|
|
Post by london777 on Jun 3, 2017 16:30:18 GMT
The obvious answer is "not a lot", as it is one of my all-time favorite movies, as it is for many film-buffs.
It is one of a handful of comfort films for me, that I turn to when I feel down or need to relax before bedtime.
I watched it last night for the nth time and realized why it is not a 10 for me. A lot of the background motivation is in the supposed sexual attraction between Bogart and Astor, and to a lesser extent between Bogart and Gladys George, playing the wife of his murdered partner. But these women are just not sexually attractive to a modern audience so it loses a lot of edge.
The reason may be offered that women's styles of hair, clothes and make-up have dated a lot more than men's. Yet who would dare to say that Bergman in Casablanca (1942), or Bacall in To Have and Have Not (1944) are not as attractive as any women in movies since, right up to the present day?
Astor looks like a bag lady when she first appears wrapped in a confusion of shawls and furs. I get it that she is simulating a naive and unsophisticated women new in the city, but she is also trying to "hook" Bogie, and does succeed with his partner. George looks like his mother.
We realize by the end of the movie that Bogart's attraction to her is 100% feigned for professional reasons. He is beating her at her own game. In fact, the look on his face when he threatens her with the gas chamber is quite realistically gloating and sadistic, a throwback to his earlier films when he was usually cast as a thug. But I do not think the audience is supposed to realize that throughout the film. We are supposed to think there is some "chemistry" in order to make the reveal more dramatic.
Add to that, I do not think that Astor is a very good actress. Admittedly, acting someone who is "acting" badly is hard to do well, but she does not come close.
There were plenty of other female stars who would have improved on Astor and George, but I suppose this was a relatively low-budget movie? Let us just be thankful we did not end up with George Raft as Sam Spade!
Over to you mikef6 (or anyone).
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Jun 3, 2017 16:36:23 GMT
The obvious answer is "not a lot"
My answer -- "not a thing'
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jun 3, 2017 17:08:03 GMT
Beauty is largely conventional, then and now. A lot of contemporary stars and models are weird-looking. But I agree there is not a lot of heat between the characters in this one.
My biggest problem: Sam Spade is not Philip Marlowe.
|
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Jun 3, 2017 18:06:05 GMT
I don't find a dang thing wrong with The Maltese Falcon.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jun 3, 2017 18:41:11 GMT
The obvious answer is "not a lot", as it is one of my all-time favorite movies, as it is for many film-buffs. It is one of a handful of comfort films for me, that I turn to when I feel down or need to relax before bedtime. I watched it last night for the nth time and realized why it is not a 10 for me. A lot of the background motivation is in the supposed sexual attraction between Bogart and Astor, and to a lesser extent between Bogart and Gladys George, playing the wife of his murdered partner. But these women are just not sexually attractive to a modern audience so it loses a lot of edge. The reason may be offered that women's styles of hair, clothes and make-up have dated a lot more than men's. Yet who would dare to say that Bergman in Casablanca (1942), or Bacall in To Have and Have Not (1944) are not as attractive as any women in movies since, right up to the present day? Astor looks like a bag lady when she first appears wrapped in a confusion of shawls and furs. I get it that she is simulating a naive and unsophisticated women new in the city, but she is also trying to "hook" Bogie, and does succeed with his partner. George looks like his mother. We realize by the end of the movie that Bogart's attraction to her is 100% feigned for professional reasons. He is beating her at her own game. In fact, the look on his face when he threatens her with the gas chamber is quite realistically gloating and sadistic, a throwback to his earlier films when he was usually cast as a thug. But I do not think the audience is supposed to realize that throughout the film. We are supposed to think there is some "chemistry" in order to make the reveal more dramatic. Add to that, I do not think that Astor is a very good actress. Admittedly, acting someone who is "acting" badly is hard to do well, but she does not come close. There were plenty of other female stars who would have improved on Astor and George, but I suppose this was a relatively low-budget movie? Let us just be thankful we did not end up with George Raft as Sam Spade! Over to you mikef6 (or anyone). Now you