innocent character. Although he was a criminal in the lawful sense of the word, he was not a criminal who deserved to be punished in this story, and it was for this reason that I believe he was able to go free in the end.
Kid Deth, serving as the detective of the story, resolved the mysteries in “About Kid Deth”. The criminals were punished, leaving a sense of resolution to the story.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Out of the Past
Out of the Past contained most, if not all of the film noir elements mentioned in “Twelve Notes on the Mystery Story” and “Some Visual Motifs of Film Noir.” The lighting and the contrast between night and day played a significant role in the film.
In the beginning of Out of the Past, the scenery is full of sunshine and beautiful views of the countryside, unlike many other noir films, where the opening scenes are dark and dreary (much like in The Killers). As the movie continues on and the dark secrets of Jeff’s past become known to the viewer and to Anne, the scenery becomes more typical of noir films- full of darkness and shadows. Throughout the film, the daytime seems to symbolize honesty and innocence. Anne, a harmless and innocent character, is mostly present only in daytime scenes. It is only when she is with Jeff, a character with a past full of murder and lies, that she is shown in the dark. Kathy is nearly a complete opposite of Anne. She is deceiving and selfish, and is mostly only present at night. This idea of daytime symbolizing honesty and goodness, and nighttime symbolizing corruption and crime is violated when Joe is murdered by the creek in the middle of the afternoon. However, one could argue that Joe, being a “bad guy” was about to murder Jeff, who could be considered a “good guy”, and Joe’s death was a way of “good” prevailing.
This film had many similarities to other noir films we have watched in class, and many the comparisons can be made between Jeff in Out of the Past and Walter Neff in Double Indemnity. In Double Indemnity, Walter Neff commits a murder that eventually leads to his own destruction. He commits a horrible crime and receives the punishment that he deserves. He cannot escape his past, which is also the case for Jeff. Both Walter and Jeff are deceived by the “femme fatale” character at some point, and this deception plays a role in their demise. However, unlike Walter, Jeff does not commit such a horrible crime. Yes, he witnesses the murder of his partner, but he never kills anyone. According to “Twelve Notes on the Mystery Story,” the criminal must be punished in the end. Kathy is shot and killed in the end of Out of the Past, which makes sense. It is surprising that Jeff should receive this same punishment, since he did not commit nearly as severe of a crime.
Questions:
Why did Jeff’s assistant tell Anne that Jeff was going to run off with Kathy?
What happened to Whit in the end?
In the beginning of Out of the Past, the scenery is full of sunshine and beautiful views of the countryside, unlike many other noir films, where the opening scenes are dark and dreary (much like in The Killers). As the movie continues on and the dark secrets of Jeff’s past become known to the viewer and to Anne, the scenery becomes more typical of noir films- full of darkness and shadows. Throughout the film, the daytime seems to symbolize honesty and innocence. Anne, a harmless and innocent character, is mostly present only in daytime scenes. It is only when she is with Jeff, a character with a past full of murder and lies, that she is shown in the dark. Kathy is nearly a complete opposite of Anne. She is deceiving and selfish, and is mostly only present at night. This idea of daytime symbolizing honesty and goodness, and nighttime symbolizing corruption and crime is violated when Joe is murdered by the creek in the middle of the afternoon. However, one could argue that Joe, being a “bad guy” was about to murder Jeff, who could be considered a “good guy”, and Joe’s death was a way of “good” prevailing.
This film had many similarities to other noir films we have watched in class, and many the comparisons can be made between Jeff in Out of the Past and Walter Neff in Double Indemnity. In Double Indemnity, Walter Neff commits a murder that eventually leads to his own destruction. He commits a horrible crime and receives the punishment that he deserves. He cannot escape his past, which is also the case for Jeff. Both Walter and Jeff are deceived by the “femme fatale” character at some point, and this deception plays a role in their demise. However, unlike Walter, Jeff does not commit such a horrible crime. Yes, he witnesses the murder of his partner, but he never kills anyone. According to “Twelve Notes on the Mystery Story,” the criminal must be punished in the end. Kathy is shot and killed in the end of Out of the Past, which makes sense. It is surprising that Jeff should receive this same punishment, since he did not commit nearly as severe of a crime.
