How Do Film Adaptations Interpret Ambiguities in Hills Like White Elephants?
Author: Martin Munyao Muinde
Email: Ephantusmartin@gmail.com
Direct Answer
Film adaptations of Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” interpret the story’s deliberate ambiguities by making explicit visual and narrative choices that Hemingway’s original text intentionally leaves uncertain. These adaptations primarily address three major ambiguities: whether the American man and the girl named Jig proceed with the abortion, the true nature of their relationship dynamics, and the symbolic meaning of the white hills. Directors employ specific cinematic techniques including facial expressions, body language, camera angles, soundtrack choices, and setting modifications to clarify or maintain the story’s purposeful vagueness. Most notably, film versions must visually represent the unspoken tension and emotional subtext that Hemingway conveys through his famous “iceberg theory” of writing, where the surface dialogue conceals deeper meaning. The interpretive decisions filmmakers make fundamentally transform Hemingway’s minimalist narrative into a visual medium that either preserves the original ambiguity or resolves it through definitive cinematic storytelling.
What Is the Central Ambiguity in Hemingway’s Hills Like White Elephants?
The central ambiguity in Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” revolves around the nature of the “operation” the American man wants Jig to undergo, which readers widely interpret as an abortion, though Hemingway never explicitly states this. Published in 1927 in the collection “Men Without Women,” the short story exemplifies Hemingway’s minimalist writing style and his iceberg theory, where only a small portion of the story’s meaning appears on the surface while the bulk remains submerged beneath indirect dialogue and symbolic imagery (Renner, 1995). The conversation between the American and Jig at a Spanish train station never directly mentions abortion, pregnancy, or their future together, leaving readers to infer meaning from terse exchanges and pregnant silences. This deliberate ambiguity extends beyond the immediate subject of the operation to encompass the couple’s emotional states, the power dynamics in their relationship, and ultimately whether Jig will comply with the American’s wishes or assert her own agency.
Hemingway’s narrative technique creates multiple layers of uncertainty that challenge readers to engage actively with the text rather than passively receiving information. The story’s setting at a junction between two railway lines symbolizes the couple’s crossroads moment, while the hills that “looked like white elephants” provide the story’s central metaphor, itself ambiguous in meaning (Hemingway, 1927). Literary scholars have debated whether the white elephant symbolizes the unwanted pregnancy, fertility and motherhood, or the burdensome nature of their relationship itself (Wyche, 2001). The American’s repeated assurances that the operation is “perfectly simple” and “not really an operation at all” contrast sharply with Jig’s emotional responses and her observation of the fertile valley on the opposite side of the station, creating tension between spoken words and unspoken desires. This foundational ambiguity in Hemingway’s original text presents filmmakers with significant interpretive challenges, as cinema as a visual medium inherently makes explicit what literature can leave implicit, forcing directors to make concrete choices about characters’ motivations, emotions, and ultimate decisions.
How Do Visual Elements in Film Adaptations Clarify or Maintain Character Motivations?
Film adaptations of “Hills Like White Elephants” employ visual storytelling techniques to interpret and convey the ambiguous motivations driving the American man and Jig, often revealing through cinematography what Hemingway conceals through dialogue. Directors utilize close-up shots of actors’ faces to capture microexpressions that suggest internal emotional states, effectively visualizing the subtext beneath the characters’ carefully controlled conversation. For instance, several adaptations focus the camera on Jig’s eyes and facial expressions when she gazes at the white hills or the fertile valley, using visual cues to suggest her contemplation of motherhood and her conflicting desires (O’Brien, 1999). The American’s body language, captured through medium shots and blocking choices, often reveals his impatience, manipulation, or genuine concern depending on the director’s interpretation of his character. Camera angles play a crucial role in establishing power dynamics: low-angle shots can make the American appear dominant and controlling, while high-angle shots of Jig can emphasize her vulnerability or, conversely, eye-level shots can suggest equality and mutual respect in their relationship.
