I have had a lot of fun revisiting old classics lately. In my most recent review of Double Indemnity, I talked a lot about not apologizing if you don't like a "classic" film. I know a lot of people who don't like Citizen Kane, for example, but they always feel the need to apologize for that. I've been guilty of doing this myself - with Double Indemnity, in fact. I would say things like, "I respect it, but I don't like it." But there was another important point in that review. Sometimes you have to give something a second chance. I saw Double Indemnity again and loved it. And in a weird sort of way, the world opened up to me. What other classic movies did I not like? What other iconic films should I give another chance to? Which films did I feel most "guilty" about not liking?
The Maltese Falcon is a beloved film, and an incredibly important movie in cinema history. In high school, I enthusiastically watched it and remembered being bored to tears. But this film is so highly and universally accepted that I almost felt bad for not liking it. The film was a great success, earning three Academy Award nominations in a very competitive year (including Best Picture), and has an 8.0 on IMDB, a 96% on Metacritic, and a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. These are some strong stats. If there was a ever a film I would change my mind about, odds were this was going to be the one!
And my opinion did change. Just not as much as I had hoped. But I'm getting ahead of myself here.
Private detective Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart, Casablanca) and his partner Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan, Miracle on 34th Street) are hired by a new client named Ruth Wonderly (Mary Astor, The Great Lie) to find her missing sister. The only clue is that the sister has thrown in with a violent man named Floyd Thursby. The duo take the case, and Archer agrees to tail Thursby that night to see if he might lead them to Wonderly's sister. Before the night is over, Archer and Thursby are both murdered, Wonderly has disappeared, and Sam Spade is looking like the most likely suspect. But things get even more complicated real quick. A trio of mysterious and dangerous men show up, Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre, Casablanca), Kasper Gutman (Sidney Greenstreet, also Casablanca) and Wilmer (Elisha Cook, Jr., not Casablanca, but The Big Sleep). These three are looking for a priceless relic called The Maltese Falcon and are willing to do anything to get it. They think Sam Spade might have a clue to its whereabouts. At the same time, Ruth Wonderly reappears and also reintroduces herself as Brigid O'Shaughnessy. She admits to using a fake name and had been hoping to use Spade and Archer to help find the falcon for herself. She still wants it, but is afraid for her life after Archer and Thursby's murders.
Without a doubt, I can say I liked the film much more than I used to. That's a fact. There is a lot of great stuff in here. First of all, the acting is terrific across the board. You can see why this film turned Sydney Greenstreet into a star and Humphrey Bogart into a superstar. You have strong support from Elisha Cook, Jr. and especially a brilliant Peter Lorre, and Mary Astor, who was arguably the biggest star of the group when the film was made, and an Oscar winner that same year for The Great Lie, is also excellent as the mysterious O'Shaughnessy. I should also say this is the directorial debut for John Huston, whose legendary career spanned four decades and included classics such as The Treasure of Sierra Madre and The African Queen. His direction here is assured and confident and its clear that this is a filmmaker who is about to launch into some great things.
The character of Sam Spade is also interesting and, surprisingly for a 1940s film, a bit morally ambiguous. He's definitely not a hero. Other than being slightly annoyed by having to deal with the police, he doesn't seem to care that his partner was murdered. He only really seems to be interested in watching his own back, and is he demanding that O'Shaughnessy exchange sex for his protection? The movie doesn't outright say so, but I'm pretty sure he is. Especially for the time period, I found that to be fascinating.
This film has become the archetype for the detective film and is basically the granddaddy of the film noir genre (though I personally don't quite think its noir.), and Bogart's Sam Spade has been burned into the public consciousness as the quintessential private eye. The film, quite simply, has become iconic.
But at the same time, I think The Maltese Falcon is far from perfect. And I don’t think it is me being picky or judging the film with "modern eyes," so to speak. I think there are some fundamental problems that I’m surprised other people haven’t mentioned, including critics back in 1941. One big problem is that for significant stretches, the movie can be sort of, well, dull. Personally, I think the primary flaw is that the film breaks the “show don’t tell” rule. There are some long sequences where characters are just telling each other stuff. They keep talking at each other, instead of with each other, and it all just begins to grow wearisome. For example, a huge problem with the film is that we never see Sam Spade solve the mystery. He just tells people he did. And he doesn’t even explain how he figured it out. He just has a long speech saying that he did. I’m not sure why this bothers me so much, but I think it’s a major flaw.
