What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #597
Film Noir: A Very Short Introduction
Film noir, one of the most intriguing yet difficult to define terms in cinema history, is usually associated with a series of darkly seductive Hollywood thrillers from the 1940s and 50s - shadowy, black-and-white pictures about private eyes, femme fatales, outlaw lovers, criminal heists, corrupt police, and doomed or endangered outsiders. But as this VSI demonstrates, film noir actually predates the 1940s and has never been confined to Hollywood. International inscope, its various manifestations have spread across generic categories, attracted the interest of the world's great directors, and continue to appear even today.In this Very Short Introduction James Naremore shows how the term film noir originated in in French literary and film criticism, and how later uses of the term travelled abroad, changing its implications. In the process, he comments on classic examples of the films and explores important aspects of their their critical reception, their major literary sources, their methods of dealing with censorship and budgets, their social and cultural politics, their variety of styles, andtheir future in a world of digital media and video streaming.ABOUT THE The Very Short Introductions series from Oxford University Press contains hundreds of titles in almost every subject area. These pocket-sized books are the perfect way to get ahead in a new subject quickly. Our expert authors combine facts, analysis, perspective, new ideas, and enthusiasm to make interesting and challenging topics highly readable.
152 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 15, 2019
26 people are currently reading
247 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
December 25, 2020
Nicely done overview of film noir, written by James Naremore, author of the much lengthier _More than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts_ (revised edition published 2008). One of the nicer entries in the _A Very Short Introduction_ series (and the first I have read in probably ten years), in a preface, six numbered chapters, and section on references and further reading (there is also an index and scattered through the text several photographs) Naremore did a good job of providing some historical and cultural context for film noir, discussed its literary roots, discussed what was and wasn’t film noir, technical aspects of film noir such as lighting and the film actually used in making the movies, concepts such as neo-noir, briefly discussed some of the more famous examples of film noir (though it was not a book of reviews or lists), and the current state of film noir (the book, published in 2019, included some up to date mentions of such films as the 2017 _Atomic Blonde_ and the Steven Soderbergh 2018 _Unsane_ though both of the latter films just in passing).
The preface is just two and a half pages, a good introduction to the concept of film noir, noting that “[m]any people recognize a film noir when they see one,” noting that “as commercial products, they blur the distinction between formulaic entertainment and art films,” and that “critics disagree about whether they should be understood as a genre, a period, a movement, a series, a cycle, or simply a “phenomenon.”” Though many people think of private detective thrillers and hard-boiled crimes stories as the primary example of film noir, other types exist such as spy stories, costume adventures, westerns, social satires, and “sleeky erotic love stories” such as Gilda. The author also noted that though film noir is often thought to have “originated as a synthesis between American writers of “hard-boiled” or “tough” crime fiction and a group of German émigré directors in Hollywood who brought “Expressionism” to the studios,” Naremore disputed this, noting briefly in the preface such anomalies as the name is in fact French and the genre as a name didn’t get wide usages in America until the 1970s.
Chapter one, “The Idea of film noir,” discussed the French origin of the term, the enormous influence of the book _A Panorama of the American Film Noir: 1941-1953_ by Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton (“It gave identity and cachet to pictures that might have been forgotten, and in the process helped to create what today’s movie industry regards as a fully-fledged genre”), how this book made “film noir seem less like a loosely connected series than like an anti-genre that systematically rebels against Hollywood conventions,” how film noir is not limited to American films (noting such things as “Scandi-noir” and “Nordic noir,” as well as Latin American and Japanese noir films), and a for me too brief discussion as to why noir became so pervasive (“a noir sensibility has been characteristic of modernity since the end of the World War I – a pessimistic, romantic, sometimes critical, usually “cool” attitude about crime and the darker realms of sex and violence”).
Chapter two looked at the influences of modernism on film noir (spending a good bit of time defining and discussing modernism), how in film noir “literary modernism interacted with mass culture and made its way to movies,” how in certain ways modernism was “a potential threat to the entertainment industry” and was “never fully absorbed into the mainstream” (“its links to high culture, its formal and moral complexity, its frankness about sex, its criticism of American modernity”), and a good discussion of major noir writers such as Samuel Dashiell Hammett (with extensive discussion of the novel and the most famous filmed version of _The Maltese Falcon_), Graham Greene (with a good bit of discussion of his classic screenplay of _The Third Man_, based on the novel by Carol Reed), James M. Cain (with discussion of his 1934 novel _The Postman Always Rings Twice_ as well as his novel _Double Indemnity_ (originally ruled by the Production Code Administration or PCA as unfilmable because the novel’s protagonists got away with murder, something the movie version changed), and Raymond Chandler (who gave us “Philip Marlowe, his tough private eye,” with his “British-sounding name, a wryly critical attitude toward California, a gift for similes, and an American facility with wise-cracks”).
