Talk:The Maltese Falcon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review The Maltese Falcon has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Novels
Literature Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Crime task force. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments

Below is some content from Sam Spade, which I deleted from that page, but do not have the strength to whip into any kind of shape for inclusion here. I leave it here to save someone who wants to include it the trouble of finding it again.

Contents

[edit] Films

  • The Maltese Falcon (AKA Dangerous Female)
(1931, Warner Brothers)
80 minutes
Based on the novel by Dashiell Hammett
Screenplay by Maude Fulton, Lucien Hubbard, Brown Holmes
Directed by Roy del Ruth
Starring Ricardo Cortez as SAM SPADE
with Bebe Daniels as Ruth Wonderly
Dudley Digges as Casper Gutman
Dwight Fry as Wilmer
Otto Matiesen as Joel Cairo
Una Merkel as Effie Perrine
Also starring Robert Elliot, Thelma Todd, Walter Long, J. Farrell MacDonald
  • The Maltese Falcon
(1941, Warner Brothers)
100 minutes, US
Based on the novel by Dashiell Hammett
Screenplay by John Huston
Directed by John Huston
Assistant Director: Claude Archer
Associate Producer: Henry Blanke
Exectutive Producer: Hal B. Wallis
Starring Humphrey Bogart as SAM SPADE
with Mary Astor as Bridgid O'Shaugnessy
Lee Patrick as Effie Perrine
Sydney Greenstreet as Casper Gutman
Peter Lorre as Joel Cairo
Elisha Cook Jr. as Wilmer Cook
Also starring Gladys George, Barton MacLane, Ward Bond, Jerome Cowan, James Burke, John Hamilton, Emory Parnell and
Walter Huston as Captain Jacobi
  • See also THE BLACK BIRD
(1975, Columbia)
I don't think any of this information is necessary or appropriate for an article about the book. All of this is already present in the articles about the films. Here it is irrelevant. ---Charles 06:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Lines

"The cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter." -- Spade to Wilmer
"I love you, Wilmer, as much as if you were my own son. If you lose one son, it is always possible to get another, but there is only one Maltese Falcon." -- Gutmann
"No Mr. Spade. Our private conversations have not been such that I am anxious to continue them." -- Cairo to Spade

[edit] Main picture

In order to avoid what is sure to become a revert war, and a likely violation of 3RR, I am going to begin a discussion here of what we feel the best main picture should be. Frankly, I do not think a picture from either film is appropriate for an article about the book, and that we need to find another picture (an old book cover, perhaps) altogether. If, however, we are going to use a picture from one of the films, it ought to be the picture of Spade, O'Shaughnessy, Cairo, and Gutman with "the black bird," because this is most illustrative of the story. The picture of the woman from the earlier, and far lesser-known, film is illustrative of nothing. She is simply unrecognizable. And adding an unsourced statement that Hammett was somehow "involved" with the making of that film is in no way relevant to the larger point. That image is certainly appropriate for the article about that film. So, I've said my piece, what are your thoughts? ---Charles 06:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the 1941 version is better known today is because of the fact that it was illegal to show it from 1935 to about 1966. The 1931 version is more faithful to the original story: for example, the scene where Samuel Spade makes O'Shaughnessy strip in order to find a missing 1000 dollar bill, which was not permitted in the 1941 remake because the censors would not allow it. In fact, the whole reason the Warner Brothers remade the film in 1941 was because the 1931 version was considered too "lewd" by the censors. 24.6.23.248 01:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You have repeated this assertion time and time again with no reference whatsoever other than your opinion. Why is it that dozens of critics (whose opinions and statements I can actually quote) have stated that the 1941 version is a classic and one of the greatest films ever made? It is not simply the fact that some conspiracy of prudishness prevented the 1931 film from being seen. The latter film was expertly-directed and had stars of a greater caliber than the original. All of this is beside the point, though, when it comes to what picture is appropriate for this article. As I said above, if "we are going to use a picture from one of the films, it ought to be the picture of Spade, O'Shaughnessy, Cairo, and Gutman with 'the black bird,' because this is most illustrative of the story. The picture of the relatively unknown actress lying on the bed is illustrative of nothing for someone looking at the article for the first time and who has little knowledge of the story other than the title. A picture that actually shows the bird is more appropriate. ---Charles 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The 1931 version is more faithful to the original story really? How are you measuring this? And citing a single scene doesn't count. And, frankly, as one who HAS seen both versions (and, yes, read the book), it's my opinion that the 1931 version is inferior to the 1941 version, whatever handwaving about "faithfulness" you employ.
The only reason the 1941 version is better known today is because of the fact that it was illegal to show it from 1935 to about 1966 Uh huh. Which means that film scholars and critics have had 40 years to change their minds, but I haven't noticed any mass changes in opinion since then. --Calton | Talk 06:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Is the film available on any format? DVD or video or Lasedisk? No .. If no one is able to see it what do you expect? Harold Lloyd, one of the greatest comic actors of the 1920's is virtually forgotten today because the idiots who held the rights to his films didn't want anyone to see him... on the other hand... the films of Laurel and Hardy have been made available ever since they were released and they are well known today... film scholars and critics have to work with what is available... do you think they are going to discuss films that are not available for viewing because they are locked away in vaults... Dream on....

