Film noir is more than shadows, detectives, and femme fatales. It's about flawed characters, questionable decisions, obsession, betrayal, and the consequences that follow.
For Noirvember, Krloz brings five films from his collection to the conversation, exploring different sides of noir and crime cinema. From the foundations of classic Hollywood noir to Jean-Pierre Melville's distinctive French crime films, this selection offers a look at how filmmakers approach crime, morality, and human nature.
These aren't necessarily the five definitive noir films. They're five personal recommendations and, in some cases, stepping stones into a genre worth exploring further.
The five films featured:
- Double Indemnity (1944) – Billy Wilder's classic tale of greed, manipulation, and terrible decisions, featuring an unforgettable performance by Barbara Stanwyck.
- In a Lonely Place (1950) – Nicholas Ray's psychological character study starring Humphrey Bogart, exploring anger, isolation, and the darkness beneath the surface.
- The Killing (1956) – Stanley Kubrick's meticulously constructed crime thriller, where an elaborate racetrack robbery encounters the unpredictability of human nature.
- Le Samouraï (1967) – Jean-Pierre Melville's atmospheric French crime film starring Alain Delon as a contract killer governed by his own personal code.
- Le Cercle Rouge (1970) – Melville returns to the criminal underworld with a carefully constructed story of loyalty, discipline, and an unforgettable jewel heist.
Along the way, we discuss what makes these films work, the performances and filmmaking that stood out, and how noir evolves from classic Hollywood to French crime cinema.
A few questions from this Noirvember conversation:
- What makes Double Indemnity such an enduring blueprint for film noir?
- Can we separate Dixon Steele's creative brilliance from the damage he inflicts on others?
- Is The Killing ultimately about a robbery or the unpredictability of human behavior?
- How much of Jef Costello's identity comes from his profession and personal code?
- Does loyalty and integrity exist even in a world built around crime?
Follow The Physical Cut
Instagram: @thephysicalcutpod
Website: KR PodLab – https://krpodlab.com
The Physical Cut | Films | Physical Media | Culture
00:00:00 --> 00:00:03 it's criterion sell month it is noir month and
00:00:03 --> 00:00:05 these are some of the titles that i have for
00:00:05 --> 00:00:21 you so let's do this welcome back to the physical
00:00:21 --> 00:00:23 cut where films live beyond the stream my name
00:00:23 --> 00:00:26 is carlos and today i have five titles here that
00:00:26 --> 00:00:29 i am going to recommend to you guys for your
00:00:29 --> 00:00:33 norvember i am not big on noir these are just
00:00:33 --> 00:00:36 some of my favorites here i have a little bit
00:00:36 --> 00:00:38 of everything i got some international titles
00:00:38 --> 00:00:40 and by international i mean just two french titles
00:00:41 --> 00:00:43 And one that was put out on 4K by Kino Lover,
00:00:43 --> 00:00:47 which now has a 4K in the Criterion Collection.
00:00:48 --> 00:00:52 Let's start with Double Indemnity. Double Indemnity
00:00:52 --> 00:00:54 is probably by one of my, I would say, favorite
00:00:54 --> 00:01:01 1960s, 1950s director. He made this one in 1944.
00:01:01 --> 00:01:04 That's Billy Wilder. You know him from some Like
00:01:04 --> 00:01:07 It Hot, which is probably one of my favorite
00:01:07 --> 00:01:11 comedies of all times. What makes Double Indemnity
00:01:11 --> 00:01:14 such an enduring blueprint for film noir? I think
00:01:14 --> 00:01:17 one of the things that I find interesting, and
00:01:17 --> 00:01:20 I'm going to be fully honest, I did not find
00:01:20 --> 00:01:24 this movie good the first time I saw it. It took
00:01:24 --> 00:01:26 me probably a second try. And that's because
00:01:26 --> 00:01:29 of the respect that I have for Billy Wilder.
00:01:29 --> 00:01:32 He's a great screenwriter. Honestly, he's probably
00:01:32 --> 00:01:34 one of the best screenwriters that ever lived.