Chapter three, “Censorship and politics in in Hollywood noir,” was just that, a discussion of censorship and how politics influenced not only the stories told in film noir but the careers of those who created it. Lots of discussion of the PCA (which had prohibitions against ““lustful kissing,” excessive drinking, visible pregnancy, adultery, “perversion,” and miscegenation”), a discussion of that “while American noir has no essential politics, its formative roots were in the left culture of the Roosevelt years” (including many that were blacklisted for Communist ties), though over time there were films noir that did have social commentary and political angles (discussing a few, such as John Huston’s “The Asphalt Jungle”), and the degree to which female, black, lesbian, and homosexual creators and subject matter existed in film noir, noting among other things that Latin American settings in film noir are “frequently associated with romance and escape, offering a countervailing warmth to the dark mise-en-scene and emotional coldness of the characters” and how rare it was that blacks ever appeared in film noir, “seldom shown in close ups unless they were musicians playing jazz,” though later on good films noir with blacks appeared, such as the 1990 Walter Mosely novel _Devil in a Blue Dress_ which became a movie in 1995 directed by Carl Franklin (who is African-American) and starring Denzel Washington.
Chapter four, “Money, critics, and the art of noir” had a great discussion of what exactly B-movie noir is, of how critics who embraced film noir ran the risk as one person put it, making them “vulnerable to the charge of preferring trash to art,” and the evolution of “intermediate-level” noir-thrillers somewhere between B-movies and major Hollywood productions contending for Oscars.
Chapter five, “Styles of film noir,” noting that while noir especially in the 1940s was “commonly associated with black-and-white photography, flashbacks, voice-over narration, unbalanced compositions, vertiginous camera angles, deep focus, and night-for-night exteriors (scenes shot on location at night using flood lights, with characters visible against a black sky),” there “never was a single narrative or visual style of film noir,” even in its classic period of the 1940s. Much of the chapter discussed the realities of filming in black-and-white, of filmmakers needing “to master the photographic equivalent of a longstanding tradition in painting called “grisaille,” or the technique of working in many shades of black, gray, and white,” of how people and objects had “to be “readable” in night-time scenes, and both the characters and the décor needed to be modeled with light to give them dimension” as well as the challenges of filming in color (which early on was a real struggle to work with, as it was a challenge to tone down the garish colors of the film of the time as well as give the deep shadows and dramatic lighting directors wanted). I really enjoyed the discussion of the color film _Rope_ in 1948, Alfred Hitchcock’s first color film.
There is also several pages devoted to a discussion of parody, pastiche, and postmodern noir, including Robert Altman’s 1973 film _The Long Goodbye_ (a Raymond Chandler novel, the film that was made based on it filled with “a certain amount of derisive parody and jokes”), Roman Polanski’s _Chinatown_ (“more like a period film than a pastiche”; nice discussion of the movie is included), _Who Framed Roger Rabbit_ (“a mixture of parody and pastiche that owes something to _Chinatown_), and David Lynch’s _Lost Highway_ (1997) and _Mulholland Drive_ (2001).
Scattered through the chapter and mentioned very briefly in chapter 6 there were elements discussing how popular culture, critics, and filmmakers often view as noirish things that classic films noir never actually had, such as the “low, plaintive trumpet solo counterpointed with eerie strings” in Jerry Goldsmith’s theme music for _Chinatown_, a “sound of noir” that never was.
Chapter six, “The afterlife of noir,” was maybe a bit disorganized compared to earlier chapters, noting a few pop culture elements that referenced film noir (such a 1997 Carly Simon album entitled “Film Noir”), noir fiction on the radio, whether or not film noir will survive in the decades to come, continuing struggles to define what film noir is (as well as neo-noir and various subcategories such as “horror-noir” and “sci-fi noir”), and brief discussion of how noir can stand for “a nostalgia for something that never quite existed.”
A quick read at 108 pages not counting references and recommended reading. Nice springboard I think to find some of the best examples of film noir to watch (not compiled in any list but can be found in the index).
The preface is just two and a half pages, a good introduction to the concept of film noir, noting that “[m]any people recognize a film noir when they see one,” noting that “as commercial products, they blur the distinction between formulaic entertainment and art films,” and that “critics disagree about whether they should be understood as a genre, a period, a movement, a series, a cycle, or simply a “phenomenon.”” Though many people think of private detective thrillers and hard-boiled crimes stories as the primary example of film noir, other types exist such as spy stories, costume adventures, westerns, social satires, and “sleeky erotic love stories” such as Gilda. The author also noted that though film noir is often thought to have “originated as a synthesis between American writers of “hard-boiled” or “tough” crime fiction and a group of German émigré directors in Hollywood who brought “Expressionism” to the studios,” Naremore disputed this, noting briefly in the preface such anomalies as the name is in fact French and the genre as a name didn’t get wide usages in America until the 1970s.
