Question One: element: visual.
Use of one type of shot motion:

In the extract I have been studying of Double Indemnity by Billy Wilder (the scene in which the femme fatale, Phyllis Diedrichson, wife of Mr. Diedrichson, drives her husband into a dark, lifeless street while her lover, Walter Neff, crouches prepared behind the front seat with a piece of cord to commit a murder that could land both of them (or just one of them) in riches, hell or the local gaol for insurance fraud), there occurs a slightly high-angled tracking shot from across the opposite corner of the street they are entering, following the smooth movement of the automobile as it careens into the abysses alleyway. “This isn’t the right street” snarls M. Diedrichson as the darkness engulfs his vainly spoken fears, as this particular camera movement of fantastically smoothed and polished tracking reveals the brilliant, well-worked and undeniably fatal cunning of Phyllis. As she is the woman behind the wheel, not Mr. Man and certainly not Mr. Neff, the movement is purely complimenting her genius in the art of murder; that every speculation she has come into on her own fancy goes swimmingly, or at least had for a little while longer after her murderous commission lands her face down in a pool of her own blood—when shot to death by Walter Neff in the later scenes of the film, after she deviously planned to kill him first, which she eventually did with one badly aimed bullet, so not being alive herself to enjoy it.
The movement itself also shows the strawberry-sweet scrutiny of the three involved continuously descending down the path of their cold, solitaire deaths— the expected punishments for all three of the murderous or bitterly cruel scoundrels. From the glaring headlights and lamps, the tracker leads us into—at a distance and angle perfectly placed so as to instil a sense both of objectivity and anxious clinging to the occurrences in the audience—into a dingy, black void that one can only pass through after entering the amoral world of crime—as the previous acts of Phyllis and Walter (such as the murder we are convinced to believe Phyllis committed of Mr. Died’s previous wife, who she was nursing when very “sick” and “only got worse”, and her love transgressions with Walter in his high-rise apartment, and Walter’s deception of his own company and state) have shown us—they are involved in, and are going deeper and deeper into, as the motion shows, until they come to the far-down bridge they’ll be mercilessly prodded over until they reach their awaiting Hell.
Now, although Walter is absolutely instrumental in Phyllis’ whole plan, and is himself responsible for some of the brilliantly mediated murder in this sequence, it is with this singular tracking movement that the clear line is drawn to illustrate Phyllis’ almost absolute control, knowledge and power in the way of occurrences in this and all sequences she is involved in—such as when she turns up at Walter’s apartment after he’d stormed out of hers and slyly brought him to the brink of his decision to help her, and ignorantly be her gun, her brain, her man, her tool, and a similar tracking shot as she tangos fatally in through the lowly-lit doorway, into the begging arms of Walter, again another example of her smooth, killing ability--, ultimately depicting her as the mastermind and deviant of the entire film, which is also back up by her ‘European/German appearance’, according to one Mr. James, who suggests it relates to the war time propaganda, and the general American derisive hate towards Germans and the likes.
The use of camera movement to signal a climactic scene in this way is very common in noir, as it is stripped down, open to interpretation and generally gives a foreboding impression, a necessary element in film noir as a whole.

Question Two: element: aural.
Use of music:

The music in this same Double Indemnity extract is perhaps the most effective element in interacting with the audience who, because they cannot identify with colour because it is a monochromatic film from the 1940s, are always greatly affected by the music in the film, as it portrays the overall mood wanted to be discoursed by the directors and producers.
As the soon-to-be-murdered M. Diedrichson, Phyllis and her hidden lover, Neff, leave from the Diedrichson estate, a deep, foreboding music of orchestral consistency—mostly brass instruments such as trumpets and a backing of screeching violins—begins to play, to accompany the all-seated auditory systems of the naive audiences, and send us anxiously along the darkly and dimly set journey towards the cruel death of a man loved only by his daughter. Every few metres progressed by the heaving, 1940s oil-guzzling wagon-of-a-car seems to cause an up-rise in the intensity of the orchestra’s instrument plucking, banging and blowing, each time lift up our vulnerable heart’s further into our gaping mouths. Louder and louder, harsher and harsher: M. Diedrichson’s angry questioning becomes more fearful, “what are you honking the horn for!!??” shouts his poor, trembling lips, and the music reacts in cruel mocking and violence to his pleas. A shadowed male body and two gloved hands appear from behind the upholstered leather, and the choking of one 50 year-old without a lifeline is beaten against loudly by the violent piano’s, drums, violins and trumpets, until all Diedrichson breath has left, and the music dies down into a devious rumble of descending succession and hate, complimenting sinisterly upon their destructive actions.
The audience hearts are racing like horses under threat of being sent to a glue factory, the mood is intense, dark and deadly, and no member of the theatre can help but realise the upcoming death in this humanly sickening scene. Walter and his widow, engulfed by the orchestral mob—who would more suitably be baring American rifles, grenades and missiles instead of wood and brass—are becoming trapped in their own deeds, and the inevitability of their actions is ever so present, as their enthused darkness finally cuts short (probably by only ten lonely years anyway...) the life of an old man.
This particular type of music adheres strongly to the film noir genre, being orchestral, violent and foreboding. Most noir films, such as The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon share this type of music, for the same affect on the audience, defining the genre.

