To Have and Have Not
1 additions to document , most recent almost 9 years ago
| When | Why |
|---|---|
| Aug-09-16 | Wording change |
2 changes, most recent almost 9 years ago
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
To Have and Have Not is . . . about losers."—Bruce Kawin
amusement for the Haves. “There were no easy choices for the Have Nots”. In other words, all Have Nots were classified as pointless losers.
i think the novel portrayed the rich in a negative light who took advantage of the losers. For example Mr Johnson is portrayed as careless when losing the fishing equipment and as selfish when he does not pay Henry.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The rich are negatively portrayed. They are the losers.
The loser in the novel where the have nots. The have nots such as Albert and Harry were driven into provery by the depression and forced to do illegal activities to feed there families.
Paragraph 2 changes
What Faulkner did . . . was to figure out the staging of the scenes—the evidence of the facing doorways, which made for the casualness of these encounters
What Faulkner did . . . was to figure out the staging of the scenes—the evidence of the facing doorways, which made for the casualness as of these encounters
Doors can have a lot of meaning to them in film. A purpose of these doors might be to show transition or divisions between the characters, especially for gender roles.
Doors give people privacy and a sense of protection. The doors can be used to portray the character dynamics between the characters. The doors can break the visual tension.
Well that’s the beauty of film. We as a movie going audience have our own way of perceiving and interpreting what certain scenes actually mean. I actually agree with Christina Perlongo and her comments. That’s actually a really clever way of analyzing their use in the film. In order to better represent and visualize the detachment of characters and their roles.
In the movie “In the Mood for love”, two characters who show hints at wanting a romance also live next door to each other. Although the door are adjacent to each other, the facing doorways to Bogart’s and Bacall’s rooms use the same effect. That is, physically setting up the notions that these two characters are going to have a romance. At the same time, it physically sets up chance run ins between the characters, which all in all come in to help move the plot forward.
Doors were used extensively in the film perhaps to show private moments. Illegal deals were made behind closed doors and the attraction between Marie and Henry was made behind closed doors.
I couldn’t agree with you more. That’s a really interesting observation on the use of doors. Basically, anything that happens behind closed doors, stays behind the closed doors.
It means to me that if a scene contains just one door the character will communicate his self confidence rather than have more doors (more options) that can create confusion of where to go.
Maybe what Thonny is saying is that the doors can represent a “fork in the road” for the character. Visually, if the door is closed there is no options for the character.
The setting of two opposing doors in the film is a very clever design. Behind every act of opening and closing the door, the film creates a sense of unspeakable romance and many secrets and their character traits are revealed at the same time.
I agree with your what you’re saying because doors give people privacy and a sense of protection.
That’s a really interesting observation. The doors represent a secret romance. Didn’t think of it that way before.
To Have and Have Not (Blu-ray)
Review by Neil Lumbard | posted August 1, 2016
To Have and Have Not is a romantic adventure film from acclaimed filmmaker Howard Hawks (The Big Sleep).
The film was based upon the novel written by Ernest Hemingway.
Jack L. Warner (Casablanca, The Big Sleep, My Fair Lady), one of the original Brothers Warner, executive produced the film.
I enjoyed the opening scene of the movie as this is similar to the scene early in the novel where Morgan takes Johnson out fishing and Johnson loses his equipment trying to real in a fish. Morgan expresses his need for Johnson to pay him back, so money is a concern for him. I think the film did a good job capturing the scenery and appreciation that Hemingway has for fishing.
Also I enjoyed that they depicted Eddie in a similar way in the movie as he was in the novel. I liked the idea we talked about in class is that it is important to look at how others treat Eddie as that will reveal the character of that person. Johnson for instance treated Eddie terribly, and he left the island without paying Morgan, so he obviously has poor character. I think Morgan in the novel is harsher towards Eddie than in the movie.
i agree with Branden, only the beginning of the film was remotely similar to the novel but after that the essence of the novel was different then in the film. Henry’s main motivation in the novel was to provide for his family but in the film it was to help Marie.
There is a big difference between the novel and the film, and i assume it had to be that way because of studio profit and film audience preference. To begin with the story is very different, in the novel Harry ends up getting involved because of the harsh times of the century and he had to support his wife and two daughters. Furthermore, in the novel Harry loses his arm due to a the shooting.
That’s true. I remember having a conversation in class where audience wouldn’t go to the movies if they had a depressing ending.
Set during World War II and taking place within the French colony of Martinique, Harry Morgan (Humphrey Bogart) is a small-time sailboat tourist guide (with only the aid of Eddie (Walter Brennan) as his help). Harry starts helping smuggle French resistance members to a nearby island while starting a romance with a lounge singer named Marie 'Slim' Browning (Lauren Bacall). Over the course of the film, Harry has a variety of misadventures with the resistance while falling head over heels in love. Harry can't seem to resist Marie's charm and her lovely voice.
