Director: John Huston
Producer: Hal B. Willis
Screenwriter: John Huston
Cinematographer: Arthur Edeson
Music: Adolph Deutsch
Studio: Warner Bros 1941
Main Acting: Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor
How did the universe begin? All these years of human evolution and we are still not sure of our specific origins and how life began. Theories and speculation abound, but a clear concrete answer is still beyond us. Perhaps there will never be an explanation that will please or even satisfy anyone. Our origins are like any great mystery, full of clues but maddening when trying to find the proper resolution. Seems like some poetic justice that film noir has similar questions when it comes to a source. Where does it all begin? Is there one movie that can truly hold the key to how the whole movement formed? Does it come neatly packaged in one big bang explosion named The Stranger On The Third Floor or The Maltese Falcon, or has it gestated for many year in many little progressions? Does the answer lie in Germany, where Lang created M and The Testament Of Dr. Mabuse? Perhaps when we look at France and their poetic realism scene, we see a glimmer of the form taking hold? How about looking at our own horror films of the thirties? Maybe even to some silent films that lay immersed in German expressionism that gloriously offer a similar stylized palette? The bottom line is that I don’t believe we can easily find the great clue that will solve our little genre equation. I am as befuddled as the next person in trying to erect that proper piece of the puzzle to completely illuminate the whole.
What I can do in my own little way is build some personal guidelines for myself to follow. A religion of noir if you will, where a certain film gets nominated as the beginning. Not being a crazed zealot, I do not hold this belief as absolute. Nor do I expect others to follow and agree with my opinions. In fact, I am quite sure that The Maltese Falcon is not really the first film noir. I also don’t think such claims should matter. What the John Huston film almost certainly is though is the first unquestionably great picture in this developing genre. As I see it, the classic era gets its first perfect American example in 1941. Based on my own guidelines, this is year zero. It seems only proper that the movement open up with so many familiar tropes, like a morally evasive private dick, a shifting femme fatale, various curious characters with shady underpinnings, and most of all… an inanimate figure that possesses the stuff that dreams are made of. After all, what is it that most noir inhabitants are relentlessly looking for? But the keys to some everlasting nirvana where good fortunes may shine upon them for eternity. Why else would one risk murder, deceit, prison, etc.? Getting out of the shadows and into the light of untold riches. It’s why so many participants in the noir universe fall from the celluloid wayside to begin with. The stuff of dreams that makes us enjoy noir is actually the nightmare fostered upon the characters we follow who know no better.
The Maltese Falcon is thus in my estimation the first truly great work of noir. It is the film that the rest of the canon will follow, for better or worse. Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and his partner, Miles, meet a female client (Mary Astor) looking for her sister. She mentions the name of the man she believes her sibling is involved with… Thursby. Miles volunteers to follow him after the retainer is set and gets himself killed that night. Spade takes the news rather well but further gets pulled into the web of deception being spun around him. He slowly starts to learn that Thursby was also killed and that he is a suspect. When the woman reappears the next day with a new name of O’ Shaughnessey replacing Wonderly, her story has changed and Spade decides to continue pursuing the case. He begins to learn that what Astor’s multi-monikered character is really looking for is a black statue of a falcon. He also soon finds out that she is not alone in this endeavor, and a whole slew of figures are also in hot pursuit. What could this seemingly unimportant object possibly contain to get so many people committing all sorts of crimes for? Can he crack the case while also keeping himself out of jail and in good standings with the law? Watch and find out as classic American film noir takes its first steps of immortality.
Not only is The Maltese Falcon the first noir of distinction, but it also begins the directorial career of John Huston. Known primarily as a screenwriter before this, he made sure to have his first effort behind the camera go smoothly. Taken from a novel written by Dashiell Hammett with the same name, Huston kept most of the same dialogue while eradicating any sexual references that could run afoul of the Production Code. Legend has it that he ran a tight ship and was very adamant about keeping the whole feature from surpassing its scheduled timeframe set by the studio. For some, The Maltese Falcon is not very noir in its look and cinematography, while winningly matching the other criteria of the genre. When I watched the film a couple of months ago, I was surprised by the fact that Huston’s film did not look visually flat at all. It maintained a shadowy noir milieu, and also employed the use of creative camera set-ups and exaggerated angles to express the motivations of all the participants. I was puzzled by the film’s reputation of not affording the same extensive visual design as other of its ilk. In my eyes, Arthur Edeson does a commendable job and greatly contributes to the picture’s success.
