[toc]<\/p>\n
By Ian Garwood<\/strong><\/p>\nPublished in\u00a0[in]Transition<\/a><\/strong>, 1.3, 2014<\/a><\/p>\n<\/iframe><\/p>\n<h4><em>(The original voice script for this\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/vimeo.com\/68385492\" target=\"_blank\">audiovisual essay<\/a>)<\/em><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">NOTE: “One of the interesting things for me was realising how working with the images and sounds required a reworking of the script as I’d originally envisaged it, so this, for me, is\u00a0the point of publishing the original script: to see how the words were adapted to the images\/sounds, even in such a ‘wordy’ example of the audiovisual essay as mine” [IAN GARWOOD]<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s the aftermath of the first action scene from Howard Hawks\u2019 second World War melodrama <em>To Have and Have Not<\/em>, made in 1944. An American tourist has been killed in a Martinique bar by a stray bullet during a shoot-out between the island\u2019s Resistance fighters and the Gestapo. The Gestapo chief, Renard, comes in to take away the usual suspects, including, it turns out, the films\u2019 protagonists, played by Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. As Renard begins to hold court, the camera lifts away from him to reveal the wider space of the bar. This movement brings into view, in the bottom right of the frame, the bar\u2019s resident pianist, Cricket, played by the real-life musician and songwriter Hoagy Carmichael.<\/p>\n<p>Cricket is a figure significant enough for the camera to retreat back until he is included in the frame. On the other hand, this is not an establishing shot that prefaces closer views of Cricket \u2013 within this shot, the view of him remains obstructed by bars and there are multiple obstacles \u2013 inanimate and human ones \u2013 between him and the shot\u2019s focal presence, Renard. After the shot, the magnetism of the star characters wins out, the film returning to a position where the leads\u2019 unimpressed reaction to Renard\u2019s grandstanding can be registered. <em>To Have and Have Not<\/em> would not be itself if it saw Cricket\u2019s inclusion in the frame as an invitation to zoom in closer on his character at this point.<\/p>\n<p>Hoagy Carmichael played similar supporting musical figures in ten other movies between the late 30s and mid-50s. Neither a bit player nor a lead, his characters were always noticeable presences but never truly centre stage. They would have to accept background or sideline positions in the drama and in the frame at times. Even at those moments when the camera seeked them out, his characters generally fulfilled the role of the onlooker, rather than the instigator of dramatic action. His characters observed a lot of fights but were not likely to throw a punch, let alone shoot a gun themselves. In To Have and Have Not, his commitment to his station, as barroom pianist, is taken to extremes: he does not even move from his piano stool as that first shoot-out erupts around him.<\/p>\n<p>Carmichael was the most prolific performer of the barroom pianist character type in Hollywood Cinema of this era. This didn\u2019t always entail him playing the piano or working in a bar, but it did involve him displaying a recurring pair of character traits: on the one hand, as I\u2019ve suggested, his characters are marked by low levels of intervention in terms of confronting his films\u2019 major dramatic conflicts; on the other, they are unusually knowledgeable. The knowledge takes two key forms \u2013 a factual awareness of the events that have taken place in a film\u2019s fictional world; and a social knowledge, which allows his characters to understand how the world in which they find themselves works.<\/p>\n<p>The familiarity of his characters with their worlds is conveyed economically to the viewer by their habitual possession of nicknames. Butch, Chick, Smoke, Happy and Jingles are some of the names given to his characters. Krin Gabbard suggests that the nicknaming is of a piece with the infantile quality of Carmichael\u2019s film performances, as he sees them. But I see the fact the characters possess a nickname, known freely by other characters, as more decisive than the connotations of the name itself. In To Have and Have Not, Carmichael\u2019s character is called Cricket and \u2013 tempting as it might be \u2013 it\u2019s difficult to assign this a symbolic value. He\u2019s too present to function simply as a chirruping presence in the background to signal the film\u2019s exotic, tropical locale; and he\u2019s not intervening enough to act as a voice of conscience to the film\u2019s protagonists \u2013 there are plenty of other characters on hand to do that. Instead, the fact that this nickname is used by everyone he encounters simply suggests a character who is well-known and deeply-rooted in this space; it also helps to define the aggressive individuality of the film\u2019s two leads, by contrast. In their first extended exchange, they give each other the nicknames Steve and Slim \u2013 their real names are Harry and Marie. These are deliberately impertinent acts of naming designed to goad each other and suggest their strength of character \u2013 there is no such antagonism implied when Harry and Slim address Carmichael\u2019s character as Cricket \u2013 it\u2019s just the name he goes by.