Analyze the (critical) implications of how Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, Universal, USA, 1944) uses the conventions associated with film noir.

Résumé du document

Double Indemnity is widely regarded as a classic example of film noir by film critics and fans of the genre alike. In terms of genre Double Indemnity clearly belongs to the film noir category although it is due to the lighting and style that many believe, film noir should be classed as a style of film making as opposed to a genre. They would suggest that this therefore belongs in the genre of ‘crime drama' but thanks to the fact that film noir has created its own conventions that separate it from crime drama, I believe it should be classed as an independent genre. Some would argue the films should be grouped according to a director or auteur who will put his own unique codes and conventions into the film so that it is identifiable and immediately associated with him/her. In Double Indemnity we aren't given any clear indication that it is a Billy Wilder film. He himself is often not classified as an auteur director despite his success in directing. The auteur theory states the films should reflect the director's personal vision whereas it is sometimes easier to sway towards genre as one can simply adhere to a set of pre-constructed values.

The genre debate gives us three ideas: setting, mood and format with which we can place a film within a genre. For instance if the setting is that of a battlefield, we can usually assume it is a war film. This theory is often very easy to apply to older films but as time wore on the boundaries between genres wore thin. Now there are hybrid genres. For instance it is possible to have a romantic war film (two genres that are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum) e.g. A Very Long Engagement (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Warner Brothers, France, 2005). However as Double Indemnity was made during the classic Hollywood era it is possible to see that it adheres to many of the conventions associated with film noir. For instance the heavy use of lighting (including Venetian blinds), the morally ambiguous protagonist, the femme fatale etc.

Extraits

[...] Interestingly enough the maid never steps into the shadows cast by the blinds and on these grounds we can separate her from any semblance of guilt. The Venetian blinds are used in a critical scene of the film too. Neff, having foreseen a way out of his crimes without punishment, goes to the Dietrichson house to kill Phyllis and cover up the whole scheme. When he arrives the only light that enters the room is through these blinds. The shadows cast and are long and bar like, giving the impression of imprisonment. [...]

[...] This is an interesting line of debate as it puts the whole format of film noir into question. We are almost always encouraged to side with the criminal but what if we, the audience can't relate to the protagonist and his experiences on the basis that his experiences are in fact dishonest? The audience should be encouraged to take liking to the protagonist or at least be able to relate to him on some level. On the one hand the on screen protagonist is telling us his story and bearing his innermost feelings, begging for our trust. [...]

[...] However as Double Indemnity was made during the classic Hollywood era it is possible to see that it adheres to many of the conventions associated with film noir. For instance the heavy use of lighting (including Venetian blinds), the morally ambiguous protagonist, the femme fatale etc. Firstly I am going to examine the figure of the morally ambiguous protagonist. This is conventional for classic film noir. However, can we trust a story that is told by a criminal narrator? If we don't trust the narrator can we engage fully with his struggle? [...]

[...] So consequently in film noir the female is often punished under the voyeuristic male gaze, placing the blame on her for being the one responsible for the viewers' anxiety. In the case of Double Indemnity she proves her dishonesty by attempting to kill Neff and we have also heard the stories of her murderous past. Mulvey would claim that it is because she signifies the threat of castration she must be punished and psychologically we should be hoping that she is killed to ease our anxieties. [...]

[...] We also learn that she previously used, murder and seduction in order to work her way into the Dietrichson household in the first place and has also corrupted Zuchetti. The femme fatale is crucial to the film noir genre. So although Mulvey condemns the male gaze, in this case it is the female figure that is empowered even if we follow Walter Neff for the most part, acting as the protagonist. The fact that we identify with a male protagonist is mainly due to the conventions of classical Hollywood cinema. What Mulvey doesn't acknowledge is the fact that there is still enjoyment for the audience regardless of gender. [...]