To Have and Have Not (1944)

October 11, 1944, release date

Directed by Howard Hawks

Screenplay by Jules Furthman, William Faulkner

Based on the novel To Have and Have Not, by Ernest Hemingway

Music by William Lava, Franz Waxman

Edited by Christian Nyby

Cinematography by Sidney Hickox

Humphrey Bogart as Harry “Steve” Morgan

Walter Brennan as Eddie

Lauren Bacall as Marie “Slim” Browning

Dolores Moran as Madame Hélène de Bursac

Hoagy Carmichael as Cricket

Sheldon Leonard as Lieutenant Coyo

Walter Surovy as Paul de Bursac

Marcel Dalio as Gérard (aka Frenchy)

Walter Sande as Johnson

Dan Seymour as Capitaine Renard

Aldo Nadi as Renard’s bodyguard

Paul Marion as Beauclère

Eugene Borden as the quartermaster

Patricia Shay as Mrs. Beauclère

Sir Lancelot as Horatio

Emmett Smith as a bartender

Pat West as a bartender

Distributed by Warner Bros./First National Pictures

To Have and Have Not is a film noir? I know any film starring Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, or Bogie and Bacall should make characterizing that film pretty simple: It’s a Bogart film, a Bacall film, or a Bogie and Bacall film, respectively. Both actors project such star power on the screen; both have become legendary; both stars are worthy of their own categories. To Have and Have Not has also been accused of being a Casablanca remake. But I’ve never been a big fan of a strict adherence to categories, and I see no reason why To Have and Have Not can’t be called a film noir, too.

The opening credits appear over a map of the Caribbean Sea and its islands. When the credits end, the camera zooms in on the island of Martinique. Type over the screen reads “Martinique, in the summer of 1940, shortly after the fall of France.” Then more type reads “Fort de France.” The credits, the camera movement, and the type orient viewers right away, but I did wonder as the film started if 1944 viewers would have known a lot already about Martinique and its role in the Vichy government. The film’s opening certainly helps modern-day viewers, but did 1944 audiences really need this much information stated upfront about the events, which would have been current events for them, that form the backdrop of To Have and Have Not? I wasn’t able to find out much about this point, but I wondered nonetheless.

When the narrative starts, Harry Morgan walks into a scene on a dock and goes to a window in what appears to be a government building to request clearance for his boat, the Queen Conch, out of Key West, Florida. After being granted clearance, he approaches his boat and finds his assistant Eddie passed out and hungover on the dock. Mr. Johnson arrives at the same time to rent Morgan’s boat. Most of the plot threads converge on this opening scene: Harry is loyal to his friend Eddie, although viewers never find out why; Harry struggles to make a living because rich tourists aren’t always interested in paying him; and the government is keeping a watchful eye on citizens and foreigners alike.

Later that day, someone named Gérard asks Harry if he will help some of his friends in the French Resistance. It isn’t obvious to viewers at first, but Gérard owns the hotel, the Hotel Marquis, where Harry is staying. Harry refuses Gérard’s request at first, but then Slim arrives on the island by plane and is staying in the room across the hall from Harry. Harry meets her when he follows here to her room, which he does because he saw her steal Mr. Johnson’s wallet in the hotel’s nightclub. He takes Slim by the arm and leads her into his room so he can examine the wallet for himself. Mr. Johnson hasn’t been paying Harry for the rental of his boat, and he owes Harry several hundred dollars.

Several of Gérard’s friends visit Harry in his room, and they arrive while he is still talking to Slim. But it turns out that they are not just friends of Gérard; all of them are fellow Resistance fighters. They do their best to convince Harry to help them, but nothing they say or do, not even the offer of money, can change Harry’s mind. He wants no part of their fight against the Vichy government and the Nazis.

Afterward, when everyone is in the café/nightclub of the Hotel Marquis, a gunfight breaks out, with the French Gestapo firing into the hotel. Shooting continues out on the street in front of the hotel between the Resistance fighters and the French Gestapo. Beauclere and Émil are the only Resistance fighters who survive.

After falling for Slim, Harry finally he decides to take the job from the Resistance fighters and their money so he can help Slim leave Martinique. He agrees to pick up two Resistance fighters and bring them back to Martinique. He learns that one of them is Paul de Bursac; the other is his wife. Paul de Bursac will work from Martinique to find Pierre Villemars. The Resistance feels that Villemars is one of the few who can inspire fighters to continue the struggle against the Nazis, in spite of the terrible odds.

The locale in Martinique is more exotic than usual for a film noir, but To Have and Have Not does have elements of noir: wartime intrigue, some betrayal, and petty crime. Lauren Bacall’s character, Slim, finds herself on Martinique because she ran out of money and could afford to travel only as far as the island. She tries to support herself by pickpocketing in the clubs and swindling tourists out of their money.

