The books of legendary American writer Ernest Hemingway gave rise to amazing Hollywood productions, such as the many versions ofThe KillersandA Farewell to Arms, as well as foreign, independent productions, such as the Russian animated adaptation of the classicThe Old Man and the Sea. However, none of these movies come close to the cultural phenomenon that is Howard Hawks’To Have and Have Not, a politically-charged romance story set in Martinique, at the height of World War II.
The movie follows a sneering charter boat skipper, Harry, and a mysterious young woman, Marie, and their striking romance when the world around them seems to be falling apart. Sticking close toclassical Hollywood conventions,To Have and Have Notis an American cinema staple in its most traditional form, but there’s a curious story behind the adaptation, which explains why the movie has pretty much nothing to do with Hemingway’s book.
To Have and Have Not Only Exists Because of a Bet
The story behind Hawks’To Have and Have Notadaptation starts on a fishing trip that Hemingway and Hawks took together, perThe New Yorker, during which the director expressed he could make a good picture out of the author’s worst book. Upon learning this book wasTo Have and Have Not, Hemingway was immediately skeptical about Hawks making a movie out of it, but for 10 days, the two sailed about, fishing whenever they got the chance. They also spent a good deal talking about how to add depth to the characters of the story, how they would relate and get to know each other, and how their stories would end. Suddenly, an innocent bet between two close friends transformed into something enriching and promising, and Hawks decided to buy the rights to the story without hesitation.
While the story behind the movie’s idea alone is itself a great story, the whole production of the film and the on-set dynamics turned out to be equally interesting. The screenplay ofTo Have and Have Notcounted on not only one of America’s most respected writers, but two, with William Faulkner stepping in as the main contributor to the screenplay, which changed many details of Hemingway’s book to attend to thestrict Hays Codein force at that time. It was the first time in history that two winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature worked on the same story.
Hemingway’sTo Have and Have Notis mostly known for its irreverent approach to relevant political matters of the time, in particular the turbulent relationship between the United States and Cuba’s revolutionary efforts. On the other hand, Hawks' movie revolved entirely around the unbeatable onscreen chemistry between Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall and thestrong noir undertoneof their relationship.
Bogart was already a consolidated movie star at the time, mostly because of the success ofCasablanca, which earned him an Acadamy Award nomination for Best Actor. On the other hand, Bacall was making her onscreen debut, let alone the fact that she was only 19 years old at that time. The mystifying romance between the characters inTo Have and Have Notturned out to be mirroring a real-life affair, with the two actors ending up together despite the major age gap between them. No wonder filmmakers try to replicate such unique onscreen chemistry to this day, unaware that replicating genuine passion and desire is nearly impossible.
Related:These Authors Hated the Movie Adaptations of Their Books
How Hemingway’s To Have and Have Not Relates to Hawks' Adaptation
Regarding Hawks’To Have and Have Notas an adaptation that is sodifferent from the book, solely because of the Hays Code’s restraints, is ignoring the fact that Hawks didn’t like the book at all. Part of what makes his bet with Hemingway so funny is how even the disdain for the product had its share of respect for the author: Hawks didn’t want to do something better, but rather improve what he already had in his hands.
Hemingway’s novel is a multi-layered book, known for its fragmented narrative and vast array of characters. While the film takes place over the course of three days, the book spans across months as Harry goes from a boat skipper who lost everything to a ruthless criminal who masks his addiction to the thrill of danger as a need to provide for his family. Despite Harry’s selfish nature, all the scenes between him and his wife, Marie, feel genuine and inspiring. Hawks clearly saw that — and Hemingway, too — which explains his decision to end the book from her point of view.
Related:20 Book-to-Movie Adaptations That Shouldn’t Have Been Made
In this context, no wonder Hawks took advantage of the sexually charged relationship between Harry and Marie as the biggest highlight of the story, and decided to pay homage to it in the film. His movie adaptation could be pretty much interpreted as a prequel to the book, as it shows how the two lovers met and consummated their romance instead of showing how it ended, as in the book. With romance as the basis of the story, the crime subtext is left behind, and so is the deterioration of Harry’s humanity in Hemingway’s narrative. In the book, he even loses an arm and continues to engage in heinous criminal activities. In the film, he’sthe typical anti-herowho doesn’t let politics get over his head.
With the romance working as the matching point between the two works of art — the movie and the book — it’s a matter of preference which suits the audience better. Hemingway’s story is charged with relevant debates on economic struggle and class dynamics: in one beautiful passage, the author goes over the many different ships harbored in Key West, from a huge yawl-rigged yacht filled with Estonian articles to a lush yacht where an upright family peacefully sleeps.
On the other hand, Hawks' movie adds depth to the characters, making them more humane and easy to relate to. Viewers will find themselves laughing, crying, and falling in love with them. BothTo Have and Have Notcomplete each other, and more movie adaptations should aim at this attitude.Rent on AppleTV
