RARA-AVIS: Re: Falcon casting/characterization

Victoria Esposito-Shea (vmes@sbt.infi.net)
Tue, 2 Dec 1997 09:29:16 -0500 > Effie ought to have been played by a more overtly sexualised actress
> (the actress in the 1931 film was pretty well cast, and played it sexier
> than Lee Patrick). That first line that describes Effie, 'the dress of
> thick woollen stuff [that] clung to her with an effect of dampness' puts
> the casting way out, imo (though that line always makes me think of
> C12-13th Winchester School manuscript painting, with the 'damp' effect
> in painting clothes fabric.) Who was a 1940s equivalent of Kate Moss?

I'm not sure that the casting per se is the problem here. It seems to me
that the whole part of Effie is more "feminized" (not to be confused with
sexualized) in the Huston film--while sensual in the book, she's repeatedly
described as "boyish" in one way or another. In the film, she strikes me
as being written more passively and conventionally--and this, helped along
by the removal of the "coda" in Spade's office, weakens her relationship to
Spade and to the plot itself.

Having just come back to TMF after not reading it for several years, I'm
really struck by how neatly Hammett uses synecdoche (sp?) in his
characterizations. Wilmer's eyelashes, Cairo's handkerchief, Effie's
"dampness", Spade's eyes and the crease on his forehead--it's very easy to
get a mental snapshot of the characters via a particular mannerism or
characteristic, which sticks much better than the full descriptions do.
And yet, you don't get the impression that Hammett is using these to avoid
fuller characterization--though I'd be hard-pressed, on closer examination,
to call (say) Cairo or Wilmer a fully developed character. Nicely done.

#
# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca.
# The web pages for the list are at http://www.vex.net/~buff/rara-avis/.