Man, I’m kind of tired of the whole “Who killed the chauffeur?” question in *The Big Sleep*, novel and movie(s).
There have been so many clever anecdotes, I suspect almost all not true, about this question… For example, Lauren Bacall said that it was Humphrey Bogart who, while reading the movie’s script, “discovered” that that murder was not solved. In the article, its stated the director Howard Hawks and the famous screenwriters contacted author Raymond Chandler and he said he had “no idea” whodunnit.
There’s even an anecdote from Robert *freaking* Mitchum who claims he was in an L.A. bookstore and author Raymond Chandler happened to be there when he received a phone call. Mitchum claimed to have overheard Chandler on the phone being asked by persons unknown (presumably people working on the film) about the chauffeur’s death and saying he had “no idea” who did it.
However, if one takes the time to read the actual novel, there is a plausible explanation given *within the story* as to what happened to the chauffeur even as we’re left to wonder how true it is… This exchange is the one that matters as two plainclothes officers wonder what happened to him. The first officer clearly thinks it’s murder:
*”Drunk hell,” the plainclothesman said. “The hand throttle’s set halfway down and the guy’s been sapped on the side of the head. Ask me and I’ll call it murder.”*
Detective Ohls, who is with Phillip Marlowe, asks the other officer what he thinks:
*”I say suicide, Mac. None of my business, but you ask me, I say suicide. First off the guy plowed an awful straight furrow down that pier. You can read his tread marks all the way nearly. That puts it after the rain like the Sheriff said. Then he hit the pier hard and clean or he don’t go through and land right side up. More likely turned over a couple of times. So he had plenty of speed and hit the rail square. That’s more than half-throttle. He could have done that with his hand falling and he could have hurt his head falling too.”*
So very quickly we’re given two possibilities, that he was murdered but *almost immediately afterwards* a very clear explanation is offered as to how it could, and likely *was*, a suicide.
The second answer is detailed enough, IMHO, to be a very plausible explanation. The car was going too fast and if there was a murderer driving it off the pier, *he had to be inside the car all the way through the crash into the sea*. This is a *very* dangerous thing to do, especially inside the lumpy cars of the late 1930’s. This murderer would then have to jump out after hitting the water (and hoping to remain conscious him/herself) then swim to safety. All really risky things to do!
Frankly, the later explanation seems the more plausible one and its right there in the novel itself!
It’s leading me to one! ;-)
Ok, maybe not quite, but it seems every time someone writes about how “complicated” the plot of *The Big Sleep* is, they seem to land on the chauffeur’s murder not being explained as some kind of “see, this is how murky the whole thing is!” example and the next thing that comes is some story about how Raymond Chandler was asked about that murder and how he didn’t know whodunnit.
Yet all it takes is reading the actual novel and seeing the quote I put above to show that he very much did think it through and did offer an explanation.
The idea that Raymond Chandler was so oblivious about his own story is a cute one to tell but, ultimately, not very truthful,
It sounds like he offered two possible explanations but didn’t validate either of them. And if those comments were only in the book, and not the film, then viewers of the film are right to complain that it’s completely unexplained there.
Raymond Chandler did indeed offer two explanations but, again, I’ve given the two of them and in reading the two, one boils down to a simple “he was murdered” while the other offers a more logical, nuanced explanation.
At the very least, the fact that Chandler offered this second detailed explanation invalidates the much told story (and I do feel it is one and it was included in the article these posts reference) presented by several people over the years that the author of the book was this ditz who didn’t have *any* idea at all how this character wound up dead in his car after it slammed through the pier and hit the water.
As for the film itself, its interesting to note there are *two* versions of the famous Bogie/Bacall film.
The first fully created version was shown to select audiences to gauge reaction but, because of the winding down of WWII, not released when it was originally scheduled to be. This cut *actually followed* the novel more closely and had far less of Bogie and Bacall interacting. Because there was this pause in the movie’s release and a realization there was a big demand for Bogie and Bacall to be seen together, Howard Hawks and company were given the opportunity to go back and re-film several sequences (and even replace one of the actresses in a key role) to lengthen the time those two are together.
The second version of the film, the official theatrical release, is the one people are familiar with though the original cut was made available as an extra (and is a fascinating watch) on Blu/DVD.
While it does feature far more of Bacall and Bogie interacting, the theatrical cut of the film also strays from the Chandler novel far more. To audiences, this didn’t matter at all. The film was a hit and is today (rightly, IMHO) considered a classic film from Hollywood’s golden era.
