Film Noir FAQ -- David J. Hogan
The full title of this one is Film Noir FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About Hollywood’s Golden Age of Dames, Detectives, and Danger, and it's not an exaggeration. Or if it is, it's not much of one. This is a thoroughly indexed volume of nearly 400 pages of small print that's packed to the edges of the page with fascinating information. Not plot summaries, mind you, but real info on about two hundred films. The chapters are arranged thematically, and each one has "Case Files," which are little sidebars of information about actors and directors. There are some of the expected films covered here, but the author admits that readers might be surprised by some of his omissions (Cry Danger, for example), not to mention by some of the things he included (for example, a cartoon). There's a short (8 or 9 pages) on "New Generation Noir," too.
This isn't the kind of book I can read straight through. Too much to process. It's great for dipping into, though, and with the index, it's bound to be good for research as well. If you're into noir films or would like to know more about them, you gotta have a copy.
5 comments:
I read the private eye section today and am not impressed. He is negative and dismissive about Mickey Spillane, then makes major mistakes in the summaries of the novels I, THE JURY (no, it doesn't take place at Christmas -- the movie does) and KISS ME, DEADLY (no Hammer doesn't wind up arm in arm with Velda, he's famously crawling alone out of a burning building, possibly dying of gunshot wounds). Hogan says several times that Spillane's Hammer is "unreflective," which will be news for anyone who has actually read the books, in particular ONE LONELY NIGHT. He is also dismissive of Biff Elliot as Hammer in a the kind of glib fashion I despise in books like this ("Biff Elliot, bless him, tries hard").
He discusses THE BIG SLEEP without mentioning the re-shoots that Hawks made to take advantage of Bogart and Bacall's popularity, which added so much to the film's incoherence. And of course he doesn't mention that the original version is not only in existence, but available.
He discusses THE BRASHER DOUBLOON without mentioning the previous version of THE HIGH WINDOW, A TIME TO KILL with Lloyd Nolan's Mike Shayne subbing for Philip Marlowe.
I will read more, but as I say, not impressed thus far.
Hi--
Sorry Max doesn't care for my thinking about Mickey Spillane. Well, it's all subjective. And for what it's worth, I do have a complete collection of Mickey's early works, and while I enjoy them--a lot--I see Mickey primarily as a bluntly effective entertainer and a hugely influential cultural phenomenon.(I make a point to stress the latter thought in my book, more than once.) In that regard, I realize that Spillane was a giant--but that doesn't mean that I necessarily think he was a profound thinker.) If I want artfulness, I'll read Chandler or Simenon's psychological, non-Maigret novels. For the honest baring of the human heart and soul, Jim Thompson. And so on.
Max's very close personal and professional relationships with Mickey were wonderful,, and enviable. If I were in Max's position, I'd take exception to me, too.
While I'm thinking of Max, I want to recommend his new novel, Seduction of the Innocent, a smart and playful riff on the anti-comic book hysteria of the early 1950s. It's a clever roman a clef with pleasingly identifiable stand-ins for Gaines, Feldstein, Wertham, Legman, Kefauver, and others--plus some fictionalized murder to spice everything up. The tale perks right along, thanks to Max's clean, uncluttered prose and gift for plotting. Artist Terry Beatty contributes a clutch of fabulous black-and-white illustrations in the style of EC star artist Johnny Craig. Published by the good folks at Hard Case Crime
Thanks for the comments, guys!
David, you are very gracious and generous in responding to my criticism by praising my current book. I thank you most sincerely.
But my objections to what you wrote weren't subjective, nor do I think my close relationship with Mickey (developed long after my interest in his work began) negates or even diminishes my points. You dismiss the novel KISS ME, DEADLY as "turgid," but your plot summary is inaccurate as to the final (and very famous and key) scene. The plot summary of I, THE JURY similarly has an error (the Christmas setting of the movie) that leads me to believe you did not revisit the novels before writing these summaries and making your judgments. It's fully possible to be an intelligent fan of mystery fiction and not like Spillane. But too often Spillane and Hammer are written about in a careless yet judgmental fashion. It's been that way for over sixty years and is unlikely to change. Which is why I continue to joust with this particular windmill. You, at least, acknowledge his importance. Meaning no offense, I don't believe I need any schooling in Chandler or Thompson (though I am less familiar with Simenon than I should be).
I will continue reading your book, and I am pleased by the sidebar examinations of authors, directors, cinematographers, etc. But I admit being puzzled that something as famous as the re-shoots on THE BIG SLEEP were not explored or even mentioned. The notion that Hawks simply tore pages out of the script wily nily is absurd -- that's the kind of legend Golden Age Hollywood directors loved to circulate about themselves, because it sounds so outrageous.
As I said, I will keep reading (like Bill, dipping in rather than reading cover to cover), and I apologize for responding to your graciousness with this perhaps not entirely gracious response.
Max, I wish I could have included all that I wanted in FILM NOIR FAQ. My publisher gave me 150,000 words, and was generous enough to allow me more than 170,000 in the published book. Mind you, 170,000 words is what I ultimately turned in. When I'd finished my first draft, I was over 190,000 words! I spent the next week or 10 days reading and rereading the manuscript, making cuts. And more cuts. A lot of good stuff ended up discarded. It was a little painful. Hence omissions that may be apparent to some readers. In the main, I deleted well, and certainly maintained the book's integrity.
I'd certainly never try to "school" you in Chandler or anybody else. I simply noted authors that have more appeal to me than Mickey. I regret bolixing some details of certain Spillane titles, but I really must stand by my thoughts about Kiss Me, Deadly. It's plenty vigorous in moments, but it strikes me, in general, as turgid and difficult to plow through. That's a subjective response, and a credible one. Mickey created aggressive pulp; in their adaptation for KISS ME DEADLY (the film), Bezzerides and Aldrich fashioned art.
Well, look at more of the book and tell me what you think.
Post a Comment