|
|
The Big Sleep
Chemistry
1946
Review: December 9, 2008
Director: Howard Hawks
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Martha Vickers, John Ridgely
Not really.
THE SETUP:
Bogie and Bacall at the height of their chemistry in an adaptation of the Chandler novel.
DISCUSSION:
Having recently become possessed by noir literature since watching Coup de Torchon and reading the novel it was adapted from, pop. 1280 [which was amaaaaaazing], I have been hoovering up all the Jim Thompson I can get my hands on, and bought a Raymond Chandler [this one] and a Dashiell Hammett [Maltese Falcon—GENIUS] to continue my noir explorations. Having finished this novel, I made the movie my pick for movie night, figuring it would be a slam-dunk: Bogart and Bacall for my friend who likes classic film stars, Howard Hawks for me, who likes interesting direction. And, classic status be damned, it turned out to be rather a dud for both of us.
The novel is precisely what you expect from noir—you practically see the movie in your head as you read, to the point where I was wondering what it would be like for a director to adapt it while purposely trying to AVOID the standard noir trappings, like deep shadows and curling cigarette smoke. Detective Philip Marlowe is put called to a millionaire's house, asked to find out who's extorting his wild daughter, who is knows to run around with the wrong guys and get involved with the wrong things. He also meets her older sister, who thinks he's investigating another family secret. He uncovers a secret pornography business, and that night finds the younger sister naked, tied up and drugged, a picture having been taken of her and a dead man on the floor. The circle of his investigation widens, and starts to include the matter the older sister, Vivian, was worried about: the disappearance of her husband. Once the first issue is resolved, Marlowe doesn't drop the case—he's become intrigued by the second issue, and pursues it on his own time. Murders and danger continue to pile up. The book ends with an action climax, then continues on for 30 pages, and ends with a very low-key revelation that explains the central mystery behind the entire story.
The movie actually follows the book quite closely, slightly bumping up Bacall's part as Vivian [who wasn't in the book all that much], and rearranging the ending so the revelation comes first and the action comes last. The other thing is that the pornography, drug use and homosexuality had to be very heavily coded, to the point that a modern viewer could watch the movie and not understand what was really going on at all.
There are some other famous things to know about this movie. The most important is that this was filmed in 1945, but was shelved after Warner Brothers found out that the war was ending. Figuring that all war movies would be obsolete once the war was over, they rushed those out. Now, Lauren Bacall had been a huge hit with Bogart in To Have and Have Not, but the public didn't like her so much in her next released film, Confidential Agent. It was decided that the public liked her more "insolent," and her manager convinced Warner to go back and reshoot her scenes, bumping up her role, removing a veil in one scene, and adding a scene of naughty double-entendre dialogue about hose racing before this was released in 1956. The DVD has both versions, and contains a short documentary that describes the differences between each.
So, having just read the book, I was looking at the movie as an adaptation, and wanted to see how they'd do it. I really don't care about the movie star chemistry with Bogey and Bacall. So in this way, I was fairly disappointed. The plot is every bit as incomprehensible as it is in the book [although the book has a paragraph at the end that lays everything out], but the dark tone of the book, with very base, simple people out for themselves, trusting no one and not being trusted, is very pale here. Also, eliding over the pornography and homosexuality and other nastiness flattens the murky world of the novel. And literally pale is the photography—the deep, rich shadows and fascinating photography of something like Out of the Past or Double Indemnity just isn't here. And then there's the incomprehensibility, which I guess works a lot better in the novel. In both, many of the characters that drive the plot are never actually SEEN, which becomes very problematic in a visual medium like a film, but floats by a lot more smoothly in the novel. This means that you give up trying to follow it very early and just watch from this disengaged state until it ends. Which is not to say it couldn't work—Chinatown is fairly incomprehensible the first few times, yet remains fascinating. I don't know—I guess if you're into the Bogey/Bacall chemistry you can let that—and their incontestably snappy dialogue, much almost verbatim from the book and the script largely written by William Faulkner—pull you through. It just didn't work on me. I also didn't find much interesting about Howard Hawk's direction, although I am willing to concede that I may be wholly ignorant on this point.
Anyway, that's the deal. It's always a little disconcerting when you don't care for something everyone else thinks is a classic. But I haven't been able to find much in favor of this movie that discusses anything except the movie star chemistry and snappy dialogue. If that's what you want—go for it.
SHOULD YOU WATCH IT?
Up to you. If you're into the whole Bogey/Bacall thing, go for it.