I think the strong attraction has to do with her beautiful voice mixed with her rebellious attitude. I believe he was turned on by her trying to steal the wallet.
Harry can’t resist because Marie is very beautiful but on a deeper level maybe he feels like he can relate to Marie. They are both struggling through the effects of the depression.
There is thrill associated with Marie’s character. Not only is attention drawn to her because of her singing but later on when the wallet is returned and the drama of the stray bullet insues, he is drawn to her and the danger she might represent.
Of course, the obsession with Marie was an essential idea why Morgan could not refuse her request, but he was also driven by the extreme inner loneliness. The purpose of this film is to fix this emotional hole by giving Harry a mate, so that he will not say like what in at the end of the novel: “No matter how a man alone ain’t got no bloody fucking chance”
As in the film itself, a romance was beginning. To Have and Have Not is an important film production for cinema's history books as the first collaboration between actors Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. The pair made many films together over the years and To Have and Have Not was the one that "started it all". It was also the start of Bogart and Bacall's romance on and off screen.
Would this off set romance be something that the producers would use to promote film or would this be something they would want to keep quiet? I feel today they would push this Hollywood gossip to help with sales but wonder if this was the case back then.
I feel that this would be something the producers and studio executives would absolutely love. They want as much talk as possible about the production and this would definitely boost the attention. It make’s the movie seem like reality.
Good point.I was thinking more about how controversial it would be but this seems like a better way to think about it. The audience would believe the romance because it’s truthful.
Bogart and Barkau’s romantic history is not only conducive to the Hollywood studio but his career also. In the post-war years, Bogart’s personal life and his life as actors have both reached the peak. Although Barker is 25 years younger than Bogart, it looks like they’re built for each other.
I agree with you’re saying. People love to watch real on screen romance. This is true still even today. It could eventually be a negative thing if the romance didn’t last.
This is a really interesting question. I would think they would want it out in the open to give the film more of a reason to see it.
It’s truly fascianting. That just goes to show the power and impact that cinema can have in ones life both on and off screen. Considering it’s importance in production between both actors was monumental
on cinema since then.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Its important for actors to be true on screen and off screen.
Bogart and Bacall began a romance during production which became famous in Hollywood lore. Though Bogart was married at the time, he divorced and later married Bacall. The relationship which brewed between Bogart and Bacall is regarded as one of the most famous Hollywood romances in history.
The music score by Franz Waxman (Sunset Boulevard, Rebecca, A Place in the Sun) adds a quality element to the production. The music fits the adventurous spirit of much of the film. Both the score and the song numbers (delivered splendidly by Bacall) elevate the material. Without any doubt, the music of the film adds a great deal to the stylistic flourishes of the filmmaking.
The use of music builds on the romance at times, and at other times stresses the drama and violence. For example is the scene where Humphrey Bogart sits in the cafe and the piano man starts a duet with Lauren Bacall. She sings a romantic song about longing and even looks at Bogart through the corner of her eyes at times when singing. This piece of music is both entertaining and symbolic, which is why it works well. Same goes for the scenes where people are running around shooting; the music is filled with blaring trumpets that intensify the scene.
I agree, I really enjoyed the scene where Hoagy Carmichael sings a song with Lauren Bacall. I think this could be used as a level of marketing in these days to bring viewers to the theater. But today watching this film I like having a man like Carmichael and Bacall sing, which adds to the style and differentiates it from other films. I wonder how many films at this time added live singing in the production?
I agree with Braden. I think it can be used as marketing for the film since in the movies we have watched so far in class have not included singing. So this could have be a different and daring way of drawing an audience to the film which was different than the average Hollywood production.
I also think that it creates more romance between the characters because singing together or to someone specific is often and intimate experience.
Okay this is an interesting topic to go about. Music itself is instrumental, especially in regard to the type of film you are achieving to make. Music within film in a sense can often be seen as a character of the film itself. I say this in regard to how they mention it can fit the adventurous tone and adds great deal. Music helps identify certain moments in film whether in this case be romantic. At other times for more serious and mature music tones that come off as dramatic. Here it where it can be symbolic.
I found that the music settings in the film perfectly fit the circumstances. One scene that impressed me happened when Morgan sailed to the shore ready to pick up the french guys, he lit three times in a fishing boat lights, and the rhythm and background of this action The rhythm of the music is perfectly compatible.
Even though the film has great music, sometimes no background music is a good thing. For example the whistle scene. Another director may have added a seductive soundtrack to set the scene. But instead we just have two characters talking about whistling and its still sexy. The dialogue alone is sexy.
The whistle scene is a great example. You make a valid point. It is quite arguable. I always found music an important element due to the tone it could set and division it could make between mature scenes and comedic ones. The music itself is essentially a character in it’s own form.
