Talk:The Big Sleep (1946 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Rubin, Martin (1999). "The Detective Thriller: The Kennel Murder Case (1933), The Big Sleep (1946)". Thrillers. Genres in American Cinema. Cambridge University Press. pp. 181–202. ISBN 0521588391.

History[edit]

This was moved from The Big Sleep. The history is given below: 

# (cur) (last)  03:53, 6 Mar 2005 Dino m (image tweak)
# (cur) (last) 05:48, 5 Mar 2005 Steve Eifert m
# (cur) (last) 05:47, 5 Mar 2005 Steve Eifert m
# (cur) (last) 05:46, 5 Mar 2005 Steve Eifert m
# (cur) (last) 05:42, 5 Mar 2005 Steve Eifert (added image)
# (cur) (last) 06:29, 11 Jan 2005 Pearle (Added to Category:United_States_National_Film_Registry)
# (cur) (last) 06:29, 11 Jan 2005 Pearle (Removed from Category:US_National_Film_Registry)
# (cur) (last) 15:02, 13 Dec 2004 Number 0 (added a spoiler warning before the famous story , and moved non-spoiler info above it)
# (cur) (last) 02:55, 26 Nov 2004 12.72.31.228 (→External links and references)
# (cur) (last) 20:41, 20 Nov 2004 Gamaliel m
# (cur) (last) 18:05, 6 Sep 2004 PlasmaDragon (Addded IMDB entries for the movies)
# (cur) (last) 03:57, 12 Aug 2004 66.167.139.121 (→External links and references - film noir category)
# (cur) (last) 19:36, 15 Jul 2004 Timc
# (cur) (last) 02:06, 2 Jul 2004 LGagnon (Category:1939 books)
# (cur) (last) 18:06, 10 Apr 2004 Andrew Levine m
# (cur) (last) 12:10, 15 Mar 2004 Suitov m (Added missing " after Lido Pier - not certain it's in the right place, though)
# (cur) (last) 00:02, 9 Feb 2004 Sashal m
# (cur) (last) 00:17, 2 Jan 2004 Dino m (link)
# (cur) (last) 00:16, 2 Jan 2004 Dino m (minor)
# (cur) (last) 00:15, 2 Jan 2004 Dino m (Who killed Owen Taylor?)
# (cur) (last) 09:32, 31 Dec 2003 Rfc1394 m
# (cur) (last) 23:03, 29 Nov 2003 Lupinoid m (+ja:)
# (cur) (last) 11:22, 11 Apr 2003 Danny m
# (cur) (last) 11:22, 11 Apr 2003 Danny m
# (cur) (last) 11:19, 11 Apr 2003 193.118.251.61 (a little more on Raymond Chandler)
# (cur) (last) 08:24, 31 Mar 2003 TUF-KAT (remove POV, add link to Lebowski)
# (cur) (last) 11:17, 3 Sep 2002 KF
# (cur) (last) 21:05, 19 Aug 2002 Koyaanis Qatsi m
# (cur) (last) 21:04, 19 Aug 2002 Koyaanis Qatsi
# (cur) (last) 17:01, 6 Aug 2002 4.65.82.14 m (copyedits; partial wikification)
# (cur) (last) 16:41, 6 Aug 2002 Egospark

--Alexs letterbox 09:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anecdote[edit]

" A famous story tells that, during filming, the director and screenwriters could not figure out who had killed the character of chauffeur Owen Taylor. They sent a cable to the author, who replied saying "I'm damned if I know!"" But is there any good support for the tale.

-- Beardo 07:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general thrust of the story is correct, but I don't think that's the actual quote. It's mentioned in his recent biography. Ebert gives a different sentence. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970622/REVIEWS08/401010360/1023 Greglocock 07:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chandler writes to a friend about it and you can see it in the collected letters. Chandler's point was that Jack Warner questioned the expense of sending the telegram, but it confirm's that Chandler didn't know who killed the chaufer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.39.7 (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boo! HIss![edit]

There are two citations/sources in the article for the view that the alterations to Chandler's story made the film great. I'm of the opposite view: the Bogey and Bacall heat ruined the film. What's with all his earlobe-rubbing? And how pointless is the long scene where he chats up the bookstore-law student? That should have been cut to 30 secs. And the female lead should be Carmen. The 1978 remake is more faithful, but Carmen Sternwood still hasn't found her place as one of cinema's great baddies. Is there any link/source that backs me up? Please. It's about time for a remake.--Shtove 21:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the foregoing comment. Not unlike a number of other films of that era, the film is loaded with sexual innuendo. For the time it was fairly racy. Bacall was what was then termed "sultry". The chemistry between Bogart and Bacall was what the studio wanted.

