Talk:The Maltese Falcon (1941 film)

FAQ link dead

I believe the FAQ link is dead. If it's still dead in a few weeks, it should probably be removed. This lenghty synposis may also merit inclusion. (Aug 6, 2006)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.190.222 (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed. --PhantomS 03:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler!

The picture that used to be up was a massive spoiler!

I have never seen the film, and that picture instantly spoiled the ending as soon as the page loaded. I would suggest that it be placed further down in the article, but since the article isn't very long it should be removed entirely. So, I took it out. Zzthex 07:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Images

Cigars, generic pictures of San Francisco standing in for screenshots, and a generic picture of a ruby? I'm deleting these images - they don't add anything substantive to the article. I'm removing them. I'm also inclined to remove the image of the prop scanned from the auction catalog - what do you think? --Chancemichaels 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

If the section on the prop is staying in, then the picture should stay in as well. I'd be inclined to delete them both, because the article is terribly bloated and badly needs trimming, but I'm going to try to get some of the fat out of each section before doing any drastic deletions.

I did, however, remove the very dark picture which supposedly illustrated the film's cinematography. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 10:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to delete that as well - what do others think? I did cut out a couple additional images (how many posters do we need, especially when one has essentially the same graphic as the DVD cover?). --Chancemichaels 15:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Synopsis

I edited the synopsis near the end. It stated that Bridget killed Miles to implicate Thursby, and then killed Thursby. But Bridget only killed Miles. Thursby was shot by Wilmer. That's how Bridget knew Gutman was in town. 82.95.254.30 11:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct -- I missed that when I went through it. (Amazing how many times you can go through something and miss a basic fact like that!) Thanks for the correction. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Its not a well-written movie. 98.77.236.27 (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

MacGuffin

I searched the article for mention of the Falcon's status as a MacGuffin to no avail. MacGuffin mentions this movie, and perhaps it should be addressed in the article. LacertaRex 00:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Technically the Falcon predates Hitchcock's coining of that term. Dirk2112 (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but it doesn't mean the falcon isn't a MacGuffin in the sense the word is commonly used nowadays. SchnitteUK (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Corrections

I propose some minor corrections to the text, hopefully to be implemented by someone with more experience:

1. BACKGROUND. Paragraph 2, line 2: "from" should be "form." 2. 6th photo caption: surname is misspelled as O'Shaugnessy. 3. SYNOPSIS. Last paragraph, line 7: "The Brigid" and "in on" are two phrases with bad grammar. 4.CULTURAL IMPACT. Paragraph 4, line 1: Sometimes a word beginning with H takes the article "an": "a homage" doesn't sound right to me. 5. CONTINUITY. Paragraph 2, line 2: Does Gutman live in an apartment or a hotel suite? -Les Sellinger71.247.200.116 09:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also possibly erroneous is the reference to the Hays Guild requiring By Gad. I have the book here and G only ever says Gad, never says God. 203.1.223.1 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MalteseFalconposter2.jpg

Image:MalteseFalconposter2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MalteseFalconsoundtrack.jpg

Image:MalteseFalconsoundtrack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MalteseFalconposter2.jpg

Image:MalteseFalconposter2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MalteseFalconsoundtrack.jpg

Image:MalteseFalconsoundtrack.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

minor goof

During the scene in which Spade brings Luke to confront the gunsel in the lobby, from one angle he's holding his cigarette in his mouth. When the angle changes, he's holding the cigarette lower. At 46:06 according to my version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.139.85 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Another minor goof: 50:34, when Sam is kicking Iva out after she admits to having called the police on him, from one angle he's not holding on to her arms with both hands, in the next, he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.139.85 (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

1:24:25, Gutman's head turns about 90 degrees instantly during one angle change when finally congratulating Spade on figuring out that he palmed the last bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.139.85 (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

These "goofs" are completely uninteresting and not in any way notable. They derive from the modern ability to minutely inspect films that were made under pressure of time, to be seen on large screens in public places for a couple of times at most, in real-time and without any review. Anyone actually watching the movie, as opposed to examining it scene-by-scene - or cut-by-cut or even frame-by-frame - would never notice these things. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk/cont) 06:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

