randy_byers: (wilmer)
[personal profile] randy_byers
In the wake of the discussion of film noir here last weekend, I decided to watch all three versions of The Maltese Falcon on the special edition DVD that Warner Bros released a couple of years ago. I had seen the 1941 version with Bogart at least a couple of times before, including on the big screen at least once at a repertory theater in the days before home video, but I hadn't seen the other two.

The 1931 version, starring Bebe Daniels and Ricardo Cortez, is very similar to the 1941 version scriptwise. Since it's a pre-Code movie, Sam Spade is allowed to be more of a womanizing heel than he is in the later version, and there's a lot more overt sexuality in general. It's closer to the novel in these aspects. All the same, there's a tacked-on ending in which Spade visits Ms. Wonderly in the jail and reveals he's taken a new job that is completely unbelievable and out-of-character for him. The pace of the movie isn't as sharp as the 1941 version, but otherwise it's a very entertaining interpretation in its own right, aside from that ending. Fascinating to see how two very similar scripts can be treated so differently. Also fascinating to see an early film interpretation of the hard-boiled private detective, which hadn't become a convention yet.

The 1936 version is called Satan Met a Lady, and it changes all the names and turns the falcon maguffin into the horn of Roland. The tone of this version is comedic, almost farcical. Unfortunately, the tone is also fairly uneven, as are some of the performances, most importantly that of Warren William as Ted Shayne, the Sam Spade character. Nonetheless, there are some lines of dialogue from this version that were used in the 1941 version too, and despite the numerous changes, many of the same story details surface over the short course (72 minutes) of the film. You also get a bottle-blonde Bette Davis, and a nice mugging performance by Alison Skipworth as a female version of the Casper Gutman character. The quality of the image for this movie is the worst of the three on the DVD, which is a shame, because one of the other things it shares with the 1941 version is cinematography by the great Arthur Edeson.

Coming to the 1941 version after seeing these earlier versions, and several years and hundreds of movies since the last time I saw it, the thing that struck me the most was Edeson's visual style. Edeson, although an American, was one of the figures who developed the German expressionist style into film noir style, via gothic horror. The 1926 old dark house picture, The Bat (an influence on the comicbook Batman), shows him using the expressionist style, which he then took into an almost abstract direction in James Whale's Old Dark House (1932). He also photographed Whale's Frankenstein (1931), which isn't quite as dark but features a lot of low angle shots and low key lighting. By the time he got to The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca (1942), he had created an incredibly sophisticated look -- "painting with light," in John Alton's phrase. One thing I noticed in The Maltese Falcon is that he would take lattices of light produced by venetian blinds and use them as abstract ornaments completely removed from their source, including one that is used to frame Spade's head as he's talking to somebody offscreen with nary a window in sight. In scenes in darkened rooms, Edeson manages to outline figures in different gradations of faint light that allow us to make out where everyone and everything is in relation to each other, while reducing them to dark featureless shapes at the same time.

Many of the shots are looking up, as in the userpic on this post, so that figures are distorted and looming. While the tone of this movie is relatively tame compared to the more psychological noirs, there's an effective undercurrent of tension and uncertainty. I had never liked Mary Astor's performance as the femme fatale before, but now that I've seen some of her other movies (including Preston Sturges' comedy, Palm Beach Story from the same year, in which she plays a completely different character), I saw it with new eyes this time. I think part of what put me off the performance before is simply that she's playing a very unlikeable character (as is everybody else). What's impressive is that she's playing a character so deceptive that she doesn't even know herself. There's no identity there, no core, just a succession of extemporized masks. Astor is playing a chameleon, and she's so good at it that, unlike Bogart's mannered interpretation of Spade (very fitting for this highly stylized movie), you don't notice what she's doing.

This is also the first time I've looked at the story as an artifact of the pulps. The backstory of the falcon as an object of treasure could have come from an Orientalist adventure, perhaps one of Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu stories or a planetary romance by Leigh Brackett, where the falcon would be an ancient superscientific device that legend says allowed personality transfers. The cast of grotesques chasing the falcon are familiar pulp characters too. It was terrific, by the way, to see Dwight Frye's nearly wordless psychotic gunsel, Wilmer, in the 1931 version. I've always been a big fan of Elisha Cook Jr's performance in that role in the 1941 version -- thus the userpic -- but Dwight Frye, who is familiar from Universal horror films such as Dracula (1931) and Frankenstein, is perfect too. Never imagined that Wilmer had so much in common with Renfield!

Date: 2008-08-03 10:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ron-drummond.livejournal.com
Hey! Good essay. Makes me want to rush out and buy the set, though I won't. Your grounding in the whole cinematic surround is deepening and broadening rather splendidly. I like how it informs your musings. Well done. I'm beginning to see the outlines of a book . . . Mostly, though, I'm just glad you're writing about film at such length.

Date: 2008-08-03 11:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
Thanks, Ron. It's fun to make connections. One thing I wanted to work in was that the femme fatale in the 1931 is played by Bebe Daniels, who plays the Other Woman in a couple of Cecil B. DeMille's "marriage problem" movies from 1920 and 1921. The roots of the femme fatale character of noir do seem to be in certain kinds of silent melodrama.

Date: 2008-08-04 08:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stevegreen.livejournal.com
Theda Bara certainly fits the bill.

Date: 2008-08-04 08:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
Yes, exactly. And the vamp character developed over time until you get something like Pandora's Box (1929), which is already heading towards the noir visual style and fatalism.