ARE dangerous. I agree that Spade’s declaration of love at the climax comes as a bit of a surprise at first. After subsequent viewings, I can see that Spade is tempted but holds back, never getting physical, because, as he later says, he already knew who killed Miles and, performing a feat of Sherlockian proportions, had known from the beginning. (Remember in the final chapter of The Hound Of The Baskervilles, Holmes reveals that way back in chapters 1 and 2, during the first consultation with Doctor Mortimer, that he already had a pretty good idea of who was behind the criminal activity.) Consider, too, that TMF, along with Wilder’s “Double Indemnity,” are considered the forerunners, if not the first, of what we now call film noir. The concept of the femme fatale had not yet been formed or even named. Nobody knew in 1941 what she was supposed to look like. It has also been suggested that Astor’s end-of-her-rope Brigid is a deliberate strategy. This is a real consideration when you look at the next film she made. (See the next paragraph down past the parenthesis.) (Actually, Spade never does say he loves her. After Gutman & Co. have left, Spade demands Brigid tell him the whole story. At that point, Brigid calls him “sweetheart,” a little later she says, “You know, deep down in your heart, you know that is spite of everything I’ve done, I love you.” Spade answers, “I don’t care who loves who. I won’t play the sap for you.” Still later in the scene, after a long speech about why he can’t trust her, Spade says, “All we’ve got is that maybe you love me and maybe I love you.” That is as far as Spade goes in declaring love. Maybe any true feelings were all on his side and Brigid was never anything but an actress playing Spade and everybody else. No doubt luckily for Spade, his reason won out over his feelings.) Just one year after “Falcon,” director John Huston and actors Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, and Sidney Greenstreet reunited for “Across The Pacific” (only one of two feature films Huston directed during the war years). In this one, Astor is light, quick with a quip, and looks several years younger and much more inexperienced than Brigid O'Shaughnessy. Also, Bogart and Greenstreet continue their verbal sparring from the previous film. It culminates in a scene where Bogie and Sidney compare their hand guns. “Mine is bigger than yours,” Bogart says. (Yes, he really does say that.) “The Maltese Falcon” is just about the perfect film. Immensely entertaining, stands up to repeated viewings over decades, and leaves us, as all great “entertaining” movies do, with the feeling that there is more buried within it than the surface thriller even though it has no obvious moral for us all, nor is it a statement about a social evil, a character study, or any kind of deliberate either uplift or tear jerker. |
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 3, 2017 20:19:17 GMT
“The Maltese Falcon” is just about the perfect film. Immensely entertaining, stands up to repeated viewings over decades, and leaves us, as all great “entertaining” movies do, with the feeling that there is more buried within it than the surface thriller...YES! mikef6For me, it's another of those "the more you watch it the more you see in it" films and notes such as yours serve as guides for what to look for during the inevitable (and welcome)next viewing. The last time I watched it, I noticed the relationship between Spade and Tom the Cop more than I ever had before. I had been too busy enjoying those henchmen and following the pretzel story. Also paid more attention to Girl Friday - Effie who reminded me somewhat of Librarian Lydia. Thanks for the mini-essays. They are always good reads.
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jun 3, 2017 20:21:00 GMT
I can scarcely find fault with The Maltese Falcon, either, Mike. This is a case of familiarity,--I've probably seen the movie at the very least two dozen times--breeding affection, not contempt. It's a movie to love and cherish. The stuff in the OP with ladies Astor and George was genuine with me, too, the first couple of times I saw it inasmuch as I couldn't tell who was Iva and who was Brigid (right names?), as they dressed and, superficially, looked alike.
Both dressed like grandmothers to my young teenage eyes, as in way "overdressed" and made up to the point of anti-sexy. As the years went by I came to appreciate the movie for the classic it was and is and could overlook what I suppose could be considered a flaw for contemporary viewers, but when one starts down that road where do we stop,--criticize characters in Dickens and Thackeray for wearing derbies and ascots rather than the more casual dress of today? Complain about the parents in Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice for speaking to one another as "Mister" and "Mrs"?