Music was also used to release tension. After the french resistance members were shot, the piano player played something jolly for a brief moment to ease the tense scene.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Music is a great way to change the mood of a film and give audiences ques on how to feel.
Featuring cinematography by Sidney Hickox (The Big Sleep, I Love Lucy, The Andy Griffith Show), To Have and Have Not impresses with its beautiful cinematography. The film is an incredibly beautiful looking film with exquisite black and white photography. The style is especially effective for the darker film-noir style elements sprinkled throughout the story. Hickox did terrific work with this production.
Through the use of camera angles, dramatic shadows and certain lighting, these effects help the audience understand what the character is feeling or thinking.
The use of camera angles, dramatic shadows, and lighting helps you understand what the character is feeling but I also really liked the use of fog in this movie. The fog gave you a sense of mystery and made you feel a little on edge.
Professional cinematography helps invoke strong emotions by capturing multiple images through the use of camera exposures and other methods utilized through a camera that can help emphasize emotions and settings. This helps invoke strong emotions
Depending on the emotion the cinematographer is trying to bring on screen, different techniques will apply. Close up scenes and non diagetic music creating some melodrame is an example.
I couldn’t agree with you more Albi. Its the cinematographers job to properly portray the emotion of the character and setting. How else can we sense whats going on without different techniques to give us those feelings?
Cinematography can invoke emotions because the producer puts you in the perspective of the character. For example when an angle they film a certain scene makes you feel like you’re actually there with the character you feel like more of a part of a story than just a viewer. For example if a character smiles at the camera when a door is opened it feels like the character opened the door for you and smiled at you.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Cinematography gives you an insight on how the character is feeling.
Movies are not only a form of entertainment but they are an experience as well. The cinematography add’s to that experience as a whole. Through it’s usage of camera angles and lighting it broadens the overall experience by allowing us to better understand the characters actions and thoughts through the duration of the film
Cinematography is a term that can be use to emphasize the film because of its artistic content. The natural relation between camera, lights and characters and the creative way evrrything is show makes the film have a beatiful cinematography.
The costume designs by Milo Anderson (The Adventures of Robin Hood, Yankee Doodle Dandy) are stylish and effective. The gowns and costumes on lead stars Bogart and Bacall are especially noteworthy. The style was quite well-suited to these actors and it helped to create an effective atmosphere for the film.
For me the style is very fashion forward. Its very classy and upbeat. Especially Bacall’s costumes.
I agree that the style of the film was fashion forward. Bacall’s dress in the scene where Bogart’s handcuffs Captain Renard shows her midriff and lower back. I feel this was ahead of the times and she was the only person in the movie to where such a dress.
The only noir element in this film is the dramatic lighting. I believe since this film does not take place in an urban location it is not a true noir.
I think this still works regardless of it not being in maybe a “true” urban location. I think the excess shadows, the depth of shots, the focus, the drama, and the “crime” aspect makes this a true noir film.
Things that are often associated with film noir are dark, cynical, daring, dangerous, and pessimistic to name a few. Dangerous activity such as crime and being framed is associated with film noir also, that is why I think the costume design directly displays the intent of the characters and embodies the state of mind on Harry as well as Marie.
Throughout the film, Bogart’s collar is always messy, his clothes always a bit crumpled, and half the time he has his captain’s hat on. Meanwhile, all of the other men in the movie (beside Brennan) have pristine, fully suited up attires. Likewise, Lauren Bacall wears very nice suits and dresses, and silky nightgowns. Clearly the distinction between classes and history of these characters can be seen through their costume design.
I like Bogart’s style in the film as even though it may not be as “sharp” as the other men, he has an element of coolness (the unbutton shirt). Lauren Bacall is very neat and in a way dressed to compliment her sex appeal.
Bogart doesn’t have the slick clean look like the other men in the film but is the coolest guy in the room by far. He also seems to get more respect than the men that are clean cut. He’s the go to guy when there is a problem.
The style of the film is “Noir”, There is a little bit of gangsters involved in the film, shot black and white, also there are multiple shots of window shades
i feel Henry clothes were sometime blue collar to indicate that he was a fisherman, then sometimes formal to show that he had some class. Marie clothes were someone masculine and conservative, as she is portrayed as a tough female.
The style of each character contributes effectively to the propose of the scene because it will communicate the time, social condition and economic condition. If producers do not take care of that characters interactivity will felt appart from the viewer’s perspective.
The screenplay was written by Jules Furthman (The Big Sleep, Rio Bravo) and William Faulkner (The Big Sleep, Today We Live). Faulkner, who is better known for his novels, worked for a period in Hollywood. To Have and Have Not was one of the more renowned productions Faulkner worked on. The script explores the story through a multitude of genres: adventure with splashes of romance, film noir, and plenty of drama.
