Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

News to Me- The Big Sleep


Cinemartian
 Share

Recommended Posts

synopsis: Private eye Philip Marlowe investigates a society girl's involvement in the murder of a pornographer.

I know Everyone has trouble following processing the actual plot of this engaging film, but the latter was news to me!? Was that ever mentioned, implied etc...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cinemartian said:

synopsis: Private eye Philip Marlowe investigates a society girl's involvement in the murder of a pornographer.

I know Everyone has trouble following processing the actual plot of this engaging film, but the latter was news to me!? Was that ever mentioned, implied etc...?

Maybe in the original script! Probably a lot of things were clearer in the first draft of the story.

By the way I like your screen name.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Cinemartian said:

synopsis: Private eye Philip Marlowe investigates a society girl's involvement in the murder of a pornographer.

I know Everyone has trouble following processing the actual plot of this engaging film, but the latter was news to me!? Was that ever mentioned, implied etc...?

What you mention is clearly stated in the book AND the 1978 Mitchum adaptation of the film.

In the production code Hawks \ Bogie adaptation,   it is clearly implied.   Marlowe enters the house of the owner of the 'book store' and discovers Carmen,  drugged.   She wasn't taking portrait photos.   

Later on Marlowe goes back to the 'book store';   he knows this is no antique book store but instead a place where men buy pornography and makes comments like 'cut the act sister, I know the racket, and I have something to sell'. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cinemartian said:

synopsis: Private eye Philip Marlowe investigates a society girl's involvement in the murder of a pornographer.

I know Everyone has trouble following processing the actual plot of this engaging film, but the latter was news to me!? Was that ever mentioned, implied etc...?

Let's just say Carmen Sternwood (Martha Vickers) wasn't exactly on the shy side.

Image result for martha vickers the big sleep

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jakeem said:

Let's just say Carmen Sternwood (Martha Vickers) wasn't exactly on the shy side.

Image result for martha vickers the big sleep

In the book, Carmen is compelled to take those photos because Eddie Mars knew she had murdered Sean Regan (because he didn't accept her advances).     So she might have been shy about taking nude photos but not about having sexual relationships with men she believe were 'cute'.  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The production code really caused all the confusion in this film. They had to "imply" drug abuse, homosexuality, and other topics that couldn't be stated clearly in the film. You really have to read between the lines to get it all.

...Or simply watch the Mitchum version to be able to follow it (as I did :lol:  )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, GGGGerald said:

The production code really caused all the confusion in this film. They had to "imply" drug abuse, homosexuality, and other topics that couldn't be stated clearly in the film. You really have to read between the lines to get it all.

...Or simply watch the Mitchum version to be able to follow it (as I did :lol:  )

I agree,  but the Mitchum version doesn't have Martha Vickers!

image.jpeg.d5a1096a7ee7caaefa98390a6aa9d2a9.jpeg

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a film I've seen probably a dozen times and still enjoy though the plot is nearly impossible to follow. I think in my very first viewing I "got" the veiled pornography reference that they couldn't make explicit in the Hayes Code era, what with hidden camera and all, and Carmen is wearing a robe or something. 

What I really can't see at all from many viewings of the film is that Carmen apparently murdered Sean Regan. A year or three back, I got into an argument on here with someone who'd probably read the book - sorry, I've forgotten who - who really took me to the woodhsed for not understanding what is apparently incredibly obvious in the book, which I haven't read. This person sorta went out of his (?) way to make me feel stupid, and I may have gotten my dander up, but the film obfuscates things to such a point, I feel in my defense that I can be forgiven for not grasping this extremely important plot element.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it often and will keep bringing it up----

Despite any "code", to me, Bogart and Bacall manage to slip one of the most "raciest" sexually explicit conversations on film past the "watchdogs",  all in the guise of talking about racehorses!  ;)

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

I've said it often and will keep bringing it up----

Despite any "code", to me, Bogart and Bacall manage to slip one of the most "raciest" sexually explicit conversations on film past the "watchdogs",  all in the guise of talking about racehorses!  ;)

Sepiatone

In the intro to "The Big Sleep", Ben Mankiewicz said the actual movie had been shot in 1944 but not released until 1946, due in part, to a backlog of war pictures Warner Brothers wanted to screen first.  Since Bogart and Bacall were such a hit in "To Have and Have Not", scenes with them were added to "The Big Sleep" to capitalize on their screen chemistry.  It made me wonder if this scene in the bar was one of those added to the movie.