There are so many areas of The Maltese Falcon that can be praised. The acting by a succession of character actors from Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, and Elisha Cook Jr. is all first rate and worthy of note. I always get a kick out of seeing Wilmer act so tough to only have his confidence shattered when Spade smacks him around with impunity. Another convoluted plot is handled with more ease by Huston than Howard Hawks and the dialogue is just as crisp. The action is taut and every twist and turn is met with great relish and excitement. There might not be some deep existential meaning to what is happening throughout the film, but it is grand entertainment that keeps me as interested as the elusive falcon does for everyone in the movie. Humphrey Bogart became a star after The Maltese Falcon. He would continue to etch his legend in multiple follow-up pictures for the rest of his career. A movie that never shows any strains of tiredness, I will be returning to it every now and again until the day I stop drawing breath.









I agree that this is the first really great work in noir. It’s a legendary film, and deserves to be mentioned near the forefront of any meaningful discussion. The eccentric supporting players – Greenstreet, Lorre, Cook always intrigured me, but that’s part of the film’s unique persona. Bogie is Bogie. Great essay!
I agree Frank. For all intents and purposes the beginning…
This one is justifiably in the top 10. It’s an important milestone in cinema, even though others went on later to develop the genre. I don’t think the lesser use of lighting takes away from it being a noir. As I’m seeing from this list, noir is hard to categorize for many people. I don’t think every noir film needs to hit on every noir archetype – lighting, murky soul, femme fatale etc. I think you just know it when you see it.
Well said Jon. I think the reputation of lesser lighting in The Maltese Falcon is somewhat inaccurate.
“There might not be some deep existential meaning to what is happening throughout the film, but it is grand entertainment…”
Does anything else matter?
This is one of those movies I saw conciously knowing it was noir, and I just loved it. It’s actually one of my favorite movies and made of Humphrey Bogart one of my favorite actors of all time (I’ll say his turn in the next Huston movie is his best, but who am I to tell?).
I agree with you, I saw the film knowing the visual tropes of noir (shadows, angles, light, dark, moral issues, femme fatale), and I checked them out, I didn’t know this was dissed as not being on pair with those. You nail it perfectly.
This one pumped me to see more noir and this top spot is absolutely desserved.
“Does anything else matter?”
oh man, this is all sort of wrong.
I mean, not everything has to be “grand entertainment”. It just has to keep me from falling asleep, and that happens when I feel entertained. I couldn’t value a movie that doesn’t capture my attention in any way.
Glad you like this one Jaime. It is one of the absolute essentials. A deeper meaning is needed to elevate most pictures, but this one gets by on just being entertaining and such a pioneering work of art. Bogart is one of my favorites as well.
You’ve enhanced the literature on this great film here Maurizio! And I agree with Frank. THE MALTESE FALCON’S emphasis on ‘peculiar’ character traits is in my view it’s most compelling claim to greatness. Lorre, Greenstreet, Cook Jr., and of course Mary Astor, are a peculiar lot, whose strange and obsessive characteristics are as psychologically fascinating as anything in this engaging detective yarn, and Bogart’s Sam Spade is one of the iconic figures in all of American cinema. But in truth this film set the personalities for these characters in their future careers. Hitchcock was a master at brininging his supporting characters to quirky life, and in this film Huston’s accomplishment is peerless. The snap-fire dialogue, the pacing and Arthur Edeson’s extraordinary noir cinematography all conspire to make this one of teh defining films of the 1940′s and of the form.
It wouldn’t be a stretch to say that as far as detective films go, this is the one that actually set the hard-edged style and tone.
