What I’m saying is that, just because something is the “first” of something doesn’t necessarily make it the best. The same goes for film; I have really enjoyed the noir style films I have seen so far, in fact “The Third Man” has been one of the greatest discoveries of my movie-watching life. However, the earliest example of noir on this list (and the reason I am assuming the film was put on the list in the first place) “The Maltese Falcon” definitely feels like a movie that belongs to a genre that is still trying to find its legs. I know it is an iconic film, but I definitely think “overrated” is a fair term in this case.
The opening credits are superimposed over a statue of a falcon followed by a summary of what exactly The Maltese Falcon is; a bejeweled gold falcon that was created by the Knights Templar as a gift to the King of Spain. The simple paragraph also explains that it was stolen by pirates and never seen again. The significance of this prologue is two-fold; it creates an air of mystery and elusiveness around the falcon by not actually showing its physical history and it also does something very unique in establishing an inanimate object as, essentially, a primary character.
Several cityscape shots of San Francisco are smattered over the preliminary scenes; and they are among the best I have seen done before or since. Back in those days of cinema, city shots always felt primitive; they were either done aerially and the finished product was shaky and unsteady (“A King in New York” is a fantastic example of this) or they were obvious still photos (“Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”) which essentially make the scene look lifeless. With moving cars and ripples in the bay, these opening shots, while pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, really make the early scenes come to life.
Unfortunately, what the scenery and filming style contribute to the film, the characters take away from it. The primary character is a Private Investigator named Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and he is essentially the same as every other early 40’s detective and the same character we typically see Bogart play- cynical, wise-cracking and moody. He seems to have a somewhat forced cordial relationship with his partner Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan) who is much less tightly wound and generally seems to like Spade more than is reciprocated.
Almost right out of the gate there are just too many characters introduced to make the film seem organized or comprehensive. Starting with Spade’s secretary Effie (Lee Patrick) then a prospective client, Miss Wonderly (Mary Astor) who it turns out is using an alias and her real name is Brigid O'Shaughnessy- which compounds the frustrating number of characters even more. Brigid/Miss Wonderly wants the agents to locate her sister Corinne who she insists has run off with a bad man named Thursby. Of course the whole thing is a ruse and when Archer attempts to locate Thursby both men end up dead. Enter even more characters: two cops who suspect Spade committed the murders, Archer’s wife Iva who Spade has been having an affair with (which explains not only Spade’s cavalier behavior towards his partner but also establishes a motive for him to kill Archer).
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that all these characters were more pivotal in the original source novel and it would have just been blasphemous to not include them, I don’t know and I am not interested, all I know is that films before and since have learned to integrate bit characters in a far less confusing way without giving them proper introductions that make us feel like we need to be paying attention to who they are. Also, I feel like the Spade/Iva affair never really manifests itself as much as you would think it would since it kind of seems like a big deal. Especially considering Spade will eventually fall in love with Brigid basically overnight. One thing I will commend the film for is the fact that Brigid does not take on the role of the stereotypical blonde Hollywood seductress; instead she is a conservatively dressed prudish woman who wears her hair in a tight bun and looks like the kind of character you think will be the heroine by the end.
As if Spade wasn’t busy enough investigating the deaths of Archer and Thursby, cleaning up his own reputation and simultaneously trying to clear Brigid’s name too, in walks yet another shady character, this time a dandified, effeminate man named Cairo (Peter Lorre) who cuts right to the chase and tells Spade everything about the earlier-referenced Maltese Falcon and asks him to recover it. Though he is very silly on the surface, some of the smartest and most subtle attention is given to his scenes. He suggestively strokes and runs his mouth across a long, phallic looking walking stick and at one point after having been beaten up by Spade his only concern is with the condition of his shirt. Rather than openly mocking him, Spade and Effie exchange bemused glances at his demeanor, so much so that Lee Patrick’s mostly dialogue-less expressive acting in this scene is among the best in the movie.
“I couldn't be fonder of you if you were my own son. But, well, if you lose a son, it's possible to get another. There's only one Maltese Falcon.” (Gutman, “The Maltese Falcon”)
So, now that Sam sufficiently has his hands full with the mysterious murders as well as the search for the Maltese Falcon, we find out all the shady characters are connected- Brigid and Cairo are implied to be associates all working under the puppet-master, a ridiculously comic book-esque, overweight villain named Gutman (I’m seriously not making this up). Though this turns out to not be the case, they are all searching for the Falcon with their own selfish agendas and have encountered each other at one time or another in their hunt.
A package that makes its way to Spade supposedly contains the Maltese Falcon and, in as close as this slow-paced movie can come to a climax, a several-way standoff ensues resulting in Gutman getting his hands on the Falcon only to discover it is a fake. Spade rats everyone out, including Brigid who it turns out killed Archer in a setup gone wrong where only Thursby was supposed to be killed in their confrontation so that she wouldn’t have to split the Falcon Heist money.
The scene where Spade wrestles with his emotions before doing the right thing is pretty lame; especially when he cites a “Code Among Detectives” that obligates him to overlook his feelings for Brigid and punish her for killing his partner. I would like to know what kind of code dictates your loyalty to a fellow investigator but does not discourage banging his wife. Additionally, how strongly are we supposed to believe Spade feels for her? They’ve known each other like 2 days!
All that aside, I will say there is some brilliance in the closing scenes of the film; particularly where Brigid is being hauled off by the police. She is taken into an old-timey passenger elevator with the gated-doors, since the shot we see of her is a close-up all that is visible are the gate-bars symbolically closing in front of her like a prison door. Then of course there is the implied iconography of a small, inanimate object having so much control over the fate of so many people; to the point that people are willing to kill and be killed for it. It doesn’t get preachy with the message of consequences of overt greed; in fact it almost strangely justifies the worshipping of idols by referring to the fake Falcon as “the stuff that dreams are made of” though this line can also reflect Spade’s jaded world view- suggesting that dreams tend to end in disappointment.
Just like the title object itself, there is definitely a gem buried inside “The Maltese Falcon” but there is also an AWFUL lot of filler. While the noir STYLE is a new concept in this film that would later be perfected just a few years later, there are plenty of preexisting cinematic clichés that make this film less of a thrilling detective story and more like the “Family Guy” parody movie “Fast Talking High Trousers” where the characters say things like “Well isn’t this a fine song and dance?” and “Aren’t you a pocketful of firecrackers?”
No comments:
Post a Comment