With that said, shouldn't we zap the "continuity and visual flaws" from the article? I don't think those "goofs" are really all that important, and certainly shouldn't be a focal point in the article. The "historical error" section is interesting and should be kept, though. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 17:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I pretty much agree with that, except that I think we should find a place for the one about "It's fake, it's a phoney, it's lead" which is such an obvious flaw that it should be addressed. It doesn't have to be in it's own section, though. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! I removed the "continuity and visual flaws" section, but moved the "it's a fake, it's a phony, it-it's lead!" tidbit into the plot as a footnote. I've also tagged the plot section for being too long compared to the other sections of the article. While I understand that a movie like this with so many twists and turns is hard to describe easily, I still think we can strip the section down further. I hope I can find an earlier revision in the article's history that features a slimmer "plot" section, so that that can be implemented. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find a slimmer version of the plot section in any of the revisions of the article's history, so it looks like we'll have to do trim it down ourselves manually. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 20:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Great about the "flaws" section -- good solution for the "phoney" one.

I agree that the plot section can be trimmed, but I've removed the tag. For a number of reasons (which I'll be glad to go into if you'd like) I really, really dislike the use of tags, especially when they're not necessary. In this instance, if we agree that the plot needs to be trimmed, and we are working at it, there's no need to disfigure the article and put off casual users of the encyclopedia with a tag.

I'm going to go back to the plot section now and see what I can do in the way of trimming without losing any details of the complex story. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No need to go into why you dislike the use of tags; I've read your anti-dogma at your user page quite a few times before, and I can certainly understand why. I think your thoughts are a valid Wiki-philosophy, and I go to it whenever I feel I need a "heads up" concerning Wiki-policy.

In any case, I think it's great that we can trim the plot section down. The way it's currently written, it's rather unnecessarily lengthy—and not very engaging, either. I doubt a user would really enjoy reading that section. . . But, it's alright, as long as we keep the details succinct. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just went through and cut 500+ characters without thinking too hard about it (I've got a bad cold and thinking hard is too hard!). I think there's more there that can come out without losing significant details, so I'll take another pass at it later. Anyone else giving it a try, just bear in mind not to cut anything that helps keep the convoluted story straight. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Took out another 189 characters, for a total of about 720. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Another 63 characters out. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job. If you need help on figuring out how to further improve the article, you might consult this peer review concerning the novel for ideas. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

By the way, I notice that much of the article (sans the plot summary) has apparently been copied-and-pasted from here. I'm not sure just what to do with said information, but, for now, I'll cite that Webpage as a source for those sections. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 21:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the correspondances -- can you be more specific? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 22:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the "Background", "Production", "Cinematography", and "Reception" sections are almost verbatim to parts of the Palace commentary. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

For example, here's what the "Brilliantly photographed" section of the Palace Classic Film's commentary says:

Huston was not completely hamstrung by his detailed script, however, and filmed some scenes spontaneously. In one of them he had specified many cutaways but then allowed his brilliant cameraman Arthur Edeson to shoot the whole scene fluidly with some 26 dolly moves. With its low-key lighting and inventive and arresting angles, the photography is one of the film’s great assets. Huston used ceilings to create images of confinement, and the sets, except for the hotel and the dock scene, are almost claustrophobic, suggesting that Spade’s investigation is extremely limited, that he has just so much space in which to search for that elusive black bird.

Moreover, unusual camera angles are cleverly utilized to emphasize the nature of the characters. Some of the most striking technical scenes involve the Fat Man, Greenstreet, especially the scene where he slowly explains the history of the falcon to Bogart, purposely drawing out his story so that the knockout drops he has slipped into Bogart’s drink will take effect. As the seated Greenstreet growls out the black tale of the bird, the camera, from floor angle, shoots up at him, so that his gigantic girth fills the entire screen, dominating the scene so completely that it invests the leader of the conniving, greedy gang with evil authority. His expanse of belly, crossed by a gold watch chain, is marvelous to behold, symbolically enforcing the enormity of the tale of dark conspiracy surrounding the falcon.

Very nearly as visually evocative are the scenes involving Astor, almost all of which suggest prison: In one scene she wears striped pajamas, the furniture in the room is striped, and the slivers of light coming through the Venetian blinds suggest cell bars, as do the bars on the elevator cage at the end of the film when she takes her slow ride downward with the police, apparently on her way to execution. Huston and Edeson coddled each scene to make sure the images, action, and dialog blended effectively, sometimes shooting closeups of characters with other cast members acting with them off camera.

