Ang VavourisOld vs New: 'The Maltese Falcon' / 'The Last Seduction'
February 20th 2008 12:10
This week, representing the black-and-white era, a story first conceived by Dashiell Hammett and, in this instance, starring the epitome of pre-war cool, Humphrey Bogart, plus the epitome of pre-war slime, Peter Lorre, and a leaky-eyed Mary Astor; 1941’s immortal ‘The Maltese Falcon’.
And the champion of the contemporary? A movie initially deemed unworthy of cinematic release, directed by John Dahl and starring a sultry Linda Fiorentino, the prodigal Peter Berg and the lovable loser (may the Schwartz be with him) Bill Pullman; 1994’s ‘The Last Seduction’.
Why these two films? Because they loosely bookend the history of femme fatales, starting with Brigid and ending with Bridget. Okay, so ‘The Maltese Falcon’ of 1941 vintage is a re-thread of a movie made a decade prior, but the John Huston-directed later version is considered a definitive example of film noir. ‘The Last Seduction’, on the other hand, is a spectacular specimen of neo-noir, giving the femme fatale a new, legitimate lease on life.
Down to business, then. Both the birdie and the seduction are stylish thrillers, and both shy away from using mindless action as a crutch. Most importantly, perhaps, both create curiosity in the viewer to discover where the narrative is heading.
And there the similarities end. Huston’s creation was made, in part, because the original adaptation was finding it difficult to break through censorship barriers and a version that toed the line more closely was needed. Dahl’s creation, in contrast, makes its mark by breaking all the rules. If features unpredictability and a F.U. attitude towards cinematic and cultural norms. If you like your femme fatales all teary-eyed and pretend-vulnerable, ‘The Maltese Falcon’ is the go. If you prefer them strong and as unstoppable as a rugby front-rower, ‘The Last Seduction’ is probably your cup of tea.
In choosing which film is the superior, we might start by looking at the cleverness of the concept in each case - i.e. the basic premise. The old school representative has a convoluted story that centres around a jewel-encrusted artifact known as the Maltese Falcon. Needless to say, instead of simply playing a few peaceful rounds of paper-rock-scissor, people get bumped off in the process of determining with whom the falcon belongs. As the film-police might say; “Nothing to see here, folks. Move along ...”.
‘The Last Seduction’ doesn’t fare much better. Fiorentino plays Bridget Gregory, who steals a large sum of money from her husband (originally obtained in his virginal foray into the dope dealing enterprise) and flees to Anytown, USA. There she meets naive Peter Berg and manipulates him into participating in all sorts of morally unsavoury activities, the last of which is the (possible) murder of her former husband - who has sent some large men with a penchant for persuasion to retrieve the money.
Okay, so what we have here is a jewellery-encrusted statue versus cold, hard cash. One looks good on a mantelpiece, but the other is a widely accepted tender in department stores. It’s a draw, I guess.
Moving on, we get to the plot and its plausibility (or lack thereof).
Like most gumshoe detective stories, the falcon features lots of twists and turns, in between lies and lust. Plausible? Hardly. Entertaining in the I-wonder-where-this-is-going manner of an Agatha Christie novel? Sure. The problem, however, is that, at the end, you’re left with a sensation that the whole sordid mess could have been resolved a lot sooner if some of the characters had possessed just a tad more intelligence. Drama for the sake of drama is a bit like potato chips dipped in mashed potatoes - too much of a good thing.
The plot of ‘Seduction’, by contrast, is a cavalcade of interesting, plausible details. For example, the way Bridget deals with her husband’s private investigator is pure Machievalian magnificence. Admittedly, not every event furthers the plot (Bridget’s business-venture - selling the murder of cheating husbands to their scorned wives - goes largely nowhere in the greater scheme of things), but even such superfluous saturnalia only enhances the overall enjoyment.
And by the way, if anyone thinks that the extravagant events of ‘Seduction’ could never happen in real life, I suggest you chew on this little tidbit; two years after the release of ‘the film, former stripper Mechele Linehan supposedly followed its plot in the slaying of her fiance, Kent Leppink, in Alaska. If nothing else, this sort of stuff adds instant credibility to a movie, as the Coen brothers and a certain “true story” cult classic will verify.