00:01:34 --> 00:01:36 But one of the things that I find interesting
00:01:36 --> 00:01:40 about double indemnity is how ordinary everything
00:01:40 --> 00:01:43 initially feels. Walter Neff is not introduced
00:01:43 --> 00:01:46 as some larger -than -life criminal mastermind.
00:01:47 --> 00:01:51 He's technically an insurance salesman who gets
00:01:51 --> 00:01:54 caught up in a situation that gradually just
00:01:54 --> 00:01:57 becomes bigger than something that he can control.
00:01:58 --> 00:02:01 i would say that's part of what makes the film
00:02:01 --> 00:02:03 so effective the danger doesn't come from some
00:02:03 --> 00:02:07 distant criminal underworld it comes from everyday
00:02:07 --> 00:02:10 people making terrible decisions and then there's
00:02:10 --> 00:02:13 the relationship between neff and phyllis who
00:02:13 --> 00:02:17 is over here played by barbara stanwick honestly
00:02:17 --> 00:02:19 i think that's probably one of the best performances
00:02:19 --> 00:02:23 that i've seen when it comes to noir the best
00:02:23 --> 00:02:25 thing about this movie is probably just barbara's
00:02:25 --> 00:02:30 performance If you've seen the film, I know it's
00:02:30 --> 00:02:35 a little bit of a slow burn, but once they start
00:02:35 --> 00:02:39 having that interaction that is so magnetic on
00:02:39 --> 00:02:42 screen, that's when you can't look away. Neither
00:02:42 --> 00:02:46 character is particularly innocent, and that's
00:02:46 --> 00:02:49 what makes their dynamics so compelling. The
00:02:49 --> 00:02:52 film doesn't need to give us traditional hero
00:02:52 --> 00:02:55 because almost everyone is operating from some...
00:02:55 --> 00:02:59 self -interest to go into details is to spoil
00:02:59 --> 00:03:01 the movie if you haven't seen double indemnity
00:03:01 --> 00:03:05 and you like billy wilder that is definitely
00:03:05 --> 00:03:07 one that you should pick up if you don't already
00:03:07 --> 00:03:12 own in this november also a lot of these titles
00:03:12 --> 00:03:17 they didn't make my top 10 for the recommendations
00:03:17 --> 00:03:20 i do love each and every one of these titles
00:03:20 --> 00:03:22 i would say some probably like more than others
00:03:22 --> 00:03:26 but I didn't necessarily recommend them as part
00:03:26 --> 00:03:29 of the top 10 for the November sale because I
00:03:29 --> 00:03:32 wanted to make the November sale a more broad
00:03:32 --> 00:03:37 and more generalized list than just sticking
00:03:37 --> 00:03:40 to noir just because it's November. The next
00:03:40 --> 00:03:45 title I'm recommending for November is In a Lonely
00:03:45 --> 00:03:46 Place. Now, this is an Academy Award winning
00:03:46 --> 00:03:50 film. The reason I own it is because it's an
00:03:50 --> 00:03:52 Academy Award winning film. That's how I discovered
00:03:52 --> 00:03:54 this film. Honestly, this is probably the slowest
00:03:54 --> 00:04:00 one I would say in the list. If double indemnity
00:04:00 --> 00:04:03 is a slow burn, this one, I would say this one
00:04:03 --> 00:04:08 really takes a while to start cooking. The question
00:04:08 --> 00:04:13 is, is Dixon Steele a misunderstood character
00:04:13 --> 00:04:16 or someone whose behavior makes him impossible
00:04:16 --> 00:04:22 to defend? Now, that's... probably the question
00:04:22 --> 00:04:26 at the center of this film humphrey bogart gives
00:04:26 --> 00:04:31 an amazing performance in this film and i think
00:04:31 --> 00:04:35 that's where i can end that sentence i'm not
00:04:35 --> 00:04:38 saying it's a bad film it's a great film it's
00:04:38 --> 00:04:40 just it's probably not going to be for everyone
00:04:40 --> 00:04:44 and this is somewhere in between a noir because
00:04:44 --> 00:04:47 it starts something as some kind of drama and
00:04:47 --> 00:04:51 then it just goes into full noir towards the
00:04:51 --> 00:04:54 end like i said it takes a while to cook but
00:04:54 --> 00:04:57 what i find particularly interesting about in
00:04:57 --> 00:04:59 a lonely place is that the murder investigation
00:04:59 --> 00:05:03 without giving too much away almost becomes secondary
00:05:03 --> 00:05:06 to the character study which again is probably
00:05:06 --> 00:05:09 the best part of the film we're introduced to
00:05:09 --> 00:05:12 dixon steel who's humphrey bogart as someone
00:05:12 --> 00:05:15 who has talent and intelligence But there's also
00:05:15 --> 00:05:18 something deeply troubling about him. Now, he
00:05:18 --> 00:05:21 doesn't remember what had happened. And that's
00:05:21 --> 00:05:25 where the whole plot kind of revolves around.
