This is undeniably an excellent movie, a fun movie, and one of my personal favorites. But taking my umpteen-and-fourth look at it, I came to a few realizations. What they amount to is that Huston's directorial debut was not as sure-footed as is generally thought. There are several very strangely edited scenes that suggest the editor needed to re-work the storytelling considerably in several places.
Spade's second scene with Iva Archer clearly has a big piece hacked out of it. The scene is just getting worked up to something when there's a bad cut, and Spade tells Iva to go home. It revolves around the question of where Iva was at the time her husband was murdered, but the way it's cut, the question is brought up and then dropped rather unceremoniously. My assumption is that the scene was a red herring about whether or not she might have killed him, and it was later deemed unnecessary.
Simiarly, the scene when they examine the Falcon has one cut to a very peculiar angle of Gutman, the only time this angle appears in the scene. Since every other angle is used two or three times at least, it suggests that there was a big chunk cut out here, where Gutman talks to Cairo about whether or not they should undertake the quest to Istanbul. Immediately after this cut, Cairo is suddenly on his feet and his attitude has changed significantly.
Also in this scene, Gutman has two short but key lines that are clearly dubbed after the fact, and probably not even by Sidney Greenstreet himself - the voice sounds like anoher actor. While I don't want to reveal the lines because they involve a spoiler, it's obvious that the story was not clear enough as shot. There's also a shot that appears to be a single frame step-printed to create a short shot that didn't exist in the footage.
Finally, Spade's last big scene with Bridgit O'Shaugnessy is kind of rambling and, if examined closely, has a minor continuity break. It feels like this scene has been re-arranged, that the different beats of it came in another order, or perhaps they are two different versions of the scene cut together. Of course, this is a long scene, ant it may simply be that the pieces of it, shot on different days, weren't matched very well in terms of angles and lighting.
I'm not suggesting that this kind of editing was anything unusual. I daresay that an examination of another Hollywood picture of the era, if done with the same level of scrutiny, would turn up just as much editorial reworking. But the "classic" status of the FALCON makes these small discoveries very interesting.
I would add that this movie was probably made very quickly, which would easily account for small mistakes and reconsiderations that needed to be made in the cutting room. I say this because, from a production point of view, it was clearly a lower-budget film that the studio ground out. The director - John Huston, was a screenwriter who got the to direct by offering to script it for free. None of the cast were major stars when the film was made. Bogart had only made one film of any significance in which he had the lead - High Sierra - made the same year. Mary Astor's star had peaked years before and was already waning. It was Sidney Greenstreet's screen debut. Peter Lorre was best known (in the US) for his series of MR. MOTO programmers, all relatively low-budget affairs. There are only two or three large sets used in the entire film - the usual street set, the lobby of the Hotel Belvedere, and the docks where the La Paloma is burning. Everything else is shot in offices, apartments and lobbies. They're probably all standing sets easily re-dressed for different films. There are no action sequences; I think there's only one stunt-man in the film, where Miles Archer is shot and rolls down the embankment. There are no car chases; I'm not sure if there's even a shot of a car in motion. It's mostly people talking and giving each other looks. In other words, it was cheap, and lower-budget films were usually shot on a tight schedule, perhaps four weeks.
What makes it a great film is lively performances, deep directorial insight into the characters, intense camera angles, and a well-conceived plot that keeps you interested. (BTW, most of the dialogue comes directly from Dashiell Hammett's novel. The art of writing this screenplay was choosing which pieces to use.) What makes it fascinating is that none of the characters is easy to define. They are all untrustworthy, all hard to read, all concealing their true natures.
It's probably worth an umpteen-and-fifth look.
Spade's second scene with Iva Archer clearly has a big piece hacked out of it. The scene is just getting worked up to something when there's a bad cut, and Spade tells Iva to go home. It revolves around the question of where Iva was at the time her husband was murdered, but the way it's cut, the question is brought up and then dropped rather unceremoniously. My assumption is that the scene was a red herring about whether or not she might have killed him, and it was later deemed unnecessary.
Simiarly, the scene when they examine the Falcon has one cut to a very peculiar angle of Gutman, the only time this angle appears in the scene. Since every other angle is used two or three times at least, it suggests that there was a big chunk cut out here, where Gutman talks to Cairo about whether or not they should undertake the quest to Istanbul. Immediately after this cut, Cairo is suddenly on his feet and his attitude has changed significantly.
Also in this scene, Gutman has two short but key lines that are clearly dubbed after the fact, and probably not even by Sidney Greenstreet himself - the voice sounds like anoher actor. While I don't want to reveal the lines because they involve a spoiler, it's obvious that the story was not clear enough as shot. There's also a shot that appears to be a single frame step-printed to create a short shot that didn't exist in the footage.
Finally, Spade's last big scene with Bridgit O'Shaugnessy is kind of rambling and, if examined closely, has a minor continuity break. It feels like this scene has been re-arranged, that the different beats of it came in another order, or perhaps they are two different versions of the scene cut together. Of course, this is a long scene, ant it may simply be that the pieces of it, shot on different days, weren't matched very well in terms of angles and lighting.
I'm not suggesting that this kind of editing was anything unusual. I daresay that an examination of another Hollywood picture of the era, if done with the same level of scrutiny, would turn up just as much editorial reworking. But the "classic" status of the FALCON makes these small discoveries very interesting.
I would add that this movie was probably made very quickly, which would easily account for small mistakes and reconsiderations that needed to be made in the cutting room. I say this because, from a production point of view, it was clearly a lower-budget film that the studio ground out. The director - John Huston, was a screenwriter who got the to direct by offering to script it for free. None of the cast were major stars when the film was made. Bogart had only made one film of any significance in which he had the lead - High Sierra - made the same year. Mary Astor's star had peaked years before and was already waning. It was Sidney Greenstreet's screen debut. Peter Lorre was best known (in the US) for his series of MR. MOTO programmers, all relatively low-budget affairs. There are only two or three large sets used in the entire film - the usual street set, the lobby of the Hotel Belvedere, and the docks where the La Paloma is burning. Everything else is shot in offices, apartments and lobbies. They're probably all standing sets easily re-dressed for different films. There are no action sequences; I think there's only one stunt-man in the film, where Miles Archer is shot and rolls down the embankment. There are no car chases; I'm not sure if there's even a shot of a car in motion. It's mostly people talking and giving each other looks. In other words, it was cheap, and lower-budget films were usually shot on a tight schedule, perhaps four weeks.
What makes it a great film is lively performances, deep directorial insight into the characters, intense camera angles, and a well-conceived plot that keeps you interested. (BTW, most of the dialogue comes directly from Dashiell Hammett's novel. The art of writing this screenplay was choosing which pieces to use.) What makes it fascinating is that none of the characters is easy to define. They are all untrustworthy, all hard to read, all concealing their true natures.
It's probably worth an umpteen-and-fifth look.