Skip to main content
Close

The Maltese Falcon: The Archetype of Noir

By Bethan Power · September 20, 2013

Everyone like a tale of whodunit. A mystery that keeps you on the edge of your seat and guessing along with the protagonist, secretly trying to guess the conclusion before it is revealed to you as you piece the evidence together and get truly immersed in the story with the characters. And you need look no further for all of that and more with The Maltese Falcon.

The Maltese Falcon is a tale of intrigue and suspense, following the escapades of private investigator Sam Spade and his encounters with three different adventurers all vying to get their hands on a statuette of a jewel encrusted falcon, or as the title of the film suggests, the Maltese Falcon. It is widely acclaimed by critics as the film that defines the genre film noir and it was nominated for three academy awards following its release in 1941. It is a true iconic classic.

I first saw The Maltese Falcon when being introduced to the film noir genre in university. And, being honest, it had a lot of work to do to impress me. I had heard of film noir before, but the name conjured in my head reels of high contrast film of men with hats pulled over their brows and passing papers to each other in shifty looking alleyways. In my head there were plots that no mortal man could follow and long winded red herrings that would send even the most hard core film students off to slumber. So when I was told that this was a compulsory film on my curriculum because of its iconic mark on the industry, I sighed and resigned myself to an evening of boredom.

And you know what? I sat on the edge of my seat for the full hour and forty one minutes.

Yes, it is a great murder mystery. And yes, it is clear to see why many view it as a classic. But what also makes this film so great is that it is a remake. That’s right, the same film adapted from the same book was made ten years previous to this. Now, remakes tend to be a flop for critics. Even if they do well at the box office, the critics pull the well versed line ‘it’s just not as good as the original’ out of the bag. Also, remakes tend to pander to a particularly big name actor or a particular technological gimmick. We are seeing this right now with 3D remakes. As an example, let’s look at King Kong. King Kong was a 2005 remake that did well at the box office and is seen by many as a great film with solid production values. It was a remake of a 1993 version that was also rated pretty highly. But take a look back and compare this with the respective ratings of the 1933 King Kong, and the original trumps the rest. It was groundbreaking for its time and no amount of fancy CGI is going to top what that film achieved. This is the same situation for many films where critics are concerned; original is best. And this is not the case with The Maltese Falcon. It builds on its predecessor and blends the perfect mix of director, writer, and acting talent to create a subtle and more realistic crime thriller that uses its realistic foundations to really keep the viewers on the edge and holding their breath as to what comes next.

I really enjoyed this film, and it strikes me as a rather underrated one. I was only made aware of it because of my university course, and I think a lot of people have heard of it but don’t hold it in as high esteem as the true classics like Citizen Kane or Vertigo. This is a shame because it really is a classic, and a great starting point for anyone wishing to delve into the writing depths of crime thriller and noir, seeing all the tropes and elements in action. Empire magazine called this arguably the greatest remake of all time. And I have to say, I think I agree.