Detours and Lost Highways: A Map of Neo-Noir

by Foster Hirsch

"Detours and Lost Highways begins with the Orson Welles film, Touch of Evil (1958), which featured Welles both behind and in front of the camera. That movie is often cited as the end of the line, noir's rococo tombstone... the film after which noir could no longer be made, or at least could no longer be made in the same way... It is my belief, Hirsch writes, that neo-noir does exist and that noir is entitled to full generic status. Over the past forty years, since noir's often-claimed expiration, it has flourished under various labels. Among the movies he discusses as evidence: Chinatown (1974), Body Heat (1981), John Woo's Hong Kong blood-ballets (e.g., The Killer, 1989) and the pulpy oeuvre of Quentin Tarantino." —Washington Post Book World

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, Noir

404 pages, Paperback

First published August 1, 2004

Reviews

[Tristram Shandy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Film Noir Used to Be Noirer in the Good Old Days

At least that is what Forster Hirsch seems to be thinking – and he is probably right since it is even more difficult to decide on what kind of film to put the label neo-noir than to define the term film noir, and so neo-noir films appear to be quite a motley lot.

I have the impression that this difficulty of defining neo-noir, which is like trying to nail jelly to the wall, is one of the reasons why Hirsch’s Detours and Lost Highways. A Map of Neo-Noir is not as systematic a study as his meritorious classic Film Noir. The Dark Side of the Screen, but rather chatty an enterprise that gives away the author’s critical stance on most neo-noir films and his preference of the classic films of Hollywood’s Golden Era. In the second chapter of this book, Hirsch starts comparing modern remakes of classic films noirs with their original models, to which the author more often than not attributes superior qualities, e.g. by backing the Production-Code-based principle that a movie should stick to the Crime Does Not Pay tenet rather than glorify characters that ruthlessly act on hedonistic principles and break the law. Although I can thoroughly agree with this demand, yet I think that in Detours, Hirsch all-too-soon leaves the terrain of analysis in favour of judging a movie, often against the background of conservative values. As in his earlier book, Hirsch deals with literary models and also considers the European, notably the French, cinema, and he also covers the motifs of sexual desire, the fickleness of fate and man’s innate propensity for evil, which he does in separate chapters, where he deals with movies like Chinatown, L.A. Confidential, Natural Born Killers, Klute, Lost Highway, Pulp Fiction, to name but a few, and he also includes films which I would never have counted among neo-noir, such as the brilliant Shock Corridor.

However, as I said, the classic noir seems to be the sacrosanct yardstick to him, and his rather quick step towards judging the respective films, invariably from rather conservative a point of view, interferes with a systematic and neutral vantage point that one might expect from a study of neo-noir. As I said, I can fully support his stance, especially his caveat against overestimating such directors as Tarantino or such films as Blue Velvet, and his apparent distaste for the often sex-driven and meretricious neo-noirs of the late 80s and early 90s, but still I consider his approach as too normative.

The filmography at the end of the book is again a good starting-point for anyone interested in completing his film collection.

[Dave · Rating 2 out of 5]

An engaging but deeply frustrating read. While author Foster Hirsch clearly knows his classic noir and recognizes the challenges in defining and mapping out neo-noir, he approaches the subject of neo-noir mainly from a condescending and dismissive view point which offers little insight.

Working from a ridiculous premise that pretty much any film about crime made after 1959 is neo-noir (he considers John Woo's FACE / OFF a neo-noir, of all things), Hirsch works his way through classic noir's descendants and more or less explains why they are "inferior" to classic noir. Hirsch's reasons for dismissing various films as as varied as they are contradictory, and often it seems as if Hirsch seems to have contempt of contemporary audiences. His witing reeks of white male privilege, with his frequent references to things being "politically correct" suggesting a resentment of movements such as feminism. Certainly, the short, half-hearted chapter looking at black reworkings of noir suggests Hirsch included the subject the book as a nod to the "political correctness" he seems to have little love for. Given the quality of writing on the subject, we should all be happy his chapter on black noir cinema is as short as it is.

[Murray Ewing · Rating 3 out of 5]

I bought this after being introduced to film noir by Hirsch's excellent book on its classic era, The Dark Side of the Screen — a book I'd highly recommend for anyone interested in learning more about this style/genre of film. Here, Hirsch investigates the continuing influence of noir on modern film. It's inevitably a less focused book (as noir has diversified into so many other types of film), and less about defining a genre than seeing what later filmmakers made of it. In the end, it's more of a wander through modern films, looking for traces of noir and, usually, finding the results disappointing. (Hirsch seemed to find all my favourite neo-noirs to be pale imitations of the classics!) Unlike The Dark Side of the Screen, I didn't come away from reading Detours and Lost Highways with a list of must-see films, perhaps because Hirsch is that much less celebratory. Still, an interesting, though not vital appendix to his valuable former book.

[Brett Lambert · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is basically a companion to “Dark Side of the Screen: Film Noir.” Just as that book deconstructed classic period film noir, this book deconstructs neo-noir, which basically encompasses noirs made after the late 1950s.

It’s quite clear Foster Hirsch vastly prefers classic period film noir and views neo-noir as an inferior form and this book shows. While his analysis acknowledges good or great neo-noirs, he lets himself go and simply bashes on so called “contemporary” films because these new movies rely either on MTV editing or have succumbed to political correctness or feminism or something modern that Foster sneers at.

I’d have preferred if the author either kept his judgments to himself and objectively appraised the movies or if he couldn’t have done that, just recused himself and gave the book to someone else who better appreciates neo-noir.

All the same, I appreciated the comprehensiveness of the overview and there is a handy list of films at the back of the book that I can pursue for my watchlist. I have a feeling I’ll appreciate most of these movies a LOT more than he did.

[Alex Gleason · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gee, this book was interesting to read mainly for the many ways in which the author simply misreads or misremembers the film plots he is deconstructing. Quite bizarre. It's never really clear whether these errors are deliberate -- as none of them seem to actually strengthen the book's arguments -- or grossly misguided interpretations of seemingly straightforward scenarios. Glaring examples of this are found in the discourses on Blood Simple (the Coen brothers), Basic Instinct (Paul Verhoeven) and The Game (David Fincher), to mention only a few. I've never read the book or seen the movie of Devil in a Blue Dress by Walter Mosley, but when the author identifies the main character, played by Denzel Washington, as Easy HAWKINS, I was ready to throw this goddamn thing across the room. But it only had about 15 pages to go, so what the hell, I finished it.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

Book examines the influence of noir writing on modern films. Hirsch attempts to use "neo-noir" as an overarching description for all films that borrow traditional noir elements. Hirsch praises "Resevoir Dogs" for its unique perspective, but isn't too high on "LA Confidential" as it is too traditional. His nostalgic regard for gangster films and c-level noir movies from the early part of the 20th century make me question his critical judgment on these modern films.