Diagonaldi Very well executed
filippaberry84 I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.
Hitchcoc I was quite impressed with this. Ricardo Cortez plays Sam Spade and does it in a flip, confident style that counters Bogart's more sullen, dispirited presentation. The story is the same. The police have no time for Spade but they do respect him. When Archer, Sam's partner, is murdered, Sam doesn't bat an eye. The two seemed to hate each other and Sam has had dalliance with Mrs. Archer. Bebe Daniels (Ruth Wonderly) is willing to do anything and kill anyone to achieve riches. She double crosses anyone that comes along, including Sam. Casper Gutman and Joel Cairo are very well done, with some of the same idiosyncrasies as those in the future film. I was ready to be disappointed, but really found myself entranced with this film.
calvinnme Roy Del Ruth directed the original adaptation of the Dashiell Hammett novel in 1931, which starred Ricardo Cortez. In a nutshell, THE MALTESE FALCON told the story about a San Francisco private detective named Sam Spade, who finds himself drawn into a search for a valuable falcon statuette first created during the Crusades, while investigating three murders.The story began with a Miss Ruth Wonderly hiring Spade and his partner, Miles Archer, to find her missing sister and a man named Floyd Thursby. When Thursby and Archer end up murdered, Spade discovered that Miss Wonderly is one of three people searching for a statuette called the Maltese Falcon. A mortally wounded ship's captain delivered the statuette to Spade's office before dropping dead, making him the case's third murder victim. The entire case spiraled into a game of cat-and-mouse between Spade, Miss Wonderly, a wealthy fat Englishman named Caspar Gutman and an effeminate continental European named Dr. Joel Cairo. Spade also had to deal with the police, who are determined to pin the three deaths on him. In the end, this version turned out better than I had expected. However, the movie is not without its faults. There were times when I felt I was watching a filmed play (very common with early talking movies). But the film's main problem seemed to be its pacing. It seemed too slow for what was supposed to be a witty murder mystery. Especially during the first half hour. By the time Joel Cairo was introduced into the story, the pacing finally began to pick up. The dialogue provided by screenwriters Maude Fulton, Brown Holmes and an unaccredited Lucien Hubbard failed to improve over the course of the movie. Not only did the screenplay allow the dialogue to drag throughout the entire film, the latter was not that memorable.Considering that this is the only precode version of the film, it is not surprising that this version is considered the sexiest of the three filmed versions of the novel. Del Ruth, along with Fulton, Holmes and Hubbard, did an excellent job of conveying the womanizing aspect of Spade's character by revealing his affairs with Archer's wife Iva, his casual flirtation with his secretary Effie, and visual hints of his relationship with Ruth Wonderly like a small indent in the pillow next to the client's head, which hinted that Spade had spent the night with her. Other signs of precode sexuality included Spade bidding a female client good-bye at the beginning of the movie, a nude Miss Wonderly in a bathtub, and a hint of a homosexual relationship between Caspar Gutman and his young enforcer Wilmer Cook.This version lacked the sharp wit of the 1941 adaptation. Considering that I have never read the novel, the screenplay did allow me to completely understand the story in full detail for the first time, without leaving me in a slight haze of fog. I found nothing memorable about William Rees' photography or Robert M. Haas' art direction except in one scene. The scene in question featured an exterior setting, namely a street in San Francisco's Chinatown where Miles Archer's body was discovered. I suspect that this particular scene gave both Rees and Haas an opportunity to display their artistry beyond the movie's usual interior settings.There is also a solid cast here. Ricardo Cortez, led the cast as detective Sam Spade. Cortez gave a very sexy interpretation of Spade in his performance. His constant smirks and grins in the film's first ten to fifteen minutes seemed annoying. But in the end, Cortez grew on me. I can honestly say that not only did I find him very effective in portraying a sexy Sam Spade, he also managed to superbly capture the character's cynical humor, toughness and deep contempt toward the police.Bebe Daniels, another survivor from the silent era, portrayed Ruth Wonderly, and this role has to be considered as one of her best. She managed to give an excellent performance as the ladylike yet manipulative woman who drew Spade into the labyrinth search for the Maltese Falcon. Mind you, she lacked Mary Astor's throbbing voice and nervous manner. But that is merely a minor hitch. Daniels still managed to portray a very convincing elegant temptress. Irish-born Dudley Digges portrayed the wealthy and obsessive Caspar Gutman, who is not above murder, bribery and a score of other crimes to acquire the falcon statuette. Digges lacked the style to believably portray a man wealthy enough to conduct a twenty-year search for a valuable artifact. Instead, Digges reminded me of a corrupt minor official at a British post in the tropics. He seemed to lack talent and subtlety for infusing menace into his character. Whenever he tried to menacing, he only ended up giving a hammy performance. On the other hand, Otto Matieson gave a more believable performance as Dr. Joel Cairo, Gutman's Continental accomplice. Matieson portrayed Cairo as a no-nonsense and practical man who is careful with his money and with whom to trust it.Una Merkel gave a humorous performance as Spade's Girl Friday, Effie. Her Effie is not hesitant about expressing her attraction to Spade, yet at the same time, she seemed to find the detective's other amorous activities rather amusing. Todd seemed to be trying too hard as a scorned lover without any subtlety. At least Dwight Frye fared better as Gutman's young enforcer, Wilmer Cook. He did a solid job in conveying the portrait of a baby-faced killer.I'd suggest watching the 1931 version and the 1941 versions back to back, to get an idea of how Warner Brothers "grew up" during the 1930s. they were just a poverty row studio mainly known for their Rin Tin Tin silent until The Jazz Singer made them rich.
