[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RARA-AVIS: The Maltese Falcons
There are several texts of the The Maltese Falcon.
(BTW, I hadn't noticed michael d. sharp was using the term text to
describe, um, well, texts. But well done anyway for using appropriate
cultural studies terminology)
MDS wrote:
> I confess to not knowing that there are Earlier film versions of *The
> Maltese Falcon*. Not that you've made me to eager to see them.
Don't be put off. (See my Maltese Falcon FAQ for *Variety* reviews of
these films:
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ejmd/0.htm>
and that's a zero, not an 'O')
Depending upon how the 1931 and 1936 films are viewed; there is, for
example, plenty of material here to instigate meaningful discussion of how
the three films *explore* certain aspects of the novel text (plot,
character relations, motivations, etc).
It is, however, easy to describe the 1936 version as 'the maltese turkey',
but this would bypass some interesting treatment of the Archer-Iva-Spade
triad, and the Spade-O'Shaugnessy-Perine triad.
MDS again:
> I wonder if the other versions of the film left in the scene where Spade
takes
> O'Shaughnessy into a room and makes her strip to prove she doesn't have
> the cash on her.
It's in the '31, not the '36. The scene is in the screenplay of the '41
(as is the Hammett ending) but was removed after the script was submitted
to what must've been the Breen office (cf Hays office) for pre-production
censorship.
Note on background reading: see the very useful tome edited by William
Luhr, *The Maltese Falcon: John Huston, director* (Rutger U. Press, 1995).
IMO, & FWIW, there are considerable differences between Huston's *TMF* and
Hammett's novel.
Hammett's Spade is hard-boiled: cynical, tough, et hoc genus omne; the
Huston-Bogart Spade is not so ambiguous as the novel Spade. I think it was
Julian Symonds who suggested that with Huston's Spade, there is,
ultimately, no doubt about which 'side' he's on.
Hammett's Spade is much more problematic. Huston's ending really softens
the film Spade (there are many other examples of this 'softening';in the
film, though oddly, the 'cut' scene with Rhea shows real compassion on the
part of Hammett's Spade), and Effie's closing comments, I would argue (but
not now --- dinner's ready!) create the possibility of a really troubling
ambiguity: a hero --- OK, an anti-hero --- that no-one likes (he's a real
bastard); who doesn't get the girl, and the film's resolution, with the
novel ending, would be a less than satisfactory form of closure because the
opening relations (Spade-Effie-Archer-O'Shaugnessy) are so clearly
fractured and irreperable.
Hey, this is going to be a good thread: later d00dz
Eddie Duggan
--------------
Dinner's ready
-------------
-
# RARA-AVIS: To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis"
# to majordomo@icomm.ca
[Archives] | [RARA-AVIS]