I love detective stuff Sam and this is an absolute essential. I wish someone can one day make the ultimate Sherlock Holmes film. I don’t think any reach the level of Philip Marlowe’s three best or this Sam Spade selection. I know you love The Scarlet Claw, but Holmes needs to be imbedded in a absolute classic one day.
We’ve entered the Bogart portion of the countdown! A fun, iconic film. What else needs to be said? A great, passionate essay from Maurizio.
Yeah not intentional but Bogie has temporarily hijacked the countdown.
Do I detect the epic paunch of Welles looming dimly on the countdown horizon?
Glad to see you salute the Lang influence on noir.
Another great essay.
I remain silent on such matters Mark……
Hello guys! I’ve caught up with the most recent posts and am impressed with the writing and the selections. This John Huston film is a movie landmark. It’s a given to land in the top tier. This is one film I can watch anytime, and come away with entertainment of all sorts. Love Greenstreet!
Yeah Peter, The Maltese Falcon is just one of those fun pictures that never stops delivering the goods. Thanks for the compliment though my writing is rather ordinary.
Your writing has been quite impressive. I kid you not.
This is indeed grand entertainment with visual panache, and your account, Maurizio, expresses very well how rewarding it is.
The aspect I particularly enjoy is that, over and above the dangerous distemper and combativeness, there is a marvellously daft, seemingly never-ending treasure hunt. Sidney Greenstreet gives us such a witty predator here. His repeated, “Gad, Sir, you are a character!” conveys so well his gusto for the mission.
“seemingly never-ending treasure hunt.”
Perfect description Jim. I couldn’t say it better myself. So much to praise in this film. We could begin anywhere. I always change my opinion on Huston’s best film. Jungle, Sierra Madre, and Falcon always duke it out. Three pictures that offer so many rewards.
Great stuff there, Maurizio. It was evident, from the very first line of your piece, that you have a deep and unshakeable love for this film. Well, here’s the deal, so do I
A number of film historians feel that Maltese Falcon was the first film noir ever made. I wouldn’t know if that’s true or not, but I’d readily agree with you point of view that this was the first truly good film noir. And “truly good” would be such an understatement, wouldn’t it? It doesn’t just rank as one of the greatest film noirs ever made, but also one of the best movies ever made.
Really, everything about it is flawless – from Bogart’s terrific portrayal of Sam Spade to Huston’s fascinating work behind the camera, from the terrific narrative buildup and pacing to the incredible atmosphere and mood that pervades the film. I guess whatever I’m saying here have been said innumerable times by so many others, yet its always surprising how they captivate you each time you watched it.
Interestingly, the first time I watched the film (which was a long time back), I didn’t care much for the film. But, as it has happened with me a number of times with respect to films (others that readily come to my mind are, Charulata, Chinatown & Casablanca) that I watched long before I’d been initiated into “good cinema”, the next time I watched them I was literally bowled over many times over.
Ok, can’t wait any further for your next entry
Good to know you like this one so much Shubs. It is difficult writing about something like The Maltese Falcon, that has been exhaustingly covered by everyone. What more can be said about it? It is a wonder though that once you start watching the film, all that fades away and the richness rises up every time.
Bringing the Falcon into the countdown forces the question of the difference between noir and hard-boiled cinema. While it’s a no-brainer to acknowledge that Huston’s version is better than Roy Del Ruth’s from 1931 (which I actually like) or the “Satan Met a Lady” variant of 1936, the fact that the Hammett had been done before raises the issue of what exactly Dashiell Hammett’s story contributes to noir. Would Del Ruth earn a spot in history had he, Ricardo Cortez, Dwight Frye et al made the exact same film ten years later than they did? If not, then the fact that Huston’s Falcon is a remake gives us a special opportunity to isolate the defining noir elements within the hard-boiled context. You identify a certain expressionism in the work of Huston and Edeson; others might single out a distinct performance style exemplified by Bogart — or Lorre, whose proto-noir credentials go all the way back to M. I’d add that Huston’s version impresses me as a weightier film, to the extent that it outweighs the cynical lightness of the hard-boiled manner. Put that “weight” on the critical scale and you might actually take the measure of noir.