mark.waltz While the fun tough-talking dialog of the much more famous 1941 version isn't as prevalent here, there is much to ire in the forgotten original film which has a much more light-hearted atmosphere, slightly comic, but not as farcial (or off-putting) as the 1936 disastrous remake "Satan Met a Lady". The 1941 version follows closely to this, adding more detail to stretch out the running time somewhat, but never adding material which is unnecessary to that version's overall plot. The grinning Ricardo Cortez is playboy detective Sam Spade, seen in the very beginning saying goodbye to a female conquest (presumably his partner's wife), then flirts openly with his officious secretary (Una Merkel). In comes femme fatal Bebe Daniels, a bit younger looking than her replacement Mary Astor, but still quite deadly. (In fact, to escape confusion with the remake, the title was changed to "Dangerous Female" for television, but fortunately changed back with its original titles for the DVD release).Then, there are the other villains. Dudley Digges takes sleaziness to a new level in the future Sydney Greenstreet role of Casper Gutman. There is nothing to trust in this man; In fact, the character oozes with creepiness and at times, you can't watch him without thinking "eeew!" to yourself. The same can be said of the film's Joel Cairo, here played by Otto Matieson with a different effemininity style than Peter Lorre's. He seems like the type of creep that would shoot or stab someone, then comb and re-style their hair so at least they'd be found properly coiffed rather than a corpse with hair out of place. And who better in the early 30's to play the dumb Wilmer than Dwight Frye, the fly-eating psycho from "Dracula"? So the detail for character is dead on here, if not a bit frightening.As a pre-code film, this outdoes its superior remake, perfect as a film, yet missing the fun of the innuendos of this version. Once it was re-vamped in the 1940's, it took on a different quality which makes the same story seem quite different. So feel free to watch both versions back to back (I suggest skipping "Satan Met a Lady" other than to see a young Bette Davis in a film she detested) because they are different enough even with all of their similarities to be judged on completely different merits.
JohnHowardReid Although both films received rave reviews in The New York Times, only the Del Ruth version could be counted as a box office success on its first release. The Huston film was lucky to earn back its comparatively high negative cost of $381,000. Warner's big successes of 1941-42 were Sergeant York, which returned a colossal $6.1 million in gross domestic rentals, and Yankee Doodle Dandy with $4.8 million. The Man Who Came to Dinner, King's Row, Captains of the Clouds, In This Our Life, The Bride Came C.O.D., Dive Bomber, The Sea Wolf and The Strawberry Blonde were also enormous, multi-million dollar box office winners for the studio. The Maltese Falcon didn't figure at all and would be forgotten today were it not for the cult status of Humphrey Bogart and—to a lesser degree—John Huston. All the same, it comes a surprise to find that among 2008 film lovers, sixty times more people have seen this version than have seen the original, even though both films are equally entertaining.While few would contend that Digges, Mattiesen and Frye outclass Greenstreet, Lorre and Cook, the decision is close. On the other hand, as for Long versus Cowan, Merkel v. Patrick, Todd v. George, and Elliott v. MacLane, the winners are plainly Del Ruth's. Yet Ward Bond is certainly more forceful than J. Farrell MacDonald, and Walter Huston has it all over Borgato, simply because he has dialogue.So we come down to the principals. Which set you prefer here is simply a matter of taste. I prefer the Cortez-Daniels combination. The 1931 movie still has a gripping noir atmosphere despite the fact that Cortez's impeccably suave, super-pleased with himself, egotistical private eye runs somewhat against type. There is no self-agonizing here. The Cortez character is solely concerned with looking out for number one. The ruthless heroine is also far more stridently hard-boiled, whereas Mary Astor turns her into a lady-like, high society type.As for directorial finesse and production values, the Huston movie is definitely the winner. All the same, despite his smaller budget, Del Ruth gives Huston a good run for his money.
