Perhaps the film should have been named Gellhorn & Hemingway instead of the other way around. Not just for convention but for that this television-movie is really about Martha Gellhorn, Hemingway’s lover from the Spanish War through to the Second World War. The film tries to free Gellhorn from the “footnote” that she is to Hemingway’s life. And if not a footnote, she is one measly dedication in the preamble of his most famous book, For Whom the Bell Tolls. The film’s success, then, was portraying Gellhorn as independent, vivacious, humanist and altogether more respectable than her lover. And while their lines never live up to what such versed writers might have actually said, and notwithstanding some confusing details and questionable art direction (changing from black & white to colour and back), the movie was wildly interesting and even thought-provoking.
The first theatre is the Spanish Civil War. Gellhorn is there as an up-and-coming war journalist with a genuine desire to enlighten the world. Hemingway’s motivations are less clear. Perhaps it was to chase Gellhorn, away from the scrutiny of his uptight wife; or perhaps for adventure and to indulge his masculinity.
The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) was the prelude to the Second World War where the belligerents could be roughly divided into the Franco-led fascists and the revolutionary socialists, though the divisions were much clearer in the Russian Civil War. The left was a hodgepodge of anarchists, socialists, communists and Basque separatists. The right comprised of fascists (Falange – from “Phalanx”), royalists (Alfonsists, Carlists) and Catholics (JAP). And although the war itself had only a perfunctory ideological division, the politically charged times inspired much foreign support. Hitler, Mussolini and Russia each backed his appropriate side. And in an unprecedented reaction to Fascism, volunteers from the enlightened world came to support the left (cue Gellhorn & Hemingway).
The war is historically significant in two ways. First, it was the first time for Total War, where civilians were at risk. Previously, it was easy for pacifists to detach themselves; after 1936, this was impossible. And with civilian involvement comes atrocities like Hitler’s bombing of Guernica, a story famously told by Picasso’s painting (his collection is currently showing at the AGO, as I witnessed last weekend and had no meaningful understanding of). Second, it was the first time war was documented so vividly (again, cue Gellhorn & Hemingway). These two significances combine for some vivid storytelling.
Guernica, Picasso
Atrocities continue, through Finland (1940, “Winter War”), China (the Japanese vs. Chiang Kai Shek vs. Mao), Normandy (D-Day, 1944), Vietnam and so on. This is unfortunate for the world-at-large but it gave Gellhorn a purpose (and a lot of material). She is the quintessential social impact writer. Arguably, all writers should subscribe to this title. As writers lead the way the world thinks, they have a moral responsibility to morph readers into more caring, sympathetic, worldly, accepting individuals. And while Hemingway might do the same, it does not show in character. Thus this movie glorifies Gellhorn at the expense of Hemingway. It puts Gellhorn on a pedestal and worships her much to his discontent. He commits suicide; she continues to write. But it all falls apart when Gellhorn’s interviewer asks her how she feels about her “debt” to Hemingway. This is not to insult Gellhorn; it is simply to show the audience how notoriety is often unfair and unjustified.
A final thought: My favourite quotation in the film is "Happiness in intelligent people is one of the rarest things I know." But seeing these two eloquent writers share a love story prompted that clarity of expression must be such a desirable quality in relationships. If communication the sin qua non of relationships then writers (and orators, and so on) must be the most desirable. It’s a shame Gellhorn & Hemingway did not last. Why not? I can’t say I have the credibility to guess.