Now, here's what the "Cinematography" section of this article says:

With its low-key lighting and inventive and arresting angles, the work of Director of Photography Arthur Edeson is one of the film’s great assets. Huston and Edeson used ceilings to create images of confinement, and the sets, except for the hotel and the dock scene, are almost claustrophobic, suggesting that Spade’s investigation is extremely limited, that he has just so much space in which to search for the black bird.

Unusual camera angles are cleverly utilized to emphasize the nature of the characters. Some of the most technically striking scenes involve Gutman, especially the scene where he explains the history of the Falcon to Spade, purposely drawing out his story so that the knockout drops he has slipped into Spade’s drink will take effect. As the seated Gutman spins the tale of the bird, the camera shoots up at him from the floor almost vertically, emphasizing his considerable girth as he fills the entire screen. His domination of the scene in this way illustrates his overwhelming greed, and the expanse of his belly, crossed by a gold watch chain, reinforces the historical scope of the dark tale of conspiracy which surrounds the Falcon.

Very nearly as visually evocative are the scenes involving Astor, almost all of which suggest prison: In one scene she wears striped pajamas, the furniture in the room is striped, and the slivers of light coming through the Venetian blinds suggest cell bars, as do the bars on the elevator cage at the end of the film when she takes her slow ride downward with the police, apparently on her way to execution. Huston and Edeson crafted each scene to make sure the images, action and dialog blended effectively, sometimes shooting closeups of characters with other cast members acting with them off camera.

I hope that helps illustrate it. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 22:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly does. Looks like a straight lift then subjected to the normal copyediting/revision process, which accounts for the minor variations. We can either strip these sections out, or rewrite them to keep the sense without using the prose. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That material was added on March 8, 2007 by User:Blofeld of SPECTRE as shown by this diff Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 23:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What I suggest be done is simply rewrite these sections, with bits and pieces of the Palace commentary cited here and there. We can also add some variety by just going directly to the source regarding the cinematography. Here's two paragraphs from Roger Ebert's review of the film concerning this astonishing unbroken seven-minute take:

Grobel's book The Hustons quotes Meta Wilde, Huston's longtime script supervisor: "It was an incredible camera setup. We rehearsed two days. The camera followed Greenstreet and Bogart from one room into another, then down a long hallway and finally into a living room; there the camera moved up and down in what is referred to as a boom-up and boom-down shot, then panned from left to right and back to Bogart's drunken face; the next pan shot was to Greenstreet's massive stomach from Bogart's point of view. . . . One miss and we had to begin all over again."

Was the shot just a stunt? Not at all; most viewers don't notice it because they're swept along by its flow. And consider another shot, where Greenstreet chatters about the falcon while waiting for a drugged drink to knock out Bogart. Huston's strategy is crafty. Earlier, Greenstreet has set it up by making a point: "I distrust a man who says 'when.' If he's got to be careful not to drink too much, it's because he's not to be trusted when he does." Now he offers Bogart a drink, but Bogart doesn't sip from it. Greenstreet talks on, and tops up Bogart's glass. He still doesn't drink. Greenstreet watches him narrowly. They discuss the value of the missing black bird. Finally, Bogart drinks, and passes out. The timing is everything; Huston doesn't give us closeups of the glass to underline the possibility that it's drugged. He depends on the situation to generate the suspicion in our minds. (This was, by the way, Greenstreet's first scene in the movies.)

We can insert Wilde's quote, and then insert some commentary from someone else who noticed it, like, say, Ebert. (All of this with proper citations, of course!) Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 23:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a good handle on it, and I'm mostly non compos mentis due to a bad cold, so why don't you go ahead and have a bash at it. I'll be happy to do any polishing that might be needed (if any!) later on.

P.S. You know, I don't think I ever actually realized that the scene described was one long shot - amazing that I, too, was swept up in the action and the performances so much that I didn't see that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm already starting on it. I went ahead and did a Google search of the Hustons book that Ebert said he got the quote from, but, unfortunately, it seems to be out of print. Using the WP:CITET template, I was able to source the quote accurately. I think it's coming along very nicely.

