I've never seen this, but I've seen Double Indemnity countless times with my grandpa so curious: which do you like more/why?
"Have you ever danced with a refrigerator?"
[deleted]
The Maltese Falcon
shareVery different films. The Maltese Falcon actually preceded the great era of noir, even if it predicted some of its elements. It's an example of a specific type of noir, one involving a private eye, based on the characters who appeared in Chandler and Hammett novels.
But the most important difference is in how the two films present evil. In The Maltese Falcon, even if the line is not always clear, even if the hero is tempted to cross the line, evil is still always THERE, somewhere in the dark corners of the city. In Wilder's more complex film, the evil his HERE, inside, coming from our most basic desires.
I love both films, but feel that Double Indemnity is the greater of the two.
We could have high times
if you'll abide
[deleted]
I agree that we're not talking in absolutes, but in nuances. Spade, as a typical noir hero, walks a thin, and not always clear line. But he seems to be more aware of that line than Walter Neff. He has an inner strength, along with his weaknesses. Double Indemnity takes place in a much bleaker moral universe.
We could have high times
if you'll abide
[deleted]
Yes, TMF preceded the golden period of film noir because it was the first completely Americanized film to present the classic formula for all of the great film noirs to come.
shareDouble Indemnity by quite a large scale. Reasons why
- The femme fatale is so obviously a nasty bit of work in Falcon that you almost question his "feelings" for her whereas the femme fatale of Indemnity while obviously having bad intentions too at least starts off seeming like she could be ok (if you are new to noir anyway.) Although the femme fatale in Out of the Past was the best.
- I found the plot far more interesting (which is just a personal opinion)
- I found Falcon had a few scenes that were pointless
Not to discredit Falcon because it pretty much set the standard for noir but I just never found it to stand out that much, I see it as a very average noir (seen better, seen worse.)
Both movies have qualities that the other movie doesn't have. They are both great movies, but in terms of a perfect film noir, I would go with L.A. Confidential. L.A. Confidential has all the elements of a detective picture. It opens with the voice over narration, continues with good cops, bad cops, femme fatales, villains, accused suspects, affairs, murder, money and greed.
OOOOoooo...it's gotta be the Falcon.
Double Indemnity is an interesting romp...the first time around. And I mean I do sympathize with McMurray...a little. I mean, I even sort of hoped for him to succeed despite knowing from the beginning he failed. Silly isn't?
But unlikeable, gullible, stupid, greedy, horny...whatever...whatever it was, I think maybe I do not enjoy Double Indemnity because I can not get behind him much and his situation is just...weird I guess. Maybe I don't like seeing this tragedy unfold. Maybe I don't like seeing so many fallibilities in mankind .
But the Maltese Falcon!
I know what I can definitely say about the Falcon. You like being there! You want to be in San Francisco, in the night fog in a trenchcoat. You want to interact with Bogie and Astor and Lorre and of course...The Fat Man! Such characters who are bizarre and mysterious and worldly.
Yeah...that's it. MF is wordly. Not in the mature sense but in that you can imagine and see the locations that bird has been, Russia and Istanbul and the Orient and you can even go back with it to the days of the Knight Templars or whatever...and you can see those agents-for-hire and those rich connoisseurs chasing after it.
And there's Bogie himself. Sam Spade! Not James Bond perfect. Not Brad Pitt handsome. He's ALMOST an unextraordinary player like you and me who is making it because he is playing the game right...staying flexible, but staying tough. He sees some strange stuff as a private dick, but this caper and these people are mysterious even for his line...or at least it is mysterious having so many of them at one time...after one thing. Da Bird!
Spade, Cairo, Gutman, Brigid O'Shaughnessy. You know something is going on when people with names like these come into your life.
San Francisco 1941, USA, even before Pearl Harbor. The mystery about the world was right there...and unfolding!
Your daughter ate my Toblerone!!!
[deleted]
Although both are great films, I prefer The Maltese Falcon. Fred MacMurray's dialog often comes off as being fake, especially all the times he says, "Baby". Somebody should have given the screenwriter(s) a copy of Roget's.
shareI'm not a big Double Indemnity fan so it's Maltese Falcon all day long for me.
shareI think Maltese Falcon is the better overall film. A brilliant script (It was brilliant of Huston to realize he should just film the book) and filmed, with an outstanding cast. Its Bogie's breakthrough role of course, but the rest of the acting is up there too, Double Indemnity has a good script, but it greatness mainly rests with Fred MacMurray's excellent heel and especially Barbara Stanwyck as one of the greatest femme fatales of all time. She's the reason I have watched it multiple times, whereas I will watch Maltese Falcon just because.
It is not our abilities that show who we truly are...it is our choices
I say The Maltese Falcon.
"You may now kiss the royal foot"-Woody Woodpecker
Stupid question, of course, this film which began film noir and is one of the 10 greatest movies ever. Can't compare
MacMurray to Bogart. Robinson notwithstanding, the cast of 'Falcon is superior and Huston is quite simply the best.
An absurdly stupid question. These are two VERY DIFFERENT types of films. One is a colorful, romantic detective story full of odd characters, and an impossible plot (MF) and the other is basically a murder love plot-twist film, with one of the greatest scripts ever produced.
They are both great movies, for very different reasons, and there is no ground to make a comparison, or to say, I prefer.. . .
Childish.