Questions:
Why did Jeff’s assistant tell Anne that Jeff was going to run off with Kathy?
What happened to Whit in the end?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Double Indemnity: A Story of How No One Can Escape their Past...
Part 1
Paragraph 1: The author gives a catchy opening line to get the reader interested in learning more about the film.
Paragraph 2: The author provides a small amount of background on the director and on the genre of the film. He does this in order to give the reader an idea of what kind of movie they could end up watching, and what its general content is.
Paragraph 3: The author describes the plot in more detail. He does not give away the ending, but tells the reader the circumstances of the main characters in the film. He describes the sequence of events that get the story started.
Paragraph 4: The author writes why he enjoyed the film. He comments on the manner in which the script was written and the way this movie was directed which, in the author’s opinion, are responsible for the greatness of the movie. This gives the reader more insight as to the style of the movie.
Paragraph 5: The author comments on the performances of the actors in the movie, which obviously contribute to the overall quality of the film.
Paragraph 6: The author gives his conclusion to the review, and his final attempt to encourage readers to either go see the movie, or not go see the movie. In this case, the author thought the movie was worth watching, so he was urging readers to go watch it.
Part 2
Double Indemnity, starring Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck, is a psychological thriller full of lust, mystery, and of course, murder.
Director and screenwriter Billy Wilder, previously the director of lighter, more comical films such as Ball of Fire and The Major and the Minor, has completed yet another Oscar-worthy film, although Double Indemnity is certainly not a comedy. Rather than laughter and romance, this movie is full of murder and deception, and is told through the eyes of Walter Neff (played by MacMurray), an insurance salesman.
During the first scene of the movie, Walter Neff confesses that he has murdered the husband of Phyllis Dietrichson (Stanwyck). We then go back in time through Neff’s mind to when the murder scheme began. The attractive and seductive Phyllis Dietrichson manages to convince Neff to fraudulently sell her husband an insurance policy, and help her in his murder so she can collect on his insurance policy. Neff, being driven by his love for the beautiful seductress, willingly agrees and becomes sucked into this suspenseful web of murder and lies. The only person capable of discovering the true fate of Phyllis Dietrichson’s husband is Barton Keyes (played by Edward Robinson), the insurance claims manager at the company where Walter Neff works. Keyes is an insurance genius, and knows an infinite amount of insurance and death statistics. Not only has Keyes taught Neff everything that he knows about the insurance business, but he is also one of Neff’s best friends and mentor. While we know the truth about the murder committed by Neff, the authorities do not, and the thrill of the movie comes from watching Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson attempt to hide their actions and guilt as the mystery is unraveled.
While it comes as no surprise when Neff actually murders Mr. Dietrichson, the true drama lies within the gradual destruction of Neff and Phyllis as the authorities attempt to discover their secret. Not only does Neff have to hide the truth from the authorities, but he has to hide the truth from Keyes, which is difficult and emotionally painful. Walter Neff was sure of his motivations and love for Phyllis in the beginning, but as time passes after the murder of her husband, Neff’s mind begins to fight between its guilt and between its feelings for Phyllis. As Neff’s conscience gradually becomes beaten down by the guilt he is feeling, Phyllis appears unhindered by the murder of her husband. Her insensitivity and selfishness cause her to become even further tangled in a web of lies, and play a major role in her eventual demise. The dramatic relationship between Neff and Phyllis evolves, or rather, devolves, as Keyes and the authorities discover more about the murder, and as pieces of Phyllis’s past are revealed. The mental destruction of Neff and his relationship with Phyllis makes the movie a realistic reflection of human nature, in that once such a horrible crime is committed, it is nearly impossible for humans to continue on without consequence. In the end, it becomes obvious that no one can escape their past.
Fred MacMurray does an excellent job of playing a character that follows his heart rather than his mind, especially in the final scene, and Barbara Stanwyck is seductive and deceiving enough to persuade any man. Edward Robinson is smart, witty, and a voice of reason in a story where emotions are at their peak.
Although Billy Wilder has little experience directing suspense films, Double Indemnity is an emotional rollercoaster that is thrilling enough to keep anybody hooked from beginning to end.
