Anthony Luchs
Professor Ryan Pierson
ENGFLM0200
12/3/13
Blade Runner: Proves Neo-Noir is Not a Genre
Comparable films fall into the same genre if they include comparable traits. The qualities of the film have to be recognizable, distinct, clustered and transferable. A genre is when the films that are a part of it have these sortable qualities. When films have similar recognizable qualities it means that they have identifiably parallel traits with other films of the same genre. If a film has distinct qualities it means that it cannot include definable traits from other genres. A film with clustered traits has a bunch of associated things that would go on in the same genre. Transferable traits in a film mean that the traits can interchange between film varieties and styles. Neo-noir is a type of movie in which critics often argue whether it is more of a style than a genre because as Paul Schrader says it is, “not defined, as are the western and gangster genres, by conventions of setting and conflict, but rather by the more subtle qualities of tone and mood” (Schrader). Neo-noir movies are known for their dream/nightmare like worlds in which authority is chasing crime. In these dark, unknowing worlds the complex characters endure violence and eroticism in life or death situation (Silver). In Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) he has shown that neo-noir can be translated through any genre. He did this by proving it is more of a style because it is limited to technical elements. The aesthetic, economic and cultural elements of Blade Runner all express to the viewer that it not only has a Neo-noir style but it also falls in the genre of Sci-Fi. A film style is when a cluster of films have the same recognizable traits but it can be used together with any other genre because it can include too many traits from other genres. Scott was able to use shady lighting and complex characters violently struggling against crime in a Sci-Fi film.
Many film critics argue that there is no exact definition for genre. They just believe they know a genre when they see one and they know when a film is in that genre; it’s just the feeling the movie gives. Its possible that each genre itself has a definition and a list of mandatory elements a film must have to be considered in that genre. Some genres are easy to recognize, Rick Altman uses the examples, “ western = Film that takes place in the American West, or musical = film with diegetic music”. But he goes on to question why Elvis Presley films aren’t considered musicals, yet they have just as much diegetic music as an average musical and still don’t fall under the musical genre. So what other requirements would it need to be in that genre? Altman continues with:
More and more, however, as scholars come to know the full range of individual Hollywood genres, we are finding that genres are far from exhibiting the homogeneity, which this synchronic approach posits... As long as Hollywood genres are conceived as Platonic categories, existing outside the flow of time, it will be impossible to reconcile genre theory, which has always accepted as given the timelessness of a characteristic structure, and genre history, which has concentrated on chronicling the development, deployment, and disappearance of this same structure. (Altman)
Genres were made because audiences would like the type of movie they had seen and wanted to see more like it. Filmmakers and their audiences have an understanding to accept certain conventions that are all in the same nature in each movie. The genre of a film can affect the plot, subject, cinematography and techniques.
Meanwhile, film styles are more about the similar techniques and methods used by related filmmakers in creating a film. Films that fall under the same genre don’t have to be of the same film style. Also there can be the same film style used throughout several different genres. For example film noir is a style of film that has been used with several film genres across several time periods in Hollywood (Bordwell). The guidelines for a film to be categorized as a style is a lot less demanding than the guidelines in order for it to be categorized under a genre. Styles of films use similar editing, cinematography, mise-en-scene, sound and narrative. A style has features of a film that aren’t as prominent as the traits that genres are categorized by. A movie like Blade Runner cannot just be called a Neo-noir style film, it is not just a crime film, it is also a Sci-Fi.
Many critics and filmmakers have also debated the definition of Neo-noir. Film noir was a bunch of movies from the forties that were coined “noir” by French critics because it literally means black in French. Film noir movies have slowly stopped being made since the fifties but a new type of noir, neo-noir, has started becoming more popular. Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton define noir as a film with, “realistic locations, carefully crafted supporting roles, extremely brutal scenes and bits of bravura in the final chase scene”. They go on to say the films have a femme fatale and the world is dreamlike as they quote Georges Sedoul who says, “the story remains opaque, like a nightmare, or the ramblings of the drunk”(Borde & Chaumeton). Paul Shrader believes that noir should be defined by mood and tone but also knows how hard it is to actually define noir:
Almost every critic has his own definition of film noir, and a personal list of film titles and dates to back it up. Personal and descriptive definitions, however, can get a bit sticky. A film of urban nightlife is not necessarily a film noir, and a film noir need not necessarily concern crime and corruption. Since film noir is defined by tone rather than genre, it is almost impossible to argue one critic’s descriptive definition against another’s. How many noir elements does it take to make a film noir noir?
