‘Touch of Evil’ is usually classified as a neo-noir. It has elements of noir but doesn’t fulfill what became the definition of noir. The ‘Maltese Falcon’ is the same. Spade adheres to the code. He is not corrupted.

The concept of ‘hero’ confuses the drama. The protagonist is the one who has the central goal in the film and the audience should want to see him succeed in achieving the goal. Vargas is the protagonist. Without Vargas the film has no reason to exist. His goal is to defend the innocent man and take down Quinlan. What is complicated and wonderful about ‘Touch of Evil’ is how Welles makes the villain sympathetic. A great example of a somewhat ‘modern’ film is “Wall Street”. Gordon Gecko is designed to be the villain in the film but he turns out to be a much stronger character with more dimension. Vargas and Bud come come off as earnest and boring compared to their counterparts. If the filmmakers painted these characters with an archetypal brush then we might feel different about them (monsters). Both characters are driven by what they believe is right (Quinlan and Gecko) and they end up overshadowing the righteous and earnest protagonists.

It is always challenging to split the audience`s concentration and emotional engagement between more than the “one” main character. But today, people seem to be much more aware of their own ambivalence and ambiguity – superheroes are not “supermen” anymore, but rather “split personalities”, and so on. To break with the “hero” as a single concept to lead through all main aspects of a film, seems to reflect a certan point of view about human nature and how it should be represented in a piece of art becoming more and more complex in the last decades.
One of the main “scandalous” movies – and a huge success – also connected to all this, is “Psycho”, with the death of the (we thought so far) heroine, protagonist and main character after not even half of the film!
Well, seems to be a lot to think about – at least for me. Thanks for your input! :-)

I wrote a film noir, Breaking The Girl, and your description above is my story perfectly explained. :-)

I LOVE that definition.

Well, it’s not really a definition but it captures the essence of what the genre stands for.

Thanks Craig!

I would say Noir is “The Poetry Of Failure”.
Men are foiled by the gods or their own flaws.
Goals are achieved but prizes rarely won.
No one ever gets what they really want.
The schemes of the evil as well as the righteous are set asunder.
The hero is left standing in the ashes of someone’s dreams.
The best Noir, serves to point out the folly of men.

I’d say it definitely works, but you better know what you’re doing before you start.

Anytime you have a lead without a goal, make sure you have someone else with one.

I didn’t mean to say that every Noir needs to have a femme fatale as the cause of the downfall. The character’s fatal flaw is far more important.

I do need to see The Killing again… Wasn’t his greed the reason for his demise?

Now, the real question is: what are the absolute essential components of Noir in your view?