Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
Search Index Here

Thursday, November 09, 2006

In Defense Of Satan Met A Lady

Warners recently issued a three-disc special edition of The Maltese Falcon. In addition to a substantially upgraded 1941 version, there are two earlier adaptations of the story that WB produced during the thirties. Both have been unjustly ignored, if not maligned, for many years. Their ongoing status as unwanted stepchildren was reflected by the modest cost of renting both during United Artist’s non-theatrical 16mm heyday. These prices tell the story --- The Maltese Falcon of 1941 was available at $125 per day in 1976, $175 by 1981. The 1931 Maltese Falcon played (few) colleges and film societies at $35, again in 1976, then a measly $60 for 1981. Satan Met A Lady went from $75 to $85 over the same period. I would love to know how many bookings each of these had. 16mm rental would have been about the only way most of us could see those first two versions until TCM came along. I’ll never take for granted the ease of access we now have to both. The memory of those tantalizing stills in Bill Everson’s The Detective In Film and Citadel’s Films Of Bette Davis books, and my mid-seventies conviction that I’d never get to see these movies makes all the more astonishing the fact that, not only can I buy them now … I can buy them at Wal-Mart. For those of us who used to stay up till 3 AM for once-in-a-decade showings of a single classic title on television, DVD and satellite TV are a continuing miracle. That first Maltese Falcon was known as Dangerous Female so as to avoid confusion with the Bogart picture. A lot of writers thought it was actually released under that title in 1931. I was delighted to see the original credits restored on the new DVD. The movie itself is no slouch either, despite pacing a little slow in comparison with other, zippier, Warner pre-codes of the period. Line readings seem overly measured at times. The 78 minutes it takes for director Roy Del Ruth to get the story told could have been disposed of in 65 by a Michael Curtiz. Ricardo Cortez was steeped in playing outright heels, so it's no surprise seeing some of that bleeding into his Sam Spade, but any show that counts Dwight Frye, Thelma Todd, and Walter Long among names in support is by definition a must-see. There’s just no way that John Huston wouldn’t have watched this in preparation for his remake.

Coming five years later in 1936, Satan Met A Lady was like a cheerful, preemptive rebuke to everything that would be taken so seriously in 1941. It is the whoopee cushion beneath the rear of every critic who has reverently probed the greater meanings of Huston’s classic. They had to give dishes away wherever "Satan Met A Lady" was shown, said a Warner publicity man shortly after the film posted initial losses, and yes, it was a "flop" --- negative costs were $195,000, domestic rentals topped out at $266,000, with foreign only $48,000. Considering that loss of $60,000, and the previous deficit of $75,000 on the 1931 version, you’d almost wonder why they kept remaking this thing. Bette Davis was top-billed, having come off an Academy Award win for Dangerous the previous year, and she’s part of the reason Satan Met A Lady fared so miserably in public hindsight. If you couldn’t see it on television (and we surely couldn’t here in NC), why not take her word that it was one of the worst pictures ever made? Reviews of the time backed Davis up. There is no story, merely a ferrago of nonsense representing a series of practical studio compromises with an unworkable script, said The New York Times. Imagine my surprise last week when I watched it for the first time and discovered what a delightful screwball mystery it is. Those who would uphold the sanctity of Dashiell Hammett should prepare themselves before watching, for his novel is altogether upended by an irreverence gleefully mocking detective movie conventions that were themselves years away from being established. They call Warren William Ted Shane in this --- a name that fits, and one he carries lightly. Sam Spade would have been too intense and burdensome for Warren, whose boisterous cad of a screen persona ran loose for a glorious half dozen or so years before Code strangulation and the actor’s own health issues curbed his activities. Those increasingly flippant Perry Mason mysteries seem to have limbered Warren up for Satan Met A Lady. As far as he’s concerned, this is pure madcap comedy, and he's brilliant in it. If anything, Bette Davis’ discomfort arose from her inability to keep pace with her co-star’s energy. Warren William left Warners shortly after Satan Met A Lady. The pre-code garden where he’d flourished had been plowed over, and his time was past.

It was the obscurity of the first two Maltese Falcons that made a third one possible. The 1931 version would have undoubtedly been denied a Code seal had Warners submitted it for a re-issue in the late thirties, and Satan Met A Lady was adjudged a failure. The studio’s faith in the story was steadfast, however, and the 1941 remake went forward with a determination to finally keep faith with the Hammet novel. Toward that end, it succeeded, but Huston’s film also adopted a straight-faced approach that would have bemused Ricardo Cortez and Warren William. Stakes were never higher than in this Code-dominated world, and every action had real and immediate consequence. Light-hearted attitudes toward sex and crime were unthinkable. Sam Spade paid his dues. Were it not for the artistry of that cast, and Huston’s crisp direction, this would have been an investigation as labored as those conducted by John Hodiak in Somewhere In The Night, or Mark Stevens in The Dark Corner. There weren’t many laughs on the road to film noir. Detectives of a Warren William sort could not have survived here. The Maltese Falcon set the pace for many that would come, but pre-code and screwball elements were no longer welcome. No wonder the previous Falcon and Satan Met A Lady went into deep freeze. There was something almost irresponsible about them. Bogart’s Sam Spade carried the banner for all Code-compliant Hollywood detectives. The solid critical reputation of The Maltese Falcon effectively took it off the burner for purposes of further remakes. Had it not been so well received, I’ve no doubt we’d have seen it adapted again. Consider a possible fifties treatment. Frank Lovejoy as Sam Spade? How about Steve Cochran, or even Gene Nelson? Why not Dennis Morgan? Direction in the capable hands of Andre DeToth, perhaps, or Stuart Heisler. For all I know, the Falcon was remade on any number of 77 Sunset Strip episodes, or Hawaiian Eye. The property was too good to simply ignore. I’ll bet Stu Bailey cracked variations of this case on multiple occasions, with Tracy Steele bringing up the rear the following season with his own Falcon-derived investigation. Warners was shameless about recycling their old properties on those fifties detective shows. Why would The Maltese Falcon be any more sacred than the rest?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course, the popularity of the third version led to the enormously popular Adventures of Sam Spade radio series, which evolved from a Bogart-like approach to a much more light-hearted formula kidding all the genre conventions all over again.

8:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to your query about why they kept remaking the film: I've read that Warner Bros. paid Hammett a flat fee (I think $11,000) for all future adaptations of the book. (That was a pretty hefty sum in 1930!) Hence it didn't cost them anything in terms of royaltees to the author to keep remaking the film. Also, by 1941 they probably figured it was worth doing another version, even if the previous two had been flops, because Hammett's name had a very high profile from the successful Thin Man series. They let Huston make the film, but on the cheap, largely using standing sets built for other films. (I've been told, but haven't had a chance to verify, that you can see "City of Los Angeles" written on the pier of the scene where Same goes to the San Francisco docks to check up on La Paloma.) Most of the action takes place in three small rooms--Sam's office, his apartment, and Gutman's hotel room. That couldn't have cost much to shoot. So I'll bet the head office viewed it as a fairly small risk with a reasonably potential to make money, or at least not lose much.
Another poster has mentioned the subsequent radio series. A favorite of mine, though it bears little resemblance to the Spade in Hammett's books. Warner Bros. later sued Hammett and CBS, claiming they (Warner Bros) owned the Sam Spade character, including rights to all sequels! (The radio version did include a sequel to the Maltese Falcon, called the Kandy Tooth Caper, which includes excellent impersonations of Syndey Greenstreet and Peter Lorre.)

11:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well it takes huevos to defend SATAN WAS A LADY but I think you did a good job. It is not a good movie but it is a fun movie. I am glad that it came out along with the original version of THE MALTESE FALCON on the new DVD set from Warners as part of the well-known and loved Bogart version of THE MALTESE FALCON. Good move Warners!

As to remaking the film the story I always heard was that Huston wanted to do it and got Warners to do it. Huston had run the original version (he charitably described it as a perfectly good movie) and planned a scene by scene remake which made things easier for a novice director. Of course after following the original he punched it up in the right places for maximum impact. Huston was a smart man. He also had phenomenal luck in casting.

I know you aren't as big a fan of Bogart as some of us but you must admit it stands up to many viewings. Still, when I first got TCM and I chanced onto a showing of the original version I cannot tell you how excited I was. I was thrilled when I finally got to see SATAN WAS A LADY as well.

2:23 PM  
Blogger Kevin K. said...

I'm glad Warners restored the original credits. I first saw the original version about 20 years ago and thought it quite good. Cortez is surprisingly sleazy (has no problem sleeping with his partner's wife, having sex in his office, etc.). I wonder if his interperation is closer to the Hammett's creation than Bogart's.

I'll have to give "Satan Met a Lady" a second chance one day, but only after a good stiff drink or two. My memories still make me shudder.

2:53 PM  
Blogger John McElwee said...

I'm a huge Bogart fan, Spencer. As far as I'm concerned, the man could do no wrong. It's only the need for variety at Greenbriar that keeps me from writing on him every day! There's a "Dark Passage" piece I'll be publishing soon, by the way ...

3:24 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

east side, Cortez is sleazy, but no one is sleazier than William. I love the big palooka. Always good, always lacking in any morals or human feeling. I'd watch the guy read the phone book; he could make even that seem disreputable.

1:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I forgot to mention that WB's lawsuit against Hammett et al. was triggered (at least in part) when they turned down a request for CBS' Suspense to air an hour-long adaptation of The Maltese Falcon in 1948. Suspense chose to air The Kandi Tooth instead, which had previous run (in 2 half-hour episodes) on The Adventures of Sam Spade. Warners Bros. felt this broadcast kept too closely to the book and movie, which they owned. Perhaps their zealousness in this regard resulted from them keeping an eye on the possibility (just around the corner) of television. I don't have any real info regarding your suspicion that Warners may have broadcast TMF on the small screen in the 50s. Martin Grams Jr has a book on Sam Spade coming out soon. I haven't seen it yet but he's generally pretty thorough in covering all incarnations, including lost tv adaptations, so perhaps he'll address this.


1:46 PM  
Blogger Rich D said...

I'm surprised that you never got around to seeing SATAN MET AS LADY earlier, as it had been released on VHS years ago. I remember explaining to my strict Catholic mother what the title meant when it showed up on my Christmas list that year. :)

7:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023
  • December 2023
  • January 2024
  • February 2024
  • March 2024
  • April 2024
  • May 2024
  • June 2024
  • July 2024