Giving It the Axe

Well, the trimester is over. We were able to only watch three films but we fully explored each one and that’s commendable. We finished the trimester with the Mike Myers comedy So I Married An Axe Murderer. While watching this film we discussed parody and Alfred Hitchcock-style storytelling, which we called the “hitchcockian style” (read on for further explanation). This whole trimester we focused on the use of stereotype in film. For this movie, we also discussed how the lack of stereotype, or “anti-stereotype”, was used for humor (once again, read on for explanation). Each of the students did a wonderful job and I am very proud of them.  I hope you enjoy these entries as much as i did. Thanks for reading!

Daniel Peterson

In our elective, we watched So I Married an Axe Murderer. The movie is about Charlie Mackenzie, a Beat-type Poet who’s afraid of commitment. While he is visiting his parents, he hears about someone named Mrs. X, who marries people then kills them on their honeymoon. Then, he encounters the woman of his dreams, whose name is Harriet Michaels, at a butcher shop, but soon becomes afraid that she’s Mrs. X. However, he hears from a friend of his, who is a cop that someone confessed to one of the murders. So, they get married. Unfortunately, the woman who confessed to one of the murders is crazy, so suspicion is thrown back on Harriet. But, in a shocking twist, Harriet’s sister, Rose, tries to kill Charlie and trick Harriet into thinking he left her. However, Rose fails and they live happily ever after.

This movie was a parody of movies in the style of Alfred Hitchcock. It parodies how Hitchcock would reveal something at the beginning, and then refers back to the revelation at the beginning through foreshadowing. In the movie, the Hitchcockian formula is used to build suspense. However, despite using the Hitchcockian formula, it’s not a scary movie. Instead, it uses clever stereotypes of Scottish people to inject humor into the film. They also use a very anti-stereotypical police chief to add some excellent jokes here and there.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I thought the clever use of stereotypes and anti-stereotypes to add humor to the movie was great. I also enjoyed the use of the Hitchcockian style to build suspense. However, I thought the setting in San Francisco was superfluous. They could have set the movie in any other city of town in the world, and it would have been the same. It thought the San Francisco setting was distracting and took away from the movie.

Nathan Miller

The film starts by introducing two of the main characters, Charlie Mackenzie and his best friend Tony Giardino, a police inspector. They are at a poet’s coffeehouse where Charlie, a Beat type poet, is performing. Then, Charlie stops by a butcher shop to pick up haggis for his parents when he meets the butcher, a woman by the name of Harriet Michaels, whom he is instantly attracted to. Later than night at his parent’s house it is revealed that there is a “honeymoon killer” called Mrs. X on the loose. We learn this from his mother who is reading The Weekly World News and Charlie shrugs it off as nothing.

A few days later Charlie returns to the butcher shop to see his new love interest that is overloaded with customers. Charlie hops behind the counter to help and eventually asks her out. That night, they go on a date and end up back at Harriet’s apartment where Charlie spends the night. He wakes up to find Harriet gone and her sister offering him breakfast. The movie turns into a series of scenes that further reveal that Harriet is an axe murderer. Charlie asks Tony to look into the 3 honeymoon murders. Nothing is found and Tony convinces Charlie that there is nothing to worry about. At his parents anniversary, Charlie asks Harriet to marry him and they are quickly wed. The wedding party reveals further clues and Tony begins to grow suspicious. While Charlie and Harriet leave to start their honeymoon Tony races to the station to further investigate. The former friends and family of the murdered husbands identify Harriet as the wife and Tony races to the hotel where Charlie, also now under the impression that Harriet is the murderer, is trying to avoid Harriet. Tony gets in touch with Charlie to tell him that Harriet is Mrs. X, but the lines go dead before the message is transferred. Charlie locks Harriet in the closet only to find Harriet’s sister Rose swinging an axe at him. Rose chases Charlie onto the roof while Tony arrives to find Harriet in the closet. Harriet explains everything to Tony and Rose is locked in jail; Harriet and Charlie end up happily together.

The movie is set up in classic hitchcockian style. This style is parodied by following it exactly, the story begins with a revelation, which is slowly revealed to the main characters as the movie progresses and ends with a climax that the revelation is true. The movie uses stereotypes of Scottish people and foreigners in general to progress the story and add comedy. Anti-stereotypes, a lack of a stereotype that you would expect, are also used to parody a police chief, who you would expect to be loud, angry and mean is instead polite, friendly, and nice.

I think So I Married an Axe Murderer was the most enjoyable of the three films we have reviewed thus far. The stereotypes and anti-stereotypes were spot on and there was no shortage of good jokes. This movie had to have been based in San Francisco since many of the jokes were spoofs of San Francisco movies. If the movie were in a different location many of the parodies would have been irrelevant. An example of this is the main characters job, he is a poet and this is used as a doorway to make fun of San Francisco’s Beat poet history.

Carina Jaime

In class, we watched the movie So I Married an Axe Murder. This movie is about a guy named Charlie Mackenzie. Charlie is scared of commitment and he always breaks up with his girlfriends. One day he went to a butcher shop to buy haggis for his family. When he went inside he saw the girl that worked there, it was like love at first sight. When he went home, he was talking to his mom and they were talking about his relationships. His mom, May, brought up that she had read that there is a honeymoon killer. The honeymoon killer gets married with somebody and then kills them. Charlie thought it was all a lie. Charlie ended up dating the butcher, Harriet. One day she brought him back to her apartment and when Charlie woke up she saw a woman. At first, he thought it was Harriet, but it wasn’t. It was her sister Rose. In the middle of the film, Charlie and Harriet got married and went to Poet’s Corner for their honeymoon.

During the honeymoon, Charlie’s friend called him and told him that Harriet was in fact the killer. Charlie got scared out of his mind. When they got to the room, Charlie told Harriet to not get near him and she was confused. She was going to tell him about her other husbands. Charlie didn’t want to listen and locked her in the closet. When he turns around he sees Rose. Rose was the one who actually killed all the husbands. It turned out that the whole time Harriet thought her husbands abandoned her but Rose killed them all.

This film was a spoof because it made fun of the hitchcockian style. This specific film was making fun of mystery and suspense. One thing that they made fun of was the juice tiger because it was something that a lot of people used to have. They were making fun of the fact that people used to order things from TV. Another thing that they spoofed were Beat poets. They made Charlie a bad Beat poet on purpose. He had no rhythm and was terrible. They also made fun of the tour guide people. The tour guide person that Charlie and his friend had as at Alcatraz was really bad.

This film was the first film that I actually really liked in my elective class. It was really funny and I actually wanted to watch it. I liked how there was a twist in the film and how it just got you thinking one thing in the beginning and it just ended up changing. I had fun watching it and didn’t want it to end. I think that this movie did have to be based in San Francisco because it helps in how it looks and it has a better feel to it. For example when he was driving past the butcher shop the hills made it seem better. Also, when he was looking out of the window and saw the Golden Gate Bridge it gave a good feeling to the movie. Overall, I really liked this movie and how it involved comedy and funny stereotypes. I would recommend this film to anybody.

