The Maltese Falcon
I enjoyed the film, but I did not find this detective story as entertaining as other shows/movies I have watched or books I have read. To be honest, I just did not like the characters. I did not think there was anything particularly special or likable about Spade. The rest of the characters just annoyed me.
My favorite part of detective stories is the evidence-based reasoning. I appreciate a detective's logical thinking. Sometimes the detective uses manipulation or other clever tactics to acquire information, but all of it is based on the idea of factual evidence. In The Valley of Fear, Holmes searches for the missing dumbbell and finds tangible evidence that leads him to the logical conclusion that Mr. Douglas is still alive. In "The Purloined Letter," Dupin discovers the location of the letter because of knowledge from past encounters with the minister. He then uses his observational skills to conclude that a dirty piece of paper is the stolen letter. Nothing like this happened in the film.
In The Maltese Falcon, it seems that Spade only solves the case through manipulation. The mystery does not focus on tangible evidence, but it instead focuses on the characters and their deception. Spade still uses logical thinking to deduce who shot Archer and Thursby and to determine what is the truth and what is a lie, but it is different from the type of detective work we have seen in the stories we read.
Ebert's article, "How to Read a Movie," mentions the meaning of a character's placement on screen, so I tried to pay close attention to camera angles and character placement during the movie. I noticed how whenever a character starts sharing new information that might constitute as "evidence," the camera switches to a shot of the character's face to put the focus on what he or she said. Most of the time, whenever Gutman is on screen, the camera gets a shot of him from below. This camera angle may show how he is the man in charge of the group and has more power. However, when Spade and Gutman are negotiating towards the end, their faces are eye level and at the same level as the camera. I know all of these decisions are intentional, but I wonder to what extent these subtle choices affect the viewer's perception of the movie.
Ebert, Roger. "How to read a movie." Roger Ebert's Journal, August 30, 2008.
My favorite part of detective stories is the evidence-based reasoning. I appreciate a detective's logical thinking. Sometimes the detective uses manipulation or other clever tactics to acquire information, but all of it is based on the idea of factual evidence. In The Valley of Fear, Holmes searches for the missing dumbbell and finds tangible evidence that leads him to the logical conclusion that Mr. Douglas is still alive. In "The Purloined Letter," Dupin discovers the location of the letter because of knowledge from past encounters with the minister. He then uses his observational skills to conclude that a dirty piece of paper is the stolen letter. Nothing like this happened in the film.
In The Maltese Falcon, it seems that Spade only solves the case through manipulation. The mystery does not focus on tangible evidence, but it instead focuses on the characters and their deception. Spade still uses logical thinking to deduce who shot Archer and Thursby and to determine what is the truth and what is a lie, but it is different from the type of detective work we have seen in the stories we read.
Ebert's article, "How to Read a Movie," mentions the meaning of a character's placement on screen, so I tried to pay close attention to camera angles and character placement during the movie. I noticed how whenever a character starts sharing new information that might constitute as "evidence," the camera switches to a shot of the character's face to put the focus on what he or she said. Most of the time, whenever Gutman is on screen, the camera gets a shot of him from below. This camera angle may show how he is the man in charge of the group and has more power. However, when Spade and Gutman are negotiating towards the end, their faces are eye level and at the same level as the camera. I know all of these decisions are intentional, but I wonder to what extent these subtle choices affect the viewer's perception of the movie.
Ebert, Roger. "How to read a movie." Roger Ebert's Journal, August 30, 2008.
I agree with this because I prefer when there is more tangible evidence in a detective story. I think it makes it easier to follow and more realistic. The movie revolved a lot around violence and deception rather than actually using clues to figure out what happened. I also found the characters to be not as likable as the ones in the novels we have read in class.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting how you focused on how deceptive the characters were. It almost seemed to be a competition as to who could outsmart or outwit who (Mrs. O'Shaughnessy trying to trick Sam Spade, Sam trying to deceive Gutman). The motif of deception was also prominent in the "Valley of Fear", as John Douglas was faking his death to confuse the gang members who were intent on killing him. As a result, there is a pattern of trickery and deception in 20th century mysteries.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis! I enjoyed this movie , but I think I prefer detective stories like Valley of Fear and Murders in the Rue Morgue where the deductive reasoning process is all laid out. The lack of deductive reasoning also made it a little confusing and left me with some unanswered questions. I also agree with your thoughts on the characters themselves. They were either really annoying or unlikable, or in Archer's case, too undeveloped to form any attachment to.
ReplyDelete