Dangerous Female (Maltese Falcon 1931)

[PillowRock]

So last night I ended up watching about the last half of Dangerous Female (which is the 1931 version of The Maltese Falcon). I had never seen any part of that before.

Don't ever let anyone claim that casting directors don't have a vitally important job.

This is the same story, and for a lot of it virtually word-for-word the same dialog as in the Bogart version. However, this one isn't just not as good; it is truly horrible. This whole cast was just bad. Part of it was that it was made so close (in time) to the silent era that some of the physical over-emoting acting style from the silents can still be seen. Most of it is just that none of them can carry off the roles or deliver the lines. There is a lot of subtlety required in the acting to pull off being as flip and/or greedy as those characters often are and still keep them believable, interesting, and even likable. The Bogart / Greenstreet / Lory cast did it brilliantly. This 1931 cast did not (and that is the relative kind way of putting it).


The director also made some choices that I didn't think worked as well (even apart from the performances not supporting it).


S P O I L E R S

A H E A D . F O R

B O T H . V E R S I O N S


They had a scene with Spade visiting the woman in jail after her conviction (and tells her that is now the head investigator for the DA's office; Sam Spade? WTF?), which just felt very anti-climatic. The condensed Spade's two visits to Guttman's suite into one visit with Guttman being called out of the room in the middle to talk to Cairo. They show that discussion in which Guttman learns about the ship coming in from Hong Kong. The scene toward the end between Spade and the girl, where he is explaining that he is about to turn her in and why is also *much* shorter (and barely touches on the "why"). That last one might be more the screen writer than the director, though. There were a few other, less severe, directorial choices like that.


E N D

S P O I L E R S


Overall, between the performances and the director's decisions, Spade and Guttman both come across as idiots and Spade's secretary is a ditz. I liked it *much* better in the later version where the two main male characters come across as being pretty smart and the secretary is cool and competent.

There was one scene that was handled differently that made me curious. I was wondering how it was handled in the original book (which I obviously haven't read) and whether the change was entirely due to the Hayes Code being established in between the two productions.

 

[hypatia]

I was thinking of trying to catch that movie, then forgot it was on last night. Thanks for letting me know I didn't miss much.

physical over-emoting acting style from the silents can still be seen.

I am a really big fan of silent films and Charlie Chaplin in particular. IIRC Charlie Chaplin liked working with actors with little or no experience in acting. He, too, felt that silent film actors tended to overact.

I admit, I rather like that style. From "Big Parade" to "Metropolis" to a lot of the films Lon Cheany (sp?) did. I felt it worked in the silent medium. I admit, it doesn't when it is transferred to sound film, though.

Anyhow, thanks for the analysis.

 

[GKarsEye]

Part of it was that it was made so close (in time) to the silent era that some of the physical over-emoting acting style from the silents can still be seen.

I've noticed this about a lot of dramatic films from that time period as well. However, I end up enjoying a lot of comedies from then, where it can actually work in its favor.

The Bogart MF wasn't even only the second one- it was at least the third.

I've only seen bits and pieces of the 1931 version (probably during some documentary) and was not impressed, either.

These movies are all about cast and style. Like The Big Sleep- the plot is such a jumble that even the writers didn't know what the hell was going on. But it's such a damn good flick, because you don't care and just enjoy Bogy & co have at it. A film like that would be slammed by critics and public today, but then again we don't have a Bogart nowadays.

 

[hypatia]

Old Mighty and I picked up on the same line in PR's post.

These movies are all about cast and style. Like The Big Sleep- the plot is such a jumble that even the writers didn't know what the hell was going on. But it's such a damn good flick, because you don't care and just enjoy Bogy & co have at it. A film like that would be slammed by critics and public today, but then again we don't have a Bogart nowadays.

When I saw the film twice I wondered how I could still be confused about the plot. Then I heard something on Turner Classic Movies (one of the commentaries they run between movies instead of commercials) about the film. Something like "And that explained everything, didn't it?... Well, no it didn't, but no one cared..." and went on to say just what you did. How the style of the actors made no one care that the plot simply didn't make any sense.

And I agree with you. I can't think of one actor, let alone a team of actors, who could pull off something like that today. Films are just so different now.

 

[PillowRock]

I felt it worked in the silent medium. I admit, it doesn't when it is transferred to sound film, though.

Oh, I agree. There was a reason why they had people act that way in silents. However, in a "talkie" (when you can hear them speaking the lines at the same time that you see them performing) one of two things happens:

1) There is a major disconnect between what you see and what you hear.

or

2) They come across as being way over the top, which seems to be more annoying when you *both* hear and see them doing it (It works out OK either seeing it in a silent or hearing it in a radio production, but not when you have both at the same time.)


Either way, it doesn't work well.

After the movie ended Michael Osborne (I think that is that host's name on TCM) commented that The Maltese Falcon is always the first movie he mentions whenever someone starts doing the "Is a remake *ever* better than the original film?" routine.

 

[PillowRock]

I've noticed this about a lot of dramatic films from that time period as well. However, I end up enjoying a lot of comedies from then, where it can actually work in its favor.

I admit that I hadn't thought about the comedies when I made my original remark. I would agree with this statement, up to a point. It works in things like some of the earliest Cary Grant movies and Claudette Colbert flicks. However, those people weren't engaging in the more extreme eyebrow contortions. I don't think those ever work in talkies, and there were a couple in this movie.

The Bogart MF wasn't even only the second one- it was at least the third.

Yeah, Osbourne also mentioned a version in between that starred Betty Davis and replaced the falcon with a jewel encrusted ram's horn. I haven't seen it. Osbourne quoted Davis as having called it "one of the biggest turkeys" that she had ever been in.

A film like that would be slammed by critics and public today

It depends a bit on what all you mean by "a film like that".

If you mean a movie that is all about style and performance without explaining what all is really going on or who did what to whom for what reason, then look at the response to Kill Bill Vol. 1 as an example. Yes, there are definitely people raking it over the coals for that exact reason. However, there are also people who give it glowing reviews.

If you mean a mystery/thriller where all of the so-called "action" takes place off screen and just about all of what we do see is rooted in the dialog, then I think that those are a tough sell these days.

we don't have a Bogart nowadays.

No, there is most certainly noone like Bogart any more. However, I do think that there are a few people around who could do justice to the role of Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon; granted that it would not be the same, but rather that actor's interpretation. I think that Samual L. Jackson could do a good job with it. Kevin Spacey might not be bad (althoughhis height, or lack thereof, might make a couple the scenes where Bogey's Spade kinda lorded over Wilmer or especially Cairo play a bit oddly). Mel Gibson, Michael Keaton, or George Clooney might even have a chance to do a passable job. The Chinatown-era Nicholson would be good, but I don't think Jack could pull it off today (partly just his age, but also partly the way his acting style has evolved). Of course, each actor's speach rhythms would probably require some rephrasing of the dialog. Each of them is easier for me to visualize in some scenes than others, and not all the same scenes for each actor.

Actually, I'm having a harder time mentally recasting Sidney Greenstreet's Guttman.

 

[phoenixrising]

Being someone that thinks Bogart should be elevated to godhood, I agree that we have no one that is near the level of Bogey or any actor or actress from that era.

if you like old tiime movies and ones with Bogey in particular, check out "To Have and Have Not" or "The Big Sleep". In the second one, ignore the convoluted plot (hell, even Raymond Chandler, who wrote the damn book didn't know who killed who) and focus on the chemistry between Bogey and Bacall. Is it any wonder he married her?

 

[Jade Jaguar]

Dangerous Female isn't the classic that The Maltese Falcon is, and I agree that the cast has a lot to do with it. Bogie, Lorre, Greenstreet, and Mary Astor are all greats, even if Mary is little remembered to day. And John Huston is one of the greatest American directors of all time.

But, that said, I can't agree that the 1931 version is horrid. As a lover of old mystery films, I think it was actually pretty good for its brief era, the first couple of years of talkies, and actually had less over-acting than was common then. I think Ricardo Cortez comes off as pretty sharp, and way more willing to bend the law than Bogie's Sam Spade. The '31 version is said to be closer to the book than the '41 version, so the ending that puzzled us both may actually be in the book. If you want horrid, see 1936's Satan Met A Lady, starring a young Bette Davis, who I love in a good role, but this one reeks.

The Big Sleep is my favorite Bogart film. Just after it was finished, for a 1945 release, 1944's To Have And Have Not, with Bacall in her first role, hit the screens, and the magic between Bogart and Bacall so impressed everyone that The Big Sleep was recut with some new scenes to build up the interplay between them, resulting in the confusing 1946 version. The original cut was released a couple of years ago. It includes a long exposition scene, laying out plot points, that helps some. At any rate, there is really only one unexplained murder in the '46 version. Next time you see it, try and figure out which one!

There is another version of To Have And Have Not, called The Breaking Point, starring John Garfield, and directed by Michael Curtiz, who directed Casablanca. It is an excellent film in its own right, but very different from the Bogart version.