00:05:26 --> 00:05:30 But Bogart does give us a character who can be
00:05:30 --> 00:05:34 charming one moment and frightening the next.
00:05:35 --> 00:05:36 And you're going to see that in between some
00:05:36 --> 00:05:39 scenes and depending the love interest and the
00:05:39 --> 00:05:41 character he's interacting with. That creates
00:05:41 --> 00:05:44 an uncomfortable viewing experience because we're
00:05:44 --> 00:05:46 constantly trying to reconcile the person that
00:05:46 --> 00:05:50 Laurel falls for with the person we see when
00:05:50 --> 00:05:53 he has his temper take over. So there's that
00:05:53 --> 00:05:57 Jekyll and Mr. Hyde thing going on there. It's
00:05:57 --> 00:06:00 going to be very present, except he doesn't look
00:06:00 --> 00:06:02 like a hideous monster. I also think this is
00:06:02 --> 00:06:06 where the film feels different from a more conventional
00:06:06 --> 00:06:10 noir. The darkness isn't necessarily coming from
00:06:10 --> 00:06:14 a criminal conspiracy or elaborate scheme, as
00:06:14 --> 00:06:17 we're going to see in the next title. It's coming
00:06:17 --> 00:06:20 more from the person at the center of the story.
00:06:20 --> 00:06:24 So can we separate a character's creative brilliance
00:06:24 --> 00:06:27 from the damage they inflict on other people
00:06:27 --> 00:06:33 around them? I don't know. But if you like this
00:06:33 --> 00:06:35 one. Please let me know. It took me a minute
00:06:35 --> 00:06:39 to like it because I felt like I had an obligation
00:06:39 --> 00:06:43 as an Academy Award winning film to like it.
00:06:43 --> 00:06:47 But I hate Crash 2006. I hate Crash. I hate 12
00:06:47 --> 00:06:50 Years a Slave. And I don't like Slumdog Millionaire.
00:06:50 --> 00:06:53 So I don't have to like every Academy Award winning
00:06:53 --> 00:06:55 film. But In a Lonely Place, I do recommend it
00:06:55 --> 00:07:00 for the Noir -vember. If you haven't seen it.
00:07:00 --> 00:07:02 If you've seen it, go ahead and please let me
00:07:02 --> 00:07:04 know what you think about it. Now, the other
00:07:04 --> 00:07:12 title, it's probably one of my top six, top seven
00:07:12 --> 00:07:14 from this director. I think he only has like
00:07:14 --> 00:07:19 13 films. It's The Killing from Stanley Kubrick.
00:07:19 --> 00:07:24 Now, this one, unlike Killer's Kiss, which is
00:07:24 --> 00:07:27 horrible, I'm not going to lie, Killer's Kiss
00:07:27 --> 00:07:32 is probably his worst film in his catalog. The
00:07:32 --> 00:07:34 Killin' really took me by surprise. This is actually
00:07:34 --> 00:07:38 a funny as hell film. If you see the reel, you're
00:07:38 --> 00:07:41 going to notice that I have the one from Kino
00:07:41 --> 00:07:46 Loeber, but I also have the one from the Stanley
00:07:46 --> 00:07:50 Kubrick box set that just came out from Criterion.