The dialogue between them is almost poetic. It is not very dramatic, but it is smooth and flows, but they are not very emotional in the delivery. Playfulness is also the root of most of their dialogue between each other.
Regarding the dialogue between Bogart and Bacall its very metaphorical and playful.
Often times as we have seen in movies the dialogue has a second meaning. While watching the movie the dialogue Faulkner wrote has a second meaning either to get around the rules that Hollywood put in place, or to give the story line more depth. Its very different than Hemingway, although he wrote very poetically and the dialogue between characters often was beautiful Hemingway tends to sit to short sentences.
To Have and Have Not was also significantly different from the novel written by Hemingway. Hawks, who considered himself a fan of the novelist, didn't care as much for the novel that he was adapting (considering it to be one of the writer's "lesser" works). The film was meant to improve upon the novel's story. The story ended up being quite a bit different as a result.
I would actually like to know what Hawks’ style is. My limited understanding of Hawks makes it hard to determine what style he has as he filmed many different genres from comedy, romance, and action.
fishing with Johnson. The writing styles are very different as Hemingway writes in very short, brief, clip dialogue. I was also surprised by the amount of racial slurs used by Hemingway. These were not apparent in the movie.
One difference is the character Eddie. He is in the entire film as the touch stone figure but he is only in he beginning of the book.
Howard Hawks (The Big Sleep, His Girl Friday, Rio Bravo, Red River) certainly directed a impressive film with To Have and Have Not. It's an entertaining film which features solid performances from both Bogart and Bacall. The film noir element was also a huge aspect directorially. Hawk's direction is superb and the film oozes with style because of his effort directing it. To Have and Have Not is a well-made Hollywood classic which holds up well. Hawks fans and fans of classic Hollywood cinema should certainly make an effort to see it.
Hawks completely disliked the novel. Aside from character names and the personality of the characters, majority of the film was rewritten almost to be an adaptation of Casablanca. Based off of this, it can be seen that Hawks as a director has the knowledge and skill to make a successful film.
The Blu-ray:
Video:
To Have and Have Not arrives on Blu-ray (for the first time) from Warner Archive. The release is presented with a 1080p MPEG-4 AVC encoded presentation in the original aspect ratio of 1.37:1 full frame. The release also features a stunning 35 mbps bit-rate which allows for an incredibly robust picture.
This is a stunning presentation featuring excellent black and white cinematography. The film noir aspect of the photography looks excellent with this release. Black levels impress as well. The film is a beauty to behold with its new high-definition presentation. The presentation also appears naturally filmic. The release preserves the look of the film and no DNR or other issues are present. The film is also remarkably clean: dust and specks of dirt have been cleaned so that this is a nice and modern presentation.
Audio:
The release is presented with a DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 mono audio presentation. This is an excellent reproduction of the original sound design of the film. The mono soundtrack has been well restored with excellent clarity and a decent sense of fidelity. The dialogue is clear and easy to understand. This is a superb lossless audio presentation of the film. While the fidelity of the audio isn't quite up to the quality of modern films this is an excellent restoration of the original audio.
Subtitles are provided in English SDH (for the deaf and hard of hearing), Spanish, and French.
Extras:
Bacall to Arms (HD, 6 min.) is a 1946 theatrical cartoon short featuring caricatured versions of Bogart and Bacall. The short spoofs To Have and Have Not and re-creates scenes from the film with animation.
A Love Story: The Story of To Have and Have Not (SD, 11 min.) is a featurette containing interviews with film critics and film historians about the production of To Have and Have Not. The famous Hollywood relationship between Bogart and Bacall which began with this film is also discussed.
Lux Radio Broadcast (1 Hr.) is an audio-only radio broadcast performance of To Have and Have Not featuring both Bogart and Bacall.
Theatrical Trailer (HD)
Final Thoughts:
To Have and Have Not is certainly a famous Hollywood production: it was the first of many films to star both Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. During the production of the film, the famous Bogart/Bacall romance began. The chemistry between the two actors is certainly a huge part of the reason why the film works so well. To Have and Have Not is also entertaining and well made. Director Howard Hawks crafted an excellent film with adventure, romance, and drama.
Yes that is quite a remarkable experience through the production of this film. Luckily there were no major setbacks due to this romance blossoming. It just goes to show how powerful films can be in our life.
Rather than setbacks, I feel the romance allowed these 2 actors to perform substantially better. The existing chemistry allowed the romantic scenes to be more realistic and solid. I agree on how powerful and influential films can be in our life.
The Warner Archive Blu-ray release presents the film in high-definition with a stunning presentation, quality lossless audio, and a decent assortment of supplements. It's worth purchasing for fans of the film.