Along the same lines, consider "Marlowe waits for Geiger in the store, and drinks some rye with the clerk." If you re-watch this scene note the come-hither look and the ambiguous script. Doesn't she also take off her glasses and let down her long black hair? Haven't seen it in a while. Yes, they share a drink alright, but the film is clearly trying to convey the impression that they are going to the backroom to do something a little different, for which having a drink might be a suitable prelude. Keep in mind that at the time, less than ten years after the repeal of prohibition, having a nip out of a flask in the afternoon with the blinds down while you were supposed to be working would have been seen differently, and at least in the mindset of the times) the kind of woman who would be open to that idea, might be open to other ideas, too. All of this is based on the screenwriters' and director's assumptions about the contemporary morality of their target audience. The last half or two thirds of the scene simply does not fit in the film, and doesn't advance the plot an inch. Why, then, was it left in? Perhaps precisely because of its suggestiveness. Although it doesn't fit, seen in retrospect the implicit assumptions underlying the scene, and the expected audience reaction to it, is great commentary about the social mores of the era, and the evasion of the production code.

Finally, attempting a remake after the definitive version of a film has already been made is an exercise that often ends in tears. This film is an old gem from Hollywood's golden age. Better to leave it that way. Legbeforewicket (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the above opinions, I find the scene with the Acme Book Store proprietress (Dorothy Malone) far from pointless, and I believe it does further the plot. Though the film could just as well do without it, the scene fits fine to me: it conveys not only some of the traits of the Marlowe character, but also the distractions and complexity of what he's getting himself into. He passes up what could be an afternoon of indulgence in order to earnestly pursue his case. I have read, however, that the studio was intent on furthering the career of Dorothy Malone, but I don't think that Howard Hawks would just add "fluff" for its own sake. Also, prohibition was repealed in 1933, at least 11 years before filming started. Finwailin (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changes necessary[edit]

the second paragraph finishes off with raw opinion: if i knew markups i'd mark it but i don't. i'll figure it out later or allow someone else the pleasure.

Rocknrollanoah 07:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Thebigsleep.jpg[edit]

Image:Thebigsleep.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bigsleep2.JPG[edit]

Image:Bigsleep2.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen didn't kill Regan[edit]

The conclusion of the film as described here is incorrect: Carmen did not kill Regan. Mars tells Marlowe that Carmen killed Regan, and this is revealed to be the reason Vivian was stonewalling the investigation all along. However Marlowe remembers that the day he met Mars, Mars didn't recognize Carmen. When he presses Mars for an explanation, the gambler offers none. Based on other innuendos throughout the film, the implied solution to the mystery is that Mars had Regan killed by Canino (no one else would've been good enough) after becoming jealous of his wife's friendship with Regan. Whether this explanation is correct, clearly Carmen was not the killer--had she killed Regan, for Mars to have known about it he would have had to see her do it. But having arranged Regan's death himself, Mars knew Carmen made a perfect patsy because of her reputation and the known relationship between the two sisters: she would simply deny anything if confronted by Vivian.

