I like your questions, and my attempt to answer is this -- in Horror, we presume innocence, while in Noir, we presume guilt.
In Horror, the monster grabs an unsuspecting innocent, and even Hunters are innocent in that they are essentially carrying out a fight in self-defense. In Noir, someone is guilty as sin-- the monster is inside-- and in s6, Hunters are no longer in it to save people -- there's profit, there's a take. In s1-5, even after Dean became a Demon and Sammy drank demon blood, no one doubted their essential humanity -- it was their standard, their anthem. Now, Dean finds himself doing dirty work for demons, taking on the mantle of death... whereas Sammy was reduced to an abomination, while his soul was flayed to the core (presumably, I still don't know how we got from zero information about the cage to knowing everything that goes on inside it).
It's true that it's not new that Dean thinks of himself as a killer -- but what happens when he deliberately shucks everything, including Sam, to actually become nothing but a killer? We saw him fingering the ring and looking at Sam --- wondering if, after all, he'd have to kill the thing his brother had become -- and I don't actually believe that would happen. But in a Noir, his good intentions in bringing back the soul (for both selfless and selfish reasons) would backfire in horrible ways he can't anticipate. One thing about "Robo" Sam -- he is clean. His drive to protect himself is primal, like a tiger or a wolf. You might kill a maneater, but you can't regard it as morally compromised. Robo-Sam, while amoral and intensely dangerous -- was not morally compromised. Who knows what this new, amalgamated Sam will be like? Does he have a demon behind the wall? or, something worse???
I'm thinking now about A Touch of Evil. In that film, it's about how a corrupted lawman plants evidence to bring down criminals he "knows" are guilty. His corruption is thorough -- yet it turns out that when the good guy brings him down, the criminal he framed was in fact guilty. It seems like that kind of twisted amalgam of corruption and justice is the difference between horror and noir.
If you don't mind continuing this a little bit further...
I like your questions, and my attempt to answer is this -- in Horror, we presume innocence, while in Noir, we presume guilt.
I think that's too broad a statement, because horror itself has gone through phases. Classic horror might presume the victims innocence but modern and cinema horror often play everything on the victims' guilt. The most obvious example is the Saw series but there are lots of others. There may be one or two innocents but most of the victims are awful people the audience doesn't mind seeing off, it's what lets the audience cheer for the monster.
I agree complete that RoboSam was a clean slate. Not an improvement on our tarnished but heroic Sam, but not evil. And I had the increasing sense that he was learning. The action of having Sam's soul returned from the cage by Death was so sudden, abrupt and violent it left me gasping with shock rather than cheering.
I still don't know how we got from zero information about the cage to knowing everything that goes on inside it). - I had to mention that this struck me too, suddenly everyone knows what's best for Sam, everyone knows what's been going on in the cage for a year. The truth, or assumption?
I know abs. nothing about Saw... in fact I tend to avoid horror films in general. The last thing I saw was Jensen's My Bloody Valentine, and the issue of his guilt or innocence is key to the film... so you may have a point there. There's also vendetta horror, right? where the villain presumes guilt and picks people off? but there's still a sense of self-preservation on behalf of the heroes?
I used to read a lot of Vertigo comix... things like Hellblazer. Constantine is def. not innocent... but that's what make him such a Noir figure, in his trench and all.
My basic problem in understanding Noir is the shifting sense of identity. I go in with a suspension of disbelief as to the identity of characters, and then Noir upends that, leaving me confused and disconcerted. I guess I'm not post-modern enough (or too much!)
Here from Heavy_MetasistermagpieJanuary 31 2011, 21:31:46 UTC
Just a possibility since I've been wondering about this myself, but could it be that in horror there generally is considered to be a good/bad while in Noir it's always grey? I mean, plenty of horror has questions of good and bad--Frankenstein lays that out way back in the 19th century: both Frankenstein and his monster are both good and bad. But perhaps a difference between Noir and Horror is that in horror there is assumed to be a good and bad somewhere, where as with Noir the bleaker idea is that there are no true answers there.
Though probably a lot of what they meant by noir here is just making allusions to noir conventions as noir conventions rather than horror conventions (even though they can overlap). Ruby was playing Sam just as Sam or Samuel played Dean, but the Dean in S6 is more self-conciously supposed to be "the detective" when the Dean of S4 was self-consciously just the hero worried that Something Was Wrong with his brother. Likewise other obvious shout outs like titling an ep The Third Man and so comparing post-non-apocolypse heaven to post-war Vienna.
Re: Here from Heavy_MetafannishlissJanuary 31 2011, 22:51:00 UTC
I love The Third Man, though admittedly I'm thinking more Pinky and the Brain than Orson Welles. :)
When you bring up Frankenstein, it brings up the idea of the Byronic Hero -- the Hero who is greatly "superior" to most other humans, but has a fatal flaw, usually hubris, that brings him down. Victor F. meant to conquer death, conveying a great good to humankind, but ended up creating a "monster" that he was incapable of loving. What if Dean, by bringing Sam's soul back, ends up doing exactly that same thing?!?!
Visually the theme of black and white shading to gray is played out beautiful in the Lynch films I mention... especially Lost Highway. There's a fantastic moment in s5 -- when Castiel meets Lucifer and gets trapped in the ring of fire -- as he progresses down the hall from shadows to deeper shadows -- that is so Lynchian and creepy. I know it's s5, but it's so Noir!! (I think!)
