The Classic Corner: The Maltese Falcon (1941)
“I don’t mind a reasonable amount of trouble.”
I have almost purposely avoided film-noir in this column. Film-noir is in itself a very funny genre to me. It’s the kind of film where men are always being dominant and very quick witted. It’s the genre that made the career of actors like the lead of The Maltese Falcon, Humphrey Bogart. It’s very easy to love the movie just because of how much you love seeing men like Bogart take the lead.
Film-noir is a genre that I’m always unsure of, because it shows off my lack of cinematic knowledge. I will know which movie is or isn’t a part of the genre because I read a lot of online critics talking about these films, but at times it’s very hard for me to actually describe what makes a film fit that sub-genre. Like why is The Maltese Falcon a “film-noir” but not The Dark Knight, a movie which I think has a lot of the same makings of a film-noir. I just can’t say. However, with that said that doesn’t mean I didn’t enjoy this movie.
While it’s easy to make fun of this movie for playing to its obvious strengths, it still manages, at the end of the day, to entertain and present an intriguing mystery. While at times I found myself unsure of how Sam (Humphrey Bogart) came to some of his conclusions or managed to have the answer just fall in his lap every time I was able to forgive it since the film works mainly because the protagonist – love or hate him – being a step ahead of not only his competitors, but also the audience. If we knew what Sam was to do before he did, the film would just be an exercise in boredom rather than anything else.
The only thing left to ask of the movie is whether the audience cares to be treated like a set of children that wouldn’t be smart enough to figure out the puzzle themselves, had the filmmakers bothered to give us enough information to know how to proceed. While the film isn’t stupid, it definitely treats its audience as if they are by managing to throw out all the goodwill they created for themselves through the entire run-time by tossing in a scene of Bogart just standing there reciting what we already saw.
The entire film had been deconstructing the mystery of these murders step by step and how the Maltese Falcon fits into the middle of it. Then in one fell swoop, the screenwriters decided to stop letting us think by simply blurting out the answer. Sometimes it is true that an image is worth a thousand words, and this is why I think The Maltese Falcon somewhat fails to live up to its reputation.
B
(7.0/10)
Read more of my reviews and other film related ramblings at http://gmanreviews.com and follow me on twitter@gmanreviews.
8 Comments
Films are predominantly about images, yes, but there are exceptions to every rule and I personally feel Bogart is the biggest exception to that particular cinematic rule. So many of his films are less about the plot than him specifically TALKING about the plot, which is why, I think, it had to end that way.
A Bogart film is about Bogart. Of course, if you’re not a Bogart fan…
Well… can’t say I’ve dabbled in the Bogart history. Seen Casablanca, and now The Maltese Falcon and love him in both. But this is not the only thing that should work in the movie IMO.
I manage to incorporate this film into like, every other blog I write somehow haha. I think it’s NOT about the mystery; all Chandler and Hammet novels use the initial plot as a means to start the narrative but the characters are really what drives this film. The technical aspects are great, but it has so many wonderful scenes, and the cast–Bogie, Lorre, Greenstreet, Cook– is amazing. There isn’t a flat character. This film is almost perfect. I think the writing is just slightly below that of CASABLANCA and the direction is superb. It really shows how symbolic mise en scene can be. It likens framework to language and syntax. Beautiful film with a perfect ending. I think you kinda miss the whole soul of the film by misreading it as entirely about “deconstructing the mystery.”
not saying your wrong…. but I just didn’t see it this way on this viewing. I know from movie to movie every viewing can be different. I just hope in a decade or so when I revisit this movie I see what you see.
Oh, you can’t be wrong with an opinion! Everyone is obviously entitled to one and you should defend yours, but with an open-mind. I was just trying to present my feeling that your analysis was a little off from what I saw. But there’s no denying that the film is immensely influential. I love to see aberrant arguments. It’s very refreshing from the typical imdb band-wagoning. Nice write up. btw.
One of the film’s last scenes was shown in our Body class where the falcon supposedly represents the phallus, being stroked and eventually being rendered flaccid.
I also remember reading Ebert’s review about this and talking about how awesome Bogart’s lines and line readings and I’m like when? It’s one of those dated classics syndrome. But thank God this movie exists to make Bogart a star, but he’s been way better afterwards. If anything, Mary Astor shines in this movie more.
Anyway, if any of you are in the Toronto area, The Maltese Falcon is playing the the Bloor Cinema on Monday night and Tuesday afternoon. The theatre is closing down for renovations at the end of the month. Also, they’re probably using the 35 instead of digital.
B or 7/10 is about right in my opinion for this movie. It is one of the classics that never lived up to the overall praise I heard it receive. I think it was about managed expectations.
That said the characters are indeed characters in this film.
I thought so, too, on first viewing but I’ve seen it a couple of times since and it quickly grows on you. It’s just not quite what I expected going into it. Especially the visuals. It’s incredibly flatly lit for a movie that’s in a genre that’s known for it’s dark shadows.
Trackbacks