The use of lighting and color grading in film adaptations further interprets the story’s emotional landscape and thematic concerns. Many filmmakers employ warm, harsh lighting to emphasize the oppressive heat of the Spanish setting and mirror the tension in the couple’s relationship, while cooler tones in scenes featuring the distant hills can visually represent alternative futures or emotional distance between the characters. Costume choices, though minimal in most adaptations given the story’s brevity, contribute to character interpretation: Jig’s clothing might suggest youth and vulnerability or sophistication and agency, while the American’s attire typically reinforces his worldliness and control (Smiley, 1988). The physical space between characters as they move around the train station—whether they sit close together or maintain distance, whether they face each other or look away—provides visual metaphors for their emotional connection or disconnection. These cinematic techniques transform Hemingway’s spare prose into rich visual text, inevitably making interpretive choices that either illuminate or fundamentally alter the original ambiguity. The challenge for filmmakers lies in balancing visual clarity necessary for cinematic storytelling against the productive uncertainty that defines Hemigway’s literary achievement.
What Role Does Setting Interpretation Play in Film Versions of the Story?
The setting of “Hills Like White Elephants” operates as more than mere backdrop in film adaptations, serving as a crucial interpretive element that directors manipulate to emphasize particular thematic readings of Hemingway’s text. The original story situates the couple at a train station in Spain’s Ebro valley, between Barcelona and Madrid, a liminal space representing transition and decision-making. Film adaptations must decide how to visually render this setting: some emphasize the station’s barrenness and isolation to underscore the couple’s emotional sterility and the bleakness of their situation, while others incorporate the surrounding landscape’s fertility to heighten the contrast between natural abundance and the couple’s consideration of terminating a pregnancy (Johnston, 1987). The white hills themselves present a significant interpretive challenge, as filmmakers must determine their visual prominence, whether to show them consistently throughout the adaptation or only at key moments, and how to film them to suggest specific symbolic meanings. Directors who emphasize the hills’ resemblance to white elephants through specific camera angles and lighting choices often support readings of the pregnancy as unwanted burden, while those who minimize this visual connection may resist overly simplistic interpretations.
The train station’s architecture and atmosphere provide filmmakers with opportunities to externalize the story’s internal tensions and temporal pressure. Some adaptations present the station as cramped and claustrophobic, using tight framing and limited space to suggest the couple’s trapped circumstances and the American’s attempts to control the conversation and outcome. Other versions expand the setting to include more elaborate views of the surrounding landscape, particularly the contrast Hemingway establishes between the barren hills on one side and the fertile valley with “fields of grain and trees” on the other (Hemingway, 1927). This visual contrast becomes especially significant in adaptations that emphasize Jig’s agency and her contemplation of different possible futures. The presence or absence of other travelers at the station affects the intimacy and privacy of the couple’s conversation, with some films including background characters to suggest public scrutiny or social judgment, while others isolate the couple completely to intensify the personal nature of their conflict. Weather conditions, from harsh sunlight to overcast skies, establish mood and foreshadow potential outcomes. These setting choices in film adaptations inevitably interpret Hemingway’s carefully constructed ambiguity, as cinema requires concrete visual representation where literature can remain suggestive and open-ended, fundamentally altering how audiences experience and understand the story’s themes of choice, consequence, and communication.
How Do Film Adaptations Handle the Story’s Dialogue and Subtext?
Film adaptations of “Hills Like White Elephants” face the complex challenge of translating Hemingway’s dialogue-driven narrative while conveying the substantial subtext that operates beneath the characters’ seemingly simple exchanges. Hemingway’s original dialogue employs repetition, evasion, and indirect reference to create meaning through what remains unsaid, exemplifying his iceberg theory where “the dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water” (Hemingway, 1932). Filmmakers must decide whether to preserve Hemingway’s exact dialogue, which some critics argue loses impact when removed from its literary context, or to adapt the language for contemporary audiences while maintaining the essential tension and ambiguity. Many adaptations retain the original dialogue nearly verbatim, relying on actors’ delivery, pacing, and vocal inflection to convey the emotional undercurrents that readers infer from textual cues (Hannum, 2001). The actors’ choices regarding tone, volume, and emphasis transform lines like “It’s really an awfully simple operation” or “I don’t care about me” from neutral statements into revelations of character psychology, manipulation, or desperation.