00:07:50 --> 00:07:55 It's also 4K. I haven't dug into the details
00:07:55 --> 00:07:58 to see if it's the same transfer, but if it is,
00:07:58 --> 00:08:01 it's a... beautiful transfer it honestly is a
00:08:01 --> 00:08:03 beautiful transfer when it comes to the audio
00:08:03 --> 00:08:06 is i think it's just a mono but honestly you
00:08:06 --> 00:08:11 don't need a lot in this film the film does make
00:08:11 --> 00:08:14 us root for the criminals or simply appreciate
00:08:14 --> 00:08:17 how meticulously the story is constructed it
00:08:17 --> 00:08:21 is the i think i don't want to spoil because
00:08:21 --> 00:08:24 i do like this movie so much and i hope you get
00:08:24 --> 00:08:27 to see it if you haven't seen it i think One
00:08:27 --> 00:08:29 of the most entertaining aspects of the killing
00:08:29 --> 00:08:33 is watching a supposedly perfect plan come together.
00:08:34 --> 00:08:37 At the end, you'll know why I say supposedly
00:08:37 --> 00:08:41 perfect plan. Kubrick gives us all these moving
00:08:41 --> 00:08:44 parts, different characters, and carefully timed
00:08:44 --> 00:08:48 events. There's almost a mechanical quality to
00:08:48 --> 00:08:50 the way the story unfolds, but we do see that
00:08:50 --> 00:08:53 from Kubrick a lot. So it's not surprising. This
00:08:53 --> 00:08:56 is like the stepping stones to his career. But
00:08:56 --> 00:08:58 what's fascinating is that the biggest threat
00:08:58 --> 00:09:01 to the operation isn't necessarily the police.
00:09:02 --> 00:09:07 Did I say police or did I say police? I said
00:09:07 --> 00:09:10 police, right? Anyway, they're not the problem.
00:09:11 --> 00:09:14 It's the people involved. Everyone has their
00:09:14 --> 00:09:17 own motivations, weaknesses, and expectations.
00:09:17 --> 00:09:21 The plan might look perfect on paper, but people
00:09:21 --> 00:09:24 are unpredictable. I also love how the film plays
00:09:24 --> 00:09:27 with chronology. Instead of simply presenting
00:09:27 --> 00:09:32 a heist from beginning to end, Kubrick allows
00:09:32 --> 00:09:36 us to see different pieces of the operation from
00:09:36 --> 00:09:39 different perspectives. I'm usually not one to
00:09:39 --> 00:09:46 like the back and forth or different POVs, which
00:09:46 --> 00:09:50 is my main problem with movies like Weapons.
00:09:50 --> 00:09:55 But in this one, I feel like it's so well done.
