I've never seen either version and am right now reading the book. How do the films compare to each other and the book? Is one film better than the other? Is one of them more true to the book? Thanks for any insight!
shareThey're both good movies, but the 1941 version is a true classic.
share[deleted]
Doesn't Gutman have a sleazy, drug-addicted daughter in the book? I'm watching the 1931 version, and I may be due for a re-read of the Hammett novel.
"Stone-cold sober I find myself absolutely fascinating!"---Katharine Hepburn
You have probably re-read the story by now but in case you have not: yes, Gutman DOES have a daughter just as you described. Hammett liked to put lots of interesting characters in his stories. Some were red herrings insofar as solving the murder goes but they add to the enjoyment of the story. IMO, of course.
shareDoesn't Gutman have a sleazy, drug-addicted daughter in the book?
—————
No. As mentioned, nothing of Gutman’s family is ever mentioned in the book.
I suspect you may be mixing this up with characters in ‘The Glass Key’ or ‘The Dain Curse.’
“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)
Wrong.
shareYes, her name is Rhea.
"Gutman was not in. None of the other occupants of Gutman's suite were in. Spade learned that these other occupants were the fat man's secretary, Wilmer Cook, and his daughter Rhea, a brown-eyed, fair-haired smallish girl of seventeen whom the hotel-staff said was beautiful."
The 1931 version is entertaining to some extent. However the acting and directing are quite primitive.
There are far better talkies from the same period that doesn't feel so dated (All Quiet on the Western Front, Grand Hotel, Fritz Lang's M, etc). Anyway for a movie that was shot only 4 years after the 1st "talkie" (The Jazz Singer), it ain't that bad.
I think the main value of this version, is to be the predecessor of a timeless classic. It's a valuable document for the film history.
Besides it's also a nice supplement for the special edition of The Maltese Falcon (1941)
I think the 1931 version is much better, mainly because it's 1931 the story is a bit more believeable seeing as they travel the world looking for the falcon and 1941 dosn't at all seem like a good time to go trapsing about looking for a statue. Also, it's really gritty and real compared to the 41 overhyped version. which really is a 40's fantasy.
shareAlso, it's really gritty and real compared to the 41 overhyped version. which really is a 40's fantasy.
????
The ’31 version is nothing like the original story and, if anything, it’s based more on the kinds of ‘fantasy’ they liked to include in film of that period.
Beside that, the ’41 version is almost exactly based on Hammett’s book as it was written just as certainly as the ’31 was not.
The ’31 ending is ridiculous.
“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)
The first version introduces a large form of sexuality from Sam Spade as the second one shows a menacing, more related to the story, form of Sam. The supporting characters are very cheesy in the 1931 version. The 1941 has great supporting actors as the characters.
"You're not a star until they can spell your name in Karachi."- Humphrey Bogart
Hammett's Sam Spade had blonde hair. Huston's 1941 script stook closely to the novel. i believe he only had 30 days to shoot it. However, Huston does borrow much from Roy Del Ruth's 1931 version. This is only a few years after the advent of talkies, and really, the film is good for it's time. I'm surprissed that Cortez never really made the breakout of ethnic roles. He eventually was relegated to charecter parts.
shareI saw the three film versions out of order. The '41 version is a classic. Satan Met a Lady is a self-parody and a middle finger to the censors. But this version, this version seems to kinda tie it all together. It shows a little bit of the story that couldn't be shown in the 40s and I actually liked the ending better in this one. In Bogart's film, she may have cared for him. She may not have. We'll never know. In this version, however, it's made clear, far too late, that she actually did care for him. Had he played his cards right, he could have potentially set Wilmer up to take the fall for all of the murders. Instead, he let the police have her only to find out that he'd locked away the best thing to ever happen to him. With or without the epic delivery of "The stuff that dreams are made of!," I feel this film's ending makes for the far better tragedy.
Don't get me wrong. I still think the Huston/Bogart/Astor version is head and shoulders above this version. It's just that this one played out like a missing piece of the puzzle and gave closure to an otherwise ambiguous ending.
I could not agree more.
The ending is the thing that sets it the most apart.
To be honest, as "classic" as the '41 version is, I find that the original '31 version beats it out in a number of ways.
There are added elements of the '41 version that convolute the story. The entire scene in which Bogart messes with the Wilmer character in the hotel while speaking to Joel Cairo about his night at the police station is unnecessary and confusing.
It's a scene that is thankfully not in the '31 version.
Also, Spade's relationship to women is so much better defined in the original.
Bogart kissing Archer's wife at the start of the '41 version feels like a throwaway. Its easy to forget they even had an affair half way through the movie.
In the original it's a defining moment for Spade - painting him as a believable womanizer. His happy/sleazy persona further justifies this. Bogart’s tough, smirky attitude doesn't make it seem as plausible.
Case and point: In the original when Spade is alone with Ruth Wonderly for the first time, you wonder who is exploiting who and there's a lion's share of real sexual tension. It's great to watch.
In Houston's remake, the one key scene of Sam with Ruth is split into three – two at Ruths hotel, one at Sam’s place. In the first two scenes, Bogart feels too smart to be gotten and there's so little actual attraction it's all cat-and-mouse with no chance of romance.
In the third, when Ruth finally comes over to Bogart’s apartment, Houston puts Cairo in the scene before the cops arrive. This kills all the sexual tension in the ’31 version, turning it into more increasingly convoluted cat-and-mouse games.
I watched these back to back, and the original, even given it's long-held shots on inserts for a slower audience, is hands down a better constructed drama.
History be damned.
The entire scene in which Bogart messes with the Wilmer character in the hotel while speaking to Joel Cairo about his night at the police station is unnecessary and confusing.
Also, Spade's relationship to women is so much better defined in the original.
By confusing I meant that it muddies the narrative, detracting from the central drama and characters.
People evaluate these two films based on casting and direction, but if you look at the stories themselves, the original '31 version is actaully a better built and more dramatically compelling tale.
The time spent on Wilmer in the '41 version is unnecessary and besides the point to say the least. It may be "funny" or "charming" but it bogs down the narrative.
In the '31 version, the story focuses on Wilmer less yet he's also more significant. This is largely because of the ending. Had Spade set up Wilmer to take the fall, he might have held onto the woman who actually loved him. But he finds out too late.
This is a crushing reveal, amazingly well done, and it's completely missing from the '41 version, making Wilmer less important. We may get "The stuff that dreams are made of," but what film enthusiasts so often fail to see is that for all the quotability of this line, it's actually bad melodrama. Watch the closing scene again, and ask yourself, if the line wasn't iconic and immediately recognizable, would it be appropriate in any way in this scene? No. It's overly theatrical and unearned.
And all of the amazing tragic power of the '31 conclusion is lost. This wasn't melodrama, it was earned and it paid off incredibly well on the chemistry between Spade and Ruth, which was abundantly present.
The chemistry between Spade and Brigid in the '41 version? Non-existent. I don't believe for a second she's attracted to him or him to her. It's all manipulation with no temptation of authenticity. This is a mistake. And film historians should pay homage to the better of the two versions a little more, rather than running with the lemmings.
Also, Spade's relationship to women is so much better defined in the original.
—————
Spade, the original character, has about the same attitude toward women that Sherlock Holmes has — They can be interesting, but he’s always a little suspicious of anything flowery or cute found in the midst of dangerous goings on.
Consider — Your partner winds up dead after going to a given location at the behest of a woman who, afterward, goes into hiding, walks around in a robe and flutters her eyelashes while whimpering for your protection.
Spade, as should be expected of any reasonably competent, or at least sane, private detective, is most concerned about finding the shortest route to earning his fee. He’s not prone to being distracted by much of anything that doesn’t lead him in that direction; including women. Even if the woman is a client. Least of all when he himself may have been killed taking care of ‘her’ business.
Makes sense because …
Hammett, having had first-hand experience as an ‘operative’ himself, writes the character based on that experience. Define the problem, the parties involved, reach the appropriate solution and call it a day.
The ’31 Spade is just a cheesy, comedic wise-guy and womanizer. He isn’t anything like a private eye. He’s got time to be naked in bed with a potential murderess.
i.e. — The ’31 Spade and the entire film are about as far away from the book and even the nature of what a man doing that kind of work would be like as can be. It’s a silly romp from start to finish.
By comparison, the ’41 story moves as smoothly as the original and is cast, directed and acted brilliantly.
