The MoFo Top 100 Film Noir Countdown

The Big Clock...The Big Combo? Maybe that's what you were thinking?

The Maltese Falcon was my #1. As far as I'm concerned it's the greatest detective movie, hardboiled or otherwise, with the perfect cast that you'd swear Hammett was thinking of when he wrote the book, although Bogart does not match the descriptions of Sam Spade, but I couldn't imagine anyone else in that role and owning as he does.

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

I think it's a very interesting subject but I see things very differently. Doc is right in that it wasn't controversial back in the day, but yet it was problematic due to, among other things, a lack of prominent roles for minorities. Most will not agree with me, but I view it as the complete opposite today. An actor playing someone of another race or skin color is considered completely unacceptable, but I think it would be a great thing if we could get to a place where the race or skin color simply and truly doesn't matter. Actors often play historical people that they don't resemble by using makeup. Why can't an actor play someone who's a different color? I mean really why not? Have a white man play MLK or a black man play JFK and pull it off, I think it would be a beautiful thing. Just think how wonderful the world will be if people say the skin color is as meaningless as the different hair or eye color. The only way to get there is for everyone to say the skin color doesn't matter. That's when we make progress imo.

I love The Maltese Falcon. I think it's about as perfect as any film could be. Great cast, snappy dialogue, twisty plot, and what an ending... and to think it's John Huston's debut. I thought it had the chance to win it all, but #3 isn't bad at all. I had it at #4 myself.


SEEN: 38/98
MY BALLOT: 23/25

__________________

List facts!

• The Maltese Falcon is John Huston's third entry in the countdown, after The Asphalt Jungle (#16) and Key Largo (#26).
• The 68-point gap between The Third Man and Touch of Evil is currently the third highest in this countdown.

In all seriousness though, beyond inclusiveness and taking opportunities away from minorities, as a viewer I would find performances like that really distracting. People always talk about great performances where the actor "disappears into a role." No white dude is ever going to disappear into the role of MLK and no black man is ever going to be a believable JFK.

If a role isn't written as a specific race, then sure give it to whoever seems best for the role. But racially specific characters and real people? Nah.

__________________

I forget the movie, but there was a western from around the 50's in which a white star played an Indian character and it was very distracting. I do think we'd first have to get to a point where minorities are getting the proper amount of roles, but once that time comes, I don't see the difference in playing someone with a different hair color and playing someone with a different skin color. It's just something that if we can get to a place like that, where skin color doesn't matter, that would be the ultimate ideal. I'm speaking strictly on a socially acceptable level. Believability is another matter, but I think we have that anyway when an actor plays someone different.

The Maltese Falcon was #11 on my ballot.

Copycat! Same here!

2) Out of the Past
3) Touch of Evil
4) In a Lonely Place
5) Night and the City
6) The Killing
7) The Night of the Hunter
8) White Heat
9) Detour
11) The Maltese Falcon
12) Shadow of a Doubt
13) Ace in the Hole
14) Gun Crazy
15) The Third Man
16) The Postman Always Rings Twice
18) The Stranger
19) Odd Man Out
21) Mildred Pierce
23) Sweet Smell of Success
24) Crossfire
25) The Big Sleep

Or maybe you copied me...

Was it Apache (1954) with Burt Lancaster and Jean Peters as Apaches? If so yeah it was very distracting, But...good movie and the story line was respectful of Apaches and Native Americans. Jeffrey Hunter played and American Indian in a couple westerns and he was even harder to believe.

Yes that was it

Nice clip from a very good Ed Wood movie. I've sat in that booth shown (and at the bar) in the clip many times. I used to live 2 blocks up the street from Musso and Franks. I was friends with the head waiter, and he used to comp us. It's one of the few iconic places left in L.A.

The Maltese Falcon was my #12. That is how original I am. I can't guess what tomorrow may bring. My list is all up here except for Deception with Paul Henreid, Claude Rains and Bette Davis.

Rock Hudson also played a Native in Winchester '73.

But anyway, all those instances of white people playing other races go beyond just having a "color-less" Hollywood, something I'm pretty sure wasn't in the minds of the casting agents of yesteryear.

First, there's the implication that either there wasn't a Latino/Native American actor capable enough to play a Latino/Native American character, or that you're not willing to give the opportunity to one thus continuing that cycle of limiting the possibilities of minority actors to get quality roles other than "gang member #1", "token Native guy", or "thug #2".

Second, when a studio or filmmaker decides to cast a white character as a Native or Latino, chances are that they also didn't care enough to research the particular intricacies and sensibilities that go with the race/ethnicity, which usually results in one-dimensional and thin characters and stereotypes. Granted, this also happens with minority actors that are properly cast, but mostly because back in the day they didn't have enough "power" in the industry to talk back, demand, or request more layers to their stereotypical characters, which goes back to my first point.

All of this and I'm not even getting into the other struggles that minorities were facing back in the day (or even still!) in pretty much every other facet of their lives, and also not getting into the specifics of Touch of Evil, which included Welles changing the lead character of the book from a white man to a Mexican, and still have a white man play him, or the fact that his character is pretty much the only Latino character with morals.

That's not to take much away from the film. You can read my review, see my rating, and where I placed it in my ballot. But I won't deny the fact that, as a Latino myself, I find the film's execution problematic, to say the least.

I'll wager that there's not a peep from the SJ crowd when in a Mexican movie a Mexican plays a gringo..

I am sure the filmmakers in Hollywood knew of many talented Latin actors. Cesar Romero, Fernando Lamas and Ricardo Montalban quickly come to mind. I mean California was once a part of Mexico. It has a large Hispanic and Asian population. Who knows what the thinking was behind the casting. Maybe Welles decided to change the main characters ethnicity on the sly. Hire a popular white actor. Get the money for the film. Then change his ethnicity by dying his hair and putting darker makeup on him. I mean that totally sounds like something he would do.

I imagine most casting choices are based on money. Who is going to draw the crowds. Not that there wasn't plenty of racism apparent in those choices.
Now here is an interesting thought. I am going to bring in misogyny to heighten the racism. Maybe he changed Heston's ethnicity to lower the valence on the rape of the wife. For a white audience of the time, her rape will not be seen as so traumatic since she has slept with a Mexican before the rape. Many people would have seen it that way. then. It takes some of the onus of what happens to her and places it on the husband. He is being harmed by his own kind and the audience no longer has as much outrage when the flower of white womanhood is offended. She is already seen as less than. The mores of the time were so different. it amazes me that young people think nothing has changed.

That is cool! I didn't even know it was a real place, I thought it was probably a studio set. Do you remember what it was called? Was it a bar only or a restaurant & bar?