Analysis of Film The Maltese Falcon - Movie Review Example

Literature and Cinema Literature and Cinema Titus R Manickam Order No. 183462 25 September 2007 Literature and Cinema The discursive rendering of a novel with lights, camera, and action taking over from dialogues, background descriptions and narration, not to mention the colossal difference in the budget involved makes for Stam's line of thinking on why novel and its film adaptation are apart. In her dissertation, "Screening Gender and Sexuality in Contemporary Quebec Film Adaptation," Rose Mary Bremer mentions, "The written narrative is considered to be a superior form of artistic expression, providing standards of content, style and form to which its film adaptation must conform if it is to be viewed as successful."1 Bremer is not expressive about the writer's style, setting and structure in a novel; and the extent of its application to its film adaptation. In this regard, Bremer quotes Bluestone's Novels Into Films, (According to Bluestone, literature and film are autonomous forms of artistic expression, one communicating with written words, the other with visual images. Along these lines, Bluestone suggests that when the filmist undertakes the adaptation of a novel, he does not convert the novel at all. What he adapts is a kind of paraphrase of the novel, p18). Bremer is satisfied implying that Stam's reason about fidelity is more of the nature of that element in the novel which may not be successful in its film adaptation. A film may be adapted in its totality - chapter to chapter, paragraph to paragraph, summarized, edited and cut down or stretched to the required length of time directly from a novel and transported to the cinemas. This transposition from one medium to another hardly justifies either medium. Quoting Robert B. Ray and Dudley Andrew, J. D. Connors in his article, The Persistence of Fidelity, says, "The problem with fidelity is that it makes for boring criticism."2 In this case, fidelity is a non-issue. The main issue or issues may have more to do with success and less to do with fidelity to the original text. According to Rose Mary Bremer, "In an attempt to increase the probability that a film will be successful, i.e. recover and exceed the initial investment, the industry has turned more and more to the backing of adaptations based on popular contemporary novels and literary classics."3 In his article, From Word to Word-Image: Film Translation of a "Sketchy" Chinese Short Story: Spring Silkworm, Literature Film Quarterly, 2005 Wang, Yiman, mentions, "The moralistic discourse to which Stam refers prioritizes the question of fidelity involved in translating one medium (the verbal fiction) into another (the visual film). One way to counterbalance this moralistic approach is to stipulate qualitative differences between literature and film as two distinct media." Also, in the same vein, Wang goes on to quote Fredric Jameson using the "Bordwell-Hansen hypothesis." This hypothesis suggests, "whenever other media appear within film, their deeper function is to set off and demonstrate the latter's ontological primacy" (Jameson 84)." And, "The "ontological primacy" of cinema is closely related to its visuality, or the commonly recognized cinema-specific properties." 4 In essence, in order to be successful, a film requires cinema-specific visual translations of the core substance of the source novel. The cinema-specific properties depend on selection of the main characters, side actors, stuntmen, and cameraman, location, screen play, costume, music, the element of emotion and suspense, and so on. Literal Fidelity Two film adaptations of The Maltese Falcon in 1931 and 1936 did not measure up to the success of the novel. In the words of Huston, "the previous screenwriters had kept trying to 'lick the book,' instead of filming the book."5 The third version directed by John Huston turned out to be a runaway success. Interestingly, fidelity to the original script coupled with brilliant photograpy and background music, painstakingly scene-by-scene script by John Huston proved to turn the 1941 version into a blockbuster. Does this phenomenon negate Stam's principle of fidelity The 1941 version, if anything, was religiously faithful to the original novel. Stam's argument dwells at length on the 'moralising' aspect of fidelity. In fact, Stam is more to the point on the aspect of something "beyond fidelity" rather than "infidelity." Then again, J.D. Connors has raised some questions on the issue of fidelity. "What has the campaign against fidelity failed to get at And given this consistent failure to achieve its goals, why do critics persist in calling for an end to fidelity" The 1941 adaptation of The Maltese Falcon was more faithful to the cinema-specifics of the story rather than any departure of fidelity from the original story. According to Michael Mills, "Huston was not completely hamstrung by his detailed script, 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."6 Does this make the cameraman the ideal catalyst