I always get a kick out of seeing Louis Jean Heydt in other roles.  Every time he makes an appearance, I flash back to Martha Vickers muttering..."Joe Brody..who's he?" ?

I really like Sonia Darrow in her surprisingly un-credited role as Agnes in "The Big Sleep".  She had some great lines (as did most of the other characters in this film).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, midwestan said:

In the intro to "The Big Sleep", Ben Mankiewicz said the actual movie had been shot in 1944 but not released until 1946, due in part, to a backlog of war pictures Warner Brothers wanted to screen first.  Since Bogart and Bacall were such a hit in "To Have and Have Not", scenes with them were added to "The Big Sleep" to capitalize on their screen chemistry.  It made me wonder if this scene in the bar was one of those added to the movie.

I always get a kick out of seeing Louis Jean Heydt in other roles.  Every time he makes an appearance, I flash back to Martha Vickers muttering..."Joe Brody..who's he?" ?

I really like Sonia Darrow in her surprisingly un-credited role as Agnes in "The Big Sleep".  She had some great lines (as did most of the other characters in this film).

I used to own a double-sided DVD with the two different versions of the film, one on each side - the 1944 version as it would have looked if it had been released then, and the 1946 version with the new scenes, also with some of the original scenes slightly reworked, i.e., the version everybody knows. For example, a scene in Bogart's office was reshot with Bacall no longer wearing a widow's veil and with a bit about him encouraging her to scratch her leg added to make it a little sexier, I guess. And yes, as I recall, the bar scene with all that racehorse talk was added for the 1946 version.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly wish I had not seen the Mitchum version first because I'd like to know if I'd caught the pornography reference.  As stated it is made very obvious in the Mitchum version.  I think I would have caught it in the original without knowing ahead of time.  The fact that she was sitting on a raised chair in the middle of a room with a hidden camera wearing something that didn't exactly look ordinary while drugged out of her head were some pretty big clues.  I still wish I had seen this version first.

Oh yeah and as to Martha Vickers, she was great.  Candy Clark plays the role in the 1978 version.  She is good, but she makes it very obvious that her character has issues beyond just being spoiled.  That takes some time with Vickers' portrayal, which I feel makes things gel a little more smoothly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

I've said it often and will keep bringing it up----

Despite any "code", to me, Bogart and Bacall manage to slip one of the most "raciest" sexually explicit conversations on film past the "watchdogs",  all in the guise of talking about racehorses!  ;)

Sepiatone

You ever notice the great one in The Lady Eve? Boy was that great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the comments and everyone appears to have a good understanding of the differences between the two versions, as well as the book.    Note that in the 46 release there is less Martha Vickers (she has one short scene completely cut),  while, Bacall gets more screen time (e.g. as noted, there is the beefed up bar scene).

This is similar to To Have and Have Not,  where Dolores Moran has scenes cut out and reduced due to Bacall making such a splash.     Both Vickers and Moran where young actresses (like Bacall) Warner signed to a limited contracts to 'test' them and while each was in a few WB films,  they didn't get the standard (at the time) 7 year contract deal.   Bacall did. 

Oh, well that's Hollywood.      If Bogies glance would have went in another direction,,,  would one of those two actresses been in SUTS instead of Bacall?     Vickers did marry Mickey Rooney (yea,  Ava, wasn't good enough, ha ha).

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

This is a film I've seen probably a dozen times and still enjoy though the plot is nearly impossible to follow. I think in my very first viewing I "got" the veiled pornography reference that they couldn't make explicit in the Hayes Code era, what with hidden camera and all, and Carmen is wearing a robe or something. 

What I really can't see at all from many viewings of the film is that Carmen apparently murdered Sean Regan. A year or three back, I got into an argument on here with someone who'd probably read the book - sorry, I've forgotten who - who really took me to the woodhsed for not understanding what is apparently incredibly obvious in the book, which I haven't read. This person sorta went out of his (?) way to make me feel stupid, and I may have gotten my dander up, but the film obfuscates things to such a point, I feel in my defense that I can be forgiven for not grasping this extremely important plot element.