BTW, the scene described was, as noted, Sydney Greenstreet's film debut. He had already had some 20 years experience in theater, but when he got on the set, he was extremely nervous, even going so far as to ask Mary Astor to hold his hand! Well. . . look at the finished product!

And I hope you get over your cold. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs • critique) 01:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You can get a second-hand copy of the Grobel book at Amazon for 68 cents! -- if that's any help. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to simply get rid of all this stuff about the 'seven minute take'? Even though it comes from a reliable source (the film's script supervisor), the film itself contains no such seven minute take. It may have been shot, but it's certainly isn't in the final film in an unbroken form.203.220.186.11 (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:HalWallis.jpg

The image Image:HalWallis.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a FUR. Anyone who wants to should take a look to see it can be improved. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 18:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

I see nothing of any true elucidating value in the "popular culture" section. Yes, the film was highly influential, and there were a great many parodies and homages, but does any of this add to an understanding of the film? I would argue that they do not. Indeed, many of the examples are so vague they are not helpful in the least. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I second everything RepublicanJacobite said. Culturecruft to the extreme. At the very least all the examples have to be cited to an extent that they can't be argued against, but they really do add no understanding of the film to the article. Themfromspace (talk) 02:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note the following:

WP:Reliable sources:

Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact as to what is contained within the primary source itself (for example, a work of fiction is considered a reliable source for a summary of the plot of that work of fiction).

Raul654:

[T]he purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary.

WP:MOSFILM:

Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source, as the accuracy of the plot description can be verified by watching the film.

So, straightforward descriptions of the content of popcult entries do not require citations, since they are, like plot summaries, backed up by the primary source. When the entry strays into interpretation, then it requires a citation.

As for the entries themselves, there may well be some that should be trimmed out, but a wholesale deletion of the entire section under the pejorative "cruft" is not justified. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, Ed, you made your point. Now, I have stated my reasons for deletion, can you offer a rejoinder? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you'd care to give specific reasons for the deletion of specific items, I'll be more than happy to respond. Who know, ionce I hear your reasoning, it may even turn out that I agree! (Stranger things have happened.) Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Allmovie

• The Maltese Falcon (1941) at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Remake?

I take issue with the claim made in the lede that this film is a remake of the 1931 film. It is no such thing, especially considering that the earlier film was a looser adaptation of the novel. The 1941 film was based on the novel, as such, it is not a remake. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Photos in article

User RepublicanJacobite removed valuable photos from the article without consensus because "This seems way overboard with the images." He removed all of them, so it seems even a single image is "way overboard." The result of this removal left a vast gray tundra of unrelieved type that violates even the most basic rules of good page layout. Since all the photos are public domain, posted to Commons, they are still available, so it's easy for editors to look back to just before RepublicanJacobite's unfortunate wholesale dumping of the pictures. I would urge watchers of the page to view the two versions and comment on which "seems" better to them. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's clear up some falsehoods: I only removed the images you added, not all of them as you claim. There were already images in the article, and they are still there. Let's also be clear, you added the images in the first place, without consensus. It's called BRD, you added them, I reverted, now you make a case for why they belong. And do it without falsehoods and insults. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 23:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct — you removed all the images I added. Would one image have been "overboard"? Two? Three? And what graphic experience outside Wikipedia would inform those editorial decisions? And, I have to ask: what makes a photo of a pistol — used in half-a-dozen other articles, by the way — a keeper, when images of scenes from the film are not worthy? I also have to ask, in a non-insulting way: do you actually think that scroll after scroll of plain gray text, totally devoid of graphic elements, makes a more attractive page than one featuring relevant (and free) images and captions? Please be honest about this — I'm ever-so curious. Finally, kindly do not take it upon yourself to edit my posts as you did above. Such behavior fosters falsehoods and is insulting, to everyone who reads this page. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

