To Have and Have Not *****

Come sit around the fire, kats and kitties, and let Uncle Jimmy tell you a little tale from long ago. About 60-some odd-years back, I'm imbibing some spectacular 15 year-old Scotch at the Brown Derby on Sunset Boulevard.

This was back in the days before television so we had to entertain ourselves with booze and conversation. On that night, I had both in spades because sitting on the bar stool next to me, drinking that same marvelous Scotch, was the greatest director American ever produced - Howard Hawks.

About a dance step from oblivion, we were talking about his penchant for making films by loosely connecting a long string of entertaining scenes in exotic places with no discernable storyline - almost like vaudeville cinema - when he told me a story about the genesis of one of those classics.

One summer day in the early 1940s, Hawks and Ernest Hemmingway are on a fishing trip up in Oregon when they start arguing over which is the greater art form - novels or films. After about an hour of heated discussion which nearly led to blows, Hawks played his trump card. "I can make a great movie out of your worst book," Hawks said. Papa was a little upset at first at the idea that he could have written anything that could even be considered a "worst book." Once he got past that affront, Hemmingway was intrigued. "Which book?" Hemmingway asked."That piece of junk To Have and Have Not," Hawks answered."It wasn't that bad," Hemmingway shot back. After settling down for a moment, he continued frankly, "There's no way you could make a good movie out of that."

Well, Hawks did it...kind of. He cheated a little...actually a lot. He did make a great movie titled To Have and Have Not and it did have a few characters with the same names as those in the book, and that's where the comparisons ended. If, after watching the movie, you ran to get the book, you would be disappointed. The entire story and feel for that matter of the movie was completely different than the book.

The novel actually took place in Key West. Well, this was during World War II and Key West was not under the Vichy banner yet, so Hawks moved it to Martinique. "Why Martinique?," you may ask. Remember, Bogart had a pretty big success with another film set in an old French colony (I can't remember the name of it).

As far as the plot for this one goes...I'm not exactly sure. It was something along the lines of Bogart helping some friends get out of Nazi controlled someplace before they ended up in some concentration camp. This was basically the plot line of 50 percent of the movies during World War II (by the way, this keyboard kills fascists). Why was this one different from the rest? Hawks' magical touch, that's why.

A few lifetimes ago, a director by the name of Ernst Lubitsch was one of the most heralded comedic directors of his time...for that matter, all time. Around this time, the critics became aware of the Lubitsch touch. Many critics tried to define it - it was a certain grace...elegance... style...visual wit, but words couldn't really capture it. The best description of the Lubitsch touch could probably be drawn from a Supreme Court decision regarding obscenity, "I know it when I see it."

Hawks also had a touch and I am unable to define it as well. But I know it when I see it and To Have and Have Not is full of it.

I know I just said Hawks' touch cannot be defined, but let me give it a weak shot through the prism of this movie. Howard always got good writers and larger than life actors who loved verbal word play. Place the actors in the right parts, give them great dialogue, put them someplace with strange man-eating flowers that are far from where you are and move at a break-neck pace. Not an acceptable definition by the standards of Funk or Wagnall, but for our conversation it will have to do.

A huge trademark of any Hawks film is that no one remembers the movie, they remember moments, little dreams and sometimes they don't remember the name of the movie where that moment took place. For example, if you asked anyone on the street if they ever saw To Have and Have Not, you would get a mixed response. Now, if you repeated the line, "You know how to whistle, Steve, put your lips together and blow," you would probably get more positive feedback.

To Have and Have Not featured the first pairing of Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall and they are clearly falling in love during this movie. It just explodes off the screen and Hawks gleefully took advantage of his good fortune. The grand old man, Walter Brennan, usually stuck being the heavy in countless westerns, was also having a glorious time with a script that William Faulkner and Jules Furthman joyously penned.

On my first review, I said that the movie “gets along on a mere thin excuse for a story, takes its time without trying to brag about its budget or to reel up footage for footage’s sake, is an unusually happy exhibition of teamwork, and concentrates on character and atmosphere rather than plot. The best of the picture has no plot at all, but is a leisurely series of mating duels between Humphrey Bogart at his most proficient and the very entertaining, nervy, adolescent new blonde, Lauren Bacall.” (Nation, November 4, 1944)

Damn, I’m good. And right again by the way. I’m in such a good mood after seeing this movie again that I won’t even tell that no talent hack Bosley Crowthers to go screw today.