Re: Here from Heavy_MetadatenshiblueJanuary 31 2011, 23:33:35 UTC
Though probably a lot of what they meant by noir here is just making allusions to noir conventions as noir conventions
I have a feeling it's mostly this. ;)
in horror there is assumed to be a good and bad somewhere, where as with Noir the bleaker idea is that there are no true answers there.
With Supernatural, I don't see any change from the idea they've held to from the beginning that there's evil, but it's understandable, and there's good, but it's flawed and particularly human. :)
In Horror, the monster grabs an unsuspecting innocent, and even Hunters are innocent in that they are essentially carrying out a fight in self-defense. In Noir, someone is guilty as sin-- the monster is inside-- and in s6, Hunters are no longer in it to save people -- there's profit, there's a take. In s1-5, even after Dean became a Demon and Sammy drank demon blood, no one doubted their essential humanity -- it was their standard, their anthem. Now, Dean finds himself doing dirty work for demons, taking on the mantle of death... whereas Sammy was reduced to an abomination, while his soul was flayed to the core (presumably, I still don't know how we got from zero information about the cage to knowing everything that goes on inside it).
It's true that it's not new that Dean thinks of himself as a killer -- but what happens when he deliberately shucks everything, including Sam, to actually become nothing but a killer? We saw him fingering the ring and looking at Sam --- wondering if, after all, he'd have to kill the thing his brother had become -- and I don't actually believe that would happen. But in a Noir, his good intentions in bringing back the soul (for both selfless and selfish reasons) would backfire in horrible ways he can't anticipate. One thing about "Robo" Sam -- he is clean. His drive to protect himself is primal, like a tiger or a wolf. You might kill a maneater, but you can't regard it as morally compromised. Robo-Sam, while amoral and intensely dangerous -- was not morally compromised. Who knows what this new, amalgamated Sam will be like? Does he have a demon behind the wall? or, something worse???
I'm thinking now about A Touch of Evil. In that film, it's about how a corrupted lawman plants evidence to bring down criminals he "knows" are guilty. His corruption is thorough -- yet it turns out that when the good guy brings him down, the criminal he framed was in fact guilty. It seems like that kind of twisted amalgam of corruption and justice is the difference between horror and noir.
Yay Friday is coming!
Reply
I like your questions, and my attempt to answer is this -- in Horror, we presume innocence, while in Noir, we presume guilt.
I think that's too broad a statement, because horror itself has gone through phases. Classic horror might presume the victims innocence but modern and cinema horror often play everything on the victims' guilt. The most obvious example is the Saw series but there are lots of others. There may be one or two innocents but most of the victims are awful people the audience doesn't mind seeing off, it's what lets the audience cheer for the monster.
I agree complete that RoboSam was a clean slate. Not an improvement on our tarnished but heroic Sam, but not evil. And I had the increasing sense that he was learning. The action of having Sam's soul returned from the cage by Death was so sudden, abrupt and violent it left me gasping with shock rather than cheering.
I still don't know how we got from zero information about the cage to knowing everything that goes on inside it). - I had to mention that this struck me too, suddenly everyone knows what's best for Sam, everyone knows what's been going on in the cage for a year. The truth, or assumption?
Definitely yaY on the Friday thing. ;D
Reply
I know abs. nothing about Saw... in fact I tend to avoid horror films in general. The last thing I saw was Jensen's My Bloody Valentine, and the issue of his guilt or innocence is key to the film... so you may have a point there. There's also vendetta horror, right? where the villain presumes guilt and picks people off? but there's still a sense of self-preservation on behalf of the heroes?
I used to read a lot of Vertigo comix... things like Hellblazer. Constantine is def. not innocent... but that's what make him such a Noir figure, in his trench and all.
My basic problem in understanding Noir is the shifting sense of identity. I go in with a suspension of disbelief as to the identity of characters, and then Noir upends that, leaving me confused and disconcerted. I guess I'm not post-modern enough (or too much!)
Reply
Though probably a lot of what they meant by noir here is just making allusions to noir conventions as noir conventions rather than horror conventions (even though they can overlap). Ruby was playing Sam just as Sam or Samuel played Dean, but the Dean in S6 is more self-conciously supposed to be "the detective" when the Dean of S4 was self-consciously just the hero worried that Something Was Wrong with his brother. Likewise other obvious shout outs like titling an ep The Third Man and so comparing post-non-apocolypse heaven to post-war Vienna.
Reply
When you bring up Frankenstein, it brings up the idea of the Byronic Hero -- the Hero who is greatly "superior" to most other humans, but has a fatal flaw, usually hubris, that brings him down. Victor F. meant to conquer death, conveying a great good to humankind, but ended up creating a "monster" that he was incapable of loving. What if Dean, by bringing Sam's soul back, ends up doing exactly that same thing?!?!
Visually the theme of black and white shading to gray is played out beautiful in the Lynch films I mention... especially Lost Highway. There's a fantastic moment in s5 -- when Castiel meets Lucifer and gets trapped in the ring of fire -- as he progresses down the hall from shadows to deeper shadows -- that is so Lynchian and creepy. I know it's s5, but it's so Noir!! (I think!)
Reply
I have a feeling it's mostly this. ;)
in horror there is assumed to be a good and bad somewhere, where as with Noir the bleaker idea is that there are no true answers there.
With Supernatural, I don't see any change from the idea they've held to from the beginning that there's evil, but it's understandable, and there's good, but it's flawed and particularly human. :)
Reply
Leave a comment