RepublicanJacobite, are you aware that the screenshots are in the public domain? I could understand removing the collections of four and two images, but the others seem okay as images that are freely licensed to use. As for the falcon and the gun, I think the falcon is worth showing as the prevalent item in the film. I'm not really sure about the gun; was it that critical in the film? Erik (talk | contribs) 05:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is visually bare. I like the one of Bogart and Astor before they kiss, Greenstreet and Lorre, and Cook. That shows all of the main characters. But the gun should go; it just supports some trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree the gun photo belongs on the page linked to the gun's mention, not here. Currently, the page looks bare. But the photos that were removed prior to this discussion were over-abundant, and the commentary in the captions was largely unnecessary, unencyclopedic, and verging on POV. I suggest that a FEW of them (sans commentary) be restored, as this iconic film needs more illustration than it currently has. But there's no need for overkill. Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted the three I mentioned. Let the discussion begin. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate this discussion. I think the three images that have been added, with the shorter captions, are good. I think the image of Bogart and Astor should be switched with the image of Greenstreet and Lorre, but that is a minor point. As for the image of the gun, I had no feelings about it one way or the other, I simply reverted to what had been the status quo. I certainly do not object to its removal. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 13:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

As is, they seem fine—however, the soundtrack cover is not. It fails fair use as the film poster and screenshots already clearly identify the work in question. GRAPPLE X 04:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The falcon and the Wilmer shots both face to the right — and are on the right side of the page. Designers usually place photos on the edge of a page so they face inward toward the center. Also, the captions all refer to the image being from the trailer; the captures are from the trailer, but the shots were also in the film. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether they were in the film. Anyway, adjustments have been made. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

An important note about picture captions: they are the most-read items on a page — more than headlines, more than subheads, and certainly more than body text. They should pique the readers' interest and draw them further into the article. When the caption is self-evident and tells me only what my own eyes have already concluded, it's worse than an insult — it's a missed opportunity to impart a fact or make a point. Like RepublicanJacobite, I too appreciate this discussion. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not to be an ongoing burr under the group's saddle, but why are we bunching half of our image inventory in the "Plot" section when there's already a graphic element there — the infobox? By using two of our four images right up high, it leaves a lot of gray real estate till we get down to the bird, broken only by Wilmer. Not to mention a big chunk of whitespace in the "Cast" section. I'm wondering what objections the group has to these two shots:

• 
• 

They have a nice, noir-y quality, they can be used on the right-hand side of the page where we need some images, and they can help fill in what's still a big swath of gray-type tundra. Although folks disparaged the original captions, the Bogart shot is a good opportunity to address either Hammett's development of the Spade character, or Bogart's casting in the role. And, sorry friends, for the first shot, Spade's remark about "We didn't believe your story, we believed your $200" is a perfect caption to pique readers' interest. It comes verbatim from the film, so it's not unencyclopedic or POV. So what's wrong with these two shots? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the two in the plot section because they go with the text in those spots. As for the ones I left out, the one of Bogart by himself is lifeless; he isn't doing anything, and I couldn't tell you what part of the film the shot came from if my life depended on it. The other is a second pairing of Bogart and Astor, sort of redundant, and Bogie has his back to the reader. Finally, 99% of the cast sections have no images. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Gaps in Plot section?

Does the summary miss some crucial plot details? One is that Brigid spends a night with Sam, but this does not deter him from handing her over to the police. The other is that at the end Wilmer escapes from Sam’s apartment, so he has only Brigid left to offer to the police. Hors-la-loi 13:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

cleanup

just did some cleanup to parts of the article. it was sloppily or awkwardly written for the most part, featuring some unusual nonsense statements such as "First-time director John Huston was very careful when casting The Maltese Falcon, but Humphrey Bogart was not the first choice to play Sam Spade.", some misplaced punctuation (The 1931 version, starred Ricardo Cortez as Sam Spade.), as well as unreferenced claims: it was stated that the '41 version was made "possibly because the 1931 version couldn't be seen unedited in the US", which is unreferenced (and shakily worded), and also that Hammett drew upon his own personality and fellow detectives as inspiration for Sam Spade, though Hammett specifically wrote in 1934 that Spade was "a dream man" with "no original", and that he is what fellow detectives "would like to have been", not what they were. The article also states that Hammett drew upon his experience for other characters in the novel, though this is unproven, so i added the word "reportedly" as i'm unsure as to where the author of that section obtained his information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.148.58.136 (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

"The Stuff that Dreams are made of."

I would like permission to add this.

