That's a better, and sharper distinction between the two then I've seen before. I knew that hard boiled typically referred to the written works, and Noir to the film, but had not really seen the division between the tarnished knight detective and Double Indemnity-style doomed everyman elucidated before.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Yeah, that's the key distinction. Tone has a big role. I once saw a meme where it's a pic of Bambi in dark b&w and reads "Bambi was film noir."
You’ve made a useful distinction. Despite the frailty of noir protagonists, and their descent into depravity, as POV characters, they still create some bonds with the readers (at least, the well-written ones do). Similarly flawed characters can still inspire some sympathy or empathy in hard-boiled detective fiction, but the story is less about their descent. James Lee Burke, for example, has always impressed me with his flawed antagonists or side characters. Chandler was pretty great at this, too.
Having said that, I’m not sure it’s a hard distinction. We see the protagonists of hardboiled detective stories often slide down the moral slippery slope — maybe not all the way, but the descent can be there, even if the angle of descent is gentler. And what about noir characters who struggle to be better? Boyd Crowder in Justified, Al Swearengen in Deadwood — even if you don’t classify these shows as noir officially, these characters don’t have straight moral arcs, and sometimes, they even bend upwards for a while. Would that immediately disqualify someone in another story as being a noir protagonist?
There's definitely nuance at play, but it think the there's enough stories they squarely fit into one category or the other to make distinctions. I read early Burke and really enjoyed his style of knowing where to paint with a thicker brush and where to hang back.
I’m not sure I buy the distinction. Noir was a by product of the Hollywood Production code, where writers probably wanted to do hardboiled but couldn’t. So they replaced explicit sex and violence with psychological drama and nihilism. Just look at an adaptation like The Postman Always Rings Twice where the amorality of the characters was replaced by a doomed lovers scenario.
Regardless of the writer's motivations, the final products are distinct and different, as you point out. It doesn't matter if Hollywood was self-censoring, the product the audience receives is different if it's hardboiled versus noir. That said, these aren't set in stone, just my opinions based on some evidence. I was hoping this essay would spark some discussion with different viewpoints. Thanks for offering yours.
I enjoyed the way you drew a clear distinction between the two. I've understood film noir to mostly be a train wreck with the protagonist always ending up worse off than how they began. But hard-boiled definitely does have more of a moral code. I think I understood this, but it wasn't concrete. You've definitely help me clear that up. Awesome post, Big Philly.
That means Rockstar's videogame *L.A. Noire*, wasn't. Actually, if I recall correctly, detective Phelps wasn't particularly flawed for hardboiled either. Just a crime drama I guess.
That's a better, and sharper distinction between the two then I've seen before. I knew that hard boiled typically referred to the written works, and Noir to the film, but had not really seen the division between the tarnished knight detective and Double Indemnity-style doomed everyman elucidated before.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Yeah, that's the key distinction. Tone has a big role. I once saw a meme where it's a pic of Bambi in dark b&w and reads "Bambi was film noir."
I was under the impression “noir” came from “roman noir” from the “serie noir” which was then later applied to films with similar themes.
That could be the case. This about the transition from film to fiction.
Good one Phil!
Thanks, Vince. This is something I thought about a lot. I love both hardboiled and noir.
Spot on too. I learned something in my old age!
Excellent primer on this distinction.
Thanks man. Love the consistent support. Love the comments.
Lovely piece, Big Philly, really enjoyed reading that.
I have to be honest, I was today years old when I realised those terms were not interchangeable.
Unless you're talking about eggs.
Never eaten eggs noir, never will.
Lol thanks for reading.
You’ve made a useful distinction. Despite the frailty of noir protagonists, and their descent into depravity, as POV characters, they still create some bonds with the readers (at least, the well-written ones do). Similarly flawed characters can still inspire some sympathy or empathy in hard-boiled detective fiction, but the story is less about their descent. James Lee Burke, for example, has always impressed me with his flawed antagonists or side characters. Chandler was pretty great at this, too.
Having said that, I’m not sure it’s a hard distinction. We see the protagonists of hardboiled detective stories often slide down the moral slippery slope — maybe not all the way, but the descent can be there, even if the angle of descent is gentler. And what about noir characters who struggle to be better? Boyd Crowder in Justified, Al Swearengen in Deadwood — even if you don’t classify these shows as noir officially, these characters don’t have straight moral arcs, and sometimes, they even bend upwards for a while. Would that immediately disqualify someone in another story as being a noir protagonist?
There's definitely nuance at play, but it think the there's enough stories they squarely fit into one category or the other to make distinctions. I read early Burke and really enjoyed his style of knowing where to paint with a thicker brush and where to hang back.
Of course to confuse it a bit: hardboiled novelist Chandler wrote the screenplay for noir film Double Indemnity.
Yes, always a monkey wrench in the gears!
I’m not sure I buy the distinction. Noir was a by product of the Hollywood Production code, where writers probably wanted to do hardboiled but couldn’t. So they replaced explicit sex and violence with psychological drama and nihilism. Just look at an adaptation like The Postman Always Rings Twice where the amorality of the characters was replaced by a doomed lovers scenario.
Regardless of the writer's motivations, the final products are distinct and different, as you point out. It doesn't matter if Hollywood was self-censoring, the product the audience receives is different if it's hardboiled versus noir. That said, these aren't set in stone, just my opinions based on some evidence. I was hoping this essay would spark some discussion with different viewpoints. Thanks for offering yours.
I enjoyed the way you drew a clear distinction between the two. I've understood film noir to mostly be a train wreck with the protagonist always ending up worse off than how they began. But hard-boiled definitely does have more of a moral code. I think I understood this, but it wasn't concrete. You've definitely help me clear that up. Awesome post, Big Philly.
It's good for readers and writers to be able to distinguish these details because it helps us find the right stories. Really as simple as that.
Nice post. Sure, give Megan a shot at a guest post. Everyone is entitled to their own illusion. I do enjoy mine and sometimes adjust them.
To clarify, I meant I would write an article or podcast episode about her. We'll see.
Write about Abbot. Definitely. You don't have to agree with her on anything if you find her words of substance that often.
That means Rockstar's videogame *L.A. Noire*, wasn't. Actually, if I recall correctly, detective Phelps wasn't particularly flawed for hardboiled either. Just a crime drama I guess.