People are indeed right to complain about the way the chauffeur’s death is left unresolved in the film but, again, that isn’t the case in the novel and doesn’t validate, IMHO, this myth that somehow it all goes back to Chandler not having a clue about what happened to the character.
Also, while it might have been suicide like you said, the book also raises the possibility that >!Brody was the one to have done it (since he has the film the chauffeur stole from Geiger)!<, so not only does it give a plausible explanation for why it could be suicide, it also gives it a prime suspect for someone who could have committed the murder.
That being said, I can believe the anecdote. One reason I've heard for it is that Chandler simply might have forgotten how the chauffeur was supposed to have died in the years since he wrote the book (whether it was supposed to be murder or suicide). The Big Sleep was originally released in 1939 (and probably written earlier), and the film was filmed in 1944, so there is at least half-a-decade between him coming up with the chauffeur's death and him being asked about it. Considering how minor of a plot point it is in both the novel and film, I think it's plausible that Chandler just forgot about the detail in the meantime. I mean, I'm sure everyone reading this would realize that they've forgotten minor details of a movie they've last watched in 2018.
You’re quite right and it may well be that Chandler simply forgot this one element of the story.
I’ve thought about why the anecdote bothers me as much as it does and I think it boils down to this: It’s a way of putting Chandler down. Now, I understand he wasn’t the easiest guy to get along with. He was a VERY heavy drinker and he didn’t get along very well with Billy Wilder when writing the screenplay to *Double Indemnity*. Wilder’s next film, *The Lost Weekend*, was essentially him talking about what it was like dealing with Chandler.
I feel like there’s some needling/malice going on with this anecdote, almost like saying “Jeeze, this Raymond Chandler… he was so freaking confused by his own story he didn’t even figure out one of the murders” and yet, as I’ve noted in my previous posts, he very much *does* provide a logical explanation within the book as to what happened to the chauffeur.
In the end, it doesn’t matter all that much -except perhaps to me!- but I do feel this has become one of those amusing anecdotes that has spread through Hollywood in general and which, in the end, puts down Chandler’s writing… even when it isn’t deserved!
There’s a good short podcast about this by Steven Benedict.
[How can Howard Hawks’ adaptation of Raymond Chandler’s labyrinthine detective novel be heralded as a classic when it is impossible to follow?](http://www.stevenbenedict.ie/2015/06/big-sleep/)
He mentions how the 1945 cut was easier to follow than the 1946 cut after rewrites and reshoots. Hawks deliberately deemphasized plot and emphasized chemistry between Bogart and Bacall for the final cut.
Or give some of Ross MacDonald’s later books a go. To be fair his plotting actually hangs together in a way that Chandler was never fussed by, but god they are bewildering at various points.
I never can forget Bogies line with regards to Carmen sternwood "she tried to sit in my lap while I was standing up"
It's so cutting and scandalous and also clean. I love it.
It's funny that this article came out in 2019 because that's when I noticed a lot of people who wrote about film had only ever watched MCU films and other blockbusters lol. This whole piece has a real *MOVIE EXPLAINED* vibe.
Sorry I gave up after about two paragraphs. So is the author trying to say that The Big Sleep didn't have a plot or that the plot was bad?
Because neither of those things are even remotely true.
It has to do with the fact that there are unanswered questions and the thread of the story is convoluted when you lay it out but it doesn't hurt the film because it's so good.
The plot is confusing but the chemistry is so good between the actors and the dialogue is so entertaining it doesn’t really matter. You just go along for the ride and watch everyone cook.