Date: 2008-08-03 11:00 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stevegreen.livejournal.com
To be fair, the "hard-boiled 'tec" might not yet have been a staple of movies in 1931, but it was well-established in popular fiction (ie. the magazine Black Mask) by the mid-1920s.

Date: 2008-08-03 11:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
I'm sure you're right, and I was mostly thinking about film. This may be the earliest depiction of a hard-boiled detective I've seen on film. It made me wonder if there were any others, or if it wasn't until the '40s that we really see them hit the movies.

Which reminds me that I was thinking Satan Met a Lady shared a certain tone with The Thin Man, the movie, which had come out a couple of years before. Made me wonder if Satan Met a Lady was an attempt to cash in on the popularity of The Thin Man, which is of course another adaptation of Hammett.

Date: 2008-08-04 06:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stevegreen.livejournal.com
Footnote:
According to Otto Penzler's introduction to Pulp Fiction: The Crimefighters (2006), the hardboiled PI made his debut in Carroll John Daly's "Three Gun Terry", published in Black Mask, 15 May 1923. Daly subsequently created Race Williams, the genre's first continuing character.

Date: 2008-08-04 06:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
Thanks for that. Very interesting. The documentary on the DVD mentioned an editor of Black Mask who cultivated Hammett. I'm not sure when he started, however. I seem to recall that Hammett sold his first story in 1928.

"Three Gun Terry," huh? That's more guns than hands!

Date: 2008-08-04 07:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stevegreen.livejournal.com
Hammett's first "Continental Op" story appeared in BM, 1 October 1923. The magazine also serialised The Maltese Falcon, but not The Thin Man.

Read Red Harvest last year and was stunned at its bleak amorality.

Date: 2008-08-04 08:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
Wow, I was way off on that, wasn't I? And I see now that he had a previous story in the December 1922 issue of Black Mask, called "The Road Home". The editor they mentioned in the documentary was Captain Joseph Shaw.

Date: 2008-08-04 10:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] richardthe23rd.livejournal.com
The first thought through my head is that he sure slipped one past the censors.

Date: 2008-08-04 10:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
Ah, the love gun. Hadn't even thought of that! Private dick, indeed.

Date: 2008-08-04 02:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alces2.livejournal.com
Very interesting essay. I've watched all three of these but it was some time ago. They are indeed interesting to compare. I read the book at about the same time and even posted something in LiveJournal. Of course I can't find that entry at the moment.

Date: 2008-08-04 03:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
I'd really like to reread the book, too -- and all of Hammett, actually -- but I'm in the middle of reading all of Leigh Brackett's novels and don't want to get distracted. So many books (and movies), and so little time!

If you ever do dig up your post, please let me know.

Date: 2008-08-04 04:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kip-w.livejournal.com
I, on the other hand, am now into the second volume of Chandler in the Library of America, traversing all the novels and the screenplay for Double Indemnity, plus some miscellaneous shorter works. LofA didn't seem to think the Chandler Apocrypha -- works he cannibalized for the novels -- should be included, but the collection, Killer in the Rain, takes care of that omission nicely.

Date: 2008-08-04 04:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
By the way, I noticed that the DVD of The Maltese Falcon includes the radio version with Edgar G. Robinson. It's got everything!

Date: 2008-08-04 06:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] stevegreen.livejournal.com
Likewise Warner's recent release of Casablanca, which has out-takes, the radio version and a tv spin-off.

Date: 2008-08-04 10:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] richardthe23rd.livejournal.com
It's odd me that for all the classics he shot, Edeson never managed to win an Oscar for cinematography, although considering the Oscars' track record, maybe not as astonising as it should be.

Date: 2008-08-04 10:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
That is interesting. IMDb says he was nominated three times, for In Old Arizona, All Quiet on the Western Front, and Casablanca. All three of those films won for Best Picture, too. At least one other film he worked on won Best Picture: the 1935 Mutiny on the Bounty.

Date: 2008-08-05 02:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reverendjim.livejournal.com
More interesting stuff there; I'm certainly enjoying your film writing. And that'll be another two films (the earlier versions) to add to my "things to see" list.
I was rather amused by your observations that the falcon could be "an ancient superscientific device", as that's exactly what it is the long running role-playing game I'm involved in. It's really an "Atlantean" device, though "Atlantis" was a highly advanced planet with links to Earth. This, of course, means the solid gold falcon is actually a fake as it doesn't have any of the useful psychic abilities of the "real" one. Oh, and Fu Manchu was after it.

Date: 2008-08-05 03:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
Okay, that's a pretty danged weird coincidence. I'm feeling a tremor in the Force ...

Date: 2008-08-05 03:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
And I'm not sure it's clear from my comments that I don't think Satan Met a Lady is a very good movie. Fortunately, it's pretty short.

Date: 2008-08-05 03:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] reverendjim.livejournal.com
If it's short enough it sounds like it's worth a look anyway, as a different twist on the same material. I'm not sure I'd want to watch all three versions so close to each other though. Then again...

Date: 2008-08-05 03:47 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] randy-byers.livejournal.com
I watched one after another, all in one day, although I hadn't expected to. The first one is only 78 minutes, and the second is 72. I can't remember how long the third one is.

Profile

randy_byers: (Default)
randy_byers

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10 111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 15th, 2025 06:40 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios