To Have And Have Not

2.5 Stars (out of four)

"You know how to whistle, don't you Steve?  You just put your lips together and blow."

Thus one of the great Hollywood romances was born.  Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall met for the first time on this film and fell madly in love.  Even though he was sixteen years her senior and both were married, the stars aligned for these two in a romance that lasted the rest of Bogart's, and Bacall's, lives.  But a lot is made about this being the film where they met and where the persona of Bacall was born, but how good is the movie, really?

The answer is...not very.

And the sad part is, it has all the ingredients to make a great film, and sort of did, leading to one of the greatest made four years later, that is, Casablanca.  Casablanca and To Have Or Have Not are basically the same movie.  You have an attractive screen couple, or at least real chemistry on the screen between the two costars that is absolutely electrifying.  A first-rate cast all at the top of their game.  There is not a dud in the bunch unless you count Walter Brennan's drunk, but even he is good at it.  You have an adventure/mystery/romance film directed by Howard Hawks, who was one of the best at this type of film.  You have a story written by Ernest Hemmingway adapted by William Faulkner, two of the greatest American writers of the 20th century.  You have amazing dialog and performances where what is not said is just as important as what is said.  The power of the spoken word and nuance is lost in the Big Guns-Big Tits world of Michael Bay and James Cameron today.  You have Bogie playing his best archetype, a deeply wounded man from a relationship that has made him angry and cynical at the world until he meets the woman who is his match.  A man who would not do an unselfish thing for anyone who ends up being the reluctant hero fighting against the Nazis.    These are all crowd-pleasing storylines.

And the most frustrating thing of all is that nothing is really followed up.  The movie slowly builds to a heroic climax and then...doesn't.  What looked to be a tale of derring-do to free a French Resistance figure out of Devil's Island never happens. Our heroes get caught before the plan can happen, so they run to Haiti to escape the Vichy officials at St Martinique.  Now, to be fair, Faulkner had said to Hemmingway he always wanted to adapt any of his stories, no matter how bad it was.  And unfortunately, he picked Hemminway's worst.  Also, like all things creative, stories are not created in a political vacuum.  The original story took place in Cuba and involved corrupt officials in a smuggling ring.  American officials, not wanting to offend our ally (it WAS 1938, after all) and not wanting to take on Nazi Germany, pressured the studio to change the locale and basic story.  So any plot went by the wayside.  And it's too bad, too, because this movie has real potential.  It is interesting and would have been great.

But as it is, we are left with art imitating life, where the real characters, like their roles, are falling in love.  And that electricity is palpable on the screen.  It really comes through, which makes it more of an interesting historical document rather than an interesting story.  It was not only the beginning of Bogie & Bacall, but also the origin of Lauren Bacall's smoking persona.  This was her first movie, she was a model before she was discovered.  And while it helps that she was incredibly beautiful, Hollywood is full of incredibly beautiful people.  What set Bacall apart was her presence, "the look," as some called it.  During her first day on set, she was absolutely terrified and despite Bogart trying to help her relax, she could not stop shaking.  She found the only way to stop it was to tuck in her chin and look up, setting up the smoldering stare for just about every other femme fatale to come along (see below for an example), proving once again, that some of the best inspirations were by accident.

So, in the end, the movie is interesting for the beginning of many great things things to come, not the least of which was Casablanca four years later.  But on its own, it's a bit substandard and ham-handed for all the great tools it had, a tragic missed opportunity.  Not to say it was bad.  Far from it.  But it could have been great and falls way short of that.