Memento

Debra Curtiss

Mr. Toth

English 101

May 21, 2013

Presentation Outline

1.      In Memento, Leonard an ex insurance investigator who is suffering from short term memory loss uses pictures and tattoos to hunt down the men who raped and murdered his wife.

II. Conventions of the film that like it to Classis Film Noir

1.      The movie is in black and white. We have a male protagonist, and a femme fatale. In Memento we have a femme fatale named Natalie who manipulates our male protagonist named Leonard into committing a crime. Just the way Phyllis did to Walter in Double Indemnity.

2.      The film also shows the darkness of the movie, When Leonard is in the small hotel room. It is very dark and small, gives you a sense of Leonard’s dark side and claustrophobia. This film also shows the ending first and then throughout the movie it leads up to the ending but still have flashbacks to the past. Just like the movie “The Butterfly Effect”.

III. Elements of the film that Deviate from Classic Film Noir and link to Neo-Noir

1.      The film is also in color.

2.      We still have our male protagonist, and our femme fatale. But the femme fatale differs from the femme fatale in classic noir. Because the femme fatales in classic noir are very discrete about what they want the protagonist to do. Like Phyllis in Double Indemnity didn’t specifically say that she wanted her husband dead. She manipulated Walter into coming up with the idea to kill her husband so that it was her idea. But in neo noir, Natalie in Memento is very blunt in what crime she wants Leonard to commit.

Quotes from outside sources.

Source One:

            In Prabhat’s article The Difference between Film noir and Neo-Noir he says “Noir films often deal with the underworld, gangsters, and criminals fighting each other and against the world” (Prabhat). I agree with this quote because Film noir films show you the dark side of life.

Source Two:

            In Molloy Claire’s ebook Memento she is explain why Memento and the Butterfly Effect are similar. “These movies are similar in the way they are always going back in time, and having flashbacks of the past” (Molloy Claire Memento Ebook). I agree that these movies are similar because they both are in color and they both have a lot of flashbacks. 

Blog #8

First Assignment

I decided to do Option #1.

Consider the ways in which the main characters are similar.  Based strictly on these two stories, formulate a description of protagonists in neo-noir.

To be honest, I was thinking of ways how these two protagonists in “The Kidnapper Bell” and “City of Commerce” were similar. I couldn’t really think of anything until we had class and discussed it. Then it became clear to me that they are very similar. They are similar in the way of how they only think of themselves. And how neither one of them care about their wives. In “The Kidnapper Bell’’ the protagonist in that story only cares about himself and getting laid. He seems like he is only into making himself happy, and getting into the “dating scene again then actually spending time with his wife. But he does save that girls sister. But what I questioned was when he kept the bell that the kidnapper used for himself, and rang it at the end of the story. In the second story “City of Commerce” the protagonist in that story only cares about Poker, and that’s it. In the story he gets in kind of a pickle with some Russians, and he doesn’t worry about saving his wife’s life from them all he worries about is winning more money from Poker.

Second Assignment

Out of the four short stories that I read, the one that I think most signifies noir is “The girl who kissed Barnaby Jones”. I think this because the femme fatale in this case Cherie knows that she is beautiful and can seduce any man with her sexuality; she uses that to her advantage. She calls Tate to help her with something, so he goes only to find out that she wants him to help her hide a body of the person she just murdered. But unlike other film noir stories he doesn’t let her manipulate him into committing/accomplice to a murder. So he gets out of there as soon as he can. That was probably the only part in this story that didn’t classify as noir. 

Blog #7

I decided to do option 2 for this blog. Option 2 is:

How does having a female as both protagonist and first-person narrator affect these narratives?  Would you still consider these stories as noir?  Why or why not?

In the first story that we had to read was “The Method”. We had Holly who was the female protagonist, and the first person narrator. I would still consider this story as noir, because it still had the same qualities. She met someone named Richard, and within minutes they were talking about committing a murder, but Holly had a different plan in her own head, which we found out at the end of the book. Richard was very deceiving and manipulative in this book, just like Phyllis was in “Double Indemnity”. He wanted to get back at Mariah (who was very famous back in the day) who fired him because he turned into a psycho when they were lovers. So he manipulated Holly into thinking that she was going to return Mariah’s lost dog back to her and collect a reward since she was rich. But Holly soon found out what Richard really wanted her to do, which was kill Mariah but Richard had another thing coming when Holly put the pieces together.