Excerpt from A Real American Character: The Life of Walter Brennan
Paragraph 29 changes
A far more important role than Thunder, but one that again explored Brennan’s character’s triumph over his own frailties, is the “rummy,” Eddie, in To Have and Have Not (October 11, 1944), starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. In December, 1943, Howard Hawks met with Brennan for a pre-production conference, a sign of the director’s keen desire to get the supporting role exactly right. Brennan’s name in the credits would appear in type 60 percent the size of that used for Bogart, and Goldwyn would get $2,500 a week for the actor’s services during nearly a three-month period that stretched from March to May of 1944. This was now the standard agreement for a Brennan loan out. A month before production began, the Breen office signaled its discomfort with the film’s lack of moral hygiene:
The general unacceptability of this story is emphasized by its overall low tone and by the suggestion that your sympathetic lead, Morgan, is a murderer, who is permitted to go off unpunished. The characters of Morgan, Eddy [sic], Marie, Helen and Amelia should be softened in order to get away from the present “scummy” flavor which their activities throw forth. The scene of the battle between Renardo, Coyo, Morgan and Eddy [sic] should be shot in such a way as to make certain there be no unnecessary brutality or gruesomeness about it. Please omit the words “God-forsaken.”
Surprisingly, the sexually suggestive scene between Bogart and Bacall aroused no objections—except in Ohio. The censor there saw the finished print and was disturbed when Bacall’s comments, “It’s even better when you help,” after Bogart finally kisses her back (her first effort does not seem to stimulate him). Alongside Humphrey Bogart, playing Harry Morgan in Casablanca mode, Eddie behaves as if the self-contained star needs him, even though, as “Slim” (Bacall) tells Morgan, “You wouldn’t take anything from anybody.” What Eddie has to give is affection and loyalty, qualities in short supply in Vichy-controlled Martinique. When Mr. Johnson, who has hired Harry’s fishing boat for a day, says he does not see why Harry keeps “that rummy around.” Harry replies, “Eddie was a good man on a boat before he got to be a rummy.” But why does Harry look after Eddie? Johnson asks. “Is he related to you, or somethin’?” Harry replies, “He thinks he’s looking after me.” In fact, Eddie does think of himself as Harry’s protector, and when Harry kicks Eddie off his boat, Eddie senses Harry is in trouble and stows away. “You can’t fool me,” Eddie tells Harry, who has been trying to keep Eddie—who talks too much—out of trouble. Eddie doesn’t want anything from Harry except some acknowledgment of their bond and another drink, which Morgan carefully rations so that Eddie remains sober enough to do his job aboard Morgan’s boat. Harry at first reluctantly puts the boat at the disposal of a French resistance leader seeking a way out of Nazi-patrolled waters. But Harry does not have much in common with the character in the Hemingway novel the picture is supposedly based on and wants no part of politics. He would prefer to stick to his business as a hired fisherman. But as soon as the Vichy authorities begin to get in Harry’s way, he sides with the Resistance, just as the disaffected Rick does in Casablanca. The shambling walk Brennan perfected for his role suggests a man always on the verge of the shakes. Gerald Mast observes, “Walter Brennan’s quirky, jumpy, jittery performance as Eddie—one of the very best of his very distinguished career—took its cue from a single descriptive sentence in the Hemingway novel: ‘He walked with his joints all slung wrong.’” No other actor in Hollywood could shuffle himself into greatness. The unsteady Eddie seems the last person in the world that Harry should rely on, and yet, in one of the film’s key scenes, Eddie steers the boat straight through the night, enabling Harry to concentrate on outwitting a Vichy patrol boat. Filmed on location, it was not an easy scene to finesse. Walter had trouble with his lines, trying to perfect both his delivery and his jitters. Hawks stopped shooting and conferred with Brennan for about ten minutes before rehearsing the scene again. Still not satisfied, actor and director talked some more about the scene, and then did a take. Brennan, still shaking after Hawks called cut and said it was “fine,” said, “I’ve got ‘em, and not from rum.” Everyone except Slim treats Eddie like a pathetic hanger-on. What she sees is Eddie’s endearing humanity and loyalty to Morgan, whom Slim has, of course, fallen in love with. Eddie, too, loves Morgan, who safeguards his fragile sidekick (Brennan is almost as gaunt here as he was as Old Atrocity), and by doing so makes Eddie strong enough to collaborate in a plot to save the lives of a French Resistance fighter (Walter Szurovy) and his wife (Dolores Moran). Brennan, steering Harry’s boat out of trouble during a shoot-out with Vichy authorities, remains in stride with Bogart and Bacall—memorably so in the film’s last scene, which shows him hobbling in tune to the music heralding the romantic couple’s successful escape from Martinque. Critic Nicholas Spencer observes just how central Brennan’s Eddie is to the ideology of To Have and Have Not, a film that heralds and sanctions America’s entry into World War II: “Harry’s loyalty to Eddie highlights the importance of being true to one’s allies when they are in trouble.” Eddie turns out to be good with a gun and transforms