What do you think?
Rate this book
BFI Film Classics
The Big Sleep
This text shows how The Big Sleep signalled a change in the nature of Hollywood cinema, as the director Howard Hawks shot extra scenes, "fun" scenes, to replace the ones in which the murders are explained, and in so doing left the plot unresolved.
73 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 1997
About the author
David Thomson
66 books147 followersDavid Thomson, renowned as one of the great living authorities on the movies, is the author of The New Biographical Dictionary of Film, now in its fifth edition. His books include a biography of Nicole Kidman and The Whole Equation: A History of Hollywood. Thomson is also the author of the acclaimed "Have You Seen . . . ?": A Personal Introduction to 1,000 Films. Born in London in 1941, he now lives in San Francisco.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
August 30, 2021
It’s been a while since I have read David Thomson and I had forgotten that he has a genius for taking plowed ground and finding new clover. The Big Sleep gets a lot of ink from noir critics, but Thomson tells you early on in that the film really isn’t a film noir. This is despite his acknowledgement that the picture is shot almost always indoors on soundstages or on studio streets at night. There are very few daylight moments and the most famous one ends with a torrential rainstorm. Thomson says The Big Sleep is a movie about happiness with a plot that is so meaningless the movie got better when they removed the big expository scene with law enforcement, and replaced it with Bogie and Betty giving us a horse racing analogy of innuendo.
Guns do go off here and there, but it’s mostly Bogie’s mouth that goes off with one-liners, insults, and generally risky accusations directed at dangerous people. Chandler was good at writing these kinds of lines, and it doesn’t hurt to have William Faulkner, Leigh Brackett, and Jules Furthman writing your script either. But Bogart does none of the Chandler VO that so many directors opt for when they adapt Philip Marlowe into movies. Gone then is all that Marlowe introspection that makes the character a tragic figure. Bogart’s Marlowe is a celebration of life even if a few mugs have to get killed here and there.
Thomson sees the film as Hawks’ reaction to the love triangle he shared with Bogie and Bacall. Bacall’s stardom was Hawks’ creation and his expectation was horizontal thanks, but Bogart beat him to the race. Hawks figured this second movie pairing in the Big Sleep would be his opportunity to woo the youngster when Bogie dropped her. When they decided to get married, Hawks decided he wouldn’t work with either of them again. What a skin game this Hollywood.
There is also some good stuff here on Martha Vickers who gives an amazing performance not matched in the rest her career. She didn’t like playing insolent bad girls, but wow could she play them. It’s probably why Mickey Rooney married her and why he left her. Thomson also writes of the many women Bogart encounters in the film and how they all make a play for him in one way or the other. This is not how Chandler wrote the character for sure.
But maybe the most thoughtful of all discussions here is how and Hawks and the screenwriters decided which character Bacall was going to play. Thomson tells us that the Vickers character would have been the most natural with the wife of the gangster being second choice. Bacall playing Vickers’ older sister was the biggest stretch and required the biggest re-write. This allowed Hawks to frame the story and characters in just such a way to make them Hawksian, if you can use that phrasing. This did not bother Raymond Chandler too much at the time. The movie was a hit and it sold books. Later when the French critics were writing the hagiography of Hawks, we are to understand that Chandler wasn’t as happy with the film.
Apologies if I tell too much here, but these highlights don't tell everything. And because reviews here are scant on this book, a longer piece will help the reader to know that it’s worthwhile.
Guns do go off here and there, but it’s mostly Bogie’s mouth that goes off with one-liners, insults, and generally risky accusations directed at dangerous people. Chandler was good at writing these kinds of lines, and it doesn’t hurt to have William Faulkner, Leigh Brackett, and Jules Furthman writing your script either. But Bogart does none of the Chandler VO that so many directors opt for when they adapt Philip Marlowe into movies. Gone then is all that Marlowe introspection that makes the character a tragic figure. Bogart’s Marlowe is a celebration of life even if a few mugs have to get killed here and there.
