It didn’t start with a blonde coming into an office. Honestly, I when I see that in a modern story that isn’t a parody I want to smack the writer with the collected works of Sarah Paretskey.
No, it started with a blog entry by Charlie Jane Anders – “I’m Sick of Noir.”
When I saw this on BlueSky, my response was:
*looks over at his two NoirCity DC t-shirts*
*holds his love of black & white close*IMHO, any aesthetic when used without understanding of the source becomes conservative. “Look at the pretty shadows, not the story.”
Dangit. Feel a blog post coming on. I have to work today.
And the thing is, while I disagree with some of the examples she cited, I do agree with part of her thesis.
“The noir aesthetic is at odds with the noir ethos — because the aesthetic is fundamentally conservative and designed to lull you with familiarity, while the awareness of pervasive corruption and systemic violence really ought to wake you the fuck up.”
Now, I hear you say: “Andrija, c’mon. Of course you’re going to defend the noir look. You’re a simp for black and white high contrast aesthetics. You’ve been that way since high school.” And I can’t lie, it’s true:
“It’s the same with neon noir/80’s cyberpunk aesthetics. I mean, you unironically enjoy ‘Manhunter’ from 1986!” Which is also true. My wife and I did go see the 4K restoration in the theater. I was singing along to Shriekback’s “Big Hush.”
To me, though, the aesthetic isn’t inherently conservative. The way I see it, Charlie Jane Anders’ statement is the most bitter type of irony. Why? Because, originally, the look and subjects of these classic era crime pictures were absolutely designed to highlight pervasive corruption and systemic violence.
The expat filmmakers and cinematographers of the time knew what they were doing when they went expressionist. The Venetian blinds were not done that way just because it looked cool, but because they wanted to create the sense of prison bars in rich homes – darkness infiltrating the ‘upstanding and upright’ world of the ‘good citizens.’ It started from the Depression era questioning of those who stayed wealthy while everyone starved. It continued into the war, and after it, as people questioned was this new suburban paradise built on rotten foundations. (See Act of Violence from 1948).
It even dared to show capitalism and criminal syndicates as equal partners in exploitation. (Check out Force of Evil, also from 1948). There is a reason the House Un-American Activities Committee went after so many film makers involved in the classic noir era. The writer/director of Force of Evil was blacklisted. The anti-communist witch hunts literally killed the star, John Garfield.
When the aesthetic is divorced from the history and meaning, it becomes a weapon. It becomes conservative. I’ve written about how this happens with Cyberpunk. I’ve written how this happens in mecha anime. It happens all the time to creators in minority & queer spaces. They create something – a look, a style – and it’s infused with meaning from that creation.
Others come in, see the look, ignore the history and meaning, and profit from it. “It’s Pride Month merch from Target!”
So, yes, if someone comes in with cheap imitations of classic Hollywood dialog and a few lights thrown through a gobo just because it looks ‘noir’ you should be suspicious. Treat it the way the people of Mexico reacted to Chipotle’s debut in their country. I believe the phrase was ‘Gringo food for Gringos.’
But – remember, it’s not the aesthetic that is to blame. It is the people deploying it that should be critiqued.
That also means you should also seek out the folks who care about the context and history. Who understand the hows and whys – and don’t cover up the problems. I am a TCM stan – not just for the old films, but for the history around them. Without the history, the context, it’s just an aesthetic anyone can weaponize.
And sometimes that is just saying, “Look, man, Fedoras were just a brand of hat then!”
Biomechanoid Blues 