Analysis Of Casablanca Essay, Research Paper

Many feel that Casablanca is Bogart’s best film. I disagree – but for

those who don’t To Have and Have Not is a must-see film. It’s

Casablanca with a different setting, this time we find Bogart playing

Harry Morgan, crewing a ship out for hire. His lovely lady is Lauren

Bacall in her motion picture debut playing the dark and mysterious Slim.

Teamed up with Harry’s alcoholic side-kick Eddie, Cricket the night-club

manager by night, resistance sympathizer by day, and a cast of

supporters, Bogart and Bacall’s adventures are as great on screen as

they were off screen.

The film is based off Ernest Hemmingway’s novel of the same name.

Interestingly enough the film was made as part of a challenge between

Hemmingway and the film’s director, Howard Hawks. Hawks claimed that he

could take Hemmingway’s worst novel and turn it into a good film. The

result was a success – though the film is a far cry from the novel – so

far the film’s title doesn’t even make sense. To Have and Have Not has

every necessary ingredient for success: sex, violence, suspense, and the

occasional musical interlude. Hawks gives us a little of everything in

his hacked-up version of Hemmingway, and when the sparks start to settle

he has Bacall do a little number at the piano bar which may be

irrelevant, but Bacall’s lovely and libidinous manor far makes up for

it. The film may lack class but it’s all the more entertaining because

of it.

Bacall and Bogart strike a match at the start of the film and the flame

outlives Bogart. The chemistry is so strong between the two that you

can’t help but believe there is more to their romance then what’s

scripted. You’re right too – Bogart and Bacall fell in love during

production and were married. This off-screen chemistry is a definite

contributor to their on-screen performances. Bogart offers no surprises

with his performance in this film, he is the same as he always is,

different costume, different name, same Humphry Bogart. This time he

has found a leading lady to compliment his style. Bacall shines in To

Have or Have Not. Her style is borderline raunchy, but it is her show

that ultimately adds class to the film. It is Bacall’s performance that

makes you feel that you are watching something artistic, rather than

something that was produced off an assembly line as most films were in

the 1940’s

. The film is set in Martinique during World War II. Wartime makes

finding work hard for Bogart, forcing him to break his neutrality and

take a job smuggling in a fugitive. Of course this leads to trouble:

there are gun rights both by land and by sea, intense questionings by a

fat French police officer and his abnormally skinny sidekicks, and

gripping scenes that are undoubtedly inspirational the writers and

producers of ER where Harry Morgan shows us he can not only pilot a ship

but remove bullets and dress wounds too. Morgan takes such charge in

this film that he is running the nigh club/hotel by the end, with an

infirmary in the basement and a love shack upstairs.

The entire cast of this film pulls off strong performances. Bogart

makes an impression – but Bacall makes a bigger one and together the

pair really packs a wallop. Bacall and Bogart steam up the screen

without so much as unbuttoning a button. Bacall isn’t without

competition, however. It wouldn’t be a Bogart film if there weren’t

multiple women throwing themselves at Bogart, and To Have or Have Not

holds tradition. Bacall offers us classic comedy as the jealous yet

proud Slim. Only she could say “You know how to whistle Steve, you just

put your lips together and blow” and still preserve class and dignity.

Walter Eddie plays a great drunk, adorably and loveably.

It would be too easy to attribute this film’s success to Bacall or

Bogart. Sure, they are both forces to be reckoned with, but not even

these two can carry an entire film. Only top-notch film making can make

a good film – and that doesn’t mean knowing how to make a film artistic

it means knowing what makes a film good. To Have or Have Not doesn’t

have an artistic frame in it’s reel. There are no allusions to art or

literature – just to sex. There are no deep and meaningful symbolic

representations. It’s pure Hollywood, and although many will hate to

admit it pure Hollywood can be good. To Have and Have Not may not offer

anything new and exciting, but it doesn’t need to, what it offers is

something good, and that’s good enough.

334