Thomson sees the film as Hawks’ reaction to the love triangle he shared with Bogie and Bacall. Bacall’s stardom was Hawks’ creation and his expectation was horizontal thanks, but Bogart beat him to the race. Hawks figured this second movie pairing in the Big Sleep would be his opportunity to woo the youngster when Bogie dropped her. When they decided to get married, Hawks decided he wouldn’t work with either of them again. What a skin game this Hollywood.
There is also some good stuff here on Martha Vickers who gives an amazing performance not matched in the rest her career. She didn’t like playing insolent bad girls, but wow could she play them. It’s probably why Mickey Rooney married her and why he left her. Thomson also writes of the many women Bogart encounters in the film and how they all make a play for him in one way or the other. This is not how Chandler wrote the character for sure.
But maybe the most thoughtful of all discussions here is how and Hawks and the screenwriters decided which character Bacall was going to play. Thomson tells us that the Vickers character would have been the most natural with the wife of the gangster being second choice. Bacall playing Vickers’ older sister was the biggest stretch and required the biggest re-write. This allowed Hawks to frame the story and characters in just such a way to make them Hawksian, if you can use that phrasing. This did not bother Raymond Chandler too much at the time. The movie was a hit and it sold books. Later when the French critics were writing the hagiography of Hawks, we are to understand that Chandler wasn’t as happy with the film.
Apologies if I tell too much here, but these highlights don't tell everything. And because reviews here are scant on this book, a longer piece will help the reader to know that it’s worthwhile.
August 9, 2011
Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of the BFI Film Classics Series, even if my actual experiences with it have been decidedly mixed so far, ranging from disappointed indifference to rather unabashed pleasure. David Thomson's contribution on Howard Hawks's classic The Big Sleep (1946), which he professes in the first pages is his favorite film, falls somewhere in between: compulsively readable, but left me wishing for a bit more. As in something resembling actual analysis of the film. A line in the book, which is quoted in the synopsis on the back, makes the claim that "The Big Sleep inaugurates a post-modern, camp, satirical view of movies being about other movies that extends to the New Wave and Pulp Fiction." A tantalizing claim, right? But that's pretty much all Thomson has to say on the topic, other than some brief thoughts on how the film's last minute push for Bogey/Bacall sex and glamour over comprehensible plotting makes the film "one of the most formally radical pictures ever made in Hollywood." YES. But sadly that is about all Thomson has to say on that subject.
Instead, he sticks close to his talents and the majority of the tome is devoted to detailed autobiographical analysis, something I can't fault him for (he's made quite a reputation for himself by doing so). There's a lot of juicy details about Hawks and his second wife Nancy "Slim" Hawks, who Thomson claims Bacall's distinctive screen persona was modeled after, and deserves more credit because of it. It's also a nice description of how Betty Perske was transformed into Betty Bacal and then transformed into Lauren Bacall, Screen Icon. And Thomson certainly knows how to craft elegant sentences, and I was often reminded of the work of the celebrated James Harvey.
So, yeah. If, as-is, this was, say, the first half of Thomson's study, I'd be extremely impressed. But I was really hoping to read an analysis of one of my own favorite films as engaging as it was entertaining (because no one is looking for dry theory in this series), and in the end I really didn't get that.
Instead, he sticks close to his talents and the majority of the tome is devoted to detailed autobiographical analysis, something I can't fault him for (he's made quite a reputation for himself by doing so). There's a lot of juicy details about Hawks and his second wife Nancy "Slim" Hawks, who Thomson claims Bacall's distinctive screen persona was modeled after, and deserves more credit because of it. It's also a nice description of how Betty Perske was transformed into Betty Bacal and then transformed into Lauren Bacall, Screen Icon. And Thomson certainly knows how to craft elegant sentences, and I was often reminded of the work of the celebrated James Harvey.
So, yeah. If, as-is, this was, say, the first half of Thomson's study, I'd be extremely impressed. But I was really hoping to read an analysis of one of my own favorite films as engaging as it was entertaining (because no one is looking for dry theory in this series), and in the end I really didn't get that.