So, for those of you keeping track, the score now stands at 1.5 to 0.5 in favour of ‘The Last Seduction’. Can ‘The Maltese Falcon’ snatch a come-from-behind victory in the dying seconds like some cliched sports movie? All signs point to yes, given that the final category is the Generation of Goose Pimples, i.e. the X-factor. This is where a classic film, with its arsenal of nostalgia, should easily defeat a neophyte made-for-TV movie.
First of all, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room; the falcon features Humphrey Bogart - the Humphrey Bogart. And if that’s not enough, it’ll raise ‘The Last Seduction’ by one Peter Lorre, possibly the most vaguely “funny looking” man ever captured on camera pre-Steve Buscemi. The problem is, however, that Bogart, well, he’s sort of over-hyped. He’s recognisable, but let’s be honest; how many of us would hesitate to take him on in a bar-fight? Despite his legacy, he just doesn’t fit the romantic nor the tough-guy mould. And Mary Astor, for all her crying and murdering, has a haircut most frequently seen on lawn-bowl greens. It’s part of her disguise, I know, but she simply manages to disguise her sociopath self too effectively. The result is what one would expect of a movie made to please the censorship authorities.
Which means that ‘The Last Seduction’ only needs to be halfway memorable for it to pull off the upset. It is indeed - and much more. Like in the case of ‘Dial M for Murder’, a film I reviewed earlier, the audience find themselves cheering for Bridget due to her ingenuity. She is a stunning bad-guy, and not just aesthetically. Her 90-minute journey through the movie is one brilliant step after another. And then there is Bill Pullman’s vengeful-but-impotent wronged husband. Peter Lorre was perfect for his role as the oily Joel Cairo in ‘The Maltese Falcon’, but Pullman is equally ideal as a pusillanimous paper tiger. His threats (and Bridget’s dismissive rolling of the eyes) are the stuff of loser legend.
So what does all of this ultimately add up to? A landslide victory to the upstart ‘Seduction’. ‘The Maltese Falcon’ is a moody classic starring an icon or two, but it pales in comparison to its fame and leaves you asking “Was that it?” after the credits have rolled. ‘The Last Seduction’ simply has more punch and, until you read this glowing write-up, carries less of an onus to blow you away. In short, which movie is less likely to disappoint? ‘The Last Seduction.’
And it’s not even close, I’m afraid.
- Viktor Figeczki
And the champion of the contemporary? A movie initially deemed unworthy of cinematic release, directed by John Dahl and starring a sultry Linda Fiorentino, the prodigal Peter Berg and the lovable loser (may the Schwartz be with him) Bill Pullman; 1994’s ‘The Last Seduction’.
Why these two films? Because they loosely bookend the history of femme fatales, starting with Brigid and ending with Bridget. Okay, so ‘The Maltese Falcon’ of 1941 vintage is a re-thread of a movie made a decade prior, but the John Huston-directed later version is considered a definitive example of film noir. ‘The Last Seduction’, on the other hand, is a spectacular specimen of neo-noir, giving the femme fatale a new, legitimate lease on life.
Down to business, then. Both the birdie and the seduction are stylish thrillers, and both shy away from using mindless action as a crutch. Most importantly, perhaps, both create curiosity in the viewer to discover where the narrative is heading.
And there the similarities end. Huston’s creation was made, in part, because the original adaptation was finding it difficult to break through censorship barriers and a version that toed the line more closely was needed. Dahl’s creation, in contrast, makes its mark by breaking all the rules. If features unpredictability and a F.U. attitude towards cinematic and cultural norms. If you like your femme fatales all teary-eyed and pretend-vulnerable, ‘The Maltese Falcon’ is the go. If you prefer them strong and as unstoppable as a rugby front-rower, ‘The Last Seduction’ is probably your cup of tea.
In choosing which film is the superior, we might start by looking at the cleverness of the concept in each case - i.e. the basic premise. The old school representative has a convoluted story that centres around a jewel-encrusted artifact known as the Maltese Falcon. Needless to say, instead of simply playing a few peaceful rounds of paper-rock-scissor, people get bumped off in the process of determining with whom the falcon belongs. As the film-police might say; “Nothing to see here, folks. Move along ...”.
