Entertainment
48 Years Later, This Remake of the Greatest Noir Thriller Ever Hasn’t Aged Well
Remakes can be terribly hit or miss, and that’s just as true in the noir genre as with anything else. Slow-burn mysteries with fast-paced dialogue are typically a great combination, especially when the film stays true to the novel it’s adapting in the first place. But in the case of one Robert Mitchum noir picture, the 1978 adaptation of The Big Sleep, it’s painfully clear that following the source material doesn’t always lead to a direct hit. More than that, it proves without a shadow of a doubt that some movies just shouldn’t be remade unless they’re guaranteed to be done right.
‘The Big Sleep’ Remake Loses What Made the Original Great
If you’ve never seen the Humphrey Bogart version of The Big Sleep, then go and do so immediately. The 1946 picture is truly the undisputed gold standard for noir detective features, and while there are several others that could claim that very title, The Big Sleep is simply enchanting. Bogart played Philip Marlowe — a character created by author Raymond Chandler in his novel of the same name — with the perfect cadence and charm befitting of an old-school private eye. His chemistry with Lauren Bacall (whom he married off-screen) is simply legendary, and the filmmakers famously rewrote the ending in order to keep her more involved in the overall plot. While Bogart’s The Big Sleep is quite faithful to the book for the first two-thirds or so, it begins to deviate considerably toward the end. Although it lands, some hard-core fans of the novel certainly might have wished for a more proper adaptation. So, when British filmmaker Michael Winner took a stab at Chandler’s stellar detective novel, he aimed to better honor the muddied themes and complicated plot of the book on the screen. In the end, it didn’t quite pan out that way.
33 Years Later, the Best All-Star Western Is Still a Masterpiece From Start to Finish
It can be your huckleberry.
Of course, if you’ve seen the 1978 film, then you already know that it makes two distinct changes to the material. For one, it controversially moves the plot from 1940s Los Angeles into 1970s London, which was the adaptation’s first (though not only) big mistake. By taking the film out of its LA setting, the deeply American roots of the tale are cast aside, which is a turn-off for anyone intimately familiar with the story. Secondly, the remake cast Robert Mitchum in the role as Marlowe (reprising the part from his previous work in Farewell, My Lovely, which was set in LA). Not only is Mitchum a bit too old to convincingly play Marlowe (who is meant to be in his mid-30s), but he’s a few steps down from Bogart, who was far more convincing. Nevertheless, Winner tackled The Big Sleep with the goal of bringing the rest of the story to life with more attention to detail and a greater emphasis on the criminal underbelly displayed in the novel.
In many respects, the British remake follows Chandler’s novel to a “T.” Much of the dialogue comes straight from the book, and the way that the picture emphasizes the sexual deviancy that Marlowe uncovers as he investigates Geiger’s murder is certainly truer to the book than what the original Howard Hawks film was able to show back in the ’40s. And that’s not to forget about the ending, which is ripped straight from the source material and doesn’t romanticize the climax the way that the Bogart and Bacall picture did. In fact, aside from some minor shifts and the alternate setting, there’s not much difference between the novel and the 1978 film at all. With a cast that also included James Stewart, Richard Boone, Sarah Miles, and Oliver Reed, Winner should have knocked this remake out of the park… So, what happened? Well, for one thing, the end result is quite dull, further echoing the misfire performance of its leading man.
Robert Mitchum Doesn’t Quite Nail the Role of Philip Marlowe
Although Mitchum played Marlowe twice in his career, The Big Sleep doesn’t do him any favors. For one thing, he refrains from utilizing any of Marlowe’s understated but still effective charisma, playing the part almost as if he’s too bored to take it seriously. In contrast to Bogart’s Marlowe, Mitchum’s interpretation is also far less complex, which makes him a bit more irritable to both the characters around him and even the audience. Although he recites many of the famous lines as if reading directly from Chandler, there appears to be very little subtext behind them — part of which may be a biproduct of moving the tale from Los Angeles to London. The British aesthetic simply doesn’t work for the film, and everything from the lighting to the cinematography comes off just as flat as Mitchum does.
While Bogart was already in his mid-40s when playing the character, Mitchum was 60 when The Big Sleep hit theaters. He certainly wasn’t the jaded, younger man who Chandler describes in his novel, nor does he quite fit the part on the screen either. In fact, when he meets with Stewart’s General Sternwood about the job he’s been hired for, there doesn’t appear to be much difference between them, as the stars were only a decade apart in age. The whole thing comes across as a bit insincere, and perhaps much of that is due to the strange attempt to make the whole thing British (half-handedly attempting to explain why so many Americans have migrated to London). Likewise, the chemistry between Mitchum and Charlotte Regan (Sarah Miles) is nothing compared to what we see between Bogart and Bacall in their attempt (or even what the pair were able to achieve with Ryan’s Daughter), making us wonder why anyone thought this was a good idea in the first place.
Despite Sticking to the Source Material, ‘The Big Sleep’ Is Not a Worthwhile Endeavor
Although the film was not afraid to dive into the same controversial topics as the original, it’s significantly less effective as a motion picture. The 1978 version features stars who don’t seem terribly enthusiastic about being there, with dry performances, uninspired lighting unbecoming of a noir, and an overreliance on sex to sell. It’s no wonder that Winner’s take on The Big Sleep was ultimately panned by the likes of Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, and other notable critics of the day, with audience scores that fall even lower when you consider IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Frankly, their response is entirely understandable. Everything that made the original 1946 picture an instant classic is absent from this shoddy attempt, proving that simply following the source material does not always make a good movie.
Compared to all the other Philip Marlowe adaptations, there’s so little about The Big Sleep worth revisiting that you’re much better off just watching both versions of the Bogart version (the 1945 original cut and the 1946 theatrical), which will not only be more satisfying, but far more enjoyable. Yes, Winner and Mitchum’s The Big Sleep is arguably the more faithful adaptation, despite the clear departures, but that simply isn’t enough to consider it the best take on the double-crossing detective tale. An adaptation ought to also capture the spirit of the work it’s based on, bringing to the surface the same feelings of suspense, dread, doubt, and excitement as you watch Philip Marlowe turn over every loose end and bring the case to a close. If that’s the type of flick you’re hoping for, you’ll only find it in Bogart’s unashamedly American take on The Big Sleep. Mitchum should’ve stuck to making noir Westerns instead…
You must be logged in to post a comment Login