Fascinating comment Samuel. I have seen the 1931 version once many many years ago and can barely recall the movie at this point. I remember it being a light affair and not very noir. Your last two sentences seem to hold the final answer on why the 41 remake is noir and not the earlier stuff. American films in the 40′s were darker and generally more realistic than what the 30′s were churning out. I think a certain maturity in content helped the movement along.
Maurizio said,”Humphrey Bogart became a star after The Maltese Falcon. He would continue to etch his legend in multiple follow-up pictures for the rest of his career. A movie that never shows any strains of tiredness, I will be returning to it every now and again until the day I stop drawing breath.”
Wow… What a very well-written review about one Of my favorite actor Humphrey Deforest Bogart…Better Known as “Bogie.”
[Postscript: By the way, you, and Leonard Maltin,
seems to be in agreement about the film.]
However,
There isn’t too much more for me to add Maurizio, after reading your review about Huston’s The Maltese Falcon…Oh! just two items…actor Humphrey Bogart’s official website (Designed and created by my friend Gary…) in order to pay homage to Bogie.
[Postscript: Bogart's son Stephen Humphrey Bogart asked Gary, to design his father's website.]
Thanks, for sharing!
DeeDee
Thanks for giving me such a lovely compliment Dee Dee. I want to tell you that I listened to the Crime Wave commentary with Ellroy and Mueller. I was laughing throughout with Ellroy panting like a dog every time an actress he liked was mentioned. I was very entertained and will listen to a few more. The Demon Dog rules!!!!
Hi! Maurizio…
(Laughter!) Now, you may not be able to watch “Crime-Wave” without the commentary again.
Well, at least that happened with me after listening to [Eddie]Muller’s commentaries…I’am no longer able to watch the films (In which Eddie Muller, comment on without listening to Eddie’s commentaries.]
By the way,
Ellroy, also mentioned in the commentary that the film “CrimeWave” was even a better film than Polanski’s “Chinatown” in which Muller, most definitely, didn’t share Ellroy’s opinion about the former film being a better film than the latter.
Ellroy is crazy for saying Crime Wave is better than Chinatown. I agree with Mueller 100%.
Hi! Maurizo Roca…
in other words, to liven-up the conversation. On the other hand, it’s his opinion and he truly may prefer the former film over the latter film.
Personally, I wouldn’t call Ellroy’s [opinion] about CrimeWave “crazy”…I must admit that it’s a “stretch” only because an enormous consensus has been reached that Polanski’s “Chinatown” is a classic four star film. He [Ellroy] may have just said, that for “shock” value?!?
[Postscript: I must admit that happens with me quite a bit too...
For instance, there are some films that I like to watch that aren't considered four-star classics that I like to watch more so than films that are considered four-star classics.]
DeeDee
Yeah Dee Dee I think he was just trying to shock with an outrageous opinion (something Ellroy is known for) that goes extremely against the grain. I was also not being serious about calling him crazy. Just being a little over the top…
I’m another one who loves ‘The Maltese Falcon’ and delighted to see it so high in your countdown – one of Huston’s finest, and Bogart’s too. Must agree that the cinematography seems fine to me, very dark and moody. A great review, Maurizio. I haven’t seen the 1931 version as yet, but am hoping to do so – it will be interesting to compare the two.
I was just amazed the last time I watched The Maltese Falcon (41) and didn’t see some of the criticism certain noir lovers throw at it. The cinematography was not much different than later stuff to be honest. It was not bright and visually flat, but as shadowy as most other film noirs.
Hi! again, Maurizio Roca…
I added a postscript to my previous comment and I feel the only different between me and author [James] Ellroy, is he isn’t afraid to voice his true feelings out-loud. (Whether he was just “kidding” around or not “kidding” around.)
Now, me on the other hand, I truly prefer not to voice my opinion out-loud (or in public) about which films that I like which are considered two or two and a half-star films over obvious four-star films. Least over film bloggers, think that I replaced some Of my “strudel” with “noodles!”