The Maltese Falcon -- Not What We Think We See?

lastdiplomat

Active Member
On November 7, yet another Maltese Falcon statue prop goes up for sale. The prop is owned by Hank Risan and has quite the lengthy and convincing provenance. But there is an interesting catch. The dingus -- numbered 6 -- is claimed to have been used in many scenes in the film. The only problem is that it doesn't look all that much like the one we've seen. Its chest is covered in chunky, three-dimensional feathers and it does not have the smooth appearance of the bird seen in the film.

14ms0ee.jpg
351txdj.jpg


The explanation offered for this discrepancy is what intrigues me. In short, it's claimed that hot studio lighting and the stark black-and-white photography combined with camera lens distortion all create the illusion on film that the bird's chest is smooth when in fact it is three-dimensional.

Now I've seen "The Maltese Falcon" at least a hundred times. Perhaps others here have as well. I've also seen many publicity photos and other versions of the prop which have turned up over the years. My belief has always been that the prop department sanded down the original bird sculpt in order to give it a smoother finish, likely at John Huston's request. I believe it's this smoothed/sanded variation of the original sculpture that's used in the film. Risan's dingus, given its provenance, looks like an original casting made for the film that was perhaps ultimately never used as it has not been sanded down.

I know there are other fans of this prop and film here, many more knowledgeable than I on the subject, so I wanted to get some input on this. Does this hot lighting/lens explanation fly with anyone else? (Pun fully intended.)

You can a lot read more about the prop and see some great photos at the following links:

Guernsey's Auctioneers & Brokers Since 1975

The Maltese Falcon : Lot 1003

I especially recommend reading the Documentation for Attribution which explains the camera lens/lighting theory and provides all the provenance for the prop and some great history: ISSUU - The Maltese Falcon Documentation for Attribution 9-23-13 by Guernsey's

And here's a nice interview with the daughter of Fred Sexton, the man who sculpted the original Maltese Falcon: The Maltese Falcon Interview: Michele Fortier, Daughter of Maltese Falcon Prop Artist Fred Sexton - YouTube
 
That explanation is grade A bull. I think this is definitely a production made piece due to the head shape and depth of the detailing in the wing feathers, but there is just no way to make those 3D chest features appear like they did in the film without sanding them down.

Bonham's really needs to learn the fine art of screen matching by sitting in front of a computer and going frame by frame while people ask you what the hell you're doing and beg you to just let them watch the movie. :lol

-Nick
 
It is not BONHAMS that is offering this "new" Falcon, but GUERNSEY'S.

The one at BONHAMS is the one that has resided at the WB Museum and is owned by a retired dentist from Beverly Hills. It is made of lead.

But, considering the John Wayne RED RIVER chaps, hat and the MILDRED PIERCE apron in the same sale, your point is well taken.
 
DOH! That's what I get for reading quickly.

...it still stands that screen-matching should be the basis of authenticating this as "screen used" unless there is detailed paperwork that can prove it. Taking the advice of a UCLA film professor with a Ph.D. is fine, but there are very distinct features on the chest of every screen used bird I've seen that are not present here.

There's nothing wrong with it being a production-made piece, rather than screen used, but they should call a [Sam] spade a spade.

On another note, who wants to pool their money with me to buy this and mold it? :lol

-Nick
 
I agree. The Bonhams falcon looks like a genuine screen-used piece whereas the Risan prop simply does not. The frankly ludicrous explanation for why it isn't a visual match to the one on screen is utterly bizarre.

Interestingly, Risan's documents go out of their way to discredit the lead dingus being sold by Bonhams as well as the previously sold resin bird. This seems to have resulted in some back-and-forth between auction listings. Here's a quote from Bonhams's catalog describing the lead falcon they will be selling later this month (http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21427/lot/225/):

"The most recent lightweight falcon to appear at auction is the Chekmayan resin copy, last sold in 2008, possibly used in publicity photographs with Bogart. Another commonly seen version is the 'raised breast feather' bird, made of plaster or some other lightweight material and painted black. Many of these date from 1975, when Warner Bros. executive Shirley Krim commissioned a limited edition series of 'raised breast feather' birds to be distributed to executives and other industry VIPS. That edition of 250 was issued with a small plaque on the pedestal identifying the bird as part of a special edition, but this plaque is often missing. None of the 'raised breast feather' birds, whatever their vintage, are a visual match to the bird that appears on screen in the 1941 film."
 
I disagree with their statement about the resin one sold. That bird had a WB inventory number on the bottom that was one digit in sequence with the lead birds and had the proper amount of digits. I saw it in 1997. Woolsey Ackerman, then the archivist at TCM, found a 1941 WB paid invoice from the shop in Hollywood that made it. If, BONHAMS or anyone else thinks that Bogart strolled across the room and handed Ward Bond a 39 pound lead statue has not watched the film. I do agree it was the one used in the posed PR photos. Is it worth what the lead one is? That sold for $310,000 where I heard they need $4 million to move this one.

rick

Good luck.
 
Ill sell mine for half of what the auction brings.



Seriously, way too many similarities between the OP's picture and my dingus. But I did buy it in Malta......for 40 bucks.
 
Check with Harry Anderson... He still swears he has one of the original screen used Falcons, that he was given while on a solo tour at the WB archives decades ago.
 
And, in comparing the bird that was auctioned to the replica I picked up from Ozymandius last year, I was even further impressed as to the quality of my statue. In comparison my bird was an absolute steal! :)
 
The Guernsey’s claim that the raised-feather bird is the one in the film is laughable.

Still, it strikes me as very odd that the Guernsey’s bird (and for that matter my old Haunted Studios falcon it so strongly resembles) should match the movie bird in so many ways — proportions, feather positions, etc. — and yet diverge in such an obvious way (raised feathers.)

If the raised-feather birds were just props made for the 1970s spoof The Black Bird, why would a sculptor go to such pains as to get everything right — but get such a big detail wrong? I think the obvious difference paradoxically points to authentic origins, lending weight to the idea that the raised-feather birds derive from an original that was recast, reworked and used in the classic movie.

I have several Maltese Falcons, including Ozymandius’ terrific version, which I highly recommend. Yet, if I had to choose which one I think is closest to the movie bird, I would have to go with the second Haunted Studios falcon I got recently (the shaved-down version of the raised-feather bird they sold for decades) —despite its many flaws, including a ham-fisted reworking that, among many other things, has erased any trace of feathers from the back of the bird’s head (!)

That is, of course, my opinion; but there are some pretty convincing visual clues. Assuming the base would be the least-reworked part of the bird, you would expect to find similarities there between the raised-feather falcons and the movie falcons -- and there are. Here’s one of them: a clear match between marks on the base of the HS falcon I bought about 10 years ago, and the authenticated resin falcon that sold at auction a few years back.
FalconsBase.jpg
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 4 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top