<\/p>\n<p>In other ways, the lack of side associated with Cricket\u2019s character, his very ordinariness, serves to highlight the specialness of the leads. The hotel bar, echoing that in <em>Casablanca<\/em>, is a public space where opposing groups fence warily. Cricket is a constant witness to the intrigues that occur there. In a narrative in which we learn almost nothing about the prehistories of the main characters, Cricket knows more than most. So Cricket\u2019s band are central to the space of the bar and Cricket is himself central to the band. But this puts Cricket in position to support the forceful expression of the leads\u2019 characters rather than allowing him centre stage for himself. This happens obviously in the first number, when Cricket invites Slim to take over the singing of \u2018Am I Blue\u2019. But the prioritising of attention to Slim over Cricket has already been signalled more subtly – look at the way Slim delays the closer shot of Cricket\u2019s first musical performance that might have been expected after his piano playing alerts Harry\u2019s attention. Throughout, the individual magnetism of the leads is contrasted to the more modest activities of Cricket who asserts his personality and creativity only within the confines of a group.<\/p>\n<p>A small exception to this is the mini-narrative detailing Cricket\u2019s writing of \u2018How Little We Know\u2019. Outside of the movies, Hoagy Carmichael was most renowned as a songwriter \u2013 his 1927 composition \u2018Star Dust\u2019 is one of the most recorded songs of all time. \u2018How Little We Know\u2019 is advertised as a Carmichael song \u2013 co-written with Johnny Mercer \u2013 in To Have and Have Not\u2019s title sequence. Maybe this is the narrative strand in which the individuality of the character and performer are given space to shine?<\/p>\n<p>The viewer is made aware Cricket is composing this song, on his own, midway through the film. However, this process is introduced as one with which Cricket is struggling. His playing of the song\u2019s melody on his piano attracts Slim\u2019s attention, but when she asks him \u2018what\u2019s the name of that tune\u2019, he replies \u2018hasn\u2019t got a name yet, I\u2019ve just been fooling around with the lyrics \u2013 they\u2019re not so hot either\u2019. He proceeds to sing an introductory stanza that is written from the perspective of someone lamenting the lack of romance in his life (the first lines capture the moping tone: \u2018I run to the telephone whenever it rings\/I can\u2019t be alone, it\u2019s one of those things\u2019). Despite Slim\u2019s approval, he reiterates that he is still trying to find the right lyric. He continues to play the song instrumentally after Harry comes in and has a needling discussion with Slim that ends with Harry asking Cricket to make sure she gets on the plane out of Martinique. After Harry has gone, Cricket takes up the melody on his piano again, while Slim comments ruefully, \u2018well it was nice while it lasted\u2019. Cricket replies, \u2018maybe it\u2019s better this way, Slim\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s a catchy tune \u2013 Harry whistles it en route to the pick up of a Resistance fugitive and Slim is heard humming it before it is heard in its completed version. When that time comes, it becomes clear that the original first stanza has been discarded. Instead, the song begins with a line reminiscent of Cricket\u2019s earlier words to Slim: \u2018Maybe it happens this way\u2019. The lyrics of the song are now in the first-person plural, rather than singular, and are noticeably more worldly-wise, whilst still romantic, than the original stanza. Slim sings it as a cool musical reiteration of the declaration of love she has just made to Harry and the lyrics fit the temperament of their relationship. In fact, the playing of the tune underneath Harry and Slim\u2019s earlier terse conversation and the approximation of Cricket\u2019s spoken line at that point to the first line of the completed song, suggest that Cricket drew inspiration from that exchange, causing him to replace the original lyrics with more s, ophisticated ones.