April 28, 2023
Glad it wasn’t just me that when you reflect on the plot of the film you’ve no idea what is going on or why 😂
Interesting on Howard Hawks and Lauren Bacall being groomed for stardom in the image of his then wife…
Interesting on Howard Hawks and Lauren Bacall being groomed for stardom in the image of his then wife…
October 23, 2021
نویسنده ای مسلط بر هالیوود قدیم
February 13, 2022
This is one of my favorite movies. David Thomson has some interesting thoughts and shares some good analysis but I’m not a fan of how he reads the women or sexual politics in the feature - stodgy and slut shamey.
March 15, 2015
wonderful companion piece to the film...I think Thomson's brilliantly on point about the almost campy quality of the film, in that the plot is near-incomprehensible and, really, not even close to the point. It's more about the experience, the atmosphere, the Bogie and Bacall-ness of it all...the studio sets comprise about 90% of the mise-en-scene....artifical paradise of mainstream noir- the sexy, subversive dialogue loaded with suggestion and tension. the fact that they called up Raymond Chandler himself to ask him who killed whoever and he responded by grandly cursing and saying that he himself had no idea!
July 6, 2017
David Thomas' book on The Big Sleep is everything I expect from a BFI Film Classics volume. As with any film from this period in cinematic history, the behind-the-scenes details are almost as important as what ends up on the screen, but this is even more so when dealing with Hollywood icons like Howard Hawks, Humphrey Bogart, or Lauren Bacall. Thomas is obviously aware of this, and so he takes us through the background of these larger-than-life personalities, and how their actions and interactions shaped what became so much more than an adaptation of a Raymond Chandler novel. Thomas also manages to do so without overshadowing the more clinical aspects of film criticism, and manages to pay just as much attention to the film itself, from it's narrative flaws to it's evolution (and eventual post-production redefinition) from book to film. Not only is every angle covered, but it is done so with the eye and voice of a true film lover. Even at its most clinical, the book never descends into academic posturing or mechanical dissections; Thomas' analysis of The Big Sleep remains organic and empathetic at all times, so that his insights always feel as if they are being shared with the reader, and not handed down in a lecture.
October 20, 2023
David Thompson doing what he does best: making wild assertions but also getting the reader caught up in his enthusiasm. This is a fun little book, especially about the reasons why the film is so much better because of its incomprehensible plot.
He loses a star for unnecessary vulgarity.
He loses a star for unnecessary vulgarity.
September 12, 2016
Another book from the BFI Film Classics series, a series that leaps from the best to the worst from book to book. This is somewhere amongst the not-so-good, because Thomson seems so full of his own stuff that the movie is only marginally dealt with. Yes, the backgrounders on Hawks and Bogart and Ball are useful, and interesting, and the way in which the movie was made is also interesting, given that it somehow managed to get made in spite of the Hollywood system, which should have spat it out as a waste of everyone's money.
But Thomson seems most intent on discussing the sexual aspects of both the movie and the stars and the director - and anyone else who gets associated with the thing. He's so enthused about this that we have four-letter words and sexual language scattered throughout, and a focus on certain scenes that reduce them their sexual undercurrent and little else. He assumes sexual behaviour on behalf of the director in particular, and the actors as well, that he has no grounds for assuming. Yes, Hawks was apparently a man who took women as he pleased, and used them, but Thomson jumps from this to claiming that various actresses in the movie, and other movies, were automatically led into his bed. Perhaps they were...but isn't this series about the movie that appears on the book cover, rather than the private lives of those involved in making it?
But Thomson seems most intent on discussing the sexual aspects of both the movie and the stars and the director - and anyone else who gets associated with the thing. He's so enthused about this that we have four-letter words and sexual language scattered throughout, and a focus on certain scenes that reduce them their sexual undercurrent and little else. He assumes sexual behaviour on behalf of the director in particular, and the actors as well, that he has no grounds for assuming. Yes, Hawks was apparently a man who took women as he pleased, and used them, but Thomson jumps from this to claiming that various actresses in the movie, and other movies, were automatically led into his bed. Perhaps they were...but isn't this series about the movie that appears on the book cover, rather than the private lives of those involved in making it?