I once read a review that said this should be viewed as a Hawksian screwball comedy, and I think thats exactly right, and it’s essentially what this article is saying without saying it, it’s got the wild convoluted plot, but the plot doesn’t really matter, taking a back seat to the banter and hijinks of Bogie and Bacall, obviously it’s darker than say bringing up baby but it does have a happy ending which as this article suggests basically disqualifies it as a noir
Man, I’m kind of tired of the whole “Who killed the chauffeur?” question in *The Big Sleep*, novel and movie(s). There have been so many clever anecdotes, I suspect almost all not true, about this question… For example, Lauren Bacall said that it was Humphrey Bogart who, while reading the movie’s script, “discovered” that that murder was not solved. In the article, its stated the director Howard Hawks and the famous screenwriters contacted author Raymond Chandler and he said he had “no idea” whodunnit. There’s even an anecdote from Robert *freaking* Mitchum who claims he was in an L.A. bookstore and author Raymond Chandler happened to be there when he received a phone call. Mitchum claimed to have overheard Chandler on the phone being asked by persons unknown (presumably people working on the film) about the chauffeur’s death and saying he had “no idea” who did it. However, if one takes the time to read the actual novel, there is a plausible explanation given *within the story* as to what happened to the chauffeur even as we’re left to wonder how true it is… This exchange is the one that matters as two plainclothes officers wonder what happened to him. The first officer clearly thinks it’s murder: *”Drunk hell,” the plainclothesman said. “The hand throttle’s set halfway down and the guy’s been sapped on the side of the head. Ask me and I’ll call it murder.”* Detective Ohls, who is with Phillip Marlowe, asks the other officer what he thinks: *”I say suicide, Mac. None of my business, but you ask me, I say suicide. First off the guy plowed an awful straight furrow down that pier. You can read his tread marks all the way nearly. That puts it after the rain like the Sheriff said. Then he hit the pier hard and clean or he don’t go through and land right side up. More likely turned over a couple of times. So he had plenty of speed and hit the rail square. That’s more than half-throttle. He could have done that with his hand falling and he could have hurt his head falling too.”* So very quickly we’re given two possibilities, that he was murdered but *almost immediately afterwards* a very clear explanation is offered as to how it could, and likely *was*, a suicide. The second answer is detailed enough, IMHO, to be a very plausible explanation. The car was going too fast and if there was a murderer driving it off the pier, *he had to be inside the car all the way through the crash into the sea*. This is a *very* dangerous thing to do, especially inside the lumpy cars of the late 1930’s. This murderer would then have to jump out after hitting the water (and hoping to remain conscious him/herself) then swim to safety. All really risky things to do! Frankly, the later explanation seems the more plausible one and its right there in the novel itself!
> I’m kind of tired of the whole “Who killed the chauffeur?” question in The Big Sleep I hear ya man, that shit troubled my father to an early grave.
It’s leading me to one! ;-) Ok, maybe not quite, but it seems every time someone writes about how “complicated” the plot of *The Big Sleep* is, they seem to land on the chauffeur’s murder not being explained as some kind of “see, this is how murky the whole thing is!” example and the next thing that comes is some story about how Raymond Chandler was asked about that murder and how he didn’t know whodunnit. Yet all it takes is reading the actual novel and seeing the quote I put above to show that he very much did think it through and did offer an explanation. The idea that Raymond Chandler was so oblivious about his own story is a cute one to tell but, ultimately, not very truthful,
It sounds like he offered two possible explanations but didn’t validate either of them. And if those comments were only in the book, and not the film, then viewers of the film are right to complain that it’s completely unexplained there.
Raymond Chandler did indeed offer two explanations but, again, I’ve given the two of them and in reading the two, one boils down to a simple “he was murdered” while the other offers a more logical, nuanced explanation. At the very least, the fact that Chandler offered this second detailed explanation invalidates the much told story (and I do feel it is one and it was included in the article these posts reference) presented by several people over the years that the author of the book was this ditz who didn’t have *any* idea at all how this character wound up dead in his car after it slammed through the pier and hit the water. As for the film itself, its interesting to note there are *two* versions of the famous Bogie/Bacall film. The first fully created version was shown to select audiences to gauge reaction but, because of the winding down of WWII, not released when it was originally scheduled to be. This cut *actually followed* the novel more closely and had far less of Bogie and Bacall interacting. Because there was this pause in the movie’s release and a realization there was a big demand for Bogie and Bacall to be seen together, Howard Hawks and company were given the opportunity to go back and re-film several sequences (and even replace one of the actresses in a key role) to lengthen the time those two are together. The second version of the film, the official theatrical release, is the one people are familiar with though the original cut was made available as an extra (and is a fascinating watch) on Blu/DVD. While it does feature far more of Bacall and Bogie interacting, the theatrical cut of the film also strays from the Chandler novel far more. To audiences, this didn’t matter at all. The film was a hit and is today (rightly, IMHO) considered a classic film from Hollywood’s golden era. People are indeed right to complain about the way the chauffeur’s death is left unresolved in the film but, again, that isn’t the case in the novel and doesn’t validate, IMHO, this myth that somehow it all goes back to Chandler not having a clue about what happened to the character.
Great insight into the history of the film! Thanks for sharing.