00:09:56 --> 00:09:59 done it doesn't feel like an abrupt pull out
00:09:59 --> 00:10:04 from one point of view to the next but is it
00:10:04 --> 00:10:06 killing really a film about an elaborate robbery
00:10:06 --> 00:10:09 or is it ultimately about how human behavior
00:10:09 --> 00:10:14 makes even the best plans impossible now if you
00:10:14 --> 00:10:19 just read the description of the film it's gonna
00:10:19 --> 00:10:23 sound good but if you watch the film entirely
00:10:23 --> 00:10:27 you're gonna love the ending And if you don't
00:10:27 --> 00:10:29 love the ending, you can leave me a hate comment
00:10:29 --> 00:10:34 here at the bottom. I honestly, I think that's
00:10:34 --> 00:10:36 probably one of the best endings that I've seen
00:10:36 --> 00:10:40 in a noir. And again, I highly recommend The
00:10:40 --> 00:10:44 Killing. Now, we are going to travel a little
00:10:44 --> 00:10:48 bit across the pond for these two. They are probably
00:10:48 --> 00:10:53 two of my favorite noir, but it's because of
00:10:53 --> 00:10:58 the way, just like The Killing, The way they
00:10:58 --> 00:11:04 are directed, constructed, and they're from the
00:11:04 --> 00:11:08 same director. I didn't even know that until
00:11:08 --> 00:11:11 a few days ago when I was making this list. I
00:11:11 --> 00:11:14 knew the actor was Alan Delon because I do love
00:11:14 --> 00:11:17 Alan Delon in this film. And I knew the director
00:11:17 --> 00:11:20 for this film was Jean -Pierre Melville. The
00:11:20 --> 00:11:23 thing is that I did not know that he also directed
00:11:23 --> 00:11:27 Le Cirque du Rouge. Le Cirque du Rouge. I saw
00:11:27 --> 00:11:31 it only once. It also has a great ending. This
00:11:31 --> 00:11:36 film does have an amazing ending. But for Les
00:11:36 --> 00:11:41 Samurai, how much of Joe Costello's identity
00:11:41 --> 00:11:44 comes from his profession and how much comes
00:11:44 --> 00:11:46 from his personal code? Now, John Costello is
00:11:46 --> 00:11:48 played by Alan Dillon. Like I said, perfection.
00:11:49 --> 00:11:53 The atmosphere in this film, I mean, we'll get
00:11:53 --> 00:11:55 to that. There's something fascinating about
00:11:55 --> 00:11:59 how little. The Samurai needs to tell us about
00:11:59 --> 00:12:01 his central character, which is Jeff Costello.
00:12:01 --> 00:12:05 But Jeff Costello is a man of very few words.
00:12:05 --> 00:12:09 He really is. And Melville seems perfectly comfortable
00:12:09 --> 00:12:13 allowing his actions, routines, and surroundings
00:12:13 --> 00:12:16 to do most of the storytelling. There's a scene,
00:12:17 --> 00:12:19 and I really do love this scene. There's a scene
00:12:19 --> 00:12:23 where he's just quietly looking for something
00:12:23 --> 00:12:25 in the room because he knows he's being spied.
00:12:26 --> 00:12:28 He knows he's being heard. He knows every detail
00:12:28 --> 00:12:33 in his room with such precision. He knows everything,
00:12:33 --> 00:12:37 every detail, that just one small movement of
00:12:37 --> 00:12:42 anything, of any item, he's completely aware.
00:12:42 --> 00:12:45 Now, the apartment, the clothes, the car, and
00:12:45 --> 00:12:48 even the way he moves through Paris becomes part
00:12:48 --> 00:12:51 of his identity. There's a deliberate distance
00:12:51 --> 00:12:53 between Costello and everyone around him, and
00:12:53 --> 00:12:57 that's very obvious, including his... air quotes
00:12:57 --> 00:13:01 love interest he's almost living in his own world
00:13:01 --> 00:13:08 and he's governed by a code that seems more important
00:13:08 --> 00:13:11 to him than any personal relationship and the
00:13:11 --> 00:13:13 thing is that i don't know really what this code
00:13:13 --> 00:13:17 at the end of the day offers him you'll probably
00:13:17 --> 00:13:19 discover that when you see the film i think that's
00:13:19 --> 00:13:21 one of the reasons the film remains so influential
00:13:21 --> 00:13:24 it demonstrates how much character development
00:13:24 --> 00:13:28 can happen through visual storytelling rather
00:13:28 --> 00:13:33 than dialogue now this is probably going to be
00:13:33 --> 00:13:36 a bonus recommendation i don't necessarily recommend
00:13:36 --> 00:13:40 it too much because i don't necessarily know
00:13:40 --> 00:13:42 if it's noir i think it's more neo -noir which
00:13:42 --> 00:13:47 is fine for november but i also didn't love it
00:13:47 --> 00:13:50 too much because halfway through the film i am
00:13:51 --> 00:13:54 Completely disconnected. I feel like the film
00:13:54 --> 00:13:56 starts so perfect and then it just completely
00:13:56 --> 00:13:59 disconnects. And that's Un Flique, which is also
00:13:59 --> 00:14:05 with Alan. And Un Flique is French for a cop.