<\/p>\n<p>In this way, the process of writing ‘How Little We Know’ is cast as a collaborative effort between Cricket, Harry and Slim, even if the latter pair remain unaware of the fact. The songwriting process associated in the film with ‘How Little We Know\u2019 is consistent with Cricket\u2019s overall characterisation: as a figure who draws inspiration from his interactions with others and whose activities (musical and otherwise) serve to support the leads (through her performance, Slim turns \u2018How Little We Know\u2019 into her and Harry\u2019s song). Cricket may be able to provide the soundtrack for Slim and Harry as they exit the hotel, but his integration within a group makes it appropriate that he does not go with them. The band are left to close the film, and Cricket\u2019s final action is characteristically effacing and collegial. It consists of a nod towards a fellow musician that acknowledges the collective effort that has generated the musical support for the now departed leads.<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>Biographical note<\/h2>\n<p><b>Ian Garwood\u00a0<\/b>is Senior Lecturer in Film and Television Studies at the\u00a0University of Glasgow. His research interests include storytelling processes in the fiction film, the sensuous aspects of film narration, the film and television soundtrack, Bollywood, Classical Hollywood, American Independent Cinema and German cinema. His work combines an interest in cultural and production contexts with a dedication to close textual analysis. In 1999, Ian completed his PhD on \u2018<a href=\"http:\/\/wrap.warwick.ac.uk\/4263\/\" target=\"_blank\">Popular Music and Characterisation in Narrative Cinema<\/a>\u2019 at the University of Warwick, supervised by Professor Richard Dyer. Since September 2000 he has been a lecturer at University of Glasgow\u2019s School of Culture and Creative Arts, where he convenes the Sound and Moving Image Research Group, a collective interested in the study and practice of the soundtrack in different audio-visual media. Ian\u2019s recent monograph on <a href=\"http:\/\/www.euppublishing.com\/book\/9780748640720\" target=\"_blank\"><em>The Sense of Film Narration<\/em><\/a> is published by Edinburgh University Press (2013).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On HOW LITTLE WE KNOW:\u00a0AN ESSAY FILM ABOUT HOAGY CARMICHAEL [toc] By Ian Garwood Published in\u00a0[in]Transition, 1.3, 2014 (The original <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/reflections\/intransition-1-3\/ian-garwood\/\">Continue Reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">IAN GARWOOD<\/span><span class=\"meta-nav\">→<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":120,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-fullwidth.php","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-225","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P4VcpT-3D","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=225"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/225\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":744,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/225\/revisions\/744"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/120"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
Published in\u00a0[in]Transition<\/a><\/strong>, 1.3, 2014<\/a><\/p>\n<\/iframe><\/p>\n<h4><em>(The original voice script for this\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/vimeo.com\/68385492\" target=\"_blank\">audiovisual essay<\/a>)<\/em><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">NOTE: “One of the interesting things for me was realising how working with the images and sounds required a reworking of the script as I’d originally envisaged it, so this, for me, is\u00a0the point of publishing the original script: to see how the words were adapted to the images\/sounds, even in such a ‘wordy’ example of the audiovisual essay as mine” [IAN GARWOOD]<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s the aftermath of the first action scene from Howard Hawks\u2019 second World War melodrama <em>To Have and Have Not<\/em>, made in 1944. An American tourist has been killed in a Martinique bar by a stray bullet during a shoot-out between the island\u2019s Resistance fighters and the Gestapo. The Gestapo chief, Renard, comes in to take away the usual suspects, including, it turns out, the films\u2019 protagonists, played by Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. As Renard begins to hold court, the camera lifts away from him to reveal the wider space of the bar. This movement brings into view, in the bottom right of the frame, the bar\u2019s resident pianist, Cricket, played by the real-life musician and songwriter Hoagy Carmichael.