Chapter one, “The Idea of film noir,” discussed the French origin of the term, the enormous influence of the book _A Panorama of the American Film Noir: 1941-1953_ by Raymond Borde and Etienne Chaumeton (“It gave identity and cachet to pictures that might have been forgotten, and in the process helped to create what today’s movie industry regards as a fully-fledged genre”), how this book made “film noir seem less like a loosely connected series than like an anti-genre that systematically rebels against Hollywood conventions,” how film noir is not limited to American films (noting such things as “Scandi-noir” and “Nordic noir,” as well as Latin American and Japanese noir films), and a for me too brief discussion as to why noir became so pervasive (“a noir sensibility has been characteristic of modernity since the end of the World War I – a pessimistic, romantic, sometimes critical, usually “cool” attitude about crime and the darker realms of sex and violence”).
Chapter two looked at the influences of modernism on film noir (spending a good bit of time defining and discussing modernism), how in film noir “literary modernism interacted with mass culture and made its way to movies,” how in certain ways modernism was “a potential threat to the entertainment industry” and was “never fully absorbed into the mainstream” (“its links to high culture, its formal and moral complexity, its frankness about sex, its criticism of American modernity”), and a good discussion of major noir writers such as Samuel Dashiell Hammett (with extensive discussion of the novel and the most famous filmed version of _The Maltese Falcon_), Graham Greene (with a good bit of discussion of his classic screenplay of _The Third Man_, based on the novel by Carol Reed), James M. Cain (with discussion of his 1934 novel _The Postman Always Rings Twice_ as well as his novel _Double Indemnity_ (originally ruled by the Production Code Administration or PCA as unfilmable because the novel’s protagonists got away with murder, something the movie version changed), and Raymond Chandler (who gave us “Philip Marlowe, his tough private eye,” with his “British-sounding name, a wryly critical attitude toward California, a gift for similes, and an American facility with wise-cracks”).
Chapter three, “Censorship and politics in in Hollywood noir,” was just that, a discussion of censorship and how politics influenced not only the stories told in film noir but the careers of those who created it. Lots of discussion of the PCA (which had prohibitions against ““lustful kissing,” excessive drinking, visible pregnancy, adultery, “perversion,” and miscegenation”), a discussion of that “while American noir has no essential politics, its formative roots were in the left culture of the Roosevelt years” (including many that were blacklisted for Communist ties), though over time there were films noir that did have social commentary and political angles (discussing a few, such as John Huston’s “The Asphalt Jungle”), and the degree to which female, black, lesbian, and homosexual creators and subject matter existed in film noir, noting among other things that Latin American settings in film noir are “frequently associated with romance and escape, offering a countervailing warmth to the dark mise-en-scene and emotional coldness of the characters” and how rare it was that blacks ever appeared in film noir, “seldom shown in close ups unless they were musicians playing jazz,” though later on good films noir with blacks appeared, such as the 1990 Walter Mosely novel _Devil in a Blue Dress_ which became a movie in 1995 directed by Carl Franklin (who is African-American) and starring Denzel Washington.
Chapter four, “Money, critics, and the art of noir” had a great discussion of what exactly B-movie noir is, of how critics who embraced film noir ran the risk as one person put it, making them “vulnerable to the charge of preferring trash to art,” and the evolution of “intermediate-level” noir-thrillers somewhere between B-movies and major Hollywood productions contending for Oscars.
Chapter five, “Styles of film noir,” noting that while noir especially in the 1940s was “commonly associated with black-and-white photography, flashbacks, voice-over narration, unbalanced compositions, vertiginous camera angles, deep focus, and night-for-night exteriors (scenes shot on location at night using flood lights, with characters visible against a black sky),” there “never was a single narrative or visual style of film noir,” even in its classic period of the 1940s. Much of the chapter discussed the realities of filming in black-and-white, of filmmakers needing “to master the photographic equivalent of a longstanding tradition in painting called “grisaille,” or the technique of working in many shades of black, gray, and white,” of how people and objects had “to be “readable” in night-time scenes, and both the characters and the décor needed to be modeled with light to give them dimension” as well as the challenges of filming in color (which early on was a real struggle to work with, as it was a challenge to tone down the garish colors of the film of the time as well as give the deep shadows and dramatic lighting directors wanted). I really enjoyed the discussion of the color film _Rope_ in 1948, Alfred Hitchcock’s first color film.
There is also several pages devoted to a discussion of parody, pastiche, and postmodern noir, including Robert Altman’s 1973 film _The Long Goodbye_ (a Raymond Chandler novel, the film that was made based on it filled with “a certain amount of derisive parody and jokes”), Roman Polanski’s _Chinatown_ (“more like a period film than a pastiche”; nice discussion of the movie is included), _Who Framed Roger Rabbit_ (“a mixture of parody and pastiche that owes something to _Chinatown_), and David Lynch’s _Lost Highway_ (1997) and _Mulholland Drive_ (2001).
