Maltese Falcons
I've always known that the classic 1941 movie The Maltese Falcon was actually the third film adaptation of the novel of the same name by Dashiell Hammett. Recently I got a DVD of the film out of the library, and as special features it included the previous two movies. I decided to watch them, and they inspired thoughts (spoilers! also assuming you are familiar with the story!):
The 1931 version, also entitled The Maltese Falcon, is pretty similar to the 1941 version - except not as good. Ricardo Cortez, who plays Sam Spade, just keeps smiling. Not only did Humphrey Bogart smile less in the 1941 one version, but when he did, there was an edge. There was a bitterness to his smiles.
The actor who plays Gutman, Dudley Digges (sounds like a Harry Potter character), is annoying - I will never again underrate Sydney Greenstreet’s charisma. Since Peter Lorre is possibly my favorite actor of all time, I won't even comment on Otto Matieson who plays Joel Cairo.
The 1931 version has some exposition that makes the plot clearer, but I felt it hurt the atmosphere. For example, we see a scene with Spade not present where Gutman and Cairo discuss the ship coming in with the falcon. There's also a rather cringeworthy moment where Spade gets the bird and, after he has unwrapped it, his secretary asks what it is - and he tells her it’s the black bird everyone’s after yada yada, information we already had. The 1941 movie was OK with us not getting everything on the first viewing. Aside from Archer’s death, I don’t think we were ever taken out of Spade’s PoV (and of course we don’t even find out who kill Archer until later).
The ending of the 1931 film is poorer, as well. Spade doesn’t give Brigid (who I think doesn’t even go by Brigid in this version) his speech about how his code of honor requires he make sure the person who kills his partner pays, even though he didn’t like his partner. In the 1931 version, he just says the line about not wanting to be her stooge. Her focus is thus on convincing him that she really loves him. As opposed to the 1941 version, where her focus is on convincing him that it matters that they love each other. I can't remember how it's handled in the original book - I read it, but years ago - but I found the version in the 1941 film more compelling.
There's only one detail that I preferred in the 1931 version: The actor who plays Wilmer actually looks like a kid. In the 1941 version the characters say he does but he really doesn’t. However all other Wilmer-related things are better in the 1941 version. For one thing: in the 1931 version, Spade is the one to say to Gutman that you can have another son, but there is only one falcon. In the 1941 version, Gutman says that line. This gives you a strong sense of what kind of person Gutman is.
That said, I suspect Spade had the line in the book, because not only does he have the line in the 1931 film, but the Spade-equivalent character in the 1936 version of the film had a similar line.
Speaking of.
The 1936 film is not called The Maltese Falcon. It is called Satan Met a Lady. This is probably because there is no Maltese Falcon in this movie. Instead, the plot revolves around an ancient horn allegedly full of jewels. The characters get renamed - Spade is Ted Shane - and Gutman is gender-swapped.
My main problem with Satan Met a Lady is I can't figure out if it is supposed to be a comedy or not. It's a little too ridiculous to be a drama with humor - but it has enough seriousness that it doesn't reach full-fledged comedy. It's a very strange tone.
This entry was originally posted at https://itsnotmymind.dreamwidth.org/143534.html. Please comment either here or there, whichever works best for you.