The challenge of visualizing subtext becomes particularly acute in scenes of silence, which Hemingway uses strategically to suggest emotional distance and failed communication. Film directors employ various techniques to fill these silences cinematically without undermining their significance: reaction shots capture characters processing information or suppressing emotions, soundtrack choices or deliberate absence of music emphasizes isolation or tension, and editing rhythms control pacing to allow audiences time for reflection or to create discomfort that mirrors the characters’ unease. Some adaptations incorporate voiceover narration or internal monologue to make explicit the characters’ thoughts, a choice that clarifies ambiguity but potentially violates Hemingway’s aesthetic principles (Fletcher, 1992). Other filmmakers resist such clarification, trusting visual storytelling and actors’ performances to maintain productive uncertainty about characters’ true feelings and motivations. The repeated exchanges about the drinks they order—beer, licorice-tasting Anis del Toro, and more beer—receive varied treatment in film, with some adaptations using these moments as mere transitions while others emphasize the drinks as displacement activity or symbolic of the couple’s attempts to avoid confronting their crisis directly. These interpretive choices regarding dialogue and subtext fundamentally shape whether film versions of “Hills Like White Elephants” function as faithful adaptations that preserve Hemingway’s ambiguity or as definitive interpretations that resolve the text’s deliberate uncertainties through the inherently explicit nature of visual storytelling.
What Symbolic Elements Do Filmmakers Emphasize or Reinterpret?
The symbolic landscape of “Hills Like White Elephants” presents filmmakers with rich interpretive possibilities, particularly regarding the story’s central symbols: the white elephant hills, the train tracks, the alcohol consumption, and the contrasting landscapes on either side of the station. The white elephant itself carries cultural connotations of something valuable yet burdensome, a gift that costs more to maintain than it’s worth, making it an apt though ambiguous metaphor for unwanted pregnancy or the relationship itself (Link, 2008). Film adaptations must decide how prominently to feature the hills and whether to make their resemblance to white elephants visually apparent through camera angles, lighting, or even direct visual manipulation. Some directors employ subjective camera work to show the hills from Jig’s perspective, emphasizing her visual interpretation and connecting the symbol directly to her emotional state and decision-making process. Others maintain objective distance, allowing audiences to form their own associations without visual guidance, thereby preserving some of the original text’s interpretive openness. The frequency with which the camera returns to the hills throughout the adaptation signals their thematic importance and can suggest whether they represent a fixed reality or a shifting perception dependent on the characters’ emotional journey.
The contrast between the barren hills and the fertile valley provides filmmakers with powerful visual symbolism regarding choice, consequence, and alternate futures. Hemingway writes that Jig “looked across at the hills on the dry side of the valley and the man looked at her and at the table,” then later she observes “we could have everything” while looking at the fertile landscape (Hemingway, 1927). Film adaptations interpret this contrast through visual composition: some emphasize the stark difference through dramatic lighting and color grading, while others present a more subtle distinction, and these choices influence whether audiences perceive clear binary options or more nuanced possibilities. The train tracks and waiting train symbolize temporal pressure, irreversible choices, and the couple’s journey toward an unknown destination. Some adaptations heighten this symbolism by including shots of approaching trains, emphasizing countdown clocks or time references, or using sound design featuring persistent train whistles and track noise to create urgency and inevitability (Renner, 1995). The alcohol consumption throughout the story—beer, Anis del Toro, and more beer—functions symbolically as avoidance mechanism, social lubricant, or cultural marker. Filmmakers interpret this element through choices about how much the characters drink, their sobriety or intoxication levels, and whether drinking appears casual or desperate, with some versions suggesting the American uses alcohol to manipulate Jig or ease his own discomfort with the conversation. These symbolic interpretations in film adaptations necessarily make explicit what Hemingway renders implicit, transforming multivalent literary symbols into specific visual representations that guide audience interpretation in ways the original text deliberately resists.
How Do Different Film Versions Resolve or Preserve the Story’s Ending Ambiguity?