00:14:06 --> 00:14:09 You can find that one, I think, from Kindle Over,
00:14:09 --> 00:14:13 if I'm not mistaken. It's a good film. Problem
00:14:13 --> 00:14:19 is that there's a train scene that... Runs just
00:14:19 --> 00:14:23 as long as the train would run in real time.
00:14:23 --> 00:14:26 And that really took me out of it. After that,
00:14:26 --> 00:14:30 it went a little bit downhill for me. So do with
00:14:30 --> 00:14:33 that what you will. But I do recommend it. There's
00:14:33 --> 00:14:37 a Blu -ray of it from Kindle Over. And if you
00:14:37 --> 00:14:38 want to wait for one of the Kindle Over sales,
00:14:38 --> 00:14:40 you could get it at Barnes & Noble for about
00:14:40 --> 00:14:43 $14. It's not a bad film. It's just not one of
00:14:43 --> 00:14:46 my favorites from Alan Delon. The last title
00:14:46 --> 00:14:50 is Le Cirque du Rouge. Or the Red Circle. Now,
00:14:50 --> 00:14:53 this one, like I said, this one is so well constructed.
00:14:53 --> 00:14:56 The ending is also one of my favorite endings
00:14:56 --> 00:15:00 in noir. This one, also directed, like I said,
00:15:00 --> 00:15:02 by Jean -Pierre Melville. Why does Melville make
00:15:02 --> 00:15:05 the criminal world feel almost more honest than
00:15:05 --> 00:15:08 the world outside of it? Coming back to Melville
00:15:08 --> 00:15:11 with the Circle Rouge. This one is interesting
00:15:11 --> 00:15:13 because there's a connection to the samurai,
00:15:14 --> 00:15:17 in a way. But the approach is different. Here
00:15:17 --> 00:15:20 we're dealing with multiple characters who come
00:15:20 --> 00:15:22 together through circumstance, each carrying
00:15:22 --> 00:15:25 their own history and baggage. What really stands
00:15:25 --> 00:15:28 out to me in this one is how Mauville handles
00:15:28 --> 00:15:32 the heist itself. Like I said, this is the most,
00:15:32 --> 00:15:36 I would say, the event, the biggest part of the
00:15:36 --> 00:15:39 movie is the heist. And he does take his time.
00:15:39 --> 00:15:42 There's very little dialogue during one of the
00:15:42 --> 00:15:45 film's more important sequence, and yet it's
00:15:45 --> 00:15:48 incredibly absorbing. just like the samurai.
00:15:48 --> 00:15:50 We understand the preparation, the precision,
00:15:51 --> 00:15:54 and the risk without needing someone to explain
00:15:54 --> 00:15:57 every detail. There's also an interesting contradiction
00:15:57 --> 00:16:02 running through the film. These are criminals,
00:16:02 --> 00:16:05 but they operate according to personal sense
00:16:05 --> 00:16:09 of loyalty and discipline, which again, same
00:16:10 --> 00:16:14 thing with the samurai. Meanwhile, the supposedly
00:16:14 --> 00:16:17 respectable world isn't necessarily any more
00:16:17 --> 00:16:21 trustworthy. So does Melville suggest that loyalty
00:16:21 --> 00:16:24 and personal integrity can exist even in a world
00:16:24 --> 00:16:27 built around crime? I say trust a criminal more
00:16:27 --> 00:16:31 than a... Let me end that sentence. I do love
00:16:31 --> 00:16:34 those two French films and the fact that they
00:16:34 --> 00:16:37 happen to be directed by the same director, it
00:16:37 --> 00:16:41 is mind -blowing because I did not really see
00:16:41 --> 00:16:44 the comparison. or the similarities between those
00:16:44 --> 00:16:48 two films until I sat down to create this episode.
00:16:48 --> 00:16:52 I do hope you check those out. And I'll add one
00:16:52 --> 00:16:54 final observation before wrapping up. What's
00:16:54 --> 00:16:58 interesting about these five selections is that
00:16:58 --> 00:17:00 they don't all approach noir in the same way.
00:17:01 --> 00:17:04 Obviously, Double Identity gives us a desire,
00:17:04 --> 00:17:07 a manipulation. In a Lonely Place turns inward,
00:17:07 --> 00:17:10 exploring psychological darkness, the killing.
00:17:11 --> 00:17:14 examines the mechanics of crime and human failure.
00:17:14 --> 00:17:18 And with Melville, we move into a world of restraint,
00:17:19 --> 00:17:22 ritual, and personal codes. That's what makes
00:17:22 --> 00:17:28 revisiting noir worthwhile. It isn't simply about
00:17:28 --> 00:17:32 black and white, which we kind of automatically
00:17:32 --> 00:17:37 think when we think about noir. It's not just
00:17:37 --> 00:17:39 necessarily black and white photographies and
00:17:39 --> 00:17:44 shadows and detectives or femme fatale. So that
00:17:44 --> 00:17:47 point of view that we have of noir with these
00:17:47 --> 00:17:52 five films is completely debunked. It's about
00:17:52 --> 00:17:56 the moral choices that people make when they're
00:17:56 --> 00:17:59 pushed into an uncomfortable situation. But I'm
00:17:59 --> 00:18:00 going to leave you with this final question.
00:18:01 --> 00:18:05 Because again, to me, I'm newer when it comes
00:18:05 --> 00:18:08 to noir. I'm not an expert in noir. That is why
00:18:08 --> 00:18:10 I chose these five films. If there's any other
00:18:10 --> 00:18:12 noir out there that you think is better than
00:18:12 --> 00:18:16 this, please comment below. But to me, these
00:18:16 --> 00:18:19 are my stepping stones into noir. Now, there's
00:18:19 --> 00:18:22 other titles that I yet have to explore, like
00:18:22 --> 00:18:27 Asphalt Jungle and a bunch of other crime and
00:18:27 --> 00:18:31 cops, your usual suspects. But I'm going to leave
00:18:31 --> 00:18:34 you with these questions. These five films, which
00:18:35 --> 00:18:39 one? best represents film noir to you. And is
00:18:39 --> 00:18:42 there a Criterion title you think deserves a
00:18:42 --> 00:18:44 place on this list? Like I said, please let me
00:18:44 --> 00:18:48 know. If you are going to be looking for the
00:18:48 --> 00:18:51 En Flique, like I said, that's going to be in
00:18:51 --> 00:18:54 Kinalobra. If you don't want to get the Kubrick
00:18:54 --> 00:18:57 box set so you can watch The Killing, go ahead,
00:18:57 --> 00:18:59 go to Kinalobra as well. And let's be honest,
00:19:00 --> 00:19:03 Kinalobra is just as good as Criterion. So I'll
00:19:03 --> 00:19:05 leave it at that. I do appreciate you being here
00:19:05 --> 00:19:08 with me today. Just please follow me at the physical
00:19:08 --> 00:19:12 cut pod on Instagram. Also check out the website
00:19:12 --> 00:19:14 at KR pot lab. You can leave me a voicemail there.
00:19:14 --> 00:19:17 If you want, let me know what titles you think
00:19:17 --> 00:19:19 I should buy. And if any of these suck, like
00:19:19 --> 00:19:21 I said, comment here below. I like learning.
00:19:21 --> 00:19:24 I like learning, especially when it's topics.
00:19:24 --> 00:19:28 I don't know shit about like noir. Thank you
00:19:28 --> 00:19:30 so much for being here with me today at the physical
00:19:30 --> 00:19:32 cut where films that be on the stream. And I
00:19:32 --> 00:19:33 will see you guys next time.