Imagine a story that takes place around 1970 that was filmed first in 1971 but then a remake comes out in 1981... If you lived through that period you realize how different life was in 1971 (a liberal period) compared to the conservative early 1980's... and yet you think a film that was filmed shortly after the book was written is inferior to a version written in a completely different era... that could never capture the spirit of the time. Mary Astor in her mother hubbard outfits is so convincing as a sexy woman... sure.. just imagining her in bed make me barf... she is so adorable, so alluring... i just couldn't say no to her... UH HUH .... Bogart is hardly handsome either... Ricardo Cortez looks like a man women could easily fall for.. Boagart looks like some brute...about as charming as Carroll O'Connor was on "All in the Family" ...

The film in 1931 was a huge success ... (just read some of the reviews from that year) that is why the Warner Brothers were trying to re-release in 1936 but they were denied because of the conservatism of the censors... they were forced to remake it in 1941... the fact that George Raft refused to appear in the film ... is proof enough that the film was regarded as a cheap remake. If the film were more widely known than people would realize how much better it is... at least people who aren't conservatives like you evidently are... the fact that the inferior 1941 is popular attests to the greatest of the story which can even permeate a cheap remake made for conservatives who were too shocked to see sex (GASP.)...

In case you didn't know Dashiell Hammett was extremely liberal and he disliked the 1941 filmed version of his story... he never intended his story to be a showcase for "morals"

Is the film available on any format? DVD or video or Lasedisk? No

Wrong: see here. Also, you may be familiar with these things that pre-date video, known as "movie theaters", some of which show old movies -- one of which showed the 1931 version that I saw. Presumably, it's been shown more than once since 1966 and has had four decades to pick up popular appeal. Besides, if it's so unavailable, how is it you seem to know all about it?
In any case, your completely unsourced opinions and eccentric enthusiasm, while fascinating, is, to put it mildly, a minority view -- you still haven't explained how it is in the last 40 years that you say that the 1931 version has available that film scholars haven't gone ga-ga as you have over it. Unless you have some sources up your sleeve you're not telling us about?

In case you didn't know Dashiell Hammett was extremely liberal and he disliked the 1941 filmed version of his story

