Double Indemnity (1943)

Double Indemnity is a straightforward story through and through. It's a film noir in the most classical sense, a simple and dark story about doing foolish things without heed of consequence. It was made in 1943, when film noir was brand new, barely breaking through the door. For DI to be as focused and good as it was for the time period is very impressive. The things that bothered me the most about the film stem from my own upbringing in contemporary films, I saw elements such as developed characters and genuine motivations missing here. I didn't think the film was clear enough with the honest motivations of Neff for doing what he does, as well as his overwhelming willingness to take a life. The film is more concerned with the events happening, the mood, and the conventions of the genre rather than it is with the characters making sense. This seems to be a flaw almost universal for films of the time period, though, so I have to be somewhat forgiving. For all the aspects of the film I disliked, I liked just as many if not more.


The film is entertaining, first and foremost. It may be predictable, but the interaction between the characters is fun and simple. The film takes plenty of time with it's story and doesn't try to move things along at a quick pace, allowing the audience to absorb the atmosphere and enjoy the ride. It takes you on a slight emotional ride, as well, getting you to hope the newly in love couple is going to make it against all odds. But quickly enough the viewer realizes that Phyllis can't be as genuine as she seems, and Keyes will find out eventually what really happened. It's not as easy as a straight line down the middle, there's always the unexpected variables and the true intentions of people involved to be put into consideration. Fate has it's own way of creating bad endings to situations that seem simple, and in the end no one can escape what's coming to them. The lighting and camera work is all top notch, very evocative of the time period and the mood the story tries to convey. Overall, the film is quintessential film noir, one of the true originators of the genre. It's a prime example of how the concept of noir first came to be, as well as a good point to look back on when observing how the genre has evolved. Not only is it historically important, but it's a fun film to watch.

Out of the Past (1947)

In the 1940's, America was still getting used to the cinema. People were still getting used to the idea of connecting emotionally to people on a screen, being transported to another place and another life by means of the theater itself. The film industry didn't know what kind of taste the movie viewing public had in regards to the kind of stories they wanted to see. I consider the early film noir movement as more of an essential building block for American cinema rather than excellent cinema that stands on it's own; for the time period it was all there was, but we have cinematically evolved so much since then.

Out of the Past is a perfect example of the stereotypical nature of most early noir's, trying to stick to a very narrow formula to assure audience approval instead of encouraging artistic creativity. The definition for a film noir is this: "a movie that is marked by a mood of pessimism, fatalism, menace, and cynical characters; "film noir was applied by French critics to describe American thriller or detective films in the 1940s" (Dictionary.com). Directors in the 40's who made film noir pictures understood the themes this genre was about, but never understood character development or a fascinating story. They only knew to go by a very strict set of rules, caring more about making sure the label sticks rather than making a compelling film. Out of the Past tells the story of Jeff Bailey, a gas station worker who's past comes back to visit him. The film never takes time to get us to understand Bailey on a deeper level, why he does what he does, he just goes through the motions without much expression or depth. The audience doesn't have anything to latch onto through this convoluted and pointless story, all of the motivations in the film don't ring true because we don't know where they're coming from in the first place. When a film relies on the main character to carry it, he has to be someone the viewer gets to know; he needs to be a living, breathing person instead of a hollow avatar of pure stereotype. The story is driven by the lead, and if we don't care about the lead we don't care about the story. All the main character is is just a tool of the women he encounters, above all else. He lets his emotions get the better of him, which then lead him down a path of uncertainty and betrayal, his lack of foresight gets him killed in the end.


The plot revolves around information being discovered gradually throughout the film, and characters betraying each other revealing surprises and "twist turns". But anyone that knows anything about film will predict every step of this boring tale. Aside from the blatantly uninteresting plot, the character's simply aren't "there", making the entire film forfeit. As much as I disliked it, however, it must be stated that this is an important film in regards to film history. It's one of the first movies to play with chronology in the storytelling, as well as more complicated character arcs; it did set some kind of small precedents. These elements, however, didn't do anything for the film and thus were wasted. The director and creators of this film just wanted to pump out another copycat genre piece with some superficial changes, such as the lighting and scenery, but none of that means anything when the inner workings are nothing special.