And I think it’s a shame because generally the dialogue is well written. And when there are dialogue exchanges, the film crackles with wit and brilliance. I like the scenes with Sam Spade antagonizing Wilmer. And any scene where Bogart and Peter Lorre bounce off each other is priceless. Wow, that sequence where Joel Cairo tries to search Spade’s office might be one of the funniest scenes Bogart and Lorre ever got to play. Unfortunately, as the movie goes on, we start to get less and less lines of dialogue and more and more paragraphs. And the result is that, just as the movie should be getting more exciting, I start to get less interested because I'm being talked at. I don't want to listen to a bunch of people lecturing each other. And I don’t want them to tell me everything. As a viewer, I want to witness it. I want to experience it. Show, don't tell, damn it!
I also want to single out one scene that confused me, so some SPOILERS here. So Gutman asks Spade over for a drink and then monologues about the history of the Falcon. Spade realizes the drink has been drugged and passes out. Wilmer comes in and kicks Spade in the face, just for spite. Oh, yeah, I thought to myself, some drama. How's Spade going to get out of this one? But then...Wilmer and Gutman just leave. Hours later, Spade wakes up, and shrugs it all off like it was nothing. And nothing is ever mentioned about it again - even when Spade confronts Gutman and Wilmer just a few scenes later. What was the point of that? Some would say they drugged Spade to get him out of the way. The bad guys had discovered where the falcon was, so they didn't need Spade any more. So why not just kill him then? They certainly killed other people. Or if you don't want to kill him, why not at least tie him up so he doesn't just walk out of the building when he wakes up? Or wait - I have an even better question, if they didn't need him, then why invite him over for a drink to begin with? Why did they even have the conversation and waste my time? What was the point? Ugh, this scene was frustrating.
So at the end of the day, where does that leave me? I do like Maltese Falcon more than I used to. There is no doubt about that. I understand why it is an iconic classic that deserves to be on any list of the most important and influential films ever. But a Best Movie list? I’m not so sure. Those movies need to stand the test of time and be just as entertaining now as they were when they were first released. Casablanca has that magic. As unpopular an opinion that this may be, I just don’t think The Maltese Falcon measures up.
BEST LINE:
It's the most famous line of the movie and justifiably so. And I think it's made even better when you know that it wasn't in the original script. The line, inspired by Shakespeare's The Tempest, was a suggestion from Bogart himself.
Detective (holding the Falcon): It's heavy. What is it?
Sam Spade: The, uh, stuff dreams are made of.
TRIVIA:
Wow, this one is tough. The Maltese Falcon has so many fun facts!
How about this film being a remake? This was actually the third attempt in less than a decade to film Dashiell Hammett's book. The second attempt, Satan Met a Lady, was a comedy starring Bette Davis! Those other two versions had flopped, but Huston had the sense that he could do it right.
How about that ship captain who staggers into Spade's office and dies? That's Walter Huston, John Huston's dad! And apparently, John had his father do an absurd number of takes of this tiny cameo, just as a practical joke.
How about the fact that the film was supposed to star George Raft, who turned it down because he didn't want to work with a first time director. It's not the only time Bogart benefitted from Raft's short sightedness. Raft also turned down High Sierra, All Through the Night, and according to some film historians, Casablanca.
There's also the term that slipped by the censors. Spade keeps calling Wilmer "gunsel," which most people think is a reference to Wilmer's being Gutman's enforcer or gunman. That's not the case. It's actually a Yiddish word, literally meaning "little goose," and is a derogatory term for a young gay man in a relationship with a much older man. This explains why Wilmer keeps getting angry whenever Spade calls him that.
MVP:
This one is actually really difficult. I want to say Humphrey Bogart and I really should. He is truly electric, and it is easy to see why this film made him such a big star. But my personal MVP has to be Peter Lorre as Joel Cairo. He is hilarious and pathetic, and he has terrific chemistry with Bogart, Astor, Greenstreet - heck, pretty much everyone. He's just terrific and lights up the screen whenever he appears. I know this is Bogart's movie, but Lorre is my MVP.
