Talk:The Maltese Falcon (1941 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] FAQ link dead

I believe the FAQ link is dead. If it's still dead in a few weeks, it should probably be removed. This lenghty synposis may also merit inclusion. (Aug 6, 2006)

Removed. --PhantomS 03:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler!

The picture that used to be up was a massive spoiler!

I have never seen the film, and that picture instantly spoiled the ending as soon as the page loaded. I would suggest that it be placed further down in the article, but since the article isn't very long it should be removed entirely. So, I took it out.

Zzthex 07:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Cigars, generic pictures of San Francisco standing in for screenshots, and a generic picture of a ruby? I'm deleting these images - they don't add anything substantive to the article. I'm removing them. I'm also inclined to remove the image of the prop scanned from the auction catalog - what do you think? --Chancemichaels 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

If the section on the prop is staying in, then the picture should stay in as well. I'd be inclined to delete them both, because the article is terribly bloated and badly needs trimming, but I'm going to try to get some of the fat out of each section before doing any drastic deletions.
I did, however, remove the very dark picture which supposedly illustrated the film's cinematography. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to delete that as well - what do others think? I did cut out a couple additional images (how many posters do we need, especially when one has essentially the same graphic as the DVD cover?). --Chancemichaels 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

[edit] Synopsis

I edited the synopsis near the end. It stated that Bridget killed Miles to implicate Thursby, and then killed Thursby. But Bridget only killed Miles. Thursby was shot by Wilmer. That's how Bridget knew Gutman was in town. 82.95.254.30 11:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct -- I missed that when I went through it. (Amazing how many times you can go through something and miss a basic fact like that!) Thanks for the correction. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MacGuffin

I searched the article for mention of the Falcon's status as a MacGuffin to no avail. MacGuffin mentions this movie, and perhaps it should be addressed in the article. LacertaRex 00:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

I propose some minor corrections to the text, hopefully to be implemented by someone with more experience:

1. BACKGROUND. Paragraph 2, line 2: "from" should be "form." 2. 6th photo caption: surname is misspelled as O'Shaugnessy. 3. SYNOPSIS. Last paragraph, line 7: "The Brigid" and "in on" are two phrases with bad grammar. 4.CULTURAL IMPACT. Paragraph 4, line 1: Sometimes a word beginning with H takes the article "an": "a homage" doesn't sound right to me. 5. CONTINUITY. Paragraph 2, line 2: Does Gutman live in an apartment or a hotel suite?

-Les Sellinger71.247.200.116 09:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MalteseFalconposter2.jpg

Image:MalteseFalconposter2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MalteseFalconsoundtrack.jpg

Image:MalteseFalconsoundtrack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MalteseFalconposter2.jpg

Image:MalteseFalconposter2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MalteseFalconsoundtrack.jpg

Image:MalteseFalconsoundtrack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minor goof

During the scene in which Spade brings Luke to confront the gunsel in the lobby, from one angle he's holding his cigarette in his mouth. When the angle changes, he's holding the cigarette lower. At 46:06 according to my version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.139.85 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Another minor goof: 50:34, when Sam is kicking Iva out after she admits to having called the police on him, from one angle he's not holding on to her arms with both hands, in the next, he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.139.85 (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1:24:25, Gutman's head turns about 90 degrees instantly during one angle change when finally congratulating Spade on figuring out that he palmed the last bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.139.85 (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

These "goofs" are completely uninteresting and not in any way notable. They derive from the modern ability to minutely inspect films that were made under pressure of time, to be seen on large screens in public places for a couple of times at most, in real-time and without any review. Anyone actually watching the movie, as opposed to examining it scene-by-scene - or cut-by-cut or even frame-by-frame - would never notice these things. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
With that said, shouldn't we zap the "continuity and visual flaws" from the article? I don't think those "goofs" are really all that important, and certainly shouldn't be a focal point in the article. The "historical error" section is interesting and should be kept, though. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I pretty much agree with that, except that I think we should find a place for the one about "It's fake, it's a phoney, it's lead" which is such an obvious flaw that it should be addressed. It doesn't have to be in it's own section, though. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Done! I removed the "continuity and visual flaws" section, but moved the "it's a fake, it's a phony, it-it's lead!" tidbit into the plot as a footnote. I've also tagged the plot section for being too long compared to the other sections of the article. While I understand that a movie like this with so many twists and turns is hard to describe easily, I still think we can strip the section down further. I hope I can find an earlier revision in the article's history that features a slimmer "plot" section, so that that can be implemented. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a slimmer version of the plot section in any of the revisions of the article's history, so it looks like we'll have to do trim it down ourselves manually. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 20:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Great about the "flaws" section -- good solution for the "phoney" one.

