Current Forum: Session 10: Film Noir and Sexuality	Read 16 times 	
Date: 23-Mar-2001 14:59:30	
Author: SIMMONS, DAVID C. <dcs7316@garnet.acns.fsu.edu>	
Subject: Confidentially NOT Film Noir (Off the Record, On the QT, and Very Hush Hush) 	
 [Remove]	
		
       In this post, I intend to argue that L.A. Confidential (Curtis Hanson, 1997) is actually not film noir, but neo noir.
       First, what are the conventions of film noir? Belton writes: “Aesthetically, noir relies heavily on shadowy, low-key lighting; deep-focus cinematography; disorienting mise-en-scene; tension inducing, oblique and vertical compositional lines; jarring juxtapositions between shots involving extreme changes in camera angle or screen size; claustrophobic framing; romantic, voice-over narration; and a complex narrative structure, characterized by flashbacks and/or a convoluted temporal sequencing of events” (193). 
       I find little evidence of Belton’s aesthetic characteristics of film noir in L.A. Confidential. The look of the film appears to be that of classical Hollywood cinema, not the subversive 
elements of film noir. For example, in the scene when Lynn comes into the liquor store and is first noticed by Bud White, she IS wearing a black outfit with a hood, but she’s shot in high-key lighting. Were this film noir, she would look out from her black hood with extreme shadows across her face that would code her as being a femme fatale.
       Instead of deep-focus cinematography, I noticed many instances of rack focus. For example, there’s the scene early in the film when Ed is spying through the glass at the police leaders who talk Jack into testifying. After Jack leaves the room, one of the police leaders says, “And Ed . . . lose the glasses.” Rack focus takes us from the room to the reflection of Ed in the 
glass. Were this noir, the shot would have been a long shot arranged so that no rack focus was necessary. A similar scene occurs as the camera rack focuses from Lynn on her doorstep to Bud’s eyes in the rear-view mirror. Deep-focus cinematography does not seem to be the norm here.
       I can’t seem to find much evidence of tension-inducing lines, jarring cuts, or claustrophobic framing. It all seems to be quite classical. There is a voice-over by Sid, but it doesn’t feel romantic. There is also a complex narrative structure but it is very linear (there are no flashbacks or flashforwards which take us to a prolonged scene away from the main narrative line [albeit there are two quick reminders of dead people {Susan and Meeks} to remind the spectator where we know them from.])
       Belton also talks about thematic conventions of film noir. He writes that noir grapples with “existential issues such as the futility of individual action; the alienation, loneliness, and isolation of the individual within industrialized, mass society; the problematic choice between being and nothingness; the absurdity, meaninglessness, and purposelessness of life; and the arbitrariness of social justice, which results in individual despair, leading to chaos, violence, and paranoia” (193-94). 
       Here again, I’m not convinced that L.A. Confidential fits these characteristics. We don’t see any futility of individual action. In fact, we see that one man (Ed) can work really hard and take down an army of mobsters by himself (and with a little help from a partner [Bud] whom he secures.] The film doesn’t end with alienation, loneliness and isolation. Ed has become a hero, has a great career move, and has solved his Dad’s murder case. Bud ends up in the arms of Lynn who loves him and (we assume) will take care of him in Arizona. There is humanity and celebration instead of alienation and despair. There’s no existential trauma between wanting to live and die; these police officers want to live and have right prevail. And that’s what happens. Social justice is satisfied and all is made right at the end. In Dr. Darst’s words, “L.A.Confidential is a morality tale.” Characteristics of Classical Hollywood Cinema remain dominant.
       Other noir characteristics mentioned by Belton: the male protagonist who is the anti-hero (194) and the woman who is the “femme fatale, intent on castrating or otherwise destroying the male hero” (199). Neither Ed nor Bud can be seen as anti-heroes. Ed is constantly choosing to do clean police work while Bud is an example of saving women from being brutalized. And Lynn is in no way a femme fatale intent on destroying the male hero. She is a safe space of warmth for Bud. 
       Now, to be fair, I do think L.A. Confidential shares some common concerns with film noir. Both are set in urban, crime-ridden settings. Both have witty, street-smart dialogue. Both have characters that may be difficult to peg as being “good” or “bad” until the end of the film (I’m thinking particularly of Captain Dudley Smith here.) 
       But L.A. Confidential can’t be film noir. It wasn’t made in an anxiety-filled, production-code-enforced, post WWII environment. It’s very much a product of the 90s where its violence and “taboo” subjects (drugs, prostitution, homosexuality) can be openly shown. For this reason, I feel 
better in calling it neo-noir and in discussing the differences, rather than the commonalities it shares with the subversive mode called film noir.