In his best attempt at defining it he states, “In general, film noir refers to those Hollywood films of the Forties and early Fifties which portrayed the world of dark, slick city streets, crime and corruption” (Schrader). Alain Silver, another writer trying to define noir thinks it could be as simple as having “qualities such as nightmarish, weird, erotic, ambivalent and cruel… the noir aspect of a film is linked to a character, a scene, a setting. He also believes it can be a film that has crime present, such as, “Blackmail, accusation, theft or drug trafficking”, with the possibility of a violent and gruesome death and thrilling near death situations. But then there are certain types of film noir. Blade Runner is a neo-noir that can also be defined as a tech-noir. This is because Blade Runner, like other tech-noir films, is a film that is “distinctly recognizable by their robotic characters and apocalyptic cityscapes” (Silver). So basically film noir is a style that has been developed by French critics that everyone argues whether it is a style or a genre and where everyone argues what the actual definition of it is. Some noir movies after the forties and fifties have helped prove that film noir and neo-noir are in fact styles and not genres and they have helped us define genre style and film noir better. The film Blade Runner, directed by Ridley Scott, is a film about a detective or a “Blade Runner” (Harrison Ford) whose job is to find and kill robots called Replicants. These robots have been declared illegal on Earth because a group of them rebelled and have started killing humans. Although the film has been considered one of the best sci-fi films of all time and gained a cult following it did not make a lot of money at the box offices and had to be released and edited a few more times before it gained all its success. The film takes place in Scott’s depiction of Los Angeles in 2019. His world is a dreary place where nearly every scene is dark. Outside it seams as if it is always nighttime and a majority of the scenes it is raining and inside scenes take place in dark rooms that never have lights or lamps and just little light comes from the windows. When it is not raining there is overcast and a fog that flying cars disappear into just as soon as they appear. The buildings emit fire and smog and it seems like the only light in the universe comes from the unnatural lighting of streetlights, vehicles and buildings. Thunderstorms are common and as lightning strikes it’s one of the only times when everything is completely illuminated and shade less. This murky world is absolutely nightmarish and the robots or “criminals” are weirdly erotic. It is not your run-of-the-mill crime mystery/detective film. Strangely two scenes stand out as having the most light in them. The only scene that seems to take place in the daytime when you can actually see the sun is when Ford meets the creator (Joe Turkel) of these replicants. When he is asked to do a test on a woman to see if she is a replicant he says “its too bright in here”. They put the blinds down and the film quickly becomes shady again and it’s as if the characters in the movie can only live their daily lives in the dark. The next scene where there is noticeable light is when one of the robots (Roy Batty) goes to see the man who created him because he knows he only has a 4-year lifespan. Turkel’s character might for some reason like light or he could be associated with light because he is a man of creation and life. This scene takes place in his house where he has candles lighting up his room. When he is speaking to the replicant he created he ironically tells him “the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly”. This seems like it is a message Scott uses that means the United States and Los Angeles have been great places to live and have “burned twice as bright” but he sees their future, as he depicts in his film, as a cold dark place because the light can only “burn half as long”. The scene ends with the replicant murdering his creator, which literally and symbolically kills the light for the rest of the movie. The scene ends in a thrilling cop and robber like chase scene between Ford’s character and Batty’s throughout an eerie and dark home and then outside in a thunderstorm. Both characters come so close to death and get gruesome injuries until finally replicant reveals that his time is up even after everything he’s seen in his notorious final line “All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die”(Scott). As he is saying that line he appears to be crying out in the rain but you can't tell because they get “lost” in the rain, then his head falls and the movie ends. Blade Runner throughout the film demonstrates neo-noir is a style and not a genre. The genre of the film is obviously Sci-Fi because it a fictional movie that takes place in the future and has robots and remarkable unheard of technology like flying cars. The fact that these futuristic world is always dark and gloomy doesn’t affect the genre of the movie, it is just a different style used to describe a Science Fiction film. Therefore Blade Runner, unlike other neo-noir films, is evidently a Sci-fi. Even though neo-noirs usually have action and crime neo-noir films have been comedies, westerns, horrors, musicals, romances, dramas and even pornographies. Neo-noir is a style because the only thing this movie has in common with other neo-noir films are the tone and mood of the movie. Blade Runner cannot be put into the same genre of movie such as a comedy neo-noir, e.g., The Big Lebowski, a western, e.g., Lone Star, or a romance, e.g., Body Heat. These movies fit into their own genre because they have similar plots, techniques, setting, characters and subject as films in their genre do. They are made with the same style because of comparable lighting (or lack of), composition, decor, framing, color, narrative and editing. Film noir isn’t even a genre because it was more of a time period in the forties and fifties where shadowy movies came out featuring an authority figure chasing some type of criminal involved with a femme fatal. Most film noirs are crime/thrillers because the entire movie revolves around crime and the thrill of the authority to catch the criminal. The style of neo-noir can literally take place anywhere, in any time, the past, present or the future. Blade Runner’s innovative approach to a neo-noir film was just as innovative of an approach to a science fiction film. The fact that neo-noir can be used in any genre proves the fact that it cannot be a genre on its own. The basic plot of the movie would have been able to work in any other genre. It could’ve starred Jackie Chan in a comedic kung-fu movie where he has to fight through the dark streets of his city to stop four martial artists who have been trained to kill. It could’ve starred Clint Eastwood in a western where he has to travel through the shadowy west and find a few bandits. All these films would’ve needed to do is film a lot at night and make the movie gruesome and erotic and critics across the globe would be calling it a neo-noir. So many movies have a good guy and a bad guy that have sex and violence. Its just a style of movies and can't be considered a genre just because they fail to use light in their movie. The flexibility of the style of neo-noir allowed Ridley Scott to create a world for his sci-fi film. His film Blade Runner proved that films that fall under the classification of neo-noir are all made with the same film making style but are not included in the same genre.