Reynaldo Culannay

In our classroom, we watched So I Married an Axe Murderer. In the beginning of the movie, it starts with Charlie Mackenzie, a poet, and his detective friend, Tony Giardino. They are in nightclub and Charlie performs a poem about his old girlfriend that he dumped. Then he went to a butcher shop to get some haggis for his parents, but when he saw the butcher, he fell in love. When he got to his parents house, he found out about a murderer named Mrs. X or the honeymoon killer from the weekly world news that his mother was reading. He went back to the butcher shop and saw that it was very busy, so Charlie helps the butcher named Harriet Michaels. They started to date but when Charlie read the paper about Mrs. X at his house again, he thought that she was Mrs. X because the items she had at her house describes the type people who were murdered. For example, at her house she had martial arts and one of Mrs. X’s husbands was a martial artist. Then Charlie dumped Harriet, but then he found out that she wasn’t Mrs. X because Tony found that she wasn’t. Later, Charlie got past thinking Harriet was Mrs. X and they got married. At their honeymoon, they found out that the real Mrs. X was Harriet’s weird and crazy sister, Rose. At the end, she is arrested and Charlie and Harriet lived happy together.

In the movie, the plotline was directed in hitchcockian style and as a parody/ spoof. Hitchcokian style was used to reveal the main point at the beginning of the movie, and as the movie progressed clues are revealed. Then near the end of the movie the realization comes into the main character, and everything comes together. The hitchcockian style was also used to build suspense in the movie to get the audience’s attention. Some parodies or spoofs in the movie are that it was making fun of mysteries, Scottish people, and poets. They also parodied that foreign families specifically Scottish, because they have hard time accessing American society. For example, like when Charlie’s mother bought a juicer. This theme was used to push the plot forward and make it interesting to keep the audience’s attentions.

I thought that it was a good movie that was based in San Francisco. San Francisco was a perfect setting to show the movie because it is the type of place where there are no interesting events happening. During that time, San Francisco had tall buildings and busy streets, which also makes the movie good because it makes the picture look big and interesting with more details describing where the characters are. Then there are more diverse people in San Francisco making the movie even more funny because of the movie’s anti-stereotypes. For example, the police in the movies supposed to be manly, tough guys, but in this movie they use anti-stereotypes to make the police weak or nice for humor. Overall, So I Married an Axe Murderer was a great movie to watch with interesting characters, humor, and a twisted plotline.

Jacob McPherson

Charlie Mackenzie is a beat poet who is played by Mike Myers and has a fear of commitment. He belongs to a family of drunk Scot’s who all are in love with the Weekly World News. They also are in love with haggis, and when Charlie goes to get some from a butcher shop, he meets the girl of his dreams. But an article in the Weekly World News about a woman who kills her husbands on their honeymoon. And this butcher girl Harriet fits all the characteristics. Just because its a movie the character doesn’t get it even when the clues are all around him. The movie is very well done and it’s plot twist is certainly better than any M. Night Shamalan garbage.

The film is done in a hitchcockian style, which is very similar to Alfred Hitchcock’s movies and it really just spoofs it with all the reveals to the character but unlike movies like “Disaster Movie” which was ninety minutes of mind numbing, terrible droll that never should have been created (just like its directors.) This pays homage to the films that it parodies, so it’s respectful. All the references to the movies that it does parody is very well done, like in one scene Harriet comes to dinner in a kimono like one of Alfred Hitchcock’s movies which I can’t remember the name of.

I loved this movie, it was very funny and very well done in the way it parodies the movies it makes fun of. The movie really does have to be set in San Francisco, several scenes like the ones in Poets Corner and Charlie’s house on North Beach. Or the haunted mansion up the coast near the Oakland hills wouldn’t have been there in any other setting. I thought that the acting on all parts was good, and that’s saying something because I’m not a fan of Mike Myers.

Logan Crespan

My elective watched So I Married An Axe Murderer. The movie was about a poet Charlie Mackenzie (Mike Myers) who couldn’t find love. When Charlie thinks that he has found the one he finds a flaw with her. He thinks that she is Mrs. X who is a woman who kills her husbands on their honeymoons. Charlie’s friend Tony Giardino tells him that he is crazy and that Harriet is a good girl. Charlie believes him and asks Harriet to marry her. Harriet takes a little convincing, but she eventually says yes. When they go on their honeymoon Charlie gets a call from Tony telling him that Harriet is Mrs. X. Charlie freaks out and starts getting scared.  When they are carried up to the room Charlie locks Harriet in the closet and is trying to call Tony when Rose (Harriet’s sister) swings an axe at Charlie’s head, but hits the phone. Harriet has no idea what is happening so she just starts screaming at Charlie. Charlie and Rose get in a fight on the roof of the hotel. It ends with Rose hanging off the roof and Tony grabbing her from inside a room. Rose ends up in custody and Charlie and Harriet lived happily ever after.

The movie uses the hitchcockian style. Which means that there is a reveal in the beginning of the plot, and then there is a realization when the characters realize what is happening. Finally it ends with a twist, and the plot comes together. The movie was a spoof on a suspense film, and on the director Alfred Hitchcock who usually does that kind of movie. The film also spoofed on stereotypes like Scottish people. They made the Scottish people heavy drinkers who ate disgusting food, wore kilts, and loved soccer. Also they used the stereotype that Beat-type poets have no talent. There was also a use of an anti stereotype, which the cops were weak and goofy. An anti stereotype is the opposite of the actual stereotype, so cops usually are portrayed tough and they switched it for humor.

I really liked this movie. It had great jokes and was very clever. It was a little cheesy at parts, but that also contributed to the comedy. I think that the movie had to be set in San Francisco because all the events that happened in the movie were at famous places in the city. One example is when Harriet and Charlie go on their honeymoon and they look out over the Golden Gate Bridge and throughout the movie they go to downtown San Francisco. Overall this is a great comedy, and I think that everyone will either love it or hate it.

Kyle Schank

In class we watched So I Married an Axe Murderer. It is about a Scottish man who is a poet. His mom shows him a magazine where there is a women named the honeymoon killer, because three of her husbands have disappeared on their honeymoon.  Charlie is going out with a woman who has some of the same aspects as the supposed honeymoon killer.  When Charlie goes into her (Harriet Michaels’) house, he sees even more things that point towards her being the killer such as, her mumbling one of the husbands’ names of the honeymoon killer.  In the morning Charlie meets Harriet’s sister Rose and she seems a little odd.  Charlie then gets scared and leaves Harriet.  He then goes back to her and asks for forgiveness.  Then at Charlie’s parents anniversary he proposes to Harriet.  To make a long story short they get married and go on their honeymoon!  They are staying in a mansion-like building north of San Francisco.  Then when they’re about to go to bed Rose, Harriet’s sister comes out of nowhere to kill Charlie.  They reveal that Harriet thought that all of her husbands just left her on their honeymoon, but really her sister killed them when she wasn’t looking.

This movie was a spoof to Alfred Hitchcock’s style of plot.  In which there is suspense built by characters not knowing things that the audience does.  Then there are more clues in which the character and you see.  These lead up to a realization later on in the movie.  The realization was, Charlie realized there actually was a honeymoon killer.  However they modified his style by adding a twist to the end of the film.  The hitchcockian style was used in this movie as one of the ways to build tension and suspense.  There are many ways to building suspense, but this was a spoof of how Alfred Hitchcock made his movies.  They were making fun of things that were part of other people such as poets, and Scottish people, and their lack of ability to easily join the American society.  This was used to push the story forward, by making Charlie, unable realize that there was a honeymoon killer until it was almost too late.

I thought So I Married an Axe Murderer was a very funny movie.  The funniest part of the movie is when Charlie Mackenzie is hanging on the roof of the hotel and Rose keeps chopping at his hands and he lets go at the last second.  While all this is happening Tony Giardino, a police officer is one floor down, accusing Harriet of being the murderer.  This just made me laugh hysterically, because every few seconds Charlie would be screaming, as he would have to let go of one hand.  This film also did a really good job of making fun of certain things like poets and Scottish people.  For example Charlie only has one way of saying poems, and uses different words but the same rhymes.  As for Scottish people Charlie’s dad is really funny, especially when he says, “we have a piper down, I repeat piper down!”

This film was set in San Francisco and should be set there.  It added to the funniness of the film, with the Alcatraz scene.  It also added to the movie because there are lots of foreigners who chose to move there, this added to the story.  To add to the spoofiness of the movie the made Charlie drive down the same street on which the famous car chase in the movie Bullitt started.  For these reason So I Married an Axe Murderer should be set in San Francisco.

Arash Ehya

Charlie McKenzie (Mike Myers) is a first-generation Scottish San Franciscan man who has a problem with commitment. Whenever he is in a relationship, he starts to doubt his significant other. It may be his insecurity as a man, but he always breaks off a relationship for a very forgetful reason. As he leaves his Beat hangout Roads on the famous Jack Kerouac Alley, he stops by a butcher shop to grab some haggis for his loving family. At this carnivorous market, he spots one of the most charming ladies he’s ever had the pleasure to meet. As the lady, Harriet (Nancy Travis), and Charlie become more acquainted, Charlie learns about an unfortunate string of events in his mother’s issue of the Weekly World News. A mysterious feminine murderer akin to Harley Quinn from Batman has been marrying men and killing them during the honeymoon. The News refers to this woman as Mrs. X. The more time passes, the more secrets are revealed and Charlie starts to think Harriet could be this insane woman. It turns out that Harriet’s sister, Rose (Amanda Plummer), is completely off her rocker, as she tries to kill Charlie and she actually is Mrs. X. In the end, an intense scene develops and Charlie returns the victor in his lover’s arms. The film ends with an outward pan accompanied by The La’s classic single “There She Goes” to provide a sappy feel to a very clever film.

So I Married an Axe Murderer is a parody of Hitchcock films and the Hitchcockian style. This is prevalent throughout the film and can be seen if the viewer has any knowledge of the works of good ol’ Alfred.  From the suspense built to the character styling, you can see examples of Hitchcock’s works everywhere. For example, Charlie is a lot like the protagonists of Hitchcock’s films in that he is scared, confused, and very oblivious to what is going on around him. In my opinion, something interesting that this film did was to flip the gender roles around. Charlie was a lot like the female characters of films like Psycho and Rear Window and Harriet was more of a mysterious male character. Also the twist is used in some Hitchcock films, so that explains the ending.

I really enjoyed this film. After seeing it for the third time, I can see even more of its brilliance. The comedy is perfect, the plot is entertaining, and as a San Franciscan a lot of the jokes targeted at the city were very funny to me. I hate most of Mike Myers’ works and it was refreshing to see him in something funny that wasn’t an SNL skit. It most definitely had to be set in San Francisco because as a parody of Hitchcock films, it had to be set where his films were set. It also did a great job at parodying the Beat culture of San Francisco and it also used many landmarks during the duration of the film. It’s a great film with lots of fun and a great setting of one of the greatest cities in the world.

Moving Along with Bullitt

Welcome back! The trimester is 2/3 done and we are only submitting our second web log. Hopefully, we will be able to complete one more film and blog before the end of the trimester.

Recently, we watched the 1968 film, Bullitt. We compared the filming techniques and the variation in storytelling between The Maltese Falcon and Bullitt. Also, we focused on the use of the archetype and music as ways to drive the plot. Truth be told, this film was not a well received as the first one, but the blogs that the students wrote are every bit as engaging, if not more than the first ones. Enjoy!

Carina Jaime

In class we watched the movie Bullitt by Peter Yates. This movie had a little action in it. This movie is about two men who got shot by hit men. Their names were Jonny Ross and Carl Stanton. The person who shot these two people was unknown. A detective whose name is Bullitt was determined to find out who had killed them. Once Bullitt found out that the killer was, he got involved in a car chase with them. We called them Shotgun and Driver because Shotgun shot with a shotgun and Driver because he was the driver in the car chase. Bullitt outsmarted Shotgun, and he and his partner ended up crashing into a gasoline station and died. While all this was going on, Ms.Renick, Jonny’s girlfriend, got murdered. The twisted part of this movie is that the Jonny Ross that died wasn’t really Jonny Ross. He was a fake. Jonny was the one who killed Ms.Renick. He tried to escape by going to Rome but Bullitt found him before he was able to leave. Once Jonny saw Bullitt, he jumped off the airplane and started running. Jonny attempted to kill Bullitt but he failed.  Bullitt ended up catching Jonny and killed him….

In this film there were many stereotypes.  One of the main stereotypes is masculinity. The way that the masculine stereotype was used is that men don’t have to do anything and that they are the bigger people in society.  Some examples in the movie are that the men didn’t do anything for themselves; somebody always has to do it for them. Like when their girlfriends cook and do everything for them. To me they were somewhat lazy, as if that was their excuse so they had everything brought to their feet. Even though it was a strong stereotype, it helped the plot move forward because if the men weren’t known as masculine then the movie wouldn’t make sense for the fact that the guys wouldn’t have any respect from anybody.

This movie had many interesting and exciting scenes. Therefore I did like this film. Some things that made me like the movie are the action scenes. For example, the one where Frank Bullitt was chasing the hit man in the hospital. That scene was very intense and eye catching. I liked the music they used and the lighting they used. When I saw this scene, I thought someone was going to die and it was very intense. Another scene was the car-chasing scene. I specifically liked this scene because it seemed realistic and dangerous. The fact that it looked realistic gave it an extra touch to it. This scene started out kinda weird and boring but it started to get better and better. Overall, this film was pretty good and met my expectations.

I feel like it doesn’t really matter if its in San Francisco. As long as the movie is filmed in a city that has tall buildings and hills like San Francisco does. The setting is good where it is but if it had to be changed it would probably be the same. San Francisco is really good and I wouldn’t suggest changing it but if they really had to and if it was necessary then it would be ok. Some things that made the setting in San Francisco is that the hills and buildings helped the car chase scene. Overall, the setting and film were all good and I liked the movie. I would recommend this film to other people.

Logan Crespan

In elective my class we watched Bullitt by Peter Yates. Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) is chosen by Chalmers, a politician to protect a mafia informant who was the witness for his case. His name was supposedly Jonny Ross. Then two hit men hired to kill “Jonny Ross” storm into the hotel room where “Jonny Ross” and one of Frank’s partners were hiding. The hit men shoot the partner in the leg and shoot “Jonny Ross” in the shoulder and the side of his face. They then leave  “Jonny” for dead. The hit men try to finish the job at the hospital where “he is being kept after the shooting.  The hitman is the spotted and is chased through the hospital. Then “Jonny” dies due to his wounds. Frank tells the hospital to keep the event a secret, so that he could catch the killers without Chalmers interfering. Frank and the two hit men get in a car chase. It ends with the two hit men running into a gas station and exploding. Then Frank finds out that  “Jonny” had called his girlfriend before he was killed and where she was staying. When he got to the room he found her dead with a red ring of blood around her neck. Frank then finds out that “Jonny” was not who he said he was. So he chases down who the real Jonny Ross was. He finds out that he is leaving on a flight for Rome. Frank immediately runs to the airport and stops the flight. Frank sees the person he was looking for and the chase was on. They ran outside and onto the runway. Then ended up back inside. Jonny is about to escaped when he sees two security guards and shoots one of them. Frank immediately pulls his pistol and kills him.

