Monday, January 15, 2018

Top 50 Actresses, #22 - Lauren Bacall: "To Have and Have Not" (1944)

Movie Stats:
Released 1944 (USA)
American, in English (minor, non-translated French)
Director - Howard Hawks
Stars - Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Walter Brennan

Plot Summary:
On Vichy-controlled Martinique during WWII, American fishing boat captain Harry Morgan (Bogart) gets swept up in a plot to transport a French resistance leader. Bacall co-stars as Marie “Slim” Browning, an American lounge singer who’s Harry’s love interest, and Brennan as Eddie, Harry’s drunkard BFF.

Warnings:
Violence; minor gore.

Bad Stuff:
It’s dull. Nothing terribly thrilling happens. It’s mostly fast talking and bluster.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Bogey, but he did pretty much play the same guy in everything. In this he’s sort of a cross between Charlie Allnutt (The African Queen) and Rick Blaine (Casablanca).

I’m getting kind of sick of films where people meet & immediately fall in love (or become BFFs). I realize that, in terms of filmmaking, it’s cost effective, but it’s not realistic. How am I supposed to believe that Harry and Slim care about each other this deeply when they only just met? And how am I supposed to root for them? I cared more about Harry’s relationship with Eddie, because it was deeper & more meaningful.

Good Stuff:
Harry’s friendship with Eddie. They really cared about one another. I always appreciate it when male friendships are portrayed this way in film.

This is Bogey and Bacall’s first film together, and with the chemistry that crackles between them, you’ll understand why it wasn’t their last.

Bacall’s costuming is pretty great.

About the Performance:
I won’t claim to be terribly familiar with Bacall’s work. The only other films of hers I’ve seen are The Big Sleep and, apparently, Misery, but I saw that film so long ago I don’t remember her character. I would say that her character here is very similar to her character in The Big Sleep: cool, charming and aloof. So I wasn’t exactly impressed. However, there’s no denying that she was striking. She had a sultry voice, she commands the screen, and she had phenomenal chemistry with Bogart. Was she a great actress in the way that, say, Shirley MacLaine is? I would say no, but I can definitely see why she’s considered iconic.

Other performances of Bacall’s I’ve reviewed: none.

The Verdict:
It was okay. I thought the story was a bit simplistic, which meant that it didn’t end up being terribly exciting. The subject matter is a bit too close to Casablanca; the performances of the leads too similar to their other performances. I just wasn’t wowed. It’s one of those films that I’m not bothered to have seen, but I’ll never watch it again and someday soon I’ll forget all about it.

I give it 3.5 stars.

3 comments:

Patricia said...

"I realize that, in terms of filmmaking, it’s cost effective, but it’s not realistic. "

There was a wheeze of laughter when I read that line.

I'm in agreement. That was my main problem with Double Indemnity. You guys had one session of flirting and now you are in love? What gives? I wonder if it wasn't just movies, either. I'm thinking of all those WWII marriages that happened so fast.

We clearly have grown up in a very different time. I mean, I won't even get married, even after all these years.

Patricia said...

Also, I think I watched this, and I remember nothing about it. Not the best of signs.

balyien said...

It grates. They could at least toss in a "6 months later..." if they don't want to show a relationship progress on-screen.