Paragraph 1: The author gives a catchy opening line to get the reader interested in learning more about the film.
Paragraph 2: The author provides a small amount of background on the director and on the genre of the film. He does this in order to give the reader an idea of what kind of movie they could end up watching, and what its general content is.
Paragraph 3: The author describes the plot in more detail. He does not give away the ending, but tells the reader the circumstances of the main characters in the film. He describes the sequence of events that get the story started.
Paragraph 4: The author writes why he enjoyed the film. He comments on the manner in which the script was written and the way this movie was directed which, in the author’s opinion, are responsible for the greatness of the movie. This gives the reader more insight as to the style of the movie.
Paragraph 5: The author comments on the performances of the actors in the movie, which obviously contribute to the overall quality of the film.
Paragraph 6: The author gives his conclusion to the review, and his final attempt to encourage readers to either go see the movie, or not go see the movie. In this case, the author thought the movie was worth watching, so he was urging readers to go watch it.
Part 2
Double Indemnity, starring Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck, is a psychological thriller full of lust, mystery, and of course, murder.
Director and screenwriter Billy Wilder, previously the director of lighter, more comical films such as Ball of Fire and The Major and the Minor, has completed yet another Oscar-worthy film, although Double Indemnity is certainly not a comedy. Rather than laughter and romance, this movie is full of murder and deception, and is told through the eyes of Walter Neff (played by MacMurray), an insurance salesman.
During the first scene of the movie, Walter Neff confesses that he has murdered the husband of Phyllis Dietrichson (Stanwyck). We then go back in time through Neff’s mind to when the murder scheme began. The attractive and seductive Phyllis Dietrichson manages to convince Neff to fraudulently sell her husband an insurance policy, and help her in his murder so she can collect on his insurance policy. Neff, being driven by his love for the beautiful seductress, willingly agrees and becomes sucked into this suspenseful web of murder and lies. The only person capable of discovering the true fate of Phyllis Dietrichson’s husband is Barton Keyes (played by Edward Robinson), the insurance claims manager at the company where Walter Neff works. Keyes is an insurance genius, and knows an infinite amount of insurance and death statistics. Not only has Keyes taught Neff everything that he knows about the insurance business, but he is also one of Neff’s best friends and mentor. While we know the truth about the murder committed by Neff, the authorities do not, and the thrill of the movie comes from watching Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson attempt to hide their actions and guilt as the mystery is unraveled.
While it comes as no surprise when Neff actually murders Mr. Dietrichson, the true drama lies within the gradual destruction of Neff and Phyllis as the authorities attempt to discover their secret. Not only does Neff have to hide the truth from the authorities, but he has to hide the truth from Keyes, which is difficult and emotionally painful. Walter Neff was sure of his motivations and love for Phyllis in the beginning, but as time passes after the murder of her husband, Neff’s mind begins to fight between its guilt and between its feelings for Phyllis. As Neff’s conscience gradually becomes beaten down by the guilt he is feeling, Phyllis appears unhindered by the murder of her husband. Her insensitivity and selfishness cause her to become even further tangled in a web of lies, and play a major role in her eventual demise. The dramatic relationship between Neff and Phyllis evolves, or rather, devolves, as Keyes and the authorities discover more about the murder, and as pieces of Phyllis’s past are revealed. The mental destruction of Neff and his relationship with Phyllis makes the movie a realistic reflection of human nature, in that once such a horrible crime is committed, it is nearly impossible for humans to continue on without consequence. In the end, it becomes obvious that no one can escape their past.
Fred MacMurray does an excellent job of playing a character that follows his heart rather than his mind, especially in the final scene, and Barbara Stanwyck is seductive and deceiving enough to persuade any man. Edward Robinson is smart, witty, and a voice of reason in a story where emotions are at their peak.
Although Billy Wilder has little experience directing suspense films, Double Indemnity is an emotional rollercoaster that is thrilling enough to keep anybody hooked from beginning to end.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Kid Deth- A Good Criminal
"About Kid Deth" is a typical pulp story in that it has a fast-paced plot, and action and dialogue rather than wordy descriptions. However, unlike the other pulp stories we have read in class, the "hero" that readers identify with in this story is technically a criminal, rather than a cop. Kid Deth, the protagonist, is an extremely likeable character who acts as the detective to solve the murder mystery in this story. The usual order of good and evil is reversed; Kid Deth, a criminal, is viewed as the "good guy" and while a few criminals are "bad guys" in this story, some of the cops could be put into this category as well.