In the movie Frank Bullitt was the definition of masculinity. He was tough and strong. If he got a job he had to get it done. Also he drove a muscle car and was always involved in action. He also gets all the women. He is not afraid to drive on a two-lane road over one hundred miles per hour with traffic. With him being masculine it helps push the plot along. He can talk to criminals and get information. He can talk to chief of police and political figures. Also he can chase a criminal down that is shooting at him without pulling out his pistol.

I didn’t like the movie at all. It had no twisted events and it was boring. Also a lot of the facts were unreliable because it was set in San Francisco, and the time period was off. There should have been some soldiers around because the Vietnam War was going on. Also there should have been hippies because it was the Summer of Love the year before. Also the criminals were stupid they could have rammed Bullitt’s car off the road their car was bigger and they had a shotgun.  Overall it was a bad movie, so I strongly suggest not to watch it.

This movie definatly did not have to be set in San Francisco because there was no significance of San Francisco in the movie. The only thing that was sort of important was the car chase that was down the steep hills and narrow roads. It could have been set in a place that was hilly and had a busy airport. Good places for it to be set would be Los Angeles, New York, or Dallas. All of them have busy narrow roads that are hilly and a huge airport.

Reynaldo Culannay

Bullitt is about a detective cop named Frank Bullitt with his partners Delgetti and Carl Stanton. Their job was to protect a mafia person named Jonny Ross who is put in witness protection program by Walter Chalmers, a politician. When Carl Stanton was protecting Jonny at his hotel room, a hit man came in and shot Carl Stanton in the leg and injured Jonny in the shoulder. Later, Jonny was about to die but the hit man returned to finish the job and he did. Frank tried to catch the hitman and arrest him, but he escaped and it went into a car chase. At the end of the car chase, the hit men died from a car crash. Then a woman died in a hotel named Ms. Renick, and Frank and his partner Delgetti found out that the Jonny Ross who died in The hotel room was Ms. Renick’s husband and the real Jonny Ross is still alive. Frank found out that Jonny Ross was going back to Rome from San Francisco airport. He and Delgetti tried to catch up to him, but Jonny Ross keep running away. In the end, Frank found Jonny Ross and shot him because  Jonny was about to put his gun out and try to shot him.

In my opinion, I thought that Bullitt was a bad movie to watch because it doesn’t have any twisted or weird events that happen. The only thing that happens that was twisted was that Mr. Renick was killed because he was hired from the real Jonny Ross to hide. When I was watching Bullitt, at the end I couldn’t even think what I just saw, it was that boring. The only reason that they made this movie was to just to make a movie. Also, the car chase wasn’t that interesting to watch because the course was confusing with the hills and buildings. Bullitt was a sad movie to watch with no intense action.

It doesn’t need to be set in San Francisco because there are better areas where there are busier street for the car chase and bigger area for the enemies to hide in.  It should be placed in New York, Los Angeles or Seattle. Those areas have busier roads than San Francisco and have more bigger buildings too. It will give the drivers more obstacles to pass than the hills in San Francisco. It will also give more action, excitement, and surprise for the storyline to be interesting for the audience to enjoy. They will have more area for the detective to explore and give the villains a chance to escape.

In the movie Bullitt, there are masculine stereotypes. Some examples of masculine stereotypes used in Bullitt, is Frank Bullitt always trying to get the job done. The Director used Steve McQueen, the actor playing Bullitt, acting seriously and aggressive to attract the viewer attention. Also, the movie gives the viewer an idea that Frank Bullitt will get the job done some how. He is not afraid to get the job done and he never backs down on his words. Overall, the movie Bullitt used masculine stereotypes to attract the viewer attention and make it interesting.

Nathan Miller

Bullitt opens by setting up the story in the first third of the movie. We learn that Jonny Ross is a man in witness protection who has information about the Chicago mafia and is going to testify in court for Walter Chalmers. Frank Bullitt, Delgetti, and another detective Carl Stanton assigned by a politician named Walter Chalmers to protect Ross. Ross gets shot and dies in the Intensive Care Unit, so Bullitt asks the doctor there to put the body in a private ambulance and keep the death a secret for the time being so that Chalmers doesn’t shut down the case. Bullitt next rides around San Francisco to all the places where Ross had been, trying to find a clue about the person who had shot Ross. He then sees the people who had killed Ross and begins the pursuit that turns into the famous car chase scene. The murderers crash into a gas station and are blown up, Bullitt thinks the case is over, but then gets another lead. A woman is found dead at an apartment that Ross had made a phone call to prior to his death. There is a packed suitcase with a plane ticket and a missing passport in the apartment. The plane ticket is for a Mrs. Renick. Bullitt calls the airline to ask if Mr. Renick is going to check in. Bullitt and this partners Delgetti rushes to the airport where the real Ross posing as Renick, leads Bullitt on a chase around the San Francisco airport that ends in the death of Ross.

In my opinion the main ways masculine stereotypes were used in the movie was to explain why and give an excuse for the characters actions and also further the plot. Bullitt stole a newspaper, forced a doctor to lie to a politician because he wanted to keep investigating a case, and did many stereotypical things such as only preparing himself TV dinners. Without the masculine stereotype, Bullitt wouldn’t have made the doctor lie, and Chalmers wouldn’t have ended the case. This shows how the masculine stereotype was used in the film.

I thought Bullitt was entertaining but did not think it exceptional. The action was bland and story line confusing at parts. Darkness and sound are used to set the tone and at times they get in the way of the story. I give Bullitt a three out of five star rating.

Bullitt was shot in San Francisco and features many landmark locations. One of the opening scenes takes place in the Mark Hopkins Hotel, there are also shots of the Bay Bridge and Market Street. I assume these shots were written into the script, so I think Bullitt had to be shot in San Francisco. A city like Los Angeles or New York would have changed the car chase significantly, and seeing as it is possibly the most famous car chase ever I think San Francisco was the place to shoot it.

Jacob McPherson

Bullitt, an American film from 1968 was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It follows a constipated looking Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) around San Francisco looking for a hit man who killed a politician’s witness. The politician goes as Walter Chalmers, and his witness Johnny Ross was blown to bits by a man with a Winchester
12-gauge. Bullitt later partakes in a car chase with the hit men where he blows both of them up. Later it turns out that Johnny Ross is alive and then he is promptly killed by Bullitt. That is a terrible synopsis but in all honesty my brain is trying to block the atrocious memories of this awful film. That and when I was watching the movie we paused to talk a lot. Regardless, I like keeping my reviews short to not give away too much. The character development in this movie was even more terrible than the acting, and it was completely unrealistic and made
no sense, so if your are thinking of watching this movie, you might as well beat yourself in the face with a brick and choke on your broken teeth.

The only thing that I found interesting in this terrible movie was the director’s (Peter Yates) use of masculinity. Throughout the movie, we were constantly reminded of how women were only capable of mundane things, and can’t handle the sight of a bloody corpse strangled with a phone cord. Men in this movie broke laws when they needed to, to get the job done. This movie definitely did not have to be set in San Francisco. But that raises the question does any movie have to be set anywhere really? Anyway, they used no specific landmarks and didn’t do anything with San Francisco’s waterfront location. Nothing really relied on anything in the Bay Area. They also went to San Mateo, but didn’t use any particular landmarks there either.

