Pulp Fiction discussion

This genre is often sneered at for being no or lowbrow. "Thick as flies on a dead dog" and "trudging into shore like a scrubwoman going home" anyone ? Top quality.

Alberto wrote: "Check this article on Beach Noir in Los Angeles Times Magazine:
http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2012/0...

They Shoot Horses, In A Lonely Place, No Good From A Corpse, Little Sister, Th..."

Great article. Thanks for sharing the link, Alberto.

Watched Laura last night. Great 1944 film that probably should have beaten out Going My Way that year for the Best Picture award.

Laura

Thanks for the heads up on that article, Alberto. Pretty fascinating stuff. So much for California Dreamin', huh? The duality of Southern California dreams and bleak crime. I love the references to so many of those great novels, too.

Greg, I really love that film, too. I have watched it multiple times. Never gets old.

The article is decent--a short, brisk summary of SoCal fiction--but the author (plugging her own book in passing) commits the cardinal sin of jumbling together noir, mystery, and detective fiction all at once in her run-down. The 'blog' she originally posted ('Rap Sheet') on sounds intriguing, though.

Brian wrote: "This genre is often sneered at for being no or lowbrow. "Thick as flies on a dead dog" and "trudging into shore like a scrubwoman going home" anyone ? Top quality."

But with good reason. Remember, we have the luxury today of hand-picking purely the best-of-the-best for our enjoyment. Publishing history will attest to the fact that genre fiction between 1870 and 1950 (all genres) produced a mass of dross. How well would crime fic hold up if you actually had to read every issue of every pulp rag and dime novel that typically hit-the-stands in a given year during its heyday? How about listening to a year's worth of detective radio drama, as I typically do? The style plays itself out very quickly. Perhaps not from any specific fault of its own; but all genres have a terrible struggle to avoid conventions and cliches. That's why they are locked in oscillating cycles of wax/wane.

Greg wrote: "Watched Laura last night. Great 1944 film that probably should have beaten out Going My Way that year for the Best Picture award."

Case in point. First time I saw it, I enjoyed it. But...never gets old? How many times can you watch it in a row? I can only watch 'Laura' maybe 1-2 times in a year before finding it tedious. Quirky characters and the beautiful face of Gene Tierney can only go so far to disguise what is really a very simplistic boilerplate mystery with the usual gaggle of weirdo suspects.

There's also a little bit of incredulity involved: how likely is it that a (view spoiler)[detective becomes obsessed with a murder victim? (hide spoiler)] Finally the acting...pretty standard/flat. Clifton Webb is always Clifton Webb in any role. Vincent Price was badly miscast. Dana Andrews is competent enough--he doesn't have to do much--but he was a screen-magazine heart-throb. Its really just a Gene Tierney showcase.

Anyway. In 1944 there's no way anything but a feel-good movie would win the BP Oscar; and although I deplore the whole Oscar system and despise all its corruption...in 1944 you can hardly blame them for this decision. There was a war on and there was a lot of hardship.

Greg wrote: "Watched Laura last night. Great 1944 film that probably should have beaten out Going My Way that year for the Best Picture award.

Laura"

Watched that recently & i have the book. Great movie & Gene Tierney is stupendously beautiful. Wow!!!

Feliks - Yup.
I went to see `Double Indemnity` in a cinema - for the first time - ten years ago, re-released to mark it`s 50th anniversary.
Though I desperately wanted to enjoy this British Film Institute screening, it looked all of it`s half century.
On the other hand, I`m re-reading `Shoot The Piano Player` (aka `Down There`), and am getting much more out it than first time `round.
I guess what matters most is your age and experience(s) when you first encounter a work of art.
Yours,
Brian.

Still, I think films like Laura and similar ones are films you can come back to time and again, maybe every few years....hence, "never gets old." And, as Brian said, there are things you can pick up on multiple viewings that you missed. Sure, there is an element of incredulity in Laura, but I think the mood/atmosphere and general story/mystery make up for that.

Shoot the Piano Player is a fantastic example of one where you learn more on each viewing. Didn't do much for me the first time I saw it last year, but I've watched it twice since and have liked it better each time.

These are fair and well-tempered comments. I agree with ya.

I suppose quite a few of you have seen the article on the death of the PI in the NYT Magazine. Here's a reference to a reprint http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/mag... Nothing new, but intereting enough. Mostly about Pynchon.