for adaptation from one medium to another To what extent is the cameraman responsible for the success of the adapted film in relation to its source novel The cameraman does the "writing" through his camera. The cinema-specifics of an adaptation rests heavily in the creativity of the cameraman and the amount of freedom given him to carry out the "scripting." There is the unique responsibility, bordering on the uncanny, on the shoulders of the cameraman to maintain the fidelity of the original novelist but with his own instrument, the camera, instead of the pen. While the writer is busy with the pen, what if the alphabets suddenly start moving by themselves Notwithstanding the cameraman and his importance, the auteur theory places the director in a much higher plane of eminence. The auteur theory comes up with some startling explanations for the eminence of the director in overseeing the entire gamut of the movie production throughout its making. Andrew Sarris' auteur theory establishes the imprint of a director upon his/her movies. Sarris was clear about the responsibilities of directors, and the important role they play in the production of the film. Sarris "used it (the auteur theory) to tell the history of American filmmaking through the careers and work of individuals, classifying them according to their respective talents."7 In the novel, The Maltese Falcon, Dashiell Hammett has artistically created a crew of buccaneers (sic) with peculiar characteristics of different shades. The lead characters, Sam Spade and Brigid O'Shaughnessy, are typecast into the same mold as the rest of the sinister filibusters. The significance of the characters is not lost on the film adaptation. "Screen adaptations provide ideal critical sites not only for examining in detail how literary fiction is accommodated to cinematic form, but also for tracing the history of the symbiotic relationship of the two arts and the multifarious and ever-shifting connections between the commercial institutions responsible for their production."8 Complementary media The gripping plot of The Maltese Falcon (1941) has both the novel and the film complementing each other. Those who had read the book most likely did watch the film version. And vice versa. Nevertheless, in the saga of the book-film controversy, the book has always been looked up to as more sacrosanct, given the general attitude that since the holy scriptures have come to us in the written form, and the book still has a commanding lead over other medium in the educational arena, the book is the superior medium. "The studies of adaptation still seem straddling the border of literature and film studies without fully benefiting from the interdisciplinary practice."9 However, as a general rule, one cannot help feel a sense of inadequacy in understanding a story as told in a novel and viewed as a film. No one who has read through a novel and went to see its movie version will expect the story to unfold just as it has been sequenced in the novel. It is nothing short of nave to expect to sit through a movie thinking one knows all that is going to happen in the movie just because he or she has read the book. It would be boring and disappointing. The auteur theory is a shot in the arm for the director to invoke and invigorate the gripping elements of suspense and surprise in the movie version, just as it had been applied in the novel. A book is written by one creative writer, whereas the making of a film is a co-ordination between several creative pools such as the musician, the storyboard artist, the costume designer, the cameraman, and a host of other streams and techniques. Likewise, emblems and personalities add to the movie content. Humphrey Bogart, who plays the role of Sam Shade in the 1941 film remake, did it to the hilt. His contribution to The Maltese Falcon is similar to Sean Connery's persona to the legendary James Bond. As a debutant director, John Huston, having previously been a screenwriter, intentionally or otherwise, did his bit to the auteur theory. The mystical jewel-encrusted falcon statuette which disappeared during a sea voyage while on its way to the king of Spain in 1539 pulsate the film with its own brand of aura. It is the centre piece that keeps all the characters in the film moving with or against each other. Brigid draws Spade into her plan to sell the statue. The villains, Joel Cairo, Wilmer, and Casper Gutman cajole, threaten, bribe, tail and drug Spade in their efforts to extract information about the falcon. Cairo and Wilmer are portrayed as homosexuals, and Gutman is shown as a sadist who brutalizes his daughter. These are "the cast of villains who never say what they mean and festoon the drama with enough double crosses to dizzy the casual observer."10 In the rough and tumble terrain of murderers, cut-throats and hoodlums, Spade deals with these in kind, rendering blow for blow, shows no mercy, and goes by a brand of ethics of his own, among both law-makers as well as law-breakers. Film versus Novel The central story of The