I’m not going to lie to you, this movie just plain fell short. There was no good character development in this at all. All that you learn about any character is that Frank Bullitt is tough. The acting is horrendous, Steve McQueen just looks constipated the whole time, and his partner Delgetti barely says anything at all. The car chase scene includes a whole lot of unrealism, bad editing and terrible camera shots. Instead of watching this movie, hire a Russian wrestler to turn your hands to meat with a Quisinart

Daniel Peterson

In our elective, we recently watched Bullitt, a 1960’s action film set in San Francisco. It’s about a detective named Frank Bullitt, who is played by Steve McQueen. In the movie, a local politician named Walter Chalmers puts a witness for a senate hearing about the Chicago Mafia under the protection of Frank and his partner, Delgetti.  Unfortunately, two hit men break into the hotel room where the witness, whose name is Jonny Ross, is staying. The two hit men shoot the cop protecting Jonny Ross in the leg, and then nearly kill Ross. He is rushed to the hospital, where one of the hit men tries to finish him off, but Bullitt chases him off. Then Jonny Ross dies in surgery.

However, Bullitt wants to get the hitmen, so he has the doctor “misplace” Ross’s medical files, and Bullitt transfers Ross’s body to a morgue under a “John Doe”. After that, Frank retraces Johnny’s steps of the last few day’s of his life. While he does this, he notices that he is being followed by the hit men. They begin a car chase, which ends in the death of the hit men. At this point, Chalmers wants to know where Jonny Ross is, so he gives Frank’s commander a writ of habeas corpus.  Meanwhile, Frank and Delgetti discover that Jonny Ross called a woman in San Mateo several times. They travel there, but they discover that she is dead in her hotel room. While going through her luggage, they discover that her name was Dorothy Renick, and she was planning to go to Rome with her husband, Albert. Then, Ross’s fingerprint data arrived, showing the dead Ross wasn’t really Ross at all! He was really Albert Renick.  Also, They find that Ross was pretending to be Albert Renick. They hurry to the airport to intercept Ross before he can escape to Rome. They manage to intercept him, but in the process Ross is killed.

In Bullitt, the masculine stereotype of the time is utilized frequently. They portray Frank Bullitt as the masculine archetype of the 1960’s. The masculine stereotypes in Bullitt are very similar to those in The Maltese Falcon, because both Frank Bullitt and Sam Spade are portrayed as tough, capable and willing to break the law in order to get the job done. The stereotypes in the film are representative of the times because they portray Frank as somewhat sensitive because he is somewhat reluctant to use his gun, whereas in newer movies the masculine characters have no kind side.

There are many pros and cons of Bullitt. It has many good action sequences, and they make excellent use of camera angles and ambient sound to establish mood and create suspense. However, Steve McQueen does a horrible job playing Frank Bullitt because of his lack of facial expressions other than a serious face, and appears to be constipated several times during the film. Although the establishment of mood and suspense is excellent, the lackluster acting makes this movie less than enjoyable.

One somewhat underutilized theme of Bullitt is it’s setting in San Francisco. Although it visits the Mark Hopkins Hotel and other bay area landmarks, it does not necessarily have to be set in San Francisco. With a few simple changes, it could be set in any major city in America. Although the setting in San Francisco is not necessary, it does add some excitement to the car chase by utilizing the unique S.F. streets. So, although the setting was not necessary, it certainly added to the experience.

Arash Ehya

Bullitt follows the adventures of detective Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) and his faithful partner Delgetti (Don Gordon). When a hopeful politician Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn) decides to step up the social ladder and make members of the largest national mob the Organization testify to Congress, he comes to Frank Bullitt for help. Bullitt is the symbol of masculinity in this story. He’ll do whatever he has to do to get his way. Out of the said “Organization”, Johnny Ross (Pat Renella) is one of the only well known members. Chalmers believes that if he can get Ross to testify in front of Congress, he can bust the Organization. If he can prove to the members of the Senate that he is competent enough to bust one of the most prominent branches of organized crime, he’ll make a name for himself in Washington. As Bullitt follows Chalmer’s instructions and desperately tries to protect the found witness Johnny Ross, Ross is apparently killed by an unknown white-haired killer (John Aprea) armed with a Winchester pump shotgun. This is where the movie really kicks off. As Bullitt desperately searches for the killer of Ross, he realizes Ross wasn’t killed at all. Instead, an innocent look-a-like was slaughtered in his name. A mysterious conspiracy unfolds and Bullitt finds Ross escaping to Rome. After a lengthy chase in the airport, Bullitt’s bullets kill Ross. The movie ends with Bullitt considering his actions and testing his masculinity.

One of the main points of Bullitt is the theory of stereotypical masculinity and its place in society. Steve McQueen’s character is a perfect example of this common element in action-packed films. In Bullitt, masculinity is portrayed frequently throughout the story. From the connection between the police force and manliness to Frank Bullitt’s characteristics, the movie is filled with set aspects of each gender and their place in society. Frank Bullitt is a manly man, a macho man; he breaks the law if he has to. He does whatever he has to do for the “greater good”. He doesn’t do meticulous tasks; those things are for the women. Cathy, Bullitt’s girlfriend cooks, cleans, and can’t handle looking at a bloody corpse. These are qualities of both sexes that can be considered stereotypes. Bullitt tells the viewer the primitive theory that men are strong and women are weak many times throughout the film.

I can’t say I really enjoyed the film. It seemed rushed, hastily edited, and confusing to a terrible degree. One thing I really enjoyed about the film was the score. I could tell a lot of heist films of this era like the modernized Ocean’s 11 series were inspired by the quick, hip, and jazzy style of Bullitt’s soundtrack. It got the blood pumping at the right times and that’s very important for a film like this. The only thing this film is known for is the car chase scene, and I can’t say it’s aged well. At one point, you can see a very obvious mistake in the editing. A car just disappears before the shot is over. The acting is an imitation of old-style Hollywood films and the movie was over all disappointing. I think this film is a forgotten, yet historically important, sub-par garden of stereotypes ranging from late 60’s culture to each gender’s place in society.

Bullitt does not have to be set in the fine city of San Francisco. I cannot think of one moment of this film that was even remotely related to “San Fran”. No mentions of landmarks, historical or geographical, are apparent. It could have been set in any remotely large city west of the Mississippi. Come to think of it, only one scene of the film required the features of San Francisco, the car chase. A huge part of the excitement drawn from that scene is the motion of the muscle cars after they stampede through each minor hill of Van Ness Ave. Besides that minor segment which could have been efficiently carried out in another hilly city, there is absolutely nothing else that made the film’s setting of San Francisco mandatory.

Kyle Schank

This past week, my classmates and I watched the movie Bullitt.  It’s about two detectives, Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) and Delgetti (Don Gordon).  Walter Chalmers a politician sees a good chance to rise in society after a mafia man is going testify against the mafia.  Walter is bringing the mafia man to the court case.  After a case where two men are shot by two Mafia hit men.  There is a man (Johnny Ross) who is thought to be dead after the shooting. He was said to be running from the mafia.  Walter wants him to speak in front of the senate so that he can testify against the mafia.  This will make Walter become part of the senate.  When the man thought to be Ross is still alive in the hospital a hit man comes to finish him off.  However, Frank Bullitt is there and sees him, then chases him out of the hospital.  He doesn’t catch him though.  The fake Ross is dead when Bullitt comes back.  Bullitt tells the doctor to get rid of the report and hide the body.  He does this so Chalmers won’t just end the case since Bullitt wants to find the hit man that tried to finish the supposed Ross.  Chalmers then serves Bullitt’s boss (Captain Bennett) with a writ of habeas corpus to make Bullitt show where the dead body of the man that got shot is.  Then as Bullitt’s in his car the two hit men try to follow him, but Bullitt notices them and speeds off to try and get behind them.  Then Bullitt rams them and they blow up.  Later on they find a dead woman on the floor in a hotel.  They inspect the two suitcases she had and find men’s clothes and a flight to Rome.  After that they identify the two people and figure out they were a couple with a last name in Renick.  Ross is still alive!  Ross is on a plane to London and then to Rome.  Bullitt stops the plane and chases Ross and shoots him multiple times…. what an ending that everyone saw coming.