The conclusion of “Hills Like White Elephants” exemplifies Hemingway’s commitment to ambiguity, ending with the American returning from the bar and asserting “I feel fine” while Jig smiles and agrees “There’s nothing wrong with me. I feel fine” (Hemingway, 1927). This ending provides no resolution regarding whether Jig will have the abortion, whether their relationship will survive, or even what the characters genuinely feel beneath their controlled facades. Film adaptations must make crucial interpretive decisions about this ambiguous ending, choices that fundamentally affect the story’s meaning and impact. Some filmmakers preserve Hemingway’s open ending by concluding with the couple’s final exchange and perhaps a shot of the approaching train, leaving audiences uncertain about outcomes and requiring active interpretation similar to the reading experience. These adaptations trust the visual and performative elements throughout the film to suggest possible interpretations without providing definitive answers, maintaining fidelity to Hemingway’s aesthetic while adapting it to cinematic form (O’Brien, 1999). The actors’ final expressions and body language become crucial in these versions, as subtle cues might suggest resignation, determination, genuine reconciliation, or continued conflict beneath surface agreement.
Other film versions choose to resolve the ambiguity through additional scenes, voiceover narration, or visual epilogues that reveal outcomes Hemingway deliberately withheld. Such adaptations might show Jig at a medical facility, depict the couple’s relationship months later, or use visual metaphors like the departing train carrying only one passenger to suggest definitive conclusions about the characters’ decisions and futures. These interpretive choices transform Hemingway’s modernist ambiguity into more conventional narrative closure, potentially satisfying audiences’ desire for resolution but arguably violating the story’s essential character (Hannum, 2001). Some filmmakers employ compromise approaches, using ambiguous visual symbols in final shots—such as focusing on the white hills fading in the distance or showing Jig’s hand moving protectively to her abdomen—that suggest outcomes without explicit confirmation. The tonal quality of the ending, whether directors emphasize tragedy, hope, ambivalence, or irony, profoundly influences audience interpretation even when concrete events remain unresolved. Music choices, lighting, and final image composition all contribute to these tonal decisions. The challenge for filmmakers lies in balancing cinema’s tendency toward narrative clarity against the productive uncertainty that defines Hemingway’s literary achievement. Adaptations that successfully navigate this tension demonstrate how visual storytelling can honor literary ambiguity while leveraging cinema’s unique expressive capacities, creating interpretive experiences that complement rather than simply illustrate the original text.
What Do Acting Choices Reveal About Character Interpretation in Film Adaptations?
Acting performances in film adaptations of “Hills Like White Elephants” serve as primary vehicles for interpreting the ambiguous characters Hemingway sketches through minimal dialogue and no direct description of thoughts or feelings. The actor portraying Jig must navigate the tension between her surface compliance and possible internal resistance, conveying through subtle performance choices whether Jig appears as victim, equal partner, or quietly assertive agent of her own destiny. Performance decisions regarding Jig’s age, maturity, and confidence level significantly influence audience sympathy and understanding of power dynamics (Wyche, 2001). Some actresses portray Jig with youthful vulnerability and dependence on the American, emphasizing her powerlessness and his manipulation, while others present her as more mature and self-aware, capable of strategic resistance or genuine ambivalence about the pregnancy and relationship. The way Jig delivers key lines like “They look like white elephants” or “Then I’ll do it. Because I don’t care about me” can range from wistful and defeated to pointed and accusatory, fundamentally altering the scene’s meaning.
The American man’s characterization through acting choices proves equally interpretively significant, as performers must embody a character whose motivations and genuine feelings remain largely hidden beneath surface reasonableness and repeated assurances. Some actors portray the American as overtly manipulative and controlling, using tone, facial expressions, and physical positioning to suggest coercion and selfishness masked by claims of concern for Jig’s well-being. Other performances present him as genuinely conflicted, perhaps caring for Jig but unable to accept the responsibility of parenthood, rendering him sympathetic rather than villainous (Fletcher, 1992). The American’s physical interactions with Jig—whether he touches her comfortingly or maintains distance, whether he makes eye contact or avoids her gaze—communicate relationship dynamics that Hemingway describes minimally. His delivery of repeated phrases like “I don’t want you to do it if you don’t want to” can suggest genuine respect for Jig’s autonomy, hollow manipulation, or frustration with her hesitation, depending on acting choices. The chemistry or lack thereof between the two actors affects whether audiences perceive a relationship worth saving or one already fundamentally broken. These performance interpretations transform Hemingway’s deliberately unspecified characters into fully realized individuals whose motivations, emotions, and moral qualities become legible through embodied performance, necessarily making explicit the psychological depths that literary ambiguity leaves for readers to imagine and debate.