From the beginning of the story, the reader is made to empathize with Joey Deth, even though he is a criminal. He is described as being smaller in stature, and he "never packs a rod." These qualities, along with the fact that people refer to him as "Kid" help to mold his character into one who could almost be considered an "underdog," and definitely the protagonist of the story. The reader then learns that Rands, the detective, has arrested Kid on numerous occasions, and despite these numerous arrests, Kid has never been convicted of a crime. The fact that Kid has never been convicted of a murder furthers his designation as the “good guy” in the reader’s mind. While Kid is determined to figure out who is framing him and why, he is also motivated to avenge the death of Bess, making him seem like selfless hero.
The cops are portrayed both as evil men secretly involved in crime, or as incompetent and slow, always one step behind the true hero of the story. Rands, one of the detectives, turns out to have been involved in a crime scheme that led to his death. This corruption was common in pulp stories, along with idea of a criminal protagonist.
In the end of the story, it is somewhat unclear as to what Kid’s fate will be. However, I personally believe that Sarlow, Rand’s partner and an uncorrupted cop, will have charges dropped against Kid. Yes, Sarlow knows that Kid was involved in racketeering, but he also knows the truth- that Kid never committed murder, and helped get other gang members “out of the game.” In the end, good has prevailed over evil. Like most pulp stories, those who did wrong were punished, and the hero, Kid, was set free (or so I believe).
Questions:
What was the history between Bess and Kid?
Does Cardigan allow Kid to go free in the end?
From the beginning of the story, the reader is made to empathize with Joey Deth, even though he is a criminal. He is described as being smaller in stature, and he "never packs a rod." These qualities, along with the fact that people refer to him as "Kid" help to mold his character into one who could almost be considered an "underdog," and definitely the protagonist of the story. The reader then learns that Rands, the detective, has arrested Kid on numerous occasions, and despite these numerous arrests, Kid has never been convicted of a crime. The fact that Kid has never been convicted of a murder furthers his designation as the “good guy” in the reader’s mind. While Kid is determined to figure out who is framing him and why, he is also motivated to avenge the death of Bess, making him seem like selfless hero.
The cops are portrayed both as evil men secretly involved in crime, or as incompetent and slow, always one step behind the true hero of the story. Rands, one of the detectives, turns out to have been involved in a crime scheme that led to his death. This corruption was common in pulp stories, along with idea of a criminal protagonist.
In the end of the story, it is somewhat unclear as to what Kid’s fate will be. However, I personally believe that Sarlow, Rand’s partner and an uncorrupted cop, will have charges dropped against Kid. Yes, Sarlow knows that Kid was involved in racketeering, but he also knows the truth- that Kid never committed murder, and helped get other gang members “out of the game.” In the end, good has prevailed over evil. Like most pulp stories, those who did wrong were punished, and the hero, Kid, was set free (or so I believe).
Questions:
What was the history between Bess and Kid?
Does Cardigan allow Kid to go free in the end?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Film Noir- What is it, and how similiar is it to the Pulp stories?
After reading a number of "Introductions" on Film Noir, it seems as though even professional critics have trouble coming up wth a clear definition of what exactly Film Noir is. Because I have not seen (or even heard of, in most cases) any of the films mentioned in the reviews on Noir, it was difficult at some points to understand the points the authors were trying to make, especially when the authors were using characters or scenarios in specific films as examples. I was also suprised to learn that film noir is not as similiar to pulp litarature as I thought it was. None the less, after reading both reviews on film noir, I have a clearer, although not completely focused, definition of what film noir is.