There was quite a bit of masculine stereotypes.  The masculine stereotype was used to push the plot forward by having Frank Bullitt do things that were above the law but that were for the greater good.  They made his face up to look more masculine but in my opinion he looked like he was constipated the whole film.  Some stereotypes used to make men be “burly” were, men don’t need to buy newspapers they can just steal one, and they don’t need to cook they can just go buy some TV dinners or have their girlfriend/wife make them food.  Since Bullitt was supposed to be buff, all the ladies were supposed to like him.  In my opinion it should be the opposite.  Why would someone like some guy who, has no skills in anything but just getting his “manly” job done.  They wanted to make him as masculine as possible but really they screwed it up when he kills Jonny Ross at the end, and almost breaks down.  I don’t understand why you would have something like that happen.  I think they should have had it be all or nothing.  It contradicted everything he had done throughout the movie, in terms of stereotyped masculine actions.  Yes, there are true stereotypes but in the end I think they worked against the movie….

I thought the plot of the movie was very bad, it was confusing and not very interesting.  The look on Frank Bullitt (Steve McQueen) was very distracting to the plot, being he was trying to be serious.  The people being the “bad guys” in the movie were some of the stupidest people, specifically the hit man and driver.  Yes, I will say Jonny Ross was pretty smart in his plan to escape to Italy but why would you make the “bad guys” so dumb.  For example, this one really gets me, in the car chase: the hit man and driver are in a big huge, black, intimidating car.  So why don’t they just ram Frank Bullitt’s piece of junk off the road like he ends up doing to them?  Sure they were just trying to get away from him but wouldn’t killing him do that just fine?  What I’m trying to say is it was another bad plot, predictable movie that tried to use masculine stereotypes to push the plot forward but really failed in the long run.  I understand this is just my opinion but I’m sure many others will notice these same errors.  The story didn’t capture me, but I felt it had the ability to if it was done better.

Most of this movie was set in San Francisco.  At this time period, San Francisco was established as a modernized, main city of the United States.  Although there weren’t many skyscrapers, there were many famous buildings that were used throughout the movie.  I just don’t think it would have the same feel and surrounding if it were to be set in another city.  That’s why I feel they chose San Francisco.  It was a new setting for a car chase.  With tall hills and the famous bridges it was a unique setting for a chase.  Personally, I think there wasn’t another city in the US that could make the setting unique like San Francisco was.  Although, people may say there weren’t many scenes that actually needed things that only SF provided.  I don’t think there was any other city that could do any better.

Welcome and the Maltese Falcon

Welcome to the first installment of the I’ve Got Something to Say! movies and blogging elective. In this class we watch movies that are based in and around San Francisco, and then write web logs about them. The blogs we write are to follow a basic three paragraph format: 1. give a synopsis of the movie, 2. give their opinion, citing specific points about the film, and 3. opine whether the movie needed to be filmed in San Francisco or could have been filmed in another location. With in each of these paragraphs, students will use the “Core Questions” that I develop for each film. These questions are handed out at the beginning of each film and are answered during the course of the movie. This is the format that will be followed for all subsequent entries, with the possible additional questions to be answered.

I am very excited about this class! The students have really taken to the tasks and have stated some fairly interesting points about our first film, The Maltese Falcon. It was really interesting watching the students follow and engage in the black and white film from 1941!

During the viewing, we discussed basic filming techniques and terminology used in the movie and blogging worlds. Each of the students were given a terminology sheet so that they can reference it and add to it as more films are presented. Each of the students have worked very hard and they should be commended on a job well done. Once you are done reading the blogs, please leave a positive comment so that we know that you have been here! Enjoy!

Logan Crespan

In class we watched the Film Noir movie, The Maltese Falcon, made in 1941 by John Huston. It was a thrilling and mysterious film. In the story, a woman named Brigid O’Shaughnessy said that she was looking for her sister. When Sam Spade’s partner (Miles Archer) went out looking for Brigid’s sister he was shot. A man named Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet) wanted the jewel-encrusted Falcon, which was worth a lot of money. He originally thought that Sam Spade had it. Then he hired Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) a money-loving detective to search for the Falcon. Sam Spade was already on a case for Bridget O’Saughnessey who was one of Gutman’s former accomplices. Later in the movie they all get caught up in the same controversy, and truths are revealed.

I really like this movie because it had an interesting plot, and a great cast of characters. I really liked the attitude of Sam Spade because he was a strict-money loving detective. I think that it was a perfect role for him. Mr. Gutman was played as a stereotype of a fat and jolly man. He was a very fun character to watch he always had clever lines. Also, I liked how the events in the plot fell into place in the story. In all of the events, if you look close you can see little clues to unlock some of the mystery yourself. Overall this was a great movie and I strongly suggest to watch it.

There are some good parts in the movie, but it did not have to be set in San Francisco. San Francisco was a good place to set it though. It was a relatively new town at the time, and there were a lot of empty dark alleys for things to happen. Also it had a very busy port (in the movie a boat is set on fire at the port). It could be set in any relatively busy city with a port. Like New York City, it was bigger and busier at the time. Also it had a port and some dark alleys. So I really suggest watching this 1941 masterpiece by John Huston.

Reynaldo Culannay

The Maltese Falcon is a good movie for people who like adventure and mystery. It was a film in 1941 and directed by John Huston. The movie is about two private investigators Sam Spade and Miles Archer, and set in in San Francisco. The two investigators are informed about a lady named Miss Wonderly and she told them that her sister was missing. Then Miles followed a suspect, but the suspect killed him. So Sam Spade investigates the mystery of Miles’ death and found that their clients real name is Brigid O’ Shaughnessy and found more about her background. She was scared because she did something wrong a long time ago so she turned to Sam Spade for help. But Sam Spade learned more about Brigid, like she stole the Maltese Falcon, she killed Miles and worked with a businessman named Gutman with his workers Joel Cairo and Wilmer (The Kid). Overall, the end of the movie ended by Brigid going to jail.

I thought that the movie was good because it have a lot of mysterious things that happened in the story line. The story line was interesting with a lot of intense action, unknown killing, and the black and misty shadows. To me, the movie gave a lot of unknown information in the beginning but at the end the whole mystery was solved. What I didn’t like was all the shadows and darkness that was everywhere because it made it hard to see the people. The movie is really old fashion and uses a lot of stereotypes because it was placed in the past. Overall, since it’s the first Film Noir it’s a pretty good movie if you like intense mystery.

I thought that the movie should never have been set in San Francisco because it would be better where the real Maltese Falcon was located. It should be placed in the Istanbul, Turkey where Brigid O’ Shaughnessy, Joel Cairo, and a guy named, Floyd Thursby tried to steal the Maltese Falcon. It will show us hints to where the real Maltese Falcon is rather than where the fake one that Gutman’s workers stole.