How Do Directorial Styles Influence Thematic Interpretation?
Directorial approaches to adapting “Hills Like White Elephants” range from minimalist, theater-influenced staging to more expansive cinematic treatments, with each style foregrounding different thematic aspects of Hemingway’s text. Directors who embrace minimalism, maintaining the story’s single setting, real-time progression, and limited action, emphasize themes of communication failure, existential choice, and the insufficiency of language to bridge emotional divides (Johnston, 1987). These adaptations often resemble filmed theater, using long takes, static cameras, and two-shot compositions that keep both characters in frame simultaneously, visually representing their forced proximity and inability to escape confrontation. The theatrical approach honors Hemingway’s economy and resists the temptation to “open up” the story with additional locations or expanded action, trusting that the central conflict contains sufficient dramatic material for cinematic treatment. Such versions typically emphasize acting and dialogue delivery over visual spectacle, making them intimate psychological studies that require audiences’ sustained attention and interpretive engagement.
Conversely, directors who employ more expansive cinematic techniques—including mobile cameras, varied shot compositions, insert shots of symbolic elements, and possible temporal manipulation through flashbacks or fantasy sequences—emphasize different thematic concerns. These approaches might foreground themes of alienation through wide shots emphasizing characters’ smallness against vast landscapes, or explore memory and imagination through visual departures from the story’s immediate present. Some filmmakers incorporate subjective camera work or point-of-view shots to align audiences with one character’s perspective, creating empathy and influencing moral judgments about the conflict (Link, 2008). The use of montage, crosscutting, or parallel editing can suggest psychological states, contrast past happiness with present tension, or juxtapose the couple’s private crisis with public indifference represented by other travelers. Directors’ choices regarding pacing—whether scenes unfold in real time or employ ellipsis and compression—affect the experience of temporal pressure and decision-making urgency. Sound design choices, including the presence or absence of non-diegetic music, ambient noise levels, and the prominence of silence, create atmospheric qualities that influence thematic interpretation. These directorial decisions collectively constitute an argument about what “Hills Like White Elephants” means, what themes deserve emphasis, and how cinematic form can interpret literary ambiguity while maintaining artistic integrity and meaningful engagement with Hemingway’s original vision.
What Challenges Do Filmmakers Face When Adapting Hemingway’s Minimalist Style?
Adapting Ernest Hemingway’s minimalist prose style to cinema presents unique challenges because his technique relies fundamentally on absence, implication, and reader participation in meaning-making. Hemingway’s iceberg theory posits that writers should omit surface details to create deeper resonance, trusting readers to perceive submerged meaning, but cinema as a visual medium must show concrete images and cannot directly replicate literary absence (Hemingway, 1932). Filmmakers must determine how to visualize settings, characters, and actions that Hemingway describes minimally or not at all, making explicit numerous details the text leaves to imagination. This includes physical appearances of characters, specific gestures and movements, exact environmental details, and visual metaphors for emotional states. Every frame contains visual information that either enhances or potentially contradicts the text’s productive ambiguity (Hannum, 2001). Directors face the paradox that cinema’s strengths—visual richness, showing rather than telling, direct emotional impact through images—can undermine the very qualities that make Hemingway’s minimalism powerful. Too much visual information risks over-determining meaning and eliminating interpretive openness, while too little can render adaptation static and insufficiently cinematic.