There are many dated aspects of The Maltese Falcon, including the now, for Millennials, very dated use of telephones and, especially, pay phones (huh?). Yet there's something endearing about Sam Spade mailing a package in the city of San Francisco to an address within the city and simply list it as "city" rather than San Francisco, California. This actually sparked an interesting discussion between my friends and I when we watched the movie on TV back in the Seventies, as none of us had ever seen or heard of this before. For all its "datedness", though The Maltese Falcon is for me the gift that keeps on giving. Its flaws, such as they can be caused flaws, reflect its age. The timing, every line of dialogue, every camera angle, is sheer perfection for my money.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Jun 3, 2017 23:19:30 GMT
It's the stuff that dreams are made of, It's what Hitchcock called a McGuffin.
Do anyone even know where Malta is on a map?
Could a gold figurine of a bird be that important?
Mary Astor's popularity was not based on hairdo in this movie, since it made her older than she was, just like the Kardashians of today, sms of yesterdays was dairies, and she told a lot....
Sidney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre, nearly became the Laurel and Hardy of crime movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 5, 2017 17:22:12 GMT
Only problem I ever had with Maltese Falcon is Mary Astor. I've never had a problem recognizing beauty from a past era but I really don't see anything that great about her. Her acting isn't that hot either, and the chemistry with Bogie wasn't mixing too well. She was better in Across the Pacific.
|
|
|
|
Post by neurosturgeon on Jun 5, 2017 17:57:37 GMT
The third time was a charm with "The Maltese Falcon." It is a perfect film.
i don't have a problem with Mary Astor, she was playing a rather shady woman who was playing a part. remember that Mary was an Oscar winner for "The Great Lie," made right before "Falcon" so casting her in this film was quite a coup for first time director John Huston.
Everything about the way Mary's character was portrayed was spot on. She was dressed as someone trying to be as fashionable as someone living Our of a suitcase, on the run and on a budget.
About Ingrid in "Casablanca": How in the heck did someone on the run keep her white dresses and big hats in such marvelous shape? She and hubby (also in a perfect looking white suit) were the best dressed refugees ever, but I didn't let it spoil the film for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl LaFong on Jun 5, 2017 18:36:02 GMT
My fave movie of all time. Great thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jun 6, 2017 6:57:27 GMT
I do wonder about the falcon itself, though. It's fiction, I know, but I wonder whether Dashiell Hammett based it on something from real life, a thing that was actually made, centuries earlier, that he'd heard about; and no, not a McGuffin. The Malese Falcon of the book and the movies has specific proportions and its filled with valuable jewels. Leaving aside its value as either, depending on one's point of view, a work of art or an historical artifact, it would have been worth a literal king's ransom. If the falcon itself was too "hot" (too many claimants and all that) its contents could be removed, cut and in different form by a skilled jeweler,--who'd have to be himself literally cut into the deal--which would (perhaps) have yielded several hundred thousand dollars back seventy or more years ago, and now well into the millions. Any thoughts, or, better still, hints?  As in clue, I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by neurosturgeon on Jun 6, 2017 7:30:03 GMT
I can't figure out how to link pictures from my iPad, but if you check out my Twitter account media section, you will find a picture of the Black Bird that I took in the Warner Bros. prop warehouse. The statute of limitations has run out... Account name: neurosturgeon |
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Jun 6, 2017 7:49:27 GMT
The obvious answer is "not a lot", as it is one of my all-time favorite movies, as it is for many film-buffs. It is one of a handful of comfort films for me, that I turn to when I feel down or need to relax before bedtime. I watched it last night for the nth time and realized why it is not a 10 for me. A lot of the background motivation is in the supposed sexual attraction between Bogart and Astor, and to a lesser extent between Bogart and Gladys George, playing the wife of his murdered partner. But these women are just not sexually attractive to a modern audience so it loses a lot of edge. The reason may be offered that women's styles of hair, clothes and make-up have dated a lot more than men's. Yet who would dare to say that Bergman in