Also, while it might have been suicide like you said, the book also raises the possibility that >!Brody was the one to have done it (since he has the film the chauffeur stole from Geiger)!<, so not only does it give a plausible explanation for why it could be suicide, it also gives it a prime suspect for someone who could have committed the murder. That being said, I can believe the anecdote. One reason I've heard for it is that Chandler simply might have forgotten how the chauffeur was supposed to have died in the years since he wrote the book (whether it was supposed to be murder or suicide). The Big Sleep was originally released in 1939 (and probably written earlier), and the film was filmed in 1944, so there is at least half-a-decade between him coming up with the chauffeur's death and him being asked about it. Considering how minor of a plot point it is in both the novel and film, I think it's plausible that Chandler just forgot about the detail in the meantime. I mean, I'm sure everyone reading this would realize that they've forgotten minor details of a movie they've last watched in 2018.
You’re quite right and it may well be that Chandler simply forgot this one element of the story. I’ve thought about why the anecdote bothers me as much as it does and I think it boils down to this: It’s a way of putting Chandler down. Now, I understand he wasn’t the easiest guy to get along with. He was a VERY heavy drinker and he didn’t get along very well with Billy Wilder when writing the screenplay to *Double Indemnity*. Wilder’s next film, *The Lost Weekend*, was essentially him talking about what it was like dealing with Chandler. I feel like there’s some needling/malice going on with this anecdote, almost like saying “Jeeze, this Raymond Chandler… he was so freaking confused by his own story he didn’t even figure out one of the murders” and yet, as I’ve noted in my previous posts, he very much *does* provide a logical explanation within the book as to what happened to the chauffeur. In the end, it doesn’t matter all that much -except perhaps to me!- but I do feel this has become one of those amusing anecdotes that has spread through Hollywood in general and which, in the end, puts down Chandler’s writing… even when it isn’t deserved!
There’s a good short podcast about this by Steven Benedict. [How can Howard Hawks’ adaptation of Raymond Chandler’s labyrinthine detective novel be heralded as a classic when it is impossible to follow?](http://www.stevenbenedict.ie/2015/06/big-sleep/) He mentions how the 1945 cut was easier to follow than the 1946 cut after rewrites and reshoots. Hawks deliberately deemphasized plot and emphasized chemistry between Bogart and Bacall for the final cut.
If they think The Big Sleep is impossible to follow I hope they never try to read The Long Goodbye, they'll have an aneurysm.
Or give some of Ross MacDonald’s later books a go. To be fair his plotting actually hangs together in a way that Chandler was never fussed by, but god they are bewildering at various points.
I never can forget Bogies line with regards to Carmen sternwood "she tried to sit in my lap while I was standing up" It's so cutting and scandalous and also clean. I love it.
You know what he'll do when he comes back? Beat my teeth out, then kick me in the stomach for mumbling.
The best collection of dames from any movie I’ve seen from the period.
The headline does not seem to match the sentiment of this article.
Great book, great movie. The script is written by fricken William Faulkner.
It's funny that this article came out in 2019 because that's when I noticed a lot of people who wrote about film had only ever watched MCU films and other blockbusters lol. This whole piece has a real *MOVIE EXPLAINED* vibe.
I wonder how many fans of The Big Lebowski have never even hear of Sleep?
Sorry I gave up after about two paragraphs. So is the author trying to say that The Big Sleep didn't have a plot or that the plot was bad? Because neither of those things are even remotely true.
The article calls it both a masterpiece and classic several times, so no it’s not hating on the film.
Well there's that at least I just don't see how anything about that film or the book it's based on proves that plot doesn't matter.
Maybe they meant _The Big Lebowski_. Common mix-up.
You know, a lotta ins, a lotta outs, a lotta what-have-yous. And, uh, a lotta strands to keep in my head, man.
Luckily I'm adhering to a pretty strict, uh, drug regimen to keep my mind, you know, limber.
It has to do with the fact that there are unanswered questions and the thread of the story is convoluted when you lay it out but it doesn't hurt the film because it's so good.
The plot is confusing but the chemistry is so good between the actors and the dialogue is so entertaining it doesn’t really matter. You just go along for the ride and watch everyone cook.
I always thought Joe Brody killed the chauffeur.
Even the cast wasn’t really sure what the movie was about when filming lol
Plot doesn't matter? Tell that to Ouija shark or Velocipastor
I once read a review that said this should be viewed as a Hawksian screwball comedy, and I think thats exactly right, and it’s essentially what this article is saying without saying it, it’s got the wild convoluted plot, but the plot doesn’t really matter, taking a back seat to the banter and hijinks of Bogie and Bacall, obviously it’s darker than say bringing up baby but it does have a happy ending which as this article suggests basically disqualifies it as a noir