‘The Last Seduction’ doesn’t fare much better. Fiorentino plays Bridget Gregory, who steals a large sum of money from her husband (originally obtained in his virginal foray into the dope dealing enterprise) and flees to Anytown, USA. There she meets naive Peter Berg and manipulates him into participating in all sorts of morally unsavoury activities, the last of which is the (possible) murder of her former husband - who has sent some large men with a penchant for persuasion to retrieve the money.
Okay, so what we have here is a jewellery-encrusted statue versus cold, hard cash. One looks good on a mantelpiece, but the other is a widely accepted tender in department stores. It’s a draw, I guess.
Moving on, we get to the plot and its plausibility (or lack thereof).
Like most gumshoe detective stories, the falcon features lots of twists and turns, in between lies and lust. Plausible? Hardly. Entertaining in the I-wonder-where-this-is-going manner of an Agatha Christie novel? Sure. The problem, however, is that, at the end, you’re left with a sensation that the whole sordid mess could have been resolved a lot sooner if some of the characters had possessed just a tad more intelligence. Drama for the sake of drama is a bit like potato chips dipped in mashed potatoes - too much of a good thing.
The plot of ‘Seduction’, by contrast, is a cavalcade of interesting, plausible details. For example, the way Bridget deals with her husband’s private investigator is pure Machievalian magnificence. Admittedly, not every event furthers the plot (Bridget’s business-venture - selling the murder of cheating husbands to their scorned wives - goes largely nowhere in the greater scheme of things), but even such superfluous saturnalia only enhances the overall enjoyment.
And by the way, if anyone thinks that the extravagant events of ‘Seduction’ could never happen in real life, I suggest you chew on this little tidbit; two years after the release of ‘the film, former stripper Mechele Linehan supposedly followed its plot in the slaying of her fiance, Kent Leppink, in Alaska. If nothing else, this sort of stuff adds instant credibility to a movie, as the Coen brothers and a certain “true story” cult classic will verify.
So, for those of you keeping track, the score now stands at 1.5 to 0.5 in favour of ‘The Last Seduction’. Can ‘The Maltese Falcon’ snatch a come-from-behind victory in the dying seconds like some cliched sports movie? All signs point to yes, given that the final category is the Generation of Goose Pimples, i.e. the X-factor. This is where a classic film, with its arsenal of nostalgia, should easily defeat a neophyte made-for-TV movie.
First of all, let’s acknowledge the elephant in the room; the falcon features Humphrey Bogart - the Humphrey Bogart. And if that’s not enough, it’ll raise ‘The Last Seduction’ by one Peter Lorre, possibly the most vaguely “funny looking” man ever captured on camera pre-Steve Buscemi. The problem is, however, that Bogart, well, he’s sort of over-hyped. He’s recognisable, but let’s be honest; how many of us would hesitate to take him on in a bar-fight? Despite his legacy, he just doesn’t fit the romantic nor the tough-guy mould. And Mary Astor, for all her crying and murdering, has a haircut most frequently seen on lawn-bowl greens. It’s part of her disguise, I know, but she simply manages to disguise her sociopath self too effectively. The result is what one would expect of a movie made to please the censorship authorities.
Which means that ‘The Last Seduction’ only needs to be halfway memorable for it to pull off the upset. It is indeed - and much more. Like in the case of ‘Dial M for Murder’, a film I reviewed earlier, the audience find themselves cheering for Bridget due to her ingenuity. She is a stunning bad-guy, and not just aesthetically. Her 90-minute journey through the movie is one brilliant step after another. And then there is Bill Pullman’s vengeful-but-impotent wronged husband. Peter Lorre was perfect for his role as the oily Joel Cairo in ‘The Maltese Falcon’, but Pullman is equally ideal as a pusillanimous paper tiger. His threats (and Bridget’s dismissive rolling of the eyes) are the stuff of loser legend.
So what does all of this ultimately add up to? A landslide victory to the upstart ‘Seduction’. ‘The Maltese Falcon’ is a moody classic starring an icon or two, but it pales in comparison to its fame and leaves you asking “Was that it?” after the credits have rolled. ‘The Last Seduction’ simply has more punch and, until you read this glowing write-up, carries less of an onus to blow you away. In short, which movie is less likely to disappoint? ‘The Last Seduction.’
And it’s not even close, I’m afraid.
- Viktor Figeczki
| 97 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Comments (1)
Add Comments