One aspect of noir that critics agree on is the time period. From 1941 to 1958, the noir films that we recognize today were made. The time period of the United States was one of darkness; it was soon after the Great Depression, and during World War II. Personally, I would have expected the American public to be drawn to fiction that did not match the world in which they currently lived. Instead of desiring light, positive stories that served as a happy escape from the darkness of their everyday lives, the public was attracted to the suspenseful, depressing stories of the noir films. Borde and Chaumeton wrote that the viewers "co-experience the anguish and insecurity which are the true of emotions of contemporary film noir." (p.25). The literal meaning of "noir" is black, and another aspect of noir films that critics agree on is their physical appearance. The sharp angles and shady, contrasting lighting were appropriate for the rough, violent underworld that the directors were attempting to portray.
Unlike pulp stories, were "Good is triumphant over evil," (Penzler, p. 7), in film noir, "Good and evil go hand in hand to the point of being indistinguishable" (p. 25). According to Borde and Chaumeton, the women in film noir are consistently decieving, and "manipulative and evasive"(p.22), and usually bring themselves to their own demise. While this was sometimes common in pulp literature, according to Penzler, women were likely in need of rescue rather than intelligent enough to decieve. Not only were the women portrayed in a much darker light (both literally and figuratively), but the private detectives, or "heros" were as well. Rather than being infallible, the protagonists "often perished because of an obsessive and/or alienated state of mind"(p.5). These more humanlike qualites of the protagonists made the noir films even more realistic.
Although critics don't seem to be able to agree on a definition of film noir, the darkness and action-packed underworld that filled these movies has made them still interesting to watch and discuss today.
Discussion Questions:
Why or why not can film noir be considered a genre?
What exactly is film noir, and why is it so hard for critics to define it?
One aspect of noir that critics agree on is the time period. From 1941 to 1958, the noir films that we recognize today were made. The time period of the United States was one of darkness; it was soon after the Great Depression, and during World War II. Personally, I would have expected the American public to be drawn to fiction that did not match the world in which they currently lived. Instead of desiring light, positive stories that served as a happy escape from the darkness of their everyday lives, the public was attracted to the suspenseful, depressing stories of the noir films. Borde and Chaumeton wrote that the viewers "co-experience the anguish and insecurity which are the true of emotions of contemporary film noir." (p.25). The literal meaning of "noir" is black, and another aspect of noir films that critics agree on is their physical appearance. The sharp angles and shady, contrasting lighting were appropriate for the rough, violent underworld that the directors were attempting to portray.
Unlike pulp stories, were "Good is triumphant over evil," (Penzler, p. 7), in film noir, "Good and evil go hand in hand to the point of being indistinguishable" (p. 25). According to Borde and Chaumeton, the women in film noir are consistently decieving, and "manipulative and evasive"(p.22), and usually bring themselves to their own demise. While this was sometimes common in pulp literature, according to Penzler, women were likely in need of rescue rather than intelligent enough to decieve. Not only were the women portrayed in a much darker light (both literally and figuratively), but the private detectives, or "heros" were as well. Rather than being infallible, the protagonists "often perished because of an obsessive and/or alienated state of mind"(p.5). These more humanlike qualites of the protagonists made the noir films even more realistic.
Although critics don't seem to be able to agree on a definition of film noir, the darkness and action-packed underworld that filled these movies has made them still interesting to watch and discuss today.
Discussion Questions:
Why or why not can film noir be considered a genre?
What exactly is film noir, and why is it so hard for critics to define it?
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Maltese Falcon
The movie version and written version of "The Maltese Falcon" are nearly identical (at least for the first few chapters), except for a few aspects. When watching the movie and then reading the book, I noticed a difference in the way Archer's death was carried out. Another general aspect of the story that stuck out to me was my dislike for Miss Wonderly.
When Archer was murdered in the movie, the viewer was able to see the murder take place before Spade found out, whereas in the book, the reader was held in suspense until Spade actually went to the scene of the crime to view Archer's body. I personally felt the way the movie carried out that string of events was better. It made the murder seem more dramatic and significant because the viewer was actually able to see it take place. While reading, the murder of Archer almost seemed insignificant. Spade's attitude was so nonchalant and stoic that it took the drama and importance out of the event for the reader.