To Have or Have Not is based on a novel by Ernest Hemingway that I have not read (not yet, anyway), but summaries of its plot paint it as noir literature. It’s the story of Harry Morgan, a man trying to keep his family financially afloat during the Great Depression (the film takes place a bit later). He is drawn into criminal activity when he and his boat are hired to smuggle contraband between Cuba and Key West in Florida. From all I have read, it is a story of betrayal, crime, poverty, despair, and sorrow—about as noir as it gets.

Hemingway’s novel has been adapted to the screen a total of four times, and two out of the four are considered film noir:

◊ To Have and Have Not (1944)

◊ The Breaking Point (1950)

◊ The Gun Runners (1958)

◊ Captain Khorshid (1987)

The last might be a neo-noir, but I haven’t had much luck finding information about it. Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall have appeared in four films together:

◊ To Have and Have Not (1944), based on the novel by Ernest Hemingway

◊ The Big Sleep (1946), based on the novel by Raymond Chandler

◊ Dark Passage (1947), based on the novel by David Goodis

◊ Key Largo (1948), based on the play Key Largo by Maxwell Anderson

The latter three films are considered film noir, and The Big Sleep and Dark Passage are based on novels written by two writers famous for their work in crime fiction and pulp novels. In addition to the noir elements that I already mentioned, I am calling To Have and Have Not film noir partly out of association, if you will.

And did I mention that it’s a lot of fun to watch? If you have never seen To Have and Have Not, now, during the pandemic, would be a good first time. Almost any viewer, even those not familiar with classic film and film noir, will likely recognize several lines from the film. “You know how to whistle, don’t you, Steve? You just put your lips together and blow.”

Warning Shot (1967)

January 18, 1967, release date

Directed by Buzz Kulik

Screenplay by Mann Rubin

Based on the novel 711: Officer Needs Help by Whit Masterson

Music by Jerry Goldsmith

Edited by Archie Marshek

Cinematography by Joseph F. Biroc

David Janssen as Sgt. Tom Valens

Joan Collins as Joanie Valens

Ed Begley as Capt. Roy Klodin

Keenan Wynn as Sgt. Ed Musso

Sam Wanamaker as Frank Sanderman

Lillian Gish as Alice Willows

Stefanie Powers as Liz Thayer

Eleanor Parker as Doris Ruston

George Grizzard as Walt Cody

George Sanders as Calvin York

Steve Allen as Perry Knowland

Carroll O’Connor as Paul Jerez

Walter Pidgeon as Orville Ames

Vito Scotti as the fashion designer

Distributed by Paramount Pictures

Produced by Bob Banner Associates, Inc.

Warning Shot is one of those quirky films that reflect the fashions and the customs of the time in which it was made, in this case, the 1960s. It features a jazzy, hip soundtrack and women sporting beehive hairdos. It seems even more dated to me in some ways than films from the 1940s. Everything about Warning Shot feels a bit far out and groovy, but the story itself holds up well because it’s familiar, especially to noir fans. It’s just the hairstyles and the fashion that are so different.

The main character is a police detective who shoots a respected doctor in self-defense and must repair his reputation in the aftermath. The police detective, Sgt. Tom Valens, is a sympathetic character for viewers, if not for the other characters in the film, because he believes in himself and must prove himself to others. The film starts from his point of view, and viewers mostly stick with him through all his setbacks.

The film is based on a novel by Whit Masterson, which is actually the pen name for two writers who wrote several novels that were adapted into many famous films noir. Click here for more information about the pen name Whit Masterson and here for a complete list of the books published under the name.

The opening credits appear over a fuzzy, out-of-focus background. The narrative starts with the camera coming into focus, with a shot of what looks like a backyard patio at night, in Los Angeles. It’s very foggy, which makes it even more difficult to see. The camera pans right to a man hiding in the bushes at 11191 Seascape Apartments. When he leaves the premises and approaches a squad car, viewers realize that he is a police detective (Sgt. Ed Musso) and not a prowler or a criminal. Musso wants to quit for the night, so his partner, Sgt. Valens, calls in the request. Their police captain tells them to remain on the stakeout for another hour.

Valens gets out of the squad car to continue the surveillance. He and his partner are on a call about a prowler; tensions are high because a killer has already struck several times and is still at large. Someone comes out of the apartment building, and he starts running when Valens calls out to him, telling to stop and that he is a police officer. When the man is cornered, Valens tells him to drop his bag. The man does, but he pulls what looks like a gun from his coat pocket. Valens shoots and kills him in self-defense. He and Musso subsequently learn from searching his pockets that he is Dr. James B. Ruston of Bel Air.