himself, as Spencer notes, from “incompetent alcoholic to freedom fighter.” No other character actor in Hollywood history rivals Brennan in the pivotal roles he played in so many films. In retrospect, at least, Brennan’s role here seems even richer than later critics like Spencer suppose. During a world war, when fascist ideology idealizes strength and ruthlessness, Eddie represents an entirely different worldview and moral code. He is not an example of the survival of the fittest, but instead is a weak man who overcomes the overwhelming odds set against him. A greater failure than any other character Brennan ever played, Eddie draws strength from Harry and is redeemed. He is the common man, the little man, the derelict, the hanger-on, the socially marginal—in short, everything the Nazis deemed worthy of extermination. He is a fool attached to a wise man. Eddie is the underside of society that fascist ideology dismissed as unworthy to exist. He is unhealthy and dependent on charity, and yet he is an indispensable part of the humanity that Harry Morgan cannot detach himself from. Eddie is not beautiful like Bacall, who plays her important part in treating Eddie with decency and even affection, turning Eddie’s querulous refrain, “Was you ever stung by a dead bee?” on Eddie, who then realizes she is on his side. And why not? Bacall, after all, plays a woman who cons men (she is a pickpocket), until she meets a man like Harry who cannot be conned. With her throaty low-pitched voice, Bacall seems, in fact, a feminine Bogart, “tough and taciturn,” as Otis L. Guernsey described the actor in his New York Herald Tribune review (October 12, 1944). Slim loves Harry, in part, because of his attachment to Eddie, not despite it. The scenes between Bacall and Brennan are tender and perhaps influenced by their friendship. In reminiscing about his work, Brennan said little about Bogart, except that he was “all right . . . a nice guy.” They apparently got on well in a joking sort of way. Bogart made fun of Brennan’s drinker’s nose reminiscent of W. C. Fields, and Walter retorted: “There’s a difference. He had fun getting his.” But Walter knew Bacall before Bogart did. When Hawks saw the teenage model Betty Joan Perske on a magazine cover, he wanted to do a screen test with her and Brennan, who explained what happened:
will let me do this.” And Bob McIntyre [Goldwyn’s casting director] called me up, and he had this deep voice, he said, “You can’t do that. We got to pay you.” I said, “Well, I’m going to do it for nothing. I’ll do it for Howard Hawks.” And so I did it. She really shook. If you ever get to talk to her, she’ll tell you how she shook.
It is not hard to imagine why the newly-named Lauren Bacall treats the shaky Eddie with so much sensitivity. As John T. McManus put it in his review (PM, October 12, 1944), “To Have and Have Not has a healthy, democratic flesh tone, and it is not only skin deep.” But so entranced were the reviewers with Bogart and Bacall that Brennan’s superlative achievement was given only glancing recognition, as in Alton’s Cook’s salute to the actor’s drawing on his “endless variety of resources,” and, in New York Times critic Bosley Crowther’s remark that Brennan’s work is “affecting” but “pointless”! This powerful film about redemption is as good as any film Brennan appeared in, and his performance here outranks all his others, except for his tour de force role as Judge Roy Bean.
I said, “Why don’t you get one of these guys to take it?” He says, “Well, you’d make her feel at ease.” I said, “Gee, Howard, I don’t know whether Goldwyn
will let me do this.” And Bob McIntyre [Goldwyn’s casting director] called me up, and he had this deep voice, he said, “You can’t do that. We got to pay you.” I said, “Well, I’m going to do it for nothing. I’ll do it for Howard Hawks.” And so I did it. She really shook. If you ever get to talk to her, she’ll tell you how she shook.
A far more important role than Thunder, but one that again explored Brennan’s character’s triumph over his own frailties, is the “rummy,” Eddie, in To Have and Have Not (October 11, 1944), starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall.
In December, 1943, Howard Hawks met with Brennan for a pre-production conference, a sign of the director’s keen desire to get the supporting role exactly right.
Brennan’s name in the credits would appear in type 60 percent the size of that used for Bogart, and Goldwyn would get $2,500 a week for the actor’s services during nearly a three-month period that stretched from March to May of 1944.
This was now the standard agreement for a Brennan loan out.
A month before production began, the Breen office signaled its discomfort with the film’s lack of moral hygiene:
I think censorship in this film is very apparent. As an example, marriage is apparent theme in the novel. Sexual tensions appear throughout the novel and is more straightforward as it is possible to express in the novel over the film.
i feel that if the movie was made today, the film would involve more sex scenes between the male and female lead and there would probably be more violence. In to have and have not, there was no sex scene, rarely any kissing scenes, and a very small action packed gun shootout scene.
i think the movie is a romantic film that appeals to more of a female audience, however if the movie had more sex scenes and more violence it would appeal to more of a male audience. Also too much violence and sex scenes could possibly distract the viewer from the overall romantic and mysterious vibe of the film.
