MovieChat Forums > The Maltese Falcon (1941) Discussion > Wait a minute... did we all see the same...

Wait a minute... did we all see the same movie? * SPOILER ALERT *

posted 9 years ago by mdonln
8 replies | jump to latest

Am I the only one who watched this movie and thought it's about a bunch of nuts going around chasing a unicorn? They're doing all these things (traveling the globe, stealing, murdering, throwing around cash) all in pursuit of something that doesn't really exist. In my opinion, the story about the bejeweled Maltese Falcon is a legend. It's not real and it never was.

These secret societies are known for being exactly that - notoriously secret. Where there is such secrecy and mystery, legends abound. We don't like voids; they make us anxious. When we come across these holes or things we don't understand we tend to fill them in with stories that quell our anxiety. It's what we do as people. We have myths, legends, stories to explain what we don't understand.

Somewhere this Maltese Falcon story got started and, naturally, people hear it, embellish it and the legend grows. It's like playing telephone as kids. What you start with is never what you get at the end. Anyway, every now and then someone claims they saw the bird or know of its whereabouts and it seems to move from place to place.

As we have an abundance of unicorn statuettes, someone decides along the way to make a Maltese Falcon. Of course, it's not bejeweled as the legend suggest, it's just covered in black. To explain this discrepancy, the story is the jewels were covered up in order to hide their real value.

The statuette maker, in a ploy to perhaps increase the value of his creation or to further the legend puts the word out that this 'valuable' bird has been located. His place is then conveniently 'robbed' lest the scam be revealed. Meanwhile the worthless statuette is sold privately or stored for safekeeping, At some point it resurfaces.

In steps Gutman who salivates thinking about the wealth the bird can bring him. He formulates a plan that involves others. They believe the story and plot to steal the bird. Their greed is so great, the thieves double-cross Gutman and each other. There's no way they're going to share the wealth so they make off with the prize. First stop, Hong Kong.

---

Next stop, San Francisco – this is where the story (this movie) picks up. Lies, murder, more double-cross ensue. A private eye named Sam gets thrown into the mix. Long story short, when it's discovered the bird is fake the criminals assume they must have been duped once the other party found out the bird's value. The 'real' bird, as far as they're concerned, is out there somewhere still. Either they're that delusional or they're in denial. Maybe it's just easier to think the bird still exists than to admit they're all a bunch of fools who have wasted many years, many lives, and lots of money, chasing something that's not real and now they're going to pay for their stupidity and crimes by going to prison.

In my eyes, this movie is a cautionary tale about greed and what it can do. It shows how far some people are willing to go to quench their insatiable thirst for riches; whether those riches are real or perceived. One of the most telling lines is when Gutman says of Wilmer, 'he's like a son to me but when one loses a son they can get another... but there's only one Maltese Falcon.' As crazy as it sounds, it means he'd faster throw his own son under a bus, set him up to take the fall, or send him down the river before he'd ever consider giving up his quest for that big windfall. Wow!

What's really bizarre is these nuts are already throwing around large sums of cash and living rather privileged lives. They're far from destitute or needy but, to them, what they have is not enough. That's the extent of their greed.

Keep in mind, when this movie was released America had just emerged from the depression. It had been a very difficult time for so many people; some were probably still feeling the effects and hadn't fully recovered. Seeing this movie in that context would have had an impact, I believe. It would show how absolutely ridiculous and single-minded these people are.

Their lust for wealth is so great it's blinding and they're so far gone mentally they actually believe after all they've done (multiple murders, theft, destruction of property, etc.) they’re just going to walk out the door and pick up where they left off; take a trip, chase the 'right' bird. Outrageous!

Sam's the only one with any good sense. He doesn't really know what to make of the story but thinks it will lead to the answers he seeks. Whatever he thinks he needs to solve these murders. Until he's got all the pieces, he has to play along. He's surprised when the package arrives via dead man. The plot thickens but by the time the bird turns out to be a dud, he's not surprised at all. It's time to tie up the loose ends. When the police arrive he says he has exhibits for them: the guns, the money, and, oh yes, 'this black statuette here that all the fuss was about'. The way he treats the statuette even before then shows he doesn't believe it's a thing of great value.

Afterward, he doesn't think of it as a faked Maltese Falcon like the others. He knows this is all there's ever been; the only tangible part of the legend. When the police guy, Tom, goes to pick it up it's noticeably heavy so he asks what it is. He doesn't understand how that statuette figures into all that's been happening.

This is why Sam says, 'it's the thing dreams are made of'. Ergo, none of it's real; not the story; not the bird; not the hyped up value of the bird; nothing! It's all a dream; a fantasy, and these fools still don't get it. Then again, neither does the police because without the story, the bird means nothing; hence that final line, 'Huh?'. To me it underlines the absurdity of the whole convoluted affair.

This is, for me, what makes this a really good movie. The actors have to, for the most part, play it straight but they're playing lunatics; or in Sam's case, dealing with lunatics. It's film noir but I found myself laughing quite a bit. It's a fun movie that can be enjoyed on many levels.

[–] Beau_Buffet 8 years ago

I have to say you have a very interesting reading of this movie. Thanks for sharing it.

You're tempting me to add a point to my rating. Or, at least, to re-watch this movie again some time, with this new perspective.

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

Beau_Buffet says > I have to say you have a very interesting reading of this movie. Thanks for sharing it.

I know it was rather long so thanks for reading it and responding. Please be sure to let me know your thoughts after watching it again - if you do.

I was pretty surprised to find that no one else seemed to see things as I did. I have considered re-watching it myself. I recorded it to DVR but haven't gotten around to it yet.

It's been a while since I saw the movie and have made it a point not to reread my comments. I know the general gist, of course, but I'm curious to see if I'll have any new or different perspectives.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] yunie1281 8 years ago

Interesting analysis. I prefer to see it as more open-ended than that. We don't know if the statue ever exists. If it did, was it really like what they described or was it embellished? Either way, does it still exist now? The uncertainty of it is the real fun part for me. These people are spending their lives chasing after something that may or may not even be real but, even if it is, they'll never find it. They've been chasing false leads for too long. It's a big world and whoever might own such a thing, if it hasn't been abandoned someone or lost to time, will never, ever announce it. It could be right out there and they'll never be able to locate it.

They've been through so much and it's for a dud after all. And we'll never even know the truth about it.

I like that thought a lot better than a simple "and there was no bird."

Because there could be and that's why they can't let go. What if?

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

yunie1281 says > I prefer to see it as more open-ended than that. We don't know if the statue ever exists. If it did, was it really like what they described or was it embellished?

According to the story Gutman told Spade, the statue he's been chasing was embellished but at some point it was covered over to hide its true worth and identity. That's why he immediately scratched at it to reveal the jewels he believed were just under the surface. Remember, no one; at least not any of the group we see, has ever seen the legendary bird.

Either way, does it still exist now? The uncertainty of it is the real fun part for me. These people are spending their lives chasing after something that may or may not even be real

That's not in conflict with my interpretation of the movie. I don't think the bird ever existed and they've been chasing around after a legend; I also don't think Spade ever really believed it, but I think all the others still do. That's what they'll be thinking about when they're sitting in prison - new ways to get their hands on the bird. They're all like people who have found a map to buried treasure. They believe it so heartily they dig and dig and dig even though they've never found anything. No matter what they believe the treasure exists and will stop at nothing to get to it; even if that includes killing people off who get in their way or who expect to share in the bounty.

When the bird turns out not to be real, Cairo immediately blamed Gutman saying his interest in buying it was to blame. Whoever had it, realizing its worth, hid it further away from them. Oh, they still believe the farce and probably always will; that includes Brigid. She asked Spade if that bird hadn't been a fake, would he still be turning her over to the police.

I like that thought a lot better than a simple "and there was no bird."
Because there could be and that's why they can't let go. What if?

You get to interpret the movie however you want. You can go on believing the jewel encrusted bird exists out there somewhere and maybe it does but at the end of the story we saw there really was no bird; at least not the one they wanted. It was merely a worthless lead statuette; nothing more.

I see where you'd fall in the story. You'd probably be one of the ones chasing that bird around the corner, around the world, and wherever it else it took you.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] holtor 8 years ago

I like this view on the story very much. Even if it possibly had been intended differently by the authors, I would prefer this interpretation. The book could be interpreted either way, I think, albeit it makes sense that the valuable bird never existed. The story is full of little deceptions like that, hiding for a long time from the reader that Sam Spade is only trying to figure out why exactly Miss Many-Names shot his partner and how to make her confess.

Concerning the movie, two small snippets at the beginning and at the end are important arguments against and in favor of this interpretation. None of them are from the book. At the opening scroll the history of the falcon is presented as factual, presumably throwing lots of people of the course. And at the end Bogart says that the falcon is “the stuff that dreams are made of" (paraphrasing Shakespeare's Tempest).

> by the time the bird turns out to be a dud, he's not surprised at all

I do not think that this is true. Both in the movie and in the book he immediately suspects that Miss Many-Names might have swapped the falcon, and questions her.

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

holtor says > I like this view on the story very much. Even if it possibly had been intended differently by the authors, I would prefer this interpretation.

Thanks! I've never read the book and have no idea what's in it so I could only go with what I saw in the movie. When I watched the movie again last night (something I rarely do) I kept an open mind but I saw it the exact same way as before. I kept trying to believe all the stuff about the falcon but I couldn't.

Concerning the movie, two small snippets at the beginning and at the end are important arguments against and in favor of this interpretation. None of them are from the book.

The fact neither item is found in the book may mean that the movie was meant to be a deliberate departure from the book. Making a movie is hard enough; trying to stay true to the book at the same time can be impossible. Some filmmakers strive to do that but others don't even bother; they use the source material as an inspiration but then do their own thing.

At the opening scroll the history of the falcon is presented as factual, presumably throwing lots of people off the course.

Instead of seeing it as the history of the falcon, I saw the scroll as describing the legend of the falcon; something rumored to be true that spread through the ages. Like any good legend, some people bought into it wholeheartedly and went around looking for maps and searching for buried treasures; so to speak. Others took those stories for what they were; the tales of drunken seaman trying to sensationalize their adventures.

What you say about it being there to throw people off track may be true but I saw it as the exact opposite of that. I suspect the scroll was added, possibly after the fact, to help the audience follow the story.

The first time Spade hears about the falcon, its from Cairo when he shows up in his office. He talks about an ornament; a black bird. He thinks Spade has it in his possession but not only does Spade not have it, he knows nothing about it at all. Cairo is willing to pay a large sum of money for Spade to locate this bird and return it to its 'owner'.

Had we not seen the scroll and learned about the black bird, why would we care about all this? That exchange might even have been confusing. Later there was more talk of this black bird but always in vague terms. Why is it so valuable? We wouldn't have known. We'd assume, along with Spade, that there was something to it because a lot of people were interested in it; chasing it around; offering a lot of money for it; and even killing people who got in their way but we'd wonder; all this for a bird?

Having learned about the legend of the bird from the scroll, we understand their interest and its supposed value so we continue to follow along patiently. If we hadn't had that information, we would be wondering what was going on. Why would Spade let himself get pulled into this craziness about a bird and get distracted? What he had been doing seemed more important; solving a couple of murders the police thought he was involved in. He was trying to clear his name but he'd get sidelined by a bird? Even though falcon was in the title, we might have wondered but probably wouldn't care very much why these lying, shady people were so eager and so ruthless in their pursuit of some ornamental black bird.

Remember, it's not until well into the movie; a little more than halfway through, that we get the story of the bird from Gutman. He explains to Spade what we had seen in the scroll and a bit more but even then, with all the lying, we couldn't be sure he was telling the truth. By this time we might have lost all interest or gotten confused about the plot.

So, you see, I feel the scroll is important with whatever interpretation of the movie one sees and accepts. It gives us the background we need to follow along.

at the end Bogart says that the falcon is “the stuff that dreams are made of" (paraphrasing Shakespeare's Tempest).

All throughout the movie there are moments just like that; little hints that seem to indicate the falcon doesn't really exist - other than in the minds of the people who have been pursuing it in hopes of cashing in.

Both in the movie and in the book he immediately suspects that Miss Many-Names might have swapped the falcon, and questions her.