Later, when they search the premises of the Seascape Apartments, Musso and other officers cannot find Ruston’s gun. Valens is put on desk duty until after the inquest into the events surrounding Ruston’s death is complete. His captain, Roy Klodin, thinks that Valens may be suffering from memories of being shot on the job several months earlier; in other words, he thinks that Valens is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that it may be affecting his judgment.

At the inquest, Paul Jerez, the man leading the inquest, brings up the topic of warning shots. He asks Captain Klodin when he is on the stand to explain police procedure regarding warning shots for the jury:

• Jerez: “. . . Maybe you can tell us why he [Valens] failed to fire a customary warning shot when he tried to stop Dr. Ruston.”

• Klodin: “You know we don’t fire a warning shot.”

• Jerez: “Yes, I know. Tell them [the jury panel].”

• Klodin: “Our officers are instructed never to shoot unless it’s absolutely unavoidable. This is to prevent hitting some innocent bystander.”

It’s a bit odd that Jerez uses the word customary because he knows that warning shots are not customary police procedure. But he does allow Captain Klodin to make this point clear for everyone in the courtroom. This is an example of the quirky contradictory nature of the film, but in this case, the information is also serious. A warning shot might have saved Dr. Ruston’s life, but it might have killed an innocent bystander and it is against police department policy.

Warning Shot also reflects the political and cultural issues of the 1960s. People protest Valens’s actions—and police brutality in general—outside the building where his inquest is held. They are angry that a police officer killed a prominent citizen like Dr. Ruston, one who traveled to Baha, Mexico, to provide charity medical care to the residents there. Picketers chant, “Valens, no. Valens, no. Police brutality must go.” A few individuals are interviewed in front of television cameras, for example:

◊ A white woman interviewed near the picket line says, “When I was young, a policeman was always a friend, someone to be trusted. But now it’s different. Police are different. And how do I explain Sergeant Valens to my children? How do I say to them, ‘Trust him, let him help you across the street, even though his hands are bloody’?”

◊ A black man interviewed near the same picket line says: “I’m just here to see if the same punishment they would have used on me if I had killed an innocent man will be applied to this Valens case or will he get the usual coat of whitewash?”

The protesters could be talking about current events today. In these examples, their protests and arguments don’t sound dated at all.

(This blog post about Warning Shot contains some spoilers.)

The inquest jury panel is not very sympathetic to the police and decides to indict Sgt. Valens on charges of manslaughter. The prosecutor, Frank Sanderman, is on a vendetta. He’s happy to prosecute any cop who crosses the line because his own father, “a honkey,” as he calls him, ventured into the wrong neighborhood and was killed because he didn’t understand. The implication is that an officer shot an innocent man simply because the man didn’t understand the instructions to stop when the officer spoke to him.

Orville Ames, a famous and successful lawyer, won’t represent Valens unless he pleads guilty and says that he made a mistake. Valens won’t plead guilty to something that he didn’t do and because he is sure of what he saw. He decides to investigate the circumstances around his meeting with Dr. Ruston himself. Valens has only ten days to pursue his investigation, which he is not authorized to undertake, before he has to report for his next court hearing.

During his unauthorized investigation, Valens talks to Perry Knowland, a television host who likes to stir up trouble by taking unpopular sides in local issues. Knowland is a character who would fit in today: He would probably be an online podcaster advocating several conspiracy theories and stirring up millions of followers. He is paid to spread rumors and innuendo because it increases television ratings. The unpopular side to the Ruston case is Valens. The public thinks that Valens is a rogue cop who acted hastily and killed an innocent man and that he is making up the story about Ruston having a gun. Valens begins to realize how unpopular his cause is simply by talking to Knowland and learning about his methods.

Valens discovers the truth about Dr. Ruston. He tracks down the missing gun. And he finds the person who killed Dr. Ruston’s secretary, Liz Thayer, and attempted to kill him. It is obvious in the final sequence that Valens was right all along. And this sequence also ties in the theme about a “warning shot.” Valens doesn’t deliver a warning shot; that’s not part of police protocol after all. But he does deliver a verbal warning to the killer, who decides to disregard it.

David Janssen gives a great performance as Sgt. Valens, the cop who seems to be a victim of the times and public opinion. The film starts from his point of view, and viewers stick with him through all his setbacks because they are in the same position that he is in: trying to figure out what happened and why. Janssen has a world-weary yet stoic persona that works well in this role. I found it very easy to root for him as he searched for the truth in a world he feels has been turned upside down.