Scattered through the chapter and mentioned very briefly in chapter 6 there were elements discussing how popular culture, critics, and filmmakers often view as noirish things that classic films noir never actually had, such as the “low, plaintive trumpet solo counterpointed with eerie strings” in Jerry Goldsmith’s theme music for _Chinatown_, a “sound of noir” that never was.
Chapter six, “The afterlife of noir,” was maybe a bit disorganized compared to earlier chapters, noting a few pop culture elements that referenced film noir (such a 1997 Carly Simon album entitled “Film Noir”), noir fiction on the radio, whether or not film noir will survive in the decades to come, continuing struggles to define what film noir is (as well as neo-noir and various subcategories such as “horror-noir” and “sci-fi noir”), and brief discussion of how noir can stand for “a nostalgia for something that never quite existed.”
A quick read at 108 pages not counting references and recommended reading. Nice springboard I think to find some of the best examples of film noir to watch (not compiled in any list but can be found in the index).
December 12, 2025
A well-done and concise overview of film noir. I found the first few chapters more interesting than the last, but overall this was an enjoyable and informative read.
December 7, 2019
Film noir has always been difficult to define or delineate, but James Naramore's Very Short Introduction is an excellent overview and discussion of this nebulous film tradition. His discussion ranges widely, both in time (going back to the earliest days of cinema and up to modern-day--that is, 2019) and in cultural scope (covering the cross-pollination of films with other art forms). This is yet another excellent volume in Oxford University Press' Very Short Introduction series.
February 27, 2024
If the idea is to see if you have an appetite for more, then this definitely worked for me. Luckily, Naremore has a longer book on the same subject (More than Night: Film Noir in Its Contexts).
Although this is a “very short” book (108 pages), Naremore goes pretty broad spectrum. He starts off with a discussion of the definition of “film noir.” I think it makes noir more interesting that it is difficult to define, somehow appropriate to what it is, and that followers argue about what movies fall into or out of the category. Some films — The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, Gun Crazy, . . . — are paradigm examples. And those suggest common elements — black and white cinematography, toughness, down and out or doomed characters, cityscapes, . . . .
But what about films made after the 40s and 50s, even made in color (e.g., Chinatown)? What about recent movies like LA Confidential or Reservoir Dogs? What about movies like Pulp Fiction or Sin City that ride the edge of parody? What about science fiction, like Blade Runner? What about non-American films, like Rififi or M?
Some of those seem obviously noir, and some not so much, but it’s hard to say why in a way that will hold generally. Naremore points to the sub-genres like neo-noir or sci fi noir, etc. as ways to decide without deciding. Maybe we don’t need to decide.
Naremore gives some great history, the landmark films, the context of World War II (and then McCarthyism and the Cold War), and how exactly a French term like “film noir” became associated with Hollywood films (that in turn borrowed from German expressionism).
Part of the history is censorship, under the Production Code Administration. The strictures of the code had their own influence on how the movies were crafted, e.g., the “between the lines” treatments of homosexuality and sex in general or the questionable and often compromised moral that “crime doesn’t pay.” The history of Hollywood production codes is worth a book in itself (luckily again, there’s a good one on life before the code and the effect that the code had subsequently, Forbidden Hollywood, by Mark Vieira).
Naremore also does a great job of relating noir film and noir literature, with discussions of Hammet, Cain, Chandler, Highsmith, Greene, and more. Some of those discussions are going to send me to the bookstore for some great reading.
And the book wraps up with a discussion of noir’s “afterlife,” where it becomes a matter of history and comment as much as active genre. Actually, the chapter preceding that last one warms up the topic with discussions of films in which noir becomes something to allude to in “pastiche” (e.g., Body Heat or Miller’s Crossing) or to parody in “pasticcio” (e.g., Pulp Fiction or Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid).
All in all, it’s an appetizer. Lots of great references to movies that you may have seen but want to see again, maybe with added context from Naremore’s discussions. And I especially liked the references and discussions re noir literature — the classics as well as some things that are a little off the beaten path (I’m going to hunt down the 1950s comic book series, Crime Suspensestories that Naremore mentions). There’s a helpful chapter-by-chapter list of references and recommendations at the back of the book.
Although this is a “very short” book (108 pages), Naremore goes pretty broad spectrum. He starts off with a discussion of the definition of “film noir.” I think it makes noir more interesting that it is difficult to define, somehow appropriate to what it is, and that followers argue about what movies fall into or out of the category. Some films — The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Out of the Past, Gun Crazy, . . . — are paradigm examples. And those suggest common elements — black and white cinematography, toughness, down and out or doomed characters, cityscapes, . . . .
But what about films made after the 40s and 50s, even made in color (e.g., Chinatown)? What about recent movies like LA Confidential or Reservoir Dogs? What about movies like Pulp Fiction or Sin City that ride the edge of parody? What about science fiction, like Blade Runner? What about non-American films, like Rififi or M?