Casablanca (1942), or Bacall in To Have and Have Not (1944) are not as attractive as any women in movies since, right up to the present day? Astor looks like a bag lady when she first appears wrapped in a confusion of shawls and furs. I get it that she is simulating a naive and unsophisticated women new in the city, but she is also trying to "hook" Bogie, and does succeed with his partner. George looks like his mother. We realize by the end of the movie that Bogart's attraction to her is 100% feigned for professional reasons. He is beating her at her own game. In fact, the look on his face when he threatens her with the gas chamber is quite realistically gloating and sadistic, a throwback to his earlier films when he was usually cast as a thug. But I do not think the audience is supposed to realize that throughout the film. We are supposed to think there is some "chemistry" in order to make the reveal more dramatic. Add to that, I do not think that Astor is a very good actress. Admittedly, acting someone who is "acting" badly is hard to do well, but she does not come close. There were plenty of other female stars who would have improved on Astor and George, but I suppose this was a relatively low-budget movie? Let us just be thankful we did not end up with George Raft as Sam Spade! Over to you mikef6 (or anyone). nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Jun 6, 2017 16:42:56 GMT
This is a wonderful film which ushered in the film noir genre, and stands out as a cult classic. It was also the directorial debut of John Huston, a very close friend of Bogart.
Due to the production code at the time, there was a lot that couldn't be said or done, but they did well enough with innuendo that got past the code.
It's a picture of it's time, and engagingly filmed with characters that have become cliche with time, but they are so perfect in what they do!
This is one of my all-time favorites that should I catch it while channel surfing, will stop and watch it again.
And for me, Astor was perfect as the bad girl.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jun 6, 2017 23:28:58 GMT
I do wonder about the falcon itself, though. It's fiction, I know, but I wonder whether Dashiell Hammett based it on something from real life, a thing that was actually made, centuries earlier, that he'd heard about; and no, not a McGuffin. The Malese Falcon of the book and the movies has specific proportions and its filled with valuable jewels. Leaving aside its value as either, depending on one's point of view, a work of art or an historical artifact, it would have been worth a literal king's ransom. If the falcon itself was too "hot" (too many claimants and all that) its contents could be removed, cut and in different form by a skilled jeweler,--who'd have to be himself literally cut into the deal--which would (perhaps) have yielded several hundred thousand dollars back seventy or more years ago, and now well into the millions. Any thoughts, or, better still, hints? As in clue, I mean. While I have nothing to offer on the question of whether it was something based on real life, tel, you'll recall that Gutman gives a rundown of the falcon's history, mentioning among other things that "in 1840, it appeared in Paris. It had, by that time, acquired a coat of black enamel...In that disguise, sir, it was, as you may say, kicked around Paris for over three score years, " then adding that, in 1923, it was found in an obscure shop by a Greek dealer who, after verifying its value and "to hold it safe while pursuing his researches into its history...re-enameled the bird." After 17 years, Gutman finally "traced it to the home of a Russian general...in an Istanbul suburb," from whom operatives stole it, ostensibly on Gutman's behalf .
When Gutman discovers toward the conclusion that the stolen item is a fake, the screenplay seems to be obliquely suggesting with that labyrinthine history that anything (including what you have) could have happened to it, and that the quest he resolves to continue may well be futile. As Hitchcock said in a 1972 documentary, the McGuffin is "what everyone in the film is after, but the audience don't care." Indeed, in the story's second screen adaptation, 1936's Satan Met A Lady, it's an ancient, jewel-filled horn. So the McGuffin may be real and specific ( North By Northwest's microfilm-filled ceramic figure), vague (the bottled ore in Notorious!) or entirely imaginary (as in Vertigo). Doesn't matter which, so I think the falcon qualifies, and it would have made no difference to TMF audiences what it was, as long as those pursuing it believed it was something of value (and even worth killing for). |
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Jun 7, 2017 0:04:34 GMT
Doghouse -- doesn't director Huston seem to be drawn to quests that end in failure?
