Followers

Sunday, March 3, 2024

To Have and Have Not (1944)

Directed and produced by Howard Hawks

In 1940 Martinique, Harry Morgan (Humphrey Bogart) tries to make a living hiring out his boat to wealthy tourists, while navigating the new bureaucratic and political rules of the colonial government, now loyal to the pro-Nazi Vichy regime in France. His life is complicated by the arrival of stranded American Marie ‘Slim’ Browning (Lauren Bacall), alcoholic deck-hand Eddie (Walter Brennan), and requests for help from a secret Free French group on the island. It’s a good thing Harry is used to trouble.

One of the best adventure films Bogart made, To Have and Have Not is often cited as “Howard Hawks’s Casablanca”. I have long taken issue with the phrase and its sentiment, preferring, if any reference to the earlier film is needed, to call it “Hawks’s answer to Casablanca”.

Certainly, there are similarities to the famous 1942 movie. In both, Bogart plays an expatriate American in French colonial territory; there is trouble with a woman who suddenly appears in his world; that world is under Nazi/Vichy control; a police captain (named Renault in Casablanca and Renard in To Have and Have Not) makes difficulties. There is even a piano player with a prominent part in both stories.

But, in fact, the movies are quite distinct. Casablanca is a drama, emotional, with little conventional action, perhaps reflecting its stage origins; To Have and Have Not is a more straightforward adventure yarn. Bogart’s character in the former is morose, haunted by the past, and unwilling to put himself at risk for anyone, while in the latter he plays someone who appears mostly content with his life, who has taken responsibility for his drunken friend, and who accepts chancy jobs to help others.

More than anything, the movies’ differences are determined by the female lead and her character. Ingrid Bergman portrays Ilsa Lund who, despite the actress’ wonderful work, comes across as a weak and indecisive woman; her actions seem to hinge on whatever the last man to speak to her said. Bacall’s Slim is strong and independent; she is resourceful, ready to use men if she must, but also knowing what she wants and going after it. Her will is as steely as Harry’s, and she comes across as his impromptu partner, rather than a follower.

Bacall and Bogart’s chemistry takes us away from comparisons and into To Have and Have Not’s own merits. It’s known to most that the couple married, soon after this, their first film together. That they were well-matched is easily seen in the film. They have a rapport that is a tough guy’s version of Nick and Nora Charles’s, from The Thin Man movies. Their dialogue makes their verbal sparring seem perfectly natural, and in keeping with their characters. Harry is open and honest; Slim is more cautious.

The writing that provides that dialogue is first-rate, as might be expected from William Faulkner and Jules Furthman, the two who also wrote 1946’s The Big Sleep. (Furthman scripted 1935’s Mutiny on the Bounty, as well as Nightmare Alley and Rio Bravo, among other movies.) The script is amusing when it needs to be; gives much away only by implication, while its innuendo, demanded by the production codes of the time, tells much, and with imagination.

The movie benefits from the other actors, as well. Brennan plays a rather subdued rôle, considering what he had done before; his semi-amnesiac Eddie is sometimes annoying, but says a great deal about Harry. Dan Seymour’s police captain (definitely not like Rains’s in Casablanca) is suitably oily; like an ancient Roman voluptuary displaced to 1940. Pianist and song-writer Hoagy Carmichael, in his first credited feature film, provides atmosphere for the bar the principals frequent, as does Marcel Dalio, as its owner, a quiet, shifty fellow with a good heart. Sheldon Leonard receives fairly prominent billing, fit to his growing status, but his part is very small, and I don’t think he has a line.

On its own qualities or compared with others, To Have and Have Not is an excellent action-adventure flick, almost light-hearted, and most entertaining.

8 comments:

  1. To be honest, I liked this film much better than "Casablanca."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me, too, as you can tell. I've watched this one several times. "Casablanca" twice, and unlike "To Have or Have Not", I've no strong desire to see it again.

      Delete
  2. I'm glad to say the library has this and I will be getting it. Also, Bogart and Bacall got married at Malabar Farms just 30 miles from where I live. It is now a state park with the original home open for touring. I just went thru it this past fall for the 3rd time in years. Thanks Lynn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if they have some sort of commemoration at the farm, a plaque, or pictures, of the wedding.

      Delete
    2. This is quite interesting...And..Yes! There is a plaque,
      half way down..and hangs above the doorway....!

      https://hometownstohollywood.com/2020/07/05/humphrey-bogart/

      Delete
  3. I quickly checked to see if the film was shot in Martinique as I will be there on March 14. Sadly, it does not appear to have been - I've no excursion booked and thought perhaps I could find more information there. I've not seen Casablanca, though of course I knew of the movie. This one sounds quite interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspected it was not shot on location; most movies then weren't. The closest they might get to a tropical setting was usually Florida.

      Delete
  4. This is a Bogart classic...But then, as far as l'm
    concerned...They 'ALL' are,,,!

    ReplyDelete