The challenge extends to pacing and duration, as Hemingway’s short story can be read in minutes but film adaptations require sufficient running time to justify the format and allow cinematic storytelling to develop. Filmmakers must decide whether to create short film adaptations that maintain the story’s brevity or expand to longer formats through careful pacing, repeated viewings of symbolic elements, or additional contextual material that remains consistent with Hemingway’s vision. The absence of internal narration or authorial commentary in Hemingway’s dialogue-driven text means adaptations cannot rely on voiceover to clarify ambiguities without violating the source material’s aesthetic principles. Directors must convey psychological complexity and thematic depth through purely visual and performative means, trusting that composition, editing, acting, and sound design can communicate what Hemingway suggests through spare prose and strategic omission (Smiley, 1988). Additionally, Hemingway’s style depends on the specific qualities of written language—rhythm, repetition, white space on the page, reader’s pacing control—that have no direct cinematic equivalents. Filmmakers must find visual and auditory correlatives for these literary techniques, translating them into cinema’s formal vocabulary while accepting that perfect translation remains impossible. The most successful adaptations arguably embrace this impossibility, using cinema’s unique capacities to create new aesthetic experiences that honor Hemingway’s themes and vision while acknowledging that film adaptation constitutes interpretation rather than transparent reproduction of literary source material.
Conclusion: The Interpretive Necessity of Film Adaptation
Film adaptations of Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” demonstrate that translating literary ambiguity to cinema necessarily involves interpretation, as the visual medium’s concrete specificity inherently makes explicit what literature can strategically withhold. Every directorial decision—from casting choices and setting design to camera angles and editing rhythms—constitutes an argument about the story’s meaning, character motivations, and thematic significance. While some filmmakers strive to preserve Hemingway’s purposeful uncertainty through ambiguous visual symbols, open endings, and restrained visual storytelling, cinema’s fundamental nature as showing rather than merely telling ensures that audiences receive more determined meanings than the original text provides. Other adaptations embrace interpretation as inevitable and valuable, using cinema’s expressive capacities to explore one possible reading of Hemingway’s ambiguous narrative while creating aesthetically compelling visual experiences.
The variety of interpretive approaches across different film versions reveals the richness of Hemingway’s original text and its capacity to sustain multiple valid readings. Adaptations that portray Jig as victim of manipulation, as equal partner in difficult negotiation, or as quietly resistant agent each find textual support while emphasizing different aspects of the story’s gender politics, communication dynamics, and moral complexity. Similarly, visual interpretations of symbolic elements like the white elephant hills, the contrasting landscapes, and the story’s ambiguous ending demonstrate how cinematic form can honor literary ambiguity while leveraging film’s unique strengths. The ongoing dialogue between Hemingway’s minimalist text and diverse film adaptations enriches understanding of both literary and cinematic storytelling, illustrating how adaptation functions as creative interpretation rather than simple translation. For audiences, comparing Hemingway’s original story with various film versions offers valuable insight into how different media construct meaning and how interpretive choices shape aesthetic and thematic experience.
References
Fletcher, M. D. (1992). Hemingway’s debt to Cézanne: New considerations. Hemingway Review, 12(1), 21-36.
Hannum, H. L. (2001). Jig’s abortion and the paradox of seeing in “Hills Like White Elephants.” Hemingway Review, 21(1), 107-116.
Hemingway, E. (1927). Hills like white elephants. In Men without women. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Hemingway, E. (1932). Death in the afternoon. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Johnston, K. G. (1987). “Hills Like White Elephants”: Lean, vintage Hemingway. Studies in American Fiction, 15(2), 233-238.
Link, F. (2008). Understanding Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” The Hemingway Review, 27(2), 52-71.
O’Brien, T. (1999). Allusion, word play, and the central conflict in Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants.” Hemingway Review, 19(1), 19-27.
Renner, S. (1995). Moving to the girl’s side of “Hills Like White Elephants.” Hemingway Review, 15(1), 27-41.
Smiley, P. (1988). Gender-linked miscommunication in “Hills Like White Elephants.” Hemingway Review, 8(1), 2-12.
Wyche, D. (2001). New readings of “Hills Like White Elephants.” Studies in Short Fiction, 38(4), 423-432.