I think people who try to use movie lore and trivia to make anyone else feel stupid, are sick people. In the world, there is always someone who can take a fun thing, and twist it around and use its basic inherent wonderful qualities for their own demented purpose, to one up someone, to try to appear superior or just to be a major pain in the you know what. For that reason, many film forums can be a real drag, but thankfully the majority of the people here use films to unite not separate the masses. I find the kind of people who will get nasty over a Trivial Pursuit question or act pompous are misanthropes who just use an enjoyable avocation like movie collecting or viewing as a means to vent their own issues on others, and I try to avoid them. I once was playing Trivial Pursuit and the question was "Who wrote the Decameron?" and I said "Boccaccio" and the guy said "Yeah but what's his first name?" Now I might have come up with it, but a normal human being there said "No one cares what his first name was so cut the crap!" The latter person is the type I like to trade movie lore and trivia with and the former is just a disgruntled and toxic person, that I would want to stay away from. When you take the non-serious things in life like movie trivia and make it a big deal and something worth fighting about to show your expertise over another, I classify you as a loser I want to stay away from, no matter how many movies you've seen. Thanks for giving me a soapbox on which to expound, sewhite but your post irked me about the way you were treated. And by the way, after watching "The Big Sleep" around 20 times, I actually only really paid attention to the story about a month ago, even though I've read the tale in print many times. Who cares who did who in? It's the ride that counts and that movie is quite a ride for sure. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, midwestan said:

In the intro to "The Big Sleep", Ben Mankiewicz said the actual movie had been shot in 1944 but not released until 1946, due in part, to a backlog of war pictures Warner Brothers wanted to screen first.  Since Bogart and Bacall were such a hit in "To Have and Have Not", scenes with them were added to "The Big Sleep" to capitalize on their screen chemistry.  It made me wonder if this scene in the bar was one of those added to the movie.

I always get a kick out of seeing Louis Jean Heydt in other roles.  Every time he makes an appearance, I flash back to Martha Vickers muttering..."Joe Brody..who's he?" ?

I really like Sonia Darrow in her surprisingly un-credited role as Agnes in "The Big Sleep".  She had some great lines (as did most of the other characters in this film).

Louis-Jean Heydt! Love him and I would have cast him with Dan Duryea as a set of evil twins wallowing in villainy, like the Krays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point not sure why, but I think I always picked up on the pornography, homosexuality, drug abuse, etc. angles to The Big Sleep.  Perhaps because I first saw it on TCM when I was well into adulthood.  I also have no problem following the movie.

As for Mitchum's version, skip it.  I have it on DVD, but it not nearly as good as Bogie's.  Mitchum is my favorite actor and like just about everything he does.  Perhaps if the Bogie version had never been done, then the remake might have been more acceptable.

As for Martha Vickers, AKA Martha MacVicar in The Falcon in Mexico and other movies, I have enjoyed her acting in the few movies in which I seen her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Big Sleep is a film that grows in my admiration the more I watch it. At first I was bothered by the convoluted plot, it didn't quite fit beautifully into place like, say, The Maltese Falcon and Murder, My Sweet, but not anymore. It actually mixes well with the whole sordid affair.  And what a terrifying character in Canino (Bob Steele).  And as already mentioned, Sonia Darrin as Agnes enlivened every scene she was in.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cinemaspeak59 said:

The Big Sleep is a film that grows in my admiration the more I watch it. At first I was bothered by the convoluted plot, it didn't quite fit beautifully into place like, say, The Maltese Falcon and Murder, My Sweet, but not anymore. It actually mixes well with the whole sordid affair.  And what a terrifying character in Canino (Bob Steele).  And as already mentioned, Sonia Darrin as Agnes enlivened every scene she was in.

Ah,   Canino (Bob Steele);  His killing was a major concern for the Production code watchdogs and Hawks was initially ordered to change the scene.    Clearly Marlowe has the jump on Canino and knows that he likely has no more bullets in his gun, since Vivian ticks Canino into firing his gun by saying 'over there'  (which as Marlowe tells her makes her 'good,  awful good' after the killing).    Marlowe could have said 'drop the gun' but instead shoots Canino down.   Hawks explained to the censors that this was justified since Marlowe had witnessed Canino ruthlessly force little man Jones to drink poison.    The censors accepted this and we have what I find to be a very effective and chilling good-kills-evil scene. 

Note that the killing of Eddie Mars by his own men relates to having Mars as the killer of Regan (for hitting on his wife),  instead of Carmen (for NOT hitting on her).    Marlowe knows that Mars will be gunned down by his own men but that is justified because Mars was a murderer.   