Question Three: element: what’s in the scene.
Actor’s jolly-good show:

The body movement and facial expressions of the three constituents in the sequence have great importance in aiding viewers to understand the individual characters, the situations they are found to be in and the overall humour.
Careening into the alleyway, in the wagon we have frequent close-ups mainly of M. Diedrich in shotgun on our left, and Phyllis behind the wheel on our right, with the occasional slighted vision of the dark, crouching, suited figure of Neff. Phyllis’ face, posture and movement all suggest a femme fatale nature—a type of state in which the evil, deceitful and murderous side of a woman comes out in full parade, with a heavy perfume of seduction, and a slight reduction from their mate whom they are about to devour. With cold eyes, slightly pouted, yet masculine lips, raised shoulders and a pushed out breast, Phyllis expresses the femme fatale that she so happily is. As we realise the sociopathic ability she has to take delight in death, and not interrupt it, no matter its cruelty, her acting becomes more apparent, and her character’s disposition is clear to us. Also, her unfailing gaze into the endless existence that is the camera, staring towards the audience, but almost through it, gives us a firsthand experience of what a black widow, turned woman really is, which is enforced in the later sequences, when we again see her evil, seductive nature, when she tricks Neff and sends a bullet into his stomach, not even flinching, she stands, calm, pointing the gun at him, but ironically, she cannot fire a second shot, and so her end comes—telling us that a femme fatale is no longer a femme fatale when she succumbs to love, and can’t finish the job she began, which is typical of the film noir genre of which this film is clearly a part.
Mr. Diedrichson’s expressions and reactions are absolutely counterpart and essential to the scene as a whole. They are mostly of worry, uncertainty, fear, anger and melancholia, and reflect the very sadness and vulnerability of the normal American psyche in relation to death, which was very present in American society at this time, as WWII had just ended, and the full force of lost loved-ones was beginning to be felt by all. As they descend, he asks more and more questions, his eyes popping from his skull, trembling, his voice breaks, his head shakes, he chokes and he becomes lifeless. The very look in his eyes alone, combined with his fearful questioning, preaches to the audience his fear of death, his old age, his vulnerability and his lack of satisfaction in a materialistic life. We get the message that murder is truly horrible to be subject to, and we must ask ourselves: how can we send our brothers and fathers to die in a muddy battleground? Are we all totally barbaric? And what has racism to do with it all? We are all human.
And lastly, Phyllis’ satisfied expression of a climactic fulfilment, shown in her glaring eyes and forward stare, as well as her slight smile, at her husband’s last breath, truly climax the situation for the audience, in a horrible way, which almost compliments that death is the final sexual climax a human will have, as the noises M. Diedrich makes are clearly oriented to be sexual and orgasmic.

Question Cinq: relevance: Hays Code:
Framing and Editing:

The Hays Code was a film document created in Hollywood at the early flourishing of 20th century film, to restrict what the producers and directors could put and show in their films, so as only to expose society to morally appropriate material, which focused mostly in on the stars in the films, rather than the actual happenings that are being shown with artistry. The code itself was on its way out, or at least succumbing to the pressure of directors wanting to show more, at the time this film was made, but, nevertheless, Double Indemnity’s making was greatly affected by the code, especially the restrictions of not being allowed to show murder or death directly on film, not being able to show or refer to sexual conduct or misconduct nor methods of murder.
As the code dictates murder or its methods are not to be shown directly, Walter’s climactic murder of Diedrichson is only vaguely referred to, with Walter creeping up with something between his parted hands, and the camera cuts to Phyllis’ face as his hands reach over the top of the seat. The film is edited to skip straight from crawling hands to a facial close-up, showing nothing more of Diedrichson in a close format for the entire rest of the film, as he is considered dead, but not truly allowed to be shown so, certainly not like we do in modern cinema, with mangled corpses hanging from tree branches in various teen horror flicks, such as Rob Zombie’s remake of Carpenter’s Halloween. The only signs that Diedrich is really being killed are the expression of Phyllis’ face and the moans and choking of her husband.
And because the Hays Code clearly states that “methods of crime were not to be explicitly presented”, all films of this time had to find ways around the rules in order to the same impression upon the audience with a murder as if it was being directly shown i.e. recreate the important scenes to get across the same intentions, usually done with intense music such as in this sequence, as well as low-key lighting and contrast, that reflects the horror in the scene, anyway not visual in other words.
This scene would give the audience an entirely different perspective if the direct brutality of the murder was shown, not being edited because of a film code, Hays or otherwise.
Although this film still followed the code partly, it denied it in slight ways, in that in many other scenes, methods of crime were shown, specifically how one would conduct insurance fraud. In words Walter’s fraud plan is clearly described to the audience, and in the turning point sequence when Walter finally gets Mr. Diedrichson to sign the paper for insurance, he tells him his automobile insurance paper has two copies to be signed, when really the second one is a “Double Indemnity clause life insurance policy”, ultimately tricking the old man into moving the narrative forward; the plans for his murder.

Question Six: characterisation: Mr. Diedrichson
Type of man? How conveyed?

From what we have already heard spoken about him and how we have seen him behave, we can gather Mr. Diedrichson to be an all round hard-working, dedicated man with a love for his oil-field managing and hands-on job, with trauma from a deceased wife, a deep care and worry for his teen daughter, but with a hard edged facade aimed at keeping people away from his emotions, which comes off as a cruel and cold.
We get this from the way Phyllis speaks about him to Neff, often saying things like “he hates me” and locks her up in that house all day and gets angry if she buys anything, to paraphrase. He is tight with his money, and careful around dangerous broads like Phyllis, who he keeps around to tidy the house more than anything else.
As the scene unfolds, Diedrichson is plainly chaperoned into the passengers’ seat by his seemingly kind wife. She opens the door for him, calls him “honey”, but he gives no thanks. He acts coldly, treating her like a possession that couldn’t hurt a fly, giving her real psychological motive to kill him. In the care she tells him “the doctor said you could end up with a shorter leg if you’re not careful”, as he had sustained a broken leg the week earlier, to which he replies “so what!? I can break the other one and match ‘em up again”, laughing sardonically with a horrible smile and a cackling expression, like an old warlock, which shows him to be cold, careless, enjoying of pain, and generally quite sardonic in his cruelty. The close up shot of his face shows him shaking with his teeth bared as he cackles, specifically shoving his hateful, sardonic nature in the face of the audience.
His face is shown throughout the film to be mostly without emotional expression, especially in the initial stages of this sequence, until the point where Phyllis has drifted down the street and a look of intense, instinctual fear comes into his eyes and his face, just before his climactic death. This final show of emotion of the femme fatale’s subject is classic of noir; the hard man boiling under his own sweater because of the state she puts him in. This characterises the femme fatale’s patron in noir.
Through the close-ups of his face and sounds of his raspy voice, he is shown to be a cold-hearted, cruel, harsh old man on the surface, which is enforced by his job as an oil worker, but in truth he is a vulnerable, suspecting, fearful old man with a lot of trauma, possibly from world war one, and his anger drives him, as well as his melancholia.

Question Seven: lighting: chiaroscuro & low-key.
Relevance to moral point:

The first time Mr. Diedrichson asks “why did you turn here?” there is a very important key shot to the scene, using low-key lighting (the technique of using only two key lights at the back so that the face is illumined by highly shadowed with plenty of chiaroscuro (light-dark) effects) Phyllis’ keen-eyed face is show to be looking around the setting with scrutiny to check if there is any witnesses before she honks the horn violently three times to signal Walter’s murderous attack. The short itself encapsulates Phyllis’ shoulder width, from the top of her chest up to the top of her head, showing the back window of the car, the poorly lit street behind her, and it is just close enough to her face for us to see her head and glinting eyes move from side to side, checking for perfect murder conditions.
The is clearly no light coming from the front of the shot, where the camera is placed, instead, there are two low-key lights behind her, creating enough visually recognisable features for the audience to see her expressions. This use of low-key light ads to the whole dark, devious, criminal mood of the scene, and the film as a whole, creating barely discernable forms in the background, an influx of shadows, and very clear effects of chiaroscuro. The chiaroscuro in this shot is absolutely perfect, brilliant enough to define the almost demonic form of her face and jaw, with black shadows pushing in her cheeks to make her seem almost corpse-like, which purely signals the morals she lacks and the morals that murder is evil, which has an affect on the largely Christian society of America at this time, who would identify all “bad” things with Satan, including alcohol (of which both Walter and Phyllis partake before having love transgressions at his apartment) , giving enough evidence for the audience to morally condemn these two outrageous killers; these sons of Satan, per se. The top of her head is also completely black, which could be considered the opposite of a halo, a very prominent object in Christian iconography, driving the church-goers at their disgrace. The golden, white locks of her Germanic appearance can be made out with the chiaroscuro, reflecting her foreign nature; her wicked temperament.

The shot after she honks the horn, and takes pleasure in the torment of her husband who is clutching onto the window frame in abject fear, shows her glaring at the quickly approaching death of her bastard husband. The lighting perfectly frames her oval face in this shot, she makes a slight, orgasmic twitch in her body, and her lips pout, slightly apart, with her crimson lipstick and ivory teeth being clearly shown. The shadow on her nose is very clear, defining her European features, and adding to her mystery and foreign nature. Her hair again is show, but brighter, almost glowing with her whole face at the experience of being next to a dying man. Her glaring eyes, slightly wet and staring sociopathically into and through the audience in a dark spacious realm of pleasure, from which she gains all the wealth she needs in that one moment, and would be happy to feel that way forever, as that is the real thrill of a true noir femme fatale, not the money or the men; only the manipulation, deceit and death, common conventions and themes for the whole noir genre, which reflects the general state of society at that time period, dwindling as the memory of WWII dwindled, as the deaths became forgotten, and the wave of melancholy that swept through the heart of America dissipated, but still leaving the expressive scars of that post-war time, such as this film in itself.