“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)
I'd like to mention that Effie, Spade's secretary, is palyed in the 1931 version by the great comic actress Una Merkel. She worked into the 1960s, but particularly shined in the '30s and in pre-Code pictures, e.g., Red Headed Woman, 42nd Street (whre she shares a saucy verse of Shuffle Off to Buffalo with a young Ginger Rogers). This is the one instance in which the 1931 casting betters the 1941 version (not that there's anything wrong with Lee Patrick, and she probably serves the plot and tone better than Merkel did, but she is not as good an actress or nearly as much fun). The 1931 version is very enjoyable for a movie buff, but mainly for historical reasons as an example of pre-Code films and a fascinating footnote to the 1941 version. Although it has some virtues (especially the Hammett source material), the direction and acting is mostly too primitive for it to be entirely enjoyable on its own merits. The 1941 version is, of course, absolutely sublime.
shareI watched the original for the first time this weekend on TCM and really enjoyed it. It's a different flavor but good.
I found the Spade character to be a sleazy womanizer and not nearly as dark and tough.
I enjoyed Dwight Frye's Wilmer, not as many lines but very creepy.
Overall, the cast is a little weaker, the directing a little "older" but it's a movie that works.
I just saw the 1931 and it's thoroughly enjoyable. If the 1941 didn't exist it would have a low-profile life of its own I imagine. But as enjoyable as it is, watching the early version is a lesson in the art of film making. Much of the dialog is retained between the versions, and of course the main plot points. But Huston's directorial gifts make all the difference, bringing every scene to life. The casting is better too, as fun as it is to see the 1931 cast none of them really compare to those in the Huston version. The one exception might be Ms Wonderley, who is not appealing enough in either version , imho. I like Mary Astor better in general, but she wasn't quite perfect for the role. Bebe Daniels is too obviously calculating from the word go. As for Spade, Ricardo Cortez is engaging and amusing, but the role is directed and played almost more for laughs. Bogart and Huston get so much more out of the character. The same goes for the rest. Another thing to notice is how much difference a music score can make. In 1931 we hear title music and then nothing else aside from source music. Adolf Deutsch's great score in 1941 makes a huge difference, adding loads of indescribably atmosphere. And speaking of atmosphere, the photographic look of Huston's film is considered 'classic' for good reason -- a dark, brooding, menacing mood pervades the whole film. I loved the 1931 version, but to me the 1941 remains superior.
Well, I figured this thread would already exist. Before I watched this version of MF I saw the thread which said something to the effect of "I enjoyed this better than the other one". I have to say that it is not even close for me. The '41 film is pitched perfectly and highlighted with outstanding performances from the entire cast. Bogart being a given I want to also give a shout out to Elisha Cook who was wound so tight it hurt to watch. But, back on point, the 1931 MF was just wrong in many ways and one of them being that the director didn't trust the viewer to be attentive and constantly beat the us over the head with indicative glances and lingering shots to make sure we didn't miss whatever went unsaid. And some of these shots I didn't even get like when he kept having Spade's secretary (a miscasting, by the way, as she was the sexiest woman on screen) give him these lustful looks while leaving the room. Anyhow, I generally don't like movies that don't trust me to pay attention and cater to the lazy/unperceptive movie watcher. There are other problems with this film but I'm not going write a full critique here. This one is good as a novelty to hold against the '41 but there is very little to compare.
shareI disagree.
I think your points on pacing are valid, but you have to understand the context that this '31 version was released in. The reason the pacing is slow at certain moments, like during inserts, is because the audience was still learning the cinematic language. This is just a beat after films went from silent to sound, and viewers were processing information at a different rate. 10 years later, they had caught up significantly more.
I wouldn't evaluate this based on pacing. If you watch it again, compensate for that in your mind and you'll find that this is actually a better built story from a dramatic standpoint.
The ending is better on all levels. It evolks the tragic potential of the narrative in a much stronger fashion.
It's largely because of the pacing issues you identified, which also ellongated beats of the actor's performances, that put the '41 version in the spotlight and left this underrated classic behind.
I've seen all 3 and read the book and I have to say that I don't buy Bogie as an over sexed and sexy ladies man as I do with Cortez. I enjoyed this one very much and I own it and have watched it many times over. I only watched the bogie version once and there is a lack of sexuality and fun that I didn't enjoy it. Not ya'll don't get your panties in a bunch I just don't it. I get that it's a classic but that does not mean that I have to dislike the original.
share[deleted]
I wonder how George Raft would have fared? He was Huston's original choice, and was quite good as Ned Beaumont in, 'The Glass Key.'
shareStill getting use to the cinematic language? Griffith had established it ten years prior. The slow pacing is due to restricted camera movement to accommodate sound.
"Some men are coming to kill us. We're gonna kill them first."