In the book Marlowe is the one having an affair with Mrs. Mars not Regan.    This was removed so that Bogie and Bacall can become romantic and hype up the B&B romance since they just got married. 

Oh, and one other change between the 44 and 46 versions is that Mrs. Mars is played by a different actress in each film (because Hawks re-shot the scene in the hideaway house to amp up the B&B romance and the initial actress was already working on another film)!  

 

     

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

I think people who try to use movie lore and trivia to make anyone else feel stupid, are sick people. In the world, there is always someone who can take a fun thing, and twist it around and use its basic inherent wonderful qualities for their own demented purpose, to one up someone, to try to appear superior or just to be a major pain in the you know what. For that reason, many film forums can be a real drag, but thankfully the majority of the people here use films to unite not separate the masses. I find the kind of people who will get nasty over a Trivial Pursuit question or act pompous are misanthropes who just use an enjoyable avocation like movie collecting or viewing as a means to vent their own issues on others, and I try to avoid them. I once was playing Trivial Pursuit and the question was "Who wrote the Decameron?" and I said "Boccaccio" and the guy said "Yeah but what's his first name?" Now I might have come up with it, but a normal human being there said "No one cares what his first name was so cut the crap!" The latter person is the type I like to trade movie lore and trivia with and the former is just a disgruntled and toxic person, that I would want to stay away from. When you take the non-serious things in life like movie trivia and make it a big deal and something worth fighting about to show your expertise over another, I classify you as a loser I want to stay away from, no matter how many movies you've seen. Thanks for giving me a soapbox on which to expound, sewhite but your post irked me about the way you were treated. And by the way, after watching "The Big Sleep" around 20 times, I actually only really paid attention to the story about a month ago, even though I've read the tale in print many times. Who cares who did who in? It's the ride that counts and that movie is quite a ride for sure. 

I will be the first to admit that if you want to trade intellectual blows on film trivia... I'm dumber than a box of rocks so don't pick on me. :lol:

But I do know that too many people come to places like this looking to have their egos stroked and that is not what it is all about.  It isn't about who knows more; it is about sharing. And I love it when people take the time to remind us what it is all really all about.  I may know more here than some or I may not.  It doesn't mean I need to remind anyone of that fact.  (AND if I am perfectly honest I am the type of person who might play the fool on a subject just to start a topic or keep one going.  But I definitely don't know everything and hopefully will never pretend that I do. ;))

And back the movie/book.  I have to admit that I don't think I would like it as much if Marlowe had been the one involved with Mars' wife.  I liked that he had to gain the knowledge of what everything was all about. 

And I think my favorite scene in the movie is when Bogie puts on the glasses and turns up the hat to go into Geiger's book store.

And I like the 1978 Mitchum re-make, but this one is far superior.

DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THE BLU-RAY EDITION HAS BOTH VERSIONS, (1944 & 1946)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CaveGirl said:

 And by the way, after watching "The Big Sleep" around 20 times, I actually only really paid attention to the story about a month ago, even though I've read the tale in print many times. Who cares who did who in? It's the ride that counts and that movie is quite a ride for sure. 

That's how I have always felt about The Big Sleep, as well. A lot of people get caught up on the confusion of the plot of the Hawks version. I really couldn't care less.

To me the enjoyment of the film is contained in its performances, the sexy banter and atmosphere and the occasional sudden violence. Likewise, whether the film is classified as a true film noir or more of a romantic thriller doesn't matter to me just so long as I am entertained. And The Big Sleep definitely entertains me or else I wouldn't have viewed it the six or seven times (and counting) that I have.

Watching Carmen sucking on her thumb as she falls back into Marlowe's arms or watching Canino's playing with Jonesy when he offers him a drink ("What's the matter? Think it's poison?") is what stays with me.

Hawks once said, I believe, that a film is good if it has three good scenes and no bad ones. The Big Sleep qualifies, story confusion be damned.

tumblr_myth6kLdgQ1qas5xlo1_r2_500.gif

Humphrey-Bogart-and-Bob-Steele-in-The-Bi

the-big-sleep-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the-big-sleep-1200-1200-675-675-crop-000

Saaaaay, isn't this the scene where Bogart orders fried rabbit, but Elmer Fudd who plays the waiter, ends up back in the kitchen having a hard time getting Bugs Bunny to cooperate with him?

Well, UNTIL Bugs sees who "Baby" is, anyway.

(...oh...wait...maybe not, and now that I've looked at this thing a little closer)

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...