San Francisco has a lot of people so it’s easy to hide because in the old days in San Francisco. There weren’t that many tall buildings so people could hide in dark corners. In conclusion, the Maltese Falcon is well-written movie with a lot of action, and mystery, but has bad settings and surroundings.

Arash Ehya

The Maltese Falcon (1941) follows private eye Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) in one of the most important cases of his life. The story takes so many twists and turns it’s hard to follow. Of course, that’s typical for this style of film. In the end, it all gets unraveled and the viewer is left utterly astounded. The film starts off with a stereotypical, emphasis on the “typical”, female character for the time period. She’s timid, nervous, and very submissive. She enters the private offices of Sam Spade politely asking for his help in finding the shady boyfriend of her “sister”, Floyd Thursby. As Spade and his partner begin to pursue Thursby, Spade’s partner Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan) and Thursby himself are both shot and killed within the same hour on complete opposite sides of town. Due to Spade’s sexual activity with his deceased partner’s wife, he is not emotionally stricken.

As Spade investigates both murders to cover his own scrutinized back, he begins to inspect the woman who solicited him at the start of the film, Brigid O’Shaughnessy. Through his endeavor of suspecting this seductive woman, he learns about a historical and valuable artifact, a golden and jewel crested statuette of a falcon given to King Charles by the Knights of Malta; this is the “Maltese Falcon”. Then, another strange character is introduced named Kasper Gutman. He’s fat, jolly, and hungry for the artifact he has been searching for throughout 17 painstaking years of his life, the Maltese Falcon. Gutman’s ragtag team of followers try to take the Maltese Falcon from who they believe is the owner, Sam Spade. Meanwhile, Sam Spade receives a package from a mysterious sailor who dies as he hands it to Spade. As Spade hastily rips open the wrapping, it is revealed to be the Maltese Falcon. Hungry for money and information, Spade decides to strike a deal with the strange and shady crew of Gutman. He decides to sell this artifact of mystical quality to the man who longed for it so fiercely.  After a serious conspiracy unfolds between Bridget O’Shaughnessey and the cohorts of Kasper Gutman, the film satisfies the viewer thoroughly with a swift and explanatory ending similar to other films of this genre. The insanity continues as it turns out Ms. O’Shaughnessy was in cahoots with Gutman’s crew all along. As the tables turn and Spade comes out on top, he leaves with the artifact that turned out to be fake, leaving all of Gutman’s crew in despair and law enforcement in glee.

This film is proof that cinema is an art. The depiction of emotion mixed with common stereotypical elements make this film a must see. It really stands out from all of the other films of this era. This glorification of classic film is something that keeps the average viewer from exploring all times of film. A viewer may go and watch a film like Gone With the Wind and think that all “old” films are the same melodramatic hubbub. The Maltese Falcon is superb; not only because it is generally well made from a technical standpoint but because it still stands to the test of time. It has aged well. People who enjoy films as undeniably horrible as Meet the Spartans will still enjoy this film because it grabs the viewer. The acting, lighting, underlying power play, and fresh characterization of character types all make this film A-grade.

Did this film have to be set in the San Francisco Bay Area? Yes. I believe that wholeheartedly. Everyone agrees that films of the Film Noir genus should be set in a mysterious city. San Francisco provides the perfect setting for a story like this. It’s not too big and not too small. It’s crowded enough for a mystery like this to happen, but barren enough for it to be uncovered. Many points in the film lead to the necessity of it being based in San Francisco. Over all, San Francisco is the size and scale of a setting required for The Maltese Falcon.

Carina Jaime

In class, my peers and I watched the Maltese Falcon, made in 1941 by John Houston. It was based in San Francisco and the two main
characters are Sam Spade and Miles Archer. In the beginning of the film, Miles Archer was shot at night by a dangerous evil killer.
Nobody knew what happened to him. Before he was killed a lady named Brigid O’Shaughnessy came to see Sam Spade’s office. She told him that she was searching for her sister and she knew that she would find her in San Francisco. The tricky part is that it was all a lie. Sam pretended to follow along but he knew it was not true. Throughout the film, Miss Wonderly is known as a liar. She lied about many things like her name. Her real name is Brigid O’Shaughnessy. Sam knew that she lied so he paid her a visit at her apartment. When Sam arrived, all she said was more lies. It turned out that she was looking for a black bird, which is the Maltese Falcon. There was another guy named Kasper Gutman, also known as the fat man. He was also looking for the black bird. One day someone came to Sam’s office and was dying. He had dropped a big package on the floor and he instantly knew what it was, it was the Maltese Falcon. Brigid tricked Sam into her apartment. Gutman, Wilmer and Joel Cairo were there. He told them that he had the bird and he would give it to them in return for money. The bird was fake and Brigid ended up being the one who killed Miles Archer.

I think that this movie had a weird beginning to it because of the killing and lies. By the middle of the movie, it started making more
sense to me. I understood why everybody wanted to know Sam. I thought that the plot of the movie was very good because it gets you thinking bout every little thing. Also, there were parts where I didn’t like it because it just didn’t make sense at all and I wondered if there was going to start connecting anytime soon. Even though it was weird how they set it up, I liked it anyways.

What was good about this movie is how they wrote it and the characters that they picked for each person. Something that impressed me was how all the people were into their characters. I also liked that they made it be in San Francisco because it’s a well know city and because I could see the crime actually happening there. Also, the time period that they set is good because it helped the plot more. For example, everything was done with money and no credit cards. Something I didn’t like is that they made so many stereotypes. One example of a stereotype is that women are a weaker sex and that men are the only people that can do the important things. Overall, the film was pretty good and I would recommend it to other people because it’s a good classic movie.

Jacob McPherson

The Maltese Falcon is one of the few 100% movies I have ever seen (besides Trolls 2). All the characters did what I wanted them to do,
nothing spectacular from anyone, save Humphrey Bogart, who is awesome. The plot took place in 1940 San Francisco, which I thought should’ve taken place in New York because it was bigger, and everyone in San Francisco talks like they’re from New York.

The main characters, Sam Spade and Miles Archer are privatedetectives. A woman comes in as Miss Wonderley and asks them to tail a man named Floyd Thursby. Archer goes after him and gets shot. Sam gets the blame for a brief fling he had with Archer’s wife. Afterwards, Sam gets a call from a Brigid O’Shaughnessy and she asks him to go to her apartment. It turns out that it was Miss Wonderley but Brigid was her real name. Apparently she came to San Francisco with Floyd to escape her pursuers from Istanbul. As Sam goes back to his office to contemplate what has happened a man named Joel Cairo comes into his office, with a scented business card. Spade quickly lets him in and Joel pulls a gun on him. Spade apprehends him but makes the mistake of giving him the gun again; Joel continues to search Sam’s room for a black bird. When Joel leaves, Sam meets up with a man named Gutman, who informs Sam about the Maltese Falcon, a jewel encrusted statuette covered in black enamel. Gutman then threatens if he doesn’t get the bird he will make things uncomfortable. Sam leaves and meets up with Brigid to talk about the bird where he is told Joel and Gutman are working together, Sam goes back to Gutman’s place and is knocked out. Upon awakening Sam leaves to go to his office. When he gets there, a man more dead than alive, lumbers into his office with the Maltese Falcon. He promptly goes to the bus station to leave it in a locker. Afterwards he goes to Spade’s place to collect the money where he gets them arrested. I left out most of the detail because I don’t want to spoil it, and you know they got arrested anyway.