I also noticed a difference towards my attitude of the female character while reading the book and watching the movie. I found the Miss Wonderly to be very irritating on screen. I really disliked her needy, helpless attitude, and while I realize that this was generally how female characters were portrayed in the pulp stories and film noir, something about her made it difficult for me to even stand watching her. These qualities seemed insincere. She would make statements like, "I've always been a liar," and then somehow expect sympathy and help from Spade. Why she would expect him to help her when she continually admitted to being a liar is just beyond me. I did not understand why she kept trying to hide her true motivations from Spade, and I found her use of her own sexuality frustrating and unfair. During the scene in her hotel room when Spade kissed her was a perfect example of how she was using her looks to her advantage. Yes, Spade bought into it, and since he was a very smart and clever character, I am sure he know exactly what she was doing. None the less, I still found those qualities irritating.
When I was reading the story, I did not get this same feeling of annoyance. Yes, she was still the typical confused, clueless, vulnerable female character, but these qualities seemed more genuine in the book. Perhaps I would find that if I were to keep reading further into the story, her true qualities would come out as they started to in the movie. Regardless, I found her less annoying on paper than on screen.
Questions:
Why does Spade seem to indifferent to Archer's murder?
This question is unrelated to my post, but in the "suggestions" list made for the movie, many remarks are made with reference to elimination of scenes involving sexuality or gruesomeness. I suppose I can understand these demands. However, page 2 says that Cairo cannot be portrayed as a pansy. Why not? I just found that comment to be interesting.
When Archer was murdered in the movie, the viewer was able to see the murder take place before Spade found out, whereas in the book, the reader was held in suspense until Spade actually went to the scene of the crime to view Archer's body. I personally felt the way the movie carried out that string of events was better. It made the murder seem more dramatic and significant because the viewer was actually able to see it take place. While reading, the murder of Archer almost seemed insignificant. Spade's attitude was so nonchalant and stoic that it took the drama and importance out of the event for the reader.
I also noticed a difference towards my attitude of the female character while reading the book and watching the movie. I found the Miss Wonderly to be very irritating on screen. I really disliked her needy, helpless attitude, and while I realize that this was generally how female characters were portrayed in the pulp stories and film noir, something about her made it difficult for me to even stand watching her. These qualities seemed insincere. She would make statements like, "I've always been a liar," and then somehow expect sympathy and help from Spade. Why she would expect him to help her when she continually admitted to being a liar is just beyond me. I did not understand why she kept trying to hide her true motivations from Spade, and I found her use of her own sexuality frustrating and unfair. During the scene in her hotel room when Spade kissed her was a perfect example of how she was using her looks to her advantage. Yes, Spade bought into it, and since he was a very smart and clever character, I am sure he know exactly what she was doing. None the less, I still found those qualities irritating.
When I was reading the story, I did not get this same feeling of annoyance. Yes, she was still the typical confused, clueless, vulnerable female character, but these qualities seemed more genuine in the book. Perhaps I would find that if I were to keep reading further into the story, her true qualities would come out as they started to in the movie. Regardless, I found her less annoying on paper than on screen.
Questions:
Why does Spade seem to indifferent to Archer's murder?
This question is unrelated to my post, but in the "suggestions" list made for the movie, many remarks are made with reference to elimination of scenes involving sexuality or gruesomeness. I suppose I can understand these demands. However, page 2 says that Cairo cannot be portrayed as a pansy. Why not? I just found that comment to be interesting.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Red Wind
After reading the foreword on pulp literature, “Red Wind” was everything I would have expected out of a hard-boiled story. It was fast-paces with one twist of the plot after another. The story was full of action and dialogue rather than long, drawn-out descriptions, which made it more entertaining and easier to read.
The female character, Lola, was particularly interesting. For most of the story, she was portrayed as the typical female character- naïve and in need of rescue. When Marlowe met her in the beginning of the story, she had been wandering the apartment building, oblivious to the murder of Joseph Coates, carrying a gun she did not even know how to use. At that point in the story, Lola seemed to be predictable and superficial. She was portrayed this way at the end of the story as well when she learned that Joseph Coates had stolen her real pearls. Prior to learning this, she was willing to pay five thousand dollars for a set of pearls she thought to be her own, furthering her portrayal as a naïve woman with little intelligence. However, she broke out of this stereotype when she saved Marlowe’s life while risking her own. Her actions were brave and smart, and definitely not typically expected out of a woman. For most of the story, the reader was made to feel pity for her, but in that moment, the reader was made to feel proud.