"==The Stuff that Dreams are made of.=="

• This quote from Sam Spade is number 14 in the top 100 quotes in AFI's top 100 movie quotes in 100 years. It's a paraphrase of a line from Act IV of Shakespeare's play The Tempest, in which Prospero says: "We are such stuff as dreams are made on."

George Purdy

• george.purdy@uc.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.182.22 (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

When you added this before, someone moved it to a better place in the article. See the "Reception" section, under "American Film Institute recognition". Deor (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. OK. GP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.182.22 (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bad editing

This sentence is hilarious: "The Maltese Falcon was considered to be one of the greatest films ever made by Roger Ebert." Someone should really give this article a thorough editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.117.22 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 November 2014‎

I've reworded the sentence. Since this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, perhaps you might be the one to "give this article a thorough editing" instead of just finding hilarity. Deor (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Stars

In general, actos who are billed above the film's title are considered to be the film's stars. An editors keeps attempting to list all the actors on the poster as "stars", although actors billed below the title are generally considered to be "featured" and not stars. I've attempted to correct him on this, but he keeps reverting despite this information. Could someone please confirm this to him? BMK (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• According to Template:Infobox film, "Insert the names of the actors as they are listed in the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release." A billing block is a "list of names that adorn the BOTTOM portion of the official poster". The template is clearly instructing to list those in the bottom of the poster. Many film article infoboxes list the names of the actors at the bottom of the poster. Orson Welles was the star of Citizen Kane, in the poster his name is large and above the title, but the others listed at the bottom are also included in the infobox. A more recent film, Titanic, has Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet as the top billed stars, but the other actors in the billing block are listed too. Wrath X (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Orson Welles should be the only name listed on Citizen Kane. Same with DiCaprio and Winslet for Titanic. In short, the instruction on the template documentation were in error. When there are names above the title, they always take precedence over the billing box. In more recent films, these names will be repeated in the billing box, but on older films they generally aren't -- because the concept of the "billing box" took time to come together as a regular format. It took the breakdown of the studio system and the rise of actors, directors etc. as independent contractors represented by unions with standardized contracts or agreements to bring this about. BMK (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you think the instructions of the infobox are wrong, then discuss it with those in charge here. Bear in mind, there have been several discussions about film stars in the billing block. In this discussion, somebody wanted the Guardians of the Galaxy infobox to list only the five top billed stars, but in the end consensus was list those in the billing block. There are many film infoboxes that include those at the bottom of the poster as instructed in the template (recent examples include Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man). So it would be best for this film infobox to go in accordance with the template and consensus that actors in the billing block are to be included. Wrath X (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• You're being disingenuous. What you've left out is that the documentation actually states "Insert the names of the actors listed above the film's title. If no actors are listed above the title, insert the actor's '[sic]' names as they are listed in the billing block ..." Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Aw, nuts. BMK changed the wording just before. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Matter taken to Template talk:Infobox film#Starring (revisited again). A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Remake of the 1931 film

I see this was brought up in 2011, in an edit removal and a single talk-page note above. Thing is, from original research quite awhile ago, and without trying to find a cite for it (I haven't looked if what was removed in 2011 was cited), I'd have to say this is probably a remake. I haven't seen either film in awhile, but I did watch the 1941 film over again soon after seeing the 1931 film and I'd swear it was a remake. Almost scene for scene. Line for line in many cases (although I just saw it once, so maybe my memory was faulty and I'm reading into it, aha, maybe it's on youTube! if so I'll link it here after I post this - and yep, here it is, how cool is youtube, will watch it in a few hours - and nope, tricked again. That's just a clip, I thought the running time meant an hour plus. They've hid it in their YouTube Red pay channel). But that's my memory of it. If there are cites to say that it is a remake, I hope the language used would include the word 'censored', since many scenes and sexual hints could not be used after The Code went into effect, and so were left out of the 1941 version. An option for the lead, after the mention of this film being based on the book, I'd propose the language "...and is a censored remake of the 1931 film of the same name.", which might be appropriate and accurate. Or may not be. But since I see it has never been talked over on this talk page, maybe it should be. As it is now, the 1931 film is only mentioned kind of far down the page, in the 'Background' section, and only briefly at that. It's possible that it's kind of being marginalized down there. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that The Maltese Falcon (1931 film) is the most risque as far as innuedo is concerned, at least by the standards prevailing in 1941 and by today's comparisons with the toned-down The Maltese Falcon (1936 film) [Satan Met a Lady] and The Maltese Falcon (1941 film), the last of which holds a revered place in history due to its other factors of mood, atmospheric cinematography and lighting, cast performances, dialogue and direction. While the 1936 version is a much looser adaptation of the novel, the 1941 film does seem to follow the general scene setup from 1931, but whether it can or should be called a remake is open to argument. Any subsequent adaptation of a book may be called a remake of one or more of the previous versions, with some adaptations being scene-for-scene remakes, and others adhering to a stylistic approach completely unrelated to any previous versions. First-time director John Huston certainly had the opportunity to screen Roy Del Ruth's 1931 version, but describing the 1941 film as "a censored remake of 1931 film" may meet resistance. If some film scholars had suggested that it was a remake, quotes from books, such as The Maltese Falcon or Discovering the Maltese Falcon and Sam Spade would certainly go a long way towards proving the point. All aspects of the 1941 film have been definitely widely discussed over the years and decades.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll look for sources, but since no one else has replied in a few days now, and if there is a source and a few more pass, can my edit be added to the page? Randy Kryn (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

