Roy Del Ruth's The Maltese Falcon (1931)

The most celebrated screen adaptation of Dashiell Hammet’s 1930 novel The Maltese Falcon is the 1941 version directed by John Huston and starring Humphrey Bogart. There were however two previous Hollywood film adaptations. In 1936 it was made as a comedy starring Bette Davis. That version, Satan Met a Lady, need not concern us. It has nothing going for it.

The 1931 version directed by Roy Del Ruth, called The Maltese Falcon, is another matter. There are those who think it’s better than the famous 1941 version. I’m not sure I’d go that far but the claim is not as as crazy as it sounds. In some areas the ’31 version really is superior.

Most of the characters are the same, but instead of Mary Astor as Brigid O’Shaughnessy we get Bebe Daniels as Ruth Wonderly.

The plot is basically the same. Sam Spade (Ricardo Cortez) and his partner Miles Archer are hired by Ruth Wonderly. She spins them a tale about her sister being in danger from a man. While tailing the guy Archer gets shot to death. Sam isn’t too worried about this. He’s been having an affair with Archer’s wife Iva (Thelma Todd) and having Archer out of the way will make things simpler. Sam feels no emotion about Archer’s murder. Sam Spade saves his emotions for the one person in the world he truly loves - Sam Spade.

Sam soon figures out that Ruth has been spinning him a line. When confronted she changes her story. Sam figures this new story is just another pack of lies but Ruth pays well and she’s a cutie, and Sam is a big boy and he knows how to handle dames.

What Ruth is really after is a bird. A statuette of a bird, a falcon, supposedly worth a couple of million dollars (which in 1931 was an unimaginably vast amount of money). There are other people who want to hire Sam to find that bird. Dr Joel Cairo (Otto Matieson) and Casper Gutman (Dudley Digges) both want the falcon. Sam takes money from all of them. That’s totally unethical of course but Sam doesn’t worry too much about ethics. Joel Cairo and Casper Gutman don’t worry about ethics either. Ruth Wonderly has never heard of the word.

They all try to double-cross each other. There’s the added complication of the police who have two murders that they want to pin on somebody. And soon there’s a third murder.

So how do the 1931 and 1941 versions differ? The first difference is that the ’31 version is a pre-code movie. There’s more sex. It’s made absolutely explicit that Sam and Ruth are sleeping together and it’s just taken for granted that that’s a perfectly normal thing to do. It’s also made crystal clear that Sam and Iva Archer have been sleeping together and we figure that Sam and his secretary Effie probably share a bed from time to time.

And Bebe Daniels takes her clothes off a lot. We don’t really see anything but it’s clear that she’s naked.

There’s also a casual cheerful immorality about the whole movie. Which is absolutely in the spirit of Hammett’s novel. This is a story without a hero. Every single character is a crook. They will all lie, cheat and steal. And they are all quite prepared to commit murder if they think they can get away with it. All of this applies to Sam Spade as well. He’s as much of a crook as the others.

This does come out fairly clearly in the 1941 version but in that version some of the characters do have one or two redeeming features. Especially Spade. The 1931 version doesn’t bother giving any character any redeeming qualities. The 1941 film is cynical but the 1931 movie takes the cynicism even further.

There’s also the acting to consider. Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet in the ’41 film are a lot better than their counterparts in the earlier film. On the other hand Bebe Daniels is vastly superior to Mary Astor in the later film. I don’t mind Mary Astor as an actress but she was miscast and she just couldn’t pull off the femme fatale thing. Bebe Daniels has no such problems. She plays Ruth as she should be played - a woman who would sell out her own mother and to whom emotional and sexual manipulation are second nature. Bebe Daniels is also smokin’ hot and she’s incredibly sexy. Her superb performance is the single biggest edge that the ’31 version has over the ’41 version.

Then there’s Sam Spade. I’m not going to claim that Ricardo Cortez is a better actor than Bogart. He isn’t. But he is perfectly cast. He gives us a meaner, nastier, much sleazier Sam Spade. Bogart is the better actor, but Cortez made a better Sam Spade. Bogart was a great choice to play Philip Marlowe in The Big Sleep but Sam Spade is not Philip Marlowe. Marlowe is a white knight in a corrupt world. He’s a hero. Sam Spade is no hero. He’s a crook and a grifter and a thug. Bogart is a fine actor but he doesn’t quite nail the character of Sam Spade. Ricardo Cortez nails it totally. Of course Bogart had the disadvantage of being constrained in his performance by the Production Code. Cortez had the freedom to play Spade as he should be played without having to pull his punches.

John Huston was certainly a great director but Roy Del Ruth was perfectly competent.

So which version is to be preferred? John Huston’s version is more polished and more stylish and it has Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet. These are major factors in its favour. On the other hand the 1931 Roy Del Ruth version has more moral corruption and a lot more sleaze which is much more in keeping with the spirit of the story, it has a more effective Sam Spade and in Bebe Daniels it has a much much better femme fatale. I guess I have a very slight preference for the 1931 version but both movies are very much worth seeing.

The 1931 The Maltese Falcon is very highly recommended.

Years ago Warner Brothers released a three-disc DVD set that included all three film adaptations. If you can find it, buy it.