Double Indemnity is widely regarded as a classic example of film noir by film critics and fans of the genre alike. In terms of genre Double Indemnity clearly belongs to the film noir category although it is due to the lighting and style that many believe, film noir should be classed as a style of film making as opposed to a genre. They would suggest that this therefore belongs in the genre of ‘crime drama' but thanks to the fact that film noir has created its own conventions that separate it from crime drama, I believe it should be classed as an independent genre. Some would argue the films should be grouped according to a director or auteur who will put his own unique codes and conventions into the film so that it is identifiable and immediately associated with him/her. In Double Indemnity we aren't given any clear indication that it is a Billy Wilder film. He himself is often not classified as an auteur director despite his success in directing. The auteur theory states the films should reflect the director's personal vision whereas it is sometimes easier to sway towards genre as one can simply adhere to a set of pre-constructed values.
The genre debate gives us three ideas: setting, mood and format with which we can place a film within a genre. For instance if the setting is that of a battlefield, we can usually assume it is a war film. This theory is often very easy to apply to older films but as time wore on the boundaries between genres wore thin. Now there are hybrid genres. For instance it is possible to have a romantic war film (two genres that are at completely opposite ends of the spectrum) e.g. A Very Long Engagement (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, Warner Brothers, France, 2005). However as Double Indemnity was made during the classic Hollywood era it is possible to see that it adheres to many of the conventions associated with film noir. For instance the heavy use of lighting (including Venetian blinds), the morally ambiguous protagonist, the femme fatale etc.
[...] In the context of Double Indemnity she remains faithful to the femme fatale stereotype: a beautiful yet dangerous criminal. Laura Mulvey suggests that Phyllis Dietrichson is simply a female figure for the audience to look at. ‘Mulvey argues that the sequence of "looks" in classical narrative cinema i.e., that the spectator looks, the camera looks, the 'male' character looks, and the 'female' character is looked at sets into motion a series of unconscious psychological mechanisms which re-create the film viewer as a gendered subject.' This would explain the way that Phyllis is portrayed. [...]
[...] The narrative then takes us back and we are simply waiting for the moment when he commits himself to such a scheme. This is a clever way of keeping the audience interested as we are constantly looking for this moment and furthermore we know that something will go wrong. In conventional film noir we tend to start at the end and the narrative offers no solutions to problems posed. Similarly in Double Indemnity we are given no answer to the problems posed. One only has the feeling at the end of the film that we should not pursue a similar scam. [...]
[...] On rare occasions do we see a shot of the outside world. The action all takes place in small offices, rooms and cars. In fact the most time we, the viewer spend outside is when Phyllis and Neff are actually committing the murder. So the only time when they are in a free environment is when they are killing Mr. Dietrichson. Wilder could indeed be suggesting that if they quit as soon as the murder was committed, they may get away with it. [...]
[...] So although Mulvey condemns the male gaze, in this case it is the female figure that is empowered even if we follow Walter Neff for the most part, acting as the protagonist. The fact that we identify with a male protagonist is mainly due to the conventions of classical Hollywood cinema. What Mulvey doesn't acknowledge is the fact that there is still enjoyment for the audience regardless of gender. It is not necessarily true that a woman will not enjoy watching a film through a male perspective. [...]
[...] Interestingly enough the maid never steps into the shadows cast by the blinds and on these grounds we can separate her from any semblance of guilt. The Venetian blinds are used in a critical scene of the film too. Neff, having foreseen a way out of his crimes without punishment, goes to the Dietrichson house to kill Phyllis and cover up the whole scheme. When he arrives the only light that enters the room is through these blinds. The shadows cast and are long and bar like, giving the impression of imprisonment. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