In the second story that we had to read was “Morocco Junction 90210”. We had Minerva who was also our female protagonist, and our female narrator. We found out about Eloise Davis’s death. We also found out the truth behind her death as the story went on. Also we found out about the burglaries that happened in Beverley Hills.

I don’t think that the story would be any different if there was a female narrator, or if there was a male narrator. I think all that would matter if it has the qualities of noir or not. And both of these stories have the qualities of noir.

Blog #6 The difference between Film Noir and Neo Noir

In the article “The Dark Past Keeps Returning: Gender Themes in Neo-Noir” By: Heather Fireman.

In the article we found out the difference between Film Noir and Neo Noir. We also got examples from movies that was film noir, and ones that were neo noir. One of the movies that were talked about in the article that was film noir was “Double Indemnity”. One of the movies that were talked about in the article that was Neo Noir was “The Last Seduction”. In film noir which began in 1940’s through 1950’s. Film noir has very significant lighting, the lighting shows the darkness of the movie and sometimes it shows you the darkness the characters have as well. In film noir you have unusual camera angles. Also they are mostly shot in black and white films. Film noir also portrays moods in the films, such as Evil, guilt, and even paranoia. In Neo Noir is mostly shot in color, instead of black and white films like film noir. Neo Noir started a lot later than film noir; I believe neo noir started in the 1960s.

Everywhere I reached they said that neo noir is similar to film noir, because the still have the same moods as film noir. Evil, guilt and paranoia, etc. And they still have femme fatales. In article when they were explaining the femme fatale in “The Last Seduction” she reminded me a lot of the femme fatale we had in “Double Indemnity”. Because she was evil, and manipulative, and seductive just like Phyllis was in “Double Indemnity”. The femme fatale in “The Last Seduction” manipulated and seduced a man into falling in love with her by her sexuality. She promised they could be together in the end, if he helped her kill her husband. Just like Phyllis did in “Double Indemnity”. But I personally believe that no one can be manipulated into doing something that wasn’t already placed in their mind.

The connection between these two noirs is that they kept the evilness, and they kept the femme fatale and the protagonist. I feel that the only difference is maybe they decided to change it from black and white to color.

I think the reason that distinguishes these two from each other is that they did change it from black and white to color. I personally think that the genre of film noir might just be better in black and white films because of the lighting. I think the low key lighting and the darkness of the film would only fit in a black and white movie. 

Blog #5

The article that I found was on the website of Turner Classic Movies. Here is the website I found the article on http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/73500/Double-Indemnity/articles.html.

 

Article Name: “Double Indemnity”

By:  Rob Nixon

The article just summarizes the film and the novel. How Walter went to the Nirdlinger’s house to renew Mr. Nirdlinger’s auto insurance, when he meets Mrs. Nirdlitnger (Phyllis). And how she schedules a time for him to come back to discuss the auto insurance with her husband. But when he does come back, it is just Phyllis in the house. No husband and no maid. Phyllis talks Walter into selling her additional auto insurance. Accident insurance which he husband has no knowledge of. “It's just the first step in their mutual plan to murder Phyllis' husband and collect on a double indemnity clause in the insurance contract”.

“Double Indemnity is one of the high points of 1940s film making”. “Critics have argued whether or not this movie can be considered the first film noir thriller” In my opinion, I’m not sure if it could be considered a thriller. However I do think that this film is film noir. Because of the low key lighting, and how the lighting represents the darkness in both Phyllis and Walter.  

The article also talked about Walter always lit Keyes cigars for him, more of often and more affectionately than he did for Phyllis. But at the end of the movie Keyes lights Walters’s cigar because Walter has been shot.

What I thought was interesting from this article was that Phyllis (Barbara Stanwyck) told Billy Wilder, the director of the film that she was afraid of the role. Which I thought she played the role pretty well. In the article it explains how “she isn’t someone to turn down a role, for an acting challenge, so she accepted the role and turned it into one of her best”.

They also said in the article that “casting Walter Neff wasn’t so easy”. I thought it was interesting that in the movie the actor who played Walter was married, and there were scenes from the movie, that you could tell he was wearing a wedding ring.

