Hemingway vs. Callaghan

{last updated April 1, 2003}

STILLMAN BOOKS

11611 Waresley St., Maple Ridge, British Columbia CANADA V2X 9Z3

You may contact me via email at:
orders@stillmanbooks.com


This WebSite address is:
www.stillmanbooks.com


TO ORDER & POLICY: All prices quoted are in U.S. dollars. Shipping charges are extra.





            

Where's the Truth?

I've finally come to the point where I think anyone who reads a book shouldn't watch a film based on that book, and that anyone who sees the film shouldn't follow it up by reading the book. So often, it only spoils the enjoyment one has derived from the book or the film. There are countless examples to choose from to illustrate this point, but I choose the most recent one for me the CBC production entitled "Hemingway vs. Callaghan", based on the Morley Callaghan book "That Summer in Paris", the memoir of a magical few months that Callaghan and his wife Loretto spent in the romantic capital in 1929. Callaghan was a respected new writer from Canada and he and his wife were welcomed warmly by the new literary giants of the day, Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald and James Joyce and their wives. Callaghan's book was a warm accounting of this period and I enjoyed it immensely. I looked forward to watching the "Hemingway vs. Callaghan" production. I've never made a film. I know there are a lot of factors involved, not the least of which is the meshing of several different agendas of several different personalities; the director, the producer, the casting company, the screenwriters, the actors, and others. But it's always bothered me to see so many glaring changes to the original story. I offer just a few observations after seeing this CBC production: 1. The casting. For the purposes of the film, these differences aren't that important perhaps, but, nevertheless, Hemingway was just over six-feet tall, Callaghan was five-foot-eight. In the film they're about the same height, both under six feet. Callaghan was born in 1903, making him nearly four years younger than Hemingway. Hemingway died in 1961 at age 61. At this time, Callaghan would have been 58. Gordon Pinsent looked at least ten years older (because he is). 2. Setting. In the film, Hemingway and Callaghan fight in an official-looking boxing ring. There was no such ring in the American Club in Paris in 1929. Apparently, there weren't even mats on the floor. (I have to say, that boxing in the corner of an open floor could have been just as effective and more realistic.) In the film, on the trip back from Chartres, Hemingway, Callaghan and Loretto stop to share a bottle of wine and Hemingway discovers these two young boys who have a Luger. Hemingway and Callaghan have a competition shooting wine bottles off of a fence. Callaghan remembers the competition taking place in a shooting gallery at a small carnival and the match went on so long that Loretto had to claim that Morley missed his little doll that he was shooting at. It was the twelfth round of shooting and Loretto wanted to go, and she knew it was important that Ernest win. 3. Situation and dialogue. Joan Miro, the great Spanish surrealist painter, did time a boxing match between Hemingway and Callaghan, but it wasn't the one where Hemingway spit blood all over his opponent. When Scott Fitzgerald was acting as timer for the match that went awry, after Hemingway was knocked down by Callaghan, Scott did say that he had let the round go four minutes (instead of three). However, in the film, Hemingway says "Christ! That's what you wanted! That's what you wanted!", and left the ring. In the book, Hemingway's words were "All right, Scott, if you want to see me get the shit knocked out of me, just say so. Only don't say you made a mistake." I won't belabour the point. These are just a few glaring differences that come to mind. It may seem irrational for me to let this type of phenomena actually upset me, but upset me it does because I do find it difficult to understand the underlying reasons. Not withstanding that a film can show in one panning of the camera details that may take a page to describe in a book, there is so much more enjoyable detail in a book that can be slowly savoured, especially if it's written well. So, I guess I'm trying to say that I'm really on the side of the reader, because I am a reader, and, in future, I really must limit myself to films based on original screenplays. Terry A. Stillman

CATALOGUE MENUS:

  • Aviation Books
  • More Aviation Books
  • Children's & Illustrated
  • Children's & Illustrated Two
  • Books on Golf
  • Back to Home Page
  • Books by Charles van Sandwyk

  • {last updated April 1, 2003}

    STILLMAN BOOKS

    You may contact me via email at:
    info@stillmanbooks.com


    This WebSite address is:
    www.stillmanbooks.com