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.
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
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