On a ten-day fishing trip, independent director Howard Hawks tried to convince Ernest Hemingway to write him a script, but Hemingway was not interested in working in Hollywood. Hawks insisted he could make a film from Hemingway's "worst story". Although Hawks had a high regard for Hemingway's works in general, he considered To Have and Have Not his worst book, a "bunch of junk", and told Hemingway so. Hemingway and Hawks worked on the screenplay during the remainder of the fishing trip. They decided the film would not resemble the novel, but rather would tell the story of how Morgan met Marie. Marie's character was extensively altered for the film as well.
To Have and Have Not
(1944)3
" At Last! Bogart makes love his kind of woman !"
| Country | |
| Spoken Language | english, french |
| Runtime | 1 hr 40 min |
| Premiere: World | $13 181 March 1, 1945 |
| Premiere: USA | October 11, 1944 |
| Digital: World | January 1, 2009 |
| Production Companies | |
| Also Known As | Ernest Hemingway's To Have and Have Not United States |
Description
During World War II, an American expatriate helps transport a French Resistance leader and his wife to Martinique while romancing a lounge singer.Сast and Crew
Director
Camera
Author
Composer
Videos Stills Posters Filming Promo Covers
About the Author
Ernest Hemingway is the author of the novel To Have and Have Not, published in 1937. Hemingway is a renowned American novelist and short story writer, known for his distinctive writing style and profound impact on 20th-century literature.
The Novel
To Have and Have Not is set during the Great Depression and follows the story of Harry Morgan, a fishing boat captain in Key West, Florida. Struggling to make ends meet, Morgan becomes involved in illegal activities, including smuggling contraband between Cuba and Florida. The novel explores themes of economic disparity, survival, and moral ambiguity.
Comparison to the Film
The 1944 film adaptation of To Have and Have Not, directed by Howard Hawks, significantly diverges from Hemingway's original novel. While the book is a gritty exploration of economic hardship and moral dilemmas, the film takes a more romantic and adventurous approach. The setting is changed to Martinique during World War II, and the plot is altered to focus on a love story between the characters played by Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall.
The screenplay, adapted by Jules Furthman and William Faulkner, takes liberties with the source material, creating a narrative that is more aligned with the film noir and adventure genres. Despite these changes, the film retains some of the novel's themes, such as the struggle for survival and the complexities of human relationships.
What is “To Have and Have Not” about, and where is it set?
Set in wartime Martinique, the story follows a small-boat captain who tries to stay neutral, but circumstances pull him into a dangerous mix of resistance activity, police pressure, and illegal transport.
Is it more noir or adventure—and why is it classified that way?
It blends adventure mechanics (risk, escapes, clandestine trips) with noir mood—nighttime tension, moral gray zones, oppressive authority, and a romance charged with danger—so it’s often treated as a noir-adventure hybrid.
Is the film connected to Ernest Hemingway’s novel?
Yes. It draws from Ernest Hemingway’s novel, but the film significantly reworks the plot and emphasis, so it plays more like an original story inspired by the book rather than a strict adaptation.
Who directed it, and what stands out about the direction?
It was directed by Howard Hawks. His hallmark is brisk pacing, naturalistic banter, a mix of danger and wit, and a romance that’s integrated into the action rather than separated from it.
Why is the film important to screen romance and “star pairings”?
Because of the electric chemistry between Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall: their scenes thrive on wit, subtext, and boundary-testing. For many viewers, it cemented a model of mature, tension-driven romance in classic Hollywood.
What role do the music and nightclub scenes play?
The music sets a relaxed yet uneasy pulse: the club becomes a public hiding place where characters trade information and read each other. Hoagy Carmichael adds a jazzy texture that reinforces the film’s improvisational, lived-in feel.
Why does the film feature so much sharp dialogue and innuendo?
The film thrives on verbal duels—characters test one another with lines as much as with actions. Writers including William Faulkner and Jules Furthman helped shape the script, so subtext often matters more than explicit explanations of feelings or plans.
How important are the themes of neutrality and personal choice?
It’s central: the protagonist tries to stay out of politics, but reality makes neutrality costly and nearly impossible. The film tracks how pragmatic choices harden into moral commitment—and how paying for that choice changes people.
Does the film have a strong “crew” dynamic and comedic notes?
Yes. Amid the danger there’s a surprisingly light, sometimes comic interplay—especially when the job involves people who bicker, joke, and complain. Supporting charm (including Walter Brennan) adds warmth and counterbalances the tension.
How does its mood differ from other wartime stories of the era?
It’s less about battlefields and more about a borderland existence: ports, shadows, risk, and half-whispered conversations. Rather than straightforward heroics, it emphasizes how one wrong step can be fatal—and how survival, romance, and politics intertwine.
How does the film portray authority and its pressure on ordinary people?
Authority is depicted as a control apparatus—inspections, prohibitions, fear of informing, sudden raids. The noir lens makes it feel less like abstract politics and more like daily danger, where even mundane decisions can become risky.
Is it worth watching today if I don’t like slow classic films?
Yes—if you like tight scenes and dialogue-driven tension. The pacing is brisk: romantic beats feed the intrigue rather than stopping it. If you expect large-scale action, though, it’s more intimate than spectacular.
What themes and motifs are worth tracking on a rewatch?
Watch how the lead shifts from neutrality to involvement; how dialogue carries meaning beyond action; and how locations (the port, streets, club) become both trap and escape. On rewatch, the way noir atmosphere underpins the adventure plot becomes especially clear.
Why is it often seen as a looser adaptation than typical book-to-film versions?
Because it takes the core premise and reshapes it for cinematic effect—leaning into mood, dialogue, romantic sparring, and scene-by-scene drama. Fidelity becomes less important than how well the film functions as a genre blend.
Production
Sign up and you will see here
friends impressions of the movie.
Friends comments and ratings
Future spouses Bogart and Bacall in the Caribbean paraphrase of the great "Casablanca". The result, of course, is not a pathetic copy, but it’s not at all the same. In addition, Bacall is too rude in voice and appearance (I never really liked her). Overall a good typical Bogart film.
This isn’t Casablanca. Bogart is a witty, jack-of-all-trades here. The character seems invulnerable and incredibly resourceful. The action is engaging to watch, with varying success. It’s a kind of Casablanca for the poor, or at least the unassuming.
A noir about love, war and choice, directed by Howard Hawks based on Hemingway’s novel and Faulkner’s screenplay (the collaboration of the century!). A must have for those who missed Casablanca, except that here the accents are placed differently and there are more witty, ambiguous dialogues.
Add a short review
280 characters