<\/p>\n<p>Cricket is a figure significant enough for the camera to retreat back until he is included in the frame. On the other hand, this is not an establishing shot that prefaces closer views of Cricket \u2013 within this shot, the view of him remains obstructed by bars and there are multiple obstacles \u2013 inanimate and human ones \u2013 between him and the shot\u2019s focal presence, Renard. After the shot, the magnetism of the star characters wins out, the film returning to a position where the leads\u2019 unimpressed reaction to Renard\u2019s grandstanding can be registered. <em>To Have and Have Not<\/em> would not be itself if it saw Cricket\u2019s inclusion in the frame as an invitation to zoom in closer on his character at this point.<\/p>\n<p>Hoagy Carmichael played similar supporting musical figures in ten other movies between the late 30s and mid-50s. Neither a bit player nor a lead, his characters were always noticeable presences but never truly centre stage. They would have to accept background or sideline positions in the drama and in the frame at times. Even at those moments when the camera seeked them out, his characters generally fulfilled the role of the onlooker, rather than the instigator of dramatic action. His characters observed a lot of fights but were not likely to throw a punch, let alone shoot a gun themselves. In To Have and Have Not, his commitment to his station, as barroom pianist, is taken to extremes: he does not even move from his piano stool as that first shoot-out erupts around him.<\/p>\n<p>Carmichael was the most prolific performer of the barroom pianist character type in Hollywood Cinema of this era. This didn\u2019t always entail him playing the piano or working in a bar, but it did involve him displaying a recurring pair of character traits: on the one hand, as I\u2019ve suggested, his characters are marked by low levels of intervention in terms of confronting his films\u2019 major dramatic conflicts; on the other, they are unusually knowledgeable. The knowledge takes two key forms \u2013 a factual awareness of the events that have taken place in a film\u2019s fictional world; and a social knowledge, which allows his characters to understand how the world in which they find themselves works.<\/p>\n<p>The familiarity of his characters with their worlds is conveyed economically to the viewer by their habitual possession of nicknames. Butch, Chick, Smoke, Happy and Jingles are some of the names given to his characters. Krin Gabbard suggests that the nicknaming is of a piece with the infantile quality of Carmichael\u2019s film performances, as he sees them. But I see the fact the characters possess a nickname, known freely by other characters, as more decisive than the connotations of the name itself. In To Have and Have Not, Carmichael\u2019s character is called Cricket and \u2013 tempting as it might be \u2013 it\u2019s difficult to assign this a symbolic value. He\u2019s too present to function simply as a chirruping presence in the background to signal the film\u2019s exotic, tropical locale; and he\u2019s not intervening enough to act as a voice of conscience to the film\u2019s protagonists \u2013 there are plenty of other characters on hand to do that. Instead, the fact that this nickname is used by everyone he encounters simply suggests a character who is well-known and deeply-rooted in this space; it also helps to define the aggressive individuality of the film\u2019s two leads, by contrast. In their first extended exchange, they give each other the nicknames Steve and Slim \u2013 their real names are Harry and Marie. These are deliberately impertinent acts of naming designed to goad each other and suggest their strength of character \u2013 there is no such antagonism implied when Harry and Slim address Carmichael\u2019s character as Cricket \u2013 it\u2019s just the name he goes by.<\/p>\n<p>In other ways, the lack of side associated with Cricket\u2019s character, his very ordinariness, serves to highlight the specialness of the leads. The hotel bar, echoing that in <em>Casablanca<\/em>, is a public space where opposing groups fence warily. Cricket is a constant witness to the intrigues that occur there. In a narrative in which we learn almost nothing about the prehistories of the main characters, Cricket knows more than most. So Cricket\u2019s band are central to the space of the bar and Cricket is himself central to the band. But this puts Cricket in position to support the forceful expression of the leads\u2019 characters rather than allowing him centre stage for himself. This happens obviously in the first number, when Cricket invites Slim to take over the singing of \u2018Am I Blue\u2019. But the prioritising of attention to Slim over Cricket has already been signalled more subtly – look at the way Slim delays the closer shot of Cricket\u2019s first musical performance that might have been expected after his piano playing alerts Harry\u2019s attention. Throughout, the individual magnetism of the leads is contrasted to the more modest activities of Cricket who asserts his personality and creativity only within the confines of a group.<\/p>\n<p>A small exception to this is the mini-narrative detailing Cricket\u2019s writing of \u2018How Little We Know\u2019. Outside of the movies, Hoagy Carmichael was most renowned as a songwriter \u2013 his 1927 composition \u2018Star Dust\u2019 is one of the most recorded songs of all time. \u2018How Little We Know\u2019 is advertised as a Carmichael song \u2013 co-written with Johnny Mercer \u2013 in To Have and Have Not\u2019s title sequence. Maybe this is the narrative strand in which the individuality of the character and performer are given space to shine?<\/p>\n<p>The viewer is made aware Cricket is composing this song, on his own, midway through the film. However, this process is introduced as one with which Cricket is struggling. His playing of the song\u2019s melody on his piano attracts Slim\u2019s attention, but when she asks him \u2018what\u2019s the name of that tune\u2019, he replies \u2018hasn\u2019t got a name yet, I\u2019ve just been fooling around with the lyrics \u2013 they\u2019re not so hot either\u2019. He proceeds to sing an introductory stanza that is written from the perspective of someone lamenting the lack of romance in his life (the first lines capture the moping tone: \u2018I run to the telephone whenever it rings\/I can\u2019t be alone, it\u2019s one of those things\u2019). Despite Slim\u2019s approval, he reiterates that he is still trying to find the right lyric. He continues to play the song instrumentally after Harry comes in and has a needling discussion with Slim that ends with Harry asking Cricket to make sure she gets on the plane out of Martinique. After Harry has gone, Cricket takes up the melody on his piano again, while Slim comments ruefully, \u2018well it was nice while it lasted\u2019. Cricket replies, \u2018maybe it\u2019s better this way, Slim\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s a catchy tune \u2013 Harry whistles it en route to the pick up of a Resistance fugitive and Slim is heard humming it before it is heard in its completed version. When that time comes, it becomes clear that the original first stanza has been discarded. Instead, the song begins with a line reminiscent of Cricket\u2019s earlier words to Slim: \u2018Maybe it happens this way\u2019. The lyrics of the song are now in the first-person plural, rather than singular, and are noticeably more worldly-wise, whilst still romantic, than the original stanza. Slim sings it as a cool musical reiteration of the declaration of love she has just made to Harry and the lyrics fit the temperament of their relationship. In fact, the playing of the tune underneath Harry and Slim\u2019s earlier terse conversation and the approximation of Cricket\u2019s spoken line at that point to the first line of the completed song, suggest that Cricket drew inspiration from that exchange, causing him to replace the original lyrics with more s, ophisticated ones.<\/p>\n<p>In this way, the process of writing ‘How Little We Know’ is cast as a collaborative effort between Cricket, Harry and Slim, even if the latter pair remain unaware of the fact. The songwriting process associated in the film with ‘How Little We Know\u2019 is consistent with Cricket\u2019s overall characterisation: as a figure who draws inspiration from his interactions with others and whose activities (musical and otherwise) serve to support the leads (through her performance, Slim turns \u2018How Little We Know\u2019 into her and Harry\u2019s song). Cricket may be able to provide the soundtrack for Slim and Harry as they exit the hotel, but his integration within a group makes it appropriate that he does not go with them. The band are left to close the film, and Cricket\u2019s final action is characteristically effacing and collegial. It consists of a nod towards a fellow musician that acknowledges the collective effort that has generated the musical support for the now departed leads.<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>Biographical note<\/h2>\n<p><b>Ian Garwood\u00a0<\/b>is Senior Lecturer in Film and Television Studies at the\u00a0University of Glasgow. His research interests include storytelling processes in the fiction film, the sensuous aspects of film narration, the film and television soundtrack, Bollywood, Classical Hollywood, American Independent Cinema and German cinema. His work combines an interest in cultural and production contexts with a dedication to close textual analysis. In 1999, Ian completed his PhD on \u2018<a href=\"http:\/\/wrap.warwick.ac.uk\/4263\/\" target=\"_blank\">Popular Music and Characterisation in Narrative Cinema<\/a>\u2019 at the University of Warwick, supervised by Professor Richard Dyer. Since September 2000 he has been a lecturer at University of Glasgow\u2019s School of Culture and Creative Arts, where he convenes the Sound and Moving Image Research Group, a collective interested in the study and practice of the soundtrack in different audio-visual media. Ian\u2019s recent monograph on <a href=\"http:\/\/www.euppublishing.com\/book\/9780748640720\" target=\"_blank\"><em>The Sense of Film Narration<\/em><\/a> is published by Edinburgh University Press (2013).