Thank you for the history lesson. What his leftism has to do with morality, I dunno, but...
1) Gotta a source? Not that I don't trust you...okay, I lied, I don't trust you.
2) The opinion of Hammett regarding the 1941 version -- whatever it might actually be -- has what bearing, exactly, on its consensus status as the canonical version of the book?
3) The opinion of Hammett regarding the 1931 version is what, exactly? You're implying a comparative with the 1941 version, but haven't made even a nod in the direction of actually doing so. --Calton | Talk 08:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Oh, yea, you never even tried to justify your made-up metric about which is more "faithful" to the book. Funny, I don't remember a scene in the book where Spade visits Brigid in prison, which I recall from the 1931 version. Whoops, points against THAT version. --Calton | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That copy on www.amazon.com is bootleg. The movie has had very limited release since the 1960's. It shows up once in awhile on cable (in the middle of the night) and even less at special movie theatres but compare that to the countless times that the 1941 has been shown on television and cable and the numerous releases on 8mm, Videodisk, Beta, VHS, Laserdisk, DVD... every format ever developed for homeviewing of films... meanwhile the 1931 had always been hard to obtain and it has never been made available by the copyright owners for purchase...
Your bias is brought out by your assertion that the 1941 is closer to the novel... either your memory has failed you or are deliberately distorting the facts because you are obsessed with the 1941 version.. I suggest you re-read the book and view the 1931 version again... In case you didn't know (but I don't see how you couldn't as it is common knowlddge) John Huston used the script of the 1931 version of the film (he didn't even look at the book)... so how in the world could the 1941 be closer to the novel? Would you like to explain that Mr. Einstein? 24.6.23.248 08:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
By way of response to your oft-repeated, but never verified, allegation that Huston simply reused the script from the 1931 film, I offer this quote from James Naremore's essay John Huston and The Maltese Falcon (which can be found in the book The Maltese Falcon - John Huston, director edited by William Luhr, in the Rutgers Films in Print series): "Huston claimed that before beginning work on a screenplay he gave Hammett's book to a secretary, asking her to break it down into shots, scenes, and dialogue. A copy of the secretary's work was shown to Jack Warner, who, thinking he had a complete script, gave Huston his blessing for capturing the flavor of the original. The finished screenplay is less an adaptation than a skillful editing of the novel which is mostly dialogue anyway. Huston economizes beautifully, telescoping scenes, cutting away some of the minor characters [...] and making slight changes in a few places to get past the censors or heighten the irony. The picture is leaner, quicker than the novel, but with few exceptions the words are Hammett's own." Now, after having read that, I do not see how anyone can claim Huston did not write the script. ---Charles 19:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Huston claimed a lot of things that were not true. (and if you read that book more carefully you will realize that). All the dialogue in the 1941 version is taken from the 1931, word for word. When it diverges from the book, it uses the dialogue of the 1931 script... thus proving that Huston was a liar.
It is clear that the Warner Brothers never intended to waste money on a new script for this cheap remake. They didn't even hire a proper director, giving an aging forty-year old John Huston's his first chance at directing. He knew that if he failed he might never get another chance. The studio had little to lose. Everything was against Huston. He had been lumbered with an aging second-rank actor, Bogart; a fading actress Mary Astor who was quite unsuitable to play a vamp. The fact that the film was a success attests to the greatest of Hammett's story which even a bunch of amateur second-rate aging actors could not ruin.24.6.23.248 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, y'know, it must really be a nice feeling for you to always be right and know that everyone else is wrong. Congratulations. ---Charles 05:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


Was the Humphrey Bogart version the first appearance of the term dingus? I notice it isn't referenced in the precise of the story.

[edit] Plot summary

The plot summary seems to be long and could use some subdivision. ChKa 19:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The plot description is dreadfully long and tedious. I would suggest rewriting it from scratch. The "Analysis" section, however, is surprisingly short, considering what a cultural icon this is. Ilyaunfois 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention of Cairo`s gunpoint threat to search Spade's office, and Spade disarming and knocking him unconscious during their first encounter. This is my first intervention besides correcting a spelling error, can I go ahead and add it?

Flichtschein 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant warning

I'm repeating David Gerard's removal of the redundant warning in the clearly marked Plot section. This warning is unnecessary. --Tony Sidaway 10:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a ongoing community debate about spoiler and how (and if) they should be used. Your wholseale removal of them is pre-empting that result of that debate before a consensus is declared. While the debate is ongoing, the status quo should be maintained, and that means that spoilers will stay in place until a consensus is reached. Please do not continue to delete them, and they will just be replaced. If you fell strongly about this, go participate in the debate -- if your point of view prevails, then there's nothing to stop spoilers from being removed. Until then, please cease. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 05:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I won't remove the spoilers, but have removed the note that the Plot section contains information about the plot. Kusma (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I think that the article Sam Spade should be merged with this article, as all the information there is just about his popularity, which I do not think is notable enough to be included in a Wikipedia article.CheckeredFlag200 01:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

But it's quite a large article so it's probably OK to keep them seperate. Davidbod 17:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As with Philip Marlowe, they are both recogniseable outside of their novels and films. It is fine the way it is. Reginmund 01:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Spade stands on his own two feet. In addition, the proposed target article is a bit on the large side to accept a significant amount of material from the other article. Since it appears that there is consensus against the merge, I'll remove the proposal from WP:PM. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)