Some of those seem obviously noir, and some not so much, but it’s hard to say why in a way that will hold generally. Naremore points to the sub-genres like neo-noir or sci fi noir, etc. as ways to decide without deciding. Maybe we don’t need to decide.
Naremore gives some great history, the landmark films, the context of World War II (and then McCarthyism and the Cold War), and how exactly a French term like “film noir” became associated with Hollywood films (that in turn borrowed from German expressionism).
Part of the history is censorship, under the Production Code Administration. The strictures of the code had their own influence on how the movies were crafted, e.g., the “between the lines” treatments of homosexuality and sex in general or the questionable and often compromised moral that “crime doesn’t pay.” The history of Hollywood production codes is worth a book in itself (luckily again, there’s a good one on life before the code and the effect that the code had subsequently, Forbidden Hollywood, by Mark Vieira).
Naremore also does a great job of relating noir film and noir literature, with discussions of Hammet, Cain, Chandler, Highsmith, Greene, and more. Some of those discussions are going to send me to the bookstore for some great reading.
And the book wraps up with a discussion of noir’s “afterlife,” where it becomes a matter of history and comment as much as active genre. Actually, the chapter preceding that last one warms up the topic with discussions of films in which noir becomes something to allude to in “pastiche” (e.g., Body Heat or Miller’s Crossing) or to parody in “pasticcio” (e.g., Pulp Fiction or Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid).
All in all, it’s an appetizer. Lots of great references to movies that you may have seen but want to see again, maybe with added context from Naremore’s discussions. And I especially liked the references and discussions re noir literature — the classics as well as some things that are a little off the beaten path (I’m going to hunt down the 1950s comic book series, Crime Suspensestories that Naremore mentions). There’s a helpful chapter-by-chapter list of references and recommendations at the back of the book.
February 23, 2025
Film Noir In The Very Short Introductions Series
Every October, the Film Noir Foundation and the AFI Silver sponsor "Noir City DC" , a two week festival of film noir, including both well-known and rare movies usually grouped around a theme. Adding to the appeal of the films and the beautiful retro setting, Eddie Muller "The Czar of Noir" and film historian Foster Hirsch introduce selected screenings and provide insight into the movies and the film noir genre. I have become an admirer of film noir over the years through attending "Noir City DC", through watching film noir on my own, and through reading noir fiction.
This book "Film Noir: A Very Short Introduction" (2019) is part of the "Very Short Introduction" series of Oxford University Press designed to offer "concise and original introductions" to a wide range of subjects.. The author, James Naremore, is a well-known scholar of film who has written a much longer study of film noir, "More than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts"(2008) from which this "Very Short Introduction" is largely derived. Naremore's knowledge of and passion for his subject come through on every page.
The book consists of six chapters, a Preface and an Introduction, and notes and suggestions for further reading on each chapter. The text is about evenly divided between discussing the background of film noir and the difficulty of pinning down its nature and discussing specific noir film and the books on which they are based.
The book is at its best in discussing the nature of noir, primarily in the first two chapters and in the final chapter. The term "film noir" was not widely used in the United States until the 1970's well after what is usually regarded as the heyday of film noir in the 1940s -- 1950s. The term, however, was used much before the 1940s in France and, as Naremore discusses, the genre has its background in existentialism and surrealism. His book ties film noir into intellectual currents and into film as entertainment -- which is a valuable way to explore the conflicted nature of the genre.
Naremore discusses an early book, perhaps the first on film noir, "A Panorama of American Film Noir: 1941-1953" by the French authors by Raymond Borde and Emille Chaumeton published in 1955 and only translated into English in 2002. This book included a discussion of many of the important film noirs up to its time and also explored the elusive nature of the genre, which the authors defined in terms of what Naremore calls five affective qualities of Surrealist art: "oneiric (dreamlike), strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel." Film noirs share in these traits to varying degrees. Film noir is more of a mood or an atmosphere than a rigid form. I found Naremore's discussion highly useful in understanding noir and in its discussion of the book of Borde and Chaumeton.
I also learned from Naremore's discussion of early American noir films and the books on which they are based, including works by Dashiell Hammett, Graham Greene, James Cain, and Cornell Woolrich. These discussions explore the relationship between noir fiction and noir film in some seminal early works.
The middle chapters of Naremore's study discuss censorship in film noir's early days and its impact, the nature of "B" low-budget noir films, and changes in technology in making noir films over the years. He carries his discussion beyond what is sometimes called "classic" noir of the 40s-50s to contemporary neo-noir and its variants. It is a great deal of material to cover in a short space. Naremore also includes extensive discussions, for a short book, of many significant noir films. This material will be particularly valuable as a tool for finding films for those new to the genre.
