This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 Sellinger 71.247.200.116 09:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)
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).
[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.
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)
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik ( talk) 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I would like permission to add this.
"==The Stuff that Dreams are made of.=="
George Purdy
Oh, I see. OK. GP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.182.22 ( talk) 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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 Sellinger 71.247.200.116 09:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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
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 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)
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).
[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.
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)
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik ( talk) 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I would like permission to add this.
"==The Stuff that Dreams are made of.=="
George Purdy
Oh, I see. OK. GP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.182.22 ( talk) 19:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)