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On HOW LITTLE WE KNOW:\u00a0AN ESSAY FILM ABOUT HOAGY CARMICHAEL [toc] By Ian Garwood Published in\u00a0[in]Transition, 1.3, 2014 (The original <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/reflections\/intransition-1-3\/ian-garwood\/\">Continue Reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">IAN GARWOOD<\/span><span class=\"meta-nav\">→<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":120,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-fullwidth.php","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-225","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P4VcpT-3D","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=225"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/225\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":744,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/225\/revisions\/744"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/120"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
<\/iframe><\/p>\n<h4><em>(The original voice script for this\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/vimeo.com\/68385492\" target=\"_blank\">audiovisual essay<\/a>)<\/em><\/h4>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">NOTE: “One of the interesting things for me was realising how working with the images and sounds required a reworking of the script as I’d originally envisaged it, so this, for me, is\u00a0the point of publishing the original script: to see how the words were adapted to the images\/sounds, even in such a ‘wordy’ example of the audiovisual essay as mine” [IAN GARWOOD]<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s the aftermath of the first action scene from Howard Hawks\u2019 second World War melodrama <em>To Have and Have Not<\/em>, made in 1944. An American tourist has been killed in a Martinique bar by a stray bullet during a shoot-out between the island\u2019s Resistance fighters and the Gestapo. The Gestapo chief, Renard, comes in to take away the usual suspects, including, it turns out, the films\u2019 protagonists, played by Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. As Renard begins to hold court, the camera lifts away from him to reveal the wider space of the bar. This movement brings into view, in the bottom right of the frame, the bar\u2019s resident pianist, Cricket, played by the real-life musician and songwriter Hoagy Carmichael.<\/p>\n<p>Cricket is a figure significant enough for the camera to retreat back until he is included in the frame. On the other hand, this is not an establishing shot that prefaces closer views of Cricket \u2013 within this shot, the view of him remains obstructed by bars and there are multiple obstacles \u2013 inanimate and human ones \u2013 between him and the shot\u2019s focal presence, Renard. After the shot, the magnetism of the star characters wins out, the film returning to a position where the leads\u2019 unimpressed reaction to Renard\u2019s grandstanding can be registered. <em>To Have and Have Not<\/em> would not be itself if it saw Cricket\u2019s inclusion in the frame as an invitation to zoom in closer on his character at this point.<\/p>\n<p>Hoagy Carmichael played similar supporting musical figures in ten other movies between the late 30s and mid-50s. Neither a bit player nor a lead, his characters were always noticeable presences but never truly centre stage. They would have to accept background or sideline positions in the drama and in the frame at times. Even at those moments when the camera seeked them out, his characters generally fulfilled the role of the onlooker, rather than the instigator of dramatic action. His characters observed a lot of fights but were not likely to throw a punch, let alone shoot a gun themselves. In To Have and Have Not, his commitment to his station, as barroom pianist, is taken to extremes: he does not even move from his piano stool as that first shoot-out erupts around him.