In his final chapter, Naremore explores the continuing vitality of film noir, including in festivals such as the "Noir City, D.C." festival I attend every year. Given the fluid nature of the genre, he finds it difficult to speculate on whether it will continue and in what form. However, as Naremore concludes, noir themes such as "one-way streets and dead ends, mad love and bad love, double crosses and conspiracies, discontent in the nuclear family and violence around the corner—are as topical as ever" and that noir films of the 1940s and 50s "still contribute to modernity and postmodernity" and that noirish themes and atmospheres may continue to develop in unpredictable ways.
Naremore's book is a good short introduction to film noir and to its continuing appeal. I learned from the book, and it deepened my appreciation for film noir.
Robin Friedman
Every October, the Film Noir Foundation and the AFI Silver sponsor "Noir City DC" , a two week festival of film noir, including both well-known and rare movies usually grouped around a theme. Adding to the appeal of the films and the beautiful retro setting, Eddie Muller "The Czar of Noir" and film historian Foster Hirsch introduce selected screenings and provide insight into the movies and the film noir genre. I have become an admirer of film noir over the years through attending "Noir City DC", through watching film noir on my own, and through reading noir fiction.
This book "Film Noir: A Very Short Introduction" (2019) is part of the "Very Short Introduction" series of Oxford University Press designed to offer "concise and original introductions" to a wide range of subjects.. The author, James Naremore, is a well-known scholar of film who has written a much longer study of film noir, "More than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts"(2008) from which this "Very Short Introduction" is largely derived. Naremore's knowledge of and passion for his subject come through on every page.
The book consists of six chapters, a Preface and an Introduction, and notes and suggestions for further reading on each chapter. The text is about evenly divided between discussing the background of film noir and the difficulty of pinning down its nature and discussing specific noir film and the books on which they are based.
The book is at its best in discussing the nature of noir, primarily in the first two chapters and in the final chapter. The term "film noir" was not widely used in the United States until the 1970's well after what is usually regarded as the heyday of film noir in the 1940s -- 1950s. The term, however, was used much before the 1940s in France and, as Naremore discusses, the genre has its background in existentialism and surrealism. His book ties film noir into intellectual currents and into film as entertainment -- which is a valuable way to explore the conflicted nature of the genre.
Naremore discusses an early book, perhaps the first on film noir, "A Panorama of American Film Noir: 1941-1953" by the French authors by Raymond Borde and Emille Chaumeton published in 1955 and only translated into English in 2002. This book included a discussion of many of the important film noirs up to its time and also explored the elusive nature of the genre, which the authors defined in terms of what Naremore calls five affective qualities of Surrealist art: "oneiric (dreamlike), strange, erotic, ambivalent, and cruel." Film noirs share in these traits to varying degrees. Film noir is more of a mood or an atmosphere than a rigid form. I found Naremore's discussion highly useful in understanding noir and in its discussion of the book of Borde and Chaumeton.
I also learned from Naremore's discussion of early American noir films and the books on which they are based, including works by Dashiell Hammett, Graham Greene, James Cain, and Cornell Woolrich. These discussions explore the relationship between noir fiction and noir film in some seminal early works.
The middle chapters of Naremore's study discuss censorship in film noir's early days and its impact, the nature of "B" low-budget noir films, and changes in technology in making noir films over the years. He carries his discussion beyond what is sometimes called "classic" noir of the 40s-50s to contemporary neo-noir and its variants. It is a great deal of material to cover in a short space. Naremore also includes extensive discussions, for a short book, of many significant noir films. This material will be particularly valuable as a tool for finding films for those new to the genre.
In his final chapter, Naremore explores the continuing vitality of film noir, including in festivals such as the "Noir City, D.C." festival I attend every year. Given the fluid nature of the genre, he finds it difficult to speculate on whether it will continue and in what form. However, as Naremore concludes, noir themes such as "one-way streets and dead ends, mad love and bad love, double crosses and conspiracies, discontent in the nuclear family and violence around the corner—are as topical as ever" and that noir films of the 1940s and 50s "still contribute to modernity and postmodernity" and that noirish themes and atmospheres may continue to develop in unpredictable ways.
Naremore's book is a good short introduction to film noir and to its continuing appeal. I learned from the book, and it deepened my appreciation for film noir.
Robin Friedman
January 19, 2025
Maybe 3.5, but docked spiritually for shoddy proofreading. (Oxford UP, for shame.) Also not entirely sure who this book is intended for. If you knew nothing about noir, this would not be the place to start, since it's too fragmentary and compressed (he openly admits this is his big noir book, just boiled down), with some eccentric coverage choices, to serve as a useful introduction. If you're an expert, why would you read, or need, an intro?