For purposes of an official edit, I'd say the film clearly establishes that Mars masterminded the killing of Regan and lied to Vivian about Carmen's involvement in order to deflect suspicion. Not established, but strongly implied, are the motive for the murder and the identity of the actual trigger man (Canino). Lee Gaiteri (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without being tendentious, Carmen did indeed kill Regan. Read the book, with its even more convoluted plot. Regan's body ends up in an oil well.Legbeforewicket (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does the identity of the murderer in the book have any bearing on the identity of the murderer in the movie? Binabik80 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Innumerable movies have different endings than their source books, some good, but most to appease the production code. In this case, to keep Vivian from being an accessory to murder.--Reedmalloy (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason why Mars would recognise Carmen - that's Marlowe's point! Carmen shoots Regan, and Vivian must get this covered up. Vivian persuades Mars to dispose of Regan's body, as if it is found then Mars will be the main suspect because of the rumours about Regan and Mona; better for Mars if he knows the matter's been handled properly. This is "what Mars has on Vivian" - not just that Carmen is a killer, but that Vivian is complicit in the cover-up. But, the top man is hardly likely to be grubbing around in the desert with a spade: surely he'd have sent some of his henchmen to do the dirty work, and anyway Carmen would no longer be at the scene. Mars not recognising Carmen is how Marlowe deduces Vivian's involvement. Carmen's mental instability is such that she can kill people when spurned - that's why Marlowe demands she be sent to an institution. (I think this is all explicit in the film, except the sentence in italics which to me is a reasonable extrapolation.)-- Louis Knee (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Hays Code requirement that "All criminal action had to be punished, and neither the crime nor the criminal could elicit sympathy from the audience" would explain plot changes that prevent Vivian - the love interest - from being an accessory to murder, but it's hardly unknown for films, books, etc. to contain details that can be used to satisfy censors yet not change the underlying intent, just as the film has no overt references to pornography but we all know what Carmen's photoshoot is about. Mars having Regan killed makes sense per se, but how does it allow Mars to extract money from Vivian? Extortion implies revelation, something Mars can make public, and without incriminating himself. Maybe Canino borrowed Carmen's gun for the deed whilst she was out of it during an earlier photoshoot? That would leave evidence against Carmen, but it's also several steps beyond anything mentioned in the (1946) film. Rumours that Mars got rid of Regan suit Mars' hard-man image, so successfully framing Carmen would be Mars undermining himself.
Meanwhile, as regards the Code note that Marlowe effectively murders - pre-meditated fatal outcome - two people in the film; rather than running off like Huck he lures Canino out to where he (Marlowe) will have a clear shot, and he forces Mars out of Geiger's house knowing Mars' men will open fire, soon after explaining to Mona that Mars is guilty of Jones' murder by proxy. Yet, surely the whole Bogart and Bacall aspect is about having Marlowe and Vivian hold the "sympathy from the audience"! Louis Knee (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the two versions[edit]

The page currently has written that "the 1945 film noir version is in side-A, the 1946 movie star version is in side-B." Then later on that "In the late 1990s, a pre-release version — director Hawks's original cut ... differences between Hawks' film noir and the Warner Brothers "movie star" version." The DVD I'm holding right now says "the familiar 1946 theatrical version (side A) ... and the less-familiar 1945 pre-release version (side B)." I can only assume that the first sentence is currently backwards but I would like it to be confirmed before I/you change the page Kansaikiwi (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changes for the 1946 release[edit]

In the "Post-production" paragraph discussing the changes made between the 1945 and 1946 versions we presently have "Furthermore, the parts of James Flavin and Thomas E. Jackson were completely eliminated." It would be more useful to know who these characters are/were, rather than just the actors' names. (I don't have access to the 1945 version.) -- Louis Knee (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing statement regarding the wartime setting.[edit]

A list of indicators of the film's wartime production includes "a woman taxi driver who says to Bogart, 'I'm your girl.'" This isn't nearly as self-explanatory as the rest of the list, and a quick internet search neither enlightened me nor explained why this line would have been common parlance during the war. Could someone please explain, or even better, link to a source where this appears in the article. 24.18.218.123 (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the lady cab driver's exact line that indicates the wartime setting, as much as it is cabbie herself - performing a job that would otherwise be exclusive to men only, were they not all overseas or otherwise involved in the war effort. Saying "I'm your girl" in a tossed-off manner is a way for the cabbie to convey a casual business-as-usual manner, but not without maybe a bit of swagger.Vonbontee (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the point - the phrase itself doesn't obviously indicate a wartime setting. Unless the cabbie is parroting some wartime slogan then 24.18.218.123's objection is reasonable - the quote should be removed as it is causing confusion. -- Louis Knee (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it has a double meaning that is is another example of the sexual innuendo that runs throughout the script. The cabbie later gives Bogart her card, and suggests that he call her up when she is off duty.Legbeforewicket (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title of film[edit]

Does anyone know why it's called "The Big Sleep"? If so, the article ought to explain. The film is completely incomprehensible, rescued from aabsurdity only Bogart and Bacall, but it need not have an incomprehensible title as well. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following statement is listed in the article on The Big Sleep (that is, the novel upon which this film is based): The title is a euphemism for death; it refers to a rumination in the book about "sleeping the big sleep", and is not descriptive of the plot. (64.252.1.135 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Agnes' surname?[edit]

Is there an authoritative source for Agnes' surname (in the 1945/46 film)? At the moment, it's shown as "Louzier" in the plot summary and "Lowzier" in the cast list. To be honest, I can't even remember if it even appears in the film. Louis Knee (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geiger - Lundgren homosexual relationship Comment[edit]

Is there a source for this? Nothing in the film remotely hints at it, which is probably to be expected, but it still needs a source in this article. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The synopsis[edit]

Is it possible to synopsise the 2 cuts at the same time on here? TargaryenSquire96 (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Big_Sleep_(1946_film)&oldid=1210670155"