<\/p>\n<p>Carmichael was the most prolific performer of the barroom pianist character type in Hollywood Cinema of this era. This didn\u2019t always entail him playing the piano or working in a bar, but it did involve him displaying a recurring pair of character traits: on the one hand, as I\u2019ve suggested, his characters are marked by low levels of intervention in terms of confronting his films\u2019 major dramatic conflicts; on the other, they are unusually knowledgeable. The knowledge takes two key forms \u2013 a factual awareness of the events that have taken place in a film\u2019s fictional world; and a social knowledge, which allows his characters to understand how the world in which they find themselves works.<\/p>\n<p>The familiarity of his characters with their worlds is conveyed economically to the viewer by their habitual possession of nicknames. Butch, Chick, Smoke, Happy and Jingles are some of the names given to his characters. Krin Gabbard suggests that the nicknaming is of a piece with the infantile quality of Carmichael\u2019s film performances, as he sees them. But I see the fact the characters possess a nickname, known freely by other characters, as more decisive than the connotations of the name itself. In To Have and Have Not, Carmichael\u2019s character is called Cricket and \u2013 tempting as it might be \u2013 it\u2019s difficult to assign this a symbolic value. He\u2019s too present to function simply as a chirruping presence in the background to signal the film\u2019s exotic, tropical locale; and he\u2019s not intervening enough to act as a voice of conscience to the film\u2019s protagonists \u2013 there are plenty of other characters on hand to do that. Instead, the fact that this nickname is used by everyone he encounters simply suggests a character who is well-known and deeply-rooted in this space; it also helps to define the aggressive individuality of the film\u2019s two leads, by contrast. In their first extended exchange, they give each other the nicknames Steve and Slim \u2013 their real names are Harry and Marie. These are deliberately impertinent acts of naming designed to goad each other and suggest their strength of character \u2013 there is no such antagonism implied when Harry and Slim address Carmichael\u2019s character as Cricket \u2013 it\u2019s just the name he goes by.<\/p>\n<p>In other ways, the lack of side associated with Cricket\u2019s character, his very ordinariness, serves to highlight the specialness of the leads. The hotel bar, echoing that in <em>Casablanca<\/em>, is a public space where opposing groups fence warily. Cricket is a constant witness to the intrigues that occur there. In a narrative in which we learn almost nothing about the prehistories of the main characters, Cricket knows more than most. So Cricket\u2019s band are central to the space of the bar and Cricket is himself central to the band. But this puts Cricket in position to support the forceful expression of the leads\u2019 characters rather than allowing him centre stage for himself. This happens obviously in the first number, when Cricket invites Slim to take over the singing of \u2018Am I Blue\u2019. But the prioritising of attention to Slim over Cricket has already been signalled more subtly – look at the way Slim delays the closer shot of Cricket\u2019s first musical performance that might have been expected after his piano playing alerts Harry\u2019s attention. Throughout, the individual magnetism of the leads is contrasted to the more modest activities of Cricket who asserts his personality and creativity only within the confines of a group.<\/p>\n<p>A small exception to this is the mini-narrative detailing Cricket\u2019s writing of \u2018How Little We Know\u2019. Outside of the movies, Hoagy Carmichael was most renowned as a songwriter \u2013 his 1927 composition \u2018Star Dust\u2019 is one of the most recorded songs of all time. \u2018How Little We Know\u2019 is advertised as a Carmichael song \u2013 co-written with Johnny Mercer \u2013 in To Have and Have Not\u2019s title sequence. Maybe this is the narrative strand in which the individuality of the character and performer are given space to shine?<\/p>\n<p>The viewer is made aware Cricket is composing this song, on his own, midway through the film. However, this process is introduced as one with which Cricket is struggling. His playing of the song\u2019s melody on his piano attracts Slim\u2019s attention, but when she asks him \u2018what\u2019s the name of that tune\u2019, he replies \u2018hasn\u2019t got a name yet, I\u2019ve just been fooling around with the lyrics \u2013 they\u2019re not so hot either\u2019. He proceeds to sing an introductory stanza that is written from the perspective of someone lamenting the lack of romance in his life (the first lines capture the moping tone: \u2018I run to the telephone whenever it rings\/I can\u2019t be alone, it\u2019s one of those things\u2019). Despite Slim\u2019s approval, he reiterates that he is still trying to find the right lyric. He continues to play the song instrumentally after Harry comes in and has a needling discussion with Slim