Blog #6 - “Space, Time, and Subjectivity in Neo-Noir Cinema"

Neo-noir, as established by Jerold Abrams in “Space, Time, and Subjectivity in Neo-Noir Cinema,” exists as progeny to the classic noir era, a permeation of the parent body, yet with common identifiers. “This new noir-this ‘neo-noir’-still had all the old trappings of classic noir, like detectives, labyrinths, and femme fatales,” observes Abrams, “but then any new growth always bears the marks of its beginnings.” Observing further, his analysis constructs a bridge connecting methodologies, the old with the new (the neo), bending existentially, exemplifying the traits of the self, with relation to time, to define the latent noir condition. “The character is ‘divided’ against himself,” Abrams notes, “although not so much emotionally, as in Shakespeare, as epistemologically: divided in time as two selves, and one is looking for the other.” An engaging proposition that molds noir traditions with post modern amalgamations and that of the space-time continuum, acting as a demonstration of the genres present state, an evolutionary step with its own set of born derivations.
 
Abrams denotes that as the focal point of society shifted from the heart of the cityscape, societal unity dissolving in the successive generations, so did the centerpiece of noir, the detective. The new center has become the self, “the king of its very own mind,” notes Abrams. However, the traditions of the noir protagonist have not been lost, but rather modified. His search is now largely internal, with his former adversary, the external, an adjunct to his quest for his own identity. The searching man has become split, harboring a divided ego, a refuge of both detective and villain; two disparate factions compete, never reaching reconciliation, but in some degree, understanding.
 
In further deconstruction, this postmodern outlook of noir is being described as having three distinct subsets, of and relating to time, crossed with the self. In reference by Abrams, they are known as past neo-noir, present neo-noir and future neo-noir.
 
The detective, although not explicit to the profession, remains the seeker within the noir maze, theological pathways abounding the past division. Abrams cites several examples of this, Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg, 1981) being one of them. Abrams concedes that the film is hardly considered a noir staple; nevertheless, it has correlating elements. The main character, Indiana Jones, plays a detective-like character in search of the Ark of the Covenant. This material search, however, is secondary for the search for his own faith, or lack thereof.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, or continuum, lies the future. Future neo-noir, or simply future noir, is less theological and more sci-fi. “God and the Devil are replaced by science and technology,” Abrams proclaims, citing Dark City (Alex Proyas, 1998) as an example. The protagonist and man alone, John Murdoch, is pursued by mysterious figures in fedoras and trench coats. Murdoch flees from his pursuers as he attempts to unravel the mystery of the dark city he lives in, as well as attempting to reconstruct his own fragmented memory. Actually, Dark City is referred to by Abrams, in an unnecessary aggrandizing way, as alien noir, a sub section, less future noir than other films such as Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982), but still considered part of the future oeuvre.

In the middle lies the current time period, present noir. A genre piece that is less removed from the present time as its opposites, but “that’s hardly to say that time is not ‘of the essence’--far from it,” say Abrams. He uses The Bourne Identity (Doug Liman, 2002) to highlight the present. Also, like past and future contexts, the searcher is in search of himself. However, there is a twist; the protagonist suffers from memory loss. Of note, the character of John Murdoch in Dark City also suffers from a form of amnesia, as does Leonard Shelby in Memento (Christopher Nolan, 2000). Memory loss is often used as a device in these new noir films, having the characters in search of themselves, constantly asking-who am I?
 
This piece of deconstruction by Abrams, examined between the lines, could suggest that the term noir is being applied far too liberally. This illustrates that the definition of noir is, perhaps, too vague, and at the same time far too dense. Noir, as it was in its first generation, is dead and gone. What exists now, this neo-noir, is dark, yes, but by whose sensibility? The definition is not universal. Neo-noir is being used to darken so much light that the term could be applied to almost anything, projecting an umbra so wide that every film ever projected lies with its kitchen sink.