After a quick look (and youtube is really uploading its treasures to the paid youtube red, where have all the flowers gone?), Does this count as a source? Probably not, but at least it's supportive of my memory of the films. I'll grab a quote from the probably unusable source, Harrys-stuff.com: "Nor did the studio intend to waste money on a new script. Despite what Huston was to claim later, the script used in 1941 version of The Maltese Falcon was the same as that used in 1931. All the crackling dialogue that the 1941 version is noted for is in the 1931 version, word for word." Randy Kryn (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

...and then here's a 1 January 2011 edit of the article giving cites for the 'remake' language in the lead sentence, which, again on a quick look, seems to have stayed on the page until May of 2012. [EDIT:I was wrong in saying the that 1 January 2011 language was removed in 2011] Randy Kryn (talk) 21:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Present tense

WP:FILM guidelines state that plot summaries should be in the present tense, except for flashbacks or flashforwards. So Spade passes out because his drink has been spiked, not had been spiked because viewers don't see drink actually being spiked—either in real-time or in flashback. So I'm not sure why someone thought this was the correct way to go—it contradicts WP guidelines on writing plot summaries [yes, I know it's tedious scouring those pages for style and copyediting guidelines. However, if you read several plot summaries, you'll find they're always in the present tense, unless they meet the exceptions stated above.]Kinkyturnip (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

An example in Historical present, linked to from Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use of fictional tenses, gives an example which undercuts your objection: "Manette is obsessed with making shoes, a trade he learned while in prison." Sometimes you have to use the past tense to make things make sense. In this particular case, there's not a whole lot of difference anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

If there's not a whole lot of difference, then it should remain in the present tense for the sake of consistency. But I understand that sometimes we have to bend this rule a little for the sake of clarity. That's why I used a slightly different tense in the plot summary for Scarlet Street re: supposed drowning of character Higgins' and his sudden appearance—indicating he did not drown and is alive. But unless there's an unusual plot twist (such as this example), I'd prefer to follow Wikipedia's guidelines because they exist for a reason: so we can be consistent throughout. Kinkyturnip (talk) 06:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one who reverted you. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who reverted for the reason given by @Clarityfiend. It's a question of logic; something happened in the past that now affects the present. The present is for what we see happening; the past is for what we haven't. Taking consistency to an extreme hinders understanding. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Both versions are acceptable. "has" is descriptive, while "had" is, um, "chronological". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

CCI review

As part of a CCI (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld) I identified that an edit made in April 2007 appears to be a copyright violation of material at IMDb, present there prior to the edit IA link to IMDB

I tracked down that it was removed as part of a major cleanup of the article in April. I have revision deleted the intervening edits. However, the editor added quite a bit of text in a series of edits in March. Several phrases appear to be copyright issues and I only tracked the addition and removal of one of them. It is likely, but not certain, that the major rewrite in April cleared out most of the problematic phrases. If someone wishes to take the time to sort through every one of them, go for it, but I think the revision deletion I did covers a substantial portion of them and I'm going to move on.S Philbrick(Talk) 15:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)