Cortez just didn't work in this role, for two reasons:
- He wasn't a particularly strong actor.
- He turns Spade into a grinning and horny gigolo who seems to simply float through the entire film doing anything BUT being a detective.
I agree with both of your statements, but I wonder if the "grinning and horny gigolo" was closer to the vision of Sam Spade that Hammett had wanted.
I could not believe the amount of open sex, flirting, nudity, (implied) and homosexuality that was in such an old movie.
Poor secretary though, she is putting out to a dog of a boss.
I could not believe the amount of open sex, flirting, nudity, (implied) and homosexuality that was in such an old movie.This film was made in 1931, before the Production Code (aka Hays Code) was enforced, starting around the mid-point of 1934. Thus, there were able to get away with many things which would become forbidden a few years later. It's not uncommon to watch a "pre-code" film and notice that it's much racier than all the stuff made from the mid-30's to the mid-60's.
One of my favorite not-so-subtly dirty moments is when Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels are making out on the couch, and we cut to the needle on the LP player reaching the end of the record and skipping, thrusting back-and-forth.
shareI'm agree with both points by the OP, but only to some extent.
In defense of Ricardo Cortez I'd like to mention that the rest of the casting weren't much better. I mean just look at the cops or at Effie, his secretary; all of them quite cartoonish characters.
About "Sam Spade" being played as a gigolo by Cortez, well that was the image of Ricardo Cortez during the silent era.
I am sure that Roy del Ruth or/and the Studio asked him to play the role of the "latin lover" like in most of his previous films (albeit he wasn't latin but austrian).
Therefore it's not entirely Cortez' fault. Besides doesn't helps him the fact that he is always going to be compared with Humphrey Bogart. Something a bit unfair if you ask me.
also, don't forget, huston's film was a remake of this one- without very many script changes. i think george raft would have worked well here. i'm looking for his early,"the glass key."
shareI actually quite like Cortez in the role. Not saying he's Bogart but he certainly had a different take on it, and I enjoyed some little touches like Spade speaking Chinese, ransacking rooms, etc.
shareI did like the fact that Sam Spade spoke Chinese and ransacking the room. Cortez seemed to me to be acting like he was tougher than he really was. He was talking through his teeth, like he was trying to do a bad Cagney impersonation without trying to sound like Cagney.
****SPOILER****
There's a newspaper clipping at the end that makes it look like Sam Spade knew who the murderer of Miles Archer was shortly after Archer was killed. There's an eye-witness to the murder, but, let's ignore that - otherwise, there wouldn't be much point to the movie.
And Bogie's some great actor? I like Ricardo Cortez much better in the role. There's no difference between Bogart as Sam Spade, the guy (whatever his name) in TO HAVE & HAVE NOT (a dreadfully phony film), and THE BIG SLEEP (which I love, Bogie and the film). The remake of THE MALTEST FALCON is better in only one sense, when Bogie says of the statuette that it's the stuff dreams are made of.
Jimmy Cagney might have been good for Sam Spade -- he has the balls that Bogart lacks. Clark Gable, too.