It's a great book, and a good film. It would be a great film too, but the stars enter just a little too late, and as a result the opening is a bit underwhelming. What are we talking about? What? You didn't read the title? Shame on you, gentle readers of the Quirky Muffin! It's 'The Thin Man' of course! Although the book came out in 1934, this classic story, the last full length novel written by the master Dashiell Hammett, was originally serialised in 1933 so it does predate the movie significantly. The written and screen versions didn't just appear one day, simultaneously, in a basket labelled 'utter class'.
To begin with the novel, the more complex version of the story, we see a fascinating diversion of Hammett's usual style to something closer to a traditional murder mystery, and away from the more familiar stories you might expect from the ersatz originator of the hard-boiled detective story. Dashiell Hammett could write like no other, though, and the story is permeated by his distinctive style. Instead of a tale of the anonymous 'Continental Op' detective, or cynical private eye Sam Spade, or even ambiguous union-man/gangster Ned Beaumont, we get the gleefully retired (due to marriage) private eye Nick Charles and his wife Nora, heir to a magnificent amount of money. The concept of a happy, albeit apparently constantly sozzled, detective is quite a new one. The story is a little labyrinthine, but is essentially a murder case mixed with a massive shaggy dog story, and more smart dialogue than you would find in a dozen novels by any other writer. It begins, and then rolls irresistibly to its conclusion, which will not be spoiled here.
The movie version is a lot simpler than the original prose, and has a lot of the discussions and related events that are at the core of the story instead shoved into what is effectively a prologue, before the advent of Nick and Nora Charles, the heroes and impossibly charming protagonists. It seems utterly unbelievable now that the divine Myrna Loy and impeccable William Powell would have been unknown to me before these 'Thin Man' movies, and it seems even ridiculous that any actress would ever even compare to that former legend. She is the epitome of a female movie star, and more shall not be said. Once Loy and Powell show up, with their indomitable pooch sidekick, the film catches fire. Yes, it may be a simpler version of the story, with a whole subplot excised completely, but the casting allows a wonderful actor-based equivalent to the hard-boiled prose of the written word. The film also manages to conceal the central novelty of the story far more effectively than the story by not elaborating around it quite so much, and introduces the old staple of bringing all the suspects together for the denouement. At least, I assume it was an old staple. In 1934, movies were still comparatively new, after all. In novels, many tropes and clichés had been established, but what about in the movies? I bet they didn't drag in all the suspects under police coercion, at least, for a sit down dinner?
The novel is excellent, and should be read by everyone. The film is great, but you should check your tolerance for old black and white movies first. I loved it, but some people might balk at the lack of colour and dumb action sequences. Of course, there is always the mighty attraction of Astar the dog to drag in the more reluctant people, those philistines who care not for the grace of Loy or the charisma of Powell. Good grief, William Powell could deliver a line like no other. He was supposedly the model for Don Adams' delivery as Max in 'Get Smart' and Inspector Gadget, although the evidence isn't conclusive. Again, how could this writer be unaware of these two beforehand?
'The Thin Man', a classic in prose, and a wonder on the screen. In fact, it was such a wonder that it spawned five more movies in a series that spanned more than ten years, which is a testament to a couple that some would call one of the best screen romances in all of film. Those people wouldn't be wrong.
O.
No comments:
Post a Comment