As for my opinion, I loved this movie! It was a fantastic mystery movie where nothing at all was predictable. I have always been a fan
of Film Noir, and this, being the first Film Noir, was an A+ without having to do anything! All the actors had very clever lines and they
were well established. This film is a definite must see.

Nathan Miller

In the “I’ve Sot Something to Say!” elective, over the past two weeks, we watched The Maltese Falcon. It is a Noir film starring Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor, directed by John Huston. In the opening scene we were introduced to Sam Spade, played by Bogart, and his partner Miles Archer. A lady approaches them by the name of Miss Wonderly, who asks them to look for her sister who is with a man named Floyd Thursby. Miles takes the task and is killed, also found murdered is Floyd Thursby. We next learn that Miss Wonderly was lying and her real name is Brigid O’Shaughnessy. She tells Sam that she was here with Thursby and upon returning to his office he is held up by a man named Joel Cairo who is looking for a black bird.

Sam notices a kid following him, and confronts him, thus setting up a meeting between Sam Spade and Gutman. Gutman is after the same black bird and turns out to be employing Joel Cairo. Gutman drugs Spade, and when he wakes up he returns to his office where a man, seconds away from death, appears and drops a package containing the bird. Spade hides the bird and then comes face to face with Gutman and his crew, along with Brigid. Gutman pays Spade one thousand dollars of hush money and is then forced to flee. Then Spade calls the cops and releases the locations of each of them, and gets Brigid to admit she shot Miles Archer.

I think this is an excellent mystery movie full of plenty of twists and turns. If you are looking for an entertaining Film Noir, I would highly recommend The Maltese Falcon. I would move this to the top of my short list of mystery movies and happily watch it again. Even though this is a black and white film it doesn’t take away from the story, and helps set the mood of the time period. I give The Maltese Falcon two thumbs up.

I do not think The Maltese Falcon has to be set in San Francisco. The only completely needed thing for the plot to work was a port, and cities like New York and Portland could have easily fulfilled this requirement. In the time period of the movie, San Francisco was less populated than these cities though, and there is something to be said for that. Also S.F. was seen as a mysterious city, full of shadowy figures with lots of interesting characters coming and going. Other than one of the opening scenes in the movie however, there were no shots of the city itself that gave away it’s location. I do not think The Maltese Falcon had to be set in San Francisco.

Daniel Peterson

In our elective, we watched The Maltese Falcon, a noir film starring Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor. The movie is based on the mystery by Dashiell Hammett. The film begins when Sam Spade (Bogart) and his partner, Miles Archer, are contracted by Miss Wonderly (Astor), to find her sister, who is staying with Floyd Thursby, who supposedly is very dangerous. While following Floyd, Miles is shot and killed. Floyd Thursby was also killed in close proximity. Then Miss Wonderly reveals that her real name is Bridget O’Shaughnessy. When Sam Spade returns to his office, he has a gun pointed at him by a man by the name of Joel Cairo, who searches his office. On a return visit to Brigid’s hotel room, he realizes that he is being followed by someone. Bridget refers to the follower as the “Kid”, and says that if he’s here, she and Floyd Thursby, who was her partner, were followed to San Francisco by someone she calls the “Fat Man”. Sam goes to meet the Fat Man. At the meeting, Sam pretends to get quite angry, and then proceeds to storm out. At the meeting he learns “the Kid’s” name is Wilmer. Later that day, Sam returns for another meeting, and the “Fat Man”, whose name is Gutman, reveals to Sam the history of the Maltese Falcon. Then Gutman poisons Sam, and leaves to search for the falcon. When Sam Spade regains consciousness, he returns to his office, where a nearly dead man delivers the falcon, then dies. After cleverly hiding the falcon, Sam Spade returns to his apartment, where Gutman, Joel Cairo, Bridget O’Shaughnessy, and Wilmer are waiting. Sam Spade then negotiates the sale of the bird for ten thousand dollar. Unfortunately, for Gutman, the bird is a fake. After Gutman, Wilmer, and Joel Cairo leave, Sam Spade learns that Bridget was the person who killed his partner, and she goes to jail.

The Maltese Falcon is an excellent movie, and I would recommend it to a mystery movie or Noir Film lover. However, for the casual watcher, the plot is a bit hard to follow. With that being said, I would recommend it to someone who is willing to pay attention to detail. Also, the movie uses many stereotypes about women, fat people and foreigners so I wouldn’t watch it if you are sensitive to that sort of thing. Despite these subtle uses of stereotypes, the acting is excellent, and it is an all-around excellent movie.

This movie is very good, but the San Francisco setting is completely and totally unnecessary. The creators make no effort to visit any of San Francisco’s major landmarks, and apparently, the only requirement for a city as the setting is one with a port, where ships from the Orient arrive at. The setting of San Francisco is not necessary, and a lot of the groups who would be a major part of San Francisco, like the Chinese, are conspicuously absent. The setting of San Francisco is pointless. However, the choice of San Francisco is no worse than any other city on the West Coast, so it really doesn’t matter.

Kyle Schank

In class we watched The Maltese Falcon, starring Humphrey Bogart.  This film was in the style of Film Noir.  John Huston, a famous director from that time, was the director.  The movie is about two private investigators.  One day a woman (Miss Wonderly) comes into their office and asks them to help her find her sister.  Soon after this happens Sam Spade’s (Humphrey Bogart) partner Miles Archer is killed.  We later find out that Miss Wonderly’s real name is Brigid O’Shaughnessy, and that she doesn’t have a sister.  Sam Spade meets with a businessman by the name of Kasper Gutman. He wants the Maltese Falcon, and he believes Sam Spade has it.  Gutman and his men threaten Sam Spade to try and scare him into giving them the Maltese Falcon.  Sam Spade ends up giving them the Maltese Falcon, but it turns out to be a fake!  Once Gutman and his men leave, Sam calls the cops and turns them in.  Brigid tells Sam that she was the one who killed Miles Archer.  Against his will, Spade turns her in because he knows it is the right thing to do.  He gives the cops the fake Maltese Falcon for evidence, and this is how the film ends.

I liked the movie.  It was good.  Even though it was in black and white, which living in the age of color I am not used to that, it was still very entertaining.  There was a lot of mystery.  You didn’t want to leave the film because you would probably miss a subtle clue.  For example, when Sam Spade leaves Gutman’s room, and when he’s on the elevator about to leave Joel, Cairo comes off another elevator and goes into Gutman’s room.  There were many more instances like this in the film.  I thought there was some really good acting. I haven’t ever watched a Film Noir movie.  So I really liked the fact that you never really knew who was the bad person or good person.  They were all just kind of hidden people, especially at the beginning of the movie, you didn’t know much about what the characters were up to.

Some good aspects of the movie were, the acting was really good and it looked really real in terms of the fighting for a 1940’s film.  Personally, I didn’t see much that was bad about the movie, at times the plot was a bit difficult for me to follow but I think that was how the film was supposed to be.  You had to really pay attention to everything that was happening in the film or else you could miss a key line or action.  I also like mysteries as a genre.  One of my favorite types of movies is a well-written, well-acted mystery.  I felt that this movie could be placed in any big town that borders the ocean in the United States.  I thought New York City would fit because it has a big foreign port.  It was built up already and was established.  San Francisco had a lot of dark corners and no skyscrapers at this time.  Overall this movie was very enjoyable and entertaining.  As you can see, I didn’t find anything wrong with it and I will look forward to watch more Film Noir.