Richard wrote:
>I rather enjoyed seeing the first adaptation although
it pales beside
>Houston's. The worst thing about the 1931 version is
the awful anti-climatic
>last scene in the prison. I think that may be the
most anti-climatic scene
>in the history of motion pictures.
Yep. A horrible, awkward, even cruel scene. And Cortez was a
definite weak link. He was one smug, grinning, leering (and
annoying) fool as Spade. But there was a lot I liked about
the film. I liked the guy who played Archer --his being much
older than Iva made sense. I did like the fact Spade at least
appeared to have a sex drive (which made him even more
credible as a shit to Iva than Bogart was). I thought the
women on the whole were more believable (and a whole lot
sexier) and the exposition a lot clearer (even if some of the
book was MIA). But what struck me the most was how much
Huston's version followed this one. The identical camera
angles, the set-ups, the framing of shots -- even the way the
lines were read are often exactly the same. And the 1941 cast
looks like it was chosen for its resemblance to the 1931
originals. It's like they filmed the rehearsal and ten years
later Huston tidied up the rough edges.
I'm beginning to think the whole story about Huston handing
his secretary Hammett's book, and telling her to type up just
the dialogue is a crock. I think possibly he gave her the
earlier script, and told her to put his name on it. then he
went back and put in some of the missing scenes.
--
Kevin -- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 12 Dec 2002 EST