Maltese Falcon remains same as the novel. This is an exception to the rule as normally the film version always tend to change some elements, at times many facts may be changed to suit the audience as also the film genre. The film version may be over in shorter amount of time, leaving out many incidents, sometimes even important ones. Sometimes some characters may be left out and another added to fit into the scheme. Such instances, however, may leave a viewer who has read the book at least initially bewildered and dissatisfied with the film version, even if the film did entertain him. There have also been cases where the differences between the novel and film have been so great that the entire background information had been changed, even if all the characters have been allowed to play their role. The intention of the author undergoes a radical turnover in such cases. With film, a viewer can see every expression, every gesture, and thus feels satisfied or otherwise with the character in the film compared to the one he has come to know from the novel. Unlike the book, there is little left for the viewer by way of imagination. If he has come to be emotionally attached to the main characters then he has slotted them in certain pre-conceived category which the main characters in the film have to satisfy, or the viewer may feel let down, even if he has enjoyed the movie The sequence of events in a novel may not match those of its film version. For instance, the film version may be better off starting from an event taking place in the middle of the novel. Even character-wise, some changes in portrayal are possible in the film version. The development of character/s and events in the film vis--vis another character/s undergoes twists and turns according to the need perceived to be important and necessary in working out the film version, and may not be necessarily connected to the sequence of events in the novel.11 The Formula for Success The responsibility for the success of the film The Maltese Falcon lies in a combination of factors. It is a combination of teamwork and events. The writer has his way of fuelling the emotions and intellect of the reader by word play and narration. The film has its features of cast, colour and costumes deftly intertwined to have the viewers gawking and gasping. "Thus you get the grainy film, the neon lights outside of the bay windows creating an eerie, transient glare, the faces cloaked in shadow, the sinister wet streets, the abstract shots away from the violence that make the violence somehow more hair-raising. The lurid underworld and the candy coated rotten day life of many of the characters aided in the sense of bottomless-ness and paranoia which were beginning to grip the USA." The end result is a fantastic work of art in different genres cast in a molding of gold and precious jewels."12 Overall, the writer's style of "objective presentation" emphasizing objects and actions contribute a great deal to the success of the novel as well as the film. Instances such as Spade calmly rolling a cigar on hearing news of Archer's murder, his final inquisitive word "Huh" in the film, indicating his dilemma between his personal and professional life go well with the reader and audience who, as the writer correctly anticipates, are capable of gathering rest of the information as conclusion.13 Sources 1Chapter 1, Fidle ou Infidle : Is That the Question, p17, www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgiosu1085495358, 22 September 2007. 2 The Persistence of Fidelity, by J.D. Connors, journal.media-culture.org.au/0705/15-connor.php, 22 September 2007. 3Chapter 1, Fidle ou Infidle : Is That the Question, p29, www.ohiolink.edu/etd/send-pdf.cgiosu1085495358, 22 September 2007. 4From Word-to-Word Image: Film Translation of a "Sketchy" Chinese, findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3768/is_200501/ai_n12412548, 22 September 2007. 5New York State Writers Institute, Film Notes, The Maltese Falcon, www.filmnight.org/maltese.html, 22 September 2007. 6The Maltese Falcon, by Michael Mills, 1998, www.moderntimes.com/palace/falcon, 22 September 2007. 7Auteur Theory, myweb.tiscali.co.uk/jeanrenoir/AUTEUR THEORY.htm, 22 September 2007. 8Nineteenth Century American Fiction on Screen, by R. Barton Palmer, Clemson University, South Carolina, www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.aspisbn=9780521603164&ss=exc, 22 September 2007. 9A Study of Literary Adaptation: Film Reviewing and the Construction of Cultural Value, p27 by Soh-young Chung, homepage.mac.com/paulcdowling/ioe/studentswork/chung_diss.pdf, 22 September 2007. 10Film Noir Buff, www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/film-noir-style-the-maltese-falcon-1941, 22 September 2007. 11English 452 Essay 1, www.msu.edu/barkerj5/e452.html, 17 September 2007 12Film Noir Buff, www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/film-noir-style-the-maltese-falcon-1941, 22 September 2007. 13The Maltese Falcon, www.detnovel.com/MalteseFalcon.html, 17 September 2007 Read More