The way in which the relationship between Lola and Marlowe evolved was also interesting. When Marlowe met Lola, he looked at her as just another pretty woman who had been fooled by a man. He was condescending towards her and even mocked her at one point. When describing the murder of Joseph Coates, he purposely paused throughout his story because he “liked an effect as well as the next fellow.” He enjoyed seeing her in suspense and took advantage of his position of authority. However, after Lola saved his life, his feelings changed towards her. He gained a sense of respect that he did not have before, and probably would never have had if she had not saved his life. I think that his respect and feelings for her played a big factor in his desire to solve the mystery, and were also the reason he did not care about how much money he got at the end of the story.
Questions:
Why did Marlowe have another set of pearls made? Was it some way of consoling Lola?
Who was Joseph Coates planning on showing the stolen documents to?
The female character, Lola, was particularly interesting. For most of the story, she was portrayed as the typical female character- naïve and in need of rescue. When Marlowe met her in the beginning of the story, she had been wandering the apartment building, oblivious to the murder of Joseph Coates, carrying a gun she did not even know how to use. At that point in the story, Lola seemed to be predictable and superficial. She was portrayed this way at the end of the story as well when she learned that Joseph Coates had stolen her real pearls. Prior to learning this, she was willing to pay five thousand dollars for a set of pearls she thought to be her own, furthering her portrayal as a naïve woman with little intelligence. However, she broke out of this stereotype when she saved Marlowe’s life while risking her own. Her actions were brave and smart, and definitely not typically expected out of a woman. For most of the story, the reader was made to feel pity for her, but in that moment, the reader was made to feel proud.
The way in which the relationship between Lola and Marlowe evolved was also interesting. When Marlowe met Lola, he looked at her as just another pretty woman who had been fooled by a man. He was condescending towards her and even mocked her at one point. When describing the murder of Joseph Coates, he purposely paused throughout his story because he “liked an effect as well as the next fellow.” He enjoyed seeing her in suspense and took advantage of his position of authority. However, after Lola saved his life, his feelings changed towards her. He gained a sense of respect that he did not have before, and probably would never have had if she had not saved his life. I think that his respect and feelings for her played a big factor in his desire to solve the mystery, and were also the reason he did not care about how much money he got at the end of the story.
Questions:
Why did Marlowe have another set of pearls made? Was it some way of consoling Lola?
Who was Joseph Coates planning on showing the stolen documents to?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Foreword
After reading the foreword on the development of pulp literature, I can say that I am curious about the material that will be covered in this class. I have never been one to read action-packed novels or watch fact-paced, action-packed movies, so I'm sure the next few weeks will be full of new entertainment experiences!
Most of the characters and scenarios described by Penzler in the foreword seemed to be what I would expect for literature in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's. I was not at all suprised to read about the role, or lack of role, that women had in these stories. According to Penzler, as time progressed, the role of women became more prominent. It would be interesting to look at how the progression in the roles of women in pulp literature related to the progression of women's standing in actual society. There might not be any correlation at all, but just a thought.
It seems as though almost all of the pulp stories written had a "happy ending," where the evil villian was defeated by the infallible hero. Because these stories were written during the Depression, that does not suprise me, as people needed an escape from the troubles of their everyday lives. However, I am certainly curious to see if this idea of a "happy ending" remains consistent throughout all of the stories we read this quarter.
Most of the characters and scenarios described by Penzler in the foreword seemed to be what I would expect for literature in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's. I was not at all suprised to read about the role, or lack of role, that women had in these stories. According to Penzler, as time progressed, the role of women became more prominent. It would be interesting to look at how the progression in the roles of women in pulp literature related to the progression of women's standing in actual society. There might not be any correlation at all, but just a thought.
It seems as though almost all of the pulp stories written had a "happy ending," where the evil villian was defeated by the infallible hero. Because these stories were written during the Depression, that does not suprise me, as people needed an escape from the troubles of their everyday lives. However, I am certainly curious to see if this idea of a "happy ending" remains consistent throughout all of the stories we read this quarter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)