There is always a lot of discussion about what comprises a film noir. This documentary, Film Noir: Bringing Darkness into Light, breaks down the various components and interviews directors, cinematographers, and actors about the various elements.The femme fatale, the light and shadows, the idea of fate, the ending, the complex male, the sexual symbolism - everything is discussed, using clips from "Out of the Past," "Murder, My Sweet," "The Letter," "Asphalt Jungle," "Clash by Night," "Born to Kill," "White Heat," "Detour," and many others.The documentary discusses what was the first film noir, the last, the societal influences that brought it about, why it died out, and why it returned. Absolutely fascinating.For me, "Out of the Past" is the ultimate noir, and Robert Mitchum the ultimate noir star. Others include Robert Ryan, Kirk Douglas, Sterling Hayden. Among the females, Jane Greer, Audrey Totter, Lizabeth Scott, Jean Gille, Stanwyck, Claire Trevor.Don't miss this trip through film noir. It's great.

"Film Noir: Bringing Darkness to Light" is an exceptional documentary about film noir--certainly the best I have seen. Aside from one minor problem, it is perfect. Instead of just talking about film noir movies and discussing a few seminal films, this documentary talks to a wide variety of modern filmmakers and asks them important questions--the most important of which is 'what is film noir'. I liked this discussion of what is noir, as the folks interviewed did NOT really seem to agree. One said noir began in 1945--but many examples others gave came before this (such as "The Maltese Falcon" and "Double Indemnity"). Additionally, wonderful discussions occur about the sound, look and dialog of noir--as well as a nice discussion on the morality and psychological aspects of noir. All of this was great--like being in a film class. BUT, the film also forgot, in many cases, to identify which films were being shown as the clips were rolling. To some this isn't a major problem--to me, it's annoying as I want to see these films for myself! Oh well....it's STILL well worth your time and very well made.

Film Noir: Bringing Darkness to Light (200) *** 1/2 (out of 4)Insightful and rather interesting look at the film noirs of the 40s and 50s. A wide range of producers, actors, writers, director and cinematographers are on hand to share their opinions of the genre. Such people include James Ellroy, Henry Rollins, Kim Newman, Syndey Pollack, Frank Miller, Eddie Miller, Glenn Erickson, Paul Schrader, Carol Littleton, Eric Lax, Christopher Nolan, Drew Casper, Talia Shire, Audrey Totter and Michael Madsen. The documentary is broken down into several different sections with each one taking a look at different subjects or styles. The thing that kicks off is what actually is a film noir. The various people give their opinions on what makes a noir and it should come as no shock that opinions are very different. From here we see what is considered the first film noir. Many say Fritz Lang's M was the first noir with others pointing to STRANGERS ON THE 3RD FLOOR. Some even go back to the crime pictures of the 1930s like LITTLE CAESAR. From here we go through various topics like the impact WWII had on the genre, the importance of cigarettes in terms of a visual as well as sexuality and we talk about the lighting and how flashbacks were used. If you're a fan of the genre then you're going to have a good time hearing all these stories and different opinions. For the most part just about everything you'd want to know is covered but it's mostly the MGM/Warner/RKO noirs that are discussed. The film goes through many different topics and never feels too long. Titles discussed include BORN TO KILL, CLASH BY NIGHT, THE NARROW MARGIN, CRIME WAVE, ON DANGEROUS GROUND, HIS KIND OF WOMAN, OUT OF THE PAST, THE MALTESE FALCON, MURDER MY SWEET, THEY LIVE BY NIGHT and several others. Film critic Newman even talks about those Val Lewton horror movies from RKO and why they should be considered noir. Overall, this is a very impressive look at the genre and if you're unfamiliar with the films then it gives you a great number of titles to check out.

It's always interesting to hear knowledgeable talking heads, using clips from half a dozen or so films, try to define what "film noir" means. Those wretched French are at it again, confusing the rest of us.But these guys ought to know what they're talking about. And I'm only kidding about the French, who first identified and named the genre. Bernard Tavernier is one of the heads, as far as that goes. Without the enthusiastic fellows at Cahiers du Cinema we might still be talking about "detective movies" or "murder mysteries" or something.It's quite a challenge, actually, defining film noir. No SINGLE element seems either necessary nor sufficient. Darkness, mystery, murder, a treacherous femme fatal? That's a Charlie Chan movie.This documentary is split up into sections with independent headers or chapters. "Strange Angles", for instance. I didn't count them but there are six or seven probably. No element described in these chapters defines film noir but when you put them all together you have a reasonably clear idea of what's up, though some graininess remains in the image.The talking heads are an impressive lot and they cover a lot of territory, including the question of just when films noir began and where their sometimes striking imagery originated. The consensus: they probably began with Fritz Lang's "M" and came out of UFA. The definitions range from James Ellroy's succinct, "Film noir means you're (the past tense of the F bomb)" to Paul Schrader's more thoughtful and articulate mental meanderings.It's too bad that clips aren't shown from more than a handful of exemplary movies. If "M" was one of the first, it would have been interesting to see a clip from "M' that illustrates the reasons behind that logic. Instead, there are multiple clips from "Out of the Past", "Murder My Sweet," and "On Dangerous Ground" -- admittedly icons but a lot is being left out. And there's nothing at all from so-called "neo noirs" like "Chinatown" or "Farewell, My Lovely," which illustrate some of the elements better than older flicks. The particular choice of exemplars looks a little like promotion to me because -- I'm not sure about this -- most or all of the movies we see having been issued as parts of boxed sets. I hope I'm wrong because that would turn it into 68 minutes of what, as kids, we used to call "Coming Attractions."