Spade does say something about Brigid having her little joke but I didn't think he was really questioning her about it. I never thought he believed there was anything to the falcon in the first place.

He knew they all believed it but, as you said before, he always seemed to be playing along; trying to get to the truth and to get something on each of the parties involved so they could be arrested. Had the falcon been real when Gutman scratched it with the knife, I think Spade would have been as surprised as the others were surprised to find out it was fake.

As soon as Gutman and Cairo left, Spade called the police and told them everything - he had already figured it all out. I thought he used the bird to lure them. As he's talking to the cops, Brigid realized something was up. When he does question her it's about the murders; getting her to confess to killing Miles and explaining why she did it.

She even asked him if he would be turning her in if the falcon had been real. He told her he wasn't as crooked as he seemed... Anyway, I don't think he would have handled things the way he had if he thought the falcon was what they claimed it was and worth what they thought.

For all we know, it could have been a legend based in fact. Maybe the bird really was real. If so, the ending and Spade's comment could have a completely different meaning... Knowing none of the others had actually seen the falcon, Spade could have swapped the bird; hid the real one and stashed the fake. He then sent Effie to get the fake and bring it to the apartment. Once he settled up with the police and turned over the crazy bunch, he walks away the ultimate winner. His comment about what dreams are made of means he's got it made. He solved the crimes, is off the hook with the police, and has the valuable bird; a dream come true.

From my point of view, that scenario is highly unlikely for a number of reasons but it seems some people want desperately to believe that the story about the falcon is real. If so, this interpretation is one possibility.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] holtor 8 years ago

> Knowing none of the others had actually seen the falcon

I think at least Gutman and "Brigid" did see the falcon before: Gutman when he tried to buy it, "Brigid" when she stole it. Spade would not have had the time to obtain an exact copy.

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

holtor says > Spade would not have had the time to obtain an exact copy.

First, I hope you realize that the last part of my last post was posited for the benefit of those who, despite it all, still wanted or needed to continue believing that the black bird of legend actually existed. It's not what I believe myself. I still stand by my original theory that the so-called 'precious bejeweled golden falcon covered in black enamel to hide its identity and worth' never existed except in legend.

Also, I did say that the scenario I offered was highly unlikely for a number of reasons. Not having enough time to find and swap the bird would be one reason. Then again, for the sake of argument, while Spade may not have had time, he did have his secretary Effie who seemed very resourceful. He had a description and they were in San Francisco, how hard could it be to find a falcon statuette? As far as he knew, no one else had seen the bird either.

With all the lies, twists, turns, and deliberate mis-direction in the movie, I'm surprised people still believe there was something to the story of the falcon. For them, I guess anything, however absurd, is plausible. If one can believe so completely in the bird, why would it be hard to buy that Spade ended up with it?

I think at least Gutman and "Brigid" did see the falcon before: Gutman when he tried to buy it

Gutman never said he saw the falcon. When he told Spade the story, he said he came close when he tried to buy it from the Russian general. The Russian only knew the bird to be a black enameled figurine and had never heard the story. He was reluctant to sell so Gutman said he made him an offer then sent his agents to get the figurine. The agents may have convinced the Russian to part with it but they double-crossed Gutman and never delivered it to him. Therefore, he never saw the bird.

Brigid" when she stole it.

When asked, she told Spade that she had seen it once, briefly. Spade called her out on it so she had to admit the story was a total lie. I assume by 'when she stole it' you mean when it first came to be in her possession. You may ask, how could she have had it but not seen it? The same way Spade had it but never saw it. It was wrapped!

Like Spade, once she had it, Brigid would have acted quickly to put it away for safekeeping. Since a lot of people were after it, it wouldn't have been wise to keep it with her. Presumably, that's when she handed it off to Jacobi so he could transport it for her to San Francisco.

All that happened prior to that conversation with Spade. To believe she had seen it, we'd have to believe she was actually telling Spade the truth about having seen it. We can't have it both ways!

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

Wait a minute... did we all see the same movie? *** SPOILER ALERT ***

Wait a minute... did we all see the same movie? * SPOILER ALERT *