Weirdy, I suppose I fit decently into that rather large middle ground. I've seen a raft of noir films, from Detour to Out of the Past to Touch of Evil to Double Indemnity to Blood Simple and recent neo-noirs, and I've read Hammett, Chandler, Greene, Cornell Woolrich, et. al, but I have not spent a ton of time thinking about theory or locating noir in Hollywood history. (Or scavenged far enough beyond the famous noirs everyone knows; he's got a list here of B-movies--along with a useful clarification of what is and isn't a B movie--that sound well worth checking out.) So if you want that, if you want to think about permutations (left and right noir in the wake of anti-Communist terror, though this is an area where I do know a bit, and his analysis here probably makes the most sense if you already have context) and the international context of the genre, both its naming and imputed politics and its adoption worldwide, as well as a smart discussion of how and where and why genre lit did and did not get turned into good filmed versions, this is a nice place to start. There's also some funny bits about how cliched the structure of flashback narration and loss of memory had become by the mid-40s (a Nero Wolfe novel features a line from Archie Goodwin about how relieved he was that only two characters in the movie he went to had amnesia), which fits into a larger typological discussion of how capacious and unruly, and to some degree incoherent, the notion of noir as a genre became, including as it did women's melodramas, crime movies, thrillers, and psychological dramas, as well as the odd Western or horror crossover.
So, OK, maybe more useful and cogent than I first thought, though again, not the first or second book I'd read on the topic. Definitely the fifth or tenth, though.
Weirdy, I suppose I fit decently into that rather large middle ground. I've seen a raft of noir films, from Detour to Out of the Past to Touch of Evil to Double Indemnity to Blood Simple and recent neo-noirs, and I've read Hammett, Chandler, Greene, Cornell Woolrich, et. al, but I have not spent a ton of time thinking about theory or locating noir in Hollywood history. (Or scavenged far enough beyond the famous noirs everyone knows; he's got a list here of B-movies--along with a useful clarification of what is and isn't a B movie--that sound well worth checking out.) So if you want that, if you want to think about permutations (left and right noir in the wake of anti-Communist terror, though this is an area where I do know a bit, and his analysis here probably makes the most sense if you already have context) and the international context of the genre, both its naming and imputed politics and its adoption worldwide, as well as a smart discussion of how and where and why genre lit did and did not get turned into good filmed versions, this is a nice place to start. There's also some funny bits about how cliched the structure of flashback narration and loss of memory had become by the mid-40s (a Nero Wolfe novel features a line from Archie Goodwin about how relieved he was that only two characters in the movie he went to had amnesia), which fits into a larger typological discussion of how capacious and unruly, and to some degree incoherent, the notion of noir as a genre became, including as it did women's melodramas, crime movies, thrillers, and psychological dramas, as well as the odd Western or horror crossover.
So, OK, maybe more useful and cogent than I first thought, though again, not the first or second book I'd read on the topic. Definitely the fifth or tenth, though.
September 24, 2022
Not great. Barely good.
The author seems to be highly accomplished, but the style and organization of content in this volume of work was not hitting a high-level mark for anyone concerned.
And, do these authors always get paid to quote the sexual deviant violent criminal Foucault? A faux intellectual that leveraged Marxism to justify his criminality and hatred for the productive classes?
---------
He could have also mentioned Spenser for Hire (TV series and novels)
Points for mentioning Cutter's Way, though. Hell of a film.
I may have given him an extra star had he mentioned Night Moves (1975). Or Ross Macdonald and John D. MacDonald in any capacity.
Maybe the Maigret (1992-93) TV series? Is that too police procedural? The novels are certainly cut from the same dark cloth as film noir scripts, and when they started coming out they pre-dated the noir films by a decade.
Then Wallander (2008-). Shetland (2013-), and certainly Twin Peaks (1990-91).
Missed opportunities on this one and a little too trite in the format, topics and perspectives explored. A shame, really.
The author seems to be highly accomplished, but the style and organization of content in this volume of work was not hitting a high-level mark for anyone concerned.
And, do these authors always get paid to quote the sexual deviant violent criminal Foucault? A faux intellectual that leveraged Marxism to justify his criminality and hatred for the productive classes?
---------
He could have also mentioned Spenser for Hire (TV series and novels)
Points for mentioning Cutter's Way, though. Hell of a film.
I may have given him an extra star had he mentioned Night Moves (1975). Or Ross Macdonald and John D. MacDonald in any capacity.
Maybe the Maigret (1992-93) TV series? Is that too police procedural? The novels are certainly cut from the same dark cloth as film noir scripts, and when they started coming out they pre-dated the noir films by a decade.
Then Wallander (2008-). Shetland (2013-), and certainly Twin Peaks (1990-91).
Missed opportunities on this one and a little too trite in the format, topics and perspectives explored. A shame, really.
August 6, 2024
Been having pretty good luck with the Very Short Introductions I randomly find in the library! This made me look up the wikipedia pages of roughly three dozen films I've never seen, and reminded me I've been meaning to rewatch Kiss Me Deadly for a while. As you might expect from the series, this more functions as an overview and an introduction to the interesting questions, in a way that made me think I might want to look up the longer treatment of the genre the author mentions. Love that right at the beginning he places these films in "a fictional zone somewhere between Gothic horror and dystopian science fiction," which I had never considered before but that makes total sense to me.