December 17, 2014
This was a slim book that helped feed my interest and delight in what is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. The book began with a lot of film critic blather, but then got into some not little tidbits about the filming of the movie, its illogic and lack of concern among the screenwriters with consistency (if you're William Faulkner, you don't have to worry about it!). What I liked the most was the analysis of the book store scenes (apparently the author has written a separate monograph on this, which I should seek to obtain). The first book store scene, where Bogart play a gay ceramics collector (he pronounces it CERA-mics), is really one of his funniest scenes in all his movies. But the second book store scene is the one that I love to watch again and again, with an incredibly sexy Dorothy Malone coming on to the (now) typical Bogart character, and with an implication or at least suggestion that they had sex in the back room (implied because she pulled the shades down and got out some booze). I also didn't know about Bacall having done badly in the movie she did after this one, and thus, the producer's need to re-shoot some scenes with her and Bogie (the horse racing scene is one of those gems). Anyway, although slim, the reading of the book was worth it.
September 24, 2011
The BFI Film Classics series is great and after watching The Big Sleep I was curious to see what the esteemed David Thompson had to say in his book version for BFI. I was already a fan from The New Biographical Dictionary Of Film. He readily admits that it is his favorite film of all time and he goes on to discuss how the film came about while shedding light about the principal characters. He has done his research on the director Howard Hawks-who seems to have molded Lauren Bacall on his second wife Nancy "Slim" Hawks (who is a sophisticated looking lady who seems to have been blessed with with according to legend). Furthermore, he talks around the plot and goes into detail about how the studio wanted more Bogey & Bacall and sacrificed exposition for it and it worked! Thompson talks about what a "happy" film it is, but I agree with him and was attracted to all the alluring females that throw themselves in Bogey path throughout the film, which Thompson suggests reflects Hawks' reputation as a lady's man. I enjoyed the book, but I don't think it would appeal to anyone looking for a close critical reading of the film.
June 14, 2014
An interesting companion-piece to the film, which Thomson states is his all-time favourite movie. The background to how Howard hawks modelled the young starlet Lauren Bacall on his wife Nancy ("Slim") is fascinating, as is the well-known story of how several scenes in the film, which already bore little resemblance to the original Chandler novel, were re-shot to max up the chemistry between Bacall and Bogart, who by this time were a married couple. But it's the last 10pp that really get to the kernel of the film - how the most famous scenes, including the flirty dialogue about horse-racing, could easily be dispensed with and the narrative of the plot would not be affected. That, plus the succession of cameos from good-looking young actresses who may or may not have been some of Hawks's many conquests (who can forget Dorothy Malone taking off her glasses, letting down her hair and putting up the closed sign in the bookshop), mean that the film is not so much about the story and more about making a film, and in this way it sets the scene for more modern films such as Pulp Fiction.
February 25, 2012
I think this film, along with The Maltese falcon, To have and have not & Casablanca are not just my favorite Humphrey Bogart films but some of my favorite films fullstop.
This booklet was interesting for how Howard Hawks character (or lack thereof) likes, dislikes and imagination towered over his projects and principals. How he projected himself.
Good for how Marlowe was changed from the page to the screen.
And fascinating how the film makers fused Bogart and Bacall, Marlowe and Vivian.
Enjoyed reading it and its a shame that the other three arent covered in this series.
Have to try and find a Bogart and Bacall Biog!
This booklet was interesting for how Howard Hawks character (or lack thereof) likes, dislikes and imagination towered over his projects and principals. How he projected himself.
Good for how Marlowe was changed from the page to the screen.
And fascinating how the film makers fused Bogart and Bacall, Marlowe and Vivian.
Enjoyed reading it and its a shame that the other three arent covered in this series.
Have to try and find a Bogart and Bacall Biog!
October 17, 2024
I love this long established BFI Film Classics series of books but the editors need to go back and reread the whole lot because some of them, like this one, have passed their sell-by dates. This one is so far past its sell-by date that the sell-by date is just a distant speck only to be seen with the most powerful telescope.
September 22, 2009
Ramble.
September 29, 2010
Thomson is my favorite film critic; a good writer, too.
November 30, 2012
A big-time critic meets a big-time movie script.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews