How does the film of "Hills Like White Elephants" highlight new understandings of the story?

The best
thing about the short film adaptation of Hemingway's "" written by Joan Dideon and
John Gregory Dunn was the cinematography. The twin railroad tracks with the little bar room
looked exactly as I pictured them when reading the story. The bleak landscape seemed exactly the
same as Hemingway described it, although I didn't notice any hills that looked like white
elephants. The authors stretched out the story by adding a lot of their own dialogue--which I
found offensive since they can't write dialogue as good as Hemingway's and since it seems like a
desecration to plaster their own mediocre dialogue on top of the existing dialogue. In fact, it
amazed me that anybody would even think of doing such a thing--but apparently they felt that the
film would have had too short a running time if they didn't do something to stretch it out. They
didn't improve on it or make it any more understandable. The photographer and the director did
succeed in making the setting easier to visualize. The two main characters--the man and the
woman--didn't look anything like the people I imagined while reading the story. They really
don't have much to talk about, since it is the same thing over and over: "I want you to do
it" ... "I don't want to do it." I noticed in the credits that the character
played by the actress was called Hadley, which was the name of Hemingway's first wife. She
actually did have a baby at around the same time that Hemingway published the story--so the
screenwriters must have believed, as I do, that the American and the "girl" in
Hemingway's story were married and that he was writing about his own personal
experience.