September 22, 2020
Kind of dated (although it was issued in 2019), and maddening in parts. But contains a lot of insight and blueprint for viewing and understanding films. Made me want more, not of film criticism, but of film. Naremore tells us: "The themes of the old noir thrillers--one-way streets and dead ends, and love and bad love, double crosses adn conspiracies, discontent in the nuclear family and violence around the corner--are as topical as ever, and the black-and-white films of teh 1940s still contribute to a recurring pattern of modernity and postmodernity (108)."
February 21, 2023
Fantastic, cogent and detailed comprehensive overview of Film Noir, it's origins, it's affects, and it's current existence as a 'style' in filmmaking and other formats such as literature, and art.
James Naremore is an excellent writer in his ability to highlight the elemental facets of the style and its history.
If you like films, this is a great little book to start your appreciation of what is considered Film Noir.
James Naremore is an excellent writer in his ability to highlight the elemental facets of the style and its history.
If you like films, this is a great little book to start your appreciation of what is considered Film Noir.
October 22, 2020
Very short and very good overview of film noir, one of my favorite (and difficult to define) movie genres. My list of movies to watch late at night has definitely gotten longer as a result of this read.
February 13, 2021
Although it is short, it is a very well-studied and concise history of film noir. It focuses largely on what makes a film a noir film. I gained a good understanding of what factors put a film in this category and why it is sometimes a vague designation.
December 5, 2023
Interesting if you're a fan of film noir, but not one of the greater "Very Short Introductions" I've read. Spends most of its time name dropping various films and filmmakers, but that has given me a lot to add to my watchlist so I cannot complain.
September 12, 2019
As the title suggests, it's a good intro into academic and artistic ideas on film noir. I'll definitely be taking a look at some of the authors mentioned
January 12, 2021
"Film noir has never been translated as "black film", probably because the French term sounds romantic and because an English translation might seem to refer to African-American cinema."
-Pg. 61, Censorship and politics in Hollywood noir.
"What neo-noir imitates...is not straightforwardly noir but memory of noir, a memory that may be inaccurate or selective."
-Pg. 91, Parody, pastiche, and postmodern noir.
Things I learned from this book:
- The Rashomon effect is a term related to the notorious unreliability of eyewitnesses.
- Imprimatur, a person's acceptance or guarantee that something is of a good standard.
- Waldorf Declaration, anti-communist statement against alleged subversive and disloyal elements in Hollywood.
- Taft–Hartley Act, a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions.
- The Kuleshov effect, a film editing (montage) effect demonstrated by Soviet filmmaker Lev Kuleshov
- Pastiche, an artistic work in a style that imitates that of another work, artist, or period.
-Jimmy valentine lighting, upturned lighting - like using a flashlight turned toward the face to tell a ghost story.
- Stream of Consciousness, a method of narration that describes happenings in the flow of thoughts.
- Mise en scène, the arrangement of scenery and stage properties in a play.
- Mise en abyme, "placed into abyss". A technique in which an image contains a smaller copy of itself, the sequence appearing to recur infinitely.
-Pg. 61, Censorship and politics in Hollywood noir.
"What neo-noir imitates...is not straightforwardly noir but memory of noir, a memory that may be inaccurate or selective."
-Pg. 91, Parody, pastiche, and postmodern noir.
Things I learned from this book:
- The Rashomon effect is a term related to the notorious unreliability of eyewitnesses.
- Imprimatur, a person's acceptance or guarantee that something is of a good standard.
- Waldorf Declaration, anti-communist statement against alleged subversive and disloyal elements in Hollywood.
- Taft–Hartley Act, a United States federal law that restricts the activities and power of labor unions.
- The Kuleshov effect, a film editing (montage) effect demonstrated by Soviet filmmaker Lev Kuleshov
- Pastiche, an artistic work in a style that imitates that of another work, artist, or period.
-Jimmy valentine lighting, upturned lighting - like using a flashlight turned toward the face to tell a ghost story.
- Stream of Consciousness, a method of narration that describes happenings in the flow of thoughts.
- Mise en scène, the arrangement of scenery and stage properties in a play.
- Mise en abyme, "placed into abyss". A technique in which an image contains a smaller copy of itself, the sequence appearing to recur infinitely.
April 1, 2021
Naremore's book does exactly what a good very short introduction should do, but what's more, makes an interesting and persuasive critical and cultural argument.
February 2, 2022
Worth a quick read, but the author spends too much time discussing movies that can only loosely defined as film noir (a term without a precise definition).
December 4, 2025
Unless you want a deep dive, this book provides everything you need to know about Film Noir. I found it comprehensive and helpful.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews