Film Noir by Schrader

I found it interesting that Schrader described film noir as not being a genre, since it is not classified "by conventions of setting and conflict, but rather by the more subtle qualities of tone and mood." However, he then went on to say that the term applied to films made in the 40s and 50s that took place in "dark, slick, city street" and dealt with "crime and corruption." Isn't that setting and conflict, which he seemed to say in the previous paragraph are what define a genre? I realize there may be films that have those elements that aren't really film noir, and films that don't have all those elements and are considered film noir, but isn't that also true of pretty much any other genre? I would have called film noir a genre prior to reading this article. I wonder how many experts agree with Schrader on this point and how many disagree.

I found the history and origin of film noir intriguing, since I'd never really thought before about what kind of society must have produced that kind of film-making. The post-war disillusionment makes sense as a driving force behind film noir and darker, more harshly realistic films in general. The influence of the German filmmakers and "hard-boiled" writers is also easy to see.

Also it's fascinating to me that although the American movie-going audiences came to prefer real locations as settings, rather than Hollywood sound stages, they also apparently developed a preference for stylized lighting and dramatic sound, which obviously were the opposite of realistic.

Finally I found it noteworthy that Schrader called the film noir period "the most creative in Hollywood's history," said it "achieved an unusually high level of artistry," and declared that "picked at random, a film noir is likely to be a better made film than a randomly selected silent comedy, musical, western and so on." Yet films noir are rarely made today. I suppose this has to do with changing tastes and culture, and the American desire to see new styles and new technology on the screen.