that ends with Harry asking Cricket to make sure she gets on the plane out of Martinique. After Harry has gone, Cricket takes up the melody on his piano again, while Slim comments ruefully, \u2018well it was nice while it lasted\u2019. Cricket replies, \u2018maybe it\u2019s better this way, Slim\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s a catchy tune \u2013 Harry whistles it en route to the pick up of a Resistance fugitive and Slim is heard humming it before it is heard in its completed version. When that time comes, it becomes clear that the original first stanza has been discarded. Instead, the song begins with a line reminiscent of Cricket\u2019s earlier words to Slim: \u2018Maybe it happens this way\u2019. The lyrics of the song are now in the first-person plural, rather than singular, and are noticeably more worldly-wise, whilst still romantic, than the original stanza. Slim sings it as a cool musical reiteration of the declaration of love she has just made to Harry and the lyrics fit the temperament of their relationship. In fact, the playing of the tune underneath Harry and Slim\u2019s earlier terse conversation and the approximation of Cricket\u2019s spoken line at that point to the first line of the completed song, suggest that Cricket drew inspiration from that exchange, causing him to replace the original lyrics with more s, ophisticated ones.<\/p>\n<p>In this way, the process of writing ‘How Little We Know’ is cast as a collaborative effort between Cricket, Harry and Slim, even if the latter pair remain unaware of the fact. The songwriting process associated in the film with ‘How Little We Know\u2019 is consistent with Cricket\u2019s overall characterisation: as a figure who draws inspiration from his interactions with others and whose activities (musical and otherwise) serve to support the leads (through her performance, Slim turns \u2018How Little We Know\u2019 into her and Harry\u2019s song). Cricket may be able to provide the soundtrack for Slim and Harry as they exit the hotel, but his integration within a group makes it appropriate that he does not go with them. The band are left to close the film, and Cricket\u2019s final action is characteristically effacing and collegial. It consists of a nod towards a fellow musician that acknowledges the collective effort that has generated the musical support for the now departed leads.<\/p>\n<p> <\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h2>Biographical note<\/h2>\n<p><b>Ian Garwood\u00a0<\/b>is Senior Lecturer in Film and Television Studies at the\u00a0University of Glasgow. His research interests include storytelling processes in the fiction film, the sensuous aspects of film narration, the film and television soundtrack, Bollywood, Classical Hollywood, American Independent Cinema and German cinema. His work combines an interest in cultural and production contexts with a dedication to close textual analysis. In 1999, Ian completed his PhD on \u2018<a href=\"http:\/\/wrap.warwick.ac.uk\/4263\/\" target=\"_blank\">Popular Music and Characterisation in Narrative Cinema<\/a>\u2019 at the University of Warwick, supervised by Professor Richard Dyer. Since September 2000 he has been a lecturer at University of Glasgow\u2019s School of Culture and Creative Arts, where he convenes the Sound and Moving Image Research Group, a collective interested in the study and practice of the soundtrack in different audio-visual media. Ian\u2019s recent monograph on <a href=\"http:\/\/www.euppublishing.com\/book\/9780748640720\" target=\"_blank\"><em>The Sense of Film Narration<\/em><\/a> is published by Edinburgh University Press (2013).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On HOW LITTLE WE KNOW:\u00a0AN ESSAY FILM ABOUT HOAGY CARMICHAEL [toc] By Ian Garwood Published in\u00a0[in]Transition, 1.3, 2014 (The original <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/reflections\/intransition-1-3\/ian-garwood\/\">Continue Reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">IAN GARWOOD<\/span><span class=\"meta-nav\">→<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":120,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"page-fullwidth.php","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-225","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/P4VcpT-3D","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/225","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=225"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/225\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":744,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/225\/revisions\/744"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/120"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reframe.sussex.ac.uk\/audiovisualessay\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}