It is not hard to imagine why the newly-named Lauren Bacall treats the shaky Eddie with so much sensitivity.
As John T. McManus put it in his review (PM, October 12, 1944), “To Have and Have Not has a healthy, democratic flesh tone, and it is not only skin deep.”
But so entranced were the reviewers with Bogart and Bacall that Brennan’s superlative achievement was given only glancing recognition, as in Alton’s Cook’s salute to the actor’s drawing on his “endless variety of resources,” and, in New York Times critic Bosley Crowther’s remark that Brennan’s work is “affecting” but “pointless”!
This powerful film about redemption is as good as any film Brennan appeared in, and his performance here outranks all his others, except for his tour de force role as Judge Roy Bean.
I think it’s great the Brennan based his walk off the single descriptive sentence in the novel. I believe this limp helps the audience to relate to Eddie and makes you feel compassion for him being a drunk. It makes his drinking seem more like a handicap than a problem.
will let me do this.” And Bob McIntyre [Goldwyn’s casting director] called me up, and he had this deep voice, he said, “You can’t do that. We got to pay you.” I said, “Well, I’m going to do it for nothing. I’ll do it for Howard Hawks.” And so I did it. She really shook. If you ever get to talk to her, she’ll tell you how she shook.
Added August 09, 2016 at 10:23am
by Carl Rollyson
Title: Wording change
The text below is the previous wording for paragraph 29 (click to return there).
A far more important role than Thunder, but one that again explored Brennan’s character’s triumph over his own frailties, is the “rummy,” Eddie, in To Have and Have Not (October 11, 1944), starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall.
In December, 1943, Howard Hawks met with Brennan for a pre-production conference, a sign of the director’s keen desire to get the supporting role exactly right.
Brennan’s name in the credits would appear in type 60 percent the size of that used for Bogart, and Goldwyn would get $2,500 a week for the actor’s services during nearly a three-month period that stretched from March to May of 1944.
This was now the standard agreement for a Brennan loan out.
A month before production began, the Breen office signaled its discomfort with the film’s lack of moral hygiene:
Surprisingly, the sexually suggestive scene between Bogart and Bacall aroused no objections—except in Ohio.
The censor there saw the finished print and was disturbed when Bacall’s comments, “It’s even better when you help,” after Bogart finally kisses her back (her first effort does not seem to stimulate him).
Alongside Humphrey Bogart, playing Harry Morgan in Casablanca mode, Eddie behaves as if the self-contained star needs him, even though, as “Slim” (Bacall) tells Morgan, “You wouldn’t take anything from anybody.”
What Eddie has to give is affection and loyalty, qualities in short supply in Vichy-controlled Martinique.
When Mr. Johnson, who has hired Harry’s fishing boat for a day, says he does not see why Harry keeps “that rummy around.”
Harry replies, “Eddie was a good man on a boat before he got to be a rummy.”
But why does Harry look after Eddie?
Johnson asks.
“Is he related to you, or somethin’?”
Harry replies, “He thinks he’s looking after me.”
In fact, Eddie does think of himself as Harry’s protector, and when Harry kicks Eddie off his boat, Eddie senses Harry is in trouble and stows away.
“You can’t fool me,” Eddie tells Harry, who has been trying to keep Eddie—who talks too much—out of trouble.
Eddie doesn’t want anything from Harry except some acknowledgment of their bond and another drink, which Morgan carefully rations so that Eddie remains sober enough to do his job aboard Morgan’s boat.
Harry at first reluctantly puts the boat at the disposal of a French resistance leader seeking a way out of Nazi-patrolled waters.
But Harry does not have much in common with the character in the Hemingway novel the picture is supposedly based on and wants no part of politics.
He would prefer to stick to his business as a hired fisherman.
But as soon as the Vichy authorities begin to get in Harry’s way, he sides with the Resistance, just as the disaffected Rick does in Casablanca.
The shambling walk Brennan perfected for his role suggests a man always on the verge of the shakes.
Gerald Mast observes, “Walter Brennan’s quirky, jumpy, jittery performance as Eddie—one of the very best of his very distinguished career—took its cue from a single descriptive sentence in the Hemingway novel: ‘He walked with his joints all slung wrong.’”
No other actor in Hollywood could shuffle himself into greatness.
The unsteady Eddie seems the last person in the world that Harry should rely on, and yet, in one of the film’s key scenes, Eddie steers the boat straight through the night, enabling Harry to concentrate on outwitting a Vichy patrol boat.
Filmed on location, it was not an easy scene to finesse.
Walter had trouble with his lines, trying to perfect both his delivery and his jitters.
Hawks stopped shooting and conferred with Brennan for about ten minutes before rehearsing the scene again.