I agree that the plot section can be trimmed, but I've removed the tag. For a number of reasons (which I'll be glad to go into if you'd like) I really, really dislike the use of tags, especially when they're not necessary. In this instance, if we agree that the plot needs to be trimmed, and we are working at it, there's no need to disfigure the article and put off casual users of the encyclopedia with a tag.

I'm going to go back to the plot section now and see what I can do in the way of trimming without losing any details of the complex story. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to go into why you dislike the use of tags; I've read your anti-dogma at your user page quite a few times before, and I can certainly understand why. I think your thoughts are a valid Wiki-philosophy, and I go to it whenever I feel I need a "heads up" concerning Wiki-policy.

In any case, I think it's great that we can trim the plot section down. The way it's currently written, it's rather unnecessarily lengthy—and not very engaging, either. I doubt a user would really enjoy reading that section. . . But, it's alright, as long as we keep the details succinct. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just went through and cut 500+ characters without thinking too hard about it (I've got a bad cold and thinking hard is too hard!). I think there's more there that can come out without losing significant details, so I'll take another pass at it later. Anyone else giving it a try, just bear in mind not to cut anything that helps keep the convoluted story straight. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Took out another 189 characters, for a total of about 720. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 05:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Another 63 characters out. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Good job. If you need help on figuring out how to further improve the article, you might consult this peer review concerning the novel for ideas. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyviio?

By the way, I notice that much of the article (sans the plot summary) has apparently been copied-and-pasted from here. I'm not sure just what to do with said information, but, for now, I'll cite that Webpage as a source for those sections. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the correspondances -- can you be more specific? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
A lot of the "Background", "Production", "Cinematography", and "Reception" sections are almost verbatim to parts of the Palace commentary. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
For example, here's what the "Brilliantly photographed" section of the Palace Classic Film's commentary says:

Huston was not completely hamstrung by his detailed script, however, and filmed some scenes spontaneously. In one of them he had specified many cutaways but then allowed his brilliant cameraman Arthur Edeson to shoot the whole scene fluidly with some 26 dolly moves. With its low-key lighting and inventive and arresting angles, the photography is one of the film’s great assets. Huston used ceilings to create images of confinement, and the sets, except for the hotel and the dock scene, are almost claustrophobic, suggesting that Spade’s investigation is extremely limited, that he has just so much space in which to search for that elusive black bird.

Moreover, unusual camera angles are cleverly utilized to emphasize the nature of the characters. Some of the most striking technical scenes involve the Fat Man, Greenstreet, especially the scene where he slowly explains the history of the falcon to Bogart, purposely drawing out his story so that the knockout drops he has slipped into Bogart’s drink will take effect. As the seated Greenstreet growls out the black tale of the bird, the camera, from floor angle, shoots up at him, so that his gigantic girth fills the entire screen, dominating the scene so completely that it invests the leader of the conniving, greedy gang with evil authority. His expanse of belly, crossed by a gold watch chain, is marvelous to behold, symbolically enforcing the enormity of the tale of dark conspiracy surrounding the falcon.

Very nearly as visually evocative are the scenes involving Astor, almost all of which suggest prison: In one scene she wears striped pajamas, the furniture in the room is striped, and the slivers of light coming through the Venetian blinds suggest cell bars, as do the bars on the elevator cage at the end of the film when she takes her slow ride downward with the police, apparently on her way to execution. Huston and Edeson coddled each scene to make sure the images, action, and dialog blended effectively, sometimes shooting closeups of characters with other cast members acting with them off camera.

Now, here's what the "Cinematography" section of this article says:

With its low-key lighting and inventive and arresting angles, the work of Director of Photography Arthur Edeson is one of the film’s great assets. Huston and Edeson used ceilings to create images of confinement, and the sets, except for the hotel and the dock scene, are almost claustrophobic, suggesting that Spade’s investigation is extremely limited, that he has just so much space in which to search for the black bird.