Blog #4

The two questions that I decided to pick from the handout are questions 1, and 6. I am going to start with question 6 though, because question 1 talks about the ending between the novel and the movie.

Question 6:

In my opinion, I think that Double Indemnity is nightmarish, because it would be a nightmare to find out that your wife and your insurance agent is planning your murder. Also I think that it would be a nightmare when Walter and Phyllis finally realize that they have committed a murder together, and at anytime either one of them can tell on the other person.

In my opinion I think that Double Indemnity is weird because Walter falls in love to fast with every woman he meets. He met Phyllis and he thought that he was in love with her, and he did everything for her. He even committed a murder for her. Then he meets Lola, and after he has already murdered her father, and realizes that the only relationship he ever had with Phyllis was when they were planning the murder of Mr. Nirdlinger, he decides he is in love with Lola to, and that he would do anything for her as well. Also I thought it was weird when he said he was in love with Lola because of their HUGE age difference.

In my opinion I think that Double Indemnity is cruel because of everyone Phyllis has murdered in her life. I think that it is cruel that she killed Mrs. Nirdlinger when she was her nurse, and I also think that is was cruel of all those patients, and the children she killed. I do think that it was very cruel of her and Walter to kill Mr. Nirdlinger, but I personally feel that Phyllis should have been murdered because of everything she had done, and Walter get caught in the end.

Question 1:

I think that the contrasts from the ending of the novel and the ending of the film, is they have different endings. The ending in the novel is Phyllis and Walter end up on a ship together heading to Mexico, you don’t really know if one of them killed the other one first, or if they killed themselves. The ending in the film is Walter kills Phyllis after she shoots him in the shoulder, then Walter goes back to his office and confess everything to Keyes.

In my opinion I think the ending in the film is more film noir, because of the lighting it had when Walter was in the house with Phyllis, and I couldn’t really picture the lighting in the book. And I personally liked the ending in the film better. 

Blog #3 Double Indemnity

I was very surprised when I finally finished the book to find out the ending. Because I had already assumed that Phyllis was going to kill Walter, because she had already gotten what she needed out if him, but I didn’t think that he was going to survive after she shot him in the chest. I also wondered what would have happened if Phyllis didn’t kill him that night, and if he got to her first. And if his plan to kill her would have succeeded.  

As I was reading, it also took me by surprised when Walter said that he was in love with Lola. Especially since they have a HUGE age difference. And especially since he helped her stepmother kill her father. Earlier in the novel, Phyllis mentioned that she was a nurse when her husband had broken his leg, and I was wondering how come she wasn’t a nurse anymore, and if we were ever going to find out why she wasn’t a nurse anymore. But when I did find out, it shocked me that she killed Lola’s mom and so many people. I laughed when in the book that’s why they mentioned her house as the “House of death” because Phyllis obviously loved death. She loved the adrenaline rush that it gave her when she killed someone.  

To be honest, when Walter was explaining how he was going to kill Phyllis, I was kind of rooting for him. I was hoping that he could have taken her by surprised, and kill her first. But she does play the role of the femme fatale and has a mysterious mind. Just because of all those people she had killed before she even met Walter, and then she used Walter to help her kill her husband. And after she and Walter killed her husband, Phyllis was going to kill Lola. And Lola felt that coming, so that’s why she had to move out. Because Lola had already suspected that she killed her mother, and now her father too, and she knew that she was probably next.

The ending was pretty interesting, because I thought for sure that Keys would put Phyllis and Walter away, especially after Walter gave him all the details about how they planned the murder of Mr. Nirdlinger. But he didn’t put them away, he let them go. Maybe because he knew Walter was still in bad shape from the bullet wound, and he just wanted him to suffer. At the very end of the book Walter and Phyllis meet up again, and when he and she said “The captain knows us, I could tell by his face when he came out of the radio room a little while ago. It will have to be tonight”.  When I read that I thought that maybe they are planning to do another murder together. Since let’s face it, that’s the only relationship they will ever have.

But maybe they won’t commit a murder together again; maybe they will both realize that both of their lives are going nowhere, and this is what they deserve to be miserable for the rest of their lives.

My English teacher told us the movie has a different ending the novel, and I am very anxious to see the movies ending, and compare them.