The dingus in MALTESE FALCON
The gold in TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE
The assassination attempt in WE WERE STRANGERS
The kingdom in THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING
The robbery in THE ASPHALT JUNGLE
The inheritance in THE LIST OF ADRIAN MESSENGER
and ... the whale in MOBY DICK
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jun 7, 2017 0:08:00 GMT
neurosturgeon" you will find a picture of the Black Bird that I took in the Warner Bros. prop warehouse. The statute of limitations has run out..."
One might even say that the statute of limitations has run out on the statue, eh ? Sorry, I tried to resist, really I did !
|
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Jun 7, 2017 0:14:19 GMT
I do wonder about the falcon itself, though. It's fiction, I know, but I wonder whether Dashiell Hammett based it on something from real life, a thing that was actually made, centuries earlier, that he'd heard about; and no, not a McGuffin. The Malese Falcon of the book and the movies has specific proportions and its filled with valuable jewels. Leaving aside its value as either, depending on one's point of view, a work of art or an historical artifact, it would have been worth a literal king's ransom. If the falcon itself was too "hot" (too many claimants and all that) its contents could be removed, cut and in different form by a skilled jeweler,--who'd have to be himself literally cut into the deal--which would (perhaps) have yielded several hundred thousand dollars back seventy or more years ago, and now well into the millions. Any thoughts, or, better still, hints? As in clue, I mean. While I have nothing to offer on the question of whether it was something based on real life, tel, you'll recall that Gutman gives a rundown of the falcon's history, mentioning among other things that "in 1840, it appeared in Paris. It had, by that time, acquired a coat of black enamel...In that disguise, sir, it was, as you may say, kicked around Paris for over three score years, " then adding that, in 1923, it was found in an obscure shop by a Greek dealer who, after verifying its value and "to hold it safe while pursuing his researches into its history...re-enameled the bird." After 17 years, Gutman finally "traced it to the home of a Russian general...in an Istanbul suburb," from whom operatives stole it, ostensibly on Gutman's behalf .
When Gutman discovers toward the conclusion that the stolen item is a fake, the screenplay seems to be obliquely suggesting with that labyrinthine history that anything (including what you have) could have happened to it, and that the quest he resolves to continue may well be futile. As Hitchcock said in a 1972 documentary, the McGuffin is "what everyone in the film is after, but the audience don't care." Indeed, in the story's second screen adaptation, 1936's Satan Met A Lady, it's an ancient, jewel-filled horn. So the McGuffin may be real and specific ( North By Northwest's microfilm-filled ceramic figure), vague (the bottled ore in Notorious!) or entirely imaginary (as in Vertigo). Doesn't matter which, so I think the falcon qualifies, and it would have made no difference to TMF audiences what it was, as long as those pursuing it believed it was something of value (and even worth killing for). During my viewing the other night, in which I formulated my grudge against Miss Astor, I gave more attention to Gutman. I realized he is different from the other characters who are only in it for the money. Finding the bird is a quest for him. I imagine if he did acquire it, he could never bear to part with it. After this disappointment he must have realized that the trail he has uncovered could be worthless, but he is not at all deterred from continuing. In that light he is a tragic, almost heroic, figure. I am not into fan-fiction, but to humor telegonus I would suggest that the Greek dealer had the decoy bird made and put out the story that he has re-enameled the bird to explain any slight differences in color or appearance. Certainly the whole story is so iconic and yet so scant on detail, that it lends itself well to prequels and sequels. |
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Jun 7, 2017 0:26:49 GMT
Doghouse -- doesn't director Huston seem to be drawn to quests that end in failure? The dingus in MALTESE FALCON The gold in TREASURE OF SIERRA MADRE The assassination attempt in WE WERE STRANGERS The kingdom in THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING The robbery in THE ASPHALT JUNGLE The inheritance in THE LIST OF ADRIAN MESSENGER and ... the whale in MOBY DICK observation, Matt. If memory serves, Beat the Devil could be added to that list...or am I misremembering? I'll have to peruse his filmography and see if any others apply. Regardless, think we could infer some "it's not the destination, but the journey" philosophy therefrom? |
|
As in clue, I mean. 