Unusual camera angles are cleverly utilized to emphasize the nature of the characters. Some of the most technically striking scenes involve Gutman, especially the scene where he explains the history of the Falcon to Spade, purposely drawing out his story so that the knockout drops he has slipped into Spade’s drink will take effect. As the seated Gutman spins the tale of the bird, the camera shoots up at him from the floor almost vertically, emphasizing his considerable girth as he fills the entire screen. His domination of the scene in this way illustrates his overwhelming greed, and the expanse of his belly, crossed by a gold watch chain, reinforces the historical scope of the dark tale of conspiracy which surrounds the Falcon.

Very nearly as visually evocative are the scenes involving Astor, almost all of which suggest prison: In one scene she wears striped pajamas, the furniture in the room is striped, and the slivers of light coming through the Venetian blinds suggest cell bars, as do the bars on the elevator cage at the end of the film when she takes her slow ride downward with the police, apparently on her way to execution. Huston and Edeson crafted each scene to make sure the images, action and dialog blended effectively, sometimes shooting closeups of characters with other cast members acting with them off camera.

I hope that helps illustrate it. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly does. Looks like a straight lift then subjected to the normal copyediting/revision process, which accounts for the minor variations. We can either strip these sections out, or rewrite them to keep the sense without using the prose. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That material was added on March 8, 2007 by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE as shown by this diff Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 23:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
What I suggest be done is simply rewrite these sections, with bits and pieces of the Palace commentary cited here and there. We can also add some variety by just going directly to the source regarding the cinematography. Here's two paragraphs from Roger Ebert's review of the film concerning this astonishing unbroken seven-minute take:

Grobel's book The Hustons quotes Meta Wilde, Huston's longtime script supervisor: "It was an incredible camera setup. We rehearsed two days. The camera followed Greenstreet and Bogart from one room into another, then down a long hallway and finally into a living room; there the camera moved up and down in what is referred to as a boom-up and boom-down shot, then panned from left to right and back to Bogart's drunken face; the next pan shot was to Greenstreet's massive stomach from Bogart's point of view. . . . One miss and we had to begin all over again."

Was the shot just a stunt? Not at all; most viewers don't notice it because they're swept along by its flow. And consider another shot, where Greenstreet chatters about the falcon while waiting for a drugged drink to knock out Bogart. Huston's strategy is crafty. Earlier, Greenstreet has set it up by making a point: "I distrust a man who says 'when.' If he's got to be careful not to drink too much, it's because he's not to be trusted when he does." Now he offers Bogart a drink, but Bogart doesn't sip from it. Greenstreet talks on, and tops up Bogart's glass. He still doesn't drink. Greenstreet watches him narrowly. They discuss the value of the missing black bird. Finally, Bogart drinks, and passes out. The timing is everything; Huston doesn't give us closeups of the glass to underline the possibility that it's drugged. He depends on the situation to generate the suspicion in our minds. (This was, by the way, Greenstreet's first scene in the movies.)

We can insert Wilde's quote, and then insert some commentary from someone else who noticed it, like, say, Ebert. (All of this with proper citations, of course!) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have a good handle on it, and I'm mostly non compos mentis due to a bad cold, so why don't you go ahead and have a bash at it. I'll be happy to do any polishing that might be needed (if any!) later on.

P.S. You know, I don't think I ever actually realized that the scene described was one long shot - amazing that I, too, was swept up in the action and the performances so much that I didn't see that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm already starting on it. I went ahead and did a Google search of the Hustons book that Ebert said he got the quote from, but, unfortunately, it seems to be out of print. Using the WP:CITET template, I was able to source the quote accurately. I think it's coming along very nicely.

BTW, the scene described was, as noted, Sydney Greenstreet's film debut. He had already had some 20 years experience in theater, but when he got on the set, he was extremely nervous, even going so far as to ask Mary Astor to hold his hand! Well. . . look at the finished product!

And I hope you get over your cold. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You can get a second-hand copy of the Grobel book at Amazon for 68 cents! -- if that's any help. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)