Still not satisfied, actor and director talked some more about the scene, and then did a take.
Brennan, still shaking after Hawks called cut and said it was “fine,” said, “I’ve got ‘em, and not from rum.”
Everyone except Slim treats Eddie like a pathetic hanger-on.
What she sees is Eddie’s endearing humanity and loyalty to Morgan, whom Slim has, of course, fallen in love with.
Eddie, too, loves Morgan, who safeguards his fragile sidekick (Brennan is almost as gaunt here as he was as Old Atrocity), and by doing so makes Eddie strong enough to collaborate in a plot to save the lives of a French Resistance fighter (Walter Szurovy) and his wife (Dolores Moran).
Brennan, steering Harry’s boat out of trouble during a shoot-out with Vichy authorities, remains in stride with Bogart and Bacall—memorably so in the film’s last scene, which shows him hobbling in tune to the music heralding the romantic couple’s successful escape from Martinque.
Critic Nicholas Spencer observes just how central Brennan’s Eddie is to the ideology of To Have and Have Not, a film that heralds and sanctions America’s entry into World War II: “Harry’s loyalty to Eddie highlights the importance of being true to one’s allies when they are in trouble.”
Eddie turns out to be good with a gun and transforms himself, as Spencer notes, from “incompetent alcoholic to freedom fighter.”
No other character actor in Hollywood history rivals Brennan in the pivotal roles he played in so many films.
In retrospect, at least, Brennan’s role here seems even richer than later critics like Spencer suppose.
During a world war, when fascist ideology idealizes strength and ruthlessness, Eddie represents an entirely different worldview and moral code.
He is not an example of the survival of the fittest, but instead is a weak man who overcomes the overwhelming odds set against him.
A greater failure than any other character Brennan ever played, Eddie draws strength from Harry and is redeemed.
He is the common man, the little man, the derelict, the hanger-on, the socially marginal—in short, everything the Nazis deemed worthy of extermination.
He is a fool attached to a wise man.
Eddie is the underside of society that fascist ideology dismissed as unworthy to exist.
He is unhealthy and dependent on charity, and yet he is an indispensable part of the humanity that Harry Morgan cannot detach himself from.
Eddie is not beautiful like Bacall, who plays her important part in treating Eddie with decency and even affection, turning Eddie’s querulous refrain, “Was you ever stung by a dead bee?” on Eddie, who then realizes she is on his side.
And why not?
Bacall, after all, plays a woman who cons men (she is a pickpocket), until she meets a man like Harry who cannot be conned.
With her throaty low-pitched voice, Bacall seems, in fact, a feminine Bogart, “tough and taciturn,” as Otis L. Guernsey described the actor in his New York Herald Tribune review (October 12, 1944).
Slim loves Harry, in part, because of his attachment to Eddie, not despite it.
The scenes between Bacall and Brennan are tender and perhaps influenced by their friendship.
In reminiscing about his work, Brennan said little about Bogart, except that he was “all right . . . a nice guy.”
They apparently got on well in a joking sort of way.
Bogart made fun of Brennan’s drinker’s nose reminiscent of W. C. Fields, and Walter retorted: “There’s a difference.
He had fun getting his.”
But Walter knew Bacall before Bogart did.
When Hawks saw the teenage model Betty Joan Perske on a magazine cover, he wanted to do a screen test with her and Brennan, who explained what happened:
will let me do this.”
And Bob McIntyre [Goldwyn’s casting director] called me up, and he had this deep voice, he said, “You can’t do that.
We got to pay you.”
I said, “Well, I’m going to do it for nothing.
I’ll do it for Howard Hawks.”
And so I did it.
She really shook.
If you ever get to talk to her, she’ll tell you how she shook.
It is not hard to imagine why the newly-named Lauren Bacall treats the shaky Eddie with so much sensitivity.
As John T. McManus put it in his review (PM, October 12, 1944), “To Have and Have Not has a healthy, democratic flesh tone, and it is not only skin deep.”
But so entranced were the reviewers with Bogart and Bacall that Brennan’s superlative achievement was given only glancing recognition, as in Alton’s Cook’s salute to the actor’s drawing on his “endless variety of resources,” and, in New York Times critic Bosley Crowther’s remark that Brennan’s work is “affecting” but “pointless”!
This powerful film about redemption is as good as any film Brennan appeared in, and his performance here outranks all his others, except for his tour de force role as Judge Roy Bean.
General Document Comments 0
doing illegal things, smuggling individuals, to help his family. In a weird way it reminds me of Breaking Bad.
Yes, I can see the comparison of Bogart and Walter White but I believe Bogart is more of a stand up guy. He does some illegal things but when it’s time to do the right thing he does. For example, he takes the bullet out of the gentleman’s shoulder without getting paid.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments