Sadly Over-hyped

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

DUE TO SOME other pressing tasks, of late we haven't been very attentive to doing our regular time at the reviewing desk. The just finished screening of this 1931 (original screen version) THE MALTESE FALCON has brought us just about directly to the old keyboard. While we saw many differences, the end result was that of great satisfaction.BEING DONE A full decade before the John Huston directed/written screenplay had, by virtue of its belonging to a new era of film, a very different mood, feel and appearance. Although there are so many of the typically Warner Brothers' elements in both, the earlier one bore a rather intimate relationship to the Silents; which had of course just recently "rode off into the sunset." Its Humphrey Bogart vehicle remake had the advantage of all of the elements of the highly developed and polished Warner product of the 1940's war years. In essence, it was the Warner Brothers movie being at the very zenith of their power.BEING THAT THIS production is one of the "pre-code" era, there is a lot of material that is, while not necessarily explicit, very highly implied. We are referring mainly to the sublet of S-E-X. We see ladies' man (now called a "womanizer" in today's vernacular) in several highly 'adult' situations, always in the company of females. The opening scene has Sam revealed to be in a 'private' conference with a briefly shown 'flapper'; who has to adjust her stockings before departing his office. Mr. Spade then tidies up his couch, having to pick up the multitude of throw pillows that are scattered about the floor.HID LATER MEETING with Miss Wonderly include their sharing his apartment for the night. Although any even partial nudity and simulated sex is never shown, there's no doubt in our minds. (The nudity and intercourse were about 40 years ahead in the Hollywood of the '70's) IN DEFENSE OF this "original" version of the FALCON, in many respects the plot seems to be somewhat clearer to we, the audience. This applies mainly to understanding the relationships between those contesting for possession of "the Black Bird." HAVING VIEWED THIS '31 version for the first time today, after years of familiarity with the latter, provided us with a sort of scrambling of our Time/Space continuum. The only previous similar experiences were in viewing some other previously made movies after the later, more familiar. They are: THE SPIRIT OF NOTER DAME (Universal, 1931), which in many ways laid the foundation for Warner Brothers KNUTE ROCKNE: ALL-American (1940); RIO BRAVO (Warners, 1959)remade as EL DORADO ()and especially ZERO HOUR (Paramount, 1957) which was fractured and remade into AIRPLANE (1980).ANY REVIEW OF this film must refer to the casting that was done. Of course we had Bogart in for Ricardo Cortez (Spade) and Bebe Daniels giving away to Mary Astor's Miss Wunderly. Others who were very different than the later cast members are: Walter Long/Jerome Cowan (Miles Archer), J. Farrell McDonald/Ward Bond (Det. Sgt. Tom Pohlhaus0, Una Merkel/Lee Patrick (Essie),Thelma Todd/Gladys George (Iva Archer).BUT FOR OUR money, the two roles that are so different in casting are that of Dudley Diggs to Sydney Greenstreet's Casper Gutman; as the mannerisms were similar, but where's the bulk, Diggs ? The other is Dwight Frye to Elisha Cook, Jr. as Wilmer. Dwight had a lot less to do and only a few lines. He was also the king of the creepy characters in the 1930's Universal horror epics. Elisha's characterization was able to fully develop that of a psychotic killer. (Oddly enough or maybe because of this fact, Wilmer's surname is given in the '31 version, but not in the latter. It is Cook!) WE GIVE THIS on many thumbs up and recommend it to any and all !

. . . Humphrey Bogart's THE MALTESE FALCON of 1941 is like saying THE OPENING OF MISTY BEETHOVEN is far sexier than Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, simply because it has more overt sex in it. To someone who has never seen the latter masterpiece, sure, the earlier fumble may seem like something is better than nothing. Unfortunately, the plot of the 1931 movie is hopelessly convoluted, and someone who has never seen the Bogart version (1941) would be hopelessly at sea, such as the movie-goers of 1931 (which is probably why this movie could not hold a candle at the box office to Al Jolson in his follow up to THE JAZZ SINGER, THE SINGING FOOL). Sure, actress Bebe Daniels is sort of topless in private eye Sam Spade's bath tub, but there's not that much more nudity than in Jamie Leigh Curtis' mom's shower scene in Hitchcock's scream fest, PSYCHO. Surely the young teenage boys of 1931 could have found something sexier around the hay stack in the back 40 than they could by shelling out a dime to see this version of THE MALTESE FALCON. If not, one has to wonder what REALLY was so good about those late, lamented "good ol' days."

While the fun tough-talking dialog of the much more famous 1941 version isn't as prevalent here, there is much to admire 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.

Despite the silent-to-talkie transition style, I liked this one better than the Bogart one. In fact, I think it exposes Bogart's counterfeit toughness (among other things, he was too short). Ricardo Cortez was a great choice. Perhaps George Raft might have been a better Sam Spade in the 1941 version. The similarity in dialogue between the two movies begs the issue of insufficient originality in the later version.Comparing 1931 v 1941 characters, I think only Sydney Greenstreet provides a more interesting product. As the same (or similar) character, Alison Skipworth, as Madame Barabbas in Satan Met a Lady 1936, finishes second. From that same movie, Marie Wilson finishes second to Una Merkel as Effie, with 1941's Lee Patrick a distant third.I like them all. I like the structure of the mystery. It reminds